2015-10-12 44 1 7 House of Reps 0 1

Monday, 12 October 2015

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

PETITIONS 1 PETITIONS Antique Motor Vehicles 1 Marriage 1 Superannuation 1 PETITIONS 1 PETITIONS Responses 1 10:02 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney Ministerial responses to petitions have been received as follows: Falun Gong 2 PETITIONS 2 PETITIONS Statements 2 10:02 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney From time to time the House Petitions Committee conducts public hearings on petitions received. This is a practice that was established by the first Petitions Committee in 2008 and has continued in subsequent parliaments. Standing order 220 provides for the establishment of the House Petitions Committee and its role. This standing order provides for the committee 'to inquire into and report to the House on any matter relating to petitions and the petitions system'. However, it is important to stress that the committee is not an investigatory committee and does not resolve petition matters—nor does it make recommendations to government or follow up on petition matters. The committee can, however, conduct public hearings, similar to those of a general purpose committee. As such, the committee has held public hearings on selected petitions to discuss petition matters further. The aim of these hearings is to enable public discourse and information on the matter beyond the 250-word limit applied by standing orders to petition terms. In the past, hearings have been held with principal petitioners—or their co-petitioners or representatives in their local regions—and the committee has also often held hearings in Canberra to hear from public servants about the relevant portfolio area of petitions. This enables a two-dimensional airing of the petition issue. The committee then reports orally to the House on the hearing. It has been the committee's practice to travel to cities or regions where a number of petitions have been generated over a span of time. Recently, on 22 September, the committee held a public hearing in Melbourne with various petitioners who are residents in the Melbourne metro area. There were six separate petition matters discussed, with a broad range of matters: climate change action; a Hume freeway interchange at Epping North; age pension issues; access to early childhood education; the use of biofuels and a tragic event which occurred in the West Bank in Israel. All but one petition had received a ministerial response in the last 18 months. The committee discussed the impetus of each petition with the principal petitioner and any co-organisers and considered the petition topic generally. The committee also sought feedback on the petitions process and it was interesting to see how many of the petitioners had put considerable prethought into the process. For example, Mr Clugg, the principal petitioner of a petition calling for funding for 15 hours of kindergarten a week, had considered a number of possible improvements—illustrated by his thoughtful opening statement. The specific consideration of the process was notable because Mr Clugg's petition matter was an issue which, whether by virtue of his petition or not, had received the desired outcome. Along with praising the committee for its 'outstanding efforts and positive attitude to ensure that our petition was tabled' he suggested that the policy framework could be improved. Mr Clugg's main suggestion was to create a petitions register to advise of 'active petitions such that duplicated effort could be avoided'. He also found due to the prevalence of 'informal petitioning'—that is, electronic petitions drawn up outside House rules—that people were loath to sign his genuine petition. He believed that most of these informal petitions were being used for marketing purposes and to populate databases, for instance the change.orgs and so on of the world, and also GetUp! of course. He suggested the introduction of regulation to ensure that all informal petitions which attention House matters provide a disclaimer that the petition has no formal House status. One of the coordinating petitioners of a petition calling for action on climate change, Ms Mary Crooks from the Victorian Women's Trust, had positive things to say about the traditional handwritten nature of petitioning. The 72,000-odd signatures to this petition were split and tabled as three separate petitions by three different members. The signatures were collected from all over Australia within an eight week time frame. In relation to modernising the traditional process, Ms Crooks said that she hoped that the process 'still retains those less visible qualities of people being able to interact with one another, people being able to come together and have a respectful dialogue'. She said, 'It would be a pity to throw the baby out with the bathwater.' Similarly, the lead petitioner of a petition on the kidnapping of three Israeli youths in the West Bank in 2014 felt that the traditional way of gathering the signatures—sought mainly from the Jewish community—enabled people to share their feelings about the tragedy and by signing they felt they were doing something to help a very confronting situation. This is an often overlooked aspect of a walk-and-talk system. Like many of the committee's hearings in the past this hearing proved very successful and particularly informative—especially in regard to the petitioners' thoughts on the House's current and possible future petitioning processes. Thank you. BILLS 3 BILLS High Speed Rail Planning Authority Bill 2015 3

High Speed Rail Planning Authority Bill 2015

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 10:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Nation building requires forward thinking. When Ben Chifley initiated the Snowy Mountains Scheme in 1949, he understood that he would not be Prime Minister when it came to opening this great project, which was finally completed in 1974. But Chifley also understood that by their nature, the biggest projects—the real national game changers—take many years to plan and multiple political terms to deliver. Chifley knew that true nation building is not about winning short-term political acclaim, but about taking decisions today that prepare our nation for tomorrow—a tomorrow many of us may not have even contemplated. A responsibility of leadership is vision—the ability to imagine the future and take steps now to prepare for its demands. As former US President John F Kennedy once said, 'Things do not just happen. They are made to happen.' The proposed high-speed rail link between Brisbane and Melbourne via Sydney and Canberra is a project that should be made to happen. It would revolutionise interstate travel for our children and grandchildren and open up massive development opportunities for the cities and towns along its route. In December of 2013, I was proud to introduce the first private member's bill of the 44th Parliament—one that would create a high-speed rail planning authority to get the ball rolling on planning this exciting project. The bill would create an 11-person authority tasked with beginning detailed planning and, importantly, securing the rail corridor to prevent it being consumed by urban sprawl. Regrettably, the Prime Minister of the day had no interest in rail and refused to bring the bill on for debate. The bill before us reprises that bill. It provides an opportunity for a fresh look at this issue in line with the change of leadership within the government. I note that the new Prime Minister presents himself as something of an enthusiast when it comes to trains. If he is serious about boosting mass transportation, he needs to do more than tweet selfies. He could start today by bringing this bill on for a mature debate about high-speed rail that puts aside politics and focuses on the national interest. Let's examine the facts. As transport minister in the former Labor government, I established the facts with a two-part study involving extensive consultation with industry and including international operators of high-speed rail, as well as significant community input. The study, published in April 2013, included the business case for the project, consideration of environmental issues, projections of patronage, proposed route, proposed stations and proposed time lines. It found that high-speed rail down the east coast of Australia was a viable proposition. For example, it found that high-speed rail would return, for the Sydney to Melbourne section, $2.15 in economic benefit for every dollar invested. The report found that once fully operational across the Brisbane to Melbourne corridor, high-speed rail could carry approximately 84 million passengers each year. At speeds of up to 350 kilometres per hour, people would be able to travel from Melbourne to Sydney in less than three hours—the same duration of an express trip from Sydney to Brisbane. The report found the optimal staging would involve building the Sydney to Melbourne line first, starting with the Sydney to Canberra corridor. Later, building would continue from Canberra to Melbourne, Newcastle to Sydney, Brisbane to the Gold Coast and the Gold Coast to Newcastle. The report also found that high-speed rail would face challenges. The 1,748-kilometre line would pass through four major cities and its delivery would demand significant cooperation between multiple governments in multiple jurisdictions. With so many players involved, Commonwealth leadership and coordination will be essential. High-speed rail would also be an engineering challenge, requiring at least 80 kilometres of tunnels, including 67 kilometres in Sydney alone. But despite these challenges, the experts said that high-speed rail had huge potential, particularly if we consider where our society is headed over coming decades. We can anticipate that an increasing population and the growing pressure for a carbon-constrained economy will drive the economics of this project ever more positively over time. The other challenge is that if we fail to act soon, the great potential of high-speed rail will be made more difficult. That is why this bill proposes to create an 11-person high-speed rail authority to bring together all affected states as well as rail and engineering experts to progress planning and, critically, focus on the corridor. As minister, I allocated $54 million in the 2013 budget for the authority to commence its tasks. That funding was cut by the incoming government. Its 11 members would include: one member from each of the states affected—Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory; one member representing the Australian Local Government Association; one member nominated by the Australasian Railway Association; and five members appointed by the Minister for Infrastructure on the basis of qualifications or expertise—to make sure that you got that engineering expertise on the authority. The authority's roles would include consideration of: land use planning relating to the corridor; safety; measures to minimise environmental impact; public consultation; and intervention to purchase the corridor. It is important that I stress that the former Labor government consulted widely in developing this project. Indeed, this bill reflects the unanimous recommendations of an expert committee. That committee included former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer, the Business Council of Australia's chief executive, Jennifer Westacott, and Australasian Railway Association Chief Executive Bryan Nye. It was chaired by the deputy secretary of my former department, Lyn O'Connell. The group judged the issue on its merits and recommended the establishment of a planning authority, which is exactly what is proposed in the bill before us. High-speed rail exists in every continent other than Australia and Antarctica. New projects are underway all over the world, including in the Asian region, in the UK and in the United States. Whenever I talk to people who doubt the viability of the project, I ask them to consider the pace of change in modern Australia. In 1949, when Chifley began the Snowy Mountains Scheme, Australia was vastly different from the way it looked in 1974, when the project was completed. In the same way, we cannot begin to imagine the shape of Australia in 2050. But we do know the population is likely to have doubled. We do know that that will be concentrated precisely on the route of this high-speed rail proposal. We can expect the world will have moved to carbon constrained economies, making rail a more attractive economic option as well as a travel option. According to the high-speed rail study I referred to earlier, travel on the east coast of Australia is forecast to grow about 1.8 per cent every year over the next two decades and to increase by 60 per cent by 2035. The study said east coast trips would double from 152 million trips in 2009 to 355 million trips in 2065. There is another compelling reason to proceed with high-speed rail that has received less attention but will ring true for many members of this House. I am referring to the massive boost a high-speed rail line would provide for the regional centres along its route. Stations are proposed for the Gold Coast, Casino, Grafton, Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie, Taree, Newcastle, the Central Coast, Southern Highlands, Wagga Wagga, Albury-Wodonga and Shepparton. I note that this bill will be seconded by my colleague, the member for Newcastle, and members who are present in the House include the member for Indi, whose electorate would benefit substantially from this project. This project will position these centres to take some of the population growth pressure off our capital cities, which will no doubt be a key issue in the future. Importantly, it will also provide for uplift value by the economic improvement that will occur in those regional centres to be factored into the building and construction of the high-speed rail line. It could also be a massive improvement in liveability. People could live in, say, Newcastle or the Southern Highlands and commute quickly to Sydney on a daily basis. Or new businesses could establish themselves in regional centres, taking advantage of lower costs while still being a short ride away from the nearest state capital for the purposes of marketing. High-speed rail does require broad support. Its construction would occur over many terms of government and, indeed, changes of government, which is why it requires broad discussion by this parliament. It requires leadership. So let us lead. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House. The SPEAKER 10000 Is the motion seconded? Ms Claydon 248181 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Criminal Code Amendment (Private Sexual Material) Bill 2015 5

Criminal Code Amendment (Private Sexual Material) Bill 2015

First Reading 5 Second Reading 5 10:19 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The bill before the House amends the Commonwealth Criminal Code to introduce three new telecommunications offences. These offences will prohibit people from sharing private sexual images and films of others without their consent—a practice that is colloquially known as 'revenge porn'. According to a recent report, funded by the Australian Research Council, one in 10 Australians reported that someone has posted online or sent to others a nude or semi-nude image of them without their consent. This behaviour is often referred to as revenge porn but the problem is much more complex than people simply wanting to get revenge on ex-partners. Sexual images and films that are taken within the context of an intimate relationship may be exploited for a variety of reasons. During a relationship, a perpetrator might use sexual images or films as a tool to control their partner—the threat of it being sent to others might be enough to keep someone in an abusive relationship or control their behaviour within that relationship. While revenge porn can affect both sexes, in the majority of cases women are the victims. Revenge porn is the most extreme example of how some men are using new technologies to exercise power and control over the women in their lives. It is an increasingly common manifestation of family violence. The distribution of private sexual images without consent can take many forms. These images can be sent to people's friends, colleagues or family, causing serious and ongoing harm to their career, reputation and mental health. Sometimes they are uploaded onto websites dedicated to revenge porn that contain hundreds of sexual images of women that have been uploaded without their consent—a violation recently experienced by hundreds of women in South Australia who had their private images shared online without their consent earlier this year. Victims' contact details can also be published on these websites, incentivising and leading to victims being further harassed with sexual and abusive messages from strangers that they have never encountered. It is easy to see how women who have been subjected to revenge porn suffer from depression and anxiety and that some have even committed suicide after falling victim to this form of abuse. The humiliation from having sexual images or films shared publically can prevent people from reporting rape or abuse or from seeking the help that they need to recover from sexual abuse. In their submission on the exposure draft of this bill, Safe Steps, Victoria's Crisis Response Centre for victims of family violence, shared a story of one of their clients in this regard. A woman was drugged and, while unconscious, was filmed engaging in sexual acts. The film was uploaded to YouTube and other porn sharing websites without her consent. While the woman sought assistance from Safe Steps, she did not choose to come into their accommodation and wanted to remain anonymous. Safe Steps believed that the shame and humiliation that this woman suffered and felt from being subjected to that abuse, and from having those images more widely shared, prevented her from seeking the assistance that she needed. A recent study conducted by Dr Anastasia Powell and Dr Nicola Henry, funded by the Australian Research Council, looked at the extent, nature and impacts of digital harassment and abuse. Dr Powell and Dr Henry interviewed 30 experts across law enforcement and other agencies and uncovered disturbing accounts of image-based sexual exploitation of adult women. In these interviews, police describe the severe and ongoing psychological harm experienced by victims. In one interview a police member said: The harm is substantial and severe ... It's ongoing forever because if that's on the internet then it will just pop up all the time. You can't erase it—once it's on the internet it's there forever. In another interview, a sexual offences investigator likened the harm of revenge porn to the harm of a sexual assault itself—they both represent an invasive, sexually-based violation and a loss of control. The investigator said: They feel that they've got no control then of when is it going to be posted next or who has seen it, and that embarrassment too. A lot of them worry about when they go for jobs, is it going to be seen? It's posted on Facebook and ends up on the Internet ... it's quite debilitating for a victim to be honest. The range of feelings that they're feeling is not that far different from a victim of a contact sexual assault. They both have that feeling of being violated. Both the actual and threatened distribution of these images without consent is a violation of a person's autonomy, of a person's control over their own body. It should be seen as a form of sexual assault. In public discussion of this issue there is a temptation to blame the victims, to criticise women for their decision to take photos of themselves or to allow them to be taken. But we should avoid this. When we scratch the surface of this argument, it is the same as telling a woman who was raped that she was 'asking for it' when she decided to wear a short skirt or go out at night. It is 21st century victim blaming. In the digital era, relationships are increasingly taking place online. We all have a digital plane to our existence these days, and with that comes new ways that technology can be used by people in healthy relationships to create intimacy. There is nothing wrong with this. Telling women to police their own behaviour, implying that it is their fault if they get violated by a person without their consent, is wrong. Telling women that they should lock themselves up and cover their bodies to avoid getting raped is wrong. Telling a woman that it was her fault that she was raped or sexually assaulted is wrong. It is never a victim's fault when they are violated without their consent or beyond their control. There has already been some action taken by state jurisdictions to create criminal offences dealing with revenge porn. In 2013, South Australia made distributing an 'invasive image' without consent a criminal offence under its Summary Offences Act 1953. In 2014, Victoria made it a criminal offence to maliciously distribute, or threaten to distribute, 'intimate' images without consent under their Summary Offences Act 1966. Perpetrators face a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment for distribution and one-year imprisonment for threat of distribution in this jurisdiction. In other Australian jurisdictions, broader offences exist in relation to stalking, blackmail, voyeurism and indecency. However, these offences are too broad in scope to directly target revenge porn. They are not being used by law enforcement agencies or the courts to stamp out the prevalence of revenge porn. Most importantly, they fail to send a clear message to the broader community that the sharing of private sexual images without the subject's consent is not just wrong but also is prohibited by law. In the absence of specific criminal legislation at the state, territory and federal levels, the only other legal avenues for victims are to be found in the civil law. These laws are not suited to dealing with revenge porn and are not serving as an effective deterrent. Globally, we are seeing legislators enact laws against revenge porn in the United Kingdom, several US states, Canada, Israel, Brazil and the Philippines. Australia needs to act too. The purpose of this legislation is to send a clear message that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated in Australia. We believe that the seriousness of the harm caused by revenge porn means that there should be a specific federal offence providing blanket protection to individuals across the country. The bill contains three new offences that will prescribe appropriate penalties for persons involved in revenge porn. The bill creates an offence for a person to share sexual images and films of a person without their consent where it will cause them distress or harm. The bill defines the images and films that are covered by these offences broadly. The offences are inclusive of a range of cultural understandings, sexualities and gender identities. We want these offences to cover the kind of sexual exploitation that was experienced by a Muslim woman who sought assistance from family violence services in Victoria. Photographs of her in her bra and without her hijab were shared without her consent on the perpetrator's Facebook account. The photos were accessible by her children and other family members. The woman and her family said that they felt ashamed and humiliated, and the act was clearly done in an attempt to exert control and influence over the woman. The bill will ensure that different cultural contexts are taken into account when determining whether an offence has been committed. The bill also creates an offence for a person to make a threat to another person to share private sexual images or films that they are depicted in, or another person that they care about is depicted in. This offence will cover situations where people threaten to share private sexual material to coerce people in abusive relationships. As I said earlier, many family violence service providers cite the prevalence of revenge porn as being increasingly common for individuals seeking their support services today. The penalty for these offences will be up to three years imprisonment We believe that this reflects the seriousness and the very serious impacts that this crime has on the victims. The bill also creates an offence for a person to engage in those offences for the purpose of obtaining a benefit. The penalty for this offence will be five years imprisonment. The trading in revenge porn for commercial benefit increases demand for this kind of material and can be consequentially expected to increase its prevalence. It should be regarded an aggravated offence and attract a higher penalty. The specific criminal offences targeting this behaviour, along with appropriately harsh penalties, send a clear message to the Australian community that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated in Australia. I encourage all members of this House to support this bill. I note and appreciate the comments of support that have been made by those on the other side of the House with regard to dealing with this issue and I thank members for being in the chamber to show their support. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 Is the motion seconded? Ms Butler 248006 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. Fair Work Amendment (Recovery of Unpaid Amounts for Franchisee Employees) Bill 2015 8

Fair Work Amendment (Recovery of Unpaid Amounts for Franchisee Employees) Bill 2015

First Reading 8 Second Reading 8 10:30 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This is a bill to ensure people in Australia get paid properly, whether they are citizens or visitors. It will put some responsibility on head offices in franchise chains to have a better understanding of what is going on in the stores that carry their name. It is a bill that will also help make contracts fairer for small business franchisees, many of whom say that turning a profit and paying the legal minimum wage are often incompatible under the terms and conditions of their franchise arrangements. Many of us have gone into a 7-Eleven. We have probably done it at a time when other stores have been closed, and most of us have presumed that the person behind the counter is getting paid properly for having to work inconvenient hours so that the rest of us can enjoy that convenience. But, over the past few months, Australians have been shocked by reports that have exposed the rampant exploitation of workers in 7-Eleven franchises across the country. One man, Michael Fraser, has dedicated years of his life to learn of the plight of workers in 7-Eleven stores across the country and stand up for them. Michael first noticed something was strange in the Runaway Bay 7-Eleven store across the road from his house on the Gold Coast. When Michael would visit the store to get bread, milk and other items, he kept seeing the same worker, Sam Pendem. It seemed to Michael that Sam was working a never-ending shift. Over a number of months, Michael became friends with Sam. Sam, and the other employees in that Runaway Bay store, began telling Michael about the length of the shifts they were required to work and the pay and conditions they would receive. And they told him that this kind of exploitation was happening throughout the 620 7-Eleven franchises across the country. This led Michael to begin a years-long investigation, and he gathered information and evidence from 7-Eleven franchises around Australia that indicated Sam was right. Workers throughout 7-Eleven franchises were being paid for half the hours they were working—now known as the half-pay scam. Workers were not getting paid penalty rates or even being given breaks. And they were being intimidated into accepting this underpayment and these conditions. Sam Pendem is an international student from India. In fact, the majority of people working in 7-Eleven stores are people who come here on student working visas. Something to reflect on is that around the country almost all 7-Eleven store employees are here on student working visas. A condition of these visas is that workers can only work 20-hours a week. But the 7-Eleven franchises were forcing them to work over this number of hours to earn enough money to cover even their basic expenses—breaking the conditions of their visa, and that meant that they were at risk of deportation if the authorities were to become aware of the hours that they worked. As more stories and evidence came to light, it became apparent that 7-Eleven's business model was dependent on their franchises employing people on working visas who were not necessarily aware of their rights at work, who did not understand our systems in place designed to enforce our labour laws and who were afraid to speak up about this exploitation because, if they did, they risked deportation. It was back in 2012 that Michael first got in contact with 7-Eleven's head office to discuss with them what he had found, yet they continued to avoid him and ignore his requests to meet and share the information with them. They knowingly and blatantly allowed this exploitation to continue. It was only when ABC's Four Corners and Fairfax Media went public with Michael's findings, and other evidence of this widespread exploitation of 7-Eleven workers, that the head office even began to acknowledge there is a systemic problem throughout their franchises. I take this moment in introducing this bill to congratulate Fairfax journalists Adele Ferguson and Sarah Danckert, as well as their teams, and Michael Fraser, for pursuing these reports, for speaking to these workers and for exposing this widespread exploitation, because now there is a question about what we should do about it and what we, as legislators, should do about it. With reports continuing to break of the head office being complicit in this widespread exploitation and public pressure continuing to grow, the owner and chairman, Russ Withers, who is at the helm of a billion-dollar empire, CEO, Warren Wilmot, and General Manager of Operations, Natalie Dalbo, have resigned. 7-Eleven has also set up an independent panel to hear reports of exploitation and pay people for the hours that they worked. I hope that this panel is successful in its stated aims and that these people who have been vastly underpaid for the hours they work really do receive the wages that they are owed. But for the people working for 7-Eleven to come forward to the panel, they need to know that by speaking up they will not risk being deported. That is why the Prime Minister and this government must grant anyone on a temporary working visa for 7-Eleven an amnesty. When these reports first broke, I referred these shocking claims to the Senate inquiry into Australia's temporary work visa programs and requested they hold a special hearing. I believe these claims must be properly heard so that we can learn how to prevent this scale of exploitation occurring in the future. So I am pleased that the Senate committee agreed to the Greens' call for a special hearing into these claims. It is clear that something is wrong with our system when the boss of 7-Eleven is a billionaire and the workers are getting paid under $10 an hour and threatened with deportation. It is wrong that people are being paid for only half of the hours they work or are not receiving penalty rates or proper conditions. It is doubly wrong if this is happening because they are fearful of having their visas cancelled. Too much exploitation is happening under our current system of visa and workplace laws, and that is why we need this bill. There are many more reports that suggest this kind of widespread worker exploitation does not end with 7-Eleven. In fact, Fairfax media has exposed many more examples of people working for below minimum wage and not receiving their conditions at work. These are the people they call 'the workers who live in the shadows'. Journalists and whistleblowers exposed the 7-Eleven scam and are now exposing many more, but the reality is that government should have picked it up earlier. As politicians, we must now ask how this kind of widespread flouting of labour laws could happen. If you do not pay your tax, the tax office comes after you and comes down on you like tonne of bricks. But it seems that, in this country, in the corner stores that we all go into on a daily basis, you do not have to comply with industrial relations law. If you ignore labour law, it seems that nothing happens. It is time to treat labour laws as seriously as tax laws so that everyone in Australia—whoever they are and wherever they come from—gets paid a legal wage. I am introducing this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Recovery of Unpaid Amounts for Franchisee Employees) Bill 2015, into the House today to address one part of the problem. The bill amends the Fair Work Act 2009 by inserting a new part 6-4AA into the act, which provides for employees employed by a franchisee to recover unpaid remuneration from the franchisor or head office entity. This is modelled in similar provisions in part 6-4A of the act that deal with workers in the textile and clothing industry. This will allow people who have been underpaid in franchise stores to go straight to head office to claim their underpayments if they have not been able to sort it out with their direct employer. The bill will help prevent widespread worker exploitation in franchises like that in 7-Eleven across the country. It will do this by making head office franchisors responsible for their franchisees' underpayments. Why should we do this? If head offices can enter into franchise contracts and then turn a blind eye to what happens in their stores under their brand name, workers can get exploited—as we have found out. When it comes to stopping underpayments, prevention is better than cure. By allowing workers to claim any underpayments directly from head office, this law will bring about a culture shift because, instead of leaving it to vulnerable workers to uphold the law through expensive legal action, head offices would take more responsibility for what goes on in the stores that carry their name. An important point about this bill that I want to stress is that the head office could still pursue the franchisee for the amount of any underpayment, but they would have an extra incentive for ensuring the underpayment did not happen in the first place. How it would work in a practical sense is that the employee could serve a demand on the head office and, if there was no payment, then take the head office to court and get the money from them. The head office would have the responsibility then for pursuing the franchisee operator. That would mean that the underpaid person gets paid first, and the others can sort out amongst them who is responsible. This will also help stamp out the practice of unfair franchise contracts, where franchisors effectively force franchisees to underpay workers if the business is to make a profit. This is crucial in the 7-Eleven context. We have seen it happen. In the 7-Eleven context the franchisees—the people who operated and ran the corner 7-Eleven store—were required to give 57 per cent of their gross profit back to head office. That led a number of them to say, 'We had no choice but to underpay people.' Whether or not that is right, this bill will make sure that that never happens again, because the franchisor—in 7-Eleven in this instance—will lose any incentive to put small businesses in that kind of difficult situation. This law will make things fairer for the workers and fairer for the small business franchise operator. I call on everyone in this House, and the government and the opposition, to get behind this bill and help stamp out worker exploitation and exploitation of small businesses right across this country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 Is the motion seconded? Mr Wilkie C2T I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. Migration Amendment (Mandatory Reporting) Bill 2015 10

Migration Amendment (Mandatory Reporting) Bill 2015

First Reading 10 Second Reading 10 10:41 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In introducing the Migration Amendment (Mandatory Report) Bill 2015, I note that this bill will be seconded by the member for Grayndler, and I thank him for the assistance that he has provided me in the preparation of this private member's bill. The most important asset that any country has is its children. An icon of the 20th century, Nelson Mandela, said: Any nation that does not care for and protect all of its children does not deserve to be called a nation. Back in 2007 I became a patrol of the Care Leavers of Australia Network. The Care Leavers of Australia Network, otherwise known as CLAN, is an advocacy and support organisation for people who grew up in Australia's orphanages and children's homes, in foster care and in other institutions. I was asked to become a patron of this organisation because, historically, there were more of these institutions in my electorate in Geelong than in any other electorate, as I understand it, in the country. In the process of representing CLAN in a really important issue that they seek to bring to public prominence, I have become aware of the tragedy of the significant number of Australians who grew up in institutions and were the victims of physical and sexual abuse. A giant in the advocacy for the forgotten Australians, as these people have come to be known, was former Senator Andrew Murray, himself a survivor of having grown up in an institution. He said: If you hurt a child, a harmed adult will often result. That was why the former Labor government made an apology to the forgotten Australians. The then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, in making that apology, said: … the protection of children is the sacred duty of us all. …   …   … And, as a nation, to resolve that such systematic abuse should never happen again. …   …   … Because the truth is great evil has been done. That is also why the former Labor government established the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse. In announcing the establishment of that royal commission, former Prime Minister Julie Gillard said, 'Child sex abuse is an evil crime.' There are a number of children today who are in immigration detention, and those children are in the care of the Australian government. The first point to make is that immigration detention is absolutely no place for children. The opposition supports every effort to continue the work that began under the former Labor government in moving children and their families out of detention and into the community as soon as humanly possible. The overwhelming number of children in detention facilities are with their families and the best thing that we can do to get them out of detention is to quickly process refugee claims and move children and their families into the community. I do note that yesterday a number of health professionals held a rally at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne to call for the removal of all children from immigration detention. These health professionals are dealing with complex cases involving children who have gone through some pretty difficult experiences fleeing persecution and war. These doctors and nurses raise legitimate concerns and they deserve more than a one-line response from the Turnbull government. Rather than repeating slogans, the Turnbull government should focus its efforts on speeding up processing of refugee claims so that children and their families are not left to languish in detention centres. Where children are in the care of our nation we must take our obligations seriously and fulfil them very carefully because the majority of these children have, as I stated earlier, escaped persecution and trauma that no adult should have to endure, let alone a vulnerable child. Occasionally these children do not have the support of family and it is even more incumbent on us as a compassionate nation to ensure that they receive care and support. Labor has consistently condemned the Turnbull government for its management of offshore processing. In particular, it is a disgrace that after nearly two years asylum seekers on Nauru are still living in tents. Greater sexual abuse and assault is the inevitable result of such living conditions. Last year the Moss review found allegations of abuse within the detention facility on Nauru were credible. That is why Labor established the Senate inquiry—to allow these issues to be appropriately examined. The inquiry made 15 recommendations regarding the improved management, transparency and accountability of the Nauru regional processing facility. Labor will continue to hold the government to account for its role in the management of the Nauru facility, including its response to the Senate inquiry recommendations. I note that the Senate is currently considering recommendation 15 from the inquiry, which proposes that a Senate committee undertake a further review of the accountability and transparency of both the Nauru and the Manus Island processing facilities. Furthermore, Labor has announced that it will establish, if elected to office, independent oversight of Australian-funded facilities, and we will establish a children's advocate. The Australian community rightly expects the Turnbull government to make sure people seeking protection are treated appropriately. The children currently in detention, however, need action to be taken right now. That is why today I am introducing this bill, which mandates the reporting of child abuse in all offshore and onshore detention facilities. This bill is consistent with the existing requirements on many professions to report any sign of child abuse and has been largely modelled on the Victorian Children, Youth and Families Act 2005. The bill requires persons working in Australian-funded facilities to report any form of child abuse to the Australian Border Force commissioner, who must in turn report it to the relevant police authority and child protection agency. This bill ensures there is absolutely no doubt that staff in these facilities have not only the freedom to report abuse but also a legal obligation to do so. While the bill will apply to both onshore and offshore detention facilities, we of course continue to respect the sovereignty of Nauru in assisting the Australian government with regional processing arrangements. While the bill has extraterritorial application in relation to the conduct of Australian citizens within the facilities, the bill does not purport to apply to Nauruan citizens who are working within the detention facility. It cannot and it should not because these are matters for the Nauruan government, and we obviously respect their independence in relation to this. Immigration detention is absolutely no place for a child. The reports of the abuse suffered by some of the children in Australia's care, under Australia's obligations, have been horrifying. The provisions in this bill are a necessary step to ensuring we stamp out any and all abuse in the immigration detention network. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 Is the motion seconded? Mr Albanese R36 I am very proud to second the motion before the House. I reserve my right to speak and I congratulate the member for Corio for presenting this bill to the parliament. Debate adjourned. MOTIONS 12 MOTIONS Broadband 12 10:50 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur I would like to start by thanking the member for Robertson, Lucy Wicks, for this excellent motion on the NBN rollout. The NBN has been a hot topic in my electorate of Macarthur this year and I have spoken on numerous occasions in this House about how quickly and extensively the NBN has been rolled out in my electorate—thanks to the tremendous support of the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull in his previous role as Minister for Communications. A few months ago I proudly announced that preconstruction activities had commenced on 20,900 homes in Airds, Bradbury, Ambarvale, Rosemeadow, St Helens Park, Campbelltown, Englorie Park, Glen Alpine, Blair Athol, Eagle Vale, Woodbine and Kentlyn—a monumental achievement considering Labor did zero for Macarthur in the six years they were in power. Macarthur's NBN rollout has rightly been recognised by people on opposite sides of Sydney as a benchmark for the state. Tim Doubleday, for instance—a resident of Collaroy on Sydney's northern beaches—wrote to the Manly Daily in July this year to express his amazement. He wrote: Macarthur federal Liberal MP Russell Matheson has secured a deal to see the national broadband network rolled out in 20,100 homes in his electorate up to three years ahead of its proposed schedule. Of course Macarthur is no exception, with work underway or to be completed in areas covering 85 per cent of premises in NSW in the next three years. In August, NBN Co released its corporate plan. It showed that the multitechnology mix initiated by the government after the last election is the most cost- and time-effective means of completing the NBN. The government's NBN strategy will deliver upgrades up to eight years sooner and at a cost around $30 billion lower than Labor's reckless all-fibre-to-the-premises alternative. The government's NBN is designed to provide a minimum 25 megabits per second to all homes and businesses and at least 50 megabits per second to 90 per cent of the premises in the fixed-line footprint. To put this in perspective, 25 megabits per second would allow each of five people on the same connection to watch—simultaneously—a different high-definition video stream. The NBN rollout in Macarthur will provide an incredible boost to industry and to small- and medium-sized enterprises, not to mention to the thousands of family run businesses and start-ups. It will also transform the lives of the students and families living in Macarthur who have been crying out for faster internet—but who were ignored by Labor when in office. Amazingly, Labor and the unions appear to have targeted Macarthur in a bid to undermine, and mislead the public about, the NBN rollout. The only justification for this is that they are scared witless of the fact that this government is delivering in two years what they could not deliver in six. According to a flyer that Labor was distributing, 'Macarthur needs fibre to the premises'. If Labor had bothered to do their research, they would know that half the premises in Macarthur can only get download speeds of nine megabits per second or less and that roughly 10,000 premises, or 17 per cent, are located in areas where the estimated median ADSL download speed is less than 4.8 megabits per second. The quality of Macarthur's internet is nearly twice as poor as the national average—a damning indictment. Does anyone in their right mind genuinely believe that these people are happy to remain with their current inadequate internet speeds for another decade while Labor wastes millions of dollars in taxpayer funds? Another line favoured by Labor is that, by ditching their discredited NBN model, households in Macarthur will have superfast broadband speeds to the street corner—but that the service will crawl to old speeds when it gets to the 100 year-old copper network at their home. I contacted nbn co about this claim as it is something often bandied about in the media by Labor. Here is what they said: Nbn co is now implementing a multitechnology model which involves using existing infrastructure where it makes sense to do so. The government has asked nbn co to use this approach to provide a minimum 25 megabits per second to all homes and businesses and at least 50 megabits per second to 90 per cent of the premises in the fixed-line footprint. Fibre to the node is one of the fixed-line technologies we will be deploying. Fibre is run from the exchange to a node in the street. It then uses the existing copper lines into people's homes to provide very fast broadband. Here is the important part: If copper is not capable of delivering adequate services to end users then nbn is committed to remediation works to bring it to the required standard. The required standard, of course, is 25 megabits per second, which is 150 per cent faster than half my electorate currently gets. So not only am I surprised that Labor chose to fight the government on the NBN, considering their embarrassing record, but I actually encourage them, as it is something the government has a lot to say about and it is something we are incredibly proud of. I had a chuckle recently when I looked at Labor's NBN flyer, which has a black and white photo of a group of workmen installing copper in the 1960s. The photo, of course, is meant to suggest that the government's NBN model is antiquated and out of date; yet a few weeks ago we launched Sky Muster, which is one of the highest capacity internet-providing satellites ever built. So, while we are launching this type of technology into orbit, vastly improving internet speeds in isolated and remote areas and rolling out the NBN years faster and billions of dollars cheaper, no doubt Labor will continue to deflect and deceive—but the electorate, no doubt, will know which side is playing with a straight bat and delivering for the community. 10:55 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield What a self-congratulatory motion by a self-congratulatory government. They do not mind singing their own praises, but, of course, out there in the community it is not quite the case. The former speaker almost made the case there of the use of antiquated copper. My local paper, The Bunyip, which serves Gawler and bits of the Barossa, had the headline on 19 November 2014 of 'NBN work begins … sort of'. That is basically the state of broadband in Australia under the Turnbull government, the Abbott-Turnbull government and probably soon the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, after all those boos at the New South Wales state council on the weekend, where we saw what the rank and file of the Liberal Party thought about Prime Minister Turnbull's performance as communications minister and now as Prime Minister. Let us go back in time. What did the Howard government ever do about broadband, except to do this sort of patch-up job around the place in response to the National Party's advocacy? The Howard government did nothing. It sat on its hands on this copper network for years and years and years, through warning after warning after warning about how it might affect our national productivity. And then Labor comes to power, puts in place the building blocks for the National Broadband Network—and not before time—and does things like getting the entire copper network off Telstra, negotiating those arrangements, setting up the NBN and actually doing all the groundwork for what will be a great national project, the biggest infrastructure project in Australia's history. If the Liberal Party had got behind the National Broadband Network and made it a bipartisan project, after the years of neglect in the Howard era, we would now be talking about fibre to the premise. That is what we would be talking about. We know what happened when we started talking about fibre to the premise. I remember, in this House, members opposite saying, 'You want it so you can play computer games,' and all this sort of nonsense. What we know now, with the advent of a whole range of industries, is that people need this not just for leisure, not just for enjoyment, but for work. You only have to go to the Barossa Valley, to Gawler, to the outer suburbs of Adelaide—or, indeed, any metropolitan city—or to the bush to find out that people need it now. Farmers need it; farmers desperately need it. Rural economies desperately need it. It is the end of the tyranny of distance. It is information at their fingertips. What have the government done? They promised they would build it for $29.5 billion and they are now estimating it will cost $56 billion. So they have doubled the cost of it—that is what they have said—and this is for an inferior product. They are using fibre to the node—the old copper network. So we have had a massive blow-out financially. They have said that they would be able to roll out the copper network, fibre to the node, within three years—that is, by the end of 2016. That was a commitment they gave. That has now more than doubled to the end of 2020, seven years. So whereas the coalition broadband policy in 2013 said, 'It is forecast that the large scale rollout of any changes to the network design—such as implementing fibre to the node—would commence in mid 2014,' of course it has not. And what suffers in all of this? Well, business suffers; communities suffer. In my own community, in Gawler, we have half the town on fibre to the premise and the other half on fibre to the node. That is what is going to happen. This former Minister for Communications was made Prime Minister in the dead of night in a desperate attempt to breathe life into a sclerotic government with bad polling. It has not quite worked out the way they expected, but we do have a whole lot of new faces at great cost to this country. But let's not pretend that this has been a successful government in broadband. Rather, they are saddling Australia with yesterday's technology. 11:00 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon I rise to commend the member for Robertson for bringing this motion to the House. It is very interesting listening to the former speaker— Mr Champion HW9 I thought you were going to say 'the former member' then! Mrs GRIGGS 220370 No, the former speaker. He was talking about the things that are happening in our party, but I think they need to look at what is going on in their own party. I would like to give you some updates about what is happening in the NBN in the Northern Territory. We are actually really delighted with the services that we are getting. There is a lot of hullabaloo about what is happening, but we are doing a great job in the Northern Territory, and I am really pleased. In fact, we have NBN being installed as we speak in my house in Marlow Lagoon, along with other houses in other areas. We have homes and businesses in Tiwi, Lyons, Leanyer, Wanguri, Casuarina, Anula, Moil, Wagaman, Wulagi, Alawa, Malak, Marrara, Karama, Stuart Park, Fannie Bay, Larrakeyah, Parap, The Gardens, Moulden, Rosebery, Woodroffe and, as I said, Marlow Lagoon and also Darwin city. All these suburbs have access to the NBN. This government, under the leadership of the now Prime Minister, made sure where the need was greatest. We all know that Darwin is the capital of north Australia, and there is some fantastic work happening in north Australia, so it is absolutely essential that we have technology available to us. I am really pleased that the NBN is rolling out. In fact, it is ahead of schedule in most cases. It is expected that, by the end of this year, the whole of Darwin and Palmerston, which covers my whole electorate of Solomon, will have access to the NBN. This is great news. Even in the next electorate over, in Lingiari, they will have NBN as well. There is some work happening now. Optus have said that from Litchfield to Palmerston, and also in Darwin, they will be calling in to make sure that areas will have access through Optus's service provisions, which is great news. I also have to say that the take-up of the NBN seems to be going quite well. There have been some areas that were not addressed. We raised those with the former communications minister, and, as I said, he worked to make sure that those people had access to this technology. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, my career prior to politics was actually in the information technology and communications area, so I know how important it is to have access to the technology that we are employing in Solomon. I really am delighted by the fact that we actually are getting on with the job. The former government had lots of whistleblowing. I know that Kevin Rudd came to town, and the candidate for Solomon then, who is now a staffer for Senator Peris, was there with all the hype and glamour and the TV cameras, but actually nothing happened. It was this government that ensured that we delivered the NBN. As I said, by the end of this year, the NBN in my electorate of Solomon, covering all of Darwin and Palmerston, will almost be completed. That is a great achievement, and I am looking forward to the wonderful things that this is going to provide us in terms of developing north Australia. 11:06 Ms HALL 83N Shortland It is interesting listening to the contribution by the member for Solomon, the very strong Tony Abbott supporter who must be licking her wounds, feeling very sorry for herself and working out how she can possibly survive under the current regime. The Turnbull government has failed to deliver its second-rate broadband on time and within budget. The rollout of the Turnbull government's fibre to the node and copper to the home is much slower than we were promised, and it has had a number of problems. There is not enough information going out to people in areas where the NBN will be rolled out, and there is very little understanding within the community in relation to the NBN. I am one of the very fortunate members of parliament, in that the NBN is being rolled out within the Shortland electorate. One of the first places that fibre-to-the-node and copper from the node to the home was turned on was Belmont. My office is there and numerous workers on the rollout came over and told me about the problems that they were having with the copper wires. It was supposed to be turned on in July and it was finally turned on on 21 September. On 22 September, the shadow minister for communications visited the Shortland electorate and we had a number of forums. Overwhelmingly, within the area where it had been rolled out, there was lack of understanding and lack of knowledge. People did not know what it meant. I have to say that the government has done a very, very poor job of informing people, a very, very poor job of delivering on time and a very, very poor job of keeping within budget. The cost has blown out. We were promised a second-rate NBN for a price of $29.5 billion and now the cost has escalated to $56 billion. What is the explanation? I do not believe there has been a satisfactory explanation delivered to the people of Australia on this enormous cost blow-out. All we have is rhetoric; all we have is a second-rate broadband that is not delivering what it was promised to do. We are having a broadband rolled out that is going to be obsolete by the time it is finished being rolled out across Australia, and that is not cost-effective. In the Shortland electorate, the residents of Swansea have the worst access to broadband, where broadband is available, in Australia. I know members of the House will be very surprised to learn that the one area that is missing on all the rollout plans is Swansea. People cannot access ports on the ADSL, because there are none available, and the NBN is something that exists in the ether. It is not good enough. I mentioned it to the Prime Minister when he was shadow minister and his answer was, 'They'll get it eventually.' One of my constituents sent me an email after he read an article in The Australian. He said: The FTTN— that is, fibre-to-the node— trials had delivered ... speeds of 100Mbps & upload speeds of 40Mbps. But that is if you are really close. He will be more than 700 metres away. He said: For the remaining 10% download speeds could fall to 25Mbps. So it is delivering a second-rate service to these people. The nbn co is conducting a promotion in the Shorthand electorate this week. They doing it at Charlestown in the electorate, which is an area where construction of the NBN starts at the end of 2016. That is not good enough. There is no understanding of the area and people are not being delivered what they were promised would be delivered by the Turnbull government. (Time expired) 11:11 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I am absolutely astounded that anyone from the Labor Party could come into this place and be critical of the job that this government is doing with the rollout of the NBN. I believe that members of the Labor Party, particularly those who were here in 2008, should still hang their heads in shame. I sat in this place in 2008 and watched the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund being raided and rolled into $900 cash payments that disappeared in wrapping paper and plastic toys leading up to Christmas in 2008. The government inherited an NBN program that was, I believe, instigated on the back of a beer coaster in an aeroplane with the previous minister and the Prime Minister. I believe the initial rollout was represented by that amount of planning. I agree that Australia does need a national broadband network. It is important and no more important than in the electorate of Parkes. I represent a third of New South Wales—256,000 square kilometres—and some of the largest agribusinesses in Australia. Many of those businesses and individuals are absolutely frustrated beyond belief in trying to deal with the interim satellite. It is one of the worst examples of public policy that we have seen. The previous government had no cap on some of the products that could be sold from that. It was oversubscribed and we ended up with slow speeds that jammed. Indeed, the previous minister had to take some of the plans back so that everyone could get a go. Great news: last Monday, the new satellite—the first of the two Ka-band satellites—went up. They will certainly give the people of the bush an internet service that they can use. One of the other things that is important to know is that, in the six years of the Labor government, not one cent, not one brass razoo, went into mobile phone black spots. In the bush, internet is largely delivered through the phone network. As I speak, they are harvesting crops of barley right across the Parkes electorate. If your grain harvester breaks down and the servicemen come to plug in their laptop to do a diagnosis, if they do not have mobile phone coverage they cannot do the job properly. So I very much welcome the black spot program rolled out by this government, and I look forward to the next rollouts. Indeed, one of the agreements that Prime Minister Turnbull came to with Warren Truss, prior to forming his ministry, was that we would continue rolling out the black spot program until there was no need to do so. As we speak, we now have the Downer company rolling out the NBN in Dubbo. It is due for completion in May next year. Last week I was very pleased to visit Westhaven, which is a supported accommodation facility in Dubbo. The people in Westhaven were making the identifier tags for the cables that are going through Dubbo. They are indeed doing a fantastic job. I hope that, beyond Dubbo, the NBN Co and Downer actually give Westhaven more work to do as the NBN gets rolled out across the state. To give people a bit of an idea what I am talking about, at the change of government I had a meeting with representatives from the NBN Co and I asked, 'Just out of interest, when will my home town of Warialda get broadband?' The answer: 2024! I can tell you now that most of my electorate is on track to be rolled out in the announcements in 2017. So we have come forward seven years. We are back on budget, we are back on track and we are very quickly fixing up the mess left to us by the previous government. 11:16 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith I rise to speak in respect of this motion, which relates to the National Broadband Network, or what would have been a national broadband network, had Labor still been in government, but what is now indeed a very second-rate network. In November 2013, the rollout of fibre to 54,000 homes and businesses was to have commenced in my electorate of Griffith. I say 'was to' as it did not commence, because the new government at the time decided against rolling out fibre to my electorate of Griffith. In fact, my electorate is not even on the rollout plan, even for this second-rate version of an NBN. It is ridiculous. When you think about the mess that has been made of the National Broadband Network under the now Prime Minister, who has been the communications minister for the duration of this government, it is really obvious to see some of the problems and flaws we have had to put up with as a nation. When you think about the decision to move away from fibre to this multi-technology mix idea, including in some cases copper, as we have learnt from the NBN Co's speech to the National Press Club recently, this idea that we are going to replace some copper with copper is absolutely ridiculous. Fancy trying to introduce 1940s technology in the 21st century. The multi-technology mix includes copper but will also rely on HFC cable and ADSL to deliver broadband. At the moment ADSL is used mostly across my electorate, but we have some HFC cable, which I want to talk about. This is absolutely inadequate for the needs of the 21st century. We all know that there is a communications revolution underway, the likes of which the world has never seen. We all know that a vastly increasing and sharply increasing quantity of data is being transmitted across the internet every day. If you look at some of the projections from Cisco you can see just how sharply that is projected to increase. Yet we are going to be getting only 25 megabits per second under this second-rate NBN. That was to have been delivered by the end of 2016, but it is not even going to be delivered by the end of 2016—that second-rate, 25 megabits per second NBN. I met with the then communications minister to ask him why we are not getting appropriate rollout of NBN in my electorate of Griffith and he was unable even to tell me how many homes and businesses have connections to HFC cable. But even those who do report to me that they have some difficulties using that HFC connection. So we can talk about the second-rate nature of the NBN and we can talk about the cost blowout. We were told it was going to be $29.5 billion to build the coalition's NBN. It has now blown out to $56 billion. Up to $56 billion from $29.5 billion. We can talk about the fact that the technology is second-rate and that our competitors in places like South Korea will get vastly faster internet speeds than us, and are already getting vastly faster internet speeds than us. We can also talk about the fact that my electorate is not on the rollout plan. But I also wanted to mention some of the actual stories I am hearing about the effects on homes and businesses in my electorate of not having super-fast broadband. Some of the residents have undertaken a survey I have sent out about broadband access in my electorate. This is what some people have had to say in respect of HFC connection. Liam of Camp Hill says, 'It is too slow and drops out all the time. Our household is two adults and four children, including two high-school students. I do some work from home. There are frequent times when the speed is slow. It is unworkable. This inhibits both my work and my children's school requirements. There is certainly not enough bandwidth for entertainment—Spotify et cetera, Netflix and YouTube—on top of school and work. I have the opportunity for video calls to attend work meetings. The internet connection is too unreliable for me to do so, and as such to not take advantage of the opportunity to work from home, which is particularly annoying with family commitments.' That is one example. Robert from Camp Hill says, 'Horrible. I have been released from my contract and will be upgrading my connection by downgrading to ADSL, which, ironically, has faster speeds, because it is not overcrowded.' Daniel of Morningside says, 'No, it does not meet the needs of my household, since the upload speed is so poor. Also, there are three adults living in our house, each with their own computer on the local area network and their phone, which connect via the wireless. If everyone wants to use the internet at the same time it is ultra-slow. We also have a child living in our house, which means that in the future it will only get worse, when he is old enough to use the internet.' This is why we need Griffith put back onto the NBN. These are just a few of the people who have responded to my survey to tell me about the slow internet speeds in my electorate and the effect it is having on their household. Debate adjourned. Migration 17 11:22 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I move: That this House: (1) notes that as at: (a) 31 March 2015 there were over 106,000 primary Temporary Work (Skilled) (subclass 457) visa holders in Australia; (b) 31 December 2014 there were over 160,000 Working Holiday (subclass 417) and Work and Holiday (subclass 462) visa holders in Australia; and (c) 30 June 2014 there were an estimated 62,100 unlawful non-citizens in Australia; (2) further notes that: (a) in August 2015 there were around 780,000 Australians who were unemployed and that 280,000 of those were aged 15 to 24; and (b) the Senate is currently conducting an inquiry, the completion date of which was recently extended to February 2016, into the impact of Australia's temporary work visa programs on the Australian labour market and on the temporary work visa holders; (3) ensures that genuine labour market testing be applied to temporary work visas; and (4) calls on the Government to ensure that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection has sufficient resources to properly ensure compliance with Australian visa conditions. Five minutes does not give me time to do this motion justice, but I will certainly try to summarise the issues which I want to raise in the five minutes that I have. Currently, we have an unemployment rate of 6.2 per cent in Australia, or, in real numbers, some 780,000 Australians are unemployed. Over one-third of those are young people. At the same time, at any one time we have over 700,000 people in this country on some kind of visa which enables them to work within Australia. As at 31 March this year, there were 106,000 people on 457 skilled worker visas. As at 31 December last year, there were 160,000 working holiday visa entrants. As at 31 December last year, there were 300,000 student visa entrants in this country, and only two months before that the figure was 400,000. We have 60,000 illegal migrants in this country at any one time, and then we also have the seasonal workers who come and go at various times of the year. Indeed, there are one million-plus people in this country on some kind of visa about whom we do not have a clear understanding as to whether they are also taking up jobs in one way or another. The matters that I raise bring me to several concerns that I have about the visa program in this country. It is clear that Australian jobs are being taken up by overseas workers. In particular, young people in this country are missing out because those jobs are quite often going to other young people who are coming into the country on either working holiday visas or student visas. In turn, young people in Australia are missing out on the job experience that they would otherwise get and perhaps the doorway to a career further down the track. What is also clear to me is that parents of those young people are incredibly frustrated and, indeed, anxious at the fact that their children cannot get jobs whilst overseas entrants are filling those jobs. Only on Saturday, I had a parent speak to me at length about that very matter. My second concern relates to the exploitation of labour by rackets that are occurring in this country. We saw recently the exposure of the 7-Eleven stores debacle, where people were clearly being underpaid and overworked by an organisation that was deliberately distorting and abusing the visa system in this country. That particular matter has a long way to go and I am sure that we will hear much more about it in the future, but what is clear to me is that, at the moment, because of the visa laws in this country, there are opportunities for people, whether they are agents or employers, to exploit overseas workers and employ them ahead of Australians. Indeed, it is alleged that one out of every five 457 visa holders is not even doing the job that they were brought in for or that they are not being paid correctly. The other matter that I am very concerned with is that this whole issue of bringing in foreign labour is leading to the driving down of Australian wages and conditions. Australians living in this country have to live in Australia and pay for Australian costs of living. They have mortgages to pay and they have families to support, and they will be forced, if it means saving their job, to accept lower standards of wages and conditions in order to continue to be able to provide for their families. That is not the direction that we should be taking in this country. We also have illegal stayers here, some 60,000 of them. We do not know what they are doing, but I suspect most of them are employed somewhere, cash in hand, doing some work that could otherwise be done by an Australian. But, again, we do not seem to do much about that—and perhaps it is because the Department of Immigration and Border Protection is not well enough resourced to manage that issue. Then we have a government that is prepared to add to that pressure by creating free trade agreements that allow foreign workers to come in, by giving an additional 5,000 places to young Chinese to come in and work for 12 months, by changing shipping legislation to outsource work to foreign workers and by awarding contracts to overseas companies. I know what the coalition members will say—that the figures were much higher when Labor was in office. The truth is: Labor acknowledged that and brought in labour market testing, and we also started to clamp down on some of the rorts that we saw happening at the time, not to mention that the economy was much stronger when Labor were in office than it is right now. The concerns I raise are serious and they are something that the government should be addressing. The coalition should stop allowing the visa system in Australia to be exploited and used to fill Australian jobs with overseas labour when there are Australians who could otherwise do the work. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 Is the motion seconded? Ms Vamvakinou 00AMT I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:27 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert First and foremost, I acknowledge the member for Makin and his rightful concern about youth unemployment, senior unemployment and underemployment in this country, but I do not think the temporary employment visa is the sole issue here. In my city of Townsville, we do not have a lot of temporary employment visa holders, but in my region of North Queensland it is a rite of passage for a lot of international backpackers to come to work at Bowen with the small crops of beans, tomatoes, rockmelons, honeydew melons and strawberries, and around the Burdekin with pumpkins, rockmelons and, of course, mangoes. The backpackers come up the highway, stay in hostels and pick up a bit of cash in Australian working conditions with Australian award wages. In fact, employers are paying superannuation for these foreign workers, who will not get it back until they leave the country. For me, it is a valuable part and a value-adding proposition for these people to come through our country. I say the member to Makin that I looked through the six years while Labor were in government and I did not see one speech that he made that was critical of his own government, the number of visas handed out and the way the system was working whilst they were in government. It is very easy to sit in opposition and throw spears, but when you are part of the system it is much harder to fix it. What I see as the real concern about temporary work visas is the Centrelink system, which makes it awfully hard for people to transition into seasonal work. The member for Makin and the member for Wakefield, who is also in the chamber, are from South Australia, where seasonal workers pick grapes and so on. What we see in North Queensland is that, for people who are youth unemployed and all that sort of thing, to be able to transition out for a short period of time and then get back into the system can often be frustrating. It is time consuming. It is difficult to transition out of unemployment, take those temporary roles and transition back. There are often time lags there, and quite often you will find that there will be small debts accrued through Centrelink that they then have to pay back out of their benefits. So, if you do not make it easy for people to transition through these things and then transition out, you make it awfully hard for Australian people to take these jobs when someone comes through and there are ads going up for people to do this sort of work where they can just jump straight in and have a go. I often worry about some of the things—we have the Green Army—that we are trying to do here, trying to give people resilience. It is not easy there. In North Queensland, we just saw Glencore on the weekend announce a further 535 jobs being cut at Mount Isa. It is the cyclical nature of resource prices, and that sort of thing. It further adds to the employment issues around my area. Blaming foreign workers is an easy thing to do, and pointing the finger at other people for the things we are doing in our own systems is an easy thing to do. What we have to do is make it as easy as possible for people to get a job. It is not about wages. For me it has never been about wages There was the Kelly review in 1908-09, which said that, for the profitability of the company, it did not matter what the wages were. We made a decision in the early 1900s that we are going to be a high-wage nation. You could be a high-wage nation if you have serious low input costs and high productivity. What we must do is make sure that they stay there. We must make sure that, if we are going to pay penalty rates and we are going to pay all this stuff here, we are earning them. Above all else, we must make sure that we reduce the red tape that is floating around these things and makes it hard for people to get a job, and that we make it as easy as possible to transition in and out of seasonal work. A place like Bowen is a fantastic place to live your life. It is a fantastic place to raise your children, but it is hard to get full-time quality work. When you are faced with those things you must look at other things there, and seasonal work is one of those things. It is the same as the haul-out drivers when we are harvesting cane. It is a transition thing there, but quite often friends of mine who have done it, when they have a wife and three kids and that sort of thing and they are unemployed when they are not hauling out, end up at the end of the financial year with a problem with Centrelink, and we must make that easier. 11:32 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I am very pleased to be speaking on and indeed seconding the motion from the member for Makin. He and I have been members of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration in the last two parliaments. We have been involved in three inquiries: an inquiry into multiculturalism and the benefits of migration, an inquiry into the business investment visas and currently the inquiry into the seasonal workers program. All three inquiries have repeatedly raised concerns regarding the nature, implementation, impact and level of scrutiny of Australia's temporary working visas program. Anecdotal evidence suggests that rorts, manipulation of the visa system and exploitation by employers exist and are going unchecked, as is the possibility of an oversupply of working visas. Because there is a lack of comprehensive information, research and review into how the temporary work and skilled visa categories intersect in the Australian job market, we do not know the extent of the impact they are having on job prospects and opportunities for Australians. This motion calls for genuine and stringent labour market testing and adequate research and review of temporary working visas. It also calls for the government to ensure sufficient resources are made available so that temporary working visa conditions are complied with and met in order to mitigate possible rorts and adverse impacts, such as undermining of work pay and conditions for both temporary workers and local people, as well as mitigating an oversupply that could disadvantage local workers. What information we have to date in relation to these issues unfortunately is anecdotal and episodic. A report on the misuse of the 457 visas in the building industry conducted by the CFMEU sounded alarm bells some time ago. More recently we saw the ABC Four Corners program on the 7-Eleven 457 visa workers scandal. Rorts are real and organised, although we do not fully know to what extent and to what level. So information is essential given that in August 2015 there were 780,000 Australians unemployed, and 280,000 of them were aged between 15 and 24. There is a growing anxiety amongst Australians about employment opportunities and prospects. The value of a job to the quality of an individual's life is immeasurable. Their capacity to learn and better themselves to contribute to their community makes for a more rounded, healthier, productive individual and an inclusive society. In all, a job is good for the individual, good for the community and good for the country. Parts of my electorate have rates of youth unemployment as high as 26 per cent. Calwell also has a high rate of mature-aged unemployed and low-skilled workers. Manufacturing has taken a savage hit in recent years. Thousands of jobs have gone, especially in the car-manufacturing industry, with the closure of the Ford Motor Company being one of our biggest losses. Calwell has the largest intake of residents who have come here under the refugee and humanitarian program, predominantly from Iraq. Many of them are educated and skilled. They cannot get jobs because we do not recognise their previous work experience and it is often too difficult, if not impossible, to obtain recognition of their qualifications and skills. Yet, paradoxically, they have maths, science and engineering backgrounds—areas that are always highlighted as areas of skills shortages here in Australia. Many job seekers I speak to, especially young people, tell me that it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to find work, especially those who are seeking part-time work, because, as they tell me, employers who do not want to pay award wages are bypassing Australian job seekers in favour of 457s, international students and backpackers, because they can pay them much less. I understand the impact that globalisation has had and is having on labour markets and I also support foreign investment. I also understand that skills shortages are a reality here in Australia and we need to address them for the sake of our growth and development. The government and the opposition are both keen to invest in skilling Australians and supporting them in finding jobs. This applies to the young, the old and the disabled alike. We want Australians who can work to work. We have to, however, make sure that there are jobs available for them, across all ages, circumstances and skill levels. We face many challenges in creating new jobs as we lose our traditional employment sectors and shed old jobs. So we need to know what impact the 106,000 457 visa holders or the 160,000 Work and Holiday visa holders are actually having and whether they are in fact addressing genuine skills shortages. We need to act on allegations that rorting is rife in the current system, where supply chains involving unscrupulous employers, registered training organisations, job providers, migration agents and labour hire companies are making it increasingly difficult for Australians to enter and remain in the workforce, whilst exploiting temporary work visa holders. 11:37 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I am pleased to rise to speak on this motion because the underlying premise of it reminds me of a South Park episode called 'Goobacks' where people from the future travel back in time and take everyone's jobs, and they all run around going, 'They took our jobs! They took our jobs!' That is the underlying premise of this motion, and it shows why those who sit on that side of the chamber are completely unfit for office. They continually argue and they think that our economy is a zero sum game where one person takes another person's job, when they should be trying to concentrate on how to grow the economic pie and to create more jobs in the economy as this coalition has done, creating 335,000 new jobs since we have come to office. In the last couple of weeks, while we have been away from parliament, I have attended several citizenship ceremonies—one with the good member for Werriwa who is sitting in the chamber at the moment—and there in front of us we saw hundreds of people taking the pledge to become Australian citizens. Amongst them, we saw builders, architects, tradesmen, doctors, medical researchers and specialists, educators, mechanics, business people and entrepreneurs. The underlying premise of this motion is that, when these people come into Australia and start work, they take someone's job. That is the message that the opposition are sending through this motion. But what actually happens when people come in from overseas is this. Firstly, they create extra demand, because they have a demand for housing—for accommodation—for food and for entertainment, and that demand creates more jobs. Secondly, the value-adding activities that they engage in drive innovation in our economy, and that in itself creates more demand and creates more jobs. So, as to this nonsense, we cannot stand here in this parliament and have these xenophobic speeches saying, 'The foreigners are coming in and they are all taking our jobs.' The 457 visa program is an important component of our economy that allows companies to employ people from overseas where we have labour shortages. The employment conditions are exactly the same as those we have currently for all Australian workers. But, instead, we see these gold-medal-winning hypocritical statements, led by the trade union movement, who themselves are regular users of the 457 visa scheme. Only the other month it was disclosed that the trade union movement had sponsored 41 subclass 457 visas— Mr Champion HW9 Forty-one? Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Yes, 41. You had some from the Australian Education Union; the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association; the good old United Voice; the Australian Services Union; the Finance Sector Union; the Maritime Union; the National Tertiary Education Union and the Transport Workers Union—all those unions went out and employed 457 visa workers, and yet the very same people that they employed on 457 visas are now writing the scripts and doing the copy-writing work to attack the 457 program. What absolute hypocrisy! Another thing: during the sitting break we had for the last three weeks in parliament, I was down here on Friday for one of the committee hearings and we finished early. I took the opportunity to go and visit Old Parliament House, which is something I had not had the opportunity to do—and I would recommend to anyone who has not yet done so to go through Old Parliament House. There was a statement there, a quote from the former Prime Minister Stanley Bruce, from 9 May 1927 when opening the old provisional House, and he said: 'May those who enter this open door govern with justice, reason and equal favour to all. May they do so in humility and without self-interest. May they think and act nationally. May they speak with the voice of those who sent them here—the voice of the people.' That is the whole problem for those on the other side of the chamber: the people who sent them there are the trade union leaders, and they do not speak with the voice of the people; they speak with the voice of the trade union movement. And that is why we have this xenophobic campaign against the China free trade agreement, backed up by this shameful motion that pretends there is some zero sum game. The 457 visas are an important part of our economy. When foreign workers come to this country they add to the supply, they add to the demand, they make our country a richer country, and they help to create more jobs in this economy. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 You are not listed here, but I will call you, Member for Wakefield. 11:43 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the call. I wish I could say it was a pleasure following the member for Hughes, but he exhibits such startling incoherence that it is hard to say that it is a pleasure. Part of that startling incoherence is that he confuses skilled migration and citizenship on the one hand with a guest worker scheme on the other. And that is what the 457 scheme has degenerated into under this government: it is becoming very close to a guest worker scheme. This is completely against the Australian character and the Australian way, which is to have a fair go—not just a fair go for workers and for the unemployed in this country, but also a fair go for those who come to our country to work. I would prefer that they came here and took out citizenship and lived here, because, whenever a visa is hung over someone's head, they are vulnerable to abuse, and we are beginning to see example after example after example of this. And no matter how much the member for Hughes wants to talk about xenophobia and racism and all this other nonsense and to talk about South Park—and he has probably never watched an episode of South Park in his life; it was probably his staff. But his speeches are sort of Southpark-esque in their ridiculousness. I encourage him to do a bit of research. He should go and have a look at the Senate Education and Employment References Committee inquiry into Australia's temporary work visa programs. On 19 June 2015 the committee heard from a Mrs Alferaz, a nurse who had to pay between $2,000 and $3,000 to a nursing agency to get her visa. This was not a fee listed in the legislation or the regulations of this parliament but a fee that that agency charged her to get a visa—that is, the right to work in Australia. She was coming here from the Philippines and she was charged to get the visa. That is a racket. When she got here her experience was that she was underpaid under the enterprise bargaining agreement. She was wrongly classified and underpaid by some $57,000. Does that sound like a fair go to anybody in this room or anybody sitting outside of it? Of course it does not. It exhibits a scheme that is open to abuse and where abuse is rampant. There are all sorts of examples of workers from overseas, from situations where they are vulnerable to exploitation, being charged from the outset for their visa. When they get here they are underpaid or are charged exorbitant and exploitative rates for their accommodation or their travel to the workplace. The visa is held over their head in the workplace to get them to accept these conditions. That is what is happening. There is example after example of it, not just with 457 visas but with student visas and backpacker visas. This image that is conjured up of some European backpacker happily working picking apricots is a nonsense. What is actually happening is that people are being trafficked here, exploited and becoming a sort of ghost workforce in the system. They are having their visas held over their head the whole time, and if they go to the authorities, the Fair Work Ombudsman or the press they will get their visa taken from them and will be back home. There is a growing scandal in this country around visa classifications, and it is not to this government's benefit to deny it. If the government had any sense at all it would be cracking down on this, because the very integrity of the immigration system is at stake. We cannot have a situation where workers who are coming here from the developing world, who are vulnerable to exploitation, are used by Australians and Australian businesses as some sort of ghost, black workforce. It is not acceptable. We have seen it in Baiada Poultry, we have seen it in Australia Post and we have seen it in 7-Eleven. We have seen it all over Australia. (Time expired) 11:48 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson I have no doubt that there are cases, as the previous member said, where there has been exploitation. I have absolutely no doubt and have known of some of those examples myself. But to claim that Australian businesses and the majority of people who are engaged in this are conducting themselves in this illegal manner and exploiting these people is beyond the pale. It does happen in some instances, just as in some instances Australian workers are exploited as well. And there are appropriate mechanisms whereby the bosses, the employers, can be pulled up. There is the fair work agency, there is the department of immigration and there are quite a number of different not-for-profit agencies out there. Let us have a look at some of the figures. The reality is that we have a motion before us talking about numbers—numbers of people who are in the country working under various visa systems, whether they be 457s or backpacker visas. The number of 457 visas for overseas workers actually increased by many times under Labor, from roughly 60,000 in 2010 to over 110,000 in 2013. Now let us have a look at what has actually happened and what the statistics say. There are fewer 457 visa workers in the country now than there were under Labor, so it is not some sort of crisis. These problems that the honourable member talked about were problems that existed under the previous government in a minority of cases, and unfortunately they are problems that will always exist where there are some bad eggs in the system. That is why we have policing of the system. For all the huff and puff that we hear from the CFMEU and all the other unions, in the Mackay region there has been a 20 per cent decrease in the number of 457 visa workers. So it is not in any way some sort of crisis that has been created under this government. The issue was more manifold under the last government. I can say that the coalition has done more to stamp out the illegal use of 417 visa holders than any other government in history. That includes the last Labor government, which did nothing about the situation. We have established Taskforce Cadena, which has led to quite a number of arrests of those people who are doing the wrong thing. We have set up the Australian Border Force, an organisation which is specifically looking at illegal overstayers and all of these sorts of matters. It is fair to say that this is something the opposition leader did not even know existed or what it purpose was, even though he voted on it and had extensive briefings on it. He also criticised an operation that they had down in Melbourne, where they were going to look at taxi drivers—an area where there have been widespread reports of foreign workers illegally operating. It was portrayed in the media as people being randomly approached in the street. That was never what it was going to be, but it came under attack by the Labor Party. You cannot have it both ways. If there is a policing mechanism to deal with these issues that you are talking about and you come out and criticise that, you then want it both ways. You criticise the policing of it, but then you come in here and say that we are not policing it enough. What do you want? I wish the Labor Party would stand up and tell us exactly what they want here. Do they want the 457 visa system ended? No answer. Do they want the 417 visa system ended? No answer. But you get up here and make statements as if that is what you want, as if these things should be crushed, destroyed and forever buried. That would be a disaster for our economy, and you know it, and that is why you get up here with these lily-livered words about how bad it is and how terrible it is. But are we going to do anything about it? No, we are not. We are not going to do a single thing about it, because this is all for political power plays, and it is absolutely ridiculous and disgraceful that you are doing that on the back of foreign workers. The government's policy about ChAFTA is this: we will only enter into a project labour agreement where we have been satisfied that Australians have been provided first opportunity for jobs— (Time expired) 11:53 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 Werriwa We will just start with a bit of history. The member for Hughes quoted some fine words from former conservative Prime Minister Stanley Bruce, which he read the other week. I would remind that member, when we are trying to picture this side of politics as racist and xenophobic, that Prime Minister Bruce tried to expel some people from this country on the basis of their ethnicity and their nationality. They were not Muslims; they were not Mexicans; they were New Zealanders, and one of them, Heffron, was to become a Premier of New South Wales. So that is a bit of history for the member for Hughes. The previous speaker thought he was making a big concession in saying that there were some instances of abuse. He reassured us that it was not the majority and that it was a small problem. But in the real world we note that Monash University recently did a survey of foreign language newspaper advertisements in this country—not in Vienna, not in Berlin, but in Australia—and it found that 80 per cent of those advertisements for employees in foreign language papers in this country had wage offers below the legal limit. Similarly, The Sydney Morning Herald on 1 October did a survey of the Mandarin press in this country and found rates of $10 to $13, well below the minimum rate of $17.29. It also noted the real world, daily practice of intimidation of these workers and the threat of their visas being cancelled if they did not agree to hours and hours of overtime and low levels of wages. The website yeeyi.com, which essentially aims at Australian Chinese visitors, people who are on either student visas or temporary work visas, noted that wages as low as $4 an hour were being offered. These people say this is no threat to Australian workers, we should not worry, there is no problem. There might be a few philanthropists out there, but there would be far more employers in this country who would be willing to take somebody for $4 an hour than pay the Australian legal minimum wage. The situation is that we have an unemployment rate of 6.2 per cent. The previous speaker talks about how many new jobs they have created. They do not talk about the mass losses of jobs in this country nor do they talk about the growth of the overall labour force and the fact that unemployment is now 6.2 per cent and that over eight per cent of Australians when surveyed said, 'Yes, I do get 20 hours a week. Yes, I do get eight hours a week work. But I'd rather work longer.' Roughly 14 per cent of the workforce are either unemployed or underemployed—and they say we have got to do this for the grape growers and the orange growers around the country. The previous speaker on this side politics articulated the reality. We have seen it with Australia Post, a once-respected national government employer. We have seen it with Baiada Poultry. It has been witnessed in the large sectors of mass factory employment. It still exists in this country under this government. That is where it is happening. A few people in remote agricultural areas is not where it is needed. Of course, 7-Eleven was the most recent case. A multimillionaire has established his wealth through a business plan which requires his franchisees to then exploit their workers. There is no way the franchisees can avoid this. They get the students in, they know the students are only allowed to work 20 hours a week or in holiday periods, they have them working far more hours than that and then, after exploiting them, they threaten them and demand more hours of work out of them for the same rate of pay and then they say, 'If you say boo about this we'll go to the immigration department and get you kicked out of the country.' What temporary workers are going to be able to resist that kind of threat? That is what we are talking about. The previous speaker says, 'Yes, there's an occasional instance of this. We've heard about it.' He and the member for Herbert from the Liberal National Party should go on a trip with the member for Hinkler, who is from their own part of Australia and from their own political party. He has had the guts to go on national TV and expose this kind of extortion: the attempt to sexually exploit women and the underpayment of people in their parts of this country. He is on their side of politics. He has been on national TV on two occasions. We have a situation where there are now 160,000 primary temporary work (skilled) visas in this country, 160,000 working holiday workers. The other problem we have got here is that that is a large number of people. When they talk about policing it and doing something about it, the reality is that they are not interested in doing anything about it because they actually believe in this. They believe it is a way to discipline the workforce, to reduce Australian workers' wages. They are not interested in having a worthwhile, sizeable unit inside the immigration department to do anything about this. They are too interested in defending the undermining of Australian conditions because they have got some idea that will progress if we do that. 11:58 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons I was not exactly sure what the motivation for this motion originally was, but it is becoming abundantly clear. What I have learned in the short time that I have been in this parliament is that you judge those on the other side not by what they say but by what they do, and their actions in government bear no resemblance at all to what they say now in opposition. They claim this is about 417s, and it was, as was highlighted by the member for Dawson. Of course there are instances where misuse of 417, 462 and 457 visa categories should be called out. That should be brought before the law because under Australian law that sort of behaviour is illegal and will be prosecuted. When we came to government we were made aware that there were issues with some of these visa schemes, and we made it our business to conduct an inquiry into them. It was a very deep and far-reaching inquiry. It was found that there are circumstances in which this occurs, and those people behaving inappropriately under those visa schemes will be—and rightly should be—prosecuted. The hypocrisy of those opposite, when the number of 457 visas ballooned under the previous government. In 2010 there were 68,000 457 visas. By September 2013, at the time of the GFC, the labour market was declining, apparently, and we had to throw money here, there and everywhere at pink batts, school halls and whatever else it was. The number of 457 visas grew to 110,000 by September 2013. That number has now reduced, in a labour market that has expanded. In relation to the hypocrisy and the comments of those on the other side, the only thing I can really think of is xenophobia. Can I speak specifically about my electorate of Lyons in Tasmania and the importance of the 417 visa category, particularly to the fruit growing sector—be that strawberries, raspberries or cherries—for a short period of the year, from December through until February. Businesses in my electorate like Burlington Berries, Costa's and Tim Reid's in the Derwent Valley very much depend on these visas. They need to pick the fruit when it is ready to be picked, and if they cannot source all the local labour that they need, they use 417 visa workers to do that. As we are opening up markets under the free trade— Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 23 COMMITTEES Membership 23 12:02 The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating changes to the membership of certain committees. 12:02 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland by leave—I move: Standing Committee on Economics—Mr Alexander and Dr Hendy be discharged from the committee. Standing Committee on Education and Employment—Mr E. T. Jones be discharged from the committee. Standing Committee on the Environment—Mr Hawke be discharged from the committee. Standing Committee on Health—Mr Wyatt be discharged from the committee. Standing Committee on Procedure—Mr Wyatt be discharged from the committee. Selection Committee—Mr Buchholz and Mr Nikolic be discharged from the committee and Mr E. T. Jones and Mr Whiteley be appointed members of the committee. Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue—Mr Alexander be discharged from the committee. Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—Mr Hawke be discharged from the committee. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Mr Hawke and Mr Wyatt Roy be discharged from the committee. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights—Mr Wyatt be discharged from the committee and Mr Pasin be appointed a member of the committee. Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme—Mr Brough and Mr Irons be discharged from the committee. Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit—Dr Hendy and Mr Wyatt be discharged from the committee. Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—Mr Wyatt Roy be discharged from the committee and Mr Taylor be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 24 BUSINESS Rearrangement 24 12:02 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling On behalf of the Leader of the House, I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Kennedy's private Members' business notice relating to the disallowance of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment (Firearms and Firearm Magazines) Regulation 2015 being called on immediately. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 24 MOTIONS Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment (Firearms and Firearm Magazines) Regulation 2015 24 Disallowance 24 12:03 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi by leave—As the member for Kennedy is not present, I move: That the notice be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 24 BILLS Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015, Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015, Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015 24

Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015

Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015

Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015

Second Reading 24 12:05 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I appreciate the opportunity to speak in relation to the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015, the Amending Acts 1980 to 1999 Repeal Bill 2015 and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015. In rising today, I take the opportunity to inform the House of an event which I am sure the member for Moreton is particularly interested in, being the formation of a new Australian Air Force cadet squadron in Weipa, one of the few new squadrons to be created in Australia in the past 10 years. I had the opportunity on Saturday to attend a function for the official ceremony for the launch of 112 Squadron. Mr Perrett HVP I retweeted it. Mr CHESTER IPZ The member for Moreton quite kindly did support me on social media in raising the Australian community's awareness of this particular event. In attending this function, which the member for Moreton is so enthusiastic in his support of, it was terrific to see a number of young Indigenous children being given the opportunity to participate in what is the Australian government's premier youth development organisation, being the Australian Defence Force Cadets, whether it be Army, Air Force or Navy cadets. In this case the Air Force Cadets in Weipa will have in the order of 30, perhaps 40, young members who will be taught a range of skills and will have the opportunity to work together and not only to learn the values of leadership and teamwork but also to work directly with the Australian Air Force from time to time. That opportunity presented, again, on the weekend when the young people of the Townsville cadet unit flew to Weipa to participate and welcome their new friends to the cadet unit. It was a terrific occasion and I sincerely thank the House for this opportunity to relay to those listening just what an event was. I know the member for Moreton, a good friend of mine, is very interested in youth development, right across the board. He has been particularly supportive of the cadet units as they have been involved in his electorate but also in other parts of Australia. The cadets across Australia provide a particularly important opportunity for young people to be engaged in something other than their individual pursuits. It gives them a sense of community and a sense of the importance of being part of something greater than themselves. As I said to the young people and their families gathered on the weekend, this is one of our nation's great cultural institutions of civil society where we may need to invest more, to give more young people that opportunity. It concerns me that organisations like our cadets—or our surf-lifesaving nippers or other sporting organisations—are not accessible to all young people of our nation. It may be for socioeconomic reasons, where they cannot afford to participate, or for cultural reasons where, perhaps, they do not feel welcomed into those organisations. It is something I am very keen to pursue, in a bipartisan manner, with those opposite, to find ways of investing in youth development that give more young people the opportunity to participate in the cultural life of Australia. I thank the House for this opportunity and now yield to my good friend the member for Wannon, who has joined us. As he is catching his breath I would like to inform the House that the member for Wannon is running in the Melbourne Marathon on the weekend. He will join me in the marathon. It will be my 10th marathon and his first Melbourne Marathon. I think the only time I will see him will be at the start. The member for Wannon is a very athletic soul and it is terrific he has been able to run to the chamber to save me from speaking more generally on the omnibus repeal bill! 12:09 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon by leave—I rise to speak in continuation on this Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015, the Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015 and Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015. I would like to comment, with indulgence, on the member for Gippsland kindly referring to the Melbourne Marathon—which will take place this Sunday—and the fact that both of us will be participating in it. I enjoy my morning runs with the member for Gippsland and I think it will be a very even contest between the two of us. He has a different training regimen from me. One might say mine is the approach of a disciplined farmer's son and his is more eclectic. We do it in our own way but I am sure we will have a very pleasing battle and will be smiling at the finish line—hopefully not being carted off on a stretcher. I thank you for that indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 I had not offered indulgence! Mr TEHAN 210911 Thank you, then, for your silence while that indulgence took place, Mr Deputy Speaker; it was very kind of you. I am in continuation on this omnibus bill and was referring to changes that the government had been making, through this bill, to make life easier for constituents across Australia. One way the government will be doing this is through Centrelink. It is achieved through the Tell Us Once service, available on myGov. It allows Australians to access a single account and one set of credentials for myriad government services and agencies. This alone will deliver compliance savings of $5.4 million, but the savings in gained productivity will be immeasurably more. Since it was elected the government has been ensuring that it does everything it can to ease the regulatory burden on the average Australian citizen. The target has been a reduction of $1 billion in red tape, annually, and we have done this in the first two years of office. It makes sure that we diminish regulatory burden where it matters most for Australians and businesses, and it will continue to be a priority of the coalition government. In a world of instant and ubiquitous communications technology we take for granted the access to a mobile phones, but we must be aware of what they can provide when it comes to driving efficiencies. For small telecommunications retailers and customers of prepaid mobiles, identity checks have previously been cumbersome and lengthy. They have deterred customers and slowed down what should be a simple business. This bill will make work easier for small businesses and telecommunications retailers, in particular. We are making identity checks simpler and easier. This means that when someone wants to buy a prepaid mobile phone, that process is more common sense and faster. We all know, from family experience, how often mobile-phone technology is updated and how often we need to update that technology for ourselves, our kids or our partners et cetera. Once we have been through this process it is common sense that—through the checks around it—you do not have to continually fill out huge compliance forms. This change will provide an annual compliance saving of $6.2 million. When you think of the size of the Commonwealth budget, $6.2 million is not an enormous figure, but we have seen through these regulatory repeals that every amount you can take out of the system, whether it be $6 million, $16 million or $160 million, adds up and does its little bit. It adds up for the citizens of this nation—the people we as a government are focused on delivering better outcomes to. A minute less for them in filling out a form, which is basically what this element does, is a minute more that they get to spend doing things that are of importance to them—with friends, with children et cetera. But more than these measures, which are drops in the ocean of the regulation that we have yet to repeal in this package, we are also lifting restrictions on using personal electronic devices so travellers can use them during all phases of flights. That use of in-flight mode will mean annual compliance savings of $17.7 million. It will also mean that the member for Isaacs will not be threatened with being ejected from the plane for refusing to turn his phone off, which will no doubt be of great comfort to him. We all know that when we jump on board a plane is usually the time text messages start coming in and phones start ringing. I am sure many fellow travellers between Melbourne and Canberra will save time and be thankful for that. We will also be improving the ATO website so that six million Australians can find relevant information more quickly. This simple idea will create annual compliance savings of $48.5 million. When you add these compliance measures up you start to see why we have been able to deliver savings of over $1 billion annually since we brought in these repeal days. Making life simpler and making government easier to deal with not only saves money but also creates productivity. Again, this is how we will deliver in this century—by harnessing technology to create productivity. This bill also implements an easier monthly PAYG method for certain businesses. If you were to ask any small business owner in a rural or regional community what they would rather be doing, all of them would say serving clients and customers rather than doing paperwork for the government. These businesses that choose to use this new method of PAYG will only need to calculate their instalment income on a quarterly basis. With this paperwork burden gone, there will be an annual compliance saving of $2.7 million. Many of these small changes do not add up to hefty sums, as I was saying previously, but every dollar saved can be reinvested in the community to deliver even more productivity and returns for Australians. Other measures introduced by this bill to create productivity include reforming the 457 visa program—streamlining the processing of sponsorship, nomination and visa applications to reduce the time and cost to businesses, providing annual savings of $29.9 million. We have removed the requirement for heavy vehicle operators of B-double truck combinations registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme to fit additional spray suspension devices, providing annual compliance savings of $8.3 million. Students who receive government payments are now able to change their details online at a time that best suits them, without being required to contact a call centre or attend a service centre, providing annual compliance savings of $2.7 million. Certain types of low-risk animal feed for both stock and companion animals will be excluded from the need for Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority regulatory assessment to better align the registration requirements for stock and pet food with the well-understood risks associated with their ingredients and intended use patterns. This will provide annual compliance savings of $7.8 million. And a national assessment platform which will deliver the National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy, or NAPLAN, online is scheduled to be available to school staff from 2017, providing annual compliance savings of $9.7 million. You can see, through all these measures, that this government is hell-bent on finding small, medium and large regulatory burdens so it can deal with what is occurring. This red-tape repeal day bill represents the government's continuing commitment to removing the burden of regulation from the lives of all Australians. All over Australia we are finding the remnants of a regulatory legacy, with excessive red and green tape weighing down businesses and individuals. When we came into government Commonwealth regulation was costing Australians $65 billion each and every year, which is more than the government spends on our largest welfare payment, the age pension, at $44 billion. This cost of $65 billion each year is a cost-equivalent of 4.2 per cent of our GDP to Australians and their businesses. There is a lot more still to be done and, even though I have now given this speech across two sessions of this parliament, I re-emphasise the importance of our continuing to deregulate the economy, to unshackle the economy, to free the economy so that it can grow. We face serious challenges as a nation operating in a globalised world. We have to make sure that we can act in this globalised world in an efficient, effective and nimble manner. By reducing the regulatory burden we enable our businesses to do this. We have to ensure that we are in the top 10 when it comes to those nations that do not face a compelling regulatory burden. We are not there yet, but we as a government are determined to ensure that we will get there. This bill takes us down that path again, and I commend it to the House. 12:22 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I acknowledge the previous speaker, the member for Wannon, and his comments. He made some very salient points. I want to start by saying that this repeal day legislation—and, as we know, this is the third one that we have had so far—is one of the most important things that we as a government are doing. Since we have been in government we have made a lot of the Australian saying 'have a go'. In fact, we need everybody in Australia to have a go. We need them to, we will encourage them and we as a government will do everything we can to make sure that people who are having a go in a business or in a commercial sense are successful. For every business that a person has put their time and often some of their money into starting, a lot of wonderful things flow when they are successful. Obviously there are jobs created, there is commercial activity created and there is tax generated that we as a government need to redistribute, as we do. As a government, we do not create wealth; we simply redistribute it. We can redistribute that wealth to people and programs in our community, to those who need it. So why is that important in relation to the red tape repeal day? I think if any person who has been in any level of government, whether it be local, state or federal, speaks to anyone from private enterprise in this country—big, medium or small—that person would say: 'I have too much paperwork. I have too much red tape to complete or fill out.' What does that mean? That means that the person in the company who is dealing with that red tape, especially when it is a small business that does not necessarily have a lot of resources, is taken away from being productive. Yes, we obviously need certain red tape. There need to be protections in a whole array of areas to regulate businesses and regulate commercial activity. We are certainly not going to say we do not need regulation at all but, just anecdotally, if you were to travel around the globe and go to other countries, many people would say that Australia has unfortunately become one of the most expensive countries in the world to do business in. That is certainly not doing us any favours in this country or making us productive and competitive, because we are not operating in a vacuum. Almost regardless of what business you are in, you have if not domestic competitors then certainly international competitors. We need to remain nimble and, as I say, encourage people in this country to have a go and be successful. We have announced that the total deregulatory saving since we were elected in September 2013 is $2.45 billion. I have quoted this figure a number of times as I have walked around my community, and the sad thing—and why this is a wonderful figure to achieve and to announce—is that people's main response to me is, 'Keep going,' because they have not noticed. That again highlights the importance of the fact that we are repealing unnecessary legislation. Very importantly, for the first time we have a federal government that has undertaken a thorough and accurate stock take of the cost. We put a dollar amount to the regulatory burden that we are lifting. It is important that people can realise the cost of this regulation. We also have a very high degree of accuracy in publicly reporting to the parliament a downturn in the total amount and cost of federal regulation. We have a comprehensive and transparent program to reverse the growing costs of red tape and our goal, as I say, is to make things easier. One of the main things we think cutting red tape will do is help small businesses create more jobs and increase productivity, which is what they are telling us they want. Under the former Labor government, Commonwealth regulation was costing Australians approximately $65 billion. That is about 4.2 per cent of GDP. Given that this is our third repeal day, we have made decisions to reduce the $65 billion cost burden by $2.45 billion. To date we have implemented $1.57 billion of that $2.45 billion, with $880 million still to be implemented by repeals that we have already announced. Following our third repeal day, we will have repealed more than 10,300 legislative instruments and introduced legislation to repeal over 2,700 acts of parliament. During the previous government, some 21,000 new regulations found their way into national life. So again we are reversing that trend. As a result of our efforts in removing all this red tape, deregulation units have been established in every portfolio from existing resources to drive red-tape reduction across the Commonwealth. We are also working with the states and territories, because these red-tape costs traverse all levels of government. As part of our commitment, we have dedicated two parliamentary sitting days as repeal days every year. The first repeal day, on 26 March 2014, announced measures that would result in gross savings in excess of $700 million in compliance costs. The second repeal day, in October 2014, resulted in net savings in excess of $2.1 billion in reduced compliance costs. As I said, the third repeal day, in March 2015, the lifts the regulatory burden by $2.45 billion in reduced compliance costs. What are some of the key measures in this repeal day? Firstly, we are making it easier for certain businesses to pay monthly PAYG. This is going to deliver annual compliance savings of $2.7 million. We are reforming the 457 visa program by streamlining the processing of sponsorship, nomination and visa applications. We are reforming sponsorship requirements to reduce the time and cost to businesses and increasing the sponsorship approval period from 12 to 18 months for start-up businesses. We are providing greater flexibility in relation to English language testing and skill requirements. The annual compliance savings of that will be nearly $30 million. We are also removing the requirement for heavy vehicle operators of B-double truck combinations registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme to fit additional spray suppression devices. The annual compliance savings are $8.3 million. We are also improving the ATO website so that six million Australians can find relevant information more quickly. Again, there are savings of close to $50 million. As far as individuals go, we are implementing additional functionality for myGov users to allow customers to update their details in one place using the myGov Tell Us Once service to obtain secure and convenient access to online services with a single account and one set of credentials. Annual compliance savings there are $5 million. We are making identity checks easier for retailers and consumers when consumers purchase new prepaid mobile phones, with savings of over $6 million. Restrictions on using personal electronic devices have been lifted so travellers can use their PEDs during all phases of flights, with annual compliance savings of $17.7 million. There are also some specific ones for students.    Students who receive government payments are now able to change their details online without being required to contact call centres or attend a service centre, with annual compliance savings of $2.7 million. For farmers and the agricultural sector—and, as we know, this is another sector that always has to remain very competitive in a globally competitive world—there are certain types of low-risk animal feed for both stock and companion animals that are now excluded from the need for Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority regulatory assessment. This change better aligns the registration requirement for stock and pet food with the well-understood risk associated with their ingredients and intended use patterns. The annual compliance savings are nearly $8 million. The education sector does not miss out either. We are developing an online assessment platform which will deliver the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy, NAPLAN, online, scheduled to be available from 2017, with compliance savings are nearly $10 million. Among the major measures announced in the first years of the government's agenda on cutting red tape, obviously we repealed many taxes. There was also the government's Document Verification Service, and we introduced a one-stop shop for other approvals. For individuals, there was also the myTax initiative and measures to make it easier for Australians to access government services, especially Centrelink. Farmers and the agricultural sector also benefited from the reform of Australia's biosecurity arrangements. The Australian economic partnership agreement and the Korean free trade agreement delivered benefits for that sector as well. We have also streamlined grants administration processes in the health sector for the National Health and Medical Research Council and made a range of other changes, resulting in a net red-tape saving of more than $150 million. There were also some changes made in the building and construction industry. We removed some costly and time-consuming requirements under the Australian standard AS4801 or the equivalent prior to applying for a scheme accreditation, which made things easier for them. Going forward—and I commend the minister responsible—we will continue with this. This is a very important part of the government's legislative agenda in the sense of repealing legislation. Again, we want to encourage every person in this country who has a go and who is putting their own money and time at risk to start up a business or, in fact, to carry out private enterprise. We want to get out of their way as much as we physically can, while still maintaining standards in what they do. 12:33 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite It is my pleasure to rise and speak on this omnibus bill. As at the government's third repeal day, we have made decisions designed to decrease the $65 billion regulatory cost burden by a massive $2.5 billion. To date, we have implemented $1.57 billion in red-tape savings, with another $800 million in the pipeline. What we are seeing now is that Australia has the most precise, comprehensive and transparent program to reverse the growing costs of red tape on the Australian economy. The coalition government has now very proudly repealed more than 10,300 legislative instruments and introduced legislation to repeal over 2,700 acts of parliament. The coalition set itself a target to reduce the regulatory burden by $1 billion a year. Not only did we exceed that net target by more than double in our first year, but we are now on our way to meeting a fresh, new $1 billion target for 2015. For the first time in Australian history, a Commonwealth government has undertaken a thorough and accurate stock take of all federal regulatory costs and is consistently measuring and reducing the cost of Commonwealth government red tape on Australian businesses, organisations, families and individuals. In the last year of the former Labor government, Commonwealth regulation was costing Australians approximately $65 billion per year, and that is a remarkable 4.2 per cent of GDP. Now, for the first time, a Commonwealth government has, with a very high degree of accuracy, publicly reported to parliament a downturn in the total amount and cost of federal regulation. As we have heard in some of the contributions before the parliament today, some of the key measures in the autumn 2015 repeal day include implementing additional functionality for myGov users to allow customers to update their details in one place using the myGov Tell Us Once service. That will help users obtain secure and convenient access to online services with a single account and one set of credentials. I know that in the past that has been very frustrating for users, so that will really streamline things considerably and make a real difference. Identity checks will be made simpler and easier for retailers and consumers when consumers purchase new prepaid mobile phones. That is an annual compliance saving of $6.2 million. These red-tape savings have done things like lift restrictions on using personal electronic devices so travellers can use their PEDs during all phases of flights. That is a saving of $17.7 million. There has been an improvement to the ATO website so that six million Australians can find relevant information more quickly. That saving, and that time saving, has produced an annual compliance saving of $48.5 million. It will also now be easier to implement monthly PAYG payments for certain businesses. Businesses choosing this method of payment will only need to calculate their actual instalment income on a quarterly basis. That produces an annual compliance saving of $2.7 billion. The 457 visa program has been reformed, streamlining the processing of sponsorship nomination and visa applications to reduce the time and cost to businesses. We have also removed the requirement for heavy vehicle operators of the B-double truck combinations registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme to fit additional spray suppression devices, giving annual compliance savings of $8.3 million. In many cases, these are very specific changes to the regulatory burden on particular businesses or industry sectors, but they are very important to those sectors. When I talk to small businesses in my electorate of Corangamite—and, very proudly, there are about 11,800 small businesses operating in Corangamite—it is not enough to say we need to fix the red-tape burden. Businesses need to specify, with a lot of detail, what the red-tape burden is and what we as a government need to do. We understand the problem, but what is the solution? What we are seeing is a government that addresses the problem, but also specifically looks at the solution. I should add that students who receive government payments are now able to change their details online at a time that best suits them without being required to contact a call centre or attend a service centre. That gives annual compliance savings of $2.7 million. We all know how frustrating it can be on a call centre line. Perhaps my worst frustration is dealing with the Telstra call centre. When I ran a small business it was perhaps my biggest frustration and it still drives me nuts when I have to ring Telstra. So anything that we as a government can do to streamline these processes and minimise the time that people are waiting on phone calls produces a direct benefit to those particular businesses. The coalition's goal is to make life easier for Australians, to make it easier for businesses to invest and to create more jobs. Those are our focuses: innovation, jobs growth, opportunity. In my electorate of Corangamite, we have a very strong focus on the smart jobs of the future. It was with absolute pride—and I spoke about this in the Federation Chamber this morning—that last week I helped open the Carbon Revolution factory, which is an absolute hub of innovation, assisted by the member for Sturt, the new Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Christopher Pyne. It is a great example of what our government is doing to drive jobs growth in our region through the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund. In our region, as with all other parts of Australia, we know how important it is to drive those jobs and opportunities. Fifteen million dollars of the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund, while announced by the previous government, has been delivered by our government. It has created in excess of 700 jobs. Very disappointingly, the state Labor government committed $7.5 million to that fund. Daniel Andrews and state Labor have reneged on the promise to commit that money to the fund. That is a terrible and appalling decision by state Labor. It is another terrible broken promise which has a direct impact on jobs in our region. Again, I call on Daniel Andrews and state Labor to commit and keep the promise to deliver $7.5 million into the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund. I see that the likes of the member for Corio are completely silent, not saying a word about this terrible broken promise which has a direct impact on jobs. That money is critical for our region and Daniel Andrews cannot walk away from that commitment; he cannot walk away from that promise. We are just about to announce the next round of funding under the GRIIF, as it is called, which will deliver more jobs for many businesses across our region, but, of course, another $7.5 million would make an enormous difference. Very recently, the national $14 million Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre was announced for Geelong. That will be established at Waurn Ponds, in the wonderful Deakin University industry precinct. That is going to be a game-changer for driving innovation and smart jobs in the advanced manufacturing sector, with a very strong focus on future fibres. The work that we are doing as a city on the future of carbon fibre, underpinned by Carbon Nexus and Carbon Revolution, is quite extraordinary. I should also add that, as part of our government's drive for jobs growth, opportunity and innovation, we have very strong focus on investing in infrastructure. Across the region that I proudly represent, we are rolling out the NBN to some 40,000 premises right across the Golden Plains, the Surf Coast and the Colac-Otway region—a region that was forgotten by the previous government. The big challenge is the NBN rollout in Geelong. I am advocating very hard to be new Minister for Communications, Senator Mitch Fifield, that this rollout must be expedited in Geelong. We are getting on with the business of rolling out that infrastructure. For country communities, no program better demonstrates our commitment than our mobile phone base station program to fix mobile black spots across the country. Now $160 million has been committed. There will be 10 new mobile base stations across Corangamite. That will make an enormous difference in places like Kawarren, Gellibrand and Dereel—right across the areas affected by bushfire risk. We know how important communications are with bushfire being such a high risk throughout the Otway region and many other parts along the Surf Coast and throughout Victoria. We are very proudly duplicating the Princes Highway between Waurn Ponds and Colac. We are upgrading the Great Ocean Road in partnership with the Victorian government. There is a $50 million commitment, with $25 million committed by our government and $25 million committed by the previous Liberal government. This is the road that federal Labor forgot. This is the road that they campaigned against. They saw no value in investing in the Great Ocean Road. That is federal Labor for you. But this project is vital for our region. It is an iconic road—the centrepiece of more than $2 million of economic activity in our region, and we are very proud about what that is doing in Lorne and Anglesea and down at Separation Creek and Wye River. I am also proud to have launched a local campaign to duplicate the rail track between the South Geelong and Waurn Ponds stations. This is a very important project for our region. We have seen the regional rail link, and about $1.5 billion towards the regional rail link was actually delivered by our government—of course, it was started by the previous Labor government. But there are big problems with the regional rail link. The new timetables have forgotten country communities, particularly Colac. The new timetable no longer allows people living in Colac to get to work on time, if they are working in Melbourne, and it is even a struggle if they are working in Geelong. So we have seen the new Polwarth candidate, Richard Riordan, commit to six additional services coming to and from Colac—six extra services per week, which is fantastic. Labor cares so much about this issue that they have not even run a candidate in Polwarth. They have completely forgotten the Polwarth electorate and the Colac Otway region. It is terrific to see that Richard Riordan, the Polwarth candidate, has tackled this issue head on, and, under the leadership of Matthew Guy, the opposition leader, has addressed what is a critical issue. I was very proud to take Warren Truss, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, to see this very important project. It will mean a very big difference for people commuting from Marshall and from Waurn Ponds, and right along the railway to Colac. The single line really inhibits the number of passenger train services that can operate each day. Before 8 o'clock there are some 13 services from Geelong, but from Waurn Ponds and Marshall there are about half that number. Not only are we delivering this important infrastructure to help drive jobs growth and to help small businesses, but we are also fighting for new infrastructure. That is very important. The other critical jobs growth opportunity, not just for your region but for Australia is our free trade agreements with China, South Korea and Japan, particularly for farmers and for agriculture. I have to say that it is with great disappointment that we are seeing a reckless and irresponsible campaign against the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. If this agreement is not ratified and the enabling legislation is not passed quickly in this parliament, agriculture will miss out on two rounds of tariff cuts and $300 million in revenue to the agriculture sector. This is an incredibly important initiative and economic reform for Corangamite, for farmers, for agriculture and for the whole of Australia. It is my great pleasure to speak on the omnibus bill. It is my great pleasure to support the government in its very strong efforts and achievements in cutting the regulatory burden on small business. It is my great pleasure, as the member for Corangamite, to continue my fight for jobs, for infrastructure investment and for the environment. 12:48 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan Obviously the member for Corangamite is passionate about her commuters and passionate about her farmers and the opportunities for their future. I know you have a few dairy farmers down there, as I do, and you are passionate about their opportunities under the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. But I suppose the commuters are the ones who will benefit greatly from this bill and the bills associated with it. It is very pleasing to see that the member for Corangamite is prepared to fight for the issues that are important to her electorate. So it is a pleasure to follow the member for Corangamite in speaking on the most important Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 and cognate bills. What we as a government are trying to do is make it easier to do business and create jobs in Australia. It is as simple as that. If there is less regulation rather than more regulation—although, we are a peculiar lot in Victoria because we actually like planning regulation quite a lot. We like to actually go through the process of having important red tape in place to protect what we have in the built environment and what we will have in the future in the built environment. We do not mind if it takes a little bit longer to get it done, as long as it is done well. That will be the same for the rail service towards Waurn Ponds, in the seat of Corangamite. If that can be achieved by the member for Corangamite she will have achieved a great lot in the early part of what I hope will be a long career for her. In this bill we are attempting to unshackle Australian businesses, or send a message to unshackle them, so that they can innovate and grow, as the member for Corangamite mentioned, and, most important to me, it will give them the opportunity to create more jobs for young people, which means that we are able to protect our older Australians, our very young Australians and our most vulnerable Australians. If you do not have a strong economy you cannot do any of those things. Not since the Howard government have we had that sort of economy. But this is about red tape. I want to bring to the parliament's notice a direct example of what we are up against here as far as government red tape goes, and the need to address particular issues. I just happen to have a copy of a letter sent to me by Mary Aldred, Chief Executive Officer of the Committee for Gippsland. It says: The Committee for Gippsland welcomes the Federal Government's efforts to reduce unnecessary and costly regulation and red tape. In fact today marks the Government's third Red Tape Repeal Day since October 2014. The commitment to reduce the cost of red tape by a net $1 billion each year is to be commended. While appreciating the need for necessary compliance and regulatory requirements, the duplication and inconsistent application of red tape costs businesses in your electorate. The Committee for Gippsland wishes to raise to your attention one example of unfair, and unnecessary red tape. RubberTough Industries in Warragul is an importer and exporter of rubber products and materials. This is a very innovative company. Unfairly, they are compelled to pay a fee of $125 for 'tailgate examination' when bringing goods in through the Port of Melbourne. Over multiple container loads throughout the year, this fee can run into the thousands of dollars for a business like RubberTough— which works out of Warragul— reducing competition between city and country businesses. For those who are listening, my electorate is 95 per cent geographically rural. Taking goods past Dandenong is considered to be taking them to a 'country area' by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. That was right 50 years ago; it is no longer right today because the South Gippsland Highway and the Princes Highway used to start at Dandenong, and that was considered Gippsland. Of course, it is not now. You are out at Pakenham before you see West Gippsland now. The fee imposed is supposed to cover an AQUIS inspection, intended to prevent any pests being brought in to country areas where biosecurity protection of agricultural land is important. A copy of an invoice imposing this fee is attached. The letter goes on: In effect, this creates a two-tied system where importers gain an unfair advantage if they are not in a designated country area, against those who are. Furthermore, importers in country areas can in theory pay around $600 to put their products on a flat bed truck at Dandenong, and then truck them to a country area, without paying the tailgate fee, and therefore voiding any intended biosecurity protections. In addition, many businesses like RubberTough are based in industrial zones, and their transport doesn't drive past any farms. This measure also doesn't take into account that containers should be properly inspected when docked at port, regardless of their destination after that. This compliance fee is unfair, and discriminates against businesses in country areas. In reality, it doesn't provide any better biosecurity protections, and is costing businesses for no gain. We urge the Federal Government to actively consider removing this costly and unnecessary example of excessive red tape. Yours sincerely Mary Aldred Chief Executive Officer I raise this letter with you because it has a direct effect on doing business in my electorate for a very innovative company, RubberTough, who have done amazing things and have amazing creations, with amazing opportunities for local sales and export sales. As a government and as a nation, we need to be supporting those innovative businesses that are doing wonderful work right across their part of the world and in the industries that they have made so important. I commend this bill to the parliament. It is about cutting red tape, smaller government, saving businesses money and budget savings. We as a government are continuing to repeal outdated and unnecessary legislation and policies, which will mean that time and effort spent by businesses will be far better generated, meaning the jobs, opportunities and profits, of course, that go to making this country great. I thank the House. 12:55 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley From another vantage point, I am thrilled to be able to make a contribution to the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 and support the government's ongoing work in this crucial area of right-sizing the regulatory and compliance impost that government inflicts on our community, whether it be businesses big and small, individual citizens or, as the member for McMillan pointed out, enterprises right across this country just wanting to do the right thing and take advantage of the opportunities that are available in this modern world. The motive is pretty clear: we want to make it easier for people to meet their requirements by making sure the government thinks harder and more thoughtfully about the impositions that it inflicts on citizens and on businesses. There is good reason for that. You have heard colleagues talk about the compliance cost in the economy—$65 billion in annual costs to meet the Commonwealth's regulatory compliance burden, let alone that imposed by other levels of government and some that industry even inflicts. We did a lot of work in the agricultural industry trying to make it easy for primary producers to meet requirements and found that, in many cases, it was actually industry itself creating compliance burdens. So we have to be alert that these burdens aggregate across all of the demands placed on men and women in going about their private business but also on small businesses and larger businesses. They act as a drag on what people want to achieve and have as their goals for their lives. That is why the government is about getting its act in order, so that it can support and not needlessly make it more difficult for individuals and businesses to achieve their ambitions for the future. This is another instalment—this is not a single event; this is another instalment in an ongoing conviction that we have to get that compliance and regulatory burden right. There are reasons for that. The World Economic Forum analysed the compliance cost to our economy and compared us to other nations that are also trying to win new market opportunities, for instance, made possible through the North Asian free trade agreements. When the Howard government left office, we were 68th in the world, according to the World Economic Forum. That was mid-table—not that flash; not too shabby; mid-table. Since that time and prior to the election of the coalition government, from 68th in the world we became 128th at the time that Labor was voted out and a new coalition government was elected. That means there are 127 economies less gummed up than ours, as we go out to contest and try to win markets in the international environment, and also as domestic businesses try to meet those challenges of others wanting to be a part of our economy. So the motive is clear: we need to be more agile and more innovative. I have talked about that for years and years. This is one way of getting rid of the entanglement that is excessive compliance costs and regulatory burden. This bill does that in a number of key areas, as colleagues have talked about, including tidying up institutional structures and organisational arrangements in the Landcare space and getting rid of redundant legislative provisions in the environment sector. This is not about getting rid of regulation just for the heck of it. No; it is about getting rid of what serves no good purpose, has no place and adds nothing to the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth. We see that right across the range of measures that are in this bill. It recognises that the farming community needs support, not greater burden—not lead in the saddlebag as it tries to compete and win those export markets. It is also about making sure that people know what is required of them. Clarity around those regulatory impositions can very much help in meeting them as seamlessly and as effortlessly as possible. Here we also have some measures looking at how new technology can be better embraced, with the Digital Transformation Office and its work in making sure that new technology can be a part of people's day-to-day interactions with government and that we get our act in order to facilitate that ease of communication. It was an area that I focused on particularly in my time as the Minister for Small Business, because time-poor small businesses spend most of their weekends meeting compliance burdens if they are not chasing markets or reflecting on what else they can do to support the success of their enterprise. Small businesses spend too much time on paperwork. We made some good progress, and there are further steps in this package that support that ongoing effort. A particular area we need to focus on is around tax regulation. You talk to small businesses and you share with them, as I did when we owned our small business, the joy of filling out a BAS return. At the time that system was introduced, we had a BAS return with many more fields that needed be completed than the essential ingredients to establish what needed to be advised to the tax office in order to establish tax liabilities. We think there is scope. I am sure the government thinks there is scope. Certainly, I thought there was scope as the small business minister at the time to try and streamline those arrangements. It is interesting when you look across the ditch over at New Zealand. They have about five key fields in order for New Zealand businesses to meet their goods and services tax requirement. We have many more than that, and that adds to the cost and compliance complexity of meeting those obligations. There is scope, I think to reduce the number of fields that are reported as part of the BAS down to about five key fields—the essential fields. There are fields in there that we ask people to complete—whether things are export and whether they are broadly exempt or partially exempt. These all add great cost and complexity to a small business. I once met with an exercise therapist—I think that was the term—who helped people in a rehabilitation mode. He explained to me that who was paying for his service had an enormous impact on what the tax burden was, and at the end of the month he hoped he got it right. That was interesting to hear a highly skilled, knowledgeable professional in the service economy talking about how one of the greatest challenges he faced was knowing whether he was doing the right thing or not. What was pointed to by MYOB in a roundtable that I participated in, and reinforced in their submission to the tax white paper process, is that we can do better than reduce the number of fields that are there. When we probe more deeply to find out why the BAS has so many more fields in our economy than in other comparable economies, often the argument that you get is that those extra data fields are actually being harvested to help with compliance and cross-matching so that there is certain material that is available and is sought at the time the BAS is returned, and then you can use that data in other ways just to make sure that there is no noncompliance in other aspects of tax reporting. That is an understandable objective, but the cost of that is very substantial, and I think it is justified for us to call for a benefit-cost analysis as part of the tax white paper process. What risk to revenue is the additional compliance cost of all these extra fields negating? Is it actually a cost-benefit analysis conclusion that we should maintain an ongoing requirement for all these businesses to keep providing all this extra data in extra fields on the off-chance that it might illuminate some bleeding of revenue somewhere else in the system? I think that cost-benefit analysis would probably find that the known cost of the additional burden imposed by these additional fields is in the billions of dollars—and I will not quote MYOB's estimates, but it is very substantial—yet we are not quite sure that that is the amount of revenue we are actually capturing that would otherwise escape the tax system. With digitisation—as I mentioned earlier, the Digital Transformation Office—and what is happening with prepopulated software packages, whether it be MYOB's own products or Xero's product, these are all examples where we are getting prepopulated reports coming into the tax office that can be quite readily verified. In fact, it represents a new order of seamless compliance that we should be embracing as part of our effort to reduce the compliance cost and regulatory burden. So these days are very important. It is the government making it clear that this is a conviction running through the veins of the coalition: that to get regulatory impositions right you have to be absolutely convinced that it is the best public policy response to whatever the known problem is that you are seeking to address, that you have canvassed other options, that it is proportionate, and above all that it is right-sized. One of the great concerns I have—and I will continue to focus my energy on it—is just how easy it is for government to consult with big business, big unions and big interest groups, because they are organised and they easy to contact, yet in the area of tax compliance, for instance, there are more than two million respondents to the architecture that is set up, and they are small businesses and their voice needs to be heard. It is not much good coming up with interventions and regulatory requirements in compliance systems that have been workshopped with big businesses with two dozen people in the compliance department but that are absolutely overwhelming for a small business or self-employed or independent contractor, who may find it difficult to navigate what is required of them. So we need to make sure right-sizing is a part of that work. We have done some good work, and there is more work to be done, even in tax regulation. We are able to relieve around 447,000 small businesses who could benefit from changes to entry thresholds for PAYG instalments, reducing the compliance cost in that one area by $67 million a year. Forty-five thousand small businesses that have no GST reporting requirements are now no longer required to lodge business activity statements where they are not engaged in business activity and the lodgements have been made only to report PAYG instalments. Here again, thinking through what is actually going on in the economy, we can right-size the regulatory intervention that is expected of people, even in important reforms like the Franchising Code reform. Even that measure, designed to improve the effectiveness and give new tools and teeth to that important area of the economy, had a deregulatory disposition and some savings as well. The area of single-touch payroll is another area of great opportunity that we need to pursue as a nation. I mentioned earlier that Xero and MYOB have functionality—and others do; I am not doing an ad for those two in particular—where you can record transactions and it will prepopulate your P&L and your balance sheet. It is a simple next step to say that while you are doing that as an in-built feature of your software—software that can now be serviced from the cloud, so rather than spend all the money buying the software and the implementation manuals you can essentially rent it now and expense that—that measure should be able to find its way easily over to BAS reporting requirements. That is not everyone's cup of tea. For some people who might have a limited number of transactions, it might not be of great virtue. But, for those that are looking to meet their tax requirements in a seamless way and know that that is something that they can do without great effort, that is something we should be working toward. Here is an idea: if the tax office has no concerns about a BAS that has been returned or a business's reporting arrangements, why don't we tell them? There is a novel idea! We know we have these algorithms that identify reports that are outside the norm or what is expected, and they are the ones that attract greater eyeball attention from the tax office. But if you are in the zone—if those algorithms say, 'Yep, that return looks about right'—then why not tell the business that, so they can worry about other things and focus their energies elsewhere, and not lie awake at night wondering, 'Am I going to get audited?' 'No, no; here is a receipt saying: "Thank you for your contribution to our economy. We value and welcome your enterprise. And isn't the small business tax package we have introduced spectacularly fantastic? You might want to get a piece of that as well. But, by the way, you are up to date and sweet with your reporting requirements, so go and think about something else; don't worry about that."' These are things that we can do. That is about getting our institutional arrangements right by providing timely, service-orientated information to those people responding to these compliance burdens, and those compliance burdens being thought through carefully to make sure that they are justified, they are the most sensible public-policy intervention, they are right-sized and they do not overreach just because you have got someone's attention. So I commend these bills to the House, but I urge the whole parliament to realise: this is a journey we have to stay on. Extra compliance costs and regulatory burdens impede our ability as a nation to achieve our full potential. It stands in the road of businesses and individuals achieving their full ambition and all of us being our best selves. Regulation is needed at times. But make the case, and, if it is targeting smaller businesses, make sure it is right-sized, so that any small business, in the ordinary course of their business, can meet those requirements and not need 12 people in a compliance department. So let us stay focused on this, tidy up the BAS, get rid of the excess fields, meet the challenge—if other jurisdictions are able to do it, why can't we?—and, if there is a need for extra fields where it is not immediately obvious why they need to be there, do a benefit-cost analysis. That will mean an awful lot to the two million small businesses who are the engine room of the economy, who run through the veins of this side of the parliament, and who, I might say, I was extraordinarily honoured to represent and advocate for with great vigour over many years. 13:09 Dr HENDY 00BCM Eden-Monaro It is with great pleasure that I take the opportunity today to sum up on the Repeal Day bills: the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015, the Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015, and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015. This is my inaugural speech as the Assistant Minister for Productivity, and it is a fitting topic for someone interested in boosting productivity and reducing unnecessary regulatory burden. In total, these three bills repeal 890 Commonwealth acts, ensuring regulation is more easily accessible and only remains in force for as long as necessary. Making regulation easily accessible and removing old and unnecessary provisions means that businesses, individuals and community organisations spend less time trawling through regulations and more time contributing to the economy and society. The omnibus bill includes a range of measures to reduce regulatory burden for business, families and individuals and the community sector. Through amendments made by this bill, compensation recipients will no longer need to go through the effort and frustration of completing a separate statutory declaration to support their claim for benefits under the Commonwealth programs linked to Medicare, nursing homes, residential care and home care services. Instead, I understand that around 50,000 recipients will use the existing forms to make the necessary declaration that the information provided is true and correct. By making small improvements, that means that individuals only have to tell us once and thus the government can make the process simpler for compensation recipients and payers as well as the government. I understand the regulations savings from this measure will be $41.4 million. Amendments in this bill also facilitate greater public access to aggregated information that does not disclose information about a particular person. These amendments will promote greater access to deidentified data which could ultimately support better policy analysis, innovation and more effective policy design. The changes proposed by the bill are not controversial. As well as making specific changes to reduce regulatory burden, the bill repeals redundant and spent acts and provisions in Commonwealth acts. For example, the Meat Export Charge Act 1984 and the Meat Export Charge Collection Act 1984 have been replaced by the 2011 Export Certification Reform Package, and the fees are now recovered through other legislation. Those who are affected by Commonwealth rules and regulations do not need to spend time wading through redundant regulation. The Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015 continues the government's efforts to streamline the statute book by removing over 850 amending or repealing acts enacted between 1980 and 1989. This adds to the two previous amending acts repeal bills the government introduced over previous repeal days, which together repealed over 1,700 amending acts made between 1901 and 1979. The bill repeals acts no longer required as the amendments and repeals that they provide for have already occurred. Repealing these acts will make accessing the law simpler and faster for businesses and individuals. The Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015 continues the work of repealing spent or redundant legislation and correcting minor errors in the Commonwealth statute book. By removing obsolete provisions and correcting outdated terminology, the bill makes improvements to the acts it amends without making substantive changes to the law. Through improving the accuracy and usability of Commonwealth legislation, this bill reduces the burden of regulatory compliance on individuals and businesses that access and rely on Commonwealth rules and regulations. The three bills include significant changes, but they are just a part of a broad range of initiatives that we outlined in the Autumn Repeal Day. A few examples of these other measures include: first, making identity checks even easier for retailers and consumers when purchasing a new prepaid mobile phone, including the ability for retailers to visually check identification documents; and, second, for individuals, enhancing myGov services so that customers can now update their details in one place using the myGov 'Tell us once' service, and link Australian JobSearch online accounts to their myGov account to obtain secure and convenient access to online services with a single account and one set of credentials. Third, it will allow students receiving payments to advise of multiple changes to their details in one online transaction, without needing to contact a call centre or attend a service centre. Fourth, it removes the requirement for heavy vehicle operators of B-double truck combinations registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme to fit additional spray suppression devices, which provide no additional safety benefits. Fifth, as part of the government's industry, innovation and competitiveness agenda, we adopted a new principle that Australian regulators should not impose additional requirements beyond those that already applied under trusted international regulations unless it can be demonstrated that there is a good reason to do so. As part of these changes Australian manufacturers of medical devices will be able to choose to have a conformity assessment conducted by either the Therapeutic Goods Administration or an alternative conformity assessment body, such as a European notified body. In total, this government has identified $476 million in simple red tape reductions at the autumn 2015 repeal day, which means that the reduction in cost for businesses and individuals in complying with Commonwealth regulations that we have announced totals $2.45 billion since September 2013. This achievement has been accompanied by the institution of significant transformation across government since 2013. Commonwealth government regulatory gatekeeping, including the application of regulation impact statements to assess the costs and benefits of policy options, has been strengthened. Regulators are also required under the Regulator Performance Framework to look at how they administer regulation and minimise the cost that this imposes on regulated entities. The government's efforts are being recognised. In the World Economic Forum's Global competitiveness report, Australia climbed 44 places in its ranking of the burden of Commonwealth regulation across countries, from 124th in 2014 to 80th in 2015. So far so good, but there is still much work to be done, and we are focused on nurturing innovation and growth and on creating jobs. As the Assistant Minister for Productivity I look forward to continuing to foster this important cultural change. These repeal day bills, along with the key regulatory reforms that the government is introducing, reduce costs on businesses and remove regulatory impediments to competition and innovation. Through a comprehensive regulatory reform agenda we can continue to free businesses, improve productivity and transition to a stronger economy. I commend the bills to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 35 13:17 Dr HENDY 00BCM Eden-Monaro by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015 35

Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015

Second Reading 35 Third Reading 36 13:18 Dr HENDY 00BCM Eden-Monaro by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015 36

Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015

Second Reading 36 Third Reading 36 13:19 Dr HENDY 00BCM Eden-Monaro by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Australian Immunisation Register Bill 2015, Australian Immunisation Register (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2015 36

Australian Immunisation Register Bill 2015

Australian Immunisation Register (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2015

Cognate debate.

Debate resumed on the motion:

That this bill be now read a second time.

13:19 Ms KING 00AMR Ballarat I rise to speak on the Australian Immunisation Register Bill 2015 and the Australian Immunisation Register (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2015. In doing so, I want to indicate at the outset that Labor strongly supports these bills and in particular their purpose, which is to give us for the first time a truly comprehensive national vaccination register. These bills do this by establishing a new consolidated legislative framework to manage and expand the two existing immunisation registers, the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register and the National Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Program Register. It broadens their scope to capture all vaccinations given from birth to death through general practices and community clinics. Importantly, the expansion of the childhood immunisation register to collect and record vaccinations given to young individuals under the age of 20 will ensure the collection of the data necessary to implement a further government measure, the No Jab, No Pay measure, introduced in separate legislation. Labor is committed to strengthening immunisation rates so that all Australian children have the best chance to grow up strong and healthy. In government we made important changes to family payments to lift immunisation rates, including linking the family tax benefit end-of-year supplement to immunisation. Ahead of the 2013 election, Labor committed to further tightening immunisation requirements to remove the conscientious objection loophole within the family payment system, and we welcome the government's support for Labor's approach. We know parents lead busy and complicated lives these days, and in many cases missed vaccinations are due to oversight rather than to a specific objection. The establishment of the national immunisation register of school-based vaccinations will assist all parents to keep their children's immunisations up-to-date. While the bill is not about the No Jab, No Pay legislation, it does provide for data sharing regarding immunisation status that will enable the policy to come into effect. Labor believes that it is a very important measure. It is important that we send a very clear signal that we believe that it is important to vaccinate children. No more important can that be than when you hear some of the cases around the re-emergence of diseases we thought had long since gone from many of our communities. In particular, this legislation focuses on a lifelong immunisation register. One of the issues that is very significant is that many diseases, whooping cough in particular, are often contracted by adults from children who are not able to be immunised, because the vaccination does not last into adulthood. Having a register of people and knowing their vaccination status is an important way to ensure that people can remain vaccinated. Earlier this year I was privileged to meet with Toni and David McCaffery, who lost their daughter, Dana, to whooping cough in 2009, and Catherine and Greg Hughes, whose son, Riley, also succumbed to whooping cough in Perth earlier this year. They were two very precious young children, too young to be vaccinated, who died from an easily preventable disease that has no reason to exist in this country or, in fact, even in this century. One of their very clear wishes out of that meeting was that there be a capacity to have an adult immunisation register. This bill, to some extent, goes towards that. As Catherine Hughes declared after the death of Riley, 'We intend on utilising his tragic passing as a means of promoting awareness, honouring our child and hopefully bringing about means of change so that no other family has to undergo the significant anguish our family is currently experiencing at the hands of whooping cough.' I am hoping that long into the future this legislation will enable the capacity for a more comprehensive immunisation register for everybody from birth to older age. That certainly will help with these circumstances. The changes being made by this legislation are not only about ensuring children are up-to-date with their shots. It is also about ensuring adults have information they need to ensure the protection they receive as children continues long after their schooling ceases. Diseases like tetanus, diphtheria and, of course, whooping cough are not confined to children. Adults who travel or come into contact with others who do not keep their immunisations up-to-date are just as much at risk as those who have refused to be vaccinated. In baby Riley's home state, the Western Australian health department's notifiable disease report included 1,748 cases of whooping cough in 2014, up from 1,643 the year before. This highlights that immunisations against whooping cough are just as important for adults as they are for children because immunity to the bacterial infection fades after four or five years. But how do many of us keep track if we move house, if we change doctors, if we do not receive regular reminders of the need to keep our vaccinations up-to-date? And it is not just whooping cough, of course. Medical experts recommend that tetanus and diphtheria also be updated every 10 years. Then there are the ever-increasing number of vaccines now recommended for adolescents and adults in Australia, such as influenza, pneumococcal, whooping cough for pregnant mothers, shingles for older Australians and HPV for adolescents and young adults. Against this background, clinicians and public health workers have long advocated the need for much better information on the vaccination status of any Australians, and this bill, therefore, makes two very big changes. The existing Australian Childhood Immunisation Register was established in 1996. It provides accurate data on the immunisation status of all registered children under the age of seven. From 1 January 2016, the register will expand to collect and record vaccinations given to young adults under the age of 20. Then, from September 2016, it will be expanded further to become the national immunisation register, covering all vaccinations given from birth to death through general practice and community clinics. This will accommodate the addition of Zostavax shingles vaccine to the National Immunisation Program for persons aged 70. If unexpected disease outbreaks occur, as there have been recently for whooping cough, with tragic consequences for newborns, or in the event of measles returning to Australia, as has occurred in the US, immunisation registers will be able to help us determine whether they are due to low vaccination coverage and enable better targeted responses. The bill also replaces the HPV register with the Australian school vaccination register. Whereas the HPV register, as its name suggests, only captures administration of the HPV vaccine, the School Vaccination Register will record other adolescent vaccinations administered through the school. Programs include chickenpox and the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis whooping cough booster. Finally, the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953, which provide the foundation for how the two national immunisation registers are operated, will be consolidated into a single piece of legislation to provide for the ongoing management and data capture of both registers. Labor will work to ensure these changes are implemented in a way that not only increases immunisation rates across the entire community but also targets vulnerable children and does not lead to these children being excluded from early education and care as a result of their parents' decisions. We must also ensure that this is not the be-all and end-all of the work we do to educate and inform the public about the benefits of immunisation. Before they were abolished, Medicare Locals were doing good work to increase immunisation rates in local communities, and I urge the government to ensure that this continues through the Primary Health Networks. The leader of the opposition wrote to the former Prime Minister urging reform in this important area and offering bipartisan support to increase immunisation rates across Australia. As I stated at the outset, Labor warmly welcomes these bills. It is not often in this place that we come together in near-unanimous agreement, and to do something so simple and straightforward and to achieve such immediate impact is a very good idea. But there is strong evidence, even before this legislation takes effect, that it is already working and will lead to great public good: more widespread and comprehensive immunisation for the Australia population. We are delighted at the opportunity to be able to vote in this place for all-too-rare moves to actually improve health outcomes in Australia from a government who has spent the last two years not doing much to improve them. We went to the last election promising to implement measures such as this in legislation such as the No Jab, No Pay legislation. We will welcome the debate on that legislation when it comes, but I certainly commend these bills to the House. The SPEAKER 10000 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 38 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Defence Procurement 38 13:29 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin As the submarine contract debacle continues, we now have all three contenders—and that includes Japan—saying that they can build the submarines in Australia. The coalition's rhetoric for the last two years that it would be too expensive and that Australia did not have the capability to build the submarines here has been totally discredited and exposed as politically driven spin. Not only has the coalition wasted the best part of two years through this farce; it has cost a former defence minister his job and was critical to Prime Minister Abbott losing his. We also had the member for Boothby's unexpected retirement. Given that in South Australia his seat and those of all federal Liberals were at risk, people will draw their own conclusions about how the submarine issue has been playing out in South Australia. The fact remains that, two years later, we still do not have a contract, we still do not know when the work will commence, we still do not know how much of each submarine will be built in Australia and we still do not know how many submarines will be built. Prior to the last federal election, South Australians were promised 12 submarines, and that is what they expect. Importantly, it is in Australia's national security interest to build 12 submarines and to build them in Australia. Australians do not want the issue dragged out further. They do not want more spin. They just want the government to get on with it, do the right thing and honour their election promise. Bass Electorate: Australian Honey Products 38 13:31 Mr NIKOLIC 137174 Bass Earlier this year the Launceston based company Australian Honey Products was awarded a federal innovation and investment grant. Launceston couple Lindsay and Yeonsoon Bourke, who own and operate this business, are adding a new honey extraction and packaging plant to their operations. They will also be training beekeepers to certificate Ill level, creating 15 much-needed jobs in northern Tasmania. This business is based on what Mr Bourke proudly declares is the best honey-producing region in our nation, and he has been proven right time and again. A recent accolade was being judged 'champion honey' at the Royal Melbourne Fine Food Awards. Lindsay was also named the 2015 Tasmanian Small Business Exporter of the Year and the 2015 Biosecurity Farmer of the Year at the national Farmer of the Year titles. And now Lindsay stands on top of the honey world, having just won the overall trophy for best honey at the International Apicultural Congress in South Korea. His leatherwood honey won the gold medal in its category and then went on to win the overall title of 'best honey in the world'. In fact, master beekeeper Lindsay and his wife, Yeonsoon, won all of Australia's five gold medals at the congress—not just with honey but with value-added products like honey mead and honey ales. Congratulations to Lindsay and Yeonsoon for their dedication, hard work and tireless commitment to world's best Tasmanian produce. Australian Century Farm and Station Awards 38 13:32 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi I add my words of congratulations to Tasmanian honey growers, but I have to say that north-east Victoria outcompetes every single time. It gives me great pleasure today to welcome to parliament men and women of six Australian families who hold a unique place in our history. They have been recognised today by the Australian Century Farm and Station Awards program. To the Foley family from Cullerin in New South Wales, to the Sheridan family from Collector in New South Wales, to the Warwick family from Cradock in South Australia, to the Evans family from Cobar in New South Wales, to the Reardon family from Collector in New South Wales and, most importantly, to the Glass family from Redlands, Allans Flat, Victoria: it is fantastic to acknowledge you and your families and your contribution to our community. These awards have been initiated by the Collector and District Historical Association and coordinated by Kelly Aitken. The history, the photography and the memorabilia are now gifted to the prestigious Noel Butlin Archives at the ANU. I call on all my colleagues here in parliament to encourage families, particularly those who have a history of over 100 years on their properties, to register with the Australian Century Farm and Station Awards for the 2016 program. In closing, I congratulate those of our Australian families who, together with their communities, have been working for 100 years plus to make this the wonderful country what it is. Deicke, Mrs Eileen 39 13:34 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson It is with great sadness that I report to the parliament the passing of a valued constituent in Dawson. Eileen Deicke was 80 years of age when she passed away on 28 September. It was a sad blow for her family and friends and a great loss to the Whitsundays community. Eileen first came to the Whitsundays literally by accident. She was born in England but, when working as a young nurse in Brisbane, she tended to a patient by the name of Bill Deicke, who was in hospital as a result of a horse-riding accident in the Whitsundays, where he ran cattle. After a period of correspondence, Bill convinced Eileen to come to the Whitsundays, and they were married in 1955. She later complained that she thought she was marrying a glazier, not a grazier, because glazing was an esteemed profession back in the UK. For the next 60 years Eileen became a stalwart of the local community. She was active in local business and community affairs and in fundraising through organisations such as ESA, Meals on Wheels, the Anglican Church's mother's group and the RSL Girl in a Million Quest. Eileen was a very strong supporter of the Country Party, later the National Party and now in Queensland the Liberal-National Party. It is the character of local people that makes the challenge of living in regional areas both possible and pleasurable. We need stalwarts who roll up their sleeves in the face of adversity and make the community a better place to live for their neighbours and for the next generation. For Eileen's contribution to the local community, we remain eternally grateful. Rankin Electorate: Logan City Special School 39 13:35 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Mr Speaker, as you know, we are approaching that time of year when senior students graduate from our local high schools. Honourable members will agree that these are proud and happy occasions. I try to get to as many as I can, but sometimes responsibilities in this chamber prevent that from happening. Unfortunately this year that will be the case for one of my favourite schools—the Logan City Special School. I told them I could not be there but that I would give them a big wrap here in the people's house of the Australian parliament. There is Rheece Clenton, a school captain who is really into building and drawing. Nathan Travers, another captain, is really enthusiastic about work experience and is a nature lover. Everybody likes Bailey Machado, who is right into TV dramas but balances that with a great work ethic. Sean Hope, sports captain, is a very energetic and charismatic young man who loves to dance and sing, and he is a bit of a revhead in that he likes his V8s as well. Jeremy Willis, wellness captain, is in charge of making people in class laugh and feel good about themselves. It is really great to see that Michael Peyton likes his library time and selecting his own books. Sam Jones is into technology and loves the iPad. Jesse Cook is right into Lego but also cooking, especially the taste test at the end. To all of these students: we are so proud of you. Congratulations on graduating this year, and make sure you thank Jesse Best and all the other great teachers at Logan City Special School, as well as your parents and carers, for all they have done to help you along the way. Domestic Violence 39 13:37 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt Yesterday, more than 300 people turned out for the Safer Families, Better Communities walk on the Cairns Esplanade. It was a very public statement that Cairns has zero tolerance for domestic and family violence. I commend the tireless efforts of Amanda Lee-Ross, head of the Cairns Regional Domestic Violence Service, who is doing fantastic work in our region. As Amanda said, we must work together as a community to be effective on this issue. It is about reporting violence when we know it is happening—not just waiting for the victim to do it. We also need to make sure that front-line services are properly resourced so that they can deal with the influx of people needing assistance. Amanda said that in the last 12 months they have had a 13 per cent jump in people coming to their office and a 26 per cent jump in referrals from police. Worryingly, today's Cairns Post reports that every bed for victims of domestic violence was full, in Cairns, on Friday night. I am very pleased with the government's $100 million support package, although I recognise it will take a little time for the benefits to flow through to front-line services. Every woman and child in Australia has the right to feel safe and to live without fear, and I congratulate the Cairns community for taking a stand. It is important that when we make statements in relation to family and domestic violence they are on zero tolerance. It is an absolute plague on our community. Domestic Violence 40 13:39 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I echo the sentiments of the speaker who preceded me because I too rise to speak about domestic violence. I welcome the government's announcement of $15 million in funding for the delivery of targeted legal-assistance services to help women experiencing domestic violence. We all know this is much needed. I was, however, disappointed that the Western Community Legal Service, which serves my community of Lalor, was not included in the funding round. WCLC has recently partnered with the Werribee Mercy Hospital to establish a family-violence service as part of the antenatal clinic. This service is due to start prior to December, this year, initially with a one-day-per-week commitment and an on-call service for urgent cases. The service was hoping to operate three days per week, but financial constraints are limiting the level of service. It would have been an ideal service for attracting some of this funding from the government. The WCLC is also concerned about funding more generally, when the current funding commitments end in 2017, adding to those funding pressures. I ask what criteria were used to determine where this funding would go and which hospitals and legal centres would be involved in that? I ask for support from the government that Lalor and the western suburbs of Melbourne be supported, that more funds be found to support this fabulous service that has been independently established; let us see it lengthened and strengthened in my community. National Rugby League: 2015 Grand Final 40 13:40 Ms GAMBARO 9K6 Brisbane I rise to congratulate the North Queensland Cowboys on their first-ever win in the NRL grand final on 4 October. Deputy Speaker Vasta, you might notice that I stand here adorned in a North Queensland Cowboys' scarf as a result of a good natured challenge between me and my parliamentary colleague and ferocious Cowboys supporter Ewen Jones, the member for Herbert. Indeed, such was the quality of the game that the two teams could only be separated by one point at full time. It then took one of the greatest players ever—four-time Dally M winner and Clive Churchill medallist Johnathan Thurston—to break the deadlock with a field goal in extra time. This grand final is special in many other ways. One is that it was the first time both teams were captained by an Indigenous person. As the member for Herbert will attest, the Cowboys win was not just a win for the team but was a win for the entire North Queensland region. And what a win it was! I also want to congratulate my home team, the Broncos. They were gallant in defeat. To coach Wayne Bennett, captain Justin Hodges and all the players: well done on a fantastic effort! You did us proud. Finally, I want to mention Broncos CEO Paul White. Paul is a fighter. It was wonderful to see Paul, his wife Ange and his four daughters at the annual Broncos ball last Friday night. Even with his health challenges, the Broncos remain top of Paul's mind. I congratulate the Cowboys, but here's to a Broncos win in 2016! Throsby Electorate: BlueScope Steel 40 13:42 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby It takes a lot of guts to stand up at the front of a room and deliver some hard news, particularly if that hard news means that over 500 blokes in that room will lose their jobs. I pay tribute, today, to the work carried out over the last month by the AWU south-coast branch, the AMWU, the ETU and all of the unions that represent workers at BlueScope's Port Kembla steelworks. They landed a deal, last week, that put in place a pay freeze for over two years. It means that 500 of the 5,000 workers at that plant will not have jobs by the end of the year. I call on members opposite to interrupt their often vitriolic anti-union diatribe against unions to pay some respect to the hard work done by people like Wayne Phillips and Brad Hattenfels, who put the interest of the region, the longer-term interest of the workforce, against their own interests by standing up and delivering a hard message. They have secured a future, in the short term, for the steelworks. More work needs to be done. We are calling on the New South Wales Premier, Mike Baird, to come to the party. Payroll tax concessions are needed. We are also calling on the federal government to put in place the work that needs to be done, through the Anti-Dumping Commission and labour-market programs, to help those losing their job find their way back into another one. Petrie Electorate: Mental Health 40 13:43 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie Last week was Mental Health Week. It was great to see people all around Australia acknowledging their role in looking after their own mental health and wellbeing as well as reaching out to friends and family. There is no doubt that raising awareness is only half the battle. We need positive outcomes as well. I would like to thank the groups and people of the Petrie electorate who are doing great work, locally. They include the men from the Men's Sheds on Ridley Road, Bridgeman Downs, and Clontarf; the staff and volunteers at Headspace in Redcliffe; and the Sandgate and Bracken Ridge Action Group, SandBAG, who are doing wonderful work in the Brisbane City Council part of the Petrie electorate. Thank you to the staff and volunteers at Encircle, a local organisation that is helping to strengthen individuals and families so that they can take informed control of their lives, and also to the Breakfast Club volunteers who meet at the CWA hall in Redcliffe and provide food and support to the homeless. Thank you all these groups for the work that you do, and the many more that provide help and make a real difference to the lives of people who are suffering from mental illness. Mental illness can affect anyone of any age, and I want those people to know that I and the government support them and that we want to acknowledge them for Mental Health Week. Maroubra Saints AFL Club 41 13:45 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I wish to congratulate the mighty Maroubra Saints AFL girls under-18 team, who won their first premiership in September this year. Guided by co-captains Erin Keogh and Greta Stonier and coached by Bronwyn Gulden, the girls won a thumping 38 to 1 victory over Drummoyne, taking out the club's first-ever female premiership. The Maroubra Saints AFL club is a remarkable against-the-odds success story. Established in 2000 in the heart of NRL territory, the club has grown from 15 players and one team in its first year to now 26 teams with 420 players across the age groups of five to 17. Not only has the membership of the club grown exponentially but also the trophy case is now brimming, with the under-18 girls making it six premierships across multiple age groups. This year the under-12s team also won the premiership, and five of the teams made the finals. Individual players have gone on to great things. One of the girls has been selected for the Australian team and two of the boys have been drafted to the Sydney Swans. But it is not all about winning. This is a great community club, and they emphasise enjoyment and the growth of the kids. I am honoured to have such a successful, positive AFL club in my community. I also congratulate the senior team, the Randwick City Saints, on a very successful season. It was a privilege to attend your presentation evening. May there be many more successes for the Maroubra Saints. Adult Learners' Week 41 13:47 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Griffith University's Logan Campus for their 2015 Adult Learners' Week celebrations, which I attended with the member for Rankin. Adult Learners' Week in Australia is part of the International Festival of Adult Learning, which each year is celebrated with events that encourage and promote the benefits of learning, whether it is in the home, at work or in the community. Griffith University's event was a great way to promote the fact that it is never too late to take on new learning opportunities, pursue a new career path and achieve anything your heart desires. Among the many stories I heard were those of juggling life as a mature age student when you have many responsibilities and commitments, and how it is a challenging yet rewarding experience. I would like to take this opportunity to mention one of my local residents, Pip Giles, who courageously challenged herself by doing a heartfelt presentation during the event about her university journey so far. Pip is currently completing a Bachelor of Human Services, and her story is enormously encouraging. Author John Danalis also spoke about his journey as a mature age student and about his book, Riding the Black Cockatoo. It was a story that was enriching and reminded many of us that we all create amazing life stories. Well done to Di Mahoney from Griffith University, who did a great job in putting Adult Learners' Week together. Cultural Diversity 41 13:48 Mr BURKE DYW Watson In recent days there has been a calming in a lot of the public debate from national and state leaders in terms of how we discuss the diversity of Australia. That is welcomed, it is important and it is essential. At the same time, there has been a rise in a number of fringe racist groups—groups complaining and protesting against Australians of Muslim background. These are the same people who, a few years ago, would have been complaining about people of African background, who 20 years ago would have been complaining about people of Asian background and who before that would have been complaining about people of Italian and Greek background. These are people who try to cover themselves in one-quarter of the Australian flag and who will never be heard singing the second verse of our national anthem. I say to those people who are affronted, offended and hurt by the hate speech: just as violent extremists do not represent you, racist extremists do not represent the rest of Australia. It is too short an ambition for Australia to simply say we are a tolerant nation. We do not simply tolerate diversity; we welcome diversity, we thrive on diversity, we are enriched and strengthened by diversity. We do not need more racist hate speech, and I urge those members of this place and the other place who still wish to weaken the Racial Discrimination Act at 18C to realise that the last thing this nation needs is a rise in racist hate speech. We are a nation where the world has come to live, and we are better for it. Infrastructure Funding 42 13:50 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I am pleased to inform the House that this week will mark another important milestone in a significant project on the Bruce Highway in Central Queensland. On Thursday 15 October traffic will for the first time begin using the completed sections of the $170 million Yeppen South floodplain upgrade on the outskirts of Rockhampton. The project is expected to be officially commissioned in late November and has been largely funded thanks to a $136 million federal government contribution. At a federal level, the coalition's lion's share towards the stage 2 Yeppen South project was one of my major election promises. I am pleased to say that it has been delivered well under the original estimated cost. In doing that, the federal coalition government has helped to successfully deliver a game changer to Rockhampton and to the state's economy. By redeveloping this section of the highway we have doubled the capacity of the road south of Rockhampton, reducing travel times for freight operators and other drivers. This section is now home to the longest bridge on the Bruce Highway in Queensland—a huge advantage in wet weather. The project has been constructed to remain open to traffic and the state's freight sector in a one-in-100-year flood event. Afghanistan: Kunduz Hospital Air Strikes 42 13:52 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle On 3 October, the Medecins Sans Frontieres hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan was subjected to a prolonged air attack by US forces, with horrifying casualties among staff and patients: 22 people died, including 12 MSF staff. MSF General Director Christopher Stokes said: We reiterate that the main hospital building, where medical personnel were caring for patients, was repeatedly and very precisely hit during each aerial raid, while the rest of the compound was left mostly untouched. The laws of war prohibit the intentional targeting of civilian hospitals. The location of the hospital was well known to the authorities. Confusingly, the story from Washington changed a number of times, including alleging that US forces were under fire in Kunduz, which was subsequently corrected to say there had been no threat to US troops, and that the Afghan government had requested the bombing. President Barack Obama has offered an apology to MSF, saying the hospital had been 'mistakenly struck'. However, no further explanation has been forthcoming. The US has said it will conduct its own investigation and provide an accounting of the facts. However, MSF is pushing for an international investigation into the incident, which it believes is a war crime. MSF International President Joanne Liu has said: It is unacceptable that the bombing of a hospital and the killing of staff and patients can be dismissed as collateral damage or brushed aside as a mistake. The Geneva conventions enshrine the absolute principle that civilians are not legitimate targets of war, yet civilians continue to die in terrible numbers, with little or no accountability. It is especially serious that aid workers have also been killed. I urge the Australian government to support an independent international investigation into this incident. Suicide 42 13:53 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn More than 65,000 Australian people attempt to take their lives every year. Today seven people will die by suicide. Aboriginal and Torres Strait people continue to have amongst the highest suicide rates in the world. With this backdrop I attended the Black Dog Ball at Paradise Lagoons on Saturday night. The 2015 Black Dog Ball placed a firm focus on raising awareness of mental health and wellbeing within the rural and construction sectors of Central Queensland. It was a full house, with 350 people in attendance. All funds raised went to Mates in Construction, who go out to job sites and make people aware of the signs of depression that can lead to suicides. Suicide levels within the construction industry are two times higher than for those who work in other industries. These workers have six times more likelihood of dying through suicide than through workplace accident. The construction industry has far too many suicides, but it is a fact that the industry is in the process of changing. Suicide is preventable, and that is what Mates in Construction intends to do. The crowd was entertained by the Three Waiters and I would like to congratulate the committee for a job well done. Multiculturalism 42 13:55 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth I would like to endorse the comments of the member for Watson. I think it is incredibly important that at this challenging time, as we attempt to deal with terrorism, we work to bring the community together. It is not by creating 'us and them' that we are going to deal with this problem that arises from alienation; it is by bringing the community together. On Sunday I was very proud to be involved in the Eid al-Adha festival that was held in my electorate, in the Northbridge Piazza. Fifteen different Islamic groups had come together across Perth to bring to the community their celebration. It was fantastic to see the food, the singing and the general festivities that were being shared by the broader community. This is the way that we take this forward. This is the way that we deal with these real problems within our community. I want to compliment all of those who were involved in the Eid festival. I intend to work very closely with the Islamic groups in Perth to make sure that we have a community that celebrates that diversity. Community Science Forum 43 13:56 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Last week the Assistant Minister for Science, Karen Andrews, and I hosted a community science forum at Central Queensland University to inspire businesses and young job seekers. About 65 people attended the forum, including students from Bundaberg Christian College. As a former electrical engineer, business owner and farmer, I was very impressed by the level of innovation coming out of my region. We heard from Sweet Sensations Manager Craig Van Rooyen about trialling non-lethal methods of pest management, such as drones, on orchards. Run4 owner Henry Thomas explained how he turned a hobby of designing bicycles into a successful business, inventing the Bionic Runner. Bargara Brewing Company owner Jack Milbank spoke about isolating yeasts locally rather than importing them. He also spoke about social enterprise beer and crowd-funding campaigns. In the best line of the forum, 'STEM leads to beer,' according to Mr Milbank—a great encouragement to our young students, I am sure! We heard about the local success stories like Best Practice Software. Lorraine and Frank Pyefinch are committed to maintaining their head office in Bundaberg and are now an Australian market leader in general practice software, with over 12,000 doctor customers. CQ University lecturers spoke about some of the exciting research being produced by local students on topics such as gambling behaviour, humanitarian infrastructure design and sports related concussion. I hope the forum has shown Hinkler businesses what they can achieve through innovation and encourage a few more people to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and maths. Just quickly, I would like to say g'day to the students of St John's Lutheran Primary School who are in the House today. I am sure they are having a great visit. Bushfires 43 13:58 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong On Saturday the member for McEwen and I attended a community meeting at the Lancefield Mechanics Institute. It was to deal with the Lancefield-Benloch bushfires. We spoke with families who had lost their homes. We met with people who had been unable to return home for days due to the dangers of bushfire and falling debris on the roads. After this the CFA took us out to Benloch to see some of the most fire affected areas. As ever, it was humbling to witness the resilience and resolve of those who had seen their properties damaged by fire. It was a privilege to speak to the CFA volunteers whose courage and quick thinking prevented things from being far worse. We all give thanks that no lives were lost in these fires. Bushfires have seared themselves on our national consciousness. Australians have come to accept them as a fact of summer on the dry continent we call home. But facing fires in October is a new challenge. Indeed, this is the earliest fire ban in Victorian history. Let it be a reminder to all Australians who live in areas vulnerable to bushfires: please get your fire plans ready in place early. Make the right preparations to keep your homes and families safe. Let's all hope for a summer free from loss. Way In Network 43 13:59 Mr VARVARIS 250077 Barton I am very honoured to be associated with the Way In Network and its passionate members—Councillor Annie Tang, Linda Tang, Florence Chau, Elsa Shum and Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, to name a few. Recently I had a great opportunity to attend their 2015 gala dinner to celebrate the association's achievements and recognise the invaluable work they do in the Chinese migrant community, as well as to raise much needed funds for China Vision. The Way In Network began in 1992 as a migrant women's association aimed at supporting and assisting women migrants in New South Wales. The SPEAKER 10000 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 43 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Members Sworn 43 14:00 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a return to the writ which I issued on Monday 17 August 2015 for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Canning, in the state of Western Australia, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Donald James Randall. By the endorsement on the writ, it is certified that Andrew William Hastie has been elected. Mr Andrew William Hastie made and subscribed the oath of allegiance. The SPEAKER 00APG On behalf of the House, I welcome the new member for Canning. CONDOLENCES 44 CONDOLENCES Whan, Mr Robert Bruce, AM 44 14:03 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House of the death on Sunday, 4 October 2015 of Robert Bruce Whan, a member of this House for the division of Eden-Monaro from 1972 until 1975. As a mark of respect to the memory of Mr Whan I invite all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the House. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 44 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE National Security 44 14:03 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Ten days ago, Curtis Cheng was murdered in a shocking act of terrorism made all the more appalling because the killer was a 15-year-old boy. Curtis was a loving father and husband, for 17 years an accountant for the New South Wales Police Service. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Selina, with his children, Alpha and Zilvia, and with his family, friends and colleagues. These awful events of 2 October are a stark reminder that our police services and those who work with them put their lives on the line every day. We honour the courage of the special constables who moved swiftly to ensure the murderer did not kill anyone else. Our safety, and indeed our democracy, depend on the vigilance, courage and professionalism of our police and security agencies, just as it depends on the courage and professionalism of our armed forces, a distinguished member of which has joined our ranks today as the member for Canning. This phenomenon of terrorism, of violent extremism, of politically and religiously motivated violence, is a challenge for all societies. Last week I discussed how best to meet and beat these threats with the British Prime Minister, David Cameron. Last night I conveyed our nation's condolences to the Turkish Prime Minister on the shocking terrorist attack in Ankara on the weekend. We are working closely with our colleagues in the states and territories on this. Premier Mike Baird and I have been in constant touch on this issue over the last 10 days. Security agency and counter-terrorism heads from around the country will convene this week in Canberra. Our determination to prevent and/or punish those who carry out or plan acts of terrorism will be resolute and unrelenting. Everything we say on this issue is carefully calculated to make our community safer. Everything we do is designed to ensure that our police and our security services at every level of government are better able to do their job. The fact that this atrocity in Parramatta was perpetrated by a 15-year-old boy reminds us that the question of how the young are radicalised, and what more we can do to stop this happening, must be a first order priority for all of us, for every one of us—governments, law enforcement agencies, parents, teachers, civic leaders and ministers of religion. This incident underlines the importance of families and communities and their leaders as our first line of defence. They are the people who will see the early signs that young people are headed down the path to extremism, and they are our absolutely necessary partners in the battle against violent extremism. That is why it is critical that all of us understand that those who try to tag all Muslims with responsibility for the crimes of a tiny minority and convert that into a general hatred of all Muslims are undermining our national interest. They are making the work of the police, security services and governments seeking to prevent violent extremism that much harder. They make the work of parents and community leaders who seek to prevent violent extremism that much harder. I have been heartened, as we all have, in the past week to see leading figures in the Muslim community speaking up against extremism and calling it out for what it is: undermining the harmony of the Australian family and undermining the most successful multicultural society in the world. The mutual respect that is the foundation of our success is a two-way street. Every religion, every faith, every moral doctrine understands the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We should never give fanatics the satisfaction of changing the way we live or the way we express ourselves. We uphold the fundamental values of our open, liberal democracy. Australians can have confidence in our democratic system of government and the rule of law. We will continue to respond to these threats as the fair, just and peace loving people we are. We will support the work of all our security and law enforcement agencies. United, our Australian family will defy and defeat those who challenge our security, whoever they are and wherever they may be. 14:08 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I offer Labor's condolences to the family and friends of Curtis Cheng, a decent, gentle family man and a respected and well-liked colleague. On his way home from work, he was gunned down from behind in a murderous act of senseless hatred. Two Fridays ago, as Australia prepared for a weekend devoted to sport and celebrations, Curtis Cheng's family and his colleagues were jolted into mourning. Just as in the past 48 hours, we have been shocked and saddened by the terrible scenes in Ankara: the bodies of so many lying where they fell, covered in flags stained by blood—the chilling images. They prove that all forms of terrorism share the same two objectives: killing innocent people and spreading fear. In particular, I am sure these incidents today strike a chord with Australians who recall with sadness that on this day, 12 October 2002, 88 of our own were among over 200 people killed by a bomb blast in Bali. A century after our citizens first clashed in a war that did so much to shape our modern identity, Australia and Turkey share a special relationship. Earlier today, I spoke with the Turkish ambassador-designate to convey our sympathies and to say that we stand in solidarity with our friends, condemning this act of murder that targeted supporters of peace. This is a testing time for the world and for Australia. At least 100 are dead in the worst attacked on civilians in the Republic of Turkey's history and, in Western Sydney, a man was killed by a person who we would all think of as a child: a 15-year-old boy. As a father, I cannot imagine the grief, guilt and horror of your child, the one you love, choosing to end their own life by murdering an innocent man who he did not even know. Truly, it is beyond any parent's comprehension. He is the second teenager in two years to die outside an Australian police station seeking to kill. Australians, though, can and should have full confidence in our security agencies. Their bravery, skill and professionalism are the equal of any in the world. Attacks on our people are thankfully rare because of their vigilance. I place on record our commendation of the quick thinking action and courage of the special constables of the New South Wales Police Force. But keeping our nation safe is a job for all of us together. We all want these threats to stop. We all want to work for prevention rather than investigation. This means cooperating with community leaders, religious leaders, grassroots organisations, parents and mentors to build cohesion. We must give young people less reason to feel unwanted. We should not ostracise those at risk or push them to the margins. I welcome and support the Prime Minister's call for mutual respect. There can never be enough of that. There can never be enough respect shown to the laws and values of our nation by an extremist fringe, there can never be enough respect shown to the right of all Australians to live in safety by those determined to do as harm and there can never be enough respect shown for multicultural Australia by a prejudiced view. Australia will not defeat the challenge of extremism by allowing majorities to vilify minorities. We will not overcome those who seek to divide us or put fear in our hearts if we face them as a nation fearful and divided. We are a nation made great by migration. We do not just tolerate diversity; we celebrated it. Whatever god we worship and whatever flag we were born under, we share a common loyalty to each other. Our faith and our heritage should always be a platform we build upon and not a cave to retreat into. This is a test that Australia faces. If we are divided, we cannot succeed. If we stand together, we cannot fail. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 45 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:13 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth For the information of honourable members, I present a list of the full ministry. The document lists all ministers and provides details of representation arrangements in each chamber. The document read as follows— TURNBULL MINISTRY    30 September 2015 Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Human Services in the Social Services portfolio and a Department of Veterans' Affairs in the Defence portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cases. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952. BUSINESS 46 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 46 14:14 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time this week as she attends the annual Australia-US ministerial consultations in the United States with the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on foreign affairs and defence matters on her behalf. I also inform the house that the Minister for Health will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will answer questions on health matters on her behalf. I inform the House that the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia will be absent from question time this week as he attends the APEC energy ministers meeting and bilateral meetings. The Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science will answer questions on his behalf. I also inform the House that the honourable member for Forrest has been appointed Chief Government Whip and the honourable members for Braddon and Herbert have been appointed government whips. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 47 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Member for Warringah 47 14:15 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. On Saturday, the now Prime Minister heaped praise on the member for Warringah, saying that he had achieved, 'great things, great reforms, great commitments,' during his time as Prime Minister. Given the Prime Minister's admiration for the member for Warringah's great achievements, why did the Prime Minister overthrow the member for Warringah for the top job just four weeks ago? 14:15 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition, showing his gallantry, has given me the opportunity once again to praise the member for Warringah—a Prime Minister and a leader who took us out of opposition, took on the Labor Party, brought to an end the six worst years of government in living history in this country, brought to an end the most dysfunctional government in Australia's history, brought to an end a period of reckless spending and dysfunctional management, and brought in a coalition government. We have done great things together. We have fulfilled our election pledges of abolishing the carbon tax, and we have—and we will come back to this, no doubt, in this question time—been able to once again restore the security of our borders. I well remember the days in 2009, when I was the opposition leader, arguing with Kevin Rudd, the then Prime Minister. I remember the Labor Party then saying that our domestic policy was irrelevant. I remember that. We begged the Labor Party not to change John Howard's policy, and you did—50,000 arrivals since, thousands dead at sea, billions of dollars spent and endless misery occasioned by Labor misrule. The member for Warringah brought all that to an end, and he made great changes. The trade agreements are a tribute to his leadership. So I say to the Leader of the Opposition that we are proud of the member for Warringah; I am proud, as Prime Minister, to honour my predecessor. Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement 47 14:18 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House the benefits in jobs, investment and innovation for the Australia economy arising from the successful negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Mr Champion interjecting— Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wakefield will cease interjecting. The member for Griffith will cease interjecting. They are both warned. 14:18 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Rarely has a minister in an Australia government come home with such a formidable achievement as the Minister for Trade and Investment. The minister for trade's efforts in Atlanta were remarkable. He was part of a group of 12 nations that negotiated the largest multilateral trade agreement for more than 20 years—12 nations. It includes the United States, Japan, Canada and Mexico. It includes Chile and Peru. It includes Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and, of course, New Zealand. This TPP agreement opens up opportunities for Australians and Australian businesses right across the fastest growing part of the world economy. It includes economies that represent over 40 per cent of the world's GDP. Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith has been warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 It gives the hope for more jobs, for more enterprise and for innovation right across our country. In the course of those negotiations—which, naturally, were very tough—there was significant pressure on the Australian government and its representative, the minister for trade, to change our laws on the protection of intellectual property for new medicines known as biologics. We held firm. We took the view that our laws are adequate as they are, and we struck the right balance between protecting the intellectual property of those investing in research and the development of new drugs. As a result, there will be no changes to our rules and regulations in this area, under the TPP, and no impact on the cost or availability of medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I remind honourable members that, in the coalition government, we have succeeded in negotiating—or the minister for trade has succeeded in negotiating—free trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China. Each of them are vital foundation stones for our future prosperity. Our prosperity depends on us embracing the dynamic growth in the global economy, and, one after the other, these agreements—culminating in the TPP—are opening up the doors of each of those markets in a way that will ensure jobs, prosperity and business success for our children and grandchildren in the years and decades to come. Workplace Relations 48 14:21 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week, when interviewed on radio about cutting penalty rates, the Prime Minister said that workers would have to be persuaded that: … in net terms they'd be better off. Can the Prime Minister please explain how cutting the penalty rates of 4½ million working Australians would leave them net better off? (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:22): Mr TURNBULL 885 The Leader of the Opposition seems determined to pursue his less and less convincing scare campaign, even in question time today. As he knows, penalty rates are a matter for the Fair Work Commission to determine. As he knows, the Productivity Commission is currently examining this issue as part of its inquiry into the workplace relations framework. He knows all that. Now, as the Prime Minister and as the leader of the government, we encourage employers and employees to negotiate agreements that best fit their particular needs. Businesses like MacDonald's and Coles have reduced or removed penalty rates at certain times in exchange for other conditions, like higher base rates of pay. We will all enjoy and benefit from solutions that create a more flexible and dynamic 21st century economy. But, as I said in the radio interview which the honourable member referred to, workers and their representatives, unions, will always demand and insist legitimately that any changes to penalty rates leave them better off. That is perfectly reasonable. One business after another has made changes in negotiations with their workers, with their unions, to enable them to achieve a more flexible outcome that best suites the type of business, the hours of work, the convenience of workers and the convenience of customers and does so in a way that leaves workers better off. Any proposals or recommendations from the final report of the Productivity Commission review will be considered, and if we adopt them we will take them as part of our policy platform to the next election. But the honourable member should remember that his scare campaign is simply not working; it is phoney. Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Moreton is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 We understand, every Australian business understands and every Australian worker understands that changes to penalty rates must be made in a way which leaves workers better off. That is obvious; otherwise, they will not agree to it. The honourable member, as a union official, has no doubt participated in agreements of that kind. So, really, it is time for the Leader of the Opposition to stop trying to frighten Australians into poverty. Taxation 48 14:24 Mrs McNAMARA 241589 Dobell My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of keeping taxes low. What is the government doing to reduce the tax burden on hardworking Australians and help people to work, save and invest? 14:25 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Dobell for her question. Mr Speaker, you cannot tax your way to surplus. That is not how you achieve a surplus. The way you achieve a surplus is that you control your expenditure and you have a tax system that grows the economy, that supports the economy and that supports Australians and the decisions that they want to make to work more, to save more and to invest more, because they know if they work more, they save more and they invest more that our economy will be the beneficiary. We know and I think all Australians know that the economy is going through a period of transition. There is volatility beyond our shores, and even here on occasion there is uncertainty. But what we know is that Australians are up to the job of working through this transition. Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wakefield is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L We know that Australians will not be frightened out of prosperity by those opposite. They will not be frightened out of prosperity and they will not be intimidated by the fear politics of the Leader of the Opposition, who will give everyone something to fear, who will give everyone something to blame but who will give no-one anything to believe in, because that is the politics of the Leader of the Opposition. But, on this side of the House, what we are focused on is delivering a tax system that is going to encourage Australians. We are going to deliver a tax system that is not going to chase ever-increasing expenditure. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs will cease interjecting. Mr MORRISON E3L When we are able to be in a position of budget balance it will be because we were able to get expenditure below revenue. Those opposite will raise revenue and raise revenue to chase after ever-increasing expenditure. We know that one of the big challenges that face us is that next year, in 2016-17, if you are on an average wage you will go into the second-highest top tax rate. That is where you will be. You will be paying the second-highest top tax rate if you are an average wage earner. This has happened one time before in recent memory, and, Mr Speaker, you will recall that that was back in 2000. That is when we had real tax reform, that is when we had real tax changes that supported people to go out and work, save and invest. This is our objective. It is to have a tax system that actually supports people—not a tax system that chases higher and higher government spending that we have seen from those opposite. We saw it from them in government and we have seen it from them in opposition. What is the great lesson that those opposite have learnt in their years in opposition? Have they learnt that they should be spending less? Have they learnt that they should be taxing less? No. What they have learnt is nothing. That is the warning there for the Australian people. So, on our side of the House, we are going to focus on economic growth, because that is the thing that delivers jobs. What will deliver the jobs and the security of employment in this country is a tax system that supports Australians. (Time expired) Workplace Relations 49 14:28 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House how his plan to trade tax credits for slashing the penalty rates of 4½ million Australians will work? And what will the cost be to the Australian taxpayer? 14:28 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for the question. I remember the interview that he is referring to. I think it is important and all of those on this side of the House know that we need to do everything we can to get young people into jobs. This is what we want to do. We want to make sure that young people know that they are better off in a job than they are on drawing down welfare. And on this side of the House we are prepared to consider the options that are necessary to put young people into jobs. But we are not alone, it would seem, because the Prime Minister was asked earlier about the issue of penalty rates. What we found in South Australia recently was a deal done by the shoppies union which actually led to a reduction in penalty rates. The member for Port Adelaide said in relation to the deal done by the shoppies, 'This is what we envisaged— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon on a point of order. What is the point of order? Mr Bowen DZS Mr Speaker, the question was about tax credits. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon will resume his seat. The member for McMahon should not raise frivolous points of order. I have warned on this matter before. Mr MORRISON E3L In relation to the cutting of penalty rates in South Australia, the member for Port Adelaide said: This is what we envisaged when Paul Keating's government put together the enterprise bargaining model. He said: This is exactly the model that we envisaged and it's in stark contrast to the idea that you would go up to the industrial commission and try to change—unilaterally—the penalty rates across the country. So, Mr Speaker, some opposite understand the need for flexibility. Some opposite understand the need to consider any range of alternatives to ensure that we can get young people in work. I would encourage those opposite to join those on this side who want to see young people in jobs. Asylum Seekers: Children 49 14:30 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. Staff at the Royal Children's Hospital in my electorate have refused to discharge asylum seeker children because your government will lock them back up in detention centres where children are self-harming and becoming suicidal. No-one wants to see people drown at sea, but do you really believe that we cannot find a solution that does not involve locking up babies and children in mental illness factories? Prime Minister, will you accept that previous Labor and Liberal governments got it wrong, and will you release all children from detention? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right will cease interjecting. 14:31 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. I will respond to it with the gravity it deserves. But I would simply note this: the honourable member said 'nobody wants people to die at sea'. I accept that the honourable member does not. The simple fact—the melancholy truth—is that the policies that he and his party supported, and still support, have been proven to have that consequence. There is no doubt about that. This is not a question of theory; this is a question of fact. There was an experiment undertaken under the Labor government. Mr Rudd himself regretted it and sought to change it. The fact is it was done, it happened, it was a mistake, people died. Nobody wants to have children in detention—not me, not any member of this House, not anyone, not any Australian. We have been working very hard to reduce those numbers. Under the Labor government, the number of children in detention peaked at almost 2,000. Under this government, those numbers have been dramatically reduced. There are currently, so I am advised, around 100 in Australia and somewhat fewer than that in Nauru. That work is continuing to be done. That is the goal. Turning to questions of medical assistance, let me just make this point: if people require medical assistance, they will receive it. Whether it is on Nauru or in Australia, they will receive it. That is the government's commitment. If there is a complicated pregnancy or an assault where a person cannot be given appropriate medical attention on Nauru, they are brought back to Australia. That has been done consistently over a long period of time. I say to the honourable member, and I say to all honourable members and to all Australians, we recognise that our border protection policy is tough; we recognise that many would see it as harsh. But it has been proven to be the only way to stop those deaths at sea and to ensure that our sovereignty and our borders are safe. This is not a theoretical exercise. I have to say to the honourable member: he should reflect very seriously on his own party's conscience on this vital matter. National Security 50 14:34 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie My question is to the Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism. Will the minister please advise the House as to what steps the government is taking to build domestic capacity to challenge violent extremism? 14:34 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I thank the member for Petrie for that question. Countries all across the world are dealing with this question of what makes people susceptible to both extremist influences and recruitment by terrorists. The tragic and barbaric murder of Curtis Cheng in Parramatta was, sadly, another stark reminder that young people in Australia are radicalising and that this can very quickly turn to deadly violence. I recently travelled to New York and Washington to discuss the issue of violent extremism with our international partners. Through these discussions it has become clear that this type of radicalisation is a global threat. It is a complex threat and it is one for which there is no readily available solution. It remains a serious challenge. My counterparts recognised that Australia's response to countering violent extremism is among the most advanced in the world. It is advanced because we continue to involve our response with the challenge of embracing new and creative solutions to this problem. We realise that preventing somebody from becoming radicalised in the first place is the most effective defence against terrorism. That is why we tripled our investment in countering violent extremism to $40 million. A range of measures are now in place to help stop our young and vulnerable from moving down the dark path of violent extremism. We have intervention programs operating all around the country. These programs help us identify radicalised and at-risk individuals, and provide case management plans to address the root cause of their radicalisation. We are challenging terrorist propaganda online. ISIL is a medieval and barbaric organisation but it does use modern forms of communication very effectively. On Twitter, ISIL and its supporters have at least 46,000 active accounts, each with an average of 1,000 followers. Every day ISIL or its supporters trade upwards of 1,000 pieces of online propaganda on Twitter alone. The government is working on initiatives that help us understand how extremist propaganda resonates and then works to undermine its appeal. This is in addition to the $660 million over four years that we are investing to support social cohesion and settlement services. But we realise that continuing to meet this challenge requires every level of government across the country, and, of course, the greatest allies in this will be the Muslim communities themselves. The Prime Minister has therefore convened an urgent meeting in Canberra on Thursday with officials from federal, state and territory agencies to discuss our approach to countering violent extremism. The recommendations and proposals developed at this meeting will be considered at the next meeting of the Council of Australian Governments and will be used to ensure that Australia's response to countering violent extremism continues to lead the world and continues to help us to meet this new and evolving terrorist threat. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 51 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:37 The SPEAKER 00APG Just before I call the member for Gorton, it is my pleasure to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Pat Farmer, a former member for Macarthur and now an ultramarathon runner. On behalf of the House, I extend you a very warm welcome. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 51 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Workplace Relations 51 14:38 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister provide any evidence to substantiate the claim that slashing penalty rates will increase employment opportunities? 14:38 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The honourable member continues with his leader's scare campaign about slashing penalty rates. Opposition members interjecting— Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting. Mr TURNBULL 885 Trade unions for many years— Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting. She is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 as the Treasurer observed, have negotiated changes to penalty rates as part of a package, where the base rate during the week has been increased or other conditions have been increased. This happens all the time—that is what enterprise bargaining is all about. That is what Paul Keating cited as one of the examples— Mr Brendan O'Connor 00AN3 Where is the evidence? The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gorton. Mr TURNBULL 885 The honourable member calls out 'all the evidence'. 'Where is the evidence?' he asks. What I say to the honourable member is this: he should speak— Ms Chesters interjecting — The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bendigo. Mr TURNBULL 885 He should speak to the Manager of Opposition Business, who was formerly an official with the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Union, which has negotiated numerous variations to penalty rates on the weekend. He should ask him, with his in-depth industrial experience whether the SDA regrets it. Ms Rishworth interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Kingston. Mr TURNBULL 885 He should ask the member for Port Adelaide whether the negotiation about penalty rates in South Australia between the SDA and Business SA was worthwhile. Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gorton will cease interjecting. The member for Corangamite. Mr TURNBULL 885 The honourable member for Gorton runs the risk of being expelled from the Labor Party if he continues to be so helpful. I have never had a better straight man than this one, I can tell you, Mr Speaker! He says that he should ask us. Well, what we say is: when employees and employers choose to renegotiate their arrangements voluntarily and willingly, we in the Liberal Party assume— Ms Chesters interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bendigo. Mr TURNBULL 885 that they know what they are doing. We actually do not tell people how to run their businesses or how to negotiate things. The honourable member for Gorton should stop hanging out solely with the CFMEU. He has to get out a bit—talk to the SDA, talk to the other unions represented here—and he will find out that it is a big, wide world out there and people are a lot more practical than he gives them credit for. Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement 52 14:40 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Minister for Trade and Investment—the minister who was known as Mr Trifecta. He will now need a new name, given his— The SPEAKER 00APG The member will come to his question. Mr TEHAN 210911 Will the minister inform the House of the wide range of benefits that will flow to Australia from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement? 14:41 Mr ROBB FU4 Goldstein I thank the member for his question. He is a very well-informed champion of trade and investment and he has played a very notable role in helping to inform the broader public—unlike some of the associates of those opposite. Along with the powerful trifecta of bilateral agreements with Korea, Japan and China, the TPP forms a key plank of our economic plan to support the diversification of our economy in the post-mining boom era. It is a very critical objective, one in which we are starting to see, with 360,000 to 370,000 new jobs already created, the efforts of a lot of programs. This approach will reduce our reliance on any one sector or any one market, regardless of how strong they are. It will slash barriers not only to Australian goods—with this TPP you will see 98 per cent of all tariffs across the 12 countries eliminated in due course—but, critically and comprehensively, it will also reduce barriers to Australian involvement in services and investment in countries like Vietnam and Malaysia, countries, like Peru, Chile and Mexico, that have often been reluctant to open their doors to services exported from other countries. This deal, along with the trifecta of bilaterals, opens these critical doors to Australia. This deal will also create a more seamless trading and investment environment amongst 12 countries which represent 40 per cent of the world's GDP and well over one third of all trade in the world. It is a 21st century agreement which embraces the digital economy, setting rules for things such as electronic payments, international telecommunications, the movement of data across borders and paperless common custom rules and information. Use of the digital economy will help our small- and medium-sized businesses participate because it reduces the cost—one paperless form for customs across 12 economies. It is a huge advantage and assistance to reducing the cost and improving the efficiency. Tariffs will go across everything—from beef and dairy, grains and wine, sugar, rice, horticulture and seafood through to manufactured goods, resources and energy. There are also wonderful new openings for a broad range of services—(Time expired) Workplace Relations 52 14:44 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Shane Townsend is a full-time security guard, who works the night shift to earn about $24,000 a year in penalty rates. Shane's mother is on an age pension and his brother is on a disability pension, and both live with Shane. Without penalty rates, Shane says they would be 'out on the street'. Given the Prime Minister's previous answer, can the Prime Minister confirm that any changes to penalty rates will only happen if Shane volunteers to have his pay cut? Ms Henderson interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Corangamite will cease interjecting. 14:45 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The honourable member seems to be persevering in a line of questioning that is clearly embarrassing the Leader of the Opposition. I make no further comment on that, but it is very well known that when the Leader of the Opposition was the National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union he negotiated, in a package deal, the penalty rates for workers working for Clean Event. Ms Chesters interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bendigo! Mr TURNBULL 885 I have no doubt that the honourable member, the honourable Leader of the Opposition, in his capacity as a union leader, did so because he thought, overall, the package was a better deal. As I have said, and as is the case with Fair Work Australia, plainly workers or their representatives will not agree to changes to penalty rates unless it is in the context of a better overall deal, and that is plainly the case. One Labor member after another, in their days as union officials, has done exactly that. So the fact of the matter is that the honourable member knows that this scare campaign they are trying to run flies in the face of the lived experience of millions of Australian workers who are smart enough to know that, in any industrial agreement, there are gives and takes, and the aim always is to end up with an outcome that is a win-win. So it is not for us to tell unions—or, indeed, their workers, or employers—how to negotiate agreements. I have no doubt that the honourable Leader of the Opposition or, indeed, the member for Port Adelaide and other members who were union officials when they negotiated these arrangements sought to do so in a way that ensured that workers were better off, employers were better off and overall it was a win-win. That is what flexible workplaces are all about. The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call the next question, the member for Bendigo is warned. I have cautioned her about interjecting. She interjected continually during that answer. Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement 53 14:47 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the minister update the House on how the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement will help to secure farm gate returns and to create jobs for farmers, my electorate of Capricornia and elsewhere? 14:47 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for her question. Might I say the honourable member would understand more than most about the benefits of greater trade, especially coming from the great beef city of Rockhampton, a city in which at one stage her family had the Lucky Daniels casket agency for 21 years and a city in which she ran a business herself. But, not only for the city of Rockhampton but for all those areas around it, this has been a tremendous agreement. It is a tremendous agreement that backs up the work that is done in the three free trade agreements; it is a tremendous agreement that includes the countries of Canada, the United States, Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore, Peru, New Zealand, Chile, Brunei and Japan. It is a tremendous agreement because, no matter where you go through the member's electorate and elsewhere in Australia, you have tremendous benefits. It goes without saying that there are over 200,000 people employed in the beef industry throughout its chain. It is a tremendous driver, a driver of jobs. People in Rockhampton will be happy to know that, through this agreement, we are going to see those tariffs to some of our major markets, such as Japan, reduced to nine per cent. This is a great further investment in the beef industry. But if you went out to Clermont and looked at the people growing grains out there, they would also be happy to know that the mark-up that we used to have to Japan on wheat and barley is going to be reduced over 10 years. That will be up to a $200-a-tonne benefit of for milling wheat into that country. If you went to Emerald, where they grow cotton, you would be happy to see that the TPP will see all tariffs on Australian cotton eliminated, most of them on entry into force. This is a tremendous agreement. If you go into the rice industry, at Central Queensland University they are developing a new strain of rice—a paddy-free rice. We will be seeing, for the first time since 1995, new quota access for Australian rice and flour into Japan. This has been achieved through a 6,000-tonne quota on entry into force, going up to 8,400 tonnes over 13 years. So it does not matter where you go. It has been a great deal for the dairy industry, with a reduction in tariffs in so many areas there. It works on the back of the plan that this government has, a plan that is seen in the white paper. Not only do we get a better return but we invest it in a better way to build up the farms, to build up the strength of our soft commodity exports and to make ourselves a stronger nation. I want to commend the work that has been done by the trade minister in surrounding our nation now with trade agreements—with China, Japan and Korea, and now with the United States of America, Mexico and Chile. All this work has been done by this government because this government has a vision for our future. This government is actually delivering; this government is actually making a difference. Infrastructure 53 14:50 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the latest ABS statistics, which show public infrastructure spending has fallen by 20 per cent since the coalition was elected. When will the government restore Commonwealth funding for public transport projects, including Melbourne Metro, Brisbane Cross River Rail, Gawler rail electrification in South Australia and Perth public transport projects? 14:51 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. It does bring to mind his recent announcement promising to have a $10 billion loan fund to support infrastructure. He identified a number of projects that would be covered by this, and it was a very interesting list because they fell into two categories. Mr Dreyfus HWG What are you doing? The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 One part of them was projects that were already funded and underway by our government, including the Pacific Highway, the Bruce Highway and the $400 million Midland Highway construction program. We saw this as a sign of validation. Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery and we are duly flattered by that. We are very grateful for that. The other projects that he announced, including several that he mentioned in his question, were projects for which there has been absolutely no business case completed. Nothing has been completed. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs is warned! Mr TURNBULL 885 Honourable members know that we do not discriminate between road or rail. Mass transit projects can be funded. It was only on Sunday that I was with many of my South-East Queensland colleagues and the minister for major projects. We were at Griffith University, at the light rail station, announcing our support for $95 million to complete that light rail line to link up to the heavy rail line to Brisbane and Helensvale. It is an excellent project and one that has received a lot of support in the community of South-East Queensland. It will make a very big difference, so we strongly support that. But the reality is that our government is supporting infrastructure right across the board. We will deliver a $50 billion program. The honourable member knows that, but projects have to have a business case. They have to be assessed, they have to be assessed in a businesslike way, and we have to look at more innovative approaches to financing them. We are very committed to that. We will look at whatever method can ensure that the Commonwealth, working with state and local government and the private sector, can mobilise the billions that we need to ensure that we have the infrastructure for the 21st century. Innovation 54 14:54 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. Will the minister update the House on how the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement will boost innovation, so creating jobs and investment across Australia, including in my electorate of Corangamite? 14:54 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Corangamite for my first question as Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science—I hope the first of many from both sides of the House, because the Prime Minister has determined that innovation will very much be at the centre of the new economy in Australia. He very reasonably, I think, gave me the job of managing that process and I was very grateful to receive it. I look forward to fixing some of the hurdles that have been in the path of making the most of innovation in our economy. I was very pleased to be in the member for Corangamite's electorate in Geelong last Wednesday to open a new facility for a company called Carbon Revolution, which is a new business in Geelong. Opposition members interjecting— Mr PYNE 9V5 It is called Carbon Revolution. It is creating and exporting carbon fibre rims to Detroit for Ford, starting from nothing, using $24 million of their own private investment and $5 million under the Geelong Region Infrastructure and Investment Fund, and employing dozens and dozens of workers from Ford and Alcoa who are looking for retraining and new jobs using high-tech, world-beating research and technology. They have beaten all competitors around the world for the creation of the first carbon fibre wheel rim. The adoption of the Trans-Pacific Partnership will, of course, make it even easier to access markets in 40 per cent of the world's economy, thanks to the work of the Minister for Trade and Investment. Companies like Carbon Revolution will be able to expand their operations more easily in areas that have become part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Specifically in the area of innovation, the TPP will remove red tape that is hampering private foreign investment in sectors like advanced manufacturing. It will create a common set of rules around intellectual property protection and enforcement, which are very important in terms of innovation and the creation of new ideas so they can be protected. It will provide for the free flow of data across borders for services and investors so that companies that are, for example, accommodation companies that use data across different borders will find it easier to do so, right through to telcos that provide data management services in multiple Trans-Pacific Partnership countries. Why are we doing all this? We are doing all this because freer trade leads to jobs and growth. We get that on this side of the House. Freer trade leads to more jobs and it leads to growth. We are not trying to frighten the Australian people into poverty, unlike the Labor side of the House. We are not trying to frighten people about free trade. We know that free trade leads to more jobs and more growth, and that is why it is good for Australia. Infrastructure 55 14:57 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure. On Sunday, when speaking about the Gold Coast light rail project, the Prime Minister said that the project would 'have to be to the satisfaction of the Minister Warren Truss'. Given the minister has ridiculed Labor's infrastructure plan, which includes funding for the Gold Coast light rail project announced by the Leader of the Opposition just three days earlier, Minister, will this project go ahead? 14:58 Mr TRUSS GT4 Wide Bay Of course the project will go ahead. I was the minister that, with the Deputy Premier of Queensland, negotiated the deal. We were the ones who talked through the project and examined the business case and made the offer to Queensland in relation to funding for the project. My comments three days earlier were actually about the Melbourne Metro, Brisbane Cross River Rail and Badgerys Creek rail, where no business cases have been presented and where design work still remains to be done. In the case of Gold Coast rail, certainly several weeks ago, when Queensland one Friday demanded that the Commonwealth contribute $150 million to this project by the following Monday, I did criticise them for not having a business case prepared, because they did not at that point. Subsequently, they did prepare a business case and presented it to the Commonwealth so we were able to examine its merits, and we came to the conclusion that this was a project that connected the light rail on the Gold Coast with the broader Queensland network; it connected the light rail to the heavier rail, and would enable a rail journey from the main street at the Gold Coast right through to the capital city, and it was therefore a project with merit. So we committed $95 million to the project, an amount that was welcomed by the Queensland government. There is also a contribution from the Gold Coast City Council. That will make sure this project happens. We have committed to it. I was involved in negotiating the deal. I fully support the project and I commend the Queensland government on calming down the rhetoric and then getting on with the job of dealing with this project in a business-like way. That is how we were able to come to a constructive decision that involves all tiers of government delivering a project that will be important for the Gold Coast, particularly in the context of the upcoming Commonwealth games. Trade with China 55 15:00 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin My question is for the 15:00 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I would like to thank the member for Deakin for his first question to me as In fact, small business in Australia is part of the engine room of our economy. There are more than two million small businesses, representing 97 per cent of all businesses in Australia. Those small businesses employ around 4.5 million people and they make a contribution to our economy of $340 billion. But there are more opportunities to expand the markets for these small businesses and family owned businesses. The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement is a huge opportunity for these small businesses. Under this agreement, 95 per cent of all of our exports to China will be tariff-free at the conclusion of the implementation of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Services will also benefit—financial and professional services, law, health, education, construction and engineering. These and others will have expanded markets into China. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Perth. Ms O'DWYER LKU China, of course, has one of the fastest growing economies and has the second-largest economy. Over the next decade the middle class in China will grow to around 500 million. This means that companies in the member for Deakin's electorate, companies like Timbermate, which manufactures special putty fillers and wood fillers, will benefit from the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, because four years after the implementation of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement the nine per cent tariff on those goods will be eliminated. This will expand their markets and grow their business. It will mean that they can employ more people. But are there any risks? Indeed, Member for Deakin, there are. Those risks are represented by those opposite—those people who refuse to allow expanded opportunities for small businesses, those who refuse to allow our economy to grow as a result of those expanded opportunities, and refuse more jobs. This is, I think, a national disgrace. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Perth is warned. Ms O'DWYER LKU The Leader of the Opposition, instead of listening to his union mates should instead do what I am doing, which is standing up for small business. Infrastructure 56 15:04 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment. Is the minister aware that the so-called new project to improve the Monash Freeway that he announced in today's Herald Sun, was, one, approved by Infrastructure Australia in 2012, and, two, funded in the Labor government's 2013 budget as part of the Managed Motorways program, and, three, cut by the coalition government in their 2014 budget? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left and on my right will cease interjecting. The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. 15:04 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I am delighted to receive this question from the member for Grayndler, because if he wants to talk about road funding for Victoria we will talk about road funding for Victoria every single day, because this government provided $3 billion—forty times that amount—for the East West Link. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs will not interject again and remain in the House. The member for Ballarat. Mr HUNT 00AMV We know that the Leader of the Opposition loved the East West Link, because I just happen to have here two quotes from two submissions that the Leader of the Opposition made. Firstly, 'The new East West Link is crucial to jobs an economic growth.' A little inconvenient— Mr Albanese R36 The question is about the Managed Motorways program, which they cut, along with the Melbourne Metro and the M80— The SPEAKER 00APG The member will resume his seat. The minister has the call. Mr HUNT 00AMV Oh, and there is the ALP's $600 billion carbon bill, by the way. And what else did the Leader of the Opposition say? 'A new East West Link is a priority infrastructure investment and major project.' Just for fun, the shadow Treasurer said, 'Bill Shorten and I are of one mind. Labor honours contracts. Labor in government honours contracts entered into by previous governments. Even if we don't like them, for issues of sovereign risk, Labor honours contracts in office signed by previous governments.' Well, I wish they did, because that was a great principle. Do you know what? We took a minor project and multiplied it—not by one, two, three, four or 10 or 20. We multiplied 40-fold the funding that was there. You have had your go, buddy. Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. Mr HUNT 00AMV We increased it to a $3 billion East West Link project. And do you know what? Labor cancelled the East West Link project. In classic Bill fashion, he loved it one day and left it the next. When they left it— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for the Environment is entitled— Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I am trying to speak to the House, Member for Grayndler. I do not appreciate being interrupted. I was saying: the Minister for the Environment is entitled to range across the policy topic, but he now needs to bring himself back to the substance of the question. Mr HUNT 00AMV Absolutely. With the most significant project being put on ice, which we will remain committed to and which we think is absolutely necessary, we will not let Premier Andrews let Victoria's traffic be frozen. So we will try to deal with this project. This is not the ultimate project. The ultimate project for Victoria's motorists would be the East West Link, but, in its absence, we should be looking at this other project in relation to the Monash. So you never fixed it, buddy; we will. We will fix that and we will continue the campaign for the East West Link, something which not just once and not just twice the Leader of the Opposition said he supported. We are prepared to get Melbourne's commuters moving. The best thing would be the East West Link, and, in its absence, we would love to talk to the Victorians about the Monash. (Time expired) Infrastructure 57 15:08 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Can the minister please update the House on the government's commitment to improving transport infrastructure in Australia? How does building better infrastructure improve job creation and growth? What alternatives are there to the government's approach? 15:09 Mr TRUSS GT4 Wide Bay I thank the honourable member for Bennelong for his question. All Australians know about our $50 billion infrastructure commitment—with commitments to major projects in every capital city and significant highway connections between regional centres, again in every state of Australia. We have revolutionised and got moving again the capacity in this country to provide infrastructure that is necessary to build our nation. We are getting on with the job and delivering. I have to say, as the honourable member asked about what alternatives there might be, that I was somewhat surprised by the Leader of the Opposition, desperately trying to catch up some ground in relation to infrastructure projects, when he sought to re-announce a whole lot of projects that were already underway or just a figment of people's imagination—for instance, his support for the Melbourne Metro and the Badgerys Creek railway line, projects for which no business case has been prepared. No state commitments have been made in relation to Badgerys Creek; no route design has been even undertaken. Or what about the Cross River Rail project in Brisbane? I am not quite sure which project he was backing—the $400 million project that the Bligh government were proposing or their later $4 billion version of the same program. Or was it the Newman government's commitment to a bus and train tunnel under Brisbane? No details were provided, just that this alternative government intends to fund it. What about this jewel: 'Planning work on the Ipswich Motorway, Darra to Rocklea'? Planning work—is that all? We committed $279 million towards this $560 million project. It is in our plan. The plan is done. We have put up $279 million for it—and do you know what? The Labor state government have knocked it back. They say they do not want to do it, and yet we have got the Leader of the Opposition saying that he is going to 'plan' for this Darra to Rocklea section. And what about the Gawler line electrification in Adelaide? That is a project that Labor pulled the money from in 2012. We just heard the shadow minister talk about Monash Freeway and how this government withdrew the money. Do you know how much money Labor had in the budget for the Monash Freeway, a $200 million or $300 million project? Nine point nine million dollars. They were going to do $300 million worth of work for $9.9 million. That is the kind of logic and planning you get from the other side. Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member will resume his seat. Mr TRUSS GT4 If you want roads and railway lines built, vote for the coalition. You will never get them under Labor. Public Transport 57 15:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement in 2008: 'What we haven't done'—'we' being federal governments—'is spend a lot of money, or any money, on urban transport, because that was clearly a state responsibility. Now, there are very powerful arguments for having at least some areas which are unequivocally the responsibility of the state government, so at least you know where the buck stops.' Is that why governments of which you have been a part have not funded public transport? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right! The minister for immigration will cease interjecting. 15:13 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The hour is so late in question time that the questions from the opposition are moving in a very satisfying direction. The honourable member knows as well as I do that the needs for investment in urban infrastructure span the whole gamut of modes of transport. He knows as well as I do that the approach that I have taken—my own views, expounded in numerous speeches over many years—is that the federal government should support transport infrastructure in cities on the basis of its merit. So you do not favour road over rail or rail over road; you look at the merits, because the reality is that a modern city needs both. It needs good mass transit; it needs good roads; it needs good planning. In terms of the support we give, as you can see already with the contribution to the Gold Coast light rail, we are supporting mass transport—public rail transport—and we will continue to do so, but it has to stack up on its merits and it will have to compete with other projects. We do not have unlimited funds. This is simply a businesslike, pragmatic approach that recognises, as honourable members have seen from the composition of the ministry and from the appointment of a Minister for Cities and the Built Environment, that ensuring that our cities have support from the federal government is vitally important for the whole of our economy. The fact is that the prosperity and livability of our cities is a vital economic asset. Many people think—or some people may think—that the environment of our cities is a touchy-feely thing. Well, let me say to honourable members: a livable city is a vital piece of economic infrastructure—having a clean environment in our cities, being able to move around our cities easily. The denial of public transport options in our cities discriminates against the old, the poor and the young. It is a critical matter of equity to ensure that we have good urban planning across cities. The federal government does not manage cities. We can support good outcomes, encourage good outcomes and encourage good projects, and we will, and we will not discriminate between road and rail. They will all be assessed on their merits, and we have already demonstrated that that is precisely what we are doing. So I am sorry if the honourable member is a bit disappointed by this, but he really should be delighted rather than being so clearly indignant. Public Transport 58 15:15 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde My question is to the Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects. Will the minister outline how the government is investing in public transport in Queensland to ensure efficient transport for the Commonwealth Games? 15:16 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Thank you very much to the member for Forde, who has been a very strong advocate for the needs of his community when it comes to public transport—as indeed have been the member for Moncrieff, the member for Fadden and the member for McPherson. It was wonderful to see all of those members—along with, of course, the member for Wentworth—riding the Gold Coast light rail yesterday morning, along with the Premier of Queensland and the Mayor of the Gold Coast. There was quite a collection of politicians on the Gold Coast light rail yesterday, and that was appropriately marking the fact that the fact that the Turnbull government has made a commitment to invest up to $95 million to ensure that the Gold Coast light rail stage 2 will be delivered in time for the Commonwealth Games. It is very important to see that all three levels of government are coming together in relation to this vital infrastructure project. It is tremendously important for the Commonwealth Games and therefore, of course, to this project of national significance. But beyond its importance to the Commonwealth Games is the importance that this piece of infrastructure will play in the connection to the existing heavy rail network with the 7.3-kilometre link from the Gold Coast University Hospital through to the existing heavy rail network at Helensvale. This is a capped grant from the Commonwealth and subject to an assessment of the final business case by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. This important piece of national infrastructure is vital to the Commonwealth Games transport task. It will connect five competition venues and nine events to accommodation and public transport interchanges. It will also be an important boost for the local economy, supporting more than 1,000 jobs during construction. As the Prime Minister said yesterday in his remarks at this announcement, we do need to look creatively at how we capture the value that arises from the increase in property values and whether this can be a means of providing additional funding for infrastructure. And, of course, it is noteworthy here that the Gold Coast regional council successfully introduce a betterment levy to assist in funding stage one of the Gold Coast light rail project. The coalition government's $50 billion infrastructure investment commitment is being invested in the right infrastructure, not just any infrastructure, and this will leverage some $125 billion in investment in total. So the Turnbull government is investing in this public transport project, which is of national significance, and we are very pleased to do so, working cooperatively with the state government and the local government. Mr Turnbull 885 On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS 58 PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS Speaker's Panel 58 15:19 The SPEAKER 00APG Pursuant to standing order 17(a), I lay on the table my warrant revoking the nominations of the honourable members for Mitchell, Herbert and Braddon to be members of the Speaker's panel and nominating the honourable members for Calare, Durack and Deakin to be members of the Speaker's panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 59 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Questions in Writing 59 15:19 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth Mr Speaker, I wish to raise an issue in relation to standing order 105(b). The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Perth may proceed. Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Mr Speaker, in accordance with standing order 105(b), I ask that you write to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development seeking reasons for the delay in answering a question in writing. The relevant question appears as No. 847 on the Notice Paper and relates to legal costs incurred in unsuccessfully defending an FOI case. 15:20 The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the member for Perth. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 59 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 4 of 2015-16 59 15:20 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 4 for 2015-16, entitled Performance Audit: confidentiality in government contracts—Senate order for departmental and entity contracts (calendar year 2014 compliance)—across entities Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 59 DOCUMENTS Presentation 59 15:21 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are presented in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. COMMITTEES 59 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Committee 59 Report 59 15:21 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I am pleased to present the committee's report of its review of the relisting of five terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code, together with the committee's annual report for 2014-15. Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr TEHAN 210911 by leave—The committee reviewed the evidence presented to support the relisting of al-Shabaab, Hamas's Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as terrorist organisations and was satisfied that each group continues to engage in terrorist acts. Accordingly, the committee has recommended that the regulations to relist these groups as terrorist organisations not be disallowed. In considering the relisting of the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, the committee sought additional information from government agencies and conducted a public hearing with representative community groups to assist its review. The committee acknowledges the Kurdish people's desire for autonomy and the right to maintain a Kurdish ethnic identity in Turkey. The committee also notes the very effective military force provided by Kurdish populations in the fight against Daesh in neighbouring countries. The committee carefully considered the evidence presented by representative organisations of the Kurdish communities in Australia. The committee recognised the legitimate concerns of these organisations, but concluded that these concerns were not directly relevant to the assessment of whether the PKK is a terrorist organisation as defined in Australian law. The committee also considered evidence presented about the PKK's activities. While acknowledging that the PKK has not claimed responsibility for all the attacks attributed to it, the committee noted that it had nonetheless claimed responsibility for a number of attacks. Accordingly, the committee concluded that it could be satisfied that the PKK continues to engage in terrorist acts. The committee has therefore recommended that the regulation to relist the PKK as a terrorist organisation not be disallowed. It is important to recognise that Australians do not face penalties for supporting Kurdish civil society movement or political parties in Turkey, or for supporting a peaceful resolution to the conflict and the promotion of Kurdish rights in Turkey. Rather, the listing of the PKK only provides for criminal penalties for those who are members of the PKK, or conduct certain legislatively defined activities in support of the PKK. Expressing support for Kurdish autonomy is not a criminal offence as a result of the listing of the PKK. Nor is the listing of the PKK the result of the PKK's support for greater Kurdish autonomy—rather it is the organisation's activities, which are of a distinctly terrorist nature, that give rise to its listing under Australian law. The committee has expressed its support for peace talks between all parties and considers that the Australian government should work, in cooperation with international partners, to encourage all parties to engage with the peace process in good faith. Turning to the annual report, the Intelligence Services Act requires the committee to provide the parliament with an annual report of its activities and I am very pleased to present the committee's report for 2014-2015. The reporting period saw significant activity by the committee amid a national focus on counter-terrorism measures. In this period, in addition to its existing oversight responsibilities, the committee conducted four major bill inquiries into reforms to Australia's national security legislation. These reforms included changes to data retention laws, a broader update of Australia's national security legislation and responses to the increasing threat posed by returning foreign fighters and individuals within Australia who support terrorism. In all, the committee made 109 recommendations in the four bill inquiries, all of which were accepted by the government. The committee sought in these inquiries to strengthen the safeguards and oversight, and ensure that any extended powers are subject to appropriate accountability and review mechanisms. The majority of the committee's recommendations resulted in legislative change. This period also saw an expansion of the functions, oversight and scrutiny responsibilities of the committee. These expanded responsibilities include the committee reviewing the special powers relating to terrorism offences, such as control orders and preventative detention orders, and reviewing the declared areas regime and data retention scheme in the period between 2018 and 2020. In addition, the committee's oversight role has been extended to include some of the Australian Federal Police's functions under the Criminal Code. The committee will also have an ongoing review role as the data retention scheme is implemented and I note that the implementation phase will commence tomorrow, 13 October 2015. I would like to take the opportunity to thank all those involved in the committee's work over the reporting period and for their contribution to these inquiries, and could I make special mention of our intelligence agencies and the Australian Federal Police. I also thank my fellow committee members, both past and present, for their constructive and bipartisan approach to the committee. Finally, I would like to thank the hardworking secretariat, who have been called on to go beyond the call of duty to ensure that the reports that we have delivered have been done on time, and, I think, with serious detail and commitment to the task that was given to us. I commend the reports to the House. BILLS 60 BILLS Australian Immunisation Register Bill 2015, Australian Immunisation Register (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2015 60

Australian Immunisation Register Bill 2015

Australian Immunisation Register (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2015

Second Reading 60 15:28 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I am very pleased to support this legislation, the Australian Immunisation Register Bill 2015 and cognate bill, that further strengthens Australia's immunisation regime by improving our registration system and essentially extending the successful childhood immunisation register to a lifelong register. Immunisation rates are something that Australia cannot afford to become complacent about. It is quite incredible to think that childhood immunisation rates were around 52 per cent when the coalition government came to office in 1996. We worked hard to improve those rates and get them to around 90 per cent, where they have remained fairly steady. We also introduced vaccination programs for new vaccines like the HPV vaccination for school-aged females. In fact, it was the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, who, as health minister, introduced this vaccine and other measures to improve vaccination rates. They are part of his substantial and positive legacy of service, and I thank him for that. Rates of immunisation matter not just for individuals but for the benefit of our community as a whole. The concept of herd community means that if vaccination rates fall below a certain point it becomes harder to stop a major outbreak, which will potentially infect people who are unable to be immunised. These include children who are too young to be vaccinated, people with immune system problems and those who are too ill to receive vaccines. So maintaining high immunisation levels is vital to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our community. The proportion of the population which must be immunised in order to achieve herd immunity varies for each disease but can be up to 95 per cent for some highly infectious diseases. The underlying principle is the same: once enough people are protected, they help to protect vulnerable members of the community by reducing the spread of disease. The herd immunity threshold for measles is somewhere between 83 and 94 per cent. For whooping cough it is between 92 and 94 per cent. Nationally, Australia sits at 94 per cent for measles and 92 per cent for whooping cough. However, in parts of Australia, including the Blue Mountains, the Sunshine Coast, inner Brisbane, inner Sydney, Adelaide and Darwin, the rates have fallen below 85 per cent for five-year-olds. On the Far North Coast of New South Wales the rates are under 85 per cent in all three age groups. So there are sections of our community where the herd immunisation rates are well below what is required to stop a major outbreak. This is why our government acted decisively to further improve rates with the No Jab, No Pay policy. From 1 January 2016 conscientious objection is being removed as an exemption category for childcare payments and the Family Tax Benefit Part A end-of-year supplement. Immunisation requirements for the payment of Family Tax Benefit Part A end-of-year supplement will also be extended to include children of all ages. Existing exemptions on medical or religious grounds will continue. However, a religious objection will be available only when the person is affiliated with a religious group where the governing body has a formally registered objection approved. This means that vaccine objectors will not be able to access these government payments. The new policy will tighten up the rules and reinforce the importance of immunisation and protecting public health, especially for children. This policy clearly reflects the value to our community of ensuring that immunisation rates remain as high as possible. Parents need to know that vaccinating their children is a clear responsibility that must be fulfilled in order to access government payments. The overwhelming benefit of immunisation cannot be disputed. Vaccination is considered the most significant public health intervention in the last 200 years, providing a safe and efficient way to prevent the spread of many diseases that cause hospitalisation, serious ongoing health conditions and sometimes death. I have been fortunate in my role as Assistant Minister for Science and previously as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Science to meet with many of our scientists and researchers, including those working in the field of immunology. Australia certainly has a very proud record when it comes to health and medical science research and development. The success of vaccines to date has largely been due to their impact on acute infectious diseases, like polio and influenza. However, the future will see scientists focusing on the prevention of chronic diseases, like cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's. Indeed, the HPV vaccine developed here in Australia by Professor Ian Frazer has really sparked the hunt for other cancer vaccines, leading to increased investment and renewed public expectations. Current vaccines protect against two types of virus which cause 70 per cent of cervical cancers. The future of immunology is certainly fascinating and full of potential. It is of course one of the many STEM disciplines we need to be encouraging and supporting. As I mentioned previously, this legislation will strengthen the way we record immunisations and therefore our procedures for ensuring that people are fully immunised. The scope of our two current immunisation registers will be broadened. The Australian Childhood Immunisation Register will be expanded to become the Australian Immunisation Register, which will capture all vaccines given from birth to death through general practice and community clinics. The ACIR currently records vaccinations given to children aged less than seven years. It will be expanded in two stages. From January 2016 it will expand to collect and record vaccinations given to young individuals under the age of 20 years, enabling implementation of the government's No Jab, No Pay budget measure. From September 2016 it will be expanded further to cover all vaccinations from birth to death given through general practice and community clinics, supporting the addition of the zoster virus vaccine to the national immunisation program for persons aged 70 years. At the moment the coverage of vaccines given to adults is difficult to gauge, as no comprehensive national data is collected for these vaccines. A whole-of-life Australian immunisation register will allow vaccination records from multiple providers to be recorded in the one register, which will allow accurate assessment of whether an adult requires a vaccination rather than relying on patient recall, which is notoriously unreliable. A national register will also allow vaccination providers to take swift action to provide vaccinations when required. Accurate monitoring of vaccine uptake can also assist in identifying areas of low coverage within Australia, including those at greater risk of infection during an outbreak. Targeted information can help boost immunisation rates in these areas. Vaccination reminder services and proactive follow-up by vaccination providers will allow people to be contacted when they are due or overdue for their vaccinations. The register will also enable them to be contacted if a booster vaccination is required in the future. As I mentioned earlier, this bill also expands the National HPV Vaccination Program Register to become the Australian School Vaccination Register, which will capture the adolescent vaccinations given through school programs from the start of the 2017 school year. The HPV register currently only records recipients of the HPV vaccine. Other adolescent vaccinations administered through the schools program that would be captured in the Australian School Vaccination Register include chickenpox and the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis—whooping cough—booster. Of course, the establishment of these registers and the No Jab, No Pay policies are just part of our budget commitment to improve immunisation levels. We are also providing an additional incentive payment to doctors and other immunisation providers who identify children who are more than two months overdue for their vaccinations and catch them up. This will be paid on top of the existing payment doctors receive to deliver the vaccinations. We are also developing a range of communication activities, tools and resources to increase awareness and understanding of the National Immunisation Program and to address parents' concerns regarding immunisation, including dispelling common myths. Specifically, we will also develop tools to assist doctors in having important conversations with their patients who may have concerns. Of course, all of these measures are just part of our overall commitment to health, which totals over $69.4 million in the 2015-16 budget. I know that our government, with its renewed sense of purpose, will continue to be one that delivers practical benefits to ensure the ongoing improvement of health services in the community. Unlike the Labor Party, which offers nothing but scare campaigns and trumped up figures that never would have been delivered, we will continue to deliver practical benefits and ensure a more effective and efficient health system. I am very pleased to support this bill, which is a vital part of our plan to strengthen immunisation rates and therefore improve health outcomes for Australia. I commend this bill to the House. 15:26 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby On 11 June this year Australia's Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, made a statement in relation to vaccination. He said that Australia has a proud record in advancing the science of vaccination and making sure it is available throughout the community. We have one of the highest rates of vaccination in the world and, unlike previous generations, Australians do not grow up in the shadow of polio and diphtheria. He went on to observe that on an annual basis between two million and three million deaths are avoided worldwide due to vaccination. So the power of vaccinations is very well known. They harness the capacity of our immune system to protect against pathogens. Although our awareness of immunisation can be traced back to ancient Greece, it was the pioneering work of Edward Jenner in the 18th century that led to the modern era of the vaccination. In what became a famous anecdote shared in classrooms around the world, he noticed that milkmaids who suffered from skin infections from cowpox were resistant to the dreaded smallpox. In the decades that have followed, with the widespread introduction of vaccination, deaths from diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, polio and measles have fallen to close to zero in countries like Australia. A vital component of any efficient vaccination scheme is a structured immunisation register. Registers are a key tool in improving the performance of immunisation programs. They do this by collecting data on the vaccinations that have been given; generating notices and prompting people to have their next vaccination, booster shots and the like; providing certificates of vaccination; and monitoring vaccine coverage, including hotspots across the entire population. Registers allow us to identify deficiencies and to adapt and respond to new and emerging threats. The Australian Immunisation Register Bill 2015, currently before the House, creates a new, consolidated framework for the two existing immunisation registers. These are the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register and the National HPV—human papillomavirus—Vaccination Program Register. The first of these, the ACIR, which currently records vaccinations for children aged seven and under, will be expanded to collect and record vaccinations given to young individuals under the age of 20. This enables the transfer of data necessary to implement the government's No Jab, No Pay social security measure. From the September 2016 the register will be expanded even further. This will enable the register to cover every single vaccination from birth to death given through GPs and community clinics. For the first time we will have the framework for a comprehensive national immunisation register. The HPV register will be replaced with the Australian Schools Vaccination Register. This new register will be able to capture data to assist vaccination providers to boost coverage rates. This is a common sense change and one that is supported by the Labor opposition. Currently the HPV register only catches administration of the HPV vaccine. But there are other adolescent vaccinations out there given through school programs that would now be captured. These include chickenpox and the diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough booster. The changes are needed. We often seem to think that vaccinations only apply to children, but this, of course, is not the case. There are a large number of vaccinations out there recommended for adolescents and young adults. In fact, the number of vaccinations is increasing each year. In addition to the ones that I have mentioned there is also the influenza vaccination, pneumococcal, whooping cough for pregnant mothers and, more recently, shingles for older Australians. This is the very reason why clinicians and public health workers have long advocated for this change. It is to have some information available for adolescents and adults and children. How will this help health experts stay on top of the diseases that threaten the health and welfare of all Australians? The answer is that unexpected disease outbreaks still occur. Recently there has been an outbreak of whooping cough, particularly in northern New South Wales, and this has had tragic implications for newborn babies. There is also the prospect of measles returning to Australia, as has occurred recently in the United States. Comprehensive immunisation registers will help determine whether it is due to low vaccine coverage and will enable a better and more targeted response. The bill enables the transfer of data to Centrelink. This is necessary because it enables the government to effect the No Jab, No Pay measure that encourages parents to have their children immunised. I note that in the budget papers the government is booking in excess of $500 million worth of savings to the No Jab, No Pay initiative. I sincerely hope that those savings are not realised—not because I do not want the government to be making budget savings but because I want parents to immunise their children. If parents are immunising their children at the rates that are necessary, these savings will dwindle. I would also argue that the government would make up for those lost savings in other areas of health expenditure. The policy achieves its objective by removing conscientious objection as grounds for people being able to refuse vaccinations while still being able to claim family tax benefits and other social security benefits. It is not going to be popular with everyone, but it is a necessary initiative. In fact, it is an initiative that Labor took to the last election. We did it for a very simple reason. I know there have been complaints. I have received many emails from anti-vaccination campaigners throughout my electorate and throughout the country. I am sure the member for Lingiari, who is at the table, would have received similar complaints from around his electorate. The member for Lingiari and I know that it is unreasonable for those people to expect the collective benefits of welfare payments if they are not themselves contributing to the collective wellbeing of the population as a whole by having themselves and their children vaccinated against preventable diseases. It is for this reason that Labor wholeheartedly supports these changes. It is important that we improve vaccination rates across the country. As I said at the outset, vaccination rates in Australia have been amongst the best in the world, but we cannot rest on our laurels. Vaccinations are vital to the welfare of all citizens. It is not just about protecting yourself or your child; herd immunity relies on everyone doing the right thing. As the assistant minister mentioned earlier, we rely on quite high percentages of the population being immunised to obtain what scientists call herd immunity rates. For diphtheria the rate is up to 85 per cent; for measles, between 83 and 94 per cent; for mumps, around 75 to 86 per cent; for polio, between 80 and 86 per cent; and for smallpox and rubella, somewhere between 80 and 85 per cent. Against this background it is of deep concern to all opposition members to know that the number of people claiming to be conscientious objectors to vaccination is increasing. Last year, according to the Department of Health, nearly 40,000 Australians had registered as conscientious objectors to vaccinations. There are some towns throughout the country where immunisation rates are some of the lowest in the world. I am advised that the town of Mullumbimby has vaccination rates of below 50 per cent of the population. This is deeply concerning. At the very same time that we are providing resources to Garvan, along with other international aid organisations, to ensure developing countries throughout our region have access to the benefits of vaccination, we have towns and regions within Australia where vaccination rates are below those of some of the countries we are providing overseas aid to. This cannot be allowed to continue. It is not only irresponsible for the parents of those children; it is collectively irresponsible because it downgrades the capacity of the entire population to resist the outbreaks of certain diseases. So we think it is absolutely critical. I have mentioned one town in northern New South Wales, but there are others where the rate of unvaccinated children is as high as 60 to 70 per cent. This is unacceptable. There are also other areas where this occurs, and we cannot blame low levels of education, as sometimes people are quick to retort, saying, 'If only we could educate the parents, we could improve vaccination rates.' It might surprise many to know that some of the lowest vaccination rates are in suburbs throughout northern Sydney, in areas like Mosman and Manly, and in the inner city and the eastern suburbs. We all, as public leaders, have a responsibility to talk about this and to ensure that we get vaccination rates up to where they need to be for the good of everyone. It is important that we have preventative health measures such as these in place, but it is also important to ensure that we wrap around them health resourcing which ensures we are dealing with all areas of health policy. When we are talking about health policy, I cannot remain silent on the lacklustre policy of this government for the last two years when it comes to areas of health policy. We have seen absolutely disastrous attempts to make changes in the area of primary care, not only with the eradication of Medicare Locals and the black hole that existed for many months when people did not know how they were going to be replaced or where they were going to be replaced. We have seen the disaster in terms of the war the government has attempted to launch against GPs in this country, with the GP tax versions 1, 2 and 3 and the freeze on Medicare rebates which is, in effect, another GP tax. It is an attempt to get GPs to pass on a tax that the parliament itself has refused to pass. These are other areas of health policy that are in drastic need of repair. The Abbott government was fundamentally incompetent at the task. The challenge remains for the newly installed Prime Minister to see whether he is up to the challenge. To date, he has had precious little to say about health policy, but the country is crying out for some certainty around hospital funding and the future of Medicare. These are initiatives that a government is judged on. While we offer the government full-throated support in its initiatives to improve our levels of vaccination, for the benefit of the entire country, we are deeply critical about other areas of the government's health policy. I commend the bill to the House. 15:53 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins In 2014 the number of measles cases in Australia hit a 16-year high, with 340 cases across the nation. Even in 2015 unnecessary suffering is being endured by children and their parents due to an avoidable disease. It is resurgent because enclaves of unvaccinated children have allowed the disease to gain a foothold. So it is timely that we in this place seek to implement legislation that will help ensure more Australian children are vaccinated. As a parent with a young baby I strongly believe that it is critical we grant our children freedom from avoidable diseases. There is certainly very strong evidence for the need to vaccinate our children. If enough members in a community are vaccinated we achieve herd immunity, meaning that a disease can effectively be eradicated. This was the case with polio. The introduction of the polio vaccine saw the number of local polio cases in Australia fall from 39.1 per 100,000 population in 1938 to zero in 1978. The problem is that when parents do not have their children vaccinated they not only put their own children at risk but also risk the health of the community of children, allowing the disease to gain a foothold. It is not only children who are at risk but also vulnerable people in our community. Many of us have forgotten how dangerous preventable diseases, such as measles and polio, are because they have been controlled so well in Australia through comprehensive vaccination programs. The reality is that they are deadly diseases. According to the World Health Organisation, in 2013, there were 145,700 deaths from measles around the world. That is approximately 400 deaths a day. The number of reported polio cases worldwide, on the other hand, has dropped from 350,000 in 1988, to 416 in 2013. This massive reduction was made possible through a global effort to immunise children. We must not underestimate the benefits that vaccination brings. However, with a highly infectious disease, such as measles, the immunisation rate required to interrupt disease transmission is above 95 per cent—a mark we have not yet met. Immunisation rates in some parts of my electorate, Higgins, are concerningly low. According to 2012-13 data from the National Health Performance Authority, in Stonnington-West, which includes the suburbs of Prahran, Windsor, Armadale, South Yarra and Toorak, only 85.7 per cent of five-year-olds were fully vaccinated. This is compared to a national average of 91.86 per cent, at the time. The Australian Immunisation Register Bill 2015 seeks to implement a comprehensive framework for our national immunisation registers and to expand the scope of our two existing immunisation registers, the Australian Childhood Immunisation register and the National Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Program Register. The changes made in this bill will help to increase national immunisation rates, along with the government's No Jab, No Pay budget measure. This latter measure is important because we need to provide parents with the incentive to ensure that their choices in not vaccinating their children do not impinge on the rights of other children to be free of the disease. The measures proposed in this bill work practically, in two ways, to encourage and track immunisation. Firstly, the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register will be expanded to become the Australian Immunisation Register. This new register will, ultimately, capture all immunisation information, from birth to death, for vaccines detailed under the national immunisation program. This expansion will happen in two stages. The first, to start from 1 January 2016, will expand the register, which currently only tracks immunisation data for those under seven years of age, to collect vaccination records for all individuals under 20 years of age. This change will go hand in hand with the No Jab, No Pay budget measure, as it will allow the government to ascertain which families are entitled to family assistance and childcare payments on account of their children having been vaccinated. The second stage, set to occur from September 2016, will expand the register to collect vaccine information for Australians of all ages. This will accommodate the introduction of the shingles vaccine into the national immunisation program for 70-year-olds. This is a highly practical and humane measure. The second immunisation register, currently in place—the National Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Program Register—will be expanded, under this legislation, to become the Australian Schools Vaccination Register from the beginning of 2017. This is significant, as there are a number of vaccines administered in schools that are not adequately recorded and, as a result, immunisation rates for adolescents in Australia are not well known. This includes information about vaccines for chickenpox, tetanus and diphtheria and the whooping cough booster. All of these can be extremely serious diseases and we should ensure that our adolescents are protected. The expansion of our two existing immunisation registers will give vaccine providers the data they need on areas where immunisation rates are low, and it will allow them to send out the necessary reminder letters in an effort to improve vaccination rates. This bill also lays down important groundwork for a single immunisation register that may exist, in Australia, in the future. In conclusion, we must ensure the ongoing protection of our children from easily preventable diseases by improving immunisation rates. The first step in doing so is to gather data on the current levels of vaccination. With this data we can target areas of the community where immunity is low to better protect our entire citizenry. This bill is therefore a major step in reducing the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases and is good news for all Australian children. I commend the bill to the House. 16:00 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Not for the first time I am in screaming agreement with the member for Higgins as she leaves the chamber. We should mark the occasion! I think the member for Higgins made a great deal of sense in her contribution to the Australian Immunisation Register Bill 2015. Like the member for Higgins and the member for Throsby, who spoke before her, and like other speakers from both sides of the chamber, I am a strong supporter of the immunisation of young people—children in particular—against dreadful diseases like diphtheria, tetanus, hepatitis, chicken pox, measles, polio, mumps and rubella. This legislation consolidates the legislative framework to manage and expand the two existing immunisation registers, and it also broadens their scope. The Australian Childhood Immunisation Register will expand to collect and record vaccinations given to young people under the age of 20 from the start of next year and then, in September 2016, will be expanded to cover all vaccinations from birth to death. This is a good outcome and a good idea. The HPV register will be replaced with the Australian school vaccination register, which will broaden the immunisation data collected by school vaccination providers to include more types of immunisations administered in schools. I am very pleased, and this side of the House is very pleased, to be supporting this legislation through the House today. There is a bit of a baby boom happening in the parliament at the moment. There are a lot of new parents in this building, including the member for Higgins, who spoke before me. A whole range of us in this place have become parents—the member for Kingston, the member for Adelaide, the member for Pearce very, very recently, and the member for Charlton recently had his second child. There are a whole bunch of us in this place—the member for Mitchell and the member for Greenway, a little bit earlier. Last year, was it? Ms ROWLAND 159771 It was a little while ago. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Three now! There is a whole range of us in this place who are recent parents, and I count myself among their number. I think one of the hardest parts of being a new parent—although people tell you it is the sleep or something like that—is taking the little bloke or the little girl along to their immunisation experience. You know in your head that it is in your child's best interest, but your instincts kick in and of course you want to protect your child from pain. But the long-term benefits far outweigh the short-term pain from the jab. Fortunately, in my community the Logan City Council's community immunisation clinics have made what is a difficult day a whole lot easier. I want to spend some time paying tribute to my local council, which has been extraordinarily good and extraordinarily far-sighted when it comes to this issue. They have offered free immunisation for the community since 1979; so, for 36 years they have done that. Immunisations are now held weekly at six locations in Logan and are staffed by the most incredibly friendly, professional and helpful nurses. Over the last few months I have had cause to spend time with the nurses at Logan North Library and Logan Central Library just near my electorate office, and they really are the most extraordinary people. I want to thank them for the work that they do in our community. The Logan City Council also offers a school-based immunisation program to local students in grade 8 and grade 10. Logan is also the first council in Australia to offer a vaccination outreach program to at-risk families in our communities who are less likely to take up that offer of free immunisations. For a long time now—36 years or so—we have had free immunisations, but there has been a group in our community which, for whatever reason, is less likely to take up that opportunity. Now we have an outreach program, which is very important to getting more kids immunised. In 2009 the council found that in parts of my electorate those immunisation rates had fallen to unacceptable levels. Scientists believe that to have full effectiveness vaccination rates should reach at least 95 per cent. In Queensland just over 90 per cent of children aged between one and five are vaccinated, so we need to do better there. In 2009, when the council turned its attention to this issue, parts of my electorate were dropping towards the 80 per cent range. One of the reasons for this was lack of transport. That was one of the key reasons parents offered up for not getting their children vaccinated. So, in order to make immunisations more accessible, nurses involved in the outreach vaccination program now visit at-risk families in areas of Logan every Wednesday. Now the program is vaccinating around 1,500 people every year at their home, which means 1,500 people every year are protected from suffering potentially life-threatening diseases themselves or from passing disease on to others, many of whom would not have been vaccinated were it not for the program. Again, I salute Logan City Council for that outreach program. I encourage other councils around the country to take up the Logan model, because it is doing such good in our community. We all benefit from high rates of immunisation, as the member for Higgins, the member for Throsby and other speakers have said. We are all aware of the theory and the practice: vaccines trigger the immune system to fight against certain viruses, which makes the immune system able to respond to diseases more effectively. The World Health Organization puts the benefits of vaccination very, very clearly when they say that: Vaccination has greatly reduced the burden of infectious diseases. Only clean water, also considered to be a basic human right, performs better. There are incredible benefits of vaccination at the individual level, with decreased likelihood of contracting those deadly diseases and decreased severity if the disease is contracted. For society as a whole the benefits are even greater, with vaccination associated with what economists, in economicspeak, would call positive externalities. It was the World Health Organization that estimated that vaccines prevent almost six million deaths annually. In the US there has been a 99 per cent decrease in the incidence of the nine diseases for which vaccines have been recommended for decades. The greatest value of vaccination comes from what scientists call 'herd protection', which occurs when a sufficient proportion—usually 95 per cent, as I said before—of the population is immune. That is why getting every child immunised is so important, not only for their own protection but for the protection of others as well. The Australian experience is that vaccination has been incredibly successful. One disease, poliomyelitis, was declared eradicated in Australia in 1987—because of vaccination. Smallpox was declared eradicated in Australia in 1938—because of vaccination. Measles was declared eliminated in Australia in March 2014—because of vaccination. But we still have a bit more work to do. The story is not all good for vaccination in Australia. In September 2014, the Department of Health reported that the rolling annualised rate of children fully immunised by two years of age decreased again by 0.9 per cent to 89.2 per cent. Further, measles re-emerged in Brisbane this year, with seven cases detected at the University of Queensland's St Lucia campus. More of these isolated outbreaks are likely to occur if we do not work to increase our community vaccination rates. All Australians should have an interest in ensuring all young people are fully immunised and taking advantage of the free vaccination programs available across the country—and perfected in my community. Those are some of the reasons why Labor will be supporting this legislation before the House today. The broadening of the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register to become the Australian Immunisation Register and to include all vaccinations from birth to death will do a lot to help us understand vaccination trends and potentially improve vaccination take-up rates. Given the increasing number of vaccines now recommended for adolescents and adults in Australia—influenza, pneumococcal, whooping cough for pregnant mothers, HPV for adolescents and young adults, and shingles for older people—it is time for us to collect that information on behalf of all Australians and to put it to good use. If unexpected disease outbreaks do occur, as recently with whooping cough—with tragic consequences for newborns—and with measles at UQ, immunisation registers will help determine whether they are due to low vaccine coverage in an area and will enable a better targeted response. They will also help us to determine areas and demographics on which to focus outreach and vaccination advocacy programs—as per the successful models seen in my community of Logan City. This is why Labor will be supporting the Australian Immunisation Register Bill before the House today. I am very pleased to see that all sides of the House support the bill. We do so because we want to see the end of certain debilitating viruses in our lifetime—or certainly in the lifetime of our children. I sincerely support any initiative to increase the vaccination rate among young Australians, I support Logan City Council's vaccination outreach program, I support this bill and I am pleased to see that all members in this place are also likely to support this important legislation. 16:11 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I support the Australian Immunisation Register Bill 2015. Recently my wife and I were fortunate enough to welcome two beautiful new daughters—twins—into our family. When I look at those beautiful four-month-old babies and I think about how much they rely on their parents, I think that probably the most vulnerable a human being can be over the course of their life is when they are a newborn. They are completely reliant on their parents for their welfare, for their health and indeed for their survival. Without the support, the care and the nurturing of a parent, newborns simply do not survive. In many cases, going back centuries, that was the case—that children did not survive without the proper care and support of their parents. Because of that, parents have a natural instinct, an in-built instinct, to care for their young children. In our society, through government policy and through legislation, we encourage that natural instinct. We in many respects enshrine parental duty in policy and legislation—a duty to care for and bring up their child to ensure they do survive and grow, to ensure we are catering for their every health and welfare need. Part of that obligation, in my view, is to ensure that a child is healthy. That entails accepting the conventions and the positive nature of western medicine and the advances of western medicine, particularly when it comes to vaccination against disease in children. I have received a small number of emails from parents and constituents in Kingsford Smith who do not believe that vaccination is the most appropriate way to care for a child, to nurture a child, to grow a child. I accept a parent's right to have differing views about the way they wish to raise their children and to cater for and care for their health. That is a parent's right—it is both human nature and a human right. But, from a government perspective, in order to put in place policies to achieve greatest social benefit—the greatest need for the greatest number of individuals—the position on vaccinations is clear, in my view. The benefits far outweigh the costs. Quite simply, vaccination saves lives. The statistics and the evidence support this. Medical and scientific evidence now consistently asserts that vaccination is the safest and most effective way to protect a child and an adult from harmful diseases. In June of this year, the Office of the Chief Scientist released a report on vaccinations, and the conclusions of that report are, I think, instructive for what is in this bill that we are debating here today. Those conclusions are that the risks of severe side effects from vaccinations are extremely rare. In fact, in terms of a statistical analysis, the data on severe side effects of vaccinations are that it is a one in 100,000 to one in one million chance of a child experiencing harmful side effects from vaccinations. So a side effect from vaccination is an extreme rarity. The World Health Organization estimates that each year vaccinations prevent two million to three million deaths from preventable diseases. So the evidence and the medical research are, quite simply, irrefutable: vaccinations save lives. From a government perspective, we need to do all we can to ensure that we are encouraging as many children in our society as possible to be vaccinated. Vaccination works. Vaccination prevents disease, as we have seen, and in some cases completely eradicates diseases—smallpox is the classic example. We as a society are on the cusp of ridding the world of polio. But preventable diseases that many Australians do not believe exist in our society anymore because they are so rare due to vaccination, such as tuberculosis and whooping cough, still occur in other nations and, in some cases, in Australia. That is why it is important that as governments we are doing all we can to support and encourage the uptake of vaccination within our community. My own consultations with local doctors in our community also provide me with peace of mind that vaccination is the best way to go in protecting the interests of children and preventing disease. Every local doctor whom I have consulted is of the view that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the costs. In my view, the debate is one in which the evidence is quite clear: that vaccination is important, that we need to encourage vaccination, that we need to provide incentives for parents to vaccinate their child and that vaccinations save lives. And that is why this bill is worthy of support. This bill establishes a new legislative framework to manage and expand the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register—the ACIR—and the National Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Program Register, or the HPV program. The ACIR will expand in two phases under this legislation. In January 2016, the ACIR, which currently records vaccinations for children aged seven and under, will expand to include those under the age of 20. The purpose of this change is for the implementation of the No Jab, No Pay policy, which is a positive measure and one that I support. From September 2016, the ACIR will further expand to cover all vaccinations from birth to death and to become a national immunisation register. This bill also replaces the HPV register with the Australian School Vaccination Register, which captures a greater number of vaccinations, such as chickenpox, tetanus and whooping cough. The use of data in the management and delivery of health care, a relatively recent phenomenon, has become increasingly important in the support of evidence based health care which promises greater outcomes and saving a far greater number of lives across Australia. Established in 1996, the ACIR has provided the opportunity to improve vaccination rates, in particular through the targeting of regions and demographics identified as having gaps in vaccine coverage. Indeed, through immunisation and the elimination of carriers to spread disease, it is even possible to completely eradicate some diseases. I have mentioned smallpox as one of those that were eradicated, but the same effect is being had with polio. But the threat remains. Measles and whooping cough continue to be diseases which afflict, in particular, too many children in our community. There is a threat of measles returning to Australia, as was recently the case in America, with 644 cases recorded in 2014 despite the disease being declared eliminated there 15 years ago. With the threat of disease remaining high, there has been a concerted effort from health professionals, including the Public Health Association of Australia, which has been advocating for over 10 years for the expansion of the ACIR to include adults, and that is what this bill actually does. With an increasing number of vaccines now recommended for adolescents and adults in Australia, such as influenza, whooping cough for pregnant mothers, shingles for older Australians and HPV for adolescents and young adults, the national immunisation register is an idea that will boost the vaccination and immunisation of people under those categories. The bill will also facilitate the transfer of data to Centrelink to allow the government to undertake the No Jab, No Pay measures that encourage parents to have their children immunised by removing conscientious objection as a ground for being able to refuse vaccinations while still being able to claim family tax benefits. I mentioned earlier that governments have a duty to cater for the greatest need for the greatest good. That is what this particular measure does. I know some within our society and, indeed, within our community have been opposed to this, but, from a government perspective, there is no real alternative. The government must use public policy incentives to ensure that we increase the rates of immunisation in our community and that we do all we can to ensure all children in Australia are immunised against preventable disease. That is what this measure will do. It will boost that incentive and that rate of immunisation within our community and, on that basis, I support the measure. It builds on a number of measures that Labor undertook in government. When we were in government, we made important changes to family payments to lift immunisation rates, including linking the family tax benefit end-of-year supplement to immunisation. Labor is committed to ensuring that every child grows up healthy, happy and strong. We also believe that parents have a right to a say when considering health decisions about their child, but, when it comes to immunisation, there is a strong public health interest in ensuring that every child is immunised. We have seen all too frequently, unfortunately, tragic stories of children who passed away in the vulnerable early years—particularly in the first year of life—from preventable diseases such as whooping cough. They are simply tragic stories. With the advances in medical science and with the changes in evidence based medicine that have occurred over the last century, we know that immunisation works and we know that we can prevent diseases such as whooping cough and measles from killing young children. That is why this initiative must be supported by the parliament. Good health care is not just about the child-years; it is about cradle-to-grave health care. That is why it is pleasing to see, as part of these reforms, measures that will also increase the rate of immunisation amongst adult Australians, particularly with respect to HPV. That will ensure that we are not only doing all we can for vulnerable children but preventing diseases from cradle-to-grave in Australia. That is a sign of a good healthcare system. That is why Labor has been so vehemently opposed to the changes sought to be made by the Abbott and the Turnbull governments: cuts to health care, in particular, and the Medicare co-payment, which would have put a cost on seeing a doctor—the important first level of preventable health care in our country. The $50 billion worth of cuts to hospitals that are still sitting in the budget papers have had an effect on the Prince of Wales Hospital in the community that I represent, with beds being closed and positions lost. Cradle-to-grave health care is not simply about providing the right incentives for immunisation; it is about ensuring that we are providing the necessary resources through the whole healthcare system to prevent disease. This is an important measure that will ensure that we are doing all we can to provide the right incentives for parents to immunise their children and for more adolescents and adults to become immunised against preventable disease. On that basis, I support the legislation. 16:25 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth Last year there was a very interesting novel published by a former Western Australian, Joan London. It was a book called The Golden Age. Joan's novels are generally fantastic and this one was no exception. The Golden Age is abook about the polio epidemic in Perth, in Western Australia, in the late 40s and the early 50s. For those who did not live through that or only have a vague folk memory from lessons passed down from the older generation, it is absolutely critical to read this book and understand what can occur in a community like ours—a sophisticated Western society—with the fear that comes with epidemiological disease, where the community can be highly fractured. One of the things that Joan London points out and captures extremely well in this book is the fear and anxiety that emerged from this disease, which affected vast numbers of Australian children. One in 1,000 children in Australia ultimately contracted polio, so parents were incredibly fearful of the impact of this disease. Joan's novel showed the way in which fear drove some very severe reactions in the community. It tore communities apart. People became suspicious of each other and marginalised others. If someone in a family contracted the disease, there was often a great deal of stigma attached to that—a belief that the family's lifestyle was unhygienic; that they were in some way less hygienic people because of this disease. Families had difficulties in dealing with the sheer physical disability created by this disease and there was the ultimate establishment of facilities where children would be basically exiled for numerous years. In many cases, in that process they became very separated emotionally from their families and they took that with them throughout the rest of their lives. So, for those of us who perhaps have never lived through an epidemic, it is really important to understand the direct physical result of this. I think one in 20 children who contracted polio died and many more had a disability that remained with them for the rest of their life. So it is not just the direct physical impact, but then there are all the psycho-social consequences that can attend upon that. So it is important for us to consider what this great mischief is that requires us to take a pretty hard line on the issue of vaccination. On this side of the House we have supported the No Jab, No Pay policy and we support this latest extension of that policy, which is to remove the exemption on the basis of conscientious objection. We think this is something that is undermining the very nature of the policy. Also, we are supporting the strengthening of the data we have about the immunological profile of our community, through the formation of and strengthening of the various registers, which will give us a better understanding of the penetration of vaccinations. I have had some letters of concern, and I think there are some legitimate concerns raised around the emphasis that is being placed on, perhaps, people of lower incomes—that is, those who, by and large, have a reliance on the family benefits and various subsidies to which we are attaching the No Pay, No Jab rules. I heard with interest the member for Higgins, representing largely a very wealthy area in Melbourne, noting that in her electorate there are some of the lowest immunisation rates. That indeed reflects the research that has gone on across Australia—that indeed it is those wealthier areas that have the lowest rates of immunisation. I think this is a question we are going to have to address. For the effectiveness of these vaccines in respect of highly contagious diseases, to get proper herd immunity we need about a 95 per cent coverage rate. For diseases that are still communicable but perhaps not as readily transmissible we need a coverage rate of around 90 per cent. I think it is only fair that we ensure the burden—if I can call it that—of ensuring this level of herd immunisation does not fall disproportionately upon those people who are in the lower income brackets. So I think we need to keep ourselves very much alive to who is being immunised and who is not. We do in fact have another lever available to us if we do not see the immunisation rates increasing equally across all socioeconomic groups. I put it to the government that just as we are quite rightly, and with the full support of the opposition, looking at family tax benefits and the child care payments as the leverage point, it may well be that if we continue to see this disproportionate level of vaccination we should also consider attaching it to the subsidies the federal government pays directly to government schools. This is a really important issue and we need to ensure that we have the vaccination rates up there. But we must make sure that the task of ensuring we do this is spread evenly. I have had a very personal experience with this. When my daughter was only four weeks old, before she was capable of having her first shot, she contracted whooping cough. It was a really quite horrific experience to take this very small baby into the hospital and learn that she was clearly struggling with this condition. In the weeks before, she had had exposure to a child whose parents had not immunised the child. It is quite possible that that was the source from which she contracted whooping cough. We have this great vulnerability. We need to understand that the scientific evidence has overwhelmingly shown us that the benefits of this vaccination program outweigh the risks. And, of course, there is some risk with everything. There are no free lunches in medicine, as there are no free lunches elsewhere. But all of the scientific evidence is really showing us that overwhelmingly the benefits outweigh the risks. On this issue we need to be putting the rights of the community before the rights of the individual, because it is only as a community that we can stamp out these illnesses. This cannot be something that becomes purely a matter of personal choice, any more than the issue of paying tax becomes an issue of personal choice—although with some of our tax laws some of us might be forgiven for believing there is an element of choice, for at least some in our community! This is very important legislation and it is very important that we develop a very sound policy and that we have a database that is going to enable us to understand, with great clarity, just exactly how we are going in terms of this coverage, so that we can really plan our health policies around that. To repeat: I think we have to look very closely at the reality behind the reflection made by the member for Higgins about the groups in society that, in fact, may not be pulling their weight in an immunological sense and look at how we can apply other Commonwealth financial levers to bring them into the herd, along with everyone else, to make sure that we get this right. Ms HALL 83N I rise to support the Australian Immunisation Register Bill 2015. I believe it is very important legislation. The bill before us today establishes a new consolidated legislative framework to manage and expand the two existing immunisation registers. From 1 January 2016, the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register, or ACIR, which currently records vaccinations for children aged seven and under, will be expanded to collect and record vaccinations given to young individuals under the age of 20 years. I think that is particularly important with the newer vaccines that have been developed in recent times. It is important that this data is transferred so that the government's No Jab, No Pay budget measure can be implemented. Prior to the last election, this was one of the policies of the Labor Party, and we are very consistent. We support good policy and this is good policy. It is something that I believe many, many Australians would endorse. There are some people who are conscientious objectors to immunisation. I acknowledge that fact, and this legislation will not force them to immunise their children. This legislation will lead to a situation where, if they do not immunise their children, they will not receive financial support from the government. The other component of this legislation is that, from September 2016, Australia's immunisation system will be expanded further to cover all vaccinations from birth to death given through general practice and community clinics and become the Australian Immunisation Register. It will have considerable important data and will be a way to monitor, over the long term, the impact that immunisation has within our society. The bill also replaces the human papillomavirus register with the Australian School Vaccination Register. Once again, it is broadening a really good policy. The ASVR broadens the immunisation data, and that will assist vaccination providers to boost the coverage rates. That will make sure that more and more young Australians are immunised. Other adolescent vaccinations administered through the schools program are chickenpox, diphtheria, tetanus and the pertussis-whooping cough booster. It is a way of ensuring that young people have the vaccinations that they need. It is almost 50 years since infant vaccinations for diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus became routine in Australia. The incidence of vaccine preventable diseases has declined dramatically. We have used existing vaccination records and the recollection of experts to compile a history of vaccination, and that has been quite useful because it demonstrates, very visually, the impact that vaccination has had in our society. I was looking at some figures that showed that, from 1926 to 1935, there were 4,073 deaths from diphtheria in Australia. From 1996 to 2000—I am working from a table that ends in 2000, but I can confidently say that the figures are the same now—there were zero deaths. So we have gone from over 4,000 deaths from diphtheria to zero deaths. To my way of thinking, that is a fantastic outcome. That is the kind of outcome that you like to see. It is good preventive health care, and the best kind of health care is preventive health care. That is why governments invest in preventive health care—and that is why I have been a little upset about the Abbott-Turnbull government not investing in preventive health in the way that they should. Taking money out of preventive health is really bad health policy. But I have to compliment them on following through on the Labor policy of No Jab, No Pay and maintaining a commitment to ensuring that young Australians and all Australians maintain their vaccinations, that we have a good record of the vaccinations and that incentives are put in place to ensure that people are vaccinated. Since the introduction of childhood diphtheria vaccinations, which I was talking about just a moment ago, in 1932, there has also been the introduction of vaccines for tetanus and pertussis, which, for the record, is whooping cough. When the immunisation rate for whooping cough goes down, we hear about epidemics that take place. There have been a few of those in recent times—it is particularly dangerous for babies—and it really shows how important it is that we are vigilant in ensuring that Australians are immunised for whooping cough—and, of course, poliomyelitis in the 1950s. We have parliamentary friends of the late effects of polio in this parliament, and many of the members have met with people and constituents who are living with the late effects of polio. Former Senator John Tierney is one of those people. Representatives of the group Polio Australia will be down here in parliament this week, meeting with members and reminding us just how important it is to be immunised against diseases such as polio. My own grandfather was a victim of polio. He did not lose his life, but he had a permanent disability and had to wear calipers throughout his life. The shadow minister for health's mother also is a survivor of polio. So these diseases were just so prevalent within our society, and the thing that changed that was immunisation. By immunising babies, children and adolescents, we are preventing the spreading of these diseases. It is in countries like Pakistan, where polio still exists and where there is suspicion about the immunisation of people against polio, that we still have a problem. So we need to get the message out very strongly into the community that immunisation saves lives. It is one of the best preventative health measures that can be introduced. You cannot separate the reduction in deaths and the incidence of these diseases from immunisation. It is the best argument that you could put forward for immunisation. I know there are many people who feel that there are risks associated with immunisation, but the risks associated with not immunising are far, far greater. I have a niece who is quite an expert in the area of autism, and she had a baby and—because autism is one of those illnesses or disabilities that people tend to associate with immunisation—I asked her what she thought about it and whether or not she would be having her child immunised. She said to me that she has not seen any research that substantiates this. There was a paper that was prepared—I think it was in the UK—but that paper has been largely discredited. She said that without a doubt she would be immunising her children and she knew that immunisation saves lives. This bill creates a new consolidated framework, as I have already said, and it further refines the monitoring of data, because it is important to monitor data and to make sure that people are having the immunisations that they need. It is going to ensure that children, young people and even older people follow through and they have all the vaccinations that they need from birth to death. That is the thing that is so exciting about this legislation. One aspect that I am a tiny bit uncomfortable about relates to No Jab, No Pay, which I support. But I worry about some people that will not get the information or will not understand the information and will not be able to relate the fact that they are not being paid their Centrelink payments to the fact that their child is not immunised. They may not have their child immunised, because in their daily lives the importance of immunisation does not register. So I think there needs to be a very strong education campaign around the need to immunise. I do not think that we can ever move away from the fact that it is vital to educate all Australians that immunisation is imperative for good public health. The benefits of immunisation flow to all sectors of society and to all people, and it is so important that immunisation continue. As I mentioned very briefly a moment ago, prevention is one of the most important public health measures that a government can put in place. I am really disappointed that the government cut $800 million from the health flexible grants. That will impact on community health groups. The cuts to preventative health will also impact on the overall health of Australians. So immunisation is important, but all those other preventive health measures and the flexible health grant funds are very important too. The government needs to be very thoughtful of the impact that the freeze on Medicare will have on Australians; it can lead to fees, a GP tax or a GP surcharge, that will prevent people from accessing their doctor and prevent them from having the immunisations that they need. This legislation is good legislation. It has my support. But I must say that the government has a lot more work to do in the preventive health area, and if it does not embrace preventive health then the consequences will be enormous. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 I thank the member for Shortland for her contribution. Before I introduce the assistant minister, I would like to congratulate him on the role that he has been given by the Prime Minister. The question is that the bill be now read a second time. 16:53 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent, for those kind words. I do want to sum up these important bills in this important debate that we have had here in the chamber today, and I will start with the Australian Immunisation Register Bill 2015. The Australian Immunisation Register Bill 2015 creates a new consolidated legislative framework for the establishment and ongoing management of Australian immunisation registers. Currently, separate legislation within the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953 provide the foundation for how the two national immunisation registers are operated. In this context, it is considered timely to consolidate the two pieces of separate legislation for the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register and the human papillomavirus register into new legislation to provide for the ongoing management and data capture for both registers. This bill will lay the foundations for future work to move towards an integrated system that captures and reports on all vaccines given in Australia from birth to death, providing a single front door for consumers and immunisation providers. This bill provides the foundations under which Australian immunisation registers are operated. The bill facilitates the appropriate collection of Commonwealth assigned identifiers, such as Medicare number, for the purposes of the registers. The bill provides for the establishment of the register and the reporting of certain personal information about individuals. The bill also creates an offence for the unauthorised disclosure of personal information contained within the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register. The bill will allow the register to facilitate cross-referencing of information about the vaccination status of individuals to databases developed for the purposes of the register. I want to thank all members in this chamber for their contributions to the debate on this bill—the government members, of course, for their strong support for the government's legislation, but also opposition members for their very strong bipartisan endorsement of this important legislative approach that the government has taken. I do want to thank all members and commend all members on the very personal stories and experiences that they put forward during the course of this debate highlighting the urgent and important direction that the government is taking in this regard. Through this bill, expansion of the national immunisation registers and the way they continue to operate in the future will not only benefit the health of individuals. General practitioners and healthcare providers will have a consistent way in which immunisation records can be obtained for individuals of all ages and not just the young. Turning now to the Australian Immunisation Register (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2015—obviously, the consequential and transitional arrangements coming from the immunisation register bill—this bill will provide for the consequential and transitional provisions required to support the operation of the Australian Immunisation Register Act 2015. Again, I thank members for their contributions to this debate and the manner in which this debate was conducted. The Australian Immunisation Register Act 2015 will have amendments that commence in three stages. Part 4A of the Health Insurance Act 1973 will be repealed, along with the associated offence provisions relating to the register. These offences will be replaced by an offence under the new Australian Immunisation Register Act 2015. Additionally, minor amendments to subsection 130(5F) are proposed which will facilitate the disclosure of Medicare enrolment data to the register. Minor amendments to part 9BA of the National Health Act 1953 will be initiated to refer to a prescribed body within the meaning of the new Australian Immunisation Register Act 2015. The Freedom of Information Act 1982 schedule 3 will also be amended to provide for information in the registers to be exempt from disclosure under section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 in response to a freedom of information request. Amendments to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 to allow the definition of a recognised immunisation provider to be consistent with the meaning of a recognised vaccination provider in the new immunisation register bill is also proposed to occur from 1 January 2016. Amendments to the Healthcare Identifiers Act 2010 will repeal the definition of the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register which links to the Health Insurance Act 1973 and refer instead to the register operated under the new Australian Immunisation Register Act 2015. Finally, amendments to the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, the Human Services (Medicare) Act 1973 and the Human Services (Centrelink) Act 1997 are also proposed to prescribe that the Australian Immunisation Register Act 2015 is a designated program act. Amendments commencing later in 2016 include changes to the Australian Immunisation Register Act 2015 to reflect the name change of the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register to become the Australian Immunisation Register and the provision to be able to collect vaccination information for all individuals regardless of age. A secondary amendment to the Healthcare Identifiers Act 2010 is proposed to repeal the definition of the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register and allow for the use and disclosure of healthcare identifiers for the purposes of uploading information from the register onto an individual's personally controlled electronic health record. The final transition arrangement proposed is to commence from 1 January 2017 onwards. The provisions of the new Australian Immunisation Register Act 2015 will apply equally to the Australian Immunisation Register and the Australian school vaccination register. Following this expansion, part 9BA of the National Health Act 1953 will be repealed. The schedules listed in the transitional and consequential arrangements in this bill will only commence if the Australian Immunisation Register Act 2015 obtains royal assent. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 72 16:59 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Australian Immunisation Register (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2015 73

Australian Immunisation Register (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2015

Second Reading 73 Third Reading 73 17:00 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 73

Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015

Second Reading 73 17:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 is about replacing the Australian flag flying off the back of ships with the white flag on Australian jobs. This is unilateral economic disarmament. For an island continent it is in Australia's economic, environmental and security interests that we are a shipping nation, and that is why it is so surprising that the current government has chosen to bring this bill forward. This bill, soaked as it is in ideology, sells out the national interest on each of these counts. It will allow overseas flagged and crewed ships, paying workers Third World wages, to undercut Australian operators on domestic trade routes. It will destroy Australian jobs, damaging the economy. It will increase the likelihood of maritime accidents in our coastal waters, threatening the environment. And it will replace Australian mariners, who are subject to stringent background checks, with foreign workers whose backgrounds are not subject to the same scrutiny when it comes to security. Jobs, the environment, national security—all basic requirements of good government, all thrown overboard by a government blinded to the national interest by its hatred of the Maritime Union of Australia. Make no mistake: this legislation is bad for Australia. It is the most obscene piece of legislation I have seen in this House since WorkChoices. Indeed, it can be described as WorkChoices on water, which is why the Labor Party will oppose this legislation. When it comes to the maritime sector, Australia is 'open for business', but only to foreign flagged vessels that pay their crews peanuts and put Australians out of work. Under this legislation, if you are an Australian shipping company your business interests are about to be sold out to the lowest bidder. If you are an Australian mariner, a worker honestly going about your job, your job security is about to be terminated with extreme ideological prejudice. This bill is designed to repeal reforms of the former Labor government implemented to create a level playing field in the domestic shipping sector. The Labor reforms followed a parliamentary committee inquiry and months of consultation with all relevant stakeholders. Using several pieces of legislation, including updating the century-old Navigation Act and creating the new Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act, the former Labor government sought to arrest a decline in the fortunes of Australian shipping by revitalising the sector. Our changes included the requirement that firms seeking to move freight between Australian ports first seek out an Australian operator and that when no Australian ship was available foreign vessels could be used, provided they paid Australian-level wages on domestic sectors. They included a zero tax rate for Australian shipping companies; the creation of an Australian international shipping register to help grow our international fleet and the creation of the Maritime Workforce Development Forum to improve training of seafarers and port workers. The intent here was unambiguous. Labor wants Australian shipping companies to get fair access to the domestic shipping industry. We believe that ships moving freight between Australian ports should be crewed by Australians wherever possible. And where we do utilise foreign flagged vessels to assist with the growing Australian shipping task, their crews should be paid Australian-level wages so as not to distort the market. That is fair. That is sensible. It gives a fair go to all industry participants—shipowners, people moving goods, and mariners. If you move freight by a train in this country, the train driver is paid Australian wages and operates under Australian workplace and safety laws. The rail sector itself is subject to Australian standards and Australian laws. If you move freight by road—say, down the Hume Highway—the truck driver is paid in accordance with Australian standards, and he or she must observe Australian safety standards with respect to the nature of the truck used and the hours they spend driving without a rest. That is the Hume Highway, and I say there should be no difference between the Hume Highway and the 'Blue Highway' when it comes to moving freight around the Australian nation. Labor's position is very simple. If you work in Australia you must be paid in accordance with Australian laws, including earning fair wages. It is a concept that most Australians can understand and support—but not those opposite. They do not want to see Australians working on our coastal routes, because they believe it costs too much. The minister for transport has attempted to justify this madness by claiming he is implementing economic reform because current arrangements are protectionist. That is absolute nonsense. The bastion of free enterprise, the United States, does not allow any freight to be moved by sea between American ports unless the vessel involved was actually built in the United States, owned by the United States and crewed by United States mariners. Under the Jones Act, outsiders are excluded. That is protectionism. And there is strong bipartisan support for the Jones Act in the US. In 2008, then presidential candidate Barack Obama promised he could be counted on to support the Jones Act. In 2006, Republican President George W Bush said: … it's important for Presidents to embrace the Jones Act. … I have, so far, five-and-a-half years as the President, supported the Jones Act, and will continue to do so … But it goes back further. In 1980, Ronald Reagan said: 'I can assure you that a Reagan Administration will not support legislation that would jeopardize this long-standing policy … or the jobs dependent on it.' It is very clear that, indeed, this government is going it alone amongst all of the countries in the G20 in abandoning any preference for an Australian maritime sector engaged in domestic work around our coast. It is an extraordinary proposition. There you have the comparison: three US Presidents, including two Republicans, making it very clear that they understood that the maintenance of a US shipping industry was central to America's economic, environmental and, importantly, national security interests. Yet here in Australia our government, obsessed with attacking workers and eroding wages and conditions, is blind to the same imperatives. That is why I speak of unilateral economic disarmament. None of our major trading nation competitors in the G20 will have a regime anything like this, because they understand the consequences of it. This bill focuses primarily on the former government's Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012. It changes the act's name so it no longer refers to revitalising Australian shipping. Instead, the objects of the act will be narrowed to fostering a competitive shipping services industry that supports the Australian economy and maximises available shipping capacity around the Australian coast. There is no mention of maintaining an Australian shipping industry, only of delivering arrangements that reduce shipping costs. The current object of facilitating the long-term growth of the Australian shipping industry is simply removed. All of existing part 4 of the act, which creates the existing system of preference for Australian ships in the coastal trade, is repealed and replaced with a permit system with absolutely no preference for Australian shipping. Coastal trading permits will be available to foreign ships on the same basis as they are to Australian ships. They will be of 12 months duration and transferable. Foreign-flagged ships will not be required to pay Australian-level wages until they have spent more than half the year, 183 days, in Australian waters. These new arrangements do not subject non-Australian ships to Australian workplace standards. They do include a requirement that overseas vessels employ an Australian citizen, resident or holder of a working visa in two senior roles: as either master or chief mate or as either chief engineer or first engineer. But, again, that is only after 183 days on our coast. You do not have to be Nostradamus to see where this is likely to end up. Overseas shipping companies will obtain permits, operate vessels on the Australian coast for up to 183 days in the year and then replace them with other vessels so that the 183-day clock can start all over again for the remainder of the year. The bill before us also proposes changes to the Shipping Registration Act 1981 in terms of the operation of the so-called second register. The registration requirement for a collective agreement to be in place is removed and a requirement to be predominantly engaged in the international trade is reduced to at least 90 days in any year. Ironically, this antiworker bill was introduced to this House on 25 June, the International Maritime Organization's annual Day of the Seafarer, which promotes careers at sea. These provisions are not surprising. The minister for transport was attacking and undermining Labor's reforms before they even took effect. His attacks on the legislation were calculated to create doubt in the mind of business as to the durability of the change and to undermine investment. He went out of his way to make it clear that the changes would be repealed by an incoming coalition government, and this white-anting discouraged the industry from working with the new system. If Labor's reforms are to work they needed to be given time. The time in which a business can make a decision to invest in infrastructure, such as having an Australian-flagged vessel on the international trade routes, is significant. You cannot make a decision one day and have a ship operating the next day. Businesses have told me they wanted to reflag ships in Australia to take advantage of the incentives in Labor's legislation. Others contemplated increased investment in the local industry, including in the manufacturing of ships. Indeed, after the former Labor government's shipping reforms took effect, Tasmanian shipping company SeaRoad Holdings decided to invest $100 million in the first of two new cargo vessels, the first of which is due to begin operating on Bass Strait next year. In a submission to the Senate committee examination of this legislation, SeaRoad's Michael Easy warned that the legislation before us would imperil this investment. Mr Easy wrote that, when seeking bank finance for its expansion, the company cited the strong support for an investment in Australian shipping that was there in the existing legislation. He wrote: It is crucial to our funding arrangements, Tasmania's future and Australia's credibility on the world stage that the legislation acknowledges that the current regime be preserved on Bass Strait. So here we have very clear evidence that the current regime is working. Other companies were looking at having their own ships with an Australian flag engaged in the international trade. This was despite the undermining of the current minister for transport. Now this minister, having sabotaged and undermined the changes for nearly three years, has the gall to point to the need for change. This is a triumph of intellectual dishonesty. Unbelievably, the minister for transport's key criticism of current arrangements is that paying Australian seafarers Australian-level wages costs too much when you can simply open up the waterways to cheaper foreign competitors. But, if we follow this line of argument to its natural conclusion, we might as well replace all of the Australian workforce throughout the economy with foreign workers paid foreign wages. That is the kind of ideological madness we are dealing with here. The role of government is to balance competing interests in the national interest. In this case, it should mean doing everything possible to minimise shipping costs while also supporting the survival of an Australian maritime industry in recognition of the broader national interests served by its existence. That is Labor's approach. But this minister behaves as though the Australian shipping industry and the people who work in it have no inherent value. To him, Australian shipping is just an expendable line item in some other industry's balance sheet. This is an incredible rejection of the national interest, an astounding abandonment of any ambition for our nation. Here we are, an island nation that relies on the maritime sector to move 99 per cent of its exports, and this minister cannot see any value in maintaining an Australian domestic fleet, with the consequential skills that come from having a maritime sector. It is no wonder that twice in the past 12 months the minister has received a warm welcome when giving speeches at the Orwellian named Shipping Australia, the representative of foreign ships, where he has attacked Labor's common-sense reforms as a sop to trade unions. I use the term 'Orwellian' with respect to Shipping Australia because it does represent foreign shipping interests. After the minister announced his plans for this legislation to Shipping Australia in May, the organisation released a statement which declared these changes would be of great benefit to primary producers and manufacturers who wanted reduced costs. Shipping Australia had absolutely nothing to say about what the changes would mean for the Australian shipping industry. It is within Australia's economic interests to retain a vibrant Australian shipping industry. Thousands of jobs are involved. That is thousands of people who pay tax and who contribute to the broader health of the economy as consumers fuelling economic activity, thousands of people who rely on their wages to raise their families and put food on the table. Then there are the Australian businesspeople who have taken the risk to start shipping companies. They are also at risk, not because they are inefficient but simply because those opposite place no value on their existence. The minister has claimed the changes will strengthen shipping in this country. That is not right. And, importantly, it is not what the government is telling employers behind closed doors. Take, for example, the advice given to North Star Cruises representative Bill Milby by a senior official in the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. Mr Milby's company operates cruises in Western Australia's Kimberley region. It offers foreign visitors a uniquely Australian experience—beautiful scenery and top-notch service from an Australian crew. In a submission to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee inquiry into this legislation, Mr Milby wrote that, when he attended the minister's speech announcing this legislation back on 20 May, he raised a question from the floor asking the minister to consider the effect of the changes on his business. The minister said there would be no effect. Mr Milby then approached departmental official Judith Zielke, who was with the minister, who told him that if he wanted to remain competitive under the new regime he should re-register his vessel overseas and sack his 50 Australian staff and replace them with cheap foreign labour. Mr Milby followed up with another meeting with Ms Zielke and also Michael Sutton in Canberra a few weeks later, where he received identical advice. After Mr Milby made this information public in a submission to the Senate committee inquiring into this legislation, the member for Warringah, who was at that time the Prime Minister, questioned Mr Milby's integrity by claiming this advice was never given. But, in a 7 September public hearing of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Mr Milby repeated his evidence on oath, and Ms Zielke and Mr Sutton confirmed his version of events. Despite this, the member for Warringah and the minister for transport refused to apologise, even after they had heard Mr Milby say publicly he took exception to being declared a liar by our national leaders. Departmental briefing papers delivered to the Senate during the previous sitting fortnight again confirmed that this advice was given. This government is not only driven by ideology on shipping; it is also happy to trample the reputation of anyone standing in the way. The facts here are simple: Mr Milby was given two options. Option 1: move offshore, sack your Australian staff and hire foreign workers being paid foreign wages. Option 2: go out of business. It is very clear that this legislation should be dropped and the new Prime Minister should take the opportunity of the transition to do just that. Almost a fortnight ago, I wrote to the new Prime Minister suggesting he do just that. The fact that I am speaking now on this bill means that the leadership change has not changed the government's policy on destroying Australian jobs and the Australian shipping industry. Under this legislation, the only option for Australian shipping operators who want to be able to compete against foreign shipping companies is to effectively become a foreign company. This is too absurd for words. While Mr Milby outlined what looks to him like a very dismal future for his company, other operators have already seen the writing on the wall. In January, Tony Briggs, head of the Cairns based Coral Princess Cruises, said he was selling out to foreign interests because he could not compete with a Bermuda flagged vessel that began operating in competition. Mr Briggs told the Cairns Post that the changes that are before us would make matters worse and damage Australian businesses. Mr Briggs's assessment of the government's reform plans was pretty simple. He described them as stupid. He said this: 'There will never be another passenger ship built in Australia if there is no certainty on how we can operate. It is exporting jobs.' I note that the minister for transport claims this bill is about reducing red tape. This is not true. The explanatory memorandum attached to the legislation says that 88 per cent of the economic benefit the changes will deliver will come from reduced labour costs. That is what it says, very clearly, in the explanatory memorandum. It is one thing to export jobs, but let us consider the record of foreign flagged vessels in this nation when it comes to maritime safety. We cannot underestimate the importance of maintaining our clean and green coastal environment to our tourism industry, which employs more than one million Australians. Since 2004 Australian inspectors have detained 122 foreign flagged oil tankers because they have been overloaded or have had defective equipment or serious deterioration of their hulls and were judged to be a risk to their seaworthiness. In the same period, they detained no Australian flagged oil tankers. Just have consideration of recent incidents. In June 2007 the Pasha Bulker ran aground, on Nobbys Beach, at Newcastle. It was flying the flag of Panama and its crew was made up of mariners from the Philippines and Korea. The subsequent investigation raised concern about the failure of the ship's master to take on ballast or to weigh anchor and move offshore before the winds associated with the storm reached gale force. In 2009, as Cyclone Hamish approached the Queensland coast, the Pacific Adventurer began losing shipping containers overboard in very heavy seas. One or more of those containers pierced a hole in the vessel as it tumbled into the water. The result was a 60-kilometre-long oil slick that hit the beaches of the prime tourism region of the Sunshine Coast, resulting in a clean-up bill of $34 million. About a year later, Chinese registered bulk carrier Shen Neng 1 ran aground off Rockhampton. The vessel was 10 kilometres away from normal shipping lanes. It gashed a hole in the Great Barrier Reef three kilometres long and 250 metres wide, the equivalent of about 58 football fields. It created an oil slick more than three kilometres long. There was no Australian pilot aboard this vessel. There should have been. As transport minister, at the time, I flew over the site on an Australian Maritime Safety Authority aircraft. It was very clear what had happened. We could see from the air the channel through which the ship was supposed to pass, but it simply failed to turn. The mariner in charge had little knowledge of Australian conditions and had had little sleep because he was operating under third-world industrial conditions. He was later sentenced for 18 months in jail for his negligence. Australian vessels are crewed by Australians, who are obliged to observe Australian safety rules and are intimately familiar with our coast. They are also alive to the fundamental importance of tourism for our economy. The Great Barrier Reef is this nation's No. 1 drawcard for tourists, particularly from the booming Chinese and Indian markets. Tourism related to the reef earns this nation $5.7 billion every year. It supports 65,000 jobs. The reef—about the size of Italy—supports regional cities and towns along the Queensland coast, be they Cairns, Townsville or right down at Gladstone, where Heron Island is such an important part of the tourism industry. It is not just the reef—right around Australia job-generating tourism depends on a clean environment. Australia's mariners also have a critical role in protecting our national security. They understand the location and importance of coastal facilities that could be subject to terrorist attacks. Because they are familiar with what goes on around our coast, they are more likely to notice when something untoward is going on. In June, the ABC's Four Corners program highlighted the security implications of the coastal free-for-all. The program concerned activities aboard the Sage Sagittarius, the coal freighter operating between Australia and Japan. The vessel's Japanese owners registered the ship in Panama to minimise wage bills, even though their key business is hauling coal from Australia to Japan. The Four Cornersreport contained allegations that three men were killed aboard the ship: one disappeared overboard, another was attacked before falling 12 metres to his death and another had his body crushed in machinery. Investigations are ongoing, and we await their results. I do note that while Australian mariners undergo stringent background checks before going to sea, checks on overseas mariners are not of the same level. We have a government that will bang the national security drum until the cows come home, each and every day. We have a government that speaks about stopping boats but has legislation here that is about stopping boats with the Australian flag on the back of them. I note that on 17 June The Australian reported the head of the government's Border Protection Command, Rear Admiral Michael Noonan, gave a blunt assessment of foreign flagged vessels. He said: 'Vessels that flew flags of convenience flouted safety and employment standards and posed risks to revenue, trade and environmental hazards.' That is a common-sense and informed observation from someone—with no political motivation—who is trained to look at the world from the perspective of Australia's national interest. That is why I move the following amendment. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House: (1) notes the evidence given before the Senate inquiry into this bill to the effect that senior officials from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development advised Mr Bill Milby of North Star Cruises that for his company to compete in Australia under this proposed legislation, he should reflag to a foreign state, sack his Australian crew and hire a crew on cheap foreign wages; (2) accordingly declines to give the bill a second reading; and (3) expresses its support for regulation aimed at revitalising the Australian shipping industry by ensuring that: (a) the Australian shipping industry operates on a level playing field with foreign ships, based on Australian standards, when working in Australia; and (b) Australia's vital economic, environmental and national security interests in fostering a local shipping industry are safeguarded". In conclusion, I end where I began. Australians are entitled to expect their governments to put the national interest above all else. The legislation abandons Australia's economic, environmental and national security interests. We on this side of the House are in favour of reform that makes our nation more efficient. We can even reluctantly accept reforms that are at odds with our political and policy instincts if we can see that change is motivated by good intentions. This is not. The motivation for this is ideological and based upon an idea that they want fewer members of the Maritime Union of Australia, and the way to achieve that is by destroying the Australian shipping industry. It is very short-sighted, it is unilateral economic disarmament and it is something that is not contemplated by any other nation in the G20. That is why Labor will oppose this bill. My advice to those opposite is that they can do much better than this. We want to see the Australian flag flying off the back of trading vessels around the Australian coast and, indeed, right around the world, but this legislation raises the white flag on the continued existence of an Australian maritime sector and Australian jobs. This legislation arose from a unanimous parliamentary inquiry, the deputy chair of which was the former member for Hinkler, Nationals member Mr Paul Neville. It arose out of full consultation with the maritime industry and sector as well as with the workforce, the navy and departments across the government. This ideologically driven legislation is short-sighted and should be rejected. The government should go back to the drawing board and start again, and the legislation inquiry in the Senate confirmed exactly why that is the case. I commend the amendment to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Collins HWM I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 17:31 Mr WHITELEY 207800 Braddon Today I rise to speak on the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. This bill seeks to remedy the dire situation facing our coastal shipping sector in this country. This is not the first time I have risen in this place to speak about the coastal shipping industry, as it is an issue that I care very deeply about. Coastal shipping is one of many sectors that have suffered because of the self-interested and uncompetitive voice of the unions and their Labor puppets. In my electorate of Braddon the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, coupled with the Tasmanian Labor-Greens coalition, fundamentally failed my state on just about every social and economic indicator. Unemployment levels rose drastically and education suffered alongside a dire economic forecast which was a result of fiscal mismanagement. However, it was not enough for the Labor Party, with their faceless union masters in the wings, to set about destroying our nation's finances. Indeed, alongside their Greens allies, they set about destroying the coastal shipping industry in this country. The Coastal Trading Act was perhaps the most effective tool that regime enacted to suffocate the Tasmanian economy. Shipping is the lifeblood of the Tasmanian economy. Tasmania, an island, is dependent on shipping. So, too, is Australia, by the way. When shipping works the Tasmanian economy works; when shipping fails the Tasmanian economy struggles. Legislation enacted under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd debacle has starved the coastal shipping industry not only in Tasmania but across our island nation. What an absurd and perverse situation we are faced with when it comes to Labor and the Greens' approach to coastal shipping. Those opposite are so inward-looking that they think the Australian economy will benefit from a coastal shipping industry that is so overburdened with regulation and red tape that it is on the point of submersion. So beholden are they to their union masters that those who sit opposite enacted legalisation which has fundamentally hurt the workers they purport to be representatives of. What a farcical situation we are now faced with. In the same way as Labor is currently bowing to the militant CFMEU on ChAFTA, they capitulated to the MUA on coastal shipping. And guess who has suffered? It is Australian workers and Australian businesses. By stifling Australian competitiveness in the coastal shipping sector, those opposite signed a death warrant for the industry. This government believes in our shipping industry, and we believe in jobs for Australian workers. As per usual, the Maritime Union of Australia is totally disconnected from the reality of the global economy. Under the previous Labor government's coastal shipping reform—fundamentally, as I said earlier, driven by vested union interests—shipping companies have been suffocated with bureaucracy, red tape and the need for endless permits, coupled with union protectionism. The shipping industry has effectively been run aground. This is costing jobs and has increased costs to consumers and to exporters at a time when competitiveness is the major struggle and the major challenge we face. The only jobs this union protectionism has saved are those of the union officials and their spineless puppets in the ALP. It is absolutely disgraceful. In my electorate and across my state it has cost hundreds of other jobs. The situation we are faced with is absolutely abhorrent and is directly attributable to bad policies enacted under the previous Labor government. What those on the other side of the chamber are really saying is that it is okay to protect the jobs that they have a pecuniary interest in. They will do whatever they have to do through legislation to protect those jobs, but at the cost of hundreds—if not thousands—of other jobs which, in the eyes of the Australian Labor Party, obviously do not count. Labor's coastal shipping reforms are a throwback to the old Labor new protectionist platform of the early 1990s. Just 49 million tonnes of coastal freight were loaded in 2012-13. Five years earlier it was over 59 million tonnes. As a result, freight costs have hit Australian businesses hard—and Tasmanian businesses, I would argue, the hardest. Bell Bay Aluminium, a major employer in the state of Tasmania, has indicated an increase in costs from $18.20 a tonne in 2011 to $29.70 a tonne in 2012—an increase of 63 per cent—following the introduction of the existing regulations. Compare that with freight rates offered by foreign vessels, which sat at $17.50 a tonne in 2012. Every dollar increase in the cost of freight puts more jobs at risk and stifles growth in any sector relying on coastal shipping, including the shipping industry itself. Over the period 2010 to 2030, Australia's freight task is expected to grow by 80 per cent. While the national road and rail component is projected to double, coastal shipping movements are only expected to grow by a mere 15 per cent. It is time to bring coastal shipping back into the future. It is time that we had less regulation and more productivity. It is time to give the Australian coastal shipping industry some much needed space to grow. It is unfortunate that we have had to take this legislative action, however it is a historical truth that coalition governments consistently have to clean up legislative messes created by the Australian Labor Party. They knew that implementing their unionist protection policies, overloading shipping companies with red tape and requiring permit after permit to ship goods around the country, would cost the industry billions of dollars and that the industry would, by default, pass those costs on. It was clear that that, in turn, would see an increase in the cost of goods to consumers and eventually cost jobs and hurt the Tasmanian economy, making us, as I said, less competitive at a time when we need to be even more competitive. In the face of all that anguish and opposition, the Australian Labor Party pressed ahead, regardless of the damage it was going to wreak on every single business in this country that relies on shipping—particularly in Tasmania. I am tired of the MUA and their ALP marionettes coming into this place and falsely advocating for Australian shipping workers. I was elected to represent the interests of my constituents—the wider interests of my constituents—not the interests of some self-interested union which has a pedigree in damaging the economic interests of this country. In December 2010, the then shadow minister for transport, the Hon. Warren Truss, said: This change would immediately take us back to the bad old days where companies wanting to ship product around Australia would have to wait weeks and sometimes months for an Australian flagged and crewed vessel to become available. The now Deputy Prime Minister went on to predict: It will be cheaper and simpler to import products from Asia, the United States and even Europe than it will to move them from one port to another in Australia. It will be more attractive to process Australian raw materials overseas than to ship them to an Australian port. What a wise comment by the now Deputy Prime Minister. He was right. It has cost Tasmanian producers, manufacturers and small businesses a lot of money and it has cost many jobs in our state. Australians must never forget that we are an island nation. A significant amount of the goods we require for everyday existence is delivered to our ports via costal shipping. The permanence of our geography and the ever-increasing forces of globalisation have resulted in our nation relying on costal shipping. We should not be hostage to our geography nor should we allow ourselves to remain exposed to the risk associated with a weak coastal shipping industry. The unionist protectionism which is at the core of the Labor Party's coastal shipping reforms has not had a positive impact on Australian industries. The reality is that in 2012-13 Australian ports managed over $400 billion worth of international cargo and saw some 4,900 overseas cargo ships make almost 14,000 port calls. I applaud the hard work of our coastal shipping workers and also thank workers across the ports of our great nation for the contribution they make. Yet I am deeply concerned that without the legislation this government is enacting their jobs will become increasingly untenable as red tape drives costs to increasingly uncompetitive levels. Labor's actions have directly decreased coastal voyages by over a thousand and have resulted in almost two million fewer tonnes of freight moved by foreign vessels in 2012-13. Figures released in Australian Sea Freight 2012-13 show that 49 million tonnes of coastal freight were loaded in 2012-13 but that five years earlier, in 2007-08, it was over 59 million tonnes. This represents an average annual decline under Labor's watch of 2.4 per cent in the total weight of coastal freight. Meanwhile, the Australian trading fleet continued its downward trend, with the number of major Australian registered ships with coastal licences declining from 30 in 2006-07 to just 13 by 2012-13. While the number of vessels has marginally risen since the period covered by the report, deadweight tonnage has plummeted by 64 per cent over the two years of Labor's failed changes to domestic shipping arrangements. This is not because Australians cannot compete; it is because Labor and the MUA are unwilling to try. The coalition government has an unshakable faith in the individual enterprise of Australian industry. We know that, through giving industry space to succeed and through clearing the burden of red tape, the Australian coastal industry can once again grow and create more jobs for Australian workers. It is abundantly clear that Labor's policies have failed the industry. Whichever way you look at it, they have failed the industry and its employees—and our economic growth is failing as a result. With the right policies, there is huge potential and upside for coastal trading unconstrained by needless red tape. Between 2000 and 2012, shipping's share of national freight plummeted from 27 per cent to less than 17 per cent. Making that tale of the sea even worse, over the same period the volume of Australian freight actually grew by 57 per cent. So something is drastically wrong—and it will not get better by itself. It is projected that, over 2010 to 2030, Australia's national freight task will grow by a massive 80 per cent. While the national road and rail tasks are expected to double, coastal shipping movements, under the current regime, will grow a mere 15 per cent. Operating costs, particularly labour arrangements, are uncompetitive when compared with operating costs for foreign ships. For example, Cristal Mining has submitted that the difference between using Australian and foreign ships is an additional $5 million in costs to their business each and every year. We are at a crossroads in Australia's coastal shipping. Either we can act now and create effective regulatory frameworks which deliver more growth and more jobs for the Australian economy, or we can pursue the agenda of the MUA. The choice is clear to me, but probably not so clear to those opposite. I deeply care about the interests of my constituents in Braddon, their businesses and their families, and the interests of all those across the great state from which I come. I know that this legislation will reinvigorate the Australian coastal shipping industry and deliver better outcomes for all Tasmanians. It is time to stand up to the MUA and to legislate better policy outcomes for all Australians, not to play politics with our coastal shipping industry at the expense of Australian and Tasmanian businesses. I am proud to be part of a government which is attempting to clear the decks of our coastal shipping to enable an increase in the load Australians can undertake in a global market. This endeavour must succeed if the Australian coastal shipping industry is to be brought back into the future. This legislation goes some way to achieving that and therefore I commend it to the House. 17:46 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I rise to speak in favour of the second reading amendment and against the government's Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill, because this bill, if enacted, will tear away at the employment conditions of Australian workers in the maritime sector. I think it is fitting that I follow the member for Braddon, because in mid-July I visited the member for Braddon's electorate to speak with the crew on Alexander Spirit, who were instructed to take that vessel to Singapore and hand over the vessel and their jobs to overseas workers. It really is a concern to the opposition that the government, wherever possible, finds an opportunity to turn its back on Australian industry. We saw it in this place in December 2013—the former Treasurer goading Holden to leave our shores. Holden subsequently, the following day, made a decision to leave Australia. The effects of that are not yet fully felt, but over the next year or so direct employees of that car company, and indeed of another car company, will be losing their jobs. Following that, tens of thousands of people are likely to lose their jobs in the automotive parts sector of our economy—just at a time, of course, when they would have been advised by Treasury that the dollar was falling and the exchange rate was such that there were export opportunities for the car industry. The government showed callous disregard for those workers and indeed for the industry generally. Again we see ideology dictating the government's policy. As you listened to the previous speaker, the member for Braddon, you would have thought that he was sacking union officials. Effectively, what he was doing was justifying the removal of employment conditions that are governed by Australian law for people who work on those vessels. He was effectively saying that he wants to see Third World wages on those vessels and he wants to see fewer Australian crew—that would be the consequence of the enactment of this legislation. It does worry me that not only do the government seem to be indifferent to industry policy and to engaging with industry but also they seem to be particularly animated in their delight when they think that they can get rid of jobs in this country—and particularly if they are organised, unionised jobs. If you are in an industry where there might be some presence of a union, watch out, because this government takes great delight and glee in seeing the back of you. That is what we heard from the member for Braddon. He delighted in talking about the fact that these people will lose their jobs because they happen to be members of a union, which is quite remarkable to hear in any place. It does not matter what your political view is, it is alarming that Australians should lose their jobs because of an ideological position; a position which defends neither jobs nor industry. So, I oppose the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. The minister, when introducing this bill, said: The bill I introduce today will implement major reforms to the regulatory framework for coastal shipping. He was not wrong about the proposed change being major, but he was definitely wrong about it being major reform. This is not reform; this is retrograde, draconian change which will directly result in the sacking of Australian workers and their replacement with foreign crews. The former Labor government, in 2012, made significant reforms in the maritime industry, including the introduction of the Coastal Trading Act. This act ensured that there was a level playing field and provided the industry with a stable fiscal and regulatory regime to encourage investment and promote our international competitiveness. The reforms were aimed at sustaining the Australian shipping industry. There are persuasive national security, employment, economic, supply chain security, skill retention, environmental and strategic reasons for retaining policies that provide fair competition to enable Australian coastal shipping to prosper and grow. I thought the member for Grayndler outlined that very compellingly in his contribution to this debate. The maritime sector provides jobs for thousands of Australians—at least 2,000 seafarers and many more thousands of land-based workers. As I mentioned, the Labor reforms provide a level playing field for domestic shipping that enable Australian ships and seafarers the opportunity to compete on fair terms in the Australian domestic sea freight industry. This bill, however, would allow the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development to reverse the maritime reforms that we put in place, which will risk the jobs of those seafarers and up to 8,000 other land-based workers. The minister claimed that his planned changes are the elimination of red tape, but that, of course, is nonsense. The Labor reforms were the result of broad consultations with big companies, sectoral interest groups and experts. They were backed by an all-party parliamentary committee. So, you have to ask yourself: why is the Turnbull government now looking to make these economically irresponsible changes? If you ask me, it is the irrational enmity the government has for, in particular, the Maritime Union of Australia. We have seen—through its actions and not just its words—this government wage war on Australian unions. There is the royal commission, there is the opening up of the debate on penalty rates by the new Prime Minister and there are many pieces of legislation sitting in the Senate that go to undermining the capacity of working people to bargain to maintain security of employment. However, this issue has nothing to do with whether or not you like unions; it is about jobs. The government, we would contend, should bury its ideology and consider the national interest; that national interest is to retain the reforms we put in place in 2012, which were industry backed reforms. Consider this compelling example, which my colleague—the member for Grayndler—has raised: if you move freight by road, the truck driver earns fair wages; if you move freight on a train, the train operates under Australian law and the driver is paid Australian level wages—why should that be any different if you move freight by sea? If a truck that is owned and operated by a Taiwanese company wants to take goods from Brisbane to Sydney, there would be no-one who would argue that the driver of the truck should work under the standards of Taiwanese wages, training for the truck driver and workplace health and safety provisions. They would argue that the wages, training and other conditions needed to be of Australian standards, otherwise we would have people driving up and down our highways earing $2 or $3 an hour, which is an absurd proposition. Therefore, it would be just as absurd to argue that people who work on a ship going from Brisbane to Sydney—an Australian, domestic task of carrying Australian goods from one port to another Australian port—should not be paid Australian wages and afforded Australian workplace conditions. In fact, to unwind Labor's changes would actually cause a distortion in the freight market. This government's dishonesty and incompetence in relation to this matter is hurting Australia, it is hurting our economy, it is hurting jobs and it is hurting the most vulnerable. The government is willing to eliminate Australian jobs and it is happy to replace the Australian flag on the back of ships with those of foreign ships—and for what? Importantly, our reforms allow for the use of foreign flagged vessels, but they require businesses to first seek to use Australian vessels. Labor believes we should be supporting our industry. We want to see an Australian flag; we want to see Australian flag vessels carrying Australian goods that benefit the Australian economy. The shipping industry is an integral component of our economy and it cannot be allowed to fail. Labor will therefore fight these changes that will risk Australian jobs. We oppose them not just because it is the right thing but because it is the economically responsible thing to do. I will just finish what I started in relation to the conversations I had with the crew of the Alexander Spirit. I did get the opportunity to go onto that vessel. It soon, in some days, subsequently disembarked for Singapore. From speaking to the engineers and to the seafarers generally on that vessel that day, what they could not understand was how the government would turn its back on their jobs and their livelihood. The fact that they were being asked, in that instance, to sail the ship from Devonport to another country, as I said earlier, to hand over the vessel and to hand over their jobs was something that they could not fully comprehend; they could not believe they were in that position, because it is an unconscionable act in the case of the company to do that and the way in which it was done was unconscionable. Now, we see before us in this parliament a piece of legislation that, if enacted, will strip away the basic conditions of employment that govern our workplace arrangements in this country. It would be very unfair to those workers. In some of the jobs, you would see a fall in employment conditions by up to 80 per cent, arguably. This would all be driven by an ideology that says, 'We need to attack those workers and we need to remove their conditions.' As we said, those are conditions that apply in other parts of this country and yet, for some reason, the government has chosen to focus its enmity on the maritime sector with a particular ferocity. We do not believe it is in the interests of that sector of this country to proceed down that path. We would ask government to reconsider its position and seek to engage with the industry with a view to ensuring that we do have Australian flag vessels that do allow for Australian employment conditions to continue, as is the case in most comparable countries, including the United States and the European states, which do likewise. 17:58 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert There are two things in relation to shipping and this bill which I would like to concentrate my comments on: firstly, the need to be competitive and reactive to changing circumstances and, secondly, the provision of port access and the ability to grow our businesses in a global market and deliver the framework for future growth and future job opportunities. Australia, as an island continent, should have a vibrant and engaged shipping sector. Yes, with our population compared to landmass and the concentration of our population in the state of Victoria and New South Wales, there will always be challenges surrounding the logistics of these operations. We should be good at this and we should be competitive in our own waters. The facts tell a different story, though. Between 2000 and 2012, despite the volume of freight increasing by 57 per cent, Australia's share of that freight fell from 27 per cent to 17 per cent. Worse still, over the first two years of Labor's Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act, there was a further decline of 63 per cent in the carrying capacity of the Australian coastal trading fleet. This is despite the outlook where our overall freight task is expected to grow by 80 per cent by 2030. The big statistic is that there is not a single vessel on the Australian International Shipping Register. If you were in the business of insolvency or business restructure, you would be thinking to yourself that you had a massive problem. I note that the member for Gorton talked before about wanting Australian workers to have fair terms and opportunity. Clearly, the circumstances and framework in which they are currently being asked to operate are not working. The facts speak for themselves. What do we need to do? The industry has come to us, the coalition, with real examples of where red tape has stifled performance. The system should be flexible and easy to use. Instead, the changes introduced by the member for Grayndler in the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 seem to have had the opposite effect. To require foreign vessels to apply for a minimum of five voyages before a temporary licence can be granted seems counterintuitive. Surely, the nature of shipping one-off cargos means that opportunities are being closed off. In my state of Queensland, we have an important gas export industry. This product is shipped around the world exclusively by foreign ships as there are no Australian ships capable of carrying it. Still they must go through the costly and time-consuming temporary licence processes. These are foreign ships, and the question needs to be asked: how will smoothing the process out improve the lot of Australians trying to get a job? Look at what has happened since this legislation was passed in the last parliament. There are about 90,000 Australians employed in manufacturing sectors that use coastal shipping, including oil refinement, cement, steel and aluminium. All those industries are energy intensive. We are a high-wage country, and we like it like that. If you have high wages, then you can still compete internationally if you have low input costs and high productivity. The current legislation seems to stifle every attempt to address the way our businesses operate. What we have in operation today is clearly not working. Why is that? We are increasingly in a global market, and we must be internationally competitive. Are we competitive in pricing, efficiency and practice? It is easy for people and organisations to pick statistics to suit their needs, but, at the end of the day, business will go where the best deal is. Plainly, it would appear that our coastal shipping sector has some major challenges in front of it. It is my firm belief that we all come here trying to do our bit to make the country a better place. We come from different angles and philosophies, but we want the best result. Here, I believe, is an example where the previous minister has done his best to get a result and it simply has not worked. We must address the issue and get the sector back on track. When you have organisations telling you that the changes made by the previous government have resulted in Australian ships being around $5 million per year more expensive to run than comparable foreign ships on comparable routes, you know you have a problem. If we fail to address this issue, we will not have any industry at all; we will be forever looking at our ports and wharves and saying, 'What happened here?' while the jobs disappear. We cannot continue to simply pass these costs on to the consumer. We owe it to every single Australian to show that we can be as competitive in price, efficiency, productivity and cost as the players from around the world. When Australian firms are charging coastal shipping rates as high as double those offered by foreign ships—adding tens of millions of dollars to the cost base—you are killing off Australian jobs. When a foreign country can land the product—steel, cement, aluminium and that sort of stuff—at the destination cheaper than we can get it there, you have a problem. Like I said before, business will go where the best deal is. When it is cheaper to ship materials from overseas than to a neighbouring port in Australia, you are attacking the jobs of Australians working in value-adding industries, who want to have a job and want to provide quality products for competitive prices. We must allow our industries to access the most competitive and efficient forms of product delivery so that we can compete with others on a level playing field. The workers of this country do not ask for anything more than that. This legislation has built-in protections for Australian workers and also for wages and conditions for all seafarers on foreign ships operating in the Australian coastal shipping game. If they operate here for most of the year, they will have to pay our wages and meet our conditions. Ships trading for more than 183 days will be required to employ a master or chief mate and an engineer or first engineer who is Australian or who has our work rights. This crewing requirement is the cornerstone of our revised system. We are good at this caper. We should hold our own against any in the world. More importantly, we need to ensure that these skills are not lost to our nation. What we have in operation today is clearly not working, and, if it is allowed to continue, we will lose these people. There can be no other sensible conclusion. We are seeing it happen now, and we have seen it happen since the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act came into place. We need a system which encourages participation and eases concerns, not one which operates like a closed shop with no worries. Clearly, there are worries in relation to this. What we are trying to do here is ensure that efficient and reliable coastal shipping services form a key plank in our national transport system. We need to reduce the red tape in our systems relating to general licences, transitional licences, temporary licences and emergency licences. Replacing them with a single coastal shipping permit that permits holders to engage in unlimited transport for a 12-month period just makes so much sense. If you are looking to create an environment which encourages more business, this is it. We will treat all ships equally and ensure that the end user—the person buying or using the goods—gets the benefit of a competitive and efficient market mechanism. We need to make it attractive for players in this market to list on the Australian International Shipping register. We must do what we can to reverse the exodus of players from the market. In my city of Townsville, we are doing our best to make certain that our shipping lanes are busy and that our port business grows. There are challenges, and there are issues confronting us as we try to grow our business. Townsville, as everyone says—and I will say until I am blue in the face whilst I am here—is a natural hub for the north of Australia and our links to Papua New Guinea and the Asia Pacific region. Swires Shipping has started a new service from Townsville to Shanghai. It is a 10-day journey and is now the fastest container shipping service between Australia and China—it is something which my city is very proud of and something which we do not hear enough about—but we have to make sure that our port can cope with it. Too often, we are seeing ships anchored off Townsville, waiting to get a berth where containers can be unloaded. Too often, we are seeing suggestions about reform to our waterfront systems put on the backburner. Too often, we are seeing opportunities for new services and facilities fail to appear, because we have a state government intent on strangling Townsville's enterprise. Queensland has a Labor state government. They won the 2015 election in January, promising that no public assets would be sold. That mandate must be respected. I am happy with that. But, if they are going to keep these assets in public hands, they must invest in the necessary infrastructure that will drive our port forward. Failure to do so, while stripping the state owned enterprises of their cash, taking massive dividends and loading these institutions up with debt, is not the answer. Townsville can and should become a major container port. We should have the facilities to unload, wash down, inspect, hold and transport these economic drivers quickly. Had the port been sold, a private firm would already be working on how this could be completed and how the business could grow. In Townsville at the moment, we simply do not have anything in place. In North Queensland and in Townsville, we are currently seeing very tough times for employment. Just last weekend, we saw an announcement by Glencore that 535 jobs would be lost in and around Mt Isa in their zinc businesses. The cyclical nature of commodities is surely the major factor here, but the lack of any action to bring forward any real infrastructure projects in our region by this state government is a major concern for all who live and work in the north. It is simply not good enough to see the money we put into state coffers continually spent in the south-east corner. For example, tomorrow my mayor and civic leaders will be down here to talk about a combined stadium and entertainment convention centre project. Money is going into the south-east corner. Let us compare what the state government is prepared to pay in the south-east corner with what it is prepared to pay in the north of the state. The Townsville Fire won the Women's National Basketball League Championship earlier this year. It was the first win for us in the north of the state. If you draw a line between Perth and Brisbane, it is the only professional women's sporting team north of that line. Our Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, was there for the game. She revelled in the girls' triumph, but there was nothing for these girls and the club from this Labor government. The Queensland Firebirds won this year's National Netball Championships. They are Brisbane based. I am not sure if the Premier was there, but the girls did perform very well. They received a $30million training facility as a gift for winning a national premiership. So we have a discrepancy between how the south-east corner and the north of the state are treated in terms of their facilities and infrastructure. My region deserves support from the state government. From a federal perspective on infrastructure, we are rolling out road and bridge work, defence establishment infrastructure and social infrastructure such as the community centre and playing fields at North Shore. Over $500 million worth of federal infrastructure has just been completed, is being finished or is underway. We are attacking the needs of those in the north who want access to our ports for our goods to be exported. All this stuff is linked. We saw in question time today how the Prime Minister clearly made this link. We need all of our transport systems to work together. So it is important that we make sure that we do these things. It is time the Labor state government found out that the northern border for Queensland is the Torres Strait and not the Pine River. I commend the bill to the House, and I hope that we get the reforms through. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Always remember that you back the Vixens. That's where you go. 18:11 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise, like my colleagues here tonight, to speak against the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. Labor is the party that stands for workers and jobs. We on this side of the chamber know that and the Australian public know that, despite what we hear in question time about those opposite being the best friends of workers. This piece of legislation is a case in point. I cannot imagine anything that more clearly stamps out the ground where we on this side of the chamber stand and where people on the other side of the chamber stand on jobs for Australian workers. There is a widely-held view that the coalition's Work Choices legislation was a major contributor to their loss in 2007. We have all heard in this place over the past few months what the member for Grayndler calls this piece of legislation. He calls it 'Work Choices on water'. I think the Australian public agree with the member for Grayndler on this issue in particular. We may have a new Prime Minister but imbedded in the DNA of those opposite is the desire to drive down wages, cut union influence and—the more cynical would say—create a pool of unemployed, underemployed and underpaid to decrease the power of workers when it comes to employment negotiations. Again, this piece of legislation demonstrates that. Former Prime Minister Abbott certainly shared these views. In his book Battlelines, he wrote: 'WorkChoices wasn't all bad.' He has since claimed to have been the best friend of workers, but in this place in 2009 he added that 'workplace reform was one of the greatest achievements of the Howard Government'. He said that in this place. Indeed, he also said: The Howard government's industrial legislation, it was good for wages, it was good for jobs and it was good for workers. And let's never forget that. The Australian public has rejected those claims. Now, with this bill before the House, the current Prime Minister has clearly demonstrated that he is not for turning when it comes to workplace regulations. We know Work choices did none of those things that Mr Abbott claimed. It drove down wages and reduced employment conditions. We had young workers being paid in pizzas, for goodness sake! Who could claim it was good for workers? We had workers being paid a few cents more per hour in exchange for the loss of penalty rates. And now we have this piece of legislation trying to introduce 'Work Choices on water'. When Labor came into office in 2007, it not only had to untangle the Howard-Abbott era Work Choices legislation but had to find a way to strengthen the shipping industry. This industry was in a steady state of decline. The number of Australian flagged vessels had plunged from 55 in 1996 to just 21 in 2007. Following extensive consultation and a parliamentary inquiry, a range of measures were implemented to support the Australian shipping industry. These measures included tax incentives to encourage ships to be flagged in Australia, incentives to employ Australian seafarers, tax benefits for international trade and a range of skills development initiatives. Now, after two years of uncertainty, this government seeks to overturn these reforms with this bill. These reforms will rip the heart out of Australia's shipping industry. Recent analysis shows that over 90 per cent of shipping jobs will be under threat by these changes. Why are those opposite so hell-bent on creating these job losses? We have already seen losses in manufacturing and shipbuilding in my electorate of Lalor and in neighbouring electorates in Melbourne—in the electorates of Batman and Gellibrand. We have also seen 457 worker exploitation. We have heard of students working for less than $10 an hour and being in breach of their visas. They are working long, unsociable hours at half pay—in fact, less than half if you look at the penalty rates for unsociable hours. We have rampant casualisation of the workforce in particular industries and we see that on the ground in my electorate. We have found breaches of the labour market provisions under the 457 visa program. We have 100,000 fewer apprentices than we had two years ago across this country. We have a campaign being winked at by this government to do away with penalty rates for some of the lowest paid workers in the country. We have a PM who says penalty rates are for dinosaurs. And what is it about freight movement that riles this government? We know that workers in this country are under attack. This bill demonstrates just how far the government will go not to protect Australian jobs. We have, of course, seen them attacking the Remuneration Tribunal. They have form in this area of trying to drive down wages and conditions of people who move our produce around in this country. The Australia Institute estimates there will be just 88 Australian-employed seafarer jobs remaining if this legislation is passed. In addition to the loss of jobs, other investments will be affected. SeaRoad, the company that trades between Tasmania and the mainland, is considering the future of its planned purchase of two new cargo vessels. The bank, it seems, is concerned because of the proposed changes and has threatened to withdraw the funding. It is predicted that this route would drop to just 35 per cent Australian-delivered. On the one hand, this government has recently increased the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme and then, on the other hand, these shipping changes place a different form of pressure on the industry and exporters. It is difficult logic. On one hand, we stand in this chamber and laud ourselves for changes that are supposed to support Tasmania and, on the other hand, we threaten the shipping industry. Cruise operators—and one in particular—have had a lot of media on this issue because they will be severely affected. We know that the advice to those operators, like Bill Milby, is to re-flag and employ cheaper overseas labour. Our exports of iron ore, petrol and crude oil will be delivered entirely by foreign ships and crews if this legislation is passed. It opens the opportunity for our major produce, including iron ore, and for petrol and crude to be transported entirely by foreign ships and crews around Australia. I am heartened that recently many crossbench senators have expressed their concerns about this legislation. A recent summit hosted by the ACTU had many senators sharing these concerns. Tasmanian Senator Ms Lambie shows that she understands the particular plight of Tasmania and the impact of this legislation. Wouldn't it be sensible for the members for Bass, Lyons and Braddon to see that as well and to stand in this place and defend Tasmanian shipping? Other senators, like Senator Muir, Senator Madigan, Senator Xenophon and Senator Lazarus, have expressed their concerns. The industry has expressed concern—and was accused of lying when it did so. The workers know their fate is certain if this legislation passes. The workers who have been on email constantly urging us to block this legislation understand that it means that their job will not exist any more. We know that the previous Prime Minister made much of stopping the boats. Little did we know that this included the current Australian shipping industry. Australia is an island. We rely on shipping. Ninety-nine per cent of our trade relies on shipping. We have a large coastline. Moving goods via ships can be an efficient system. If items are transported across the land in an Australian-registered truck on Australian roads with an Australian driver, Australian rates apply. If the same item is transported via rail with an Australian train driver, Australian rates apply. Why should it be any different along the 'blue highway' around our coast? Where are the savings in this? What are the costs of the lost local spending—the higher welfare costs, the loss of tax revenue and, for some, the health implications following the loss of a job? You do not want to be in your 50s in Australia today and lose your job. I have had conversations with many in the electorate of Lalor who are now faced with that every day. A lot of them are men and many have said to me that when they first lost their job they thought that they were skilled and that they would just move into another job. At the back of my office, across a laneway, there are a series of job support services, so I often run into people I know coming out of those job support services. Over the weeks and the months their heads are hanging lower and lower. The impact on their mental health, on their families and on their self-esteem is excruciating to watch. These are people who have given their lives, have been productive members of society and have held down good jobs, but with a flick of a pen—and might I say the flick a voice, with the Treasurer daring GMH to take its operations offshore—I now have a string of men in their 50s outside my office weekly attending meetings to be told, 'There are no jobs. You won't get another job. You need to get used to the fact that you aren't going to get another job.' They have written their resumes and they are applying for positions, but their heads are hanging lower and lower. And now we are looking potentially at putting seafarers into those ranks of previously productive members of our society now suffering from mental illness because this government is making decisions that are hurting Australian jobs. Minister Truss, when questioned about job losses in the shipping industry, described them as 'trivial'. As an island nation we should have a viable shipping industry. Imagine, if for some reason, ships refused to travel here; our economy and indeed our society would come to a screaming halt. There is nothing like standing on your own two feet—something that Australians used to be proud of. We cannot choose to truck or rail something across the oceans—we need our ships and we need a viable, safe, reliable shipping industry. As indicated earlier, Labor is the party that cares for workers and strives for jobs. We care about ensuring a skilled Australian workforce into the future. We do not turn our backs on workers and we do not turn our backs on an industry; we work to ensure not only that people are skilled, but they are being trained and retrained. That is why we will fight to ensure that the seafarers of Australia will be subject to Australian workplace standards and Australian health and safety standards. That is why we will fight to ensure our shipping industry remains strong. That is why, when in government, we undertook necessary reforms—reforms now under threat by this legislation. We know through the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal that this government likes to ignore the risks to road safety. Here in this piece of legislation it runs the risk to our shipping industry as well. We rely on shipping for 99 per cent of our trade, including an increasing amount of our petroleum supply. We cannot afford interruptions to this trade occasioned by reliance on foreign shipping. Australia needs a maritime sector that calls Australia home. Shipping in Australian waters should maintain high environmental standards. Another possible outcome of this piece of legislation is that those standards are lowered, because foreign ships will be harder to regulate than Australian ships and because foreign crews will be harder to regulate than Australian crews. We know the standards that Australian shipping and Australian crews bring to their work; we know that they care about this coastline; we know they care about the environment; and we know they would go the extra mile to ensure that goods are delivered safely—safely for the environment as well as safely for workers. We know that screening of foreign crews is harder than screening of Australians crews. The Office of Transport Security acknowledges this aa a higher risk profile that is not factored into the costs of this package. Our Navy benefits from the skills and support provided by the existence of an Australian merchant fleet. This piece of legislation—this bill—puts all of this at risk. I stand strongly on this side of the chamber to oppose this bill. 18:26 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina This Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 will substantially deregulate coastal shipping by replacing the current framework for the regulation of coastal shipping in Australia with a single permit for all Australian and overseas ships, by reducing red tape and regulation and by providing greater competition in shipping services. It will enhance choice for business and it will also ensure that appropriate measures to retain Australian jobs, skills and seafarers' workplace pay and conditions endure. You may wonder what the landlocked member for Riverina is doing in speaking about this, but in my new role as Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister—and that includes his portfolio responsibilities for infrastructure and regional development—it is indeed important to the new work that I am doing. Just last week I spoke at the Australasian Marine Pilots Institute's international pilotage conference, which was held at the Australian Maritime Museum in Sydney. I spoke about much of what is in this bill in my keynote opening speech at that particular conference. Before I discuss that, I would like to take the member for Lalor up on a few points that she made. When she said there were 100,000 fewer apprentices in Australia today than there were two years ago, I think that is a gross exaggeration—I really do. Given that the coalition has in fact created more jobs, I find it very hard to believe that there are 100,000 fewer apprentices now than there were in 2013. I say that I am the proud father of my youngest son who is taking up an electrical apprenticeship from 18 January next year. There are opportunities, particularly in regional Australia. I always say that a trade certificate is worth every bit as much as a university degree—every bit as much. The member for Lalor talked about 457 visas. It is a constant chorus of complaint that I hear from the other side who demonise that valuable 457 visa workplace arrangement. If the visa were not in place for areas such as the Riverina, the Mallee, the Murray—those electorates where seasonal work is so important—the harvest would rot in the paddocks, would rot on the vines and would rot in the fields because, without 457 workers, the crops would not get harvested. It annoys me so much that Labor constantly demonises the 457 workplace visa arrangement. As for her being flippant about stopping the boats, I have to say there were 1,200 deaths at sea during the six years of Labor's sorry immigration and border protection policies. They have been saved with our tougher border protection measures in place. We should never be flippant about stopping the boats, particularly as it is saving lives. Our strong border protection measures in place now are saving lives. As I said, last week, on Tuesday, 6 October, I spoke at this important Australasian Marine Pilots Institute conference in Sydney. The marine pilot's profession is a very valued one. Some 84 licensed pilots deal with more than 5,300 vessel movements each year through the Great Barrier Reef, and 320 pilots handle more than 60,000 vessel movements through Australia's ports. Together, the challenges that they encounter are like those of other high-pressure vocations, such as long-haul airline pilots and air traffic controllers. They are at least equal to what those important people do for our aviation industry, and I applaud, as I said at the conference, the Australasian Marine Pilots Institute for developing the capacity of marine pilots and the way they promote their professional interests. A lot of the focus at the conference was on infrastructure. Delivering better infrastructure is a high priority for the coalition government. It involves new infrastructure assets, not least of which are ports, amongst the record $50 billion investment that we are making in infrastructure right across the nation. Last May, the government received the Australian Infrastructure Audit, which assessed the nation's infrastructure needs out to 2030. The audit identified key challenges and inherent risks, such as the increasing congestion and bottlenecks that Australia's transport networks face without additional action, and that also involves ports. A focal point for these pressures will be freight movements through and beyond our ports, and that comes into why this important legislation is before the House tonight. The audit found that container movements through Australia's ports are projected to grow by 165 per cent between 2011 and 2031, while non-containerised trade is projected to grow by 138 per cent over the same period. They are staggering projections, and this growth is already underway. Between July and December 2014, the overall throughput at Australian ports increased by three per cent relative to the same six months in 2013. Australia's marine pilots clearly made, as I told the conference, a major contribution to achieving this growth, and labour productivity at container ports increased by 2.7 per cent in 2013-14. Of course, other factors come into play. In particular, land-side efficiency continues to decline in all ports except Adelaide, with average truck turnaround time increasing by 5.7 per cent. This decline highlights a critical link between developments on the land and sea sides around our ports. Container vessel sizes for Australian ports are increasing. Larger post-Panamax size vessels—5,000 to 13,000 20 foot equivalent units—are likely to progressively replace smaller vessels. This places greater strains on the land-side capacity of Australian ports, but if operators respond with more truck movements they could simply create greater congestion levels. The risk shows that there is an opportunity for freight rail in Australia to grow its market share, help reduce traffic congestion and support the nation's productivity and growth. The conference heard that, they were interested in what I had to say and they were interested in the role that the coalition is playing on our seas, at our ports and via road and rail to markets—markets which I have to say are increasing following last week's historic Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, as well as Minister Robb's three preferential trade deals that he has brokered with South Korea, Japan and China. It is going to place an increasing demand on our ports and, indeed, on our shipping system to make sure that we get all those valuable services and valuable goods, particularly from the Riverina, to the markets where they need to go. When I say 'services', the TPP and the three preferential trade agreements enhance our ability to sell our services, such as our education and medical services, to overseas destinations. In particular, the Melbourne to Brisbane inland rail project will meet future transport needs and ensure that Australia has the logistical muscle and infrastructure backbone that we need. It is important that this legislation pass. The purpose of the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 is to amend the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 and the Shipping Registration Act 1981. The amendments will establish a framework of entitlements for seafarers on foreign vessels engaging in or intending to operate in coastal shipping for more than 183 days. Technically speaking, the amendments will apply the existing part B of the Seagoing Industry Award 2010 to seafarers on vessels that engage predominantly in coastal shipping when the Fair Work Act 2009 applies to them. Where a vessel trades for more than 183 days, contrary to what was indicated in a permit, the amendments will enable an enforcement mechanism for seafarers to recover payments. This legislation is important, and the House is aware that we need a strong shipping industry to have a well-balanced freight and transport network. Australia's current industry regulations fall well short of meeting our needs for competitive and efficient shipping. I told the conference last week that the fleet of major Australian-registered ships with coastal licences is in sharp decline, from 30 vessels in 2006-07 to just 15 in 2013-14. Between 2000 and 2012, while the volume of freight across Australia actually grew by 57 per cent, shipping's share of the national freight task fell from about 27 per cent to just under 17 per cent. Perhaps the most troubling statistic of all is the 63 per cent decline in the carrying capacity of the Australian coastal trading fleet since 2012. The case for reform is therefore crystal clear, and we as the coalition have taken a major step towards it. In June this year, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the Nationals, the member for Wide Bay, introduced the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 into parliament. The bill seeks to ensure that Australian businesses and industries can take maximum advantage of the opportunities created by global connectivity. We all know that the world is becoming smaller. We all know that, thanks to the coalition government and thanks to the trading arrangements put in place by Mr Robb, we have trading arrangements that would not have been possible had Labor continued to be in government. They were in power for six years and nothing happened. Now, with the coalition in government, we have people who understand business and understand how important it is to not just trade amongst ourselves—that we need overseas partners to buy our goods and, indeed, that we need to have trade arrangements in place whereby we export more than we import. That is absolutely happening under this government. This bill addresses key challenges that Labor's 2012 legislation created. The central feature of our legislation is a single, streamlined permit for all ships—Australian and foreign—operating along our coastline, replacing the existing three-tiered licence system. With domestic freight growing exponentially, our shipping network has to carry a larger share of the load. That is perfectly understandable. Industries relying on shipping say the coastal trading act is a barrier to competition and market entry by foreign ships. Evidence supplied by shippers shows that this act has increased the price of coastal shipping services, hitting Australian businesses hard and adding regulatory burdens without improving the viability of Australian shipping or the quality of shipping services. Isn't that just typical Labor. Bell Bay Aluminium reports a 63 per cent increase in shipping freight rates from Tasmania to Queensland in just the first year of Labor's regime, from $18.20 a tonne in 2011 to $29.70 a tonne in 2012. But they would not understand that over there and, worse, would not care. So many of them are just ex-union hacks. I appreciate that unions are important—I do. I was a member of a union for 21 years, but they just take it too far. They get their riding instructions from the CFMEU, blindly come into this place and it is all about the letter of the union law. That is how they operate. It runs in their DNA in everything they do. Everything they bring to this place is so obstructionist and so union-fed. We know that the cost of shipping dry food powder from Melbourne to Brisbane is the same as shipping the same product from Melbourne to Singapore. Clearly, that is absolutely ridiculous. It is cheaper to ship sugar from Thailand to Australia than it is to ship Australian sugar around our own coastline. Again, that is crazy and self-defeating for the shipping industry, let alone our sugar industry and local manufacturers. I know how fiercely the member for Dawson represents our sugar growers. The extra cost for Australian businesses using an Australian vessel is outlandish and unsustainable at some $5 million a year more than using a foreign vessel. Mr Feeney interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 So reform is required—the member for Batman knows that—to simplify the rules and to reduce the cost to business. Even the member for Batman would understand that it is important and that reform is necessary. Mr Feeney interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 He carps away, but even he knows that reform is necessary. That is why the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill is before the House. That is why it should be supported by both sides of the House, but it will not be supported by those on the other side because they are so obstructionist. Thankfully, it will be supported by those on this side. 18:41 Mr CONROY 249127 Charlton I must put on the record that I was disappointed by the contribution by the member for Riverina. He is better than the last five minutes of narrow ideological cant. I would expect that from a member of, perhaps, the Liberal Party but not a Nat. I do wish him well in his new assistant minister role. I hope he goes well. I do not wish him well in the passage of the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, because this legislation represents the annihilation of the Australian shipping industry. It represents the annihilation of the shipping workforce that this country depends upon. Do not take my word for it and do not take the Labor Party's word for it; you only have to read the regulatory impact statement that accompanies this legislation to understand that what we are debating here through the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 is the decimation of the shipping industry workforce. The government's own regulatory impact statement, when you look at table 2, admits that 1,000 of the 1,100 workers employed in that industry will be sacked as a result of this bill. Let me repeat that: more than 90 per cent of the workers in that industry will lose their jobs if this bill passes the parliament of this country. That is the truth of this. The truth is that this legislation embodies the annihilation of a very important industry. Why is this industry important? Australia is obviously an island nation; we have 10 per cent of the world trade moving to and from Australia by sea; we have the world's fifth-largest shipping task; and we have one of the world's longest coastlines, with scenic icons and tourist destinations all around our coast. Australia has a strategic national interest in having a local shipping industry. It is important economically, providing control over both freight reliability and price stability for shippers in all circumstances. It is vital environmentally. It is vital to protect local coastal icons, such as the Great Barrier Reef, or other parts of our environment. Only last month I was on Nobbys Beach in Newcastle—the beach where the Pasha Bulker washed up during the great storms of 2007, when the master of that ship disregarded instructions to move away from the coast. It was a foreign crewed ship that showed complete disregard for our coastal environment. On the point of the Great Barrier Reef: the Great Barrier Reef sees 122 tankers move through it each year; it employs 65,000 Australians in the tourism industry; it has gross value of over $6 billion; and yet we had 122 foreign flagged oil tankers detained in Australia since 2004 for risks to seaworthiness. This issue of great substance to the environment of this country, it is of great importance to the economic interests of this country, and it also has national security and defence perspectives. Only last month I was at Merchant Navy Day to honour the 435 Australians who lost their lives serving in the Merchant Navy. In fact, on a percentage basis, there were more Australian casualties in the Merchant Navy than in any other service, other than Bomber Command. I honour their sacrifice. But, because of this bill, their successors in the Australian shipping workforce are now at risk of losing their livelihood. This bill imperils that industry. It imperils a very important service. Labor believes that shipping is an industry in itself and cannot just be seen as a cost to manufacturers or farmers. We believe competition advances the national interest, but it is in the national interests of Australia to have an efficient coastal shipping industry, because it keeps downward pressure on costs. But it is also vital that we regulate to ensure that Australia retains and fosters its domestic maritime capability. The coastal trading walls put in place by Labor created a level playing field, requiring that Australian wages and conditions be observed and be in place if a ship were to be here for a certain amount of time. What we are seeing now is 'Work Choices on water'—an undercutting of wages and the driving down of costs to Third World proportions. Many ships are flagged in other nations, where taxation, wages and compliance are less vigilant. So all we are talking about here is maintaining Labor's record and regulations, which say that if you are on the Australian coast for a certain amount of time you need to pay Australian wages and conditions, versus what is proposed here, which is undermining that. We are not extreme in this. We are not the only act in the world saying that you should pay local wages and conditions. All nations in the G20 have more-restrictive coastal shipping policies than us. Free market economies like the US, Japan, Canada, the UK and most nations in Europe have more restrictive coastal shipping laws than Australia. Even the Chinese coastal shipping routes are closed. In the United States, through the mighty Jones Act, not only do you have to pay US wages and conditions but you have to employ US seafarers on ships built in the United States. The Jones Act, in that bastion of a free market economy, guarantees that US built ships have US seafarers being paid US wages and conditions. That is why Labor is proud of our shipping reforms—shipping reforms that followed four years of extensive consultation following a drastic drop in trading ships under the Howard government. Forget all the furphies from the Deputy Prime Minister about when the loss of Australian coastal trading vessels occurred. It occurred under the Howard government, where the number of vessels fell from 55 to 21. The coalition government was responsible for the dramatic decline in Australian coastal shipping, and Labor committed to reversing that precipitous decline. We led a series of consultations with the industry. We set up an advisory group. We provided a 2010 election commitment to revitalise our shipping industry. We released a discussion paper on it. We established reference groups with industry to work through these issues. Members of those reference groups were across the breadth of the maritime industry: ports, the blue water and offshore sectors, the cruise industry, regulators, unions and trading providers. We even engaged across government with Treasurer and Finance officials, the dreaded central agencies. We managed to get agreement on what was a very constructive package that, if given a chance to work, if moved away from the argy-bargy of political partisanship, can revitalise the shipping industry in this country. That led to legislation in 2012. There were four key elements to that package: tax reform, to encourage investment in new and more efficient ships that would enhance the industry's productivity, including a zero tax rate and seafarer tax exemption; an Australian international shipping register, to help grow our international fleet; a new licensing regime, to provide clarity and transparency, which would enable long-term planning and set clear boundaries around the necessary role of foreign vessels in our coastal trade; and, the establishment of a maritime workforce development forum to progress training and help us to build a highly-skilled maritime workforce. Progress under the package has been limited, I must confess, but this can clearly be attributed to the huge uncertainty created by the clear signals the current government has sent from the day the legislation was enacted that they would tear the package up. That uncertainty has led to huge consternation in the local shipping industry. This issue is underscored by the fact that through the Senate estimates process we heard recent revelations that the Department of Transport and Regional Services advised Australian operators to flag their vessels overseas and sack the Australian crews and replace them with crews on Third World wages. This has been confirmed time and time again by shipping industry operators. When they explain the impact of this bill on their business, the department has told them that they need to sack their workforce. Yet the coastal act had a chance to work and can work. ANL has stated that since the coastal act was enacted their cargo volumes increased by 25 per cent. Rates have fallen by eight per cent on those routes, and sea freight remains half that of rail freight. Let me repeat that. Under Labor's coastal act, ANL has said that their cargo volumes increased by a quarter; the rates they charged Australian producers fell by eight per cent; and sea freight remained half as expensive as rail. So, while we fully oppose the bill we are debating in this parliament, improvements can be made and we are open to that discussion. But this bill is not part of that productive discussion. This bill to deregulate coastal trade will cost jobs and will work against our national interest. If you look at the regulatory impact statement on the coalition's bill, which sets out the saving associated with the bill, 88 per cent of the savings from this package come from sacking that 1,000 workers. Official modelling provided with the bill nominates where the jobs will be lost, but fails to nominate where a single job will be created. The costs for the bill do not include the cost of the jobs that will be lost. It does not calculate the jobs lost in land transport modes, despite noting that freight will shift to ships. The analysis of the risk has found that over 1,000 jobs will be lost. We need to put this in context to other modelling that was released when Labor's coastal act was put in place in 2012. A report by Deloittes that was commissioned by those opposed to Labor's coastal act—industries arguing for cost reductions in coastal shipping; typically, the cement industry was one example—found, with some very skewed assumptions, that Labor's coastal act would cost 200 jobs. Let me repeat that: 200 jobs were supposedly at stake if Labor's laws were put in place, versus the government's own modelling, which admits that over 1,000 jobs will be lost if they are repealed. Even if we take the generous and skewed assumptions of those supporting the coalition, this bill will create, at most, only 200 jobs, versus the 1,000 jobs that we know will definitely be lost by this policy—five times the number of jobs lost because of this retrograde legislation. We need to look at the principles that drive this legislation. If we are saying that, to keep our coastal shipping industry competitive, we should not have Australian wages and conditions, what next? Does it mean that we cannot pay Australian wages to the truck driver who takes the cargo from the production facility or the farm to the port? It is exactly the same logic to say that we must cut the wages of the truck driver or that the truck should be registered not in Australia but in the Philippines. Taken to its next logical extension, the argument is that that factory should not employ Australians on Australian wages; they should be paid the lowest possible wages of competitor nations such as China, India, the Philippines, Thailand or South Africa—wherever their competitors are. That is the logic undermining this bill. It is a logic that is flawed, it is a logic of a race to the bottom and it is a logic that I am confident the Australian people will reject. They will reject it and say that Australia can do better. We can have a competitive industry paying Australian wages and conditions. We can have an Australian industry that provides support to farmers and to manufacturers but creates well-paying jobs for our Australian workers. I note the previous speaker to this debate talked about addressing a conference of Australian pilots. That is a very important industry and very important to my home port of Newcastle, where we have lots of tugboats and pilots bringing people in and out of the coastal area. Their own RIS says that, at most, there will be 88 positions available in the Australian shipping industry for seafarers to be trained up to give them the skills that eventually lead them to becoming pilots. Even the industry operators—not unions but employers—question whether those 88 jobs will exist. My simple question for the government is: if you argue that pilots and other seafarers are very important for the future of this country, the future security of the nation and the future environmental integrity of our ports and our coasts, where are the jobs they will be trained through? Where are the jobs that will allow them to be trained up to get the skills to be the experienced next generation of pilots we need? That is what this bill is about. This bill is about undermining those training opportunities, undermining an industry that is important to our national interest and undermining the environmental integrity of our nation. Let me repeat that, since 2004, 122 foreign flagged oil tankers have had their licences suspended, have been fined and have been found to be lacking in the appropriate safeguards to navigate our Australian coastline, imperilling the 65,000 direct tourism jobs in the Great Barrier Reef, imperilling the $6 billion gross value that the Great Barrier Reef adds to our economy and imperilling areas such as mine, around the beautiful beaches of the Newcastle region. This is all at stake with this legislation, and it is a huge pity. I went to a shipping industry summit attended by employers, the union and users such as the cement industry. All have a tremendous spirit of cooperation. They all want to improve the industry, recognising that there are challenges—but instead we see a race to the bottom, a race where this government's only solution is to cut wages, because that is what it is. Their solution is to cut wages, sack Australian workers and replace them with people who are paid a lot less and are subject to huge bullying. We saw the unfortunate murders that occurred on a ship entering Newcastle a while back. This is what is at stake with this legislation, and that is why I stand with the rest of the Labor Party in saying: we will not support this legislation. We will not support anything that destroys 1,000 jobs and undermines Australian wages and conditions. I proudly condemn this bill. (Time expired) 18:56 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest Australian produce is generally exported by ship. We are, after all, an island nation and, apart from some airfreight, the great bulk of our commodities and the vast majority of Australia's international trade by volume travels on the seas. The importance of shipping to modern trade and our economy cannot be underestimated, particularly on the back of the recent free trade agreements and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In 2012-13, Australian ports managed over $400 billion worth of international cargo and saw some 4,900 overseas cargo ships make almost 14,000 port calls. With this level of activity, we cannot afford for this industry to be beset, as it is, by the dead weight of red tape and uncompetitive costs. Under Labor's bureaucratic permit system, put in place simply to support the Maritime Union of Australia, there were almost 1,000 fewer coastal voyages and almost two million fewer tonnes of freight moved by foreign vessels in 2012-13. Labor's coastal-trading licencing system has resulted in a substantial increase in the freight rates experienced by shipping users—for example, Tasmanian company Bell Bay Aluminium recorded a 63 per cent increase in freight costs in one year. It has resulted in a 63 per cent reduction in the deadweight tonnage, or capacity, of major Australian flagged vessels with coastal licences from 2011-12 to 2013-14—I am not sure what about this the other side does not understand. And it has resulted in around 1,000 extra administration hours per year in the industry to meet the red tape of the scheme, as estimated by the Business Council of Australia. Under Labor, the fleet of major Australian registered ships—over 2,000 deadweight tonnes—with coastal licences plummeted from around 30 vessels in 2006-07 to just 15 in 2013-14. The number of ships on Australian transitional general licences has dropped from 16 to just eight. Looking forward, at this rate Australia's overall freight task is expected to grow by 80 per cent come 2030 but coastal shipping will only increase by 15 per cent. Figures released in the Australian sea freight 2012-13 report show that 49 million tonnes of coastal freight was loaded in 2012-13 but that five years earlier, in 2007-08, it was over 59 million tonnes. It is an average 2.4 per cent decline each year in the total weight of coastal freight over that period. Since the period of the Australian sea freight2012-13 report, ships have been added to the fleet; however, over the two years of Labor's failed changes, dead weight tonnage of coastal shipping has actually plummeted by 64 per cent. This dogma, used to justify Labor's reform, did not save Australian jobs on the water and has cost Australian jobs on land. It is there in black and white. The situation is even more grim when it comes to domestic freight. Between 2000 and 2012, shipping's share of national freight plummeted from 27 per cent to less than 17 per cent. Over the same time, the volume of Australian freight actually grew by 57 per cent. Projections over 2010 to 2030 will see Australia's national freight task grow by a massive 80 per cent. However, while the national road and rail tasks are expected to double, coastal shipping movements are only expected to rise around 15 per cent. This is due to the uncompetitive nature of sea freight in the current settings. Operating costs, particularly labour arrangements, are uncompetitive when compared with operating costs for foreign ships. We need to fix this to build a competitive shipping industry. For example, coastal shipping is bound by regulations where a ship has to wait idle in port for a day before loading can even start. This can cost companies $10,000 to $20,000 a day, and it hits domestic sea freight companies, whose costs have been increased by up to 50 per cent in some cases by Labor's changes. So Labor's permit system, which was a gift to the Maritime Union, is actually costing jobs and has the potential to cost a lot more jobs in our mining and manufacturing industries. I was disappointed to hear the previous member's comments about the farming sector. The Business Council of Australia estimates that Labor's system has inflicted over 1,000 extra administration hours, as I said, per year on the industry, simply to comply with the new system. Shippers are telling the Australian government that container rates from Melbourne to Brisbane are almost twice the cost of those from Singapore to Melbourne. It is really extraordinary. Bulk freight rates on the east-west route have reportedly doubled in the past year, and transporting sugar from Thailand is actually cheaper than shipping it from Queensland. For example, according to Cristal Mining, in my electorate, Australian ships can cost around $5 million a year more than a comparable foreign ship on comparable routes. On 8 April 2014 the Deputy Prime Minister released the Australian government's 'Options paper: approaches to regulating coastal shipping in Australia'. The paper was well received by industry. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development received 85 submissions and is continuing to receive supplementary submissions and additional information. The submissions highlighted the problems experienced by producers, manufacturers and other users of coastal shipping with the current system. The five-voyage minimum requirement before a temporary licence can be granted actually hinders the ability to move one-off cargoes by coastal shipping. For example, a piece of heavy machinery was unable to be shipped as a single voyage, and therefore a temporary licence could not be granted. The machinery instead was moved by road, which required a police escort and removal of overhead power lines due to the oversized load. This was more complicated and costly than a voyage by ship. Certain products, like LPG, are moved exclusively by foreign ships operating under temporary licences. Even though there are no Australian ships capable of carrying the products, the shippers must still obtain licences for the movement of the goods. It is a costly and time-consuming process that delivers no value to the Australian economy. Tolerance limits make the current system inflexible for coastal shipping users. The tolerance limit for the amount of cargo carried means that last-minute changes to cargo simply cannot be made, or, if a change has to be made, the ship is delayed while waiting for the change to be approved. These delays can cost foreign vessels around $10,000 a day and more than $20,000 a day for Australian ships. Ships carrying petroleum products from offshore petroleum production facilities are not able to apply for a temporary licence, making it really difficult to bring those petroleum products directly to mainland Australia. Submissions on the options paper have highlighted cost pressures faced by coastal shipping users, as I said. Bell Bay Aluminium, which I referred to earlier, has indicated an increase in costs from $18.20 a tonne in 2011 to $29.70 a tonne in 2012—an increase of 63 per cent following the introduction of the existing regulations. Compare that with freight rates offered by foreign vessels, which sat at $17.50 a tonne in 2012. This is the reality that we face. Overall, submissions shared a common goal: to reform the current regulation to increase flexibility and affordability for users of coastal shipping. The Australian government is carefully considering these issues and is committed to developing an internationally competitive coastal shipping framework that enables the industry to operate effectively, efficiently and in the national interest. These policies are also washing ashore, having a knock-on negative effect on land-based Australian jobs and industry. The Business Council of Australia says that around 90,000 Australians are employed in the manufacturing sectors that use coastal shipping, including oil refining, cement, steel and aluminium. The BCA says that restrictions mean that Australian firms are paying rates that can be up to double the rates offered by foreign ships, adding tens of millions of dollars to their cost base and making their operations less viable as a result. Australian businesses are made less viable. That means ultimately less jobs. Labor's coastal trading policies have clearly had a detrimental impact on coastal shipping and the economy, and Australian businesses report that it is cheaper to ship materials, as I said earlier, from overseas—it is extraordinary—than to move them around the Australian coast. Importing goods means that Australian business is lost to overseas competition, and it can put pressure on Australian jobs in the longer term. There is a critical policy need for more affordable and flexible coastal shipping for major trade-exposed manufacturers—the ones that employ large numbers of Australians, especially when that employment is largely in a regional area like my electorate of Forrest. The port of Bunbury is central to the economic growth and development of the South West region. The major products moving out through the port are alumina, woodchips and mineral sands. The port does not currently have a container handling facility, despite calls for the development of this capacity for many years. There appears to be adequate cargo, within the South West region as its origin or destination, to allow for the development of container handling facilities. However, the port suffers from competition with the Perth based Fremantle-Kwinana port. The port of Bunbury needs to expand to handle containers, and I will continue to work to help facilitate this into the future. In 2005 the state Labor government announced that they would build a new gas-fired power station in Kwinana instead of a coal-fired one in Collie. To compensate, they committed $60 million for the port of Bunbury for a dedicated coal berth to assist coal exports. However, like many Labor promises, it did not eventuate. This is very pertinent today, as a private coal company has been looking to export coal and there is no coal berth. At a time of uncertainty in Collie for the coal industry, the additional export opportunities that such a berth would have delivered would have been valuable indeed. So, with those comments, I conclude my remarks. Debate adjourned. MOTIONS 92 MOTIONS Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment (Firearms and Firearm Magazines) Regulation 2015 92 Disallowance 92 19:10 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I move: That the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment (Firearms and Firearm Magazines) Regulation 2015 made under the Customs Act 1901 on 6 August 2015 and presented to the House on 10 August 2015, be disallowed. Those of us—and there seem to be very few in this place—who read history books know the great march of history. There are some leaps forward. And one of the greatest leaps forward in the history of liberty and freedom was the writing of the Magna Carta by that wonderful man Bishop Langton. Heaven only knows what we owe to the Christians. In the Magna Carta, he said that it is the right of an Englishman to bear arms and the Crown has no right to take away an Englishman's right to bear arms. That was in the Magna Carta in 1215. In the Bill of Rights which delivered democracy to the people of the world—it was in 1660, or whenever the hell it was—they enshrined the right to bear arms. These are the greatest documents in human history. The greatest minds in all of human history have sat down and thought about government—unlike the pygmies that populate this place in a passing moment. These are things that have lasted for a thousand years. As to Thomas Jefferson, who will forget that phrase of John F Kennedy's when he had the Nobel Prize winners at the White House? He said, 'This is the greatest aggregation of intellect in the history of the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.' Jefferson, and those other great men who wrote the Declaration of Independence, wrote into the Declaration of Independence the right to bear arms, for, without that, the individual has no rights; the rights of power lie exclusively with government. There is a great debate over fishing closures in Queensland. In Queensland now, the only people with the right to bear arms are the people in uniforms. It is pretty scary when you live in a society where the only people with the right to bear arms are the people in uniforms. Those who are of a conservative bent—and that most certainly does not include the Liberal Party—believe in certain inalienable rights and freedoms. They believe in the right of the individual and that it prevails over the right of the Crown. We are the inheritors of the English-speaking cultures—no matter what our racial backgrounds are. In fact, the English-speaking peoples are led by a person whose forebears come out of Africa. When the rights of individuals were taken away from us and delivered to the Crown, we had a very good habit of cutting off the head of the person who wore the Crown—in fact, the great bard said, 'Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown,' and well he might have said that, because we did it again and again, when they tried to take away our fundamental rights. When we say 'the right to bear arms', some conjure up spectres of revolution. I do not. I conjure up spectres of my home. I look out at my backyard and I see beautiful gum trees and nice paintings from some artists that I love. I see the grass on my little football oval and my pointer dogs hopping around. I think, 'This is my home.' I have a right to defend my home. No-one has the right to take away from me the right to defend by home. In the great debate in the Queensland parliament, I asked Peter Beattie, later to become the Premier of Queensland, 'Who is going to defend my home when the monsters of the night invade?' He said, 'The police, of course.' I said: 'I was waiting for that. The official response time is 50 minutes, so I think she is all over red rover by the time that 50 minutes is up, mate.' And that is if you are fortunate enough to be able to raise the police immediately to get them to come to you. My experience is that it takes you about 10 minutes to explain what the address is when you ring up triple 0. In my family there have been 13 break-ins for close and immediate family members, and in our personal experience it has been a little bit over two hours. So saying that the police will defend my home is a silly thing to say. We love the police and we feel very comfortable that they are there, but to say that they are going to defend my home is simply insulting my intelligence, when they arrive two hours later. By the way, with those 13 cases, I did not include the case where it took two weeks before the police arrived. I fully documented these cases, by the way. So you have taken away my right to defend my home. You have taken away my right to be the king in my little castle, and if ever there is a great cry for those of us who come from English speaking cultures it is that an Englishman's home is his castle. A castle is of its very nature—the meaning of the word—defence. It is mine to defend and protect, and you take away my right to defend and protect. Those of us who are my age will recall that we were at war with our neighbours in Indonesia. They outnumbered us 20 or 30 to one in those days, and I was at an age where I was going to go to war. It gets you thinking very clearly. When we faced off we had 300,000 self-loading rifles and over a million semiautomatic rifles. My brother and I had one each. It is not good to pick a fight with people who have 1.3 million rifles. If you asked me, 'What is the only country in Europe that has not been invaded in the last 150 or 200 years?' I would say that the only country that has not been invaded is Switzerland. Why? Because every single home has an automatic rifle with nine rounds, by law. And if you say, 'Gee whiz, there must be a lot of deaths over there', ask me what country has the lowest death rate in Europe. Almost invariably it is Switzerland. The highest death rate in Europe was in East Germany whilst it was still East Germany. The neighbouring countries have an almost identical language, but if you ask me who had the highest death rate in Europe, it was East Germany, where all guns were banned by the communists. We all know the hallmark of totalitarian regimes is that only the men in uniforms have guns. You say to me, 'We are not a totalitarian regime.' Well, start looking in the mirror, my friend. But for those of us who come from northern Australia—and I speak to Western Australians here as well, because the Brisbane Line was not a Brisbane line but was a recommendation by General Mackay to the parliament of Australia—Australia could not be defended. If they took Port Moresby—the Japanese were 10 days away from taking Port Moresby—the air cover would go over the top of Australia. We could not stop the invasion. There would be no way, with the troops we had, that we would be able to defend anything else except what I call the golden boomerang—Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and up the coast to Brisbane. That was all that was to be defended. All the rest, including Western Australia, was to be handed over to the enemy. It was delightfully called the Brisbane Line. So maybe the attitude of people from North Queensland is slightly coloured by the fact that the last time we had a serious stoush with our neighbours we had 1.3 million rifles. And for those who say, 'In modern warfare what use is a rifle?' Tell that to my friends who fought and died in Vietnam, where a bunch of people running around in pyjama coats with AK-47 rifles beat the devil out of the greatest military machine that the world had ever known. Wellington gave independence to Ireland because he said he would never see Great Britain go through the trauma and horror of the guerrilla warfare that he had experienced in Spain. One of the greatest things I ever saw on television was about the Barbarossa campaign, on SBS. They were interviewing this little old lady, and Ian Causley, one of my great colleagues from this place, rang me up and said, 'Turn on the television.' I said, 'I'm already watching.' He said, 'Barbarossa?' And I said, 'Yes.' They were interviewing this little old lady and they said: 'So the Germans had taken three quarters of your army. They were in control of more than half of your population and the war was over. You had lost.' She said: 'Well, I didn't know that. I didn't know what was going on.' They asked her, 'So what did you do?' She said, 'I got my family hunting rifle and shot a German soldier.' They asked, 'They retaliated?' She said: 'Yes. They just grabbed two people in the street and shot them dead by way of retaliation.' The interviewer asked, 'So you stopped shooting German soldiers?' She said, 'No, I went out and shot two German soldiers.' They asked, 'And they retaliated?' She said that they put a cordon around a village of 102 people and slaughtered everyone inside the village.' They asked, 'So then you stopped shooting German soldiers?' She said, 'No. I got six of my schoolmates, and then we became 12, and we all got our family hunting rifles and shot 100 German soldiers.' There is a message there for a little, tiny country like Australia. There is a message there for those of us who love our country and want to protect our country, for those of us who love our home and our family and want to protect our home in our family and not give that power away to the state, the people in the uniforms, the King, the Crown. Those are wonderful, high-flying, philosophical points that I make and, if I may say so, I make them with force. Let us come down to reality. In Queensland we had no gun laws. In 1988, the year of the much maligned Bjelke-Petersen, we had no gun laws whatsoever. None. There were considerable numbers of firearms but no gun laws. You could have whatever rifle you wanted any time you wanted. I walked in off the street and bought an AK-47 one day because I thought it would be very useful, and anyone could to that any time they liked. We had eight deaths from guns. That is all. New South Wales, with very stringent laws on firearms, had 38 deaths from guns. With draconian laws in Victoria, a state 50 per cent the size of Queensland, there should have been 12 deaths from guns. They did not have 12. They did not have 24. They did not have 36. They did not have 48. They had 54 deaths from guns. For years after the gun ban there were more deaths than in the years before the gun ban. I am not going to go into the psychological reasons why this occurs and why it is a phenomenon that occurs throughout the world. All I am going to say is that we are here today because there are further bans on guns. I must declare a pecuniary interest. I have a relative who is involved in the Adler shotgun that is being banned under this regulation. I asked myself: why would I withdraw from the battle and from things I profoundly believe in? Is it because I have a relative involved? No way! It does not muzzle me. In fact, the opposite may well be the case. This is where you see the ridiculous nature of government. People here think they are governing. But I compare it to the government that I proudly was a part of that ran Queensland for $8,000 million. The LNP could not run the same state for $51,000 million. It would be a good comparison of our relative intelligences and capacity levels. The ALP could not run it for $49,000 million. We ran it for $8,000 million. Maybe we had some good ideas when we were governing Queensland. People have said that this lever action process is a new technology. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM Is there a seconder for the motion? Ms McGowan 123674 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 19:25 Mr FEENEY I0O Batman I rise to speak on this motion moved by the member for Kennedy. The member for Kennedy may have killed his own argument more spectacularly than I am able to do, but nonetheless I will set out Labor's position on this disallowance motion. It is fair to say that we are motivated by different principles than those that motivate the member for Kennedy. We do believe that the state should have a monopoly on violence. We do believe that it is a wrong-headed notion that a community is safer if its citizenry is armed. We do believe that if every citizen were to carry a weapon that would lead to a more violent society not a less violent society. The proof of this, of course, can be found readily in statistics. If one looks at gun murders per 100,000 residents, we can see in the United States that the figure is 3.7, unsurprisingly the highest number in the world. Mr Katter HX4 Have a look at the states that ban guns and the states that do not. Take the interjection! The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM Order! I remind the member for Kennedy that he was heard in silence and should afford the same hospitality to the member for Batman. Mr FEENEY I0O If we look at a country like Italy, we see that the number is 0.68. If we look at Canada, we see that the number is 0.50. That is less than one-seventh of the neighbouring nation of the United States. In Australia it is 0.13, and in the United Kingdom it is 0.07. These statistics clearly bear out that, where a society is liberally armed, it is a society where gun murders are at a far higher incidence. Having set out that principle— Mr Katter HX4 Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM What is your point of order? Mr Katter HX4 You must give fair and accurate judgement of the figures. The figures do not define which states have the bans and which do not. If you do, then the exact opposite— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM There is no point of order. Mr FEENEY I0O Having set out those important principles that motivate Labor in this debate, I do entirely recognise that that leaves scope for the legitimate presence of firearms in our community. But that legitimate presence is confined to issues such as sporting, recreation and, of course, the need for some people in some occupations to have guns as a part of their working life, farmers being a typical example, although there are others. It is from that prism, from that public policy proposition, that Labor approaches this conversation. The Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956, the principal regulations, impose import controls for various items including firearms and firearms related articles. The amending regulation amends the principal regulations as they relate to the importation of lever action shotguns with a magazine capacity of more than five rounds. Issues relating to the prevention, detection and prosecution of crime are for the most part the responsibility of state and territory governments. The various categories of firearms were agreed by all Australian jurisdictions some time ago at a special meeting of the Australasian Police Ministers' Council in May 1996. That gave rise to the 1996 national firearms agreement. The categories are reflected in both the Commonwealth legislation that regulates firearms imports and state and territory legislation that regulates licensing, such as the Firearms Act 1996 in my own state of Victoria. To import a firearm, a person must have a firearm licence, obtained through the relevant state or territory registry, and permission to import the firearm, obtained from the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department in some cases and the state or territory registry in others. Any changes to the categories would need to be approved by all jurisdictions through the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council. The technical elements of the national firearms agreement are currently being reviewed, with a view to being updated as recommended by the Martin Place siege review. As part of this, the appropriate classification of lever action shotguns, particularly those with a magazine capacity of more than five rounds, is being considered. In order to ensure any update of the NFA in this regard is not undermined by having a large number of lever action shotguns with a magazine capacity of more than five rounds imported into Australia in the time taken to finalise the review, a temporary prohibition on the importation of those firearms is being put in place, and I would humbly submit that is mere common sense. This is an interim measure until the review and the update of the NFA are completed. This process will ensure there will be fewer individuals licensed to possess these firearms who will be affected should the update to the NFA result in a change in the categorisations of such firearms—again, mere common sense. The update of the NFA is expected to be finalised in early 2016. The purpose of the amending regulation is therefore to amend the principal regulations to prohibit the importation of lever action shotguns fitted with a firearm magazine capacity of more than five rounds. In order to ensure that the prohibition on the importation of lever action shotguns with a magazine capacity of greater than five rounds cannot be avoided by importing the magazines separately, the amending regulation also prohibits the importation of magazines with a capacity of greater than five rounds for lever action shotguns. Labor believes that, as gun technology is updated, it is entirely appropriate that our laws are reviewed from time to time to ensure that they keep up with the advances in technology and that they do not become outdated. We will carefully consider the outcomes of the national firearms agreement review when they are released. Further to the measures in this regulation which will prevent the importation of the Adler A110 lever action shotgun with a magazine capacity of seven rounds, Labor believe that the government must also act to prevent other powerful weapons entering the Australian market while this review is being completed. We are extremely concerned by reports that a modified version of the Adler shotgun may now be imported into Australia. Under the current national firearms agreement, lever action shotguns with a magazine capacity of five rounds or fewer are category A, and that means they are available to Australia's 700,000 licensed recreational shooters—I might say recreational shooters, not a militia ready to spring to the defence of our democracy at the behest of the member for Kennedy. Gun critics have said that the Adler A110, which can shoot multiple rounds in rapid succession, is faster and more powerful than other models of firearms. Given that the appropriate classification of lever action shotguns is currently under review, we should not be seeing more of these weapons enter Australia. The Victorian police minister, Wade Noonan, said that they would argue the weapon should have the same restrictions as a semiautomatic firearm. He said: I have spoken to the Acting Chief Commissioner Tim Cartwright about this matter. He has raised his concerns that this weapon — and others like it — are no longer appropriate for a category A classification. I share his concerns. Can I stress that this is an interim measure until the review and the update of the NFA is complete. Labor appreciate that the overwhelming majority of firearm owners comply with the relevant legislation and we acknowledge the work of the various firearms organisations who promote the safe use and safe storage of firearms. Labor also recognise that a very significant number of Australians participate in the sport of shooting. However, until the national firearms agreement review is completed, this shotgun should not be allowed into the Australian market, modified or otherwise. Given the events of the past week domestically and abroad, now is not the time to erode or undermine John Howard's tough gun laws, which are respected around the world. Under Tony Abbott the Liberal Party was happy to put political expediency ahead of community safety concerns. Malcolm Turnbull can now put safety before politics. He should show leadership where Tony Abbott did not and immediately have this modified version of the shotgun banned until the national firearms agreement review is complete. The Liberal government must immediately act to prevent these high-powered weapons from being imported into Australia in the absence of such a thorough review. On that basis, Labor will be opposing the motion for disallowance. 19:34 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling On behalf of the government, I oppose the motion for disallowance of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment (Firearms and Firearm Magazines) Regulation 2015. I need to outline what has happened here so that everybody can understand it. In the wake of the Martin Place siege the government has undertaken to review the national firearms agreement, an agreement that is almost two decades old and that was struck between the Commonwealth and the states after the Port Arthur massacre, where an enormous number of Australians were killed by a deranged criminal. The states and territories got together under the leadership of then Prime Minister John Howard and resolved to change the way we deal with guns in Australia. As a result, the national firearms agreement was born, which restricts ownership in Australia of various categories of firearms and restricts ownership to people who really have a legitimate use for them. Because that agreement is almost two decades old, it is appropriate that we have a review. Since that time there have been some technical advances in guns that we need to take account of. One of the concerns expressed to me by the states and territories at the time was around the importation of the Adler lever action shotgun, which was going to be imported in quite large numbers. Whilst we have a conversation with the states and territories about where that gun should appropriately be classified, I took the view that it would be silly to allow thousands of those into the community and then have to retrospectively do something to buy them back, for example. It made a lot more sense to restrict their import whilst we had this conversation, given that I knew this conversation was going to be concluded in the not too distant future. The Law, Crime and Community Safety Council, made up of police ministers and attorneys-general, will be meeting in Canberra in November. Collectively, we need to make a decision about what we are going to do with the national firearms agreement. My goal, overwhelmingly, is to make sure that we keep the NFA intact. That means, of course, that I want all states and territories to move concurrently with the Commonwealth and have a common view about what we do with this particular type of gun. States and territories will come to Canberra with their own views. What we then need to do is make a collective decision about lever-action shotguns that have a magazine capacity of over five rounds. I have had some informal consultations with state and territory police ministers. I think we will probably get to an agreement where we are all of the same mind, but my overwhelming objective in all of this will be to keep the NFA intact. That is very important for Australia. Mr Katter HX4 Statistics prove just the opposite! Mr KEENAN E0J I appreciate that the member for Kennedy has a totally different view, and he is completely entitled to it. There is overwhelming evidence that the NFA has kept Australia safe over the past two decades. I have had this conversation with people who have a similar view to the member for Kennedy and I think he is wrong. The vast majority of Australians would probably assume that he was wrong as well. There are other countries around the world that are currently looking at Australia and wishing they had a political class capable of doing this. Mr Katter HX4 No. Some people in those countries— Mr KEENAN E0J Under your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will continue. I appreciate that the member for Kennedy has a totally different view on all of this. Mr Katter HX4 Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the minister is misinforming the House. Canada has just abolished the legislation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. That is not a point of order. Mr KEENAN E0J There is an ongoing consultation process. The states and territories will join with the Commonwealth and come up with sensible arrangements about where we are going to classify this particular gun. I would urge everyone to let that process take its course. I have taken the view that it is a very sensible thing for us to have this temporary ban whilst we come to that conclusion together. Question negatived, Mr Katter dissenting. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 97 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 19:40 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler It might suit the House, given there is a change of business here, that I seek leave to make a personal explanation. 19:40 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ALBANESE R36 Yes. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 Please proceed. Mr ALBANESE R36 In question time today the minister for infrastructure suggested that I was misleading in the statement I made about the managed motorways upgrade of the Monash Freeway and stated that only $9.9 million had been allocated. The $9.9 million referred to the 4.1 kilometre section of the Monash Freeway between High Street and Warrigal Road. If he had turned it over, he would have seen that there was a second section to: … upgrade the Intelligent Transport System on the 29.4 kilometres section of the Monash Freeway (M1) from Warrigal Road to Clyde Road. This work will include additional sensors to help improve traffic flow, more Variable Speed Signs and the use of hard shoulder for additional capacity. Federal contribution: $68.6 million. For the benefit of the House, this was to be matched by a contribution from the Victorian government, at the time, which was a coalition government. I put that on record to make it clear that my statements were correct and those of the infrastructure minister were not. BILLS 97 BILLS Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 97

Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015

Second Reading 97 19:41 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 19:42 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for Grayndler and am strongly in opposition to this Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. Let us be very clear what this legislation seeks to do. It seeks to put about 10,000 hard-working highly skilled Australians out of work and replace them with foreign labour on foreign flagged vessels around the Australian coastline. That is succinctly what this bill is aimed at doing. That will be the effect of this bill, to put thousands of Australians—many of whom live in my community—out of work and allow so-called 'flag of convenience' vessels to operate in Australian waters, to employ foreign labour on those vessels, to avoid Australian workplace relations and safety laws, to avoid paying those crews fair and decent wages in accordance with Australian workplace agreements and awards, and to potentially undermine the environmental protections that Australia has built up around some of our most precious marine resources, particularly the Great Barrier Reef. Australia is an island continent and we are heavily reliant on shipping for our trade. In fact, shipping represents 99 per cent of the carriage of our trade. We have one of the longest coastlines in the world and the fifth largest shipping task of any nation. Ten per cent of the world's cargo trade is carried by ship to or from Australia. Ten per cent of the world's international cargo shipping is done to or from Australia. That gives an idea of the magnitude of this industry and the importance of this industry to Australian employment and economic development. This bill seeks to undermine the sanctity of that particular industry and the importance of it to Australia's economic development. Shipping is a massive industry and is one of tremendous importance to many Australians and to the Australian way of life. My own grandfather was a wharfie who worked at the Hungry Mile around Sydney. His job was related to that particular trade—the importance of shipping. When he was injured at work and was unable to work on the wharves anymore, his family suffered as a result. If it were not for the support of the Waterside Workers' Federation at the time, his family would indeed have struggled to get by. The importance of shipping, of this particular trade, to many Australian employees and families cannot be underscored enough. That is why I am vehemently opposed to what this government is seeking to do, which is to completely wipe out protections that have been put in place to ensure that we promote Australian jobs in this industry and to ensure that we are promoting Australian wages and conditions, safety and environmental laws at the expense of foreign-flagged vessels. I think is the height of un-Australian culture to ensure that foreign-flagged ships can come into the Australian shipping industry and begin to offer and operate services at a discounted rate, principally because they have got rid of protections on wages and conditions. It is against everything that Australia stands for when it comes to promoting jobs and a great industry that has served our nation well. Labor recognised this when, in 2012, we introduced new laws designed to revitalise what was then a flagging shipping industry. We took this task seriously. Over many, many years the Labor Party consulted with experts in the field—with the shippers, with the businesses, with the logistics companies, with the stevedoring companies and, importantly, with seafarers. We looked at international best practice, and between 2010 and 2012 Anthony Albanese, the member for Grayndler, led an extensive consultation period. There had been a parliamentary inquiry in 2008. On the back of that we introduced measures that had the support of industry, that had the support of the operators of Australian-flagged ships on our shores. We introduced new measures to provide taxation incentives for Australian-flagged ships, encouraging the employment of Australian seafarers and ushering in workplace packages that focused on maritime skills development—on building a credible, sophisticated, highly skilled workforce that supported a very important trade in the Australian economy, that grew that trade in the Australian economy. Since the day the Abbott-Turnbull government was sworn in, it has harboured a destructive attitude to some of those Labor reforms for an important industry and has sought to foster uncertainty regarding the potential of an Australian-flagged fleet. Since its time in opposition this Liberal government has been about ensuring that it undermined those policies that were put in place by Labor, seeking to create uncertainty within the industry. The Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill is this government's attempt to continue to undermine that industry. It will potentially result in the loss of 10,000 direct jobs that are currently undertaken by Australians and will see them go overseas—taken up by foreign labour. At the end of the day, that is the crux of the issue here. That is what will occur if this bill goes through this parliament. This bill replaces preference for an Australian flag on ships working on the Australian coast with preference for a foreign flag—or at least indifference to flagging, with so-called flags-of-convenience ships being placed on the same level as Australian-flagged ships. When a ship has an Australian flag it is subject to Australian safety, workplace, environmental, taxation and industrial relations laws. It is subject to the laws of Australia, and in that respect those who operate those ships must operate in accordance with Australian laws and must employ Australians in accordance with those laws. As I said earlier, approximately 10,000 people are directly and indirectly employed in this industry. And let's face it: Australian shipping and seafaring workers do it tough. It is not an easy job being at sea for the majority of your working weeks in a particular year. It is tough on the individual, it is tough on their families and it is tough on the communities in which they live. Just last month I visited Port Botany, in my local electorate, where hundreds of local workers were protesting the sacking of almost 100 port employees. We saw what occurred there. Those individuals were dismissed and were told by text message that they were being made redundant. When I went down to the port I saw workers who had lost their jobs, but I also saw the coach of the local footy and soccer teams, the husband or wife of the nurse who works at the local hospital, the husband or wife of the local teacher who works and educates kids in our community. They had been given a kick in the guts by this particular company—a foreign-based parent company that did not really understand the way Australian workplace and industrial laws work and thought it would be able to get away with dismissing people at night via text message. That is an insight into what is in store for those 10,000 seafaring-type workers who are employed in this important industry if this bill goes through. It has been dubbed 'WorkChoices on water', and I could not think of a more appropriate way to describe what is going on here, what this government is attempting to do in attacking seafaring workers. Of the savings the government claims on the back of this bill, 88 per cent are due to the sacking of Australian workers and replacing them with foreign crews being paid Third World rates. That is what this government is attempting to do: make savings to the Australian budget on the back of sacking Australian workers. In my view, that is despicable—and that is why we are opposed to this bill. This is a disastrously short-sighted approach from this government that fails to take into account the devastating impact it would have on those who will lose their jobs, as well as on their families and the communities in which they work. The impact also includes lost spending in local economies, lost revenue to the government through a reduction in income tax payments from those who lose their jobs, and a further cost to the budget due to the resultant higher welfare spending—not to mention the emotional and psychological damage that is invariably associated with the sudden loss of one's job. This legislation also has an environmental impact. Australia has some of the most pristine and ecologically important marine reserves in the world—most notably the Great Barrier Reef. No-one knows those waters better than the seafarers and captains who operate in those waters, particularly Australian seafarers and captains, many of whom have grown up on the waters around those important ecological areas. There have been cases of foreign flagged vessels that have run into difficulties in Australian marine reserves and damaged some of Australia's precious marine ecosystems. There was the recent incident of Shen Neng1, which in 2010 became stranded on the Great Barrier Reef and did significant damage. There were also incidents with the MV Pacific Adventurerin 2009 off the Sunshine Coast and with Chinese Steel Developer in 2015 off Mackay. This underscores the importance of ensuring that we have Australian flagged crews and Australian flagged vessels operating in Australian waters—because they appreciate and understand. They have the local knowledge, particularly of shipping channels, necessary to ensure proper navigation through these protected waters. They would understand the importance of ensuring that people are not working when fatigued or under poor work standards. They would ensure that ships operated with appropriate controls when navigating through these protected waters. So there is not only the personal aspect; there is not only the economic aspect; there is also an environmental aspect to what this government is seeking to do. On those grounds, Labor has a very simple position: we are opposed to this bill. If you seek to move freight on the road in this country, the driver is paid Australian wages and the driver works to Australian safety standards and road conditions. The same goes for moving freight by rail. The situation should be no different if you are operating in Australian waters. If you are operating a company in Australian waters and moving cargo to and from Australia, you should operate under Australian rules—you should pay your workers Australian wages, you should provide them with Australian conditions and you should abide by Australian environmental and safety laws. Australia is heavily reliant on the shipping trade to keep our nation going, and we need to rely on Australians to do this work. This bill attacks those workers and seeks to allow operators in Australian waters to bring in foreign flagged vessels and to bring in workers under foreign wages and conditions—to undercut Australian wages and conditions. On that basis, this bill should be opposed. I urge the House to support the amendment of the member for Grayndler. 19:56 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons This debate on the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 has demonstrated that the case for reform is very clear. Some of the preceding speakers have clearly highlighted that need for reform. But all we get from the other side is more of the same, more of what we are seeing in a lot of policy areas at the moment—they are just running a scare campaign. The previous speaker was running a scare campaign based on protectionism. I personally have great faith in the capacity of our local shipping industry to innovate where needed and to compete. Australia has the fourth largest freight task in the world, but shipping's share of that freight task has continued to fall since 2012. I will run through the Tasmanian experience, because I think what has happened on the little island shows in microcosm what has occurred on the big island. We do not have road or rail connections to many of those important hub ports; we have Bass Strait. Because of the changes that were made to legislation by the previous government in 2009 and again in 2012, we—immediately after the Coastal Shipping (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act—lost our international shipping service. That had a simple knock-on effect. We lost that international shipping service that was calling in at Port Adelaide, Bell Bay and Brisbane and then heading off to Singapore from where freight could go pretty much anywhere in the world. Once that service was lost, all of that volume moved onto the Bass Strait. I am not a master of economics, but with the lack of competition we saw prices go up. You only have to look at the submissions that have been made to the Senate inquiry. Any number of representations have been made. Probably the most notable—and I note the member for Bass is sitting here next to me—was about the impact on Bell Bay Aluminium in his electorate. In the 12 months subsequent to the loss of that international shipping service, their costs went up by 63 per cent. Equally I could speak about Norske Skog, a paper manufacturer in the south of my electorate. The loss of that shipping service was not the sole reason, but it was certainly one reason, as Rod Bender said to me on many occasions, why they lost paper contracts in Western Australia—because there was no reliable way to service that market for newsprint in WA. I could equally talk about Cement Australia at Railton, also in my electorate, another one that does not, of course, have the option of moving cement by road or rail. They depend absolutely on shipping. The costs to their businesses indeed have increased enormously. But just as easily I could be talking about every shipper, every exporter and every farmer in my electorate. This has a knock-on effect. I note the review that was commissioned by the MUA and conducted by, if I am not mistaken, the Australia Institute. That is the same Australia Institute that I think did a lot of employee knock-on impacts within the forestry industry. They completely overestimated the impacts of the competition that would come and the potential job losses in these reforms, and they completely underestimated the impact on all of those other industries. I have some sympathy, and I am not quite sure the member for Bass will have the same sympathy that I do, because I will give the benefit of the doubt to those opposite and I will say that the intentions of that Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 were well intentioned, that they were not a sop to the MUA and that they were genuinely trying to bring about reform and revitalisation, as the title of the bill suggested. It might be unkind to suggest that it was a sop to the MUA, but, in the island state in an island nation, the impact was absolutely enormous. I do not understand the case that is being made by those opposite, and I dispute absolutely the references and the reference material that they use from the Australia Institute, because that is the same Australia Institute that condemned forestry in my state of Tasmania. Remember: it was the former government, along with a terrible state government that we endured for many years, that shut down forestry. They said there were only 2,000 jobs in forestry, but they ignored utterly the takeaway shops. They ignored the engineering shops in Launceston and the tyre businesses in Sorell—all of these businesses that depended very much on that sector. So it is with the logistics that are demanded in an island state to move goods efficiently and reliably. I do not understand why a job on the water is somehow more important than, for example, a job in the factory at Norske Skog, a job at a dairy manufacturing plant on the north-west coast or a job at Bell Bay Aluminium, as I am sure the member for Bass will allude to later on. I do not understand. For me, morally, I will stand up for those jobs and for every job. I give the benefit of the doubt to those opposite and to the MUA, whose bidding they were doing, that they were well intentioned, but they failed. They have utterly failed. The evidence is there for all to see that the number of registered Australian ships has fallen and has continued to fall. It has not moved. In fact, one of the interesting things in the submission that the MUA made to the Senate committee was that it noted that there would be a $4.25 billion benefit in output and 9,000 additional jobs assuming that 100 additional ships were registered under this Australian International Shipping Register. What they do not tell you is that since that was introduced there have not been 10 and there have not been five; there have been zero vessels that have actually signed up to that International Shipping Register. So this is the situation that we have. As I say, I will stand up every day for jobs in my state, but when we start valuing one job on the water more than many more jobs, whether that be two, three or five times the number of jobs in businesses and industries around my state, I think the argument has failed. I mentioned some of the other submissions to the Senate inquiry. Indeed, they are compelling reading, and it does not take very much comprehension to understand the impact, whether it be Bell Bay Aluminium, Cement Australia or Aluminium Industries Australia. I think one of the most impressive representations I read was from Primary Employers Tasmania, who, in their covering letter, provided me with a copy of the National Farmers' Federation submission on the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. Indeed, that made very compelling reading. As I say, I do have some sympathy for those opposite, but the truth is that their reforms have unequivocally failed. The need for change is absolute; change is very much needed. The Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 will provide an unambiguous objective of ensuring efficient and reliable coastal shipping services as part of the very important national transport system. A single coastal shipping permit for all ships—Australian and foreign flagged—will replace the existing tiered system, which, as I have highlighted, has failed, granting unrestricted access to coastal shipping. All contestability aspects of the current framework will be removed, and Australian and foreign ships will be treated equally, but I have great faith in the capacity of our shippers to compete. Foreign ships will not be imported by Customs when operating under a permit, including when dry-docking. Finally, I want to touch on this. I have had a number of people write to me highlighting their concerns about the impact on local employees. As I mentioned, with the overestimation by Labor and the underestimation of the knock-on the impact on other sectors of the economy, there is little reason for the domestic shipping industry to be concerned. Consideration has been given within the construction of this legislation to make sure that Australian crews are protected with a framework of entitlements for seafarers on foreign vessels that are engaged or intend to engage in coastal shipping for more than 183 days. The amendments will apply to part B of the Seagoing Industry Award of 2010 for seafarers on vessels that engage predominantly in coastal shipping when the Fair Work Act 2009 applies to them. In summary, this is much needed legislation. It will protect jobs and I have no doubt that Australian coastal shipping will continue to be able to compete. More importantly, it will protect jobs in many businesses all around Australia. Ms MacTIERNAN L6P I rise to oppose the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. The member for Grayndler has very cogently pointed out the difficulties with this bill and the unfairness of this bill in terms of labour market provisions, and has also touched upon the issues of national security that have arisen time and time again when we look at the demise of our nation's own ability to sustain a shipping fleet. On that point, we note that American analysis of the Jones Act, which the member for Grayndler referred to comprehensively, very significantly found the importance of having a domestic fleet that could be diverted in times of national crisis to assist with tasks and referenced the role of the shipping industry in fuelling the efforts in the various Gulf wars. I want to talk today about another issue that has not been touched on and it is one that I have had personal experience of: the ability for us here in Australia to sustain a skilled workforce within our ports. For almost eight years, I had responsibility for running WA's eight ports. Those ports, particularly if you look at the Pilbara ports, were some of the largest ports in the world in terms of tonnage shipped through them. What become evident from my experience, and indeed it was in all the reports that were made to me at that time—and I see from my research that it continues to be the case—is that there are critical skills in the operation of ports that require people with profound and extensive blue-water experience. The key tasks include those of harbour masters, port marine pilots, tug operators and marine engineers. All of those are absolutely critical skillsets for the conduct of sophisticated port operations. The previous speaker was getting worked up because some of the reports had been prepared by certain entities. He seemed to particularly have some difficulty with the Australia Institute. I am looking at a report prepared by Victor Gekara from RMIT University for the Transport and Logistics Industry Skills Council. It is a report that has been backed up by a variety of government agencies and, indeed, port authorities around the country. It points out just how critical it is for us to have those skills and how increasingly difficult it is to find those skills within Australia. It goes directly to the question of the absence and decline of domiciled shipowners. The report says: The absence of domiciled ship-owners engaging in cadet training has ... led to the depletion of the existing pool of mariners due to natural wastage as well as sectoral migration. Basically, without any workforce replenishment at the bottom, we are simply not getting the people who come through as recruits, become junior officers and work their way up. If we continue to have this erosion of a domiciled Australian shipping industry, we are going to continue to lose the very critical skillsets that we need to have port operation. The previous speaker went on at length about wanting to protect the timber industry and the dairy industry and wanting to ensure that they have the capacity to export their product. I absolutely agree, but a critical part of that supply chain and trade facilitation is the efficient operation of ports. Ports simply cannot operate without deep skillsets in all of those areas. I have seen ports with a variety of levels of sophistication in their operations and I understand how critical it is to have deep skill sets and to have people with deep and profound logistical abilities. That can turn a port around. If I could talk about the Port Hedland facility, which is now part of the combined Pilbara Ports, there was a time when BHP would question whether or not we could get much more than 190,000 tonnes out of that port. Last year that port got 264,000 tonnes of iron ore out on a single day. It is just extraordinary that we would get out a shipment of that size. Port Hedland is a heavily tidal port and these ships are very large, so it is a challenge as to how many ships you can bring out on a single tide. Earlier this year the Port Hedland facility of Pilbara Ports was able to ship out 1.5 million tonnes on eight Cape-class bulk carriers, within a single tidal window of 4.75 hours. You do not do that without profound logistical capacity and profound skill levels in your pilotage and in the port traffic operations. These are all skill sets that are acquired after very detailed and lengthy experience as blue-water mariners. I ask members to look at where this whole issue of an Australian shipping industry fits within our ability to run ports that are efficient, that are able to cut costs and that are able to use their infrastructure in the most efficient way possible. So it is not just a question of looking at the industry itself. We need to look at the superstructure that is very much dependent on there being skill formation going on within the country. I am very concerned that, as the member for Grayndler said, in a nation where we export 85 per cent of what we produce, Australian companies are responsible for exporting only around two per cent of the product that is produced on our shores. That is insufficient to either generate the jobs that we need to keep Australia going and, certainly, it is insufficient to generate the jobs we need to have efficient port operations. Our current account deficit obviously would be so much better if we were able to attract a much larger portion of shipping to Australia. I think this legislation, in addition to all the unfairness in it that has been set out by previous speakers, is also a deeply irresponsible piece of legislation. It certainly shows that Australia is one of the few developed nations that has a large export industry yet does not work very hard to ensure, through legislative and fiscal means, that it sustains an efficient locally domiciled shipping industry and that it recognises the value of creating those jobs in themselves to allow Australians to have access to that work. It is equally important that as an exporting nation we recognise the need to have deep maritime skills so that we are able to operate efficient port operations. If we are to continue to provide meaningful, good jobs for Australians we need to make sure that we have an Australian based shipping industry. So, I will be supporting my colleagues on this side of the House in refusing to support this bill. I am very mindful of the number of maritime workers I have met in recent times—a number of highly skilled seafarers in Western Australia—who are out of work. They have had exemplary work records and have been employed in the industry for the last 20 years. Now, particularly with the legislative diminution brought in with regard to the pipe-laying vessels offshore, jobs have been lost in the Australian resource sector as pipe laying and the servicing of rigs has been allowed to go offshore. Through the administrative dumbing down and non-enforcement of the rules in relation to our offshore resources facilities, many hundreds of Western Australian seafarers have lost their jobs. This legislation we are considering here today will increase that trend. Therefore, I will not be supporting this legislation and I really urge the government to rethink this. I certainly hope that our friends on the cross benches in the Senate can see the folly of our losing yet another key skill set, consequently undermining our capacity to run the ports around our country, those ports that are so absolutely critical for trade facilitation. 20:22 Mr NIKOLIC 137174 Bass As we have heard from many speakers this evening, Australia is an island nation, unique in being the only country in the world to occupy its own continent. If you were to superimpose a map of Australia over a map of the continental United States, you would see that they are about the same size, but in terms of population we are only about one-fourteenth the size of the United States—about the same as the great state of Texas. My home state of Tasmania is an island state, so the issue of shipping is of vital importance to both Australia and Tasmania's future prosperity. Coastal shipping helps ensure that we optimise the benefits of globalisation and growing trade, particularly in the much heralded Asian century. As the key drivers of global economic prosperity transition from the north Atlantic to Asia, Australia, sitting there beautifully positioned astride the Indian and Pacific oceans, is well placed to take advantage. My point is that readily available and efficient coastal shipping and international shipping will help ensure that quality Tasmanian produce and manufactured goods can serve growing Asian middle-class markets from India to China, which, in the next 15 years, are projected to grow from 500 million people to 1.7 billion people. That is why I am so pleased to make a contribution to the debate on the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, which helps to untangle the mess left by the Labor-Greens government's legislative changes in 2012. I can recall our announcement in April 2014 of an options paper on this issue, which elicited public comment from Bell Bay Aluminium, one of the biggest businesses in my electorate of Bass. The general manager, Mr Ray Mostogl, said in a media release on 8 April 2014 that, following the introduction of Labor's coastal trading act, Bell Bay Aluminium faced a 63 per cent increase in freight rates. He noted that Labor's licensing arrangements: … have led to greatly reduced shipping options and competition in the market and an associated increase in the cost of shipping. Bell Bay Aluminium is pleased to see that the current government review is looking to address the competitiveness of services and shipping costs. He went on to say, perhaps most importantly: Freight has been identified as one of the key means to keep the Bell Bay Aluminium smelter viable. What you hear from Mr Mostogl is that there was greatly reduced competition in the market, fewer shipping options and increased costs to his business in the immediate aftermath of Labor's 2012 coastal shipping laws. Perhaps of greatest concern is the link that he draws between these impacts and the very viability of Bell Bay Aluminium. That raises some pretty major red flags about jobs and other human consequences in northern Tasmania. There is no doubt that Labor's 2012 coastal shipping changes added greater pressure to jobs and livelihoods at Bell Bay. We are talking here about real people in the beautiful northern Tasmanian coastal community of George Town and surrounding areas. These are proud, hardworking people who felt the adverse effects of these ill-considered changes—yet another kick in the guts for a community that had experienced more than its fair share from 16 years of state Labor and Labor-Greens government in Hobart. What makes this situation worse is that, in 2012, Canberra's Labor-Greens government only added to their problems with these ill-considered shipping laws. Tasmania's interests were sidelined, and Bell Bay Aluminium's interests were sidelined, by Labor-Greens governments led by Lara Giddings and Julia Gillard. It is important because we are not talking here about some small employer. I am hesitant to say it, but Bell Bay Aluminium is one of the few large employers we have left in northern Tasmania. It is a significant employer and a significant taxpayer. It supports the employment of more than 1,000 Tasmanians. It uses 25 per cent of Tasmania's total electricity and it contributes almost $700 million each year to Tasmania's gross state product. So, when the General Manager of Bell Bay Aluminium said to the Productivity Commission that Labor's coastal shipping changes caused 'a 63 per cent increase in freight rates', why didn't Labor listen? When Mr Mostogl gave testimony that leaving ships idle at ports for a day before loading can commence, as demanded by the Maritime Union of Australia, costs foreign vessels about $10,000 a day and Australian ships more than $20,000 a day, why didn't Labor listen? When exporters said that freight rates from Tasmania to Queensland in the first year of Labor's coastal trading act almost doubled to $30 a tonne, while rates elsewhere in the Southern Hemisphere remained at about half that at $17 a tonne, why didn't Labor listen? When the fleet of major Australian registered ships—over 2,000 deadweight tonnes—halved from 30 vessels in 2006-07 to just 15 in 2013-14, and the number of ships on Australian transitional general licences dropped from 16 to just eight, why didn't Labor listen? When there was an over 60 per cent decline in the carrying capacity of the major Australian coastal trading fleet in the first two years of the former government's coastal trading act, why didn't Labor listen? When there were almost 1,000 fewer coastal voyages and almost two million fewer tonnes of freight moved by foreign vessels in the year after Labor's laws came in, why didn't Labor listen? When demurrage rates tripled from $15,000 to $45,000, why didn't Labor listen? In the member for Perth's contribution, I heard her talk about the importance of maritime skills, knowledge and attitudes to the future of Australia's productivity, but how do any of those things that I have just described help people in the maritime industry keep their jobs? How does the halving of the coastal trading fleet lead to more jobs for people in the maritime industry? The undeniable fact is that not only did the cost for bulk shippers like Bell Bay Aluminium go up but their shipping options dramatically decreased, and the projections into the future are no better. From 2010 to 2030, under what Labor has in place, Australia's overall freight task is expected to grow by 80 per cent, but coastal shipping will only increase by 15 per cent. Think of what that means for a maritime nation like Australia and an island state like Tasmania. I want to hear those on the other side explain to me how halving of the fleet after Labor's laws came in is good for jobs in our maritime nation and my maritime state. How does a much-reduced share of the national freight task help jobs in the industry? How can those people who are studying at the Australian Maritime College in my home city of Launceston look to the future with those sorts of metrics and think about a bright, rosy maritime industry in the aftermath of Labor's 2012 laws? Of course, they cannot, and those opposite who continue to cheer for this legislative gift to the Maritime Union of Australia should listen to those actually reliant on coastal shipping, who see these ill-considered laws as yet more economic vandalism. But, to add insult to injury, Labor's former coalition partners, the Greens, not only cheered for these laws but actually insulted the big employers and the big taxpayers. In comments to the Launceston Examiner, recently retired Greens leader Christine Milne denigrated Bell Bay Aluminium and three other major industrial companies in Tasmania as having 'exaggerated' because they 'want a handout'. What callous indifference to Tasmanian jobs shown by the Labor Party and former Greens leader Christine Milne, who appear happy to sacrifice Tasmanian jobs on the altar of union-Greens ideology! So, for my home state of Tasmania, fixing this Labor mess is of vital importance, and the productivity Commission agrees, noting in its recent report on Tasmanian freight: Given its reliance on sea transport, Tasmania is particularly affected by inefficiencies embedded in coastal shipping regulation. This regulation should be reviewed and reformed as a matter of priority. That concern is echoed by the Tasmanian Minerals and Energy Council, who say in their submission that Tasmanian businesses 'are the most exposed in Australia to the regulatory framework for coastal shipping which is in urgent need of reform'. The Launceston Chamber of Commerce and Industry has said about Labor's reforms: … Launceston and Northern Tasmania has suffered considerably from increased costs and timeliness for exports and imports of freight as a result of the enacting of the Coastal Shipping Legislation— that Labor brought in. So, as you can see, Labor's coastal shipping legislation is a cumbersome, protectionist regime that reduces our competitiveness. It has no friends in those businesses reliant on getting their goods to market in a timely and efficient way. It should have no friends in an island nation like Australia and an island state like Tasmania. Perhaps of greatest concern is that Australia's coastal trading sector is at a crucial way point. By making coastal shipping more competitive, the government is supporting the growth and expansion of jobs in Tasmania's manufacturing, mining, horticultural and agricultural industries. So the purpose of this bill is to implement much-needed reforms to the complex regulatory framework for coastal shipping, easing the damage Labor has inflicted on Northern Tasmania and other coastal shipping centres around the country. The bill's central feature is a much-simplified permit system to reduce costs to business and grow their access to competitive international shipping. The bill reaffirms the government's commitment to greater efficiency and competitiveness in Australia's shipping industry. Through the reforms in this bill, we help ensure greater access and greater choice to shipping services in a more open and competitive market, because, as the four free trade deals that Minister Andrew Robb has negotiated clearly demonstrate, we operate in a global context, so every bit of efficiency and productivity we can build into that global connectivity framework is vitally important. Contrary to the claims of some members opposite, there is no change to the rigorous maritime safety and environmental laws that apply to ships operating in Australian waters. The bill also has built-in protections for Australian workers. Wages and conditions for all seafarers on foreign ships operating primarily in the Australian coastal trade are covered by domestic workplace relations arrangements. For Tasmania, which is increasingly benefitting from tourism traffic, this bill also helps ensure greater access by cruise ship passengers to my home state and other coastal cities around the country. Restoring vibrancy to coastal shipping means a continuing and, I hope, growing role for people with the maritime skills, knowledge and experience to man tugs, supervise harbour traffic, and fill the myriad other jobs in this industry. That is why the bill contains measures to ensure that ships trading predominantly in Australia have Australians undertaking the key skilled positions on board. The member for Lyons, who spoke before me, mentioned some of the estimates we have heard from the Maritime Union of Australia and the Australia Institute about job losses. That Australia Institute report—which was in fact commissioned by the MUA and repeated in their own submission—is a significant overestimate of the number of jobs that might be lost. I think the member for Lyons made a very good point when he said that we need to focus on the value of jobs in all industries, not just in the maritime industry, and in my home state of Tasmania, where horticulture is about to lose that 30 per cent tariff and become much more competitive in those growing Asian markets in our region, that we need to think about jobs in manufacturing, resources, cement, aluminium, fertiliser, petroleum, sugar, grain and many other products that could use coastal shipping services if they were more competitive. So I say to the member for Perth and the members opposite that those skills in the maritime domain are important, but so are the skills in those other industries. In concluding, the case for coastal shipping reforms is clear. Labor's so-called reforms have failed coastal shipping, and unless we act now businesses relying on coastal shipping will be disadvantaged. Without changes to economic and regulatory settings, shipping will not be able to deliver the competitive, efficient services that Australian businesses need and that Tasmanian businesses need, and that has a knock-on negative effect. We need this change, and it must happen as soon as possible. I commend this bill to the House. 20:37 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle It is astonishing to stand in this chamber and to listen to members opposite—particularly those from the island state of Tasmania—support this bill and its direct attack on Australian jobs and the Australian shipping industry. I am very happy to rise alongside my colleagues on this side of the House to speak in opposition to the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 introduced by the Abbott-Turnbull government. If passed, this bill will decimate the Australian shipping industry and, indeed, our maritime skill base. It is a textbook Abbott-Turnbull-government race-to-the-bottom approach to industry policy in Australia. We saw it with the renewable energy sector and in car manufacturing, and we see have seen it now in naval shipbuilding. Rather than destroying the shipping industry as this bill proposes, we should be supporting it, investing in its growth and building on the reforms of the previous Labor government. As an island nation, Australia has a strong national interest in fostering our own coastal shipping industry. Australia is dependent on shipping for 99 per cent of its trade, and we have the fifth largest shipping task of any nation. The industry holds particular significance for my electorate of Newcastle. The Port of Newcastle is the world's largest coal export port and is one of Australia's largest ports by throughput tonnage. It has a 215-year history of commercial shipping and is the economic and trading centre for Newcastle, the Hunter Valley and much of northern and north-western New South Wales. The Port of Newcastle is a critical supply-chain interface in the movement of some 40 different cargoes and manages more than 4,600 ship movements every year. In addition to its important role as a trading port, it has been a key water berth for our nation's shipbuilders for nearly a century, with Royal Australian Navy and commercial ships being built at yards in Newcastle, Carrington and Tomago. From HMAS Strahan and Condamine, built in support of our World War II defence in the 1940s, to the Huon-class minehunters built in their entirety in Newcastle in the 1990s, to today, with more than a third of the three air warfare destroyers being built at Forgacs, Newcastle is home to a highly-skilled shipbuilding industry. Perhaps nowhere else is this government's neglect—this complete lack of policy to grow Australian jobs and Australian industry—felt more keenly than in my electorate of Newcastle. With more than 600 job losses at Forgacs since this government was elected, you can appreciate the concerns that Newcastle has about this legislation. The Port of Newcastle is no doubt one of my electorate's most important economic contributors, leading to the employment of thousands of Novocastrians. Regrettably, this highly profitable port was recently privatised by the New South Wales Liberal government, and Newcastle continues to battle with Sydney to secure our fair share of the spoils. More broadly, Australia is the world's largest island nation, with one of the world's longest coastlines, and 10 per cent of world trade moves to and from Australia by sea. I doubt there would be a stronger case put for the retention of a viable shipping industry as part of our strategic national interests. Shipping is important in terms of our economy, our environment and our national security. Economically, a local shipping industry helps maintain control over both freight reliability and price stability for shippers. Environmentally, it helps protect coastal icons such as the Great Barrier Reef, with skilled local mariners that know our coastlines and reefs. And, from a national security and defence perspective, it provides ready links to a Navy and a well-trained and available merchant fleet. It is most definitely in our national interest and the interest of my electorate of Newcastle to have a strong, viable, local shipping industry. In 2012, Labor gave the shipping industry in Australia certainty, and it is vital that the reforms we introduced are maintained. These reforms need time to work, and they need a government committed to promoting Australia's national interest in shipping. Comparable nations all strongly regulate their coastal shipping for national interest reasons. This includes the United States—the free-market home of the world—which, via the Jones Act, bans foreign ships and crews from its coastal trade. It requires that all goods that are transported by water between US ports be carried on US-flagged ships—ships that are constructed in the United States, owned by United States citizens and crewed by US citizens or permanent residents. Now that is a committed government that appreciates the multiple and complex needs for a viable local shipping industry. Canada, Japan and the nations of the European Union all do similar things. Contrary to shipping industry laws in the US, Canada, Japan and the EU, the bill we are debating this evening removes any obligation or incentive to revitalise the Australian shipping industry and replaces Labor's explicit preference for an Australian flag on ships working the Australian coast with complete indifference—leaving so-called flag-of-convenience ships to be placed on the same level as the Australian-flagged ships. When a ship has an Australian flag, it is subject to Australian standards of safety, environmental compliance, taxation and industrial relations, both here and on the open sea. And it employs Australian seafarers. Flags of convenience are, of course, not a new phenomenon, but are no less damaging now than they have been in the past. Former Minister for Transport and fellow Novocastrian Peter Morris outlined some of the dangers associated in ships operating under flags of convenience in his well-known and highly-regarded 'ships of shame' inquiry in 1992. A recent ABC Four Corners program outlined some of the current-day dangers, with their expose into the events on-board the MV Sage Sagittarius that saw three lives lost in 2012. One of the deaths happened as the ship pulled into Newcastle. So these matters are very close to the heart of Novocastrians. We know the value of shipping regulations. The coastal trading laws put in place by Labor created a level playing field for Australian ships, rather than allowing undercutting on costs, including wages and workplace conditions. The Abbott-Turnbull government, on the other hand, is more than happy to strip away the rights and conditions of Australian seafarers, proposing instead its very own version of WorkChoices on water. This was outlined in Budget Paper No. 2 this year, which exposed the government's true desire for 'better aligning employment conditions for ships based in Australia with international standards'. Since many shipping companies base their ships in Third World nations to minimise their pay levels and working conditions, this was an explicit statement that the government wants to impose massive reductions in pay and conditions on Australian seafarers. We already see many ships flagged to countries where taxation and wages are much less and compliance less vigilant. Make no mistake: 88 per cent of the government's estimated 'savings' from this bill are due to sacking Australian workers and replacing them with 90 percent foreign crews. What the government's official modelling does not account for, however, is the cost of Australian jobs lost, of the lost local spending and local tax and the higher welfare spending resulting from this appalling package. This modelling ignores job losses and the impact on local economies affected, like communities in Tasmania, North Queensland and Newcastle, and is negligent. As noted in the recent Senate inquiry, job losses will undoubtedly come if this bill is passed. Indeed, government officials are already advising shipping operators to sack their Australian staff and replace them with cheap, foreign labour to stay competitive. In sworn evidence to the Senate's Regional and Rural Affair Committee last month, cruise ship operator Bill Milby of North Star Cruises said that government plans to allow foreign-flagged vessels paying Third World wages to undercut Australian vessels on the Australian coasts would damage his business, which operates cruise vessels in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. Mr Milby said on 20 May and again on 16 June that he had discussions with Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development official Judith Zielke, who told him the best way to remain competitive under the changes was to register his vessel overseas, sack his Australian crew and hire foreign workers on lower wages. This evidence is alarming and lays bare the real implications for Australian workers should this bill pass. Our shipping industry employs 10,000 Australian workers in direct and indirect jobs. It deserves a regulatory regime that allows it to operate on a level playing field. That is what happens in every other industry, including in the road, rail and air freight sectors. Labor's position is simple. If you seek to move freight by road in this nation, the truck driver is paid Australian-level wages and operates under Australian workplace health and safety rules. If you seek to move freight by rail, the train driver is paid by Australian standards and is required to operate in accordance with Australian law. The situation should be no different on the 'Blue Highway'. If you work in Australia, you should be paid in accordance with Australian conditions and legal requirements. We on this side of the House have every right to be critical of the Liberal government's track record on Australian shipping. They have serious form in this regard. When Labor took office in 2007, the Australian shipping industry was in a state of decline. Under the Howard government, the number of Australian-flagged vessels working domestic trade routes plunged from 55 in 1996 to just 21 in 2007. Labor introduced new laws, designed to revitalise the Australian shipping industry. This followed the unanimous recommendations of a 2008 parliamentary inquiry and an extensive consultation program with all stakeholders between 2010 and 2012. The aim was to support the ability of the Australian shipping industry to compete within its own borders. The package included taxation incentives for flagging ships as Australian and to encourage employment of Australian seafarers, a new 'second register' with tax benefits to ships engaged predominately in the international trade, coastal shipping reform and a workplace package focusing on maritime skills development. Since the day it was sworn in this government has promised to repeal these laws, undermining their effect and deterring investment in Australian-flagged shipping. This bill rips at the heart of Labor's package by removing a level playing field for Australian shipowners operating in their home waters in the coastal trade. It removes support for the industry and replaces it with nothing. This bill should be condemned. It attacks an industry that is vital to Australia's economic, environmental and national security interest. Having a strong shipping industry is undeniably in our national interest. Current laws, introduced by Labor, help strike the important balance between competition and the national interest. This bill, on the other hand, will decimate the Australian shipping industry. This government stands condemned for its lack of vision and policy to secure Australian jobs and an Australian shipping industry. 20:50 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Coastal shipping is an issue that I have raised on a number of occasions in this place. The dead weight of regulation in Australian coastal shipping is not only killing the very sector it was supposed to support; it is dragging other perfectly good and viable industries down the gurgler with it. Following the years of decline under Labor, the fleet of ships greater than 2,000 tonne deadweight have halved from 30 to 15. It was then, in 2012, that former minister Albanese stepped in to help. It is bit scary; it is that great phrase, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' Well, it has made matters worse. In fact, since that time there has been a 63 per cent reduction in deadweight capacity. It was Bert Kelly, the then member for Wakefield, who blew the whistle on protectionism in Australia in the sixties and seventies. He was an individual whom Gough Whitlam later described by saying, 'No private member has ever had as much influence in changing a major policy of the major parties.' Simply put, Bert Kelly knew that protectionism not only was futile but actually tore down our most efficient industries. Nothing has changed in the 40 years since, and coastal shipping is one of the last fully protected industries in Australia. Australia has rid itself of the last of the old barriers, and we have enjoyed huge jumps in our standard of living on a comparative basis with the rest of the world. Yes, we have challenges. Yes, unemployment is too high. Yes, we have to work hard to address inequalities. But there are more people employed in Australia now than ever before. Compared with the rest of the world, we enjoy an almost unparalleled standard of living because we have been prepared to take the tough decisions on market and labour reform. Clinging to the past and penalising our best industries is not the future, neither is it so with coastal shipping and its impact on successful industry. I have raised the case of GRA's gypsum mine at Kevin a number of times in this place in connection with this inequality. Kevin is near Penong, the westernmost town in my electorate, which is 100 kilometres west of Ceduna. GRA is owned by CSR and Boral, and it once produced more than 90 per cent of the gypsum that produces Australia's plasterboard. It is now a little less than that. It is mined very cheaply and then railed about 80 kilometres to the coastal shipping port of Thevenard. More than 1½ million tonnes a year are mined. Gypsum is not rare and not expensive to mine. It is virtually worthless at the mine gate. Most of the cost is in freight, and it is a sad fact that it has now become cheaper to import gypsum from Thailand for the Brisbane market and increasingly for the Sydney market than it is to transport it the relatively short distance—less than a third of those distances—from Thevenard to those markets around Australia's coast. The Kevin mine exists because GRA has a long-term shipping contract with a Canadian company, incidentally called CSL. These contracts do not last forever, and when they conclude it is difficult to see why the parent companies would elect to continue mining at Kevin when they can import product cheaper from Thailand. This is not because it is cheaper to mine, not because it is better quality and not because their Australian workforce is unproductive. It is simple because of transport costs and, in this case, sea freight—transport compulsorily supplied by totally uncompetitive Australian registered shipping. It is madness, and in the end neither the miners, those employed to service the short rail service to Thevenard or those loading the vessels will keep their jobs. And neither will those whom the Labor government legislated to protect: the members of the MUA. They too will lose their jobs because there will no freight to shift. OneSteel and Arrium are significant players at Whyalla in my electorate. They mine in a region that is a bit bigger than just that and they are big users of coastal shipping—metallurgical coal from Queensland and New South Wales to Whyalla, dolomite from Ardrossan to Whyalla and New South Wales for steel making. One would think the iron ore would come to Wollongong from Whyalla. But, no, I understand it is a better result for the company to import the raw product from Brazil and to export Australian iron rather than use the local product. That is really telling us something. It is cheaper to use iron ore from Brazil than to use local, Australian iron ore. I cannot be sure if the cost of coastal shipping is the only reason for this, but if it costs $20 to shift the local product and $10 to import, it is likely that it is a big part of the reason. I also understand they import limestone from Japan. You would not think there was any great shortage of limestone in Australia. Nyrstar are also significant users. Over half the concentrate is now sourced overseas. Australia is a major exporter of lead and zinc concentrates. Yet there is only one sum here that matters: the cost of the concentrate at the smelter door—material costs plus freight. Australian material costs are good. That is why we can make money exporting. But increasingly we must export our concentrate and import our feedstocks for smelting just because of the freight differentials. Others may argue that the current system does not completely eliminate the chance of international competition on coastal sea freight, which in itself would bring pressure to bear on the ridiculous workplace practices embedded in the awards covering Australian seamen, but it is a fig leaf of an argument. In effect, it is all but a closed shop. For instance, if a company is unable to find Australian shipping to complete a task, they can ask an international supplier to apply for a temporary licence for a minimum of five voyages. What if the movement is a one-off? The company must apply for a minimum of five movements. Additionally, once the application is lodged, there is provision for the local supplier, even if they cannot supply a timely service, to disallow. Restrictions that include tolerance levels—that is, the nominated tonnages—and delays abound while certification alterations are sought. Constantly we speak about the need for flexibility and agility in our business sector. This is a complex, protective labyrinth of regulation. It is the very antithesis of efficiency. Even when foreign specialist ships are brought into our waters they are required to recrew with Australian seamen. This, of course, means long-term, efficient international crews have their employment terminated while the vessel remains in Australian waters. Some will think this is a fair enough requirement. Why wouldn't we look after our Australian crews? However, a few months ago I was speaking to an Australian worker who was part of a specialist technical team working on a survey vessel. He said, 'I work my guts out. Do you know why?' And I said, 'No. Tell me.' He said, 'Because I am so embarrassed to say I'm Australian. They think all Australians work like these sea crews. I'm embarrassed. I work to prove that we're not all the same.' He used language that was a bit stronger than that, I must say. But it is a very telling story because he works alongside those international crews when the ship is not in Australian waters. The issue is not the wages but the work the Australian crews do for the money under conditions bludgeoned out by a militant union. And who pays? The workers in our manufacturing industry, the building manufacturers, the agriculturalists, particularly the Tasmanian agriculturalists, and workers in our steel refining sector pay for it. They pay for it with their jobs. In fact, the BCA estimates there are 90,000— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 108 ADJOURNMENT Australian Technology Park 108 21:00 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Tonight I want to speak about the Australian Technology Park, which is in my electorate, located on the site of the Eveleigh railway workshops, which operated for over 100 years. The Australian Technology Park now houses around 100 firms, providing about 5,500 of Sydney's most innovative jobs and research positions. Some of the businesses there are some of our most innovative and most high-tech. ATP Innovations is a business incubator that has helped over 300 businesses, such as Sonder Design, ingogo, Bugcrowd and Clarity Pharmaceuticals, get off the ground. Last year it won a very important business incubator award. Companies like Post Op, specialising in sound and vision post-production for film and television, are housed at the ATP. That of course is an industry that we want to see more of. We want to see more of these jobs in Australia. The industry is a significant employer and a contributor to our export production. There are businesses like LX, an electronics product development design house, whose achievements include the world's first electronic tracker designed for koalas so that scientists can track the movement, health and welfare of these iconic Australian animals. There are businesses like Bandwidth Foundry International, working in the area of micro- and nano-fabrication. Many of the businesses located in the Australian Technology Park were unimaginable when the park first opened, let alone when the locomotive workshops that were first built on the site were established in 1882. The Australian Photonics cooperative research centre is a research organisation that I visited a very early on after first being elected. It was the generator of many successful spin-off ventures but was sadly defunded by the Howard government. This park is a true landmark for Sydney, where creative workers get together with scientists and investors to generate good-quality high-tech jobs. I have been very concerned to hear that it is possible that this area will be sold. I am concerned about what will happen to the jobs, the businesses and the industries there. We want an innovative economy. Both the government and the opposition are saying the same thing on this. While I am a great supporter of greater density in areas that can accommodate it and a great supporter of more housing for my own seat, even though it is already densely populated, I am very concerned that this area that is generating so many jobs, so many export dollars, so much creativity and so many breakthroughs might be sold and in fact converted to housing rather than keeping the innovative industries that are being built up there now. I support more housing in my area, particularly more affordable housing, but I would be devastated to think that the, say, $200 million that is being suggested could be realised for this site would see it going to the highest bidder and would see a change to the purpose of the land use here. It goes along with the proposed sale of the Powerhouse Museum, a fantastic cultural institution in my electorate, less than 30 years old, that is also potentially about to be sold to developers. I want to see the ATP continuing to generate jobs and I want to see it also continuing to protect the heritage buildings on the site, the public space and the passive and active recreational opportunities for people—tennis courts, an oval, cycleways and walkways through the place. When I speak about the heritage value, you can imagine, with 100 years of history of the locomotive workshops and the associated railway industry, how important this is. There is still a blacksmith's workshop on the site and it continues to hold blacksmith courses and provide the opportunity for people to see some of these great, potentially lost, skills. I conclude by saying that, while I am a supporter of extra housing in my area, I am very concerned about the state government proposal for this site. Bass Electorate 108 21:04 Mr NIKOLIC 137174 Bass I am happy to report that in recent weeks we have completed a number of projects in my electorate of Bass, with others being rolled out that will make a real difference to my community of northern Tasmania. Earlier this month I travelled to Derby to congratulate participants in our latest Green Army project—one of 10 in my electorate. Green Army teams have improved the Tamar River waterfront near Launceston and the coastal environment near Bridport. This latest effort at Derby focused on weed eradication and tree planting at the site of the federal government's $2.5 million investment in the world-class Blue Derby mountain bike trails. Through their dedication and hard work over the last six months, the members of the Derby Green Army team have made a valuable contribution to this important tourism destination. Last month I also had the privilege of opening the rejuvenated Invermay Park sporting facility—a $2.1 million upgrade that has helped stimulate the local economy. The federal government's contribution of $1.25 million was an election promise, and it was pleasing to re-open one of Launceston's traditional sporting precincts—a ground where former Australian cricket captain Ricky Ponting first made his mark. The new all-weather playing surface, improved drainage and new lighting means we have a sporting facility to support the next generation of Tasmanian sporting champions. Earlier this month I was also pleased to host parliament's Defence Subcommittee on its inspection of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation facility at Scottsdale. There is valuable work being done at this facility, which produces rations for our troops. One of the projects I have championed is examining the potential of microwave assisted thermal sterilisation, or MATS, technology. We are looking into MATS in association with the University of Tasmania, particularly its potential to produce better-tasting packaged foods in minutes rather than hours. I believe DSTO Scottsdale is well placed to capitalise on MATS technology for potential applications beyond Defence's requirements. I have written previously on leveraging what we do at Scottsdale to produce a food-response option for humanitarian assistance and disaster-relief contingencies. I am also very pleased to report that the NBN rollout in Tasmania is currently the most advanced of any state or territory when it comes to connectability. This demonstrates how effectively we addressed the huge problems with the NBN at the time of the 2013 election. At that time, the NBN had ground to a halt and was in deep trouble. Only 32,000 Tasmanian households had fibre running in their streets—a very poor return for three elections of big but undelivered promises by Labor. Since the 2013 election, I am pleased to say that NBN connections in Tasmania have tripled to over 100,000 premises, 73,000 of which have an active fixed line footprint and 27,000 homes and businesses in smaller towns can now access superfast wireless. Thirteen thousand premises have been added to the network footprint in 2015 alone. By any measure, that is a dramatic turnaround. Construction in Launceston is scheduled to finish by August 2016, which will make Launceston one of the very first cities in Australia to be fully networked. The small-business feedback in my electorate is also increasingly positive. I spent a day in Scottsdale, last Friday, talking to many small businesses. Max Rainsford, who owns Red Dirt Cycle Company, reports much improved business conditions, particularly after we opened the Blue Derby mountain bike trails. Mary and Murray Partridge, proprietors of Cottage Bakeries, tell me that trade in recent months is so much better and there is a real optimism in the north-east. These comments are typical of what I am encountering in this beautiful region of my electorate. I will continue doing everything possible to help grow that sense of optimism. The coalition's $60 million commitment to new irrigation schemes, for example, will deliver 95 per cent water certainty to rights holders in the Scottsdale region. The $6m North Bank project will help rejuvenate the Launceston riverfront. The job-creating benefits of the $24 million co-investment fund we announced with the Hodgman government last month will also soon be rolled out. Successful applicants are required to put in $2 for every $1 provided from the fund, which will leverage $72 million in job-creating projects for Tasmania. Tasmania's future is looking increasingly positive and I look forward to keeping the parliament informed of its progress. Lalor Electorate: Water 109 21:09 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor Back in August, trade minister Robb spoke about the opportunities for produce growers and the Chinese free trade agreement. He mentioned Fresh Select, located in my electorate of Lalor. It is a business that has a turnover in excess of $50 million per annum and is a huge employer in an area that has one of the highest unemployment rates in Victoria. It is a business that has innovated and expanded and sees great potential in the future. The minister for trade outlined: … Fresh Select is working with China Merchants, which is a major transport and distribution company in China, on a new business model for sending high-quality Australian food and beverages directly from growers and manufacturers to families in China. Produce will arrive from Australia direct into a massive warehouse in Shenzhen , which is already being prepared. Customers by the thousands will order online and be given an electronic access code. Their order will be robotically filled and couriered directly to their apartment block … I applaud the Fresh Select people involved in the company that I know well and have known for many years. This success, however, is being held back by more than ChAFTA. The problem is a reliable guaranteed water supply. Werribee South vegetable growers farm some 3,000 hectares in the electorate. The major crops are lettuce, broccoli, cabbage and cauliflower. They farm very resilient soil, intensively, with up to four crops a year. The annual turnover is estimated at $100 million per annum. They are perceived by retailers as national producers, with their vegetables sold all over Australia. The area is close to markets, and an international airport, in Avalon. The industry employs an estimated 1,000 people a day. The irrigation channels that serve this agricultural area and Bacchus Marsh are decades old, made of unreinforced concrete, and they leak. Forty to forty-five per cent of the water is lost in these channels. Until quite recently the farmers used two sources of water: fresh from the Werribee River and groundwater from the Deutgam aquifer. During the last drought, when the Deutgam aquifer was exhausted, many farmers embraced recycled water from Melbourne Water's Western Treatment Plant. They modified their practices to allow for the higher salt content because, even after recycling, the salt content is still high. They delivered what they call a shandy, which is 50 per cent recycled water and 50 per cent river water. This was a major breakthrough for both the farmers and science. But necessity is often the father of invention and in the dire times of the last drought the farmers were left little option but to put their faith in the scientists and utilise recycled water. They did, and the country continued to be fed vegetables from Werribee South. This demonstrates the growers' commitment to their future. We are still losing 40 per cent of the water—whether it be recycled or fresh—because the irrigation system is old and dilapidated, and the fresh water supply is under renewed threat. Reduced flow from the river and dams has seen higher salinity in the fresh water as well as higher salinity from recycled water. These channels need replacing and the Werribee South growers want the federal government to make a contribution. In the short term, 40 per cent of the water could be saved. This would do much to guarantee the water supply. It would allow for expansion and for more vegetables to be grown in the south-west of Victoria—vegetables that could be exported to China and the rest of the world. Southern Rural Water has planned for the channels to be replaced by pipes at a cost, for the Werribee South district, of $30 million. This would guarantee improved water access for the growers and—as a nationally significant contributor to Australian diets and as a potential for export—the growers, local government and I think the federal government should kick in. After all, they must be of national significance; the trade minister suggested so, in question time, some weeks ago. With the member for New England now charged with responsibility for water, I urge him to meet with me, as requested by letter, and with the local growers to hear their story. He could hear, too, how a longer-term solution that would allow for maximum use of recycled water would be possible and that with a $350 million investment Melbourne Water could build a desal plant to reduce the saline levels, in the recycled water, to make them more acceptable. This longer-term investment is not worth considering while we are losing 40 per cent through the channels but, with the piping completed, I can see a world where south-west Victoria would have guaranteed and increased water. Domestic and Family Violence, Illicit Drugs, Depression and Suicide 110 21:15 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I rise today to speak on three issues that are sweeping our rural communities, and it is not only the rural communities that are suffering from these problems, but they are very prevalent in rural society these days. I am talking about violence against women, drug abuse and suicide. These three indictments have no barriers. They can affect anyone—and they do, from jillaroos to health workers to health professionals to landowners. We as a government can only do so much; we can support the cause with dollars, but that is not the be all and end all. It is very difficult to get a full solution, and I think it needs a whole community to get behind these three issues and fight them from the trenches. Domestic violence is a serious problem engulfing our communities that requires a commitment from all of us to defeat. On Sunday I attended a rally in Gladstone where there were a lot of women but, sadly, not enough men. We have to get back to those campaigns like, 'If you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot' or the idea that if you king hit someone it is a killer punch or a coward's punch. I think we have to get some campaign like that going for violence against women, because it is very prevalent: 62 women have been killed in Australia this year alone because of domestic violence, and it does not take much to work out that that is more than one a week. Australian Bureau of Statistics data show there were 132,000 recorded cases of domestic violence in 2011-12. In Queensland 23 women have died because of domestic violence; 44 per cent of Queensland homicides in that period were as a result of domestic violence against women. The Department of Human Services receives 200,000 calls daily, and they are staggering figures. We have 400 agencies across Australia to handle those 200,000 calls, and that puts those workers in a very vulnerable position where they are trying to handle cases that can have minimum or very major conflicts at the end of the day. Domestic violence is not just a social problem but an economic problem as well. It costs taxpayers about $19.9 billion a year—equivalent to about $8,800 for every man, woman and child in Australia. Business losses are also great, with an estimated $1.6 billion in lost productivity due to domestic violence. I am pleased that our government has announced a $100 million domestic violence package. As I said before, you cannot always solve these problems with money, but it is a great starting point. It will go a long way to reducing the problem, but it will not fix the problem. The second great problem we have to deal with is the issue of drug abuse. This is widespread. When I was a young lad it was not a problem in the country or regional areas, but it certainly is now. We must do all we can, and I think it is another community thing where we 'dob in a druggo' or take whatever measures we think will help to fix the problem. There is no quick fix, but it is something we all have to be aware of and do our best to stamp this trade out. There are people selling drugs and making money, and they are the people we have to clamp down on. Whether they be people smugglers or drug smugglers, these are the problems and these are the ones we have to get out of our society and get rid of. There have been drug busts in Emerald, a major drug bust in Blackwater and busts in towns in my electorate. The amount of amphetamines that were seized in these raids was staggering. Our police force can only do so much. They have zero tolerance, and mining companies have zero tolerance, but still the problem exists. Finally, depression is a thing that is sweeping through the country areas, and I think drought has a lot to do with that. This problem will not go away. Youth suicide is high; farmer suicide is high. It is a curse on our nation. Illicit Drugs 111 21:19 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler Following the member for Flynn, I should say that I also want to talk about crystal methamphetamine this evening. A very notorious drug known as ice has become a growing problem in many communities across Australia and also in my community in south-west Sydney. This is an evil drug that has shocking addictive, aggressive and psychotic consequences and, regrettably, it is fast becoming the drug of choice throughout the country. Ice, as it is widely known, is very cheap and readily available. It is easily produced, easy to buy on the streets and easy to administer. Unlike other drugs of the past, such as heroin, it does not require injection, and being smoked probably makes it seem more innocuous. But as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement I have taken part in a number of the parliamentary hearings across the country looking at the scale of this ice epidemic. The evidence that has come out of the proceedings so far reiterates the fact that this is a large and growing problem that threatens to tear individuals, families and communities apart. The committee held hearings in Liverpool earlier this year, with New South Wales Deputy Commissioner Nick Kaldas as well as the police commanders from Cabramatta, Liverpool, Green Valley and Fairfield local area commands giving evidence. They presented a staggering picture of the widespread use of ice in my local community and across New South Wales. In the New South Wales population alone the level of methamphetamine use has been around 2.1 per cent over the past five years. Over the past 24 months, however, the number of arrests for methamphetamine possession has increased by 36.3 per cent in New South Wales. The use of ice, as opposed to other forms of the methamphetamine group of drugs, has more than doubled—from 22 per cent in 2010 to 50 per cent in 2013. Commanders from the local police commands in my electorate presented evidence of a growing problem associated with the production and use of ice. Presently, methamphetamine accounts for 20 per cent of all drug possession incidents in Cabramatta, representing a 32 per cent increase over the past five years. It is currently the second most seized drug after cannabis and represents between 25 and 35 per cent of the total detection of drugs in Liverpool. In Green Valley, police have seen a 40 per cent increase in the number of ice detections over the past 12 months alone. Our police do a great job and often put their lives at risk to protect our community against the surge of this devastating drug. Their role extends beyond interfering with the manufacture and distribution of the drug to educating young people and encouraging treatment and rehabilitation. Their job in combating the ice epidemic is particularly hard as it is the only illicit drug in Australia that is both imported and produced domestically. This makes controlling the supply of methamphetamine particularly challenging. Our health professionals are also on the front line of dealing with the ice epidemic, regularly being exposed to dangerous situations while trying to look after, and oftentimes save the lives of, the sufferers themselves—who can become highly aggressive. The men and women working in these highly demanding fields deserve our support and gratitude. They should not be fighting this issue alone. This is a task for the entire community to tackle together. The spread of drug use, including ice, contributes to high crime rates, destroys families and places incredible pressure on our police force and our healthcare providers. The government should take a leading role in ensuring this burden is shared. The government has taken steps to address the growing problem by launching the National Ice Taskforce and investing $20 million in the National Drugs Campaign. However, these actions conflict with the message sent by the coalition's $800 million cut from the health flexible funds that support critical services providing prevention and rehabilitation for people on drugs. The message needs to be clear and consistent that the government is prepared to do its part in helping individuals, families and communities across Australia tackle this ice epidemic. Domestic and Family Violence 112 21:25 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise this evening to discuss a circumstance that has rocked the Murraylands community in my electorate of Barker.    On Friday, 25 September, the body of Jody Meyers was found under a freshly poured concrete slab in the backyard of her partner's parents' home in the small riverside community of Mannum. Jody's partner has been arrested and charged with her murder. Jody was a 20-year-old loving and caring mother dedicated to her two-year-old son Elijah. In the words of a close family member, 'Her death will leave an unfillable hole in their lives forever.' This message was reinforced at the vigil held in Murray Bridge following Jody's death, a vigil that saw over 300 reflect on her tragic loss. Jody's death is another dark stain on our nation's consciousness. Sadly, Jody is the eighth South Australian woman this year to lose her life at the hands of a domestic partner and the 66th nationally. To put that horrific statistic in perspective, 35 people were killed in the Port Arthur massacre of 1996. That means that in the first nine months of 2015 we in this nation have seen almost twice as many women murdered at the hands of a domestic partner as were killed in the most deadly mass shooting in modern Australian history. Clearly we have a domestic violence crisis in this nation—and surely our nation is better than this. This government, this parliament and everyone in this place abhors violence of any kind and positively detests, I am sure, violence against women and children perpetrated in domestic settings by cowards. The home is meant to be a haven, a place where those that dwell within are meant to feel safe, secure and, above all, loved. Instead these vile criminals convert these homes into places of fear, dread and harm. The abuse is not always physical but the harm is always long term—and too often fatal. This scourge must be addressed and change must be effected in this space. That is why our government has developed and is delivering a women's safety package as part of our action to reduce violence against women and children. The Commonwealth government is investing $100 million over four years to implement measures to combat domestic violence, including $3.3 million for CrimTrac to develop and test a prototype for a national domestic violence order scheme; funding to the 1800RESPECT hotline—in total we have provided close to $33 million in funding for 1800RESPECT and the government will ensure the demand for this important service is met and maintained—which is Australia's first national professional telephone and online counselling service; funding of Our Watch, a national organisation working to raise awareness and engage media, national sporting codes and the community in action to prevent violence against women and their children; and a pledge of a million dollars in funding over four years to increase White Ribbon's engagement with Indigenous and culturally and linguistically diverse communities. Sadly, however, financial resources alone will not solve this problem. Ultimately the real change needed in this space is cultural. That is why organisations such as White Ribbon are so essential and that is why I was honoured to have been asked to become a White Ribbon ambassador shortly after my election in 2013. White Ribbon is Australia's only national male led campaign to end men's violence against women. Theirs is a vision all Australian men should share—that is, that all women should live in safety, free from all forms of men's violence. White Ribbon takes a grassroots approach to combating domestic violence. It is a movement which seeks to make all men agents for positive change in combating domestic violence. This is the necessary approach if we are to effect the long-term cultural change required for stamping out violence against women. I acknowledge the work of White Ribbon Australia and their ambassadors nationally. I pay special tribute to the dedicated band of White Ribbon ambassadors based in my home town of Mount Gambier. I wish that my parliamentary responsibilities would allow me to be more involved in the day-to-day operations of this band of hardworking local heroes. Whilst I am not always—in fact it is rare that I can be—on hand to assist in their campaign activities, I am proud to use whatever resources I have at my disposal to stand with them and other ambassadors, or indeed with anyone in my electorate or for that matter anywhere else, to stamp out domestic violence in a bipartisan way. I am confident that this parliament will continue, in a bipartisan way, to enact and fund measures that will assist in the eradication of domestic violence from our society while working comprehensively with the community to help our most vulnerable. I extend my deepest sympathies to Elijah and to the extended family and friends of Ms Jody Meyers, and indeed to all those who are subjected to domestic violence of any kind. There is no room in Australian society for acts of domestic violence. It is simply unacceptable to harm women and children. Unfortunately, our work in this space must continue until all Australian men are unequivocally of that view. The SPEAKER 00APG It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. House adjourned at 21 : 30 NOTICES 113 NOTICES

Monday, 12 October 2015

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

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 115 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Wakefield Electorate: Thompson, Mr Anthony 115 10:30 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield It is my sad duty to inform the House of the passing away of Mr Anthony Thompson—or Tony, as he was known always to me. Tony was President of the Elizabeth RSL, having served in Vietnam with the 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, between 1970 and 1971. Those were particularly trying times in Vietnam. The War Memorial describes the work that the troops in Phuoc Tuy province did as 'demanding, dangerous and monotonous'. I knew Tony in his capacity as the president of the RSL. From 2006 to 2011, he was a vice-president and then took over the presidency from 2012. He was always a well-liked and active member of the community. He was always out there at the RSL, basically making sure that everything was in good order and making sure the club ran well. It is a particularly well-attended community club and has many former service members and many community members as well. Tony, in particular, was very active in raising money for Legacy, manning the stalls around Remembrance Day and around Anzac Day and making sure that we were all reminded of the service not just of those who served but also of their families, and of the consequences and legacy of those conflicts to both veterans and their families. It was always a pleasure to help serve on the stalls at Elizabeth or Munno Para shops to help raise money and to sit with Tony and get some fairly unvarnished advice about politics. He was always a great supporter of mine. I did greatly admire him and like his support. He always had some pretty colourful advice about the member for Sturt. He was no fan of the member for Sturt, so I am sure he would appreciate me saying that in these remarks. Tony Thompson was a great Australian. He served his country, he served his community, he was loved by his friends and family and he will be very greatly missed by me. His rather sudden and untimely death will be felt by everybody in Elizabeth and in Munno Para. Robertson Electorate: Central Coast Storms 115 10:32 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson Six months ago on the Central Coast we were battered by devastating storms that few will forget. We saw howling winds of up 125 kilometres an hour; driving rain; and trees, some more than 60 metres high, ripped from their roots. At the peak of the storm's damage, around 80,000 homes across the Central Coast lost power for up to 10 days. It was a very challenging time, but it was also a time when our community really came together. We saw it as our brave emergency services personnel hit the ground to minimise damage and to help keep people safe. Their response and the response of our community was really quite extraordinary. I would really like to again honour those, many of whom were volunteers, who worked around the clock to help keep people safe. Today, six months on, I am pleased to say that we have not forgotten the sacrifices made, even though we do know that there are still many people working to restore their own homes and there is still much damage on the ground. We are planning for our future. The coalition has announced a special Natural Disaster Recovery Round of the Australian government's Green Army program. This includes a team of local young people who will work specifically on rehabilitating areas damaged by the April storms. These projects, hosted by Gosford City Council, will assist vital environmental clean-up and rehabilitation to tackle the serious impacts that the storms had on our local environment. Thanks to this special Green Army program, teams of young people will work to improve the resilience of our sand dunes in case of future storm events. They remove debris and litter, rebuild and repair fencing to help manage better public access, get rid of invasive weeds, and help with the dune system revegetation and also with erosion control. We have two teams working on the peninsula. The first, starting next month, will work with local community groups between Ettalong and Umina Point. The second Green Army team will also be on the peninsula and will work in partnership with landcare groups. Our third team, to commence next year, will do much-needed clean-up and repair in Killcare, Putty Beach and Avoca Beach. This is actually an addition to our other Green Army initiatives working on the Central Coast, doing some great work, including vital national park restoration and conservation at Killcare and at Putty Beach reserve, and also at the Five Lands track in Winney Bay. I recently saw some of this work firsthand, when I joined Graham 'Jonno' Johnson from Clean 4 Shore. This time, though, we were out in West Gosford, picking up rubbish and really seeing a hands-on experience of the Green Army program. Can I say that is actually a great thing about the Green Army program: by engaging our young people in such a practical, hands-on way, it really helps to challenge perceptions and also to create a new culture of respect and appreciation for our local environment. These are projects that will help make a great difference to our environment, particularly in the aftermath of the storms, and I commend the coalition government's initiative. Fraser Electorate: Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Liberal Party 116 10:36 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser Canberrans won a huge victory recently when Finance Minister Matthias Cormann abandoned the government's plans to uproot the immigration department from the Belconnen Town Centre, where it has been since the 1970s. Moving Immigration out of Belconnen was always a daft idea. Since it has been proposed, the Canberra community has been up in arms. Over 3,000 Canberrans signed a petition, which my office put together in conjunction with Labor MLAs in the ACT. Canberra's urban design is based on principles laid out by Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin over 100 years ago. It recognises the value of town centres and, rather than piling all the jobs into the centre of town, recognises the value in having centres such as Tuggeranong, Woden, Belconnen and Gungahlin which have not only services available but also good employment bases. The attempt to move Immigration out of Belconnen threatened this very notion. It would have seen 4,000 staff taken out of the Belconnen town centre and would surely have caused small businesses in Belconnen to shut up shop. For all their talk about supporting small business, the ACT Liberals jeopardised the future of many Belconnen businesses by threatening to move Immigration out of Belconnen. Our communities need to have thriving town centres. The community response was overwhelming to this crazy move. It was an indication that the community saw better than the ACT Liberals that a strong Canberra requires good, diversified jobs right across our great city. This is a win for the community. It is a win for common sense. But it is a shame that it has taken over a year, in which my office played a small part through our steady drum beat of weekly media releases calling on the ACT Liberals to do the right thing. We will continue to be asking questions as well about a fundraising dinner which was held by Senator Zed Seselja and Peter Dutton on 1 September 2015 at the Boat House restaurant. That dinner reportedly charged attendees $995 apiece. According to news reports, there were about 10 attendees, of whom six were property developers. The invitation to the dinner 'invites you to an exclusive dinner with Senator Zed Seselja and the Hon. Peter Dutton MP'. Canberrans are reasonably asking: would such exclusive access by property developers to the minister have been allowed under any circumstances? The minister cannot hide from answering questions about this dodgy fundraising dinner raising money for the ACT Liberal Party. Corangamite Electorate: Carbon Revolution 116 10:39 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite Last Wednesday was another great day for Geelong, and a great day for Corangamite: the opening of the Carbon Revolution factory in Waurn Ponds on the site of Deakin University—a great university for our region and for our nation. Carbon Revolution has become one of our regions' great success stories: a powerhouse of jobs growth, opportunity and innovation—an advanced manufacturer at the cutting-edge of innovation in the global automotive and aerospace market, exporting its carbon fibre wheels to the world. You can see that I stand here with great pride talking about the wonderful jobs growth, innovation and advanced manufacturing happening in my electorate of Corangamite. In July this year, Carbon Revolution became the first company in the world to supply mass-produced carbon fibre wheels on standard equipment for Ford USA. It is an extraordinary deal. The Shelby Mustang is now proudly being powered by Australian innovators underpinned by the wonderful research work into carbon fibre which began at Deakin university. It is an extraordinary story; it started with students competing to make a small car with light wheels. They experimented with carbon fibre, and look what this has become. Carbon Revolution has just signed an agreement with a North American aircraft landing gear manufacturer, there is an IPO in the wings to tap into the $40 billion global wheels market and we expect many more deals to come. It is with great pride that this factory has been funded in part by a $5 million grant from the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund—a fund to which our government has contributed $15 million. While the fund was announced by the previous Labor government, not one dollar was actually spent by Labor; all of that $15 million has been spent and delivered by our government, with great pride. There will be another funding round announced very shortly and more jobs to come. The GRIIF is just one of the ways in which the Turnbull government is driving jobs growth across the region. There is the $14 million national Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre to drive innovation and smart jobs in the advanced manufacturing sector and $2.6 million for the Geelong region job connections program, which is funding local employment programs and great initiatives like the Geelong jobs fair as well as a local employment facilitator. So, on the ground, there is some great grassroots action. There is the $155 million Growth Fund, which includes $60 million for the Next Generation Manufacturing Investment fund, and the establishment of an Australian Bureau of Statistics Centre of Excellence to be opened earlier next year. So we are a powerhouse of jobs growth. We are working very hard, as there are some challenges, to transition our region from traditional manufacturing. Carbon Revolution is a great story about the future and about jobs growth in Corangamite. Isaacs Electorate: Seniors Week 117 10:42 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I stand to speak about the seniors morning tea event that I held last week at the Chelsea Heights Community Centre. Since my election to parliament in 2007, I have held morning teas for seniors in the great electorate of Isaacs on a yearly basis to coincide with the celebration of Seniors Week. This year, I organised events in Mentone, Noble Park, Carrum Downs and Chelsea Heights, and approximately 600 members of the Isaacs seniors community attended. Of this number, approximately 170 seniors attended the event at the Chelsea Heights Committee Centre. I would like to thank Lorraine Bradford and Christine Rolfe, the coordinators of the Chelsea Heights Community Centre, for their hard work in providing a wonderful morning tea replete with home-made scones and cakes. This was the first time that I have held a morning tea at the Chelsea Heights Community Centre, and the centre did fantastic work, with many attendees commenting on the wonderful hospitality provided by the community centre's volunteers. I would also like to thank the music students from Parkdale Secondary College who provided the entertainment, with songs from the recent school production. Kiana Rud, Tabitha Kendall, Millie Clifton, Tristan van Rooyen, Ella Witchell and Ariel Wihibrata each gave amazing performances, and I am sure each of these students have big futures ahead of them. I thank this excellent school for allowing the students some time-off from their studies to perform for local seniors. Each year at these morning teas, fearless Isaacs residents tell me, without moderation, what they think are the issues of the day. This year, the key issues that Isaacs seniors talked to me about were the government's cuts to education, their cuts to health care and their cuts to pensions. Again and again, I spoke to pensioners who were fearful about how they would make ends meet with a reduced pension. My message to seniors who are feeling neglected by this government is: Labor stand with you. We will support you and we will back you to ensure that senior Australians get the assistance they deserve to live comfortably in their retirement. Only a Labor government will deliver for senior Australians. We built Medicare and we will fight to defend it. During our term of government we gave to Australian pensioners the largest single rise in the pension for 20 years. I hope that by the time I hold these morning teas next year, we will have a government that respects senior Australians and works to provide them with security in their retirement. Northern Australia Insurance Task Force 117 10:45 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I rise again today to talk about the insurance crisis in northern Australia. Unfortunately, the insurance industry is still not serious about improving the affordability and the availability of property insurance in northern Australia. Submissions to the northern Australia insurance task force from the insurers and the Insurance Council of Australia have been overwhelmingly against government action. The ICA's representation on the task force continues to be disruptive, rather than constructive, and the industry still says there is not a problem. This is despite the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland's submission outlining business insurance hikes of up to 2,500 per cent. The ICA presented a very misleading submission. They got four of the major insurance companies to quote on properties in the postcode of 4825; they said that is in northern Australia. They came back with fabulous prices and said there is not a problem. 4825 is Mount Isa. I asked them to tell us the last time there was a cyclone in Mount Isa! All the submissions from outside the insurance industry, however, recognise the need for intervention and said that there is a real threat to economic growth in northern Australia. The ICA continues to play no positive role in this. But why would they want to change? Clearly, it is the operation of the large insurance companies; Suncorp just announced a $1.13 billion profit last year. The outgoing CEO, Patrick Snowball, took home almost $10 million in his pay cheque for the year and he justified this by saying that the profits were up 220 per cent since his arrival 10 years before, and the total shareholder returns were 124 per cent. So why would they want to see changes? Suncorp, through their Protecting the North package, now wants the government to pay for retrofitting properties in Far North Queensland. They are only focusing on risk assessment and mitigation on pre-1982 buildings that are owner occupied by low-income families. These restrictions certainly do not help the post-1982 properties that were built to cyclone standards but whose premiums have skyrocketed also. And this, of course, has caused major problems for those tenants. I understand that most of the strata market in northern Australia is in this category. I understand that Suncorp is now prepared to expand the scope to post-1982 properties, but I think it is important to note that roofs only last about 40 years or so, so most of the homeowners were already in the process of replacing their roofs and it is a council requirement that they be retrofitted. Something has to be done about this and I have to commend Margaret Shaw for her very comprehensive work as the northern Australia representative on the task force reference panel. I certainly will continue to argue for a northern Australia mutual, or a disaster reinsurance pool, to look after or get a better outcome for northern Australia. Macquarie Electorate: Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program 118 10:48 Mrs MARKUS E07 Macquarie I had the privilege and pleasure of attending the unveiling of the World War I honour board at Valley Heights Locomotive Depot Heritage Museum last week. The honour board will be a permanent tribute to the railwaymen from the Blue Mountains who enlisted to serve during World War I. With a steady stream of visitors during the weekends the heritage museum is open, the honour board is a reminder to both the local community and tourists of the day-to-day lives that our servicemen and women had before they responded willingly to the call for war. Those names on the beautifully crafted board were honourable men who left their families to serve their country. They deserve recognition, and it was wonderful to see this come to fruition through the Australian Government's Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program. A grant of $2,132 was given to the Blue Mountains division of Transport Heritage NSW for the project. The honour board includes the names of the 18 known railway employees from the Springwood district who served during World War I. The names listed were based on the information contained in a book. It is called Remembrance: Springwood District Honor Roll 1914–1919, and was written by Blue Mountains locals Shirley Evans and Pamela Smith. The book took some five years to complete, and I congratulate Shirley and Pamela on their achievement and for bringing this history to light. Of the 18 names listed, the first was Private Charles Percy Aldred. Charles, known as Percy to his friends, was born in London and came to Australia in 1913, where he worked for the railway at Valley Heights. He was an engine cleaner. Charles began as a private in the 18th Infantry Battalion 11th Reinforcement and, on 9 April 1916, embarked at Sydney on HMAT Nestor bound for Egypt. On 9 September, they left by sea to join the 18th Infantry Battalion. My grandfather also served in the 18th Infantry Battalion. In November, Charles became sick in the field and was admitted with trench foot to the First London General Hospital. Charles returned to France in early June, and he was promoted to lance corporal. While engaged in the battle in Poelcappelle in Belgium, Charles was hit by a machine gun or rifle bullet. He later died from his injuries. He was 22 years old. This, unfortunately, is not an uncommon story. I am grateful for the Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program. The honour board was one of 14 projects across the Macquarie electorate. It was at the unveiling that I also had the opportunity to hear the touching and personal stories of many of the descendants of those listed on the board. I specifically acknowledge the family of Albert Honey and the family of Thomas Brett. I make special mention of museum chairman Bruce Coxon and publicity officer Keith Ward for their dedication to preserving such rich and important history and for applying for the grant. I also thank the volunteers and committee members for their ongoing commitment to the museum. Shortland Electorate: Domestic and Family Violence 118 10:51 Ms HALL 83N Shortland I would like to share with the House a forum dealing with domestic violence that I held at Mannering Park in Shortland electorate. It was a morning where we had a number of guest speakers and where the issue of domestic violence was raised. At the morning tea, there were a number of members from the community and a number of organisations that provide services for people who are victims of domestic violence. It was horrific to hear the stories that were shared by many of the women, but it was heartening to hear the support being provided by organisers within the local community. It was very sad to hear that there is a lack of support, that funds have been removed from services that provided vital support for women who are trying to leave a situation of domestic violence, that there is insufficient housing and support available, and that funding had been slashed. This morning tea and forum was run in conjunction with the Mannering Park CWA, who declared September their month for supporting people living within domestic violence situations. It was a time when people talked about all the structures and organisations that they have in place. I thank the principal of Mannering Park Public School for turning up on the day. It was school holidays, and he took time out of his holidays to come along and join with the people who were present at that forum. The strong message that came out of the forum was that the people of Mannering Park and surrounding areas say no to domestic violence. They call on the government for action. They were pleased with the statement that the Prime Minister made the day before, but they felt it did not go far enough. Many more resources need to be put into dealing with domestic violence. On Saturday, 31 October, I will be joining the CWA and support services, including Central Coast women's services and Coast Shelter, when we go along to the Mannering Park Public School fete. I think that all members of this House would say no to domestic violence. Bonner Electorate: Small Business 119 (Bonner) (10:54): Mr VASTA E0D I rise to acknowledge the work of the local support services available to small businesses in my electorate of Bonner. I would like to speak about the important work they do in helping local small businesses get on their feet, and the enormously beneficial networking events and workshops they hold in our community, including a very special event this weekend. As a passionate advocate for small business, I have been so pleased to see the growth of the coalition government's Australian Small Business Advisory Services program from its announcement last year to now. Greater Brisbane Small Business Advisory Service has gotten off the ground running. I must applaud Alice Langford for her fantastic work managing the team here. Her enthusiasm and commitment really shines through in everything this new services does. I have heard great feedback about the work this new service does in helping local businesses establish and grow themselves. They provide businesses with specialist mentoring, seminars and events. This includes the CLICK! Digital Expo 2015 next month. This will be a great event for businesses looking to expand their digital presence. Another small business event that I have been looking forward to is the Bayside Business Expo. Bayside Women in Business are holding the expo this Saturday in Wynnum. It is going to be an excellent opportunity for locals who are looking for expertise in starting a small business or growing their existing business. I am always impressed by just how close and supportive the business community is in my electorate, and the Bayside Business Expo is another example of this. I would like to thank Bayside Women in Business for organising this wonderful event, and the assistance they provide year-round to women running small businesses. It has been encouraging to see membership for Greater Brisbane Small Business Advisory Service and Bayside Women in Business go from strength to strength. I wish them the best with their upcoming events, and I look forward to catching up with them and everyone else at the Bayside Business Expo this weekend. Domestic Violence 119 10:56 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio Sixty-nine women have died so far this year from acts of violence in Australia, in the home. In my home town, Geelong, we have also seen a spike in family violence incidents, with more than 1,200 incidents reported last year. A Geelong women's refuge is getting 40 domestic violence referrals a week from police. This is an appalling scourge on our society. The women being subjected to violence at the hands of someone they know, usually a husband or partner, behind closed doors is not something that discriminates based on the size of the house, the suburb or the brand of car in the garage. The White Ribbon Foundation, of which I am an ambassador, makes it clear that violence against women is more than just physical violence. It is an attitude we bring to how we treat women as a society. A survey conducted by VicHealth of 16-24 year olds nationally on violence against women found that younger people were more ambivalent about the question of violence and its appropriateness in relation to women. In releasing the report, VicHealth Chief Executive, Jerril Rechter, said: We know that if we can change young people's views at that critical life stage, when they're still shaping their views about the world and about society, that we can create a generation of young people who say no to violence against women. That is why it is so important, as leaders, we make it crystal clear that violence against women is not okay. So when a senior Liberal figure—the Mayor of Geelong—attends a public event wearing a t-shirt of a naked woman hitchhiking, with the accompanying slogan, 'Gas, grass or ass, nobody rides for free,' he is guilty of more than just poor taste in clothing. This is a Geelong leader, a man the Liberal Party has flirted with sending to Canberra, and he thinks it is no big deal to publicly send this message. The first policy announcement by the Turnbull Liberal government was a new domestic violence package, with Malcolm Turnbull declaring he wanted to change the national culture to make disrespecting women un-Australian. He should be applauded for these comments. But what does he say today about the Liberal Mayor of Geelong? We know that the member for Corangamite thought so as well, taking to social media to retweet the Minister for Women's comments: Proud to stand with @TurnbullMalcolm @RosieBatty1 & Ken Lay to announce $100m Women's Safety Package. Yet the member for Corangamite has also on countless occasions been proud to stand by the Liberal mayor, Darryn Lyons, and be effusive in her praise of him. What does she say about the Liberal Mayor of Geelong today? The local Liberal leadership needs to actually take a stand and show they are about more than just slogans. I call on the member for Corangamite and the Prime Minister to today condemn the Liberal Mayor of Geelong, Darryn Lyons. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 120 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS National Carers 120 11:00 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) National Carers Week runs from 11 to 17 October 2015 to recognise and celebrate the outstanding contribution unpaid carers make to our nation; (b) carers in Australia make an enormous contribution to our communities and our national economy; (c) in 2015, it is estimated that nearly 2.9 million Australians will provide more than 1.9 billion hours of informal and unpaid care; and (d) the replacement value of informal care would be $60.3 billion, equivalent to 3.8 per cent of gross domestic product and 60 per cent of the health and social work industry budget; and (2) congratulates Carers Australia for its strong advocacy and support for those providing care and support to family members and friends who have a disability, mental illness, chronic condition, terminal illness and alcohol or other drug issue, or who are frail aged. As co-convenor of the Parliamentary Friends of Carers group, it is my pleasure today to move the motion before the House recognising National Carers Week. The member for Boothby and I, in partnership with Carers Australia, formed the parliamentary friendship group to help raise awareness of the important role carers play in our community and to bring further profile to the challenges faced by carers and those they care for. National Carers Week gives us an opportunity to stop and reflect on the enormous contribution that unpaid carers make to local communities across Australia and the significance of that contribution to our national economy. Carers Australia's latest report into the caring economy, launched here in Parliament House last August, put some clear markers down to demonstrate the immense support unpaid carers provide in Australia. The report, researched and prepared by Deloitte Access Economics, estimates the total value of informal care, or unpaid care, being provided in Australia today and examines the implications of demographic trends and projections of informal care into the future. The research found that in 2015 nearly 2.9 million people are providing informal care, with more than 800,000 of these informal carers being primary carers—that is, people who provide the majority of an individual's care. While these numbers are impressive, in absolute terms there are approximately 10,000 fewer carers in 2015 than there were in 2010, which was identified as being primarily due to a declining propensity to care. I will come back to the challenges that this trend causes for the future later in my contribution to this motion. The report also found that the majority of those who do provide care are women and predominantly fall within the age range of 25 to 65 years of age. This demographic assessment of care in Australia helps to inform the economics of informal care. Deloitte has estimated that carers will provide an astounding 1.9 billion hours of care in 2015, with the replacement value of informal care being estimated at $60.3 billion. That is equivalent to nearly four per cent of Australia's GDP. As referenced earlier, the forecasts undertaken as the final part of the research do, however, point to significant challenges ahead of us as our population grows older and our propensity to care decreases. In the next 10 years the demand for informal care is set to significantly outstrip its supply. Over the decade to 2025 the carer gap—that is, the gap between the supply of informal carers and the need for informal carers—increases in each year, and the carer ratio—that is, the supply of carers divided by the demand for carers—is decreasing in each year. A major contributing factor to this carer gap is the trend decrease in propensity to care, which is likely to be influenced by many factors, including Australia's disproportionately ageing population; our changes to societal structures such as smaller family sizes, higher divorce rates, rising childlessness and the increase of single-person households; the rising rates of female participation in the labour force; changes in intergenerational attitudes and perceptions around caring; economic pressures on families to have at least two incomes to meet rising cost-of-living pressures; and the growing duration and complexity of caregiving as a result of extended life expectancy. These trends present significant challenges for policymakers in Australia if we are to address this widening carer gap. The report goes on to flag some of the key areas that we really need to work on as policymakers in Australia. The important thing is that we really face those challenges square on. As policymakers and legislators in this place, if we are serious about redressing that carer gap then they are the issues we really need to tackle right here and right now. I congratulate Carers Australia for their really strong advocacy and support for those providing care and support to family members and friends who have a disability, mental illness, chronic condition, terminal illness, or alcohol or other drug issues, or are frail aged. Their work is vital in helping us to shape a more inclusive Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 Is the motion seconded? 11:05 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I second that motion. I thank the member for Newcastle for bringing this motion to the chamber, as it is National Carers Week, a week in which we pay tribute to the valuable contribution our carers make to Australia. As a nation, we owe them so much, but their work so often goes without appropriate recognition. This week is a chance to give them the acknowledgement they so richly deserve. In 2015, as the member for Newcastle noted, it is estimated that nearly 2.9 million Australians will provide informal and unpaid care. That is approximately one in eight Australians. Most Australians will know of at least one other person who cares for a family member or a friend. With advances in medical technology, Australians are living longer. This is a good thing, but, as we are living longer, more of us are living with the chronic diseases that can come with age. With the ageing of the Australian population, there will be an increasing need for more carers and for more support for existing carers. Providing informal and unpaid care is providing a service to our nation. Carers Australia estimates the replacement value of informal care in Australia is a staggering $60.3 billion. That would be the cost to government if we had to pay for the quality and quantity of care provided by the informal care sector. That is the equivalent of 3.8 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product. Despite the value they provide to Australia, being a carer can be a thankless task. For many, being a carer is a 24-hour a day seven-day a week job, and a job that can last for years or even a lifetime. Caring for a loved one is often emotionally draining, and many carers are elderly and in need of care themselves. Carers Australia has led the charge for recognition that sometimes carers need support to take a break. Taking a break is the key activity for National Carers Week 2015. A full events calendar is planned for cities and towns across Australia. In Brisbane, for example, the Queensland branch of Carers Australia hosted a movie screening last Saturday aimed at young carers. Tomorrow morning, the Brisbane Convention Exhibition Centre will host a Carers Queensland forum entitled 'Standing Beside You'. The forum promises a day of celebration, fun, recognition, information and connection. It is aimed at family and friends who provide support and care for someone living with mental health issues. In Ipswich tomorrow, Carers Queensland is running a National Carers Week 2015 festival with a sausage sizzle, morning tea, activities, prizes and giveaways. Another great initiative of National Carers Week this year is the ability to make a pledge on their website to help build a carer-friendly Australia. No financial contribution is required, but this is a positive way for all Australians to show how much we value and support our carers. Organisers are aiming for 20,000 pledges by the end of the week. Thousands of pledges have been received already, including many from people in my electorate of Ryan, whose names are listed on the online pledge wall. I encourage everyone to go to the website and pledge their support. I also take this opportunity pay tribute to the many carers and carer organisations in my electorate—groups such as Jubilee Community Care in Indooroopilly, which provide a range of home care packages to assist residents with varying care needs to help them to stay at home and, importantly, to stay independent. It is always comforting to know that in Australia we have so many who are willing to step forward in times of adversity and provide care for friends and loved ones. This week is all about them. If you know somebody who is a carer, take some time this week to thank them for the work they do. Go online and sign up to the carers pledge or, if you can, maybe offer to help them so that they can take a break and have some time to themselves. When it comes to caring for Australians in need, we are all in this together. I thank the member for Newcastle for moving this motion and I commend it to the House. 11:10 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I too thank the member for Newcastle for bringing this motion before us and reminding us of the important role carers play in our community. The role they play often involves great personal sacrifice. People who provide care—whether it be occasional care or full-time care—to people with disabilities or to people with long-term illnesses are putting their community, or that other person, above themselves. In our ageing community, caring for the elderly is progressively becoming more important, whether it is caring for one's own parents specifically or caring for elderly people more generally. It is symptomatic of an ageing community, but nevertheless something of great importance to the community at large. Carers make a huge sacrifice, often putting their own lives on hold and often unable to undertake paid employment simply because they dedicate themselves to providing care to loved ones, either on a temporary or permanent basis, who cannot care for themselves. There are many categories of carers in our community. Regrettably, some of their activities go unnoticed other than by family members and people who have direct knowledge of the household. There are now, as I understand it, 2.8 million people across Australia who provide unpaid care and support to family members, friends and people with disabilities, mental illnesses, chronic conditions or terminal illness, as well as to drug and alcohol impacted people or, more generally, to people who are just frail. There is no doubt they are the unsung heroes in our community. It is only right that their service, their hard work, should be recognised. More importantly, it should be valued. Not only is the personalised in-home care—and sometimes that care is almost 24-hour care—these people provide something which people need, it also provides great relief to the economic strains on our health industry and our economy generally. Through the member for Newcastle, I learnt that informal care at the moment is worth $60.3 billion, which is the equivalent of 3.8 per cent of our GDP or 60 per cent of our health and social work industry budget. That is an extraordinary amount that they are contributing to the community by looking after people. Caring for Australians with an illness or a disability should be a shared responsibility between the carer, family, community and government. I have often said, when talking about disabilities, that our generation will, I believe, be judged on how we look after the most vulnerable members of our community. Caring creates opportunities for all to lead healthy, successful and productive lives—and that should be the hallmark of what it is to be a prosperous nation and an inclusive society. Due to the high costs associated with looking after loved ones with an illness or a disability, many families choose to settle in areas with lower living costs and with lower land values, including in my area in the south-west of Sydney. It is because of that that, in my electorate of Fowler, we have a disproportionately high number of people living with disability. Taking just one disability as an example, more than half of all New South Wales families living with autism live within a 25-kilometre radius of the Liverpool CBD. As of the last census, there were more than 13,000 people in my electorate who were reported to be providing unpaid assistance or care to persons with a disability. This is something that we as a society should not only be proud of—that people are out there to help—and we should acknowledge the work that they do, but, on behalf of a very grateful community, we also should thank them for what they contribute, not only the person they are giving care to but to our community itself. This is a positive reflection of our society. 11:15 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I thank the member for Newcastle for this motion, a motion which I, as the federal member for Petrie, and I think all coalition members wholeheartedly agree with—and so thank you for this motion. The words 'noble', 'brave' and 'selfless' come to mind when I think of carers—those three words do pop into my mind. Carers provide unpaid care and support to people right around this nation: people with a disability; people with a mental illness; people with a chronic condition, perhaps terminal; children that are palliative; children that are dying; alcohol or drug related issues; and those who are frail of age—aged care. There are close to three million carers around Australia who provide formal care, as the member for Fowler mentioned a moment ago. They are an integral part of our health system and I want to thank every single one of them for what they do. Thank you, our nation is better for the efforts you put in day in, day out. As was mentioned a moment ago, we know that they contribute, in a financial sense, to something like over $60 billion equivalent in unpaid work, almost 3.8 per cent of our GDP. For this, we do thank you. I was talking to a friend of mine this morning, Fiona, who has lost a child and is still a carer for one of her sons, she mentioned some of the challenges that she has been through and that others have been through. These include financial costs, and we know as a government and as a nation that we do provide some carers' payments, but they are very small—it is pretty well unpaid— and so the financial costs on families are significant. These carers cannot work full-time and they are not able to earn a full-time wage because they are busy caring for people in their lives. There is strain on family members. The emotional work that goes into caring for people is significant and that can affect carers' spouses—it might be their husbands or their wives—and so relationships can suffer. If you are caring for a child, there might be other siblings who do not get as much attention and those siblings can suffer as well. Friends and family can also sometimes move away because, as a carer, you are engrossed in what you are doing and you need that support. As single people, we often mix with single people; as married people with children we often mix with other married people with children; and carers often get together and often talk and are able to counsel one another, because sometimes friends and families are not able to do that. There are financial costs, there are relationship costs with spouses, siblings, family and friends, and then, of course, there is getting respite. When you are 24/7, seven days a week carer—perhaps apart from when they are sleeping—and respite is needed and it is not always available. Things have changed. Thirty years ago, if you had autism, you would perhaps end up in an institution. Today the family will care for that child in their best interests. I think we are seeing much better results and, once again, I thank every carer that does this. On the positive side, carers experience quality relationship time with the person who they are caring for. I believe, as does the federal member for Petrie, that life is about relationships and that is one positive benefit for some carers that they get build a deep relationship with the person they are caring for and understand that person's life better than anyone else. In relation to respite, I would like to acknowledge the federal government's contribution to Hummingbird House in Queensland, which is currently being constructed. It will be the first respite house in Queensland, where children who are palliative will be able to go with their families and actually get some respite, and that is a good thing. Perhaps when the NDIS has rolled out as well there will be more opportunities for respite around the country. I know that has strong bipartisan support from the coalition and Labor, and that is a great thing. So, carers, know that we are with you on both sides of the House here. This is a special week. I do want to acknowledge this week Carers Australia and to thank that national body for the work they are doing and the representation they provide to carers, and Carers Queensland as well, for what they do. The Australian government works closely with Carers Australia to ensure that carers get the support and opportunities they need, and I thank you again for raising this motion. 11:20 Ms HALL 83N Shortland I would like to congratulate the member for Newcastle on bringing this motion on National Carers week to the parliament. She co-convenes Parliamentary Friends of Carers within the parliament here. I know that she is passionate about providing support to carers and making sure that carers' voices are heard, not only in this parliament but throughout Australia. She has a very high profile when it comes to speaking up for carers in her electorate. Carers Week is between the 11th and the 17th of this month. It is an opportunity to recognise and celebrate the role carers play in our society. The speech I heard from the member for Petrie also encompassed many of the issues that are really important to carers, and I congratulate him on supporting this motion and the commitments he made in his speech. Carers provide enormous support. It can be 24-hour care that is provided by carers. They provide unpaid child care. Being a carer is often a thankless and a hard job. It can be very emotional. You cannot separate yourself from the person you are caring for and the issues that require them to have a carer. Not only is it often very hard work, but it can also be an emotional rollercoaster. It can have a terrible impact on the person who is a carer. They need support. For instance, if you have a daughter who is caring for her mother who has dementia, it is actually a turnabout in the role. The mother cared for the daughter when she was young, and now the daughter is providing the role that the mother had. Or there is the situation of a husband and a wife. For lots of older Australians it was always the role of the husband to be that strong carer and take care of everything, and it may have turned around so that the wife has to handle the finances and do many of the jobs that her husband previously did. Touching on a child with a disability, this is one of the greatest strains that a marriage or a relationship can have. So many relationships break down when there is a child with a disability. The NDIS will provide that extra support. It has started doing it in the Hunter, where we have been fortunate to have one of the trial sites. It will do it when it goes to Queensland and other areas. It will provide those carers with the support that they have struggled for. Where you have a carer who has health issues themselves, it makes it very, very difficult. I have a young woman who comes into my office who is in an electric wheelchair. She has a tumour. She does remarkable work in the office. But her mother had to have a knee replacement, and there were all the extra supports that needed to be put in place to care for her daughter while she was in hospital. The statistics show that there are 2.7 million unpaid carers in Australia. More than 770 carers are primary carers, 300,000 carers are under the age of 24 and 150,000 are under the age of 18. That is an enormous responsibility for young people. At a time when they are just discovering who they are as people, they are being put into this role of having to care and support someone whom they love dearly. In addition, I note that Deloittes conducted a study which revealed that the replacement value of care provided by Australian unpaid carers has increased to $60.3 billion per year. That is over $1 billion each week. So we really do need to value our carers, provide them more support and recognition and do everything we can to see that they are looked after. (Time expired) 11:25 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons I thank the member for Newcastle for moving this motion today. National Carers Week is a time to recognise and celebrate the outstanding contribution that Australia's 2.7 million unpaid carers make to our nation. Carers make an enormous contribution to our communities as well as to our national economy. If all carers decided to stop performing their caring role, it would cost the country $60.3 billion per year to replace that support—that is over $1 billion per week or 3.8 per cent of our gross domestic product. My home state of Tasmania is paying tribute to carers during this special week of recognition in a variety of ways. Our iconic Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra has organised a celebratory closed rehearsal of the orchestra today from 2 pm, which is dedicated to carers. Other events include morning teas for Men's Caring Friends Support groups in Southern Tasmania, and the state education department has asked all Tasmanian schools to get involved by hosting an event to celebrate and show appreciation of young carers in schools. Young carers in particular contribute so much to our community, yet they often experience social isolation, poor physical and mental health and difficulties with participating in education and employment. Australia's 2.7 million carers represent 12 per cent of our population—that is an enormous section of the community who are taking care of someone else and who are largely unpaid for their efforts. It means that we probably all know someone who is caring for someone else. I think of my good mate Jane Wardlaw, who, by virtue of her muscular dystrophy, spends her life in a wheelchair. Without carers, both paid and unpaid, it would not be worth contemplating what her circumstances might be. Indeed, over 1.5 million carers are of working age but cannot work because of their responsibilities. On average, carers spend about 40 hours a week providing care. It is estimated that carers of someone who has a mental illness spend on average 104 hours per week in their caring role. In my electorate of Lyons, there are 4,277 people receiving a carer allowance and another 2.295 people are receiving a carer allowance payment. But that masks the people who do not receive anything, particularly grandparents who are looking after grandchildren. I note Ara Cresswell, who is in the gallery here today, and thank her for the work that she does on behalf of Carers Australia. I acknowledge the former Prime Minister, the member Warringah, Tony Abbott, and the work that he has done over an extended period of time in raising money on behalf of carers. Over $500,000 was raised this year alone. I also acknowledge Janine Arnold, the CEO of Carers Tasmania, and board members Jenny Branch-Allen and particularly Ellen Holmes from Molesworth in my electorate. Ellen is also a carer for her brother and her mother. In the time I have left, I would like to read a poem by Philip Rush, who regularly contributes to the ABC Country Hour in Tasmania on a Friday. I think he says it best: There are thousands upon thousands of carers in our State, And I've had the privilege of meeting quite a few of them of late. Some are only children, pre-teenage girls and boys, But almost every carer seems to do their task with joy. There are many in their eighties, as is a friend of mine, In only thirty months or so he'll be turning eighty-nine! He does the cooking and the cleaning and the caring for his wife, His care's the most important role he carries out in life! Its the same for many thousands who daily spend their hours Cooking dinners, dressing partners, making beds and giving showers. The carer's role is never-ending, seven days of every week, But it's done In love and caring, no rewards they ever seek! They're often hidden from the public, care quietly on their own; You rarely hear a carer complain or sigh or moan! You ask me how I know it; how I know these things I've said, Well, I'm a carer also to the lady that I wed. Back in the nineteen sixties, and she needs a bit of care, Her head is quite undamaged, but her body's past repair! A back that can't be mended, and her legs that struggle, too, And many other problems which I won't repeat to you. She cannot drive; it's hard to walk—a wheelchair's what we use When going out, or to the shops, whatever we might choose. She swims an hour each Wednesday, two hours of Aquarobics, too, On a Monday and a Friday, that's all that she can do To exercise her body, her commitment's great to see, Since her health is so precarious, she's said good-bye to me Three times when In the hospital since nineteen ninety-eight, But she's survived these obstacles, her tenacity Is great! So I'm chief cook and cleaner, but I don't do that as well As Yvonne used to do it, as anyone could tell! But my cooking skills are better, which doesn't mean that much, Yet apple sponge and birthday cakes, and casseroles and such Are now upon the menu which I manage now and then, And I'm sure it's similar history for many carers who are men! I could go on for ever, but I'll finish with this line, All you carers who are listening, you're close to being divine! Thank you. Papua New Guinea 125 11:30 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan A move the motion relating to Papua New Guinea in the terms in which it appears on the Notice Paper. Modern Papua New Guinea is a proud and vibrant nation of 7.3 million people. It is a nation of immense natural beauty, of rich cultural heritage and diversity and of, as yet, untapped potential. Forty years on from independence, Papua New Guinea retains the optimism and enthusiasm of a young nation; a nation with its best years still to come. Its people are bound by a common bond, a fierce pride in their nation and deep and abiding ties to the clan, village and province—bonds that are sometimes at odds. The passionate nature of the people of Papua New Guinea is at one-time an enormous strength, but also a challenge. Our two nations will forever be linked by our shared past. During the Second World War we fought side by side to drive back the invading Japanese forces in brutally harsh conditions on the Kokoda Track. In doing so, we forged a bond that endures and grows with every passing year. Often spoken about, but never forgotten, this bond lies at the heart of our relationship. Papua New Guinea is our nearest neighbour and a trusted ally and close friend. PNG faces all the challenges of a developing country and yet has achieved so much. In recent times, it is worth noting the remarkable spread of mobile telephony and increasing access to the internet. The successful resolution of the Bougainville conflict stands as an exemplar to the world. Implementation of that peace agreement is just as important as the agreement itself. The remarkable success of the South Pacific Games stands out as an example of what can be achieved by a small but determined nation. Of enduring value is the independence of the judiciary under a succession of capable chief justices and today, under Sir Salinger, the courts play an essential role in Papua New Guinea's growing democracy. Of course there are challenges; that is the nature of the developing world. It is also where Australia can play a role. Our challenge in this former colony is to provide the support and assistance to help Papua New Guinea grow without imposing our views over the policies of the elected government. There will be times when we disagree, but Papua New Guinea's future depends upon building strong and effective democratic government and effective public service that truly reflects the wishes of the nation. Any nation can hand out money to the developing world, but the strength of our relationship with Papua New Guinea is built upon bonds—bonds developed through common history, though the pain and trauma of war and bonds through the brotherhood of friendship. However, the key to Papua New Guinea's continued growth and development is to address the challenges that remain. A strong, stable and prosperous Papua New Guinea is in Australia's national interest. The people of PNG are seeing the benefits of a refocusing of Australian foreign aid to our near neighbours in the Indo-Pacific region under the leadership of foreign minister Julie Bishop. Australian aid is supporting improvements in the areas of health and education, law and order, transport, gender and governance. But the relationship between our two nations goes well beyond government. Among the Australian population, there is genuine goodwill towards the people of Papua New Guinea and organisations willing to lend a hand. I am proud to call Papua New Guinea a friend. I enjoy my many friendships with Papua New Guineans. I admire their rich diversity and wonderful people. To Prime Minister Peter O'Neill, I offer my congratulations to Papua New Guinea on a remarkable 40 years. The 40th anniversary of independence is a time for Papua New Guineans to celebrate the achievements of their nation and to look forward with hope and optimism to the years ahead. For Australians, it is a time to recognise our close government-to-government and people-to-people ties and to reaffirm our commitment to support Papua New Guinea to reach its immense and untapped potential. I pay tribute to their high commissioner, Charles Lepani, who does such a wonderful job representing Papua New Guinea in Canberra. With our close bonds forged by history and our ongoing commitment to development, I have no doubt that our two great nations will continue to work together for mutual growth and prosperity in the years and decades ahead. Papua New Guinea, celebrate your 40 years. You deserve to. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 Is there a seconder for this motion? 11:35 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I am happy to second the motion, Deputy Speaker. I too rise to congratulate the people of Papua New Guinea on the 40th anniversary of their nation's independence. Papua New Guinea is our nearest neighbour. Although it is a relatively young nation on the international stage, the bonds between Australia and PNG stretch back many centuries—indeed many thousands of years. Anthropologists believe that our nation was first settled by people that had travelled to Australia over the land bridge that existed between Australia and PNG 50,000 years ago. PNG was present at the birth of our nation geographically, and we were present at the birth of the nation of PNG on the international stage. Today, Australia and PNG are separated by only 3.7 kilometres of water at the nearest point. As a result, both nations will also always have a strong shared interest in each other's prospects. It is not just a shared interest in the exploits of Johnathan Thurston, Greg Inglis and the mighty Melbourne Storm; Australia's geographic connection with PNG has been reinforced by bonds forged in times of war. During the Second World War, Australians and Papuans fought alongside each other in the most desperate of circumstances—resisting an aggressive invasion from the north. The stories of this joint Australian-Papuan resistance live on in the collective memory of many Australians. Passed on from one generation to another, there is a bond of friendship that will last for some time. One story that Australians hold particular reverence for is, of course, of the four months that Australians and Papuans spent protecting the most direct route through the mountains between Gona and the capital, Port Moresby—the Kokoda Track. More than 600 Australians were killed during those months, and over 1½ thousand were wounded, making it one of the most significant battles in Australian military history. During that conflict, Australian soldiers were assisted by sympathetic locals who aided the war effort, particularly when the injured and sick needed assistance in returning to aid stations and barracks. Close relations grew between the Australians and the locals, who were affectionately referred to as the 'Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels'. The wartime photo of an injured Australian soldier, Private George 'Dick' Whittington, being guided away from the battlefield by Raphael Oimbari has become an iconic image from that conflict, as well as an iconic representation of the people-to-people connections between our countries. The battle along the Kokoda Track has become one of the stories that have helped Australia to define our national identity—a story that will always remain inextricably connected to PNG and its people. Today, both Australia and PNG retain a strong interest in each other's progress. Government relations are formally underpinned by the Joint Declaration for a New Papua New Guinea-Australia Partnership, but our relationship extends much deeper than official agreements. Our political leaders meet annually to promote trade and collaboration on defence agreements, climate change, development targets and joint management of our shared commons, such as the oceans and fisheries to Australia's north. Our economic ties are also growing, with two-way trade between our countries worth $6.8 billion in 2013-14. Australia has also welcomed many Papua New Guineans to Australia to attend universities, including the children of the current Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Peter O'Neill. Bringing the best and brightest to Australian universities to study has increased our people-to-people relationships. We should reciprocate and ensure that young Australians are given the opportunity to live and study in PNG. Australia also continues to partner with PNG to deliver extensive development assistance in that nation. I emphasise 'to partner'. Australia provides more development assistance to PNG than any other country—assistance that, thankfully, has not experienced the kinds of cuts that we have seen elsewhere in Australia's foreign assistance programs in recent years. Last month I travelled to PNG with Save the Children on a delegation with other MPs and senators to see what our development assistance programs are achieving on the ground. Australian aid works—in 2013-14 alone we established 14 family and sexual violence units, trained 4,315 teachers and financed 600,000 children to attend primary school in PNG. We strengthened health and HIV-AIDS services which enabled 24,848 babies to be delivered under supervision of skilled staff, immunised 54,393 children against measles and other diseases, and maintained over 2,000 kilometres of PNG's most economically important roads in the past. However, PNG continues to need Australian assistance—38 per cent of the population lives below the poverty line and it is estimated that the growth of approximately 40 per cent of children is stunted. PNG has confronted major challenges in achieving the targets set out in the Millennium Development Goals. As we speak, the country is experiencing the further challenge of a devastating drought resulting from the intensification of unusual weather patterns continuing. Problems stemming from the lack of water are amplified by overnight frosts that are destroying what is left of subsistence farm crops and food gardens. With almost 85 per cent of the population living in rural areas and many relying on subsistence farming, these extreme weather conditions are having crippling effects. According to PNG's weather service, these conditions are likely to last through 2016. PNG is facing challenges and, like any nation in difficult times, we owe them our attention and our support. Our relationship with our closest neighbour will only remain strong while we continue to value it and work on it. I would like to reaffirm Australia's commitment to our closest neighbour and our region, and our commitment to working together to find collective solutions to our shared problems. I thank the people of Papua New Guinea for their hospitality and congratulate them on the 40th anniversary of their independence. 11:41 Mrs MARKUS E07 Macquarie Today I have pleasure in speaking about a country that is very close and that is very dear to my heart. Papua New Guinea is our nearest neighbour and a dear friend to Australia. Having been married for nearly 27 years to a man who was born in Papua New Guinea, I have enjoyed the camaraderie and relationship I have with his family and the capacity that I have as a federal member to build relationships with many people who are leaders in Papua New Guinea. On the 16 September, PNG celebrated the 40th anniversary of its independence. Thousands of people were in attendance for the official ceremony which was held on Independence Hill in Port Moresby. Australia was pleased to celebrate Independence Day celebrations in PNG together with them, and RAAF aircraft participated in a PNG fly-past. The celebration was marked with an additional commitment of $25 million over four years from the Australian government to upgrade the National Museum and Art Gallery. We will also provide $5 million annually over five years for the preservation of the Kokoda Track region. These projects showcase PNG's identity but also our deep connection to PNG and our cultural history. Celebrating the 40th anniversary of independence is a huge milestone, and I want to acknowledge and congratulate the government and the people of PNG for the progress they have made in the decades since achieving independence. Australia and PNG have a special relationship built on a shared history and enduring people-to-people links. We share a border, economic interests and common legal frameworks. Australian business investment in PNG is worth nearly $19 billion, with over 5,000 Australian companies doing business there. It is very encouraging to see the economic performance of PNG driven by high international prices for exports, particularly agriculture. The trade between Australia and PNG is also valued by both countries, with two-way merchandise worth $5.9 billion and total trade worth $6.8 billion in 2013-14. This deep and diverse relationship that we have with PNG is recognised and apparent with our leaders and ministers, as they have close and regular contact. The Minister for International Development and the Pacific, the Hon. Steven Ciobo MP, travelled to PNG in early October. As I mentioned earlier, there is also a close historical association between Australian and PNG, with over 10,000 Australian there at any one time and approximately the same number of PNG nationals in Australia. Australia is also supporting more students, particularly girls, to enrol in and complete education. Promoting gender equality and empowering women and girls is critical to PNG's development. From a partnership point of view, the New Colombo Plan Scholarship program is an example of such opportunities. This is a signature initiative of the Australian government which aims to lift knowledge of our Indo-Pacific region by supporting Australian undergraduates to study in the region. Women's participation is critical, particularly in their parliament. During the June 2012 elections, 135 women candidates ran out of approximately 3,500 candidates in total. 3 women candidates were successful in becoming new members of the house: the Hon. Delilah Gore, the Hon. Loujaya Toni and the Hon. Julie Soso. An article 'Improving women's participation in PNG politics: learning from recent success' says: According to Soso, external support from the UNDP's Practice Parliament training and the Centre for Democratic Institutions' inaugural PNG Women Candidates Training Strategy also helped her electoral prospects. Both training programs were organised by the PNG Office for the Development of Women, with the WCT funded through the Australian Aid Program. It also is important to note that it took Soso a long time to overcome some of these challenges. She ran unsuccessfully as a candidate three times before she was successful in 2012. While there are still many challenges that PNG faces in the way of political stability and improving the standard of public health and education, there is a bright future ahead. With over 852 languages and that many tribal groups, it is indeed a success story that Papua New Guinea has been able to successfully conduct an enduring democracy. With 80 per cent of the population on traditional lands, they have many challenges ahead, and I wish them every success as they pursue a future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 I thank the member for Macquarie. 11:46 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio It is with delight that rise this morning to add my voice to the motion of the member for Ryan and, in doing so, acknowledge both her and the member for Macquarie's longstanding commitment to Papua New Guinea and Australia's relationship with that really important country. I enjoy working with the member for Ryan and the Parliamentary Friends of Papua New Guinea. I would also like to acknowledge the member for Gellibrand, who has just gone to PNG for the first time. I know it will not be his last. We are acknowledging an event which occurred 40 years ago: the independence of Papua New Guinea—one of two countries to gain their independence from Australia, along with the Republic of Nauru. At that time, it was a ceremony which was undertaken between the first Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Sir Michael Somare, and as it turned out, a near-departing Prime Minister of Australia, Gough Whitlam—both giants of their respective political landscapes, befitting a huge moment not only in the life of PNG but also in the life of Australia. It was a moment that was supported in a bipartisan way across this parliament then, as it is now, which again is manifested in the fact that Prime Ministers Whitlam, Hawke and Fraser were all awarded Honorary Grand Commanders of the Grand Companion of the Order of Logohu, which entitles them to be called Grand Chief. We meet 40 years after PNG became independent and note the extraordinary achievements that country has undertaken since then. Port Moresby today is an entirely different place to what it was then, befitting the extraordinary economic growth that we have particularly seen in PNG over the last decade. As a result of that, we have seen the reliance of PNG on Australia aid increasingly decline as a percentage of their revenue to the point where trade with Australia as a source of revenue far exceeds aid from Australia, which I think is a very significant moment in the development of Papua New Guinea. It is a country which has, from its outset, conducted democratic elections and continues to do so. Governments change and MPs change peacefully by an expression of the will of the people—no small achievement indeed for a developing country for whom democracy was a very different cultural concept, given the millennia of indigenous culture that the people in PNG had previously experienced. I also want to mention the state of tertiary education: there are now six universities in PNG today compared to only two that existed at the time of independence. Many challenges remain for PNG—social indicators in health, in education, in the participation of women in society and politics and business: all of those could of course be much better. Corruption continues to be an issue. But these are challenges which PNG is meeting, and I think dwelling on them is, in a sense, a matter for another day, because today is about celebrating how far PNG has come and also noting the significance of the relationship between our two countries. This is our nearest neighbour. It is a country of more than seven million people—50 per cent bigger than New Zealand. It is a country which has enormous Australian history as a part of it—it is the custodian of the Kokoda Track and the Bomana War Cemetery, which is the largest war cemetery of Australians anywhere in the world. As I said, it is one of two countries which gained independence from us. It remains a significant—I think the most significant—development assistance partner we have. It houses one of our largest overseas missions in the world. It is a critical part of our national security framework. Whichever way you cut it, this is a critical relationship to this country, and, in my view, one which is often understated within discussions in this place and within the media. I find it concerning—'depressing' is probably a better word—that we still see morning TV going into Port Moresby but that morning TV, which at this point in time is the ABC breakfast show, not telling us what the weather is on any given day in Port Moresby, even though that is not a particularly difficult task given that it is the same pretty much every day. It would be good if they did that—to show respect to an audience which watches them. It is a relationship that we need to take more seriously, but we are incredibly lucky to have this country as our neighbour. Life in PNG is simply led there in a way it is not lived anywhere else. (Time expired) Debate adjourned. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics 128 11:51 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I move: That this House: (1) acknowledges the critical role that women have played in advancing Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) in Australia; (2) notes that despite this, women remain largely underrepresented in STEM disciplines in Australia's schools and universities; (3) recognises the social and economic benefits of advancing men and women equally through STEM; (4) supports the need to encourage girls to take an interest in STEM from an early age through greater exposure to, and advancement of, science disciplines in school; and (5) encourages policies that will enable women and girls to fully realise their potential through STEM at school and university. It is with huge pride that I begin my remarks by noting that Australian women have some incredible and proud achievements and an incredible and proud history of dominating in the fields of science, technology, engineering and maths. We all know names like Professor Fiona Wood, who invented spray-on skin and continues to do incredible work with burns victims all over the world; Elizabeth Blackburn, the Nobel Prize winning scientist and I think the only Tasmanian to win a Nobel Prize so far; and Dr Marguerite Evans-Galea, the co-founder of Women in Science Australia and an award-winning biomedical researcher at the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute. Amongst the younger cohort, I am so pleased to note the achievements of Marita Cheng, our 2012 Young Australian of the Year and the founder of Robogals, and Yassmin Abdel-Magied, a mechanical engineer, founder of Youth Without Borders and the 2015 Queensland Young Australian of the Year. All of these women are incredible achievers who are operating at the global heights of their professions. While it is critical to celebrate their success, we must also be frank that these remarkable achievements unfortunately do not reflect the share of women in their professions overall. A terrifying statistic, just to get started, is that just 10 per cent of senior science academics in Australia's universities and research institutes are Australian women. I will share some other numbers with the House that bring some of the issues that we are discussing today to light. Of all the Australians today who are working in STEM, less than a third of them are Australian women, and this figure is as low as 14 per cent when we look at the engineering profession. The underrepresentation of women at a professional level comes right back to our education system. We know that in our universities just one in five engineering students are women and 14 per cent of information technology enrolments are women. When we get to our school system, we see where this problem begins. The number of women at the higher levels of our senior schools taking advanced mathematics is about half what it is for young men, and just 1.5 per cent of Australian girls are completing the three key STEM courses, which are advanced maths, physics and chemistry, at their year 12 level. What is even more worrying is that when we look at these numbers we see that they are actually getting worse over time and not better. Just one fact: the share of young women in year 12 who studied physics fell by a third between 1992 and 2009. These numbers should be incredibly concerning to every person in this country. They should be worrying to us because we have very clear evidence here that the best and brightest young Australians are not breaking through in these key professions in science, technology, engineering and maths. When we see women get into these professions, we see them make incredible breakthroughs. Think of all the inventions, the patents, the new medicines and the breakthrough technologies that could have been invented by fantastic, high-achieving Australian women who are not being represented in these professions today. There is a big human capital argument and a big economic argument here, but I want the parliament to address this issue because I believe it is a fundamental social justice issue when we look to the decades ahead. One of the things that we know about the way in which our labour market is changing—and it is changing very rapidly—is that people who have these qualifications are shooting to the top of the labour market, and they are doing better and better year by year. We know that we see spectacular jobs growth in the areas of our economy that require STEM qualifications. There are many factors. Sometimes people talk about three times as much job growth in STEM professions as in non-STEM professions. What we are seeing here with these facts is that we are creating a situation where the best, highest-paying and most senior roles in our society are ones where women are inevitably going to be dramatically less represented, and I believe that the underrepresentation of women in STEM is one of the top feminist issues of our time. Labor is the only party in Australia that is talking about this problem and that has a plan to address it. I am so proud when I look at the policy announcement that Labor has made on this front so far. What the Leader of the Opposition has talked about is wiping out the student debt for 100,000 young people who graduate with these qualifications, introducing 25,000 teacher scholarships, and increasing the number of students completing their STEM studies by 20,000 graduates a year from 2020. All of these policies will be implemented with a particular focus on bringing more women into these professions, where they belong. We have to address this problem. If we allow it to continue, we will pay a hugely heavy toll. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 Is there a seconder for this motion? Mr Watts 193430 I second the motion. 11:57 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I am delighted to be speaking on this topic as the Assistant Minister for Science, because it is something that falls well within the portfolio of Industry, Innovation and Science, and Science in particular, where I have responsibility. But I am also very keen to talk on this subject because I am an engineer, and at this point of time I am the only female engineer in the Australian parliament. So I think that gives me an opportunity to put a very unique perspective—certainly to provide some background information on STEM but also to talk about what it is like to actually be a female engineer and to address some of the issues that are so important to us going forward. I would like to start by just putting a little bit of perspective around this issue, and that is to look firstly at the decline in the number of students who are actually taking STEM subjects—so science, technology, engineering and maths, and in particular science and maths subjects—at school. If we compare the number of students in 1992 to 2012—so over a 20-year period—there were 30,800 more students in year 2012 than there were in 1992, but there was a significant decrease in the number of students who were studying science and maths subjects. There were 8,000 fewer physics students, 4,000 fewer chemistry students and 12,000 fewer biology students. So what we can see is that there has been a reduction in the number of students overall who are studying science, technology, engineering and maths, and that is without taking into account the gender issues and the significant changes in the number of women who are studying the science and maths subjects. The percentage of students who are studying advanced and intermediate maths also declined over that period. I think that is another important thing that we need to be mindful of—that is, that many students who were, for example, capable of doing Maths B and C were taking a different level of maths, Maths A. So that put them in a difficult situation—going into, for example, engineering—when they went on to university because they did not have the high-level maths skills that they needed. They had to move straight into bridging courses. I understand that this is now somewhat common over a number of subjects as well. For example, with chemistry, students who are not taking chemistry subjects at school and wish to study chemistry when they go on to university have to take bridging courses to enable them to at least catch up in their first year of university. Clearly, that makes it significantly more difficult for those students. The questions are: why is this concerning and why do we need to be mindful of this? The most important issue for me is that whilst we do not know exactly what the jobs of the future will be, we do know that 75 per cent of those jobs will require skills in science, technology, engineering and maths. It is very clear that we must be doing something to increase the take-up rate. I want to speak briefly about some of the stats for women, because they are not particularly good. In academia, we see that the more senior the researcher the less likely the researcher is to be a woman. At senior levels, the figure sits around just 17 per cent. Participation rates for women are lower than those of men for all national competitive grants schemes. The proportion of female undergraduate and postgraduate students in STEM fields has barely changed over the past decade. In 2013, when considering domestic enrolment, female students made up 32.4 per cent of undergraduate STEM enrolments and 36.1 per cent of postgraduate STEM enrolments. What we do know—and I heard the member for Hotham talk about what happens at the university level—is that the critical time for people to take up STEM skills is actually years 5 to 8. That is where we must be targeting. That is where we must be making sure that we engage with these young people, particularly women, and demonstrate to them that there is a real opportunity if they were to continue the interest that they have in maths and science. I am a very strong advocate of making sure that we start that pipeline early. There are many examples of where we have had very valuable science and maths programs implemented at the very early ages, particularly in Germany. I would encourage those opposite—and, in fact, everyone in the House—to have a look at the German programs to see what we can learn out of them, to make sure that we are starting our students early to understand science, technology, engineering and maths. 12:02 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I rise today to support this private member's motion and to thank my colleague the member for Hotham for bringing it to the House. Of course we know that women have played a crucial role in advancing science, technology, engineering and maths in Australia. I have spoken on numerous occasions in this place on the good work of pioneering women in Australian science—women like Dorothy Hill, a geologist and researcher most famous for becoming the first professor at an Australian university, and Ruby Payne-Scott, the first female radioastronomer and a pioneer in her field, contributing to some of the earliest discoveries in radioastronomy research. Ruby got her first big break during the Second World War while all the men were busy abroad. Ruby went to work for the CSIR, now the CSIRO, helping to develop top-secret radar technology that would help defend Australia from the threat of invasion. After the war, Ruby went on to make path-breaking discoveries in radioastronomy, including in three categories of solar bursts. Despite the good work of these trailblazers and many women that came after them, Australia still struggles to reach its full potential. That is because women are not fully represented in all levels of STEM in Australia and they are not on parity with men. We know that only one-third of university graduates in a STEM course are women and only 28 per cent of Australia's STEM-qualified workers are women. The number of students studying maths and science in high school is falling and the gap between boys and girls is getting wider. In 2013, only six per cent of girls studied year 12 advanced maths. There are a number of barriers. When it comes to school, these could include expectations of teachers, parents and peers—as well as self-expectations. It could be the lack of female role models in STEM disciplines or the presence of stereotypes portrayed in the media which can make it harder for girls to imagine a career in STEM. But when we deny girls the opportunity to develop an interest in maths, science and technology we are denying ourselves the access to the next batch of Dorothy Hill and Ruby Payne Scott and the would-be contributions that they will make to science and in STEM in Australia. The trends seen in primary school and secondary school continues well into adulthood, with women comprising just 17 per cent of senior academics in Australian universities and research institutes. In the last sitting week I was very pleased to help launch the SAGE Athena SWAN Charter pilot, an initiative introduced by the Academy of Science and the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering to improve gender-equity policies at our universities, scientific and medical institutions. It is pleasing to see an initiative designed to independently evaluate the participation of women, in STEM, in key Australian institutions. I know, as the co-convener of the Parliamentary Friendship Group of Women in Science, Maths and Engineering, together with the member for Higgins, this pilot is an incredibly important time that will shed a light on the underrepresentation of women in STEM but, importantly, give a pathway of how to address that. It is clear that Australia, as a nation, will fail to reach its productive potential until women can reach theirs. It will not be achieved until we start focusing and teaching more girls in STEM skills. That is why I am also very pleased that Labor has announced a positive plan to get more young people, particularly women, interested in these vital subjects. If elected to government, we will encourage more students to take up STEM degrees by writing off the HECS-HELP debt of 100,000 prospective university students in this field. Indeed, we have also announced that there will be, in the selection process, a focus on encouraging women to be a part of this. We will also make sure that every young person has a chance to learn about computer coding at school. We will boost the skills of 25,000 primary and secondary school teachers with new funding for STEM teacher training. It is really important to engage with all students at a very young level about the importance of coding, because it is the language of the future. These are smart investments and the benefits will multiply for generations. We need to equip young women with the knowledge they need to get the jobs of the future. I commend the motion to the House. 12:07 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney I am speaking on this motion, as I welcome the opportunity to support any measure that seeks to encourage more people into science, technology, engineering and mathematics. I note that the substantive point of this motion is to encourage more women into the area of STEM. To guarantee tomorrow the living standard that we have today we need more money and more people investing in STEM. STEM studies and careers are investments in the future prosperity of the nation. Achieving a 50-50 split of a male-female divide in every profession would be a lovely situation. The simple fact is policy directive should not be held hostage to ideological shackles. The best talent should get the best support, male or female. It is interesting to note that women's progress in breaking into STEM has slowed down in recent decades, and it is not only in Australia. Using US data for degrees conferred on women, the number of women in computer science peaked, in the US, in 1983 at 37 per cent. Data from the American Physical Society on the percentage of women receiving degrees as a percentage of all degrees awarded shows that 2000 was when women peaked at 36 per cent for STEM and 21 per cent for physics. The question is: does it make a difference if it is a woman or a man? The other consideration is: where, when and how are we ever likely to get the gender balance in STEM? What is the practical implementation of good intentions, like quotas? Is it saying no to talented males? Short-term positive discrimination can have long-term negative outcomes. Data around STEM points to one conclusion. There are areas of science where women are interested and there are other areas where they are not. Science has many subcategories. To hold up some STEM categories as being more valid than other science categories is wrong and foolish. It is true that, as a country, we need to lift our rates of female participation in the workforce. Increasing female participation and employment rates is one of the lowest-hanging fruits of economic growth and one of the most fertile. The positive spillover effects from more women in work are many and varied but, crucially, they impact on every corner of our society. STEM is the foundation upon which a high-value-added, high-tech economic strategy must be built. If we are to stay competitive in our region and in the world then our country must simply become more proficient at STEM subjects at every level—primary, secondary and tertiary. The simple fact is, as this place's only PhD-qualified scientist, I have long advocated and espoused the benefits of funding scientific research. Studies have shown a positive return on money invested in research and development activities. This allows our scientists the latitude to dream and explore the outer limits of their understanding, leading to society enjoying an improved standard of living. Australians are innovators. We need only look at CSIRO as an example of an institution that punches above its weight and whose endeavours have touched us all. It was Australian scientists at the CSIRO that gave us wi-fi. West Australian Nobel-Prize-winning researchers also discovered the link between certain bacteria and stomach ulcers, which led to a new wave of treatment. We should be focusing on skills, needs, interests and requirements, and not on gender. I hope in my next great endeavour—that of trying to remove the prohibitions on nuclear energy in Australia—that I am joined by many fine female scientists. 12:12 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I am very happy to rise in support of this motion brought to the House by my colleague the member for Hotham in support of STEM, and particularly women in STEM, in Australia. Science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, are key to our nation's prosperity. International research suggests that 75 per cent of the fastest-growing occupations now require STEM skills, and employment in STEM occupations is projected to grow at at least twice the pace of other occupations. While STEM occupations are growing at a staggering pace, women remain largely underrepresented in STEM disciplines in Australia's schools and universities and in the workforce. Women comprise more than half of science PhD graduates and early career researchers but just 17 per cent of senior academics in Australian universities and research institutes. According to Professionals Australia's 2014 position paper, Women in STEM in Australia, only 28 per cent of the employed STEM-qualified Australian workforce aged 15 and years and over in 2011were female, compared to 55 per cent of all other fields in the tertiary-qualified population. They also identified that in Australia women hold a relatively low share of STEM undergraduate degrees, with just 33 per cent of tertiary qualifications awarded to women in STEM fields, and that the pay gap in the professional, scientific and technical services industry was a staggering 30.1 per cent in 2013. Effective, coordinated policy solutions are required to address the multiple, interrelated issues that lead to women's underrepresentation in STEM fields. Occupational segregation—defined as the overrepresentation of women in low-paying occupations—has been identified as an issue that must be overcome. Implementing improved education programs to encourage the participation of women in occupations that are often traditionally though of as male roles is one possible solution. Breaking down cultural stereotypes about what a science career entails has also been identified as a way to increase the number of women in STEM occupations. Research shows that in Australia 18.6 per cent of boys undertake STEM subjects in their final year of school, compared with 13.8 per cent of girls. A reason for the difference was found to be a lack of understanding and encouragement from teachers and parents for girls to participate in STEM subjects. When it comes to women's participation in STEM occupations and the gender pay gap, Professionals Australia have flagged the following issues as significant obstacles for women There are the financial penalties when returning to work after women take career breaks to start a family. There are issues around women leaving a profession because of difficulties balancing family and career responsibilities due to the lack of workplace flexibility. There is a lack of women in leadership roles in STEM fields, and there are discriminatory practices within the workplace, from hiring practices which disadvantage women to the underrating of female employees' contributions in assessments for promotion. There is no doubt in my mind, and indeed in the minds of my colleagues, that much more needs to be done to tackle this inequity and, thankfully, a number of important initiatives are under way. It was a great pleasure to be in parliament last month at the launch of one such initiative—the Science in Australia Gender Equity, or SAGE, pilot program, as part of the Athena SWAN Charter. This is an initiative aimed at reaching gender parity in science leadership and it bases its work around the Athena SWAN Charter, which was developed in the UK in 2005. I am super excited that my University of Newcastle is one of the 32 Australian universities that has signed up to be part of that SAGE pilot program and, indeed, the University of Newcastle was already cited as an employer of choice for gender equity in 2014. In closing, it is clear that STEM is a central part of our future and policy that enables women and girls to fully realise their potential in STEM at school, university and the workforce is vital. I am proud of the directions that the Labor Party is taking in this area and I thank the member for Hotham for bringing this to the House's attention. I look forward to a time when books like 12 Awesome Women of Science: You've Never Heard Of become a historical relic as women who have truly rocked science in this nation become part of our everyday appreciation of scientists in Australia. 12:17 Ms SCOTT 165476 Lindsay Today I rise to bring to the House the critical role that women perform in advancing science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Disappointingly, the evidence confirms women are underrepresented in these critical disciplines. Researcher Kelly Roberts noted in her 2014 report to the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute that the proportion of Australian women in education and employment in fields of mathematics, computing and engineering is particularly low. She observes that 'Only 28 per cent of employed STEM-qualified Australian workforce aged 15 and over were female in 2011,' with this figure as low as 15 per cent in engineering. She goes on to say that in the very same year '33 per cent of tertiary qualifications were awarded to Australian women in STEM fields.' If the Australian economy is to transition into a smart economy, and one that advances and works in advanced manufacturing of goods and technology, we need all Australians to possess world-leading STEM skills. Frankly, it is unacceptable for women to be left behind, despite the chronic under-representation of women at the forefront of pivotal scientific breakthroughs. In an opinion piece published last Wednesday in The Australian, the Chair of Universities Australia and the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Sydney, Professor Barney Glover, highlighted the importance to the national interest of the work being undertaken by quantum physicist Michelle Simmons. He says: Simmons, a professor at the University of NSW, recently added the CSIRO Eureka Prize … to her impressive list of accolades. Yesterday— on 6 October— her team, including Andrew Dzurak, announced a profound advance: they have cleared the final hurdle in making a silicon quantum computer, bringing the promise of unbelievable processing speeds much closer. He went on to note: This game-changing discovery places Australia at the front of the international race to make quantum computing a reality. This is exciting news. Professor Glover's observations illustrate how women in Australia are leading the world in pivotal STEM advances. The achievement of women in STEM fields emphasises the profound importance of addressing this important challenge at the national and regional level. In my electorate of Lindsay, I am proud to inform parliament that the University of Western Sydney is taking steps to redress the STEM decline amongst women in a meaningful and generationally impactful way. Under the direction of Professor Barney Glover, the university has developed and fully costed detailed plans for the Western Sydney Science Centre. Drawing on the best practice internationally and domestic examples, the university is seeking $21.3 million in government support to create the centre and to refurbish a 6,000-square metre facility on its Penrith campus. Once completed in 2017, the Western Sydney Science Centre will provide highly educational, fully immersive, hands-on STEM experience for early childhood development and for school-aged children, as well as pivotal professional development and resources for teachers and professionals alike. The centre will focus in particular on engaging with young women, Indigenous people and socially disadvantaged people who may not have had access to such a quality education. Western Sydney will be home to Australian innovation. I would like to commend the vision of the Catholic Diocese of Parramatta, which will be creating the first STEM school in Australia, which will be part of the Sydney Science Park at Luddenham, a facility that will have 12,200 high-skilled jobs in places like biopharmaceuticals and advanced manufacturing, and 10,000 research positions. The exciting thing that the Catholic diocese is working towards is having from pre-K through to primary school, high school, university and postgraduate qualifications instead. This will all form part of an innovation corridor. I am proud to talk on this motion, I am proud of the direction that Western Sydney is taking and I am proud to be part of a government that is providing the infrastructure that will provide the education to the people of Western Sydney. Debate adjourned. RAF Bomber Command 133 12:22 Dr STONE EM6 Murray I move: That this House: (1) recognises the courage and sacrifice of the young Australian men who actively served in Bomber Command in World War II; (2) requests the creation of a medal for Royal Australian Air Force men who served in action in Australian and British squadrons in Bomber Command in World War II; (3) notes that: (a) over 10,000 Australians served in Bomber Command, in which over 4,000 of these airmen lost their lives; (b) Bomber Command had the highest casualty rate in Australia's military history; (c) a Bomber Command crew member had a worse chance of survival than an infantry officer in World War I; and (d) there are fewer than 100 Australians remaining who flew in Bomber Command; and (4) calls on the Government to, as a matter of urgency, create a medal to recognise and honour Australian airmen who served in Bomber Command in World War II. I think people here will be amazed to hear that it was as late as Thursday, 28 June 2012 when Her Majesty the Queen attended the dedication of the Bomber Command Memorial and unveiled a sculpture of a bomber aircrew in London. This is extraordinary this long after the loss of so many lives at the highest rates of loss of any group in military history. Several years ago, Australians in Bomber Command received a small clasp in some recognition of their service—a totally inadequate recognition. This motion calls on the Australia government to recognise the incredible sacrifice of those young men who were willing to go to the United Kingdom. So many of them lost their lives. In 1940, with France defeated and the disaster of the British Army at Dunkirk, Winston Churchill could see no other road to victory than a sustained bombing campaign against the industrial might and technical advances of Germany. But the UK would need massive numbers of fighter and bomber aircraft. They also needed crew. They had neither at the time; hence, the Empire Air Training Scheme, or EATS, was born. Training of the best educated and physically and mentally fittest young men was conducted in Canada, Australia, South Africa and Rhodesia—now Zimbabwe. All these men were volunteers. After 18 months of intensive training, these teachers, farmers and teenagers not long out of school were ready to crew up to be sent across to the United Kingdom to join other crews or to become all-Australian crews with a British engineer. As Bomber Command crews attacked over Europe night after night in the theatre of war, they were engaged in running battles with the Luftwaffe night-fighters and anti-aircraft flak. This was shot up from batteries on the ground. The losses were huge, with more than 55,573 casualties, or an attrition rate of crews of 51 per cent—the highest rate of casualties of any fighting unit in the war. An Australian crew had a one-in-six chance of completing a tour of 30 missions or a one-in-40 chance of completing a second. These casualty rates did not include those who were killed on landing back in Britain after a mission. Their Lancasters were often crippled by enemy fire. I just want to read a quick quote from a pilot landing in Britain after a Nuremberg operation. Phil Morris says: 'Flight officer Russell had a collision near Scampton in low cloud as we came into home base. It always seems to cloud up in the last five minutes of a flight at this joint. He went up in flames, as usual'—an extraordinary observation of a man he knew, a fellow Australian. There were of course also lots of accidents in training. It is tragic to think of the numbers who died in Canada in training without their loved ones there to observe their funerals. In conclusion, I call on the medal to be most urgently created for the last remaining 100 men of Bomber Command. These men, now in their 90s, were some of our most heroic and amazing survivors of that terrible series of campaigns. Amongst those survivors is my father, Harvey Bawden—now the only survivor of his crew. Of the seven of his crew, five unfortunately were killed at the time of their 29th mission, with their bombing raid ending in disaster for their Lancaster plane. The rear-gunner, Jim Griffin, was killed in the plane coming down, and four of them were killed by a mob in a brutal murder which was later prosecuted in war actions. I commend this motion to the House and I say that it is time that Australia stood up and acknowledged the extraordinary contribution of our great Bomber Command crews. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249764 Is the motion seconded? 12:28 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I second the motion. I thank the member for Murray for her motion and I too rise to acknowledge the Australians who served as members of the Royal Airforce Bomber Command in World War II. The role of an airman in Bomber Command involved operations where they were at great risk of being shot down by the enemy or from engine failure. The young men in Bomber Command, normally only in their late teens and far from home, flew over enemy controlled Europe in the dark of night and implemented planned attacks on the enemy. Their chances of survival were bleak. Around 10,000 Australians served in Bomber Command, joining aircrews from Britain, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and elsewhere. At the height of its operations in late 1944, Bomber Command consisted of over 80 operational squadrons. The young men of Bomber Command made up only two per cent of Australian forces in World War II. However, they made up 20 per cent of air combat casualties. In fact, Bomber Command had the highest casualty rate in Australia's military history. The tremendous courage of our servicemen in these operations cannot be understated. Indeed, two of the 20 Victoria Crosses awarded to Australians in the Second World War were awarded to servicemen attached to the Bomber Command. One of them, a 26-year-old pilot, officer Ron Middleton, was posthumously awarded the VC for his gallantry in saving the lives of his crew at the expense of his own life. While flying to Italy on 29 November 1942, Middleton's aircraft was struck by a flak over the target. One shell exploded in the cockpit, wounding Middleton in the face and destroying his right eye. Middleton lost consciousness and the aircraft dived to just 800 feet before the second pilot brought it under control. When Middleton regained consciousness he began the long and gruelling fight back over the Alps towards England, knowing that his damaged aircraft had insufficient fuel to complete the journey. The crew discussed the possibility—and you can just imagine what was going through their heads—of abandoning the aircraft or of trying to land in northern France. But Middleton decided to head for England, where his crew would have the chance to bail out. As they approached the French coast, the Stirling was again hit by flak but flew on. Over the English coast, with only five minutes worth of fuel left, Middleton ordered the crew to abandon the aircraft. Five men left the stricken plane and two remained on board to help Middleton before attempting to parachute to safety. Unfortunately, both were drowned. The Stirling then crashed into the sea, killing Middleton. His VC citation reads: His devotion to duty in the face of overwhelming odds— And they were overwhelming— is unsurpassed in the annals of the Royal Air Force. Dr Alan Stephens, an Australian historian and former RAAF pilot has also noted that no single group of Australians from any service did more to help in World War II than the men who fought in Bomber Command. These men, who took off on dark and dangerous missions at high risk of being shot down, sadly, have not been recognised appropriately over the years. It is to be welcomed that their service and their sacrifice was acknowledged through the creation of the Bomber Command Memorial, which was unveiled in 2005 at the Australian War Memorial. It is a stunning memorial. I would like to thank the efforts of the many veterans involved in the creation of that memorial, and I encourage all members to visit it if they have not done so already. It is a very powerful memorial. It has some sort of twisted plane, or attachment to a plane, I think it is—it is just a beautiful memorial. It stands out in one of the sculpture gardens at the War Memorial. It is really stunning and incredibly powerful. Since 2008 the Bomber Command Association in Australia has held a special commemoratives service there on the first Sunday in June. I have attended those services since I have been the elected member for Canberra. It is absolutely vital that this legacy continues to flourish and live on. We owe it to the 3,486 Australians who were killed serving as part of Bomber Command. And we owe it to the fewer than 100 who are still alive today. The story of Bomber Command and the bravery of the airmen serving in it is a tragically-little-known-footnote in our history, especially when compared to the public knowledge of the campaigns in Gallipoli, Kokoda and Tobruk. The harsh and shameful truth is that these Australians have never received recognition in proportion to their sacrifice, which was great and significant. These young men were the best of the best, and many paid the ultimate price. That is why I commend this motion to the House. 12:33 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong It was my privilege to attend the book launch in Epping and it is also my privilege to speak at today's event. It was a pleasure to meet the author, Robert Creelman. His work is most worthwhile and it was certainly a labour of love. It was also a pleasure to meet Sharman's father, Harvey. Dr Stone's father, Harvey Bawden, was a crew member of the Lancaster bomber around which this story is told. A brief excerpt from the story is: The flak shell that brought down Lancaster PB 853 exploded very close to the starboard side of the aircraft. The blast blew the rear hatch inwards, and the hatch was sucked out into the slip stream. Shell fragments caused damage to vital functions; both starboard engines received hits and fuel lines were damaged; the result was fuel onto hot open manifolds; therefore fire. The hydraulic pump located on number three engine starboard side was one of the burning Merlins, so hydraulics were out and the gun turrets could not be moved or could only be moved by hand. Control of the aircraft was becoming increasingly difficult— an understatement, I am sure. This book is an account of happenings that occurred in March 1945, when the Australian crew of the Lancaster bomber were shot down over the Ruhr. After jumping from the stricken aircraft, four of the crew members were murdered by German civilians. Harvey still wears leg braces for his leg injuries from the parachute jump. The story follows the recruitment, training and deployment of the individuals who constituted the crew of Lancaster P-Peter, 150 Squadron, RAF. As was the case with so many in Bomber Command, these young men, barely into their adulthood, volunteered to serve in the RAAF and, after selection, were trained for two years. Those selected represented the very best the country had to offer, and just being selected was an accomplishment in itself. For decades, the details of events that occurred on 24 March 1945 were not known to the families of the victims, a difficulty particularly for those two survivors who returned to Australia to live out full, wholesome lives. They and their families needed closure, despite the fact that they knew that their fellow crew members were interred in the Reichswald Commonwealth war cemetery near Kleve and that there had been trials of the perpetrators in 1946-47. The full story of the events of 24 March 1945 lay in the UK National Archives in the form of trial documents. Within those documents were accounts of the honourable behaviour of German people. The trials were instigated by the act of a young woman who was appalled by the murders and anxious that the families should know the fate of their sons and thus have closure. She wrote a note in halting English which she handed to a sergeant of the first American armoured unit to enter her village. The story is a dark tale in a dark time but one that demonstrates that righteous people are always present in the darkest of times—in this case, the hell that was the collapsing Nazi state. At the launch of the book on 29 May 2015, over 40 descendants of the seven men from P-Peter assembled. They will finally be able to honour the crew—men who can justly claim the title of 'airborne Anzacs'. They are representatives of thousands of young Australians who were selected to fly with Bomber Command out of the UK in a bloody air campaign over Europe. The President of the Bomber Command Association in Australia, Dr Ron Houghton, has kindly written the foreword to the book. This launch was a story also of pride—the pride that a daughter would have in her father and that the father would have in his daughter. 12:38 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand Leo Armstrong was one of many Australian pilots and navigators in Bomber Command whose job it was to fly missions in enemy-controlled Europe during World War II. He passed earlier this year. He was Uncle Leo to me. When I was a kid, the stories of his life thrilled me. I always thought that they were impossibly heroic and exciting. He was a navigator in the Lancaster bomber G for George, the second longest serving Lancaster in the war, flying 89 missions. Remembering his first mission, Uncle Leo wrote, Being my first op I carried a reasonably big tobacco tin to use and save my walk down the back of the aircraft to the toilet. After a couple of hours of flying, and remember again it was our first op, the tin was overflowing. When the rear gunner gave the order to 'dive port' everything on my navigation table was airborne, including the tobacco tin. When we eventually got back to normal flying I found the tin upside down but not a drop spilt! We had an uneventful trip back home after that scare. On its last mission, when the burnt-out engines could not get the plane to the required altitude for the bombing run, G for George instead carried out its mission from 2,000 feet below the other planes, where it was susceptible to attack from both below and above. While this sounds like a death wish, the aura of invincibility of G for George was so strong that the pilots and navigators convinced themselves that, having lasted so long, G for George was destined to survive its last mission. And it did. The plane, piloted almost exclusively by Australians, now sits as a monument in the Australian War Memorial, and you can go and see it for yourself. Uncle Leo was one of more than 10,000 Australians who served with Bomber Command, an elite group of pilots and navigators that responded to Britain's desperate call for help. They carried out their duties despite impossible odds—of over 7,000 Lancaster bombers that were built, almost 4,000 were lost. The human casualty rate was also great. Bomber Command suffered the highest casualty rate in the entire British armed forces throughout the duration of the war, with 55,000 of the 125,000 aircrew dying in combat. Of the 10,000 Australians that joined Bomber Command, almost 3,500 died after being shot from the sky. Each bomber crew was required to fly 30 operations before being eligible to be transferred to less hazardous duties; only 50 per cent ever made it to that milestone. Uncle Leo flew 32 missions. Somehow, they remained jovial and upbeat despite knowing that the next flight could always be their last. During their time in Bomber Command, the Lancaster men would take stock on their nights off and head out to the local bars and saloons. Reports of the events suggested that they enjoyed their time off, drinking liberal amounts and causing the kinds of trouble that young men often do. But, regardless of their actions, the locals always cut them slack, understanding that a night out to release some of the stress and tension that resulted in their duties was more than understandable. They were an incredible bunch of young men who, despite living in a world dominated by death and desperation, retained a jovial, light-hearted nature that Australians, particularly Australians in the defence forces, are renowned for. This kind of humour always separates Australian soldiers from those they fight alongside, and it is a trait synonymous with our national identity. However, we do not celebrate the Lancaster men as we celebrate other diggers, which says a lot about our discomfort about the missions that these men were tasked with carrying out. In his VE Day speech, Winston Churchill actively omitted mention of the contribution made by Bomber Command. When the Lancaster men returned to Australia, they were sometimes referred to as 'Jap dodgers', accused of hiding away in England while Australia needed them back in the Pacific. They have never truly been thanked. Veterans have complained about being officially overlooked, and they and their family members have been calling for a medal to signify their service for decades. The UK government announced the release of a clasp for service men and women who served in Bomber Command in 2013, a less prestigious award than a medal. Many veterans have boycotted it, with barely half of those eligible applying for the clasp, while others have gone so far as to call it 'insulting'. There are less than 100 Australians left who served in Bomber Command. Many, like my uncle, have passed since the days of their service. It is high time that we showed them and their families the respect that they have always deserved. I commend the motion to the House and I thank the member for bringing it to the parliament's attention. Debate adjourned. Steel Industry 137 12:43 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby I move: That this House calls on the Government to: (1) acknowledge that the impending loss of 500 jobs from the steelworks in Port Kembla will hurt the economic security of a region which already has unemployment numbers at two per cent above the national average; (2) recognise that Australia should be a country that continues to make things and that steel making is vital to the future of the Illawarra and other regions including Whyalla in South Australia; (3) properly resource the Anti-Dumping Commission so that it can get on with the job of identifying and prosecuting cases of dumping, including subsidised steel; (4) promise not to repeal or weaken the Australian Jobs Act 2013 so that Australian workers are given a fair chance when job vacancies arise; (5) reinstate the Local Employment Coordinator in the Illawarra so that workers who lose their jobs at the steelworks in Port Kembla and elsewhere can retrain and find alternative employment; (6) locate entrepreneur advisers in the Illawarra to help local businesses in improving their competitiveness and allow retrenched workers and contractors from the steelworks to qualify for higher level job seeker assistance; and (7) support the #IllawarraDigital strategy and facilitate a Digital Enterprise programme so that small to medium businesses and young entrepreneurs can train and seek advice on taking advantage of high speed broadband. Last week it was announced that BlueScope, its employees and the unions had reached a memorandum of understanding for the reform of the Port Kembla steelworks. Regrettably, it means that 500 jobs are set to go from the Port Kembla steelworks, but hope remains for the future of that important factory. Even with these job losses, there will be 4,500 remaining people who daily rely on the steelworks for their livelihood. They can breathe slightly more easily, but much more needs to be done to save the future of steel in Australia. The member for Cunningham and I welcomed the announcement. It was a decision that took real guts. I want to pay tribute to the South Coast Branch Secretary of the Australian Workers' Union, Wayne Phillips, who has done a great job through a tough series of negotiations—probably the toughest in his life—leading the workers to a position which will save the majority of the workers their jobs. These are not easy arrangements to reach. What it shows is that the BlueScope workforce, their union and the Illawarra community are willing and able to work constructively with the company and with governments in the interests of the region and employment more generally. The unions have shown true leadership in negotiating the best deal possible for their members while keeping their eye on the main prize—that is, ensuring that the factory stays open. The ball is now in the court of the New South Wales Baird government and here, federally, the Turnbull government. The situation remains critical; action is needed from the coalition, both here in Canberra as well as in New South Wales. For the last few months they have been focused on their own jobs, but it is now important for us to focus on the future of those 4½ thousand people, and the broader Illawarra community, who rely on the Illawarra steelworks. This includes over 9½ thousand people in the Illawarra who are today already looking for work. That number will jump to 10,000 when the 500 people walk through the gates for the last time. Labor is committed to the steel industry and will work constructively with all levels of government and all parties to ensure that we can keep the industry strong. Only a few weeks ago, the member for Cunningham and I wrote to the Prime Minister, setting out a clear plan. I am delighted to see that the industry minister, Christopher Pyne, has agreed to have a meeting with all the stakeholders. It should be in Wollongong, but I will not cavil with the fact that the meeting is in Sydney. It is important that we get all the players around the table. At the federal level, we have a job to do. We must put in place anti-dumping provisions to ensure that subsidised steel is not being dumped on the Australian market, plunging the jobs and the livelihood of the steelworkers into real risk. The Anti-Dumping Commission needs to be beefed up and properly funded so that it can do the job that it was set it up to do by the Labor government. We also need to ensure that Australians and Australian products are at the front of the queue, particularly when it comes to government procurement. We think much more can be done, and I am looking forward to statements being made by both the federal government and the New South Wales government on this particularly important issue. We know there is a ramp-up in infrastructure spending around the country and we would like to see more Australian steel going into those critical infrastructure projects. I have talked about the 9½ thousand people who are already looking for work in the Illawarra. It is essential that we put in place labour market programs to assist these workers find their way into training and new jobs within the region. It is disappointing that the government has not yet agreed to the re-establishment of the local employment coordinator, a position set up in 20 high-unemployment regions around the nation—including in the Illawarra—during the height of the global financial crisis. They have played a critical role in putting in place a rapid response team for downturns and crises such as the BlueScope lay-offs. They have been very successful, for a minimum injection of Commonwealth funds, and the member for Cunningham and I again call on the government to reinstate this important position, together with other labour market programs that are essential for putting people back to work. We also call on the government to place an entrepreneur program adviser within the Illawarra. We are told there is one in Sydney; it is an hour and a half up the road and nobody knows the local region better than somebody who is working in the region—a position that I am sure the member for Herbert, representing a regional area, would agree with me on. The A-plan means the loss of 500 jobs. The B-plan meant the closure of the production of steel in the Illawarra. It is a tough nut to bite, but it is a welcome decision. (Time expired) 12:48 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249764 Is the motion seconded? 12:48 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 12:48 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert Whilst this motion is principally about the Port Kembla steelworks, it does go to employment, as the member for Throsby indicated, including employment in our resources industries and our value-adding industries. Similar to what was in the member for Throsby's motion, on the weekend we heard of 535 jobs going in the zinc concentrate business at Glencore's mine in Mount Isa. That is due, principally, to the cyclical nature of minerals and the low commodity prices. But as you tell people who leave their towns and lose their jobs, that is pretty much cold comfort. What we in this country must come to realise is that the value-adding industries are, by nature, energy-intensive industries, and until we come to grips with the actual cost of our inputs we will continue to be under pressure here. What we must do is make sure that there are three things that go into making a business successful in value-adding industries: there is your wages component, there is your inputs component and there is your productivity component. We made a decision generations ago that we were going to be a high-wage nation and that we could still be a competitive industry. You can still be a strong industry with higher wages; you can drive innovation because you have that flexibility. We must look at our productivity and how we can drive our productivity into those things to become competitive and to make sure that we are competitive. When a business like Wulguru Steel in my home city of Townsville can have steel girders imported from China and put in the yard next door to them for cheaper than they can manufacture them—and with an articulated frame crane to lift them across the yard—we know we have a problem. So it comes down to input costs and the costs of energy. What we must do is look at the way we are structuring our national energy market and understand that within our markets coal is not bad. We seem to be getting across this thing in this country where everybody seems to be walking away from coal. Eighty-six per cent of our nation's energy is still supplied by coal. We have got to the situation where we are regulating coal mines and making it awfully hard for coal mines to come up. You cannot smelt without coal; you cannot smelt without the energy and the power that coal and burning provides you. What we must do is come to the realisation that coal mining and the jobs and these things here are ultra-critically important to our steel industry, to our aluminium industry and to our cement industry—to all of those industries where we are value adding the cost of energy to bring those things in there. In response to the 535 jobs lost on the weekend, local councils and civic leaders in my region have said, 'The federal governments and state governments must do more about job creation.' And yes, we must. We have the Carmichael mine in the north Galilee ready to go, but it is being held up by ambit claims on environmental grounds. And when we have the construction phase of the mine to come, with the export quality of low-ash, low-sulphur thermal coal to places like India for electricity generation, we can see the jobs that are created all the way from the port, with the stevedores and the waterside workers, out to the roads and all the way back along the rail line, all the way to Abbot Point. So whilst this motion is about the Port Kembla steel works, I understand that it does go to the greater concern that we have in regional communities about where our jobs are going and where our people are going to be employed. That is the critical thing here, because what we are finding is that people like the member for Melbourne will jump up and down and say, 'We can't; we've got to stop these coal mines.' And yet his City of Melbourne is powered by the dirtiest of brown coal of our generation, from the Latrobe Valley. We want to grow our industry and, in places like regional communities like the Illawarra—which is on one of the most beautiful parts of Australia—and in the place where God goes for holiday, being North Queensland, we have to be able to have our chop at providing these jobs. We have to be able to get our heads around providing the social and critical infrastructure to make sure that we help people get the jobs that they go for in the future. It is simply unsustainable for a country like ours just to import steel and steel products and just leave our natural resources in the ground and not exploit them properly and enthusiastically. If we do those things right—if we make sure that our input costs are low and we make sure that our productivity is high—we can have high wages. We can have wages growth and we can have job growth, because that is what we need in the country. I thank the House. 12:53 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham I thank my colleague the member for Throsby for bringing the motion before the House and I acknowledge my other colleague the member for Gilmore, who is here to speak on the motion as well. It has been a particularly tough time for our region, but it is something that we are, sadly, all too familiar with. We have been through a major restructure with BlueScope in the past that had a significant impact on job losses and we face the same dilemma before us again now. Not so long ago, BlueScope management made it clear to our community that in order to sustain steel production in the region they would need to find $200 million in savings—what they called a 'game-changing' plan—to make it a viable option. I have to say we have seen two important outcomes from that that provide support and strength to their decision to continue to produce steel. First is a very strong and clearly demonstrated commitment by the community more broadly to see BlueScope continue its steel production in the Illawarra. There was a rally on 19 September in our region at which hundreds and hundreds of people turned out. For example, our local media outlets, including the Illawarra Mercury, got on board the Save Our Steel campaign. Leadership across community, industry and unions have all made clear statements publicly that they are willing to work with the company to see steel production continue. So we have got that pillar, if you like, in place. This past week, we saw a second critically important part of that story be achieved. That was due to no small effort by the trade union movement in the Illawarra—in particular, as my colleague has said, the local branch of the Australian Workers' Union under the leadership of Wayne Phillips. It is not an easy task to have to talk to your membership about the fact that there are two choices before them: one which would potentially cost the jobs of around 500 of their friends and colleagues and the other that would see the plant shut and 5,000 jobs be lost. It is never, ever an easy thing to have to do. Wayne and his team have worked through that with their members to get an outcome that has been welcomed by BlueScope Steel in providing that opportunity for some fairly difficult decisions—not only job losses but also things like freezes on wages and so forth—to be put in place to give viability to the steelworks. I should also acknowledge the Australian Metalworkers Union and the Electrical Trades Union as well, and also the South Coast Labour Council's Arthur Rorris, who has been working with them. This was, I think, one of the most difficult tasks of any leader of an organisation, and in particular a trade union, because their prime concern is the welfare and wellbeing of their members. So that is never, ever an easy thing to do, and yet they had the meeting and endorsed that outcome. BlueScope put out a statement as a result of that indicating that they welcomed the game-changing approach, and the CEO, Paul O'Malley, said that the agreement was significant and an essential step. So two of those important requirements are in place. I do want to acknowledge that one of the local steelworkers at the meeting, Lance Turner, made a comment in the Illawarra Mercury, and it is true. He said I know a few of my good mates who are going to lose their jobs out of this … Even they had to put their hands up … So people joined together in that meeting in a broader statement of support for each other and their community, knowing full well that some of them will have a very significant outcome from that personally for them and their families. As a result of the issues we are facing, we now, as the member for Throsby said, need both levels of government to come up to their responsibilities on what they can do. My state colleagues have been calling on the Baird government to particularly address the direct concerns that the company has raised with them around tax matters that they can assist with. At the federal level, obviously there is an opportunity through antidumping actions to make sure that we are taking action so that the dumping of cheap steel is not undermining our local industry. There are important opportunities around government procurement in ensuring the maximisation of the participation of locally produced steel in federally or state-funded projects. But also we need to take very urgent action, now that we know around 500 people are going to be losing their jobs, to give them and their families the support to ensure that they have access to the sorts of training support and job-seeking support that they will need in what is a difficult labour market as it is. So I commend all the locals for their work and I call on governments to now do their part in providing solutions on this very difficult issue. 12:59 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore How many of us remember, in sixth class at primary school with teachers and classmates, taking the long-haul bus trip from Sydney to Port Kembla? Quite a number of years ago, this was the highlight trip for students. I recall this experience, with the frightening energy of the blast furnaces and the overwhelming heat as we observed molten metal being poured from enormous buckets into the ingot moulds, and then watching in complete awe as this was rolled and squashed and shaped and formed. There were hundreds of people, all dedicated, busy and watchful, to make sure none of their coworkers or the overexcited children came to any harm. In recent years we have seen major changes to the steel industry, and each time the steelworkers have shown gutsy courage in devising options to retain this iconic industry. During the 1980s the mill was hit by recession, world oversupply and competition. The workforce in 1981 was estimated to have been around 20,000 employees. By 1984 that had dropped by 35 per cent. At that time it was noted that there were structural weaknesses in Australian manufacturing, including small and scattered plants that were cost-inefficient. There were entrenched union and management attitudes, high wage costs and not enough investment in research. By 1990 Port Kembla was producing 3.5 million tonnes and employing only 9,500 people. Wayne Phillips was a warrior for the steelworks back then and, to his credit, he has been an outstanding warrior and advocate in the 2015 discussions with BlueScope Steel. The situation in the eighties and nineties has evolved to the current, more positive, approach, which will assist the potential for our steel industry to stay. In May of 2012 there were indicators in the face of economic change. The steel mill was yet again facing difficult times. There have been initiatives that have changed the aspects of steel production that have become profitable and very sustainable. Colorbond would be one of those iconic steel industry developments, from its early history in the sixties to its present-day market dominance and profitability. Perhaps with Australian ingenuity there is another steel based product just around the research corner, especially with more research. But we know that employment numbers cannot ever fully recover when we read reports of how the work has been carried out in more recent years. Instead of having hundreds of workers on the manufacturing floor there are watchtower control rooms with guiding computers and control equipment. The much reduced staff numbers watch and monitor all the screens, dials and adjustment devices. A big part of the problem for steelmaking actually has nothing to do with the mill or the workers themselves; it is the fluctuating world prices of coal and iron ore, and the strong dollar. The value of the dollar has only recently dropped, but it was close to parity for such a long time that it truly affected the bottom line. Manufacturers of any size, be they small, medium or large, are at the mercy of the dollar, and it can often make or break economic survival. Paul O'Malley, BlueScope Steel's Chief Executive, has worked tirelessly with Wayne Phillips, Arthur Rorris and the entire union membership. Last week the unions made a decision, probably one of the hardest that any union could make. It was a compromise. There will most likely be job losses of around 450 to 500. I have every sympathy for those who will be affected. However, it has meant that negotiations to retain the 4,500 jobs that are still there are still in the mix with the BlueScope board. As an outsider but one who cares what the possible outcomes could be if the mill at Port Kembla closes, I think the result of last week's meeting is commendable. The unions have negotiated wage freezes, loss of bonuses and ultimately some job losses. This is yet to be fully voted upon, but it has enabled the next step to take place. It must have been a terribly difficult decision. There are Labor members in parliament who would say that the federal government needs to alter procurement, but I do not think procurement is the only answer. If it were, it would have been done back in 2012. There is no way we can put in the initiatives of other industries, because they affect a competitor industry, and the quick-fix solution is often not a solution at all. The steelworkers have put their best foot forward. The Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science will have a meeting on 26 October. This is part of the plan to go forward. The solutions for the Illawarra region and the steelworkers will be the positive discussions with all levels of government, the workers and management, developing a strategy to go forward as a true bipartisan plan that will enable our local industry to remain, including the strengthening of antidumping laws, which is of critical importance. Our region needs this compassionate economic compromise approach to help our steelworkers and the mill, which is an icon for us all, and to develop a plan for the next transition in such a significant industrial area. Debate adjourned. Small Business 140 13:04 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise to speak on this motion from the member for Forde, Mr van Manen, which notes in part that 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. Of particular interest is that in 2013-14 Australians started more than 280,000 new small businesses. I have spoken many times in this place about the dynamism of the small business sector in my electorate of Ryan. Ryan is full of creative, smart people who are achieving innovative outcomes. It is therefore no coincidence that we have more than our share of small business success stories. The coalition government understands that businesses—not governments—employ people. Indeed, smart people can lead to smarter commercial outcomes when backed by smart government policy. That is why this year's budget was so warmly welcomed by small businesses in my electorate. They welcomed the tax cut for small businesses and they welcomed the ability to immediately deduct expenditure on items of capital equipment with a value of up to $20,000. They welcomed the array of other cuts to red tape that make it so much easier for small businesses to employ and, importantly, to grow. The coalition government believes in small business because, with a combination of good management and good government policy—and perhaps, sometimes, some good luck—the small businesses of today can become the big businesses of tomorrow. When I travel around my electorate I am frequently inspired by the creative spirit of new small businesses and their owners. In the last sitting week I spoke about Ryan-based start-up, Ethos, a family-owned company that has developed an app to help companies improve their workplace culture. In recent weeks I have visited Ethos to congratulate husband-and-wife team, Andrew and Connor Baillie, for successfully securing a $209,000 grant from the Commonwealth to further commercialise their app. Small businesses come in all shapes and sizes, and so too their customers. There is no truer example of this than Jogs for Dogs, a new Ryan small business catering for the canine segment of the exercise market. Jogs for Dogs provides an exercise service in Brisbane's western suburbs to help dog owners provide their dog with regular physical and mental stimulation and socialisation. For their canine clients, they offer nature walks, dog park play dates or private walks. This is a great initiative that caters to caring, but time-poor, dog lovers who do not have the ability or time to give their dogs the exercise they need. Talking about small businesses growing to be bigger businesses, I want to pay tribute to people like Julia Matusik, who started off with a small stall at the monthly Moggill Markets at Brookfield, where she had delicious temptations for us once a month. Julia has now expanded to a shop at Kenmore, where not only is she open every day of the week with wonderful temptations but she now employs several staff, including chefs, to cater for the business that she has grown and, indeed, expanded into a catering service as well. There are so many new and innovative ideas. I know of a new business that has grown up out of some of our larger furniture shops, where they offer to pick up your order and put it together. Perhaps 20 years ago we would not have thought of a flat-pack service, but now that is a thriving small business. There are many other companies expanding and being innovative in this space. I applaud the many and varied small businesses in my electorate for not only having a good idea but for being courageous enough to take a risk to make their idea a reality. In doing so they add vibrancy to our local community and provide thousands of local jobs. I look at the people from Cafe Tara, who started at The Gap and have now expanded to a second shopfront in Kenmore, where they have opened up a coffee shop for locals in a different suburb. The coalition government is proud to stand side-by-side with small businesses, and has taken clear and decisive action to ensure that they are provided with the right taxation and regulatory environment to give them the best chance of success. Indeed, it is said of small businesses in our country that if only half of them employed one more person then we would not have an employment problem. I commend this motion to the House. 13:09 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I seek leave to speak for a second time on the private member's motion moved by Mr van Manen. Leave granted. Dr CHALMERS 37998 I am really pleased to speaking today on this private member's motion about small business. Colleagues here would be aware of my passion for the 10,746 small businesses in my community and the goods and services and especially the jobs that they create. Last week I was delighted to be the guest speaker at the Calamvale Business Network annual cocktail function, which was held at Calamvale Community College. The group meets quarterly to discuss local issues, to develop relationships and to work out ways to give back to the local community. Their contribution to Calamvale and suburbs around it is a prime example of the important work done by small businesses in my area to really strengthen our community. That is true of the national economy as well. Small business employs 4.5 million Australians and is a serious driver of opportunity, growth and innovation. Eighty-five per cent of innovative firms in Australia are small businesses, underpinning the importance of the sector to developing the ingenuity our economy needs to power it into the future. Government has an important role to get the tax, regulation and support systems for small business right to foster new jobs, new ideas and new prosperity for the Australian economy. It is in this spirit that Labor supported the government's small business package through the House this year. We were pleased to see the government restore Labor's accelerated depreciation scheme, if only for a limited period of time, as compared to Labor's permanent measure. We also support a reduction in the company tax rate for small businesses with a turnover of less than $2 million. But, while the government pats themselves on the back for their work, Labor believes there is more to be done to get our small business policy environment right. We have already outlined some of our key priorities for future small business policy. The Leader of the Opposition said in the budget reply that both sides of parliament should be pushing to reduce the company tax rate for small businesses down to 25 per cent. We have also announced a plan to support more start-ups, especially in science, technology, engineering and maths. Labor will work with the banks and the finance industry to develop Start-Up Finance, a partial guarantee scheme which will improve access to finance for Australian microbusinesses. PriceWaterhouseCoopers has estimated that tech start-ups could add $109 billion to the Australian economy and create 540,000 new jobs by 2033. We believe that government has a role to support start-up formation, and to help start-ups commercialise and grow. These are some of the key small business policies that have been announced already by the Shorten Labor opposition. We will be continuing to develop plans to improve the policy environment for small businesses in Australia. Something that I am personally passionate about is to help small businesses engage with international markets better than they can currently. As it stands, only nine per cent of Australian businesses are currently operating in Asia, and two-thirds of businesses have no intention of engaging with Asia in the near future because of the various obstacles that exist. Those obstacles are magnified when you contemplate the lack of scale that many of our small businesses have in this country. Clearly, we need to do better to encourage Australian businesses to take advantage of the huge market in our region. Another issue relates to the flow of finance to small business. In that vein, I was pleased to spend some time with a company called Prospa in Sydney recently. They are doing a great deal to assist small business with unsecured loans, which helps businesses grow. I appreciate the time that the colleagues at Prospa spent with me a couple of weeks ago in Sydney. A third issue for us to respond to in the future is the incredible drop in apprentices that has occurred over the last two years of this government. Between September 2013 and March this year, Australian apprentice and trainee numbers dropped from around 418,000 to 320,000. That is almost 100,000 apprentices lose in two years. We need to start investing in our workforce of the future before it is too late. That is especially true when it comes to the STEM workforce—science, technology, engineering and maths. It is another priority of this side of the House that has unfortunately been left languishing by that side. These are just a few areas that we will need to work on to strengthen our small business sector into the future. If we are serious about having a country that is powered by enterprise, ambition and aspiration, we need to make sure that we have the ecosystem right and the conditions right for small businesses to prosper. At the end of the day, that is the best chance that we have as a community and as a country to create the sorts of jobs that we will need for the generations that follow us. So there is a lot more that the government can do to support small businesses in my community and right around Australia. We will continue to work with all small businesses—at the peak level, with great organisations like COSBOA, and locally with each individual business to ensure that we help strengthen Australia's major source of employment, ideas and growth. 13:14 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, employing millions of people across the country and producing more than $330 billion for our nation's economy. But they are more important than that. Small businesses are at the heart of our local community, creating spaces and villages that we cluster around and associate ourselves with. Small businesses are our community's soul, and I am immensely proud of the efforts this government has made to support them and help them to grow. My electorate of Bennelong has over 14,500 small businesses spread across it between roughly 20 shopping villages. This accounts for 44 per cent of local employment. To help them out, I have started my own shop local campaign called Bennelong Village Businesses, which promotes them in their local communities and reminds local shoppers of the immense benefits there are to shopping locally. Chain stores and shopping malls may offer size but they fall short on almost every other front. Small businesses, on the other hand, (1) keep the dollars in the local economy; (2) deliver product diversity relevant to their local community; (3) are usually walking distance from your house; (4) support local jobs; (5) increase the value of your home; (6) maintain a local character and identity; (7) promote stronger communities; (8) drive efficiency and innovation for customers; (9) provide a safe and secure local environment; and (10) provide a responsive and accountable face for business. This final point is certainly not as quantifiable as revenue or employment figures, but within it lies the strongest benefit to shopping locally. Unlike big multinational companies, small business has a heart, a face, and remembers your coffee order. No-one visits their 'friendly chain supermarket' but you do know your friendly local butchers, your neighbourhood grocers and your mate, the newsagent—who is still promising me a winning Lotto ticket! Local shopping villages are the heart of our communities. The Bennelong Village Business campaign works by highlighting a shopping village each month and celebrating it in the local media. Additionally, I visit each local shop in the village strip and collect marketing materials which I then distribute to the local area. This gives every shop free advertisements to 2,000 homes in the area, with the aim to increase footfall and have more people recognise the huge benefits there are in shopping locally. Shortly I will be expanding this campaign to get businesses to talk to each other and to work together. The idea is to improve their buying power and use their unique features to fight against the power of the larger stores. If small businesses can add competitive prices to the list of benefits I have already named, they will be unstoppable. Small businesses have already had a huge helping hand from this year's well-received budget, from the $20,000 tax deduction to the 1.5 per cent cut in the company tax rate. These benefits amount to a $5.5 billion small business package, which is already having an enormous effect on hundreds of local businesses across Bennelong. These reforms make a difference to individuals—individuals like Tony Fedele of Fedele's Pizza in East Ryde. In a forthright discussion with me the other day he agreed that, while the economy is doing it tough and there is always more to be done, this government is looking in the right areas and fixing the bits that are broken. The small business measures are a case in point. Tony used the deductible $20,000 to upgrade and streamline his payment system—something he has wanted to do for a while, but was able to do so with the help of this money. While his pizzas remain as delicious as ever—and he tells me they are non-fattening—his business is running smoother and will continue to serve his local community, to the benefit of everyone involved. Small business does not mean small intentions, though. One local company, OmniPos, started from humble beginnings in West Ryde and are now looking to take on the world. They have developed their own product, an innovative new payment and stock management system, grown it with the help of the small business package and are now looking to sell it internationally with the help of the slew of recent free trade agreements negotiated for this very purpose by this government. This is the potential that can be unlocked in our small businesses. The future is very exciting. From little things, big things grow. (Time expired) 13:19 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I begin my comments today on the motion on small business, going to point 2 of the motion which acknowledges the work, it says, 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. We must stop to ask which Prime Minister, which Treasurer and which Minister for Small Business the motion addresses. It obviously celebrates what this government has put in place for small business. Of course, we on this side agree that with 96 per cent of all Australian businesses being small businesses, it does warrant serious support. But, in opposition, those opposite opposed a tax cut for small business. They abolished the asset write-off and wound back the lost carry-back measures introduced by the former Labor government. After the unfair, cruel, 2014 budget, when they realised the polls were headed south, they suddenly found that they could support those measures of an asset write-off scheme—limited in time, not permanent as it would have been under Labor—and introduced a tax cut of 1.5 per cent. I bring the chamber's attention to the 2015 budget reply speech by the Leader of the Opposition, who said: A 1.5 per cent cut for small businesses might be enough to generate a headline but it is not enough to generate the long-term confidence and growth our economy needs. He went on to say: … let's give small businesses the sustainable boost to confidence that they deserve, the confidence to create jobs … That is the future. That is confidence. I would argue and suggest that our new Prime Minister, our new Treasurer and our new Minister for Small Business get serious about these issues. I say this in all seriousness because in Lalor I hear specific things from small business. One of the things I have heard the loudest and the longest is what they are not getting from this government and this Prime Minister—from the new Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, who was the Minister for Communications. The one thing that small businesses want to talk to me about in the electorate of Lalor is a world-class broadband. What they want to talk to me about is that they are very disappointed with this second-rate NBN, and they are more than disappointed about the digital divide that is being created in my electorate, not just from house to house and resident to resident but from business to business. This digital divide is impacting negatively on small business in Lalor. Google recently outlined the impact of reliable internet provision for small business. In an electorate with over 9,000 small businesses, I know that the people of Lalor know how important that is. Small business in Lalor accounts for a third of our economic output, but they are being held back by the poor provision of the internet because in Lalor many addresses are not getting any internet except for very expensive wireless internet. This is a cruncher, a killer, for small business. We know and we have heard from members today about the small margins that small business may be relying on. I did a survey recently and one of the small businesses in Lalor responded to that survey—many responded but this one, I thought, was quite pertinent for today's debate. This person said: I live four kilometres from the Werribee exchange and run a home-based business. The internet speeds are pathetic, making it difficult for me to maintain online backups of my work and send work to clients over the internet. This is limiting small business in Lalor, so I have a message for the new Prime Minister: if you want to assist small business, work with us to enact the five per cent cut to company tax for small business that we suggested, and get serious about a first-class NBN rollout; get serious to ensure that small business is not being crunched by a lack of access to 21st century technology; get serious about making small business the driver of economic activity; get serious about supporting them to create the jobs of the future; get serious about supporting small business in my electorate, so that they can create jobs and employ those people in my electorate who are currently unemployed. (Time expired) Debate adjourned. BILLS 144 BILLS Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 144

Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015

Second Reading 144 13:25 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I rise today to speak on this important and historic cross-party bill, the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, which will remove discrimination from our marriage laws and achieve marriage equality in this country. I am proud to join the six other MPs to cosponsor this very important bill. I say to the honourable member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, who has moved this bill: for years, you have been a champion for equality in this place. You have gone up against the hard-right and oftentimes homophobic wing of your party to fight for what is right. You faced up to the former Prime Minister and you forced his hand to accept that his views were not fit for our modern Australia and that we will achieve marriage equality in this country. For your courage and your work, I thank you, and I know that millions of Australia across this country thank you too. And, to all the cosponsors on this bill: it has been a pleasure to work with you across the political spectrum and to achieve this important reform. But our work is not done. We must redouble our efforts because, on this fundamental issue of equality, Australia is lagging behind the rest of the world. We are now the only developed English-speaking country to not have equal marriage laws. Our laws continue to send the message to people who are same-sex attracted and in same-sex couples that their love is not equal and that they are not equal. Our homophobic marriage laws are part of a system that for years has told young people who are understanding their sexuality and identity: 'If you're not straight, you're not equal. You're different or you're wrong.' They have been part of a system that has allowed the tragedy of young people who are same-sex attracted or gender diverse committing suicide at rates many times greater than their heterosexual peers. But that is not what most people in Australia think and it is not what most people in this parliament think. This bill is a chance to take another important step away from this discrimination and pain of the past, and into creating a world where all people know and feel that they are equal regardless of who they love. It is a chance to say that love is love, that love knows no gender and that love is beautiful and equal. As a country we are faced with the perverse situation now where the leaders of the three largest political parties all support marriage equality, yet this parliament is prevented from making marriage equality a reality. The Greens, as a whole, stand ready to support this bill, but the old parties' political factions stand in the way. The Greens have long stood for the rights of same-sex attracted and gender diverse people and couples. I am proud to have introduced the first ever bill to achieve marriage equality into the House of Representatives in 2012. As a party, Australians know they can trust us to vote for equality—every MP, every vote, every time. But the other parties are forcing delays, and loving couples across the country are having to wait. The deals of the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, with Labor factions mean Labor MPs, unlike virtually any other decision of their party, are not bound to support the bill. Our new Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, says he supports marriage equality, but because of the deals that he made to become Prime Minister he is continuing with Tony Abbott's policy of delay by insisting it be taken to a plebiscite after the next election. But Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's pandering to the conservative rump of his party is not good enough. His shotgun wedding with the right wing of the Liberal party cannot be allowed to stand in the way of equality. Australians are ready for equality. They have been ready for years. And there are loving couples who are now running out of time, who can no longer be forced to wait to celebrate their love and their relationship with their loved ones and to have their love recognised as equal under our laws. The Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, should have the courage of his convictions and allow this bill to proceed. He should stand up to the bigots in his party and let this parliament do what the country wants and vote for equal love. This is a chance for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to prove that he is not just Tony Abbott in a better suit. This is a chance for the Prime Minister to show us that he is better, not just slicker. And in the end it is not what we say; it is what we do that matters. So, I call on Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull: let us go-ahead and vote on and pass this bill, because the numbers are there. Or if they are not there yet they will be there, when every member of every political party knows that they have the right to vote in the way that their constituency wants them to and that the Australian people want them to. Let us use this parliament for what is meant for. Let us take a stand for equality and do something that matters to so many Australians. Let us open up our arms and our hearts for love. 13:30 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison Mr Deputy Speaker, I am mindful that we are a little over time, so I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. Marriage equality is inevitable; it is just a matter of when. I make that point again: it is inevitable; it is just a matter of when. I do wonder why we delay it in the way we do. It is just a matter of time, because it is the right thing to do. It is clearly the right thing to do, to allow any two adults who love each other to have the same rights under the marriage act as any other two adults who love each other. At the moment it is legislated discrimination against same-sex couples, and that is a wrong that must be righted. It is just a matter of time before we will have marriage equality, because it has overwhelming public support. In fact, Crosby Textor, perhaps one of the more credible pollsters, with one of the more credible polls on this issue, found public support in the community for marriage equality at 72 per cent. Almost three-quarters of the Australian population when asked, 'Should we have marriage equality?' said yes. It is just a matter of time as evidenced by the experience in the rest of the world. The member for Melbourne is right. We are the only developed, English-speaking country in the world that now does not have marriage equality. The United Kingdom has it, New Zealand has it, most of Western Europe has it and most of the United States has it. Why, even in Alabama same-sex couples are getting married! I do respect people who oppose marriage equality. They have their case to make and we should respect them. They have every right to hold their view, to express their view and to practice their faith, but I do not agree with them. And I do not agree with them on one very important point they make. They say that marriage equality must not be allowed because it would be wrong for children—it would be harmful for children. But that really key plank of the anti-marriage equality argument completely and utterly misses the point. The fact is that there are same-sex couples bringing up children at the moment very successfully, in wonderful and loving environments. This really brings me to the key point here as far as children go: so long as children are brought up in a loving environment with all their needs met then, really, those are the only things that matter. You can have a mum and dad being good parents. You can have two dads being good parents. You can have two mums being good parents. You can have a single dad being a good parent or a single mum being a good parent. It is so long as it is in a loving environment and that the children's needs are met. Just as a heterosexual couple might not be good parents, two men might not be good fathers, two women might not be good mothers, a single mum or a single dad might not be good parents, it is not about their marriage status. It is whether they have a loving, warm home environment for those children. The opponents of marriage equality would also say, 'It has always been the case that marriage is between a man and a women.' That is not the case; in fact, it was only 11 years ago, during the period of the Howard government, that the Marriage Act was changed to make it explicit that marriage would be between a man and a woman. Before that, it was not explicit in the Marriage Act. In law, in this country, it has simply not always been the case that marriage must be between a man and a woman. Of course, the opponents of marriage equality are concerned that it will be an attack on religion, and that somehow they would lose their religious rights. But of course, churches already choose who they marry; that is not disputed, and it is certainly not disputed by me. It was very important that in this bill there is included a very clear provision to allow the churches to continue to choose who they marry. As we know, the previous Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister are committed to a popular vote on this matter. Frankly, that is better than nothing—and let's hope that it happens sooner rather than later—but isn't it our job in this place to represent our community? When you have an issue where the right course of action is so evidently clear—an issue where there is such overwhelming public support for reform; an issue where this country is so completely and utterly out of step with every other developed English-speaking country in the world—surely it is our job to go down into that big room downstairs and to vote in favour of this bill and to send the bill to the Senate, where hopefully they will vote in favour of it too. That is our job. I think we should do that with this bill this year. Debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 13:35 to 16:00 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 146 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Singh, Mr Bharpur 146 16:00 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I am very privileged today to congratulate a very special constituent of mine from Keilor Downs, Mr Bharpur Singh, who recently celebrated his 100th birthday. I had the honour of meeting Bharpur the other day, when he came into my office just to say hello. Bharpur was born in India in 1915 and married the love of his life, his wife, Gian Kaur, in 1934. Together they have six children, four boys and two girls, all of whom are, I am told, professionals with postgraduate university degrees. Three of the children are citizens and permanent residents of Australia. They have 16 grandchildren and 23 great-grandchildren. Bharpur Singh is multilingual and he can fluently read, write and speak English, Punjabi, Hindi, Urdu and Persian. In July 1985 Bharpur migrated to Australia with his wife, Gian. He was 70 years of age. On his arrival Bharpur wasted no time in dedicating himself to his local community and helping others, irrespective of race, culture or origin. In fact, he has thrived in Australia's multicultural community and is very happy to have made the decision to come here. Mr Singh was also involved in establishing a number of senior citizens clubs and associations, and he served on the foundation committee of the Sikh gurdwara in Craigieburn in my electorate of Calwell. He is very technologically savvy. When I asked him what the secret to life and longevity was, he said to me that he actually has no secret. He simply believes in peace of mind, living, obeying the law and just basically being very happy. Congratulations, Mr Singh. Bennelong Electorate: Korean Moon Festival 146 16:02 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong A few weekends ago my electorate of Bennelong was ablaze with colour and festivities as we celebrated the Korean Moon Festival. Thousands of locals joined our large Korean community and were thrilled with performances, from powerful Korean drums to delicate fan dances. Eastwood Park was filled with dozens of stalls selling delicious delicacies. I was honoured to be shown around the stalls by an expert, Mr Whie Jin Lee, the Consul General of Korea and my friend. In the evening, dragons and drummers entertained shoppers in Rowe Street, together with a children's lantern parade. After this, a large mural celebrating the senior citizens of the many diasporas that call Eastwood home was unveiled. The painting was created by Melbourne-based artist Heesco and was unveiled with its subjects present. The ceremonies ended with more dancing and performances at the Eastwood Hotel. The Korean Moon Festival was a huge success and was meticulously organised. I would like to pass on the Bennelong community's thanks to all the organisers, including Tony Tang, President of Ryde Community Forum; Seung-Guk Paik, President of the Korean Society of Sydney; the Eastwood Hotel; Eastwood's Westpac branch; and the Korean consulate. Bennelong is very fortunate to have such a vibrant Korean community that adds so much to the broader Bennelong region. Healthy multiculturalism in Bennelong is one of our greatest strengths. Robson, Mr Bill and Mrs Flo 147 16:03 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I rise today to talk about an incredibly joyous occasion that occurred recently in my electorate. I recently had the privilege of attending this very exciting occasion at the Fairways assisted living home at Tweed Heads. This great occasion was the 75th wedding anniversary of Bill and Flo Robson. Seventy-five years of marriage is a remarkable achievement. This amazing local couple were joined by many family and friends to mark this really important milestone. It was a wonderful occasion for Bill and Flo and their family and I was indeed honoured to have been invited to celebrate this really significant and unusual achievement. It is wonderful. Bill and Flo have been fortunate to have had such a long and rich life together, and they celebrated with their very large extended family, which included five generations. They have three children, twelve grandchildren, two great-grandchildren and eight great-great-grandchildren. Of course, everyone wanted to ask them what the secret was to such a long and happy marriage, and they said the secret is to always be each other's best friend. That was clearly evident on the day. They truly were best friends. Bill, indeed, is a true gentleman with a very cheeky manner, and Flo is a very kind woman with a really beaming and inviting smile. They are a lovely couple and a wonderful family, and it really was a great occasion to have been there with them to celebrate this remarkable milestone, their 75 years of being married. I would like to congratulate both Bill and Flo for that remarkable achievement. Dobell Electorate: Sport 147 16:05 Mrs McNAMARA 241589 Dobell I rise today to congratulate two outstanding Central Coast sporting clubs from Dobell: in Rugby League The Entrance Tigers, and in Rugby Union the Ourimbah Razorbacks. Both first-grade teams took victory over our southern neighbours during their recent grand finals. In the case of The Entrance Tigers, at the end of the season they had led the competition seven points clear of the other teams. Despite this, the Tigers first grade was put to the test against the opposing team and ended the season with a 22 to14 win. In Rugby Union, the end of season decider was especially significant for the Ourimbah Razorbacks, as the win resulted in their first ever major premiership. They defeated their opponents 27 to 20. Not only was I particularly happy to see two teams from the northern end of the Central Coast take out the grand finals, but there is also a special reason for supporting both of these particular teams. Many within the Central Coast community will recall the deliberately lit fires that completely destroyed the clubhouses of both Ourimbah and The Entrance a couple of months ago. These fires were devastating to our closely knit sporting community, so for these teams to take out their respective grand finals was a truly deserving win for both clubs. It is not just the men who ended the season successfully, and I acknowledge the achievements of the Berkeley Vale Panthers Women's Rugby League team, whose success I plan on sharing with the House in the near future. I would just like to say congratulations to all our sporting teams on the Central Coast, especially those who won their grand final. Thank you. Fraser Electorate: Amaroo School 147 16:06 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser I rise to commend Amaroo School in my electorate, which has installed the ACT's largest rooftop solar system. More than 600 kilowatts of power will be fed into the ACT's electricity grid from the roofs of Amaroo School. Almost 2,000 large solar panels have been installed by solar company Solar Choice, powering the equivalent of about 175 Canberra houses. The 20-year lease will generate $30,000 for Amaroo School and will also inspire young students at Amaroo to recognise the benefits of renewable energy. I pay tribute to ACT Environment Minister Simon Corbell and Education Minister Joy Burch. As Ms Burch notes, this ensures that sustainability is 'lived and breathed' in Canberra's public schools. Amaroo School Principal Julie Cooper has noted that the school not only has a solar array on the roof but also is home to a wind turbine. This action in embracing renewables stands in contrast, unfortunately, to the Abbott-Turnbull government, which has been opposed to wind farms and boasted of cutting Australia's Renewable Energy Target. It is ironic that Saudi Arabia, so historically reliant on oil, has now said it plans to become 'a global power in solar and wind energy'. Let's hope the Abbott-Turnbull government can see the future and embrace renewables as Amaroo School has done. Mallee Electorate: Nhill Airshow 2015 147 16:08 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee I have often bragged about how much food is grown in the Mallee, but people do not think of the electorate of Mallee as the place to come for an air show. But last Saturday the Nhill Aviation Heritage Centre hosted their air show, and we had over 5,000 people turn up; 140-plus planes flew in and I, as a bit of a hack aviator, flew my little lawnmower engine plane in and landed. We had the Roulettes there, we had World War II Mustangs and Boomerangs, we had a DC3 jet plane fly in from Essendon Airport bringing passengers, and we had jets. It was all there to be seen. I just want to say: isn't it so good that one of our rural communities, a town of about 2,000 people, could attract 5,000 people to an event and highlight some of our history and some of those great things? To stand there and watch the amazement on the eyes of country kids, seeing the Roulettes fly in formation overhead, made us very proud. Nhill is well known for its integration of the Karen refugees. They had their displays of things that they were making. There was food being served and it was just a real example of a vibrant rural town holding a great event. Well done to the committee who organised it, and well done to the township of Nhill. You put us on the map once again, not only for your tolerance with the refugees but now for Australia's second greatest air show next to Avalon. It will be on again, so I encourage people to come along if they get that opportunity. Shortland Electorate: Belmont Motor Registry Office 148 16:09 Ms HALL 83N Shortland Last Tuesday I attended a public meeting called by the state member for Swansea, Yasmin Catley, at the Belmont 16Ft Sailing Club. The meeting was called because the New South Wales government bloody-mindedly decided to close the motor registry office in Belmont. Belmont and the eastern side of Lake Macquarie is an area that has got a very old population. It is a motor registry office where people are waiting an hour to be served because of the demand for services through that office, yet the New South Wales government have decided they will close this office. There is no logic to it. People will be asked to go to the office at Warners Bay, which is already operating at capacity. There are six car spaces and no bus service to get there. The New South Wales government has totally disregarded the people of the Swansea state electorate and the Shortland federal electorate. People need to be able to access this service. There are a number of elderly people who have restricted licences who will no longer be able to travel to the motor registry office to renew their licences. This is a bad decision—it is bad policy, it is bad politics and it is bad for the people I represent in this parliament. Mitcham Football Club 148 16:11 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I have some good news today. After 34 years, just a few weeks ago the Mitcham Football Club in division 3 of the Eastern Football League broke the drought and won the grand final—their first flag, as I said, in 34 years. They had an outstanding 16-2 regular season. They went into the finals as favourites and they absolutely delivered, defeating The Basin. They also won in the reserves. I want to pay tribute to the committee; they have really worked hard to rebuild this club and the fruits of their success were seen a few weeks ago. I commend President Matt McCubbin, Dane Wilson, Brian and Michelle Lucas, Julie Searle and the countless others at Mitcham Football Club who work tirelessly to make sure that they are a successful club. I also want to pay tribute to the Junior President, Craig Giles, and a man I have worked very closely with, Gavin Ward. They have worked extraordinarily hard to make sure that the junior club is feeding through those outstanding players that have led to the success that the Mitcham Football Club have seen. I am very proud to have been a sponsor of this club over a number of years and I look forward to continuing that as they move into division 2 next year. With the recruitment that I know is happening in the off-season, I think they could give it a shake in division 2 as well. So congratulations Mitcham Football Club. Scullin Electorate: Emergency Services 148 16:12 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin On Saturday morning I was very privileged to attend the annual blessing of the emergency services fleet near the offices of the City of Whittlesea. This was a fantastic event brought on by the City of Whittlesea to acknowledge the work of volunteers and permanent emergency services workers in the police, in the State Emergency Services and, particularly, in the Country Fire Authority. I was joined there by my colleague and friend, Danielle Green, the state member for Yan Yean, and also a number of councillors including Councillor Sam Alessi, who in 1997 initiated this practice on behalf of the community, and Councillor Mary Lalios. It was particularly important, as we go into what may be a difficult fire season in our part of the world, to acknowledge the work of those who have been contributing to fighting the fires in and around the Lancefield region, many of whom were there on Saturday. It was a privilege to acknowledge the contribution of our multicultural communities and the ecumenical nature of this blessing service, attended by many of no religious faith, such as me, and also those of many Christian denominations, the Ba'ath faith, the Sikhs and also the Muslim community. What we saw was the city of Whittlesea at its very best, acknowledging volunteers who do so much to keep our community safe and coming together in preparation and in harmony, looking to difficult times ahead with confidence that we will get through them. Brisbane electorate: Hummingbird House 149 16:14 Ms GAMBARO 9K6 Brisbane ( On Saturday 10 October I attended the inaugural Hummingbird House Community Day, which also marked World Hospice Day and the Brisbane Open House. Hummingbird House is under construction and will be Queensland's only children's hospice. It is the vision of Gabrielle and Paul Quilliam, constituents of mine in the Brisbane electorate. Having first met Gabrielle and Paul in early 2013, I was inspired by their dedication to making Hummingbird House a reality. I was pleased to lobby for the $5.5 million in Commonwealth funding committed by the current federal government to make this children's respite and hospice service very much a reality. Through their personal journey, Gabrielle and Paul identified the need for support services for parents who have children with life-threatening conditions. The community support and the spirit were unmistakable on Saturday with hundreds of locals attending the community day. Community day provided a fantastic opportunity for those who have been part of the Hummingbird House journey to view the works that are currently being completed and to take a 3D virtual tour of the rooms. Brisbricks even created a Lego model of what the finished house will look like when it is completed in April 2016. Progress is being made on the construction of Hummingbird House every day and the commitment and passion of the local community is evident everywhere to be seen. Congratulations, Gabrielle and Paul and all of the team. 2016 ACT Rescue and Foster Best Friends Calendar 149 16:16 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Saturday week ago, I had the great pleasure of launching the 2016 ACT Rescue and Foster Best Friends Calendar. ACT Rescue and Foster—or ARF—rehomes dogs who have not been in a loving home and would otherwise have been put down. Since ARF began in 2001 it has rehomed more than 2,500 dogs. That is an enormous number of dogs who otherwise sadly would have been euthanised. This is thanks to the wonderful works of ARF's 150 members and 50 carers, many of whom I met at the launch of the calendar which features photos of the dogs that have been rescued over the past year. The best news is that most of the dogs in this year's calendar have found new homes with loving families. Well done to photographers Dallas Burkevics, Andrew Sikorski and Cath Collins; to designer Byron Carr for capturing the personalities of the dogs; and to writer Anya Dowling for the celebrity profiles. ARF is a great Canberra organisation that is not only saving dogs who have been abandoned but also bringing great joy to people's lives who choose to foster a dog. Congratulations, ARF, on your ninth calendar, and thank you for inviting me to be part of your launch. Canberra, please factor in a couple of these calendars into your Christmas stocking planning. They are just $10 each. Lyne Electorate: Education 149 16:17 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I would like to present the attention of the house some great work being done by teaching professionals in my electorate. Recently, I met with local principals and senior staff from a number of schools, including Hastings Secondary College and Port Macquarie Public School. I heard all about their successful programs that they currently have underway. At Port Macquarie Public School, a program called the Little Dolphins has been initiated and is operating very successfully. Principal Brett Thurgate told me that nearly 100 families have already benefited. The Little Dolphins program aims to support children and their families in transitioning to kindergarten by valuing families as their child's first teachers. It also builds links between the home and the school. The program is seeking to promote development of literacy and numeracy skills in a fun and welcoming early learning environment. Down the road at Westport Campus of Hastings Secondary College, significant inroads have also been made in using project based learning, utilising more practical initiatives that value-add to the more traditional teaching methods. I was pleased also to hear about their academy programs in the sporting, creative and STEM space. Hastings Secondary College has also introduced a Zenith program that delivers a solid pathway of support for gifted and talented students as well so that they can reach that goals. I would like to thank you, and congratulate Phil von Schoenberg, Amanda Leach, John Fisher, Brett Thurgate and Ian Gowan for taking the time to brief me of all the wonderful things and their commitment and professionalism to teaching and their students. Bendigo Electorate: Protests 150 16:19 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo The first and that I had the chance to address the parliament about the ugly protests that all would have seen their news on Saturday. Forgive me if I do get a bit emotional, because it has been a hard day for the people of Bendigo in central Victoria. For about 18 months now we, the people who live in our town, have been bombarded by nasty propaganda by outsiders trying to con and convince the people of Bendigo that we are not an inclusive society. A lot of misinformation has been pumped into houses. There has been a lot of fearmongering that has gone on. Two of the incidents that we must condemn here in this place include a mock beheading that occurred out the front of the City of Greater Bendigo that was then filmed and uploaded onto Facebook. It was used by this mob to encourage people to attend the rallies that you saw on the weekend, where Australians saw some people from Bendigo saying ridiculous things on national TV—and they are ridiculous things. If these people really are patriots, then they need to start reading our Constitution and our Citizenship Act and start talking about the truth—instead of these lies and misinformation. Seven hundred people, most of them from outside of town, brought our name into question on the weekend. I ask the people of Bendigo not to believe this nonsense and to condemn it. I ask them to believe in their town and believe in Bendigo. Grey Electorate: Solar Reserve 150 16:20 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey During September I had the privilege of leading a delegation to the US, taking the opportunity visit Solar Reserve's Crescent Dunes facility in Nevada. Undergoing final testing and due to come on line in October, the 110 megawatt concentrated solar and storage facility will provide electricity around the clock by utilising 10,347 heliostats storing heat in a molten mixture of sodium and potassium nitrates and producing 500,000 megawatt hours per annum. Solar Reserve has purchased a site at Port Augusta, a town facing the closure of its coal-fired power plant in March next year, and I was particularly keen to see their technology firsthand. There is no doubt that it works, and the 600 hectare site is certainly impressive to look at. Of particular interest was the level of government/consumer subsidies needed to deliver the project. Fully understanding US Federal and state subsidies is not easy, and the Solar Reserve deal has its own idiosyncrasies; however, the primary government support for these types of projects comes in the form of a federal production tax credit of 30 per cent. This in turn converts to a subsidy of about 2.3c US per kilowatt hour, which is 3.2c Australian. By comparison, the Australian system is more generous, providing support through the renewable energy target, which is likely to be between 5c and 8c per kilowatt hour through to 2030. The Solar Reserve project is also supported by a purchase agreement with the state of Nevada. I look forward to working with the government, the new minister and ARENA in trying to get this project up in Port Augusta. National Carers Week 150 16:22 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi This week is Carers Week, and today I would like to acknowledge Australia's 2.7 million unpaid carers. I would particularly like to draw attention to young carers and the many young people right across Australia caring for family members who are unwell or have a disability. Young carers need support and they need respite, particularly in rural areas where they are often isolated. This is where the Hume Region Villa Maria Catholic Homes Young Carer Mentor Program excels. Villa Maria supports 90 young carers across the Hume region aged between eight and 19 years.    So far, 26 young carers have been matched with mentors and more than 30 more young carers are on the waiting list to be matched. So thank you, Angelina, a young person who is caring for her four-year-old brother, and thank you, Glenys, Angelina's mentor. Together they share time away from the caring role. Thank you to all the staff at Villa Maria, who make this wonderful program happen. Today I call on my colleagues across parliament and particularly the people of Indi to put your hand up to do this simple and very effective mentoring of a young carer. Give them time out and give them support. Mentoring is simple. It has an impact and the long-term benefits are there forever. So please spread the word in Indi. Please put your hand up to be a mentor to our young carers. Macarthur Electorate: Oran Park Smart Work Hub 150 16:23 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur I rise today to speak about Oran Park Smart Work Hub, the New South Wales government pilot program operating in my electorate of Macarthur. Oran Park Smart Work Hub offers residents an alternative work location closer to home, supporting flexible work practices and promoting the sharing of ideas and resources. Last week I was fortunate enough to be given a tour of Oran Park Smart Work Hub by Becky Pascoe, who was a delightful host. Beccy's role as Hub Host is to make members feel comfortable and create a sense of community around the hub. Beccy inducts and facilitates members into the hub as well as looks after business development and marketing. The hub aims to help grow knowledge-based industries, providing space for workers from different organisations to connect with one another. Amy Woodley, from Start Fresh Accounting, has been part of the Oran Park Smart Work Hub since November 2014. For Amy, the hub has provided an office space to grow her business without requiring a commercial lease, which offers her the peace of mind of having a more flexible financial arrangement so that she can concentrate on the things that matter to her business. The Smart Work Hub provide a professional and positive work environment for Amy other like-minded business owners and entrepreneurs to network with one another. Members of the Oran Park Smart Work Hub can avoid the stress of a long commute to work and offers the flexibility to schedule that doctor's appointment, school event or special family occasion that can be disruptive to running a business. Oran Park Smart Work Hub is of incredible benefit to our community. I look forward to seeing new and exciting companies emerge from this fantastic program. Fearnley, Mr Kurt, OAM 151 16:25 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Australia woke this morning to news that wheelchair racing champion and adopted Novocastrian, Kurt Fearnley, had won the Chicago Marathon for a fifth time. After the disappointment of runner-up finishes in 2013 and 2014, Kurt returned to the top of the winners' podium with a thrilling win in a sprint finish, with 11 athletes finishing within 10 seconds of the winner after 42.2 gruelling kilometres on the streets of Chicago. The victory was Kurt's 40th marathon win in his 15-year racing career. It comes on the back of a record 10th win in Sydney Marathon last month. He described the result as 'somewhat routine' on Twitter this morning. He said: Chicago marathon down. Good roll, great win. Busy couple of hrs then flight home for 3 days. Then Doha World Champs & finish at @nycmarathon It may be routine for Kurt but 42 kilometres is not routine for most. Kurt will join his Australian team mates in Doha for the IPC Athletics World Championships, where he will compete over the shorter 1,500-metre and 5,000-metre distances. Not resting there, he will go back across the Pacific to New York for his final race of 2015, the New York Marathon, where he will attempt to defend his 2014 title. On behalf of all Novocastrians and Australians, I congratulate Kurt on his Chicago win and wish him and all of his Australian teammates all the very best for their performances in the world championships. La Trobe Electorate: Bullen Bullen Bush Tucker Tours 151 16:27 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I have the great pleasure of officially opening Bullen Bullen bush tucker tours in La Trobe at Grants Picnic Ground at Kallista. This is one of my election commitments—$150,000. The local primary school at Kallista brought this proposal to me. We worked very closely with the Port Phillip catchment authority and Steve Thuan and Rhys Collins. Very importantly, we had the Wurundjeri tribe elders involved. We had Uncle Bill Nicholson, Uncle Perry Wandin and Uncle Colin Hunter from the three families now behind this project. There is no need to visit Central Australian and go to Uluru to learn about our Australian Indigenous culture. You can go to Grants Picnic Ground, where Aboriginal leaders will take you into the forest and show you precisely what they know and understand about the land and water use, and a deeper understanding of the local environment. We believe these tours will commence early next year. This gets all of the ticks. It looks after and respects our Aboriginal heritage. It is good for our environment. It is good for business. It is good for tourism. It is fantastic for all those living in La Trobe and in Victoria. I say to everyone, get behind this project. It is a really important project. Richmond Electorate: Country Labor Forum 151 16:28 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I rise to very proudly talk about federal Labor's first country Labor forum, a great event. On 26 September, 200 Labor members came together in Casino in New South Wales for our inaugural country Labor forum. This event was a massive success and I thank everyone involved. Regional Labor members came from every state to the far North Coast of New South Wales to show their support for the bush and to discuss those issues that are very relevant to regional and rural Australia. Of course, on many occasions the forum highlighted the failures of the National Party and how they have abandoned people of regional Australia. In particular, participants talked about how the weak and poor representation from the National Party has meant a decline in services and funding cuts to vital regional services right across country. In contrast, Labor is determined to make sure that those who live outside of our capital cities have equal access to a good education, to a good job, and access to affordable health care and other important services. It was also fantastic at the forum to hear really inspirational speeches from the Leader of the Opposition and our national president, the shadow minister for the environment. Our branch members who came along were involved in a variety of panel discussions and workshops; everyone had an opportunity to put their views. The fact is: Labor's commitment to rural and regional Australia is very strong. We will continue to hold the National Party to account for their betrayal of country people. Swan Electorate: South East Regional Centre for Urban Landcare 152 16:30 Mr IRONS HYM Swan On Friday I attended the AGM of the South East Regional Centre for Urban Landcare, also known as SERCUL, in my electorate. It was great to see their chairperson, Pat Hart, and CEO, Julie Robert. I want to send a message to Julie: to wish her all the best in the battle with cancer that she is going through at the moment. It was also great to see Russell Gorton from the Wilson Wetlands Action Group and all the other people who participated. The South East Regional Centre for Urban Landcare also launched Mozzie Wise, an education program for primary schools and the community, with assistance from the City of Canning and the government of Western Australia. As their member, I said that I would raise it in the parliament and make sure that the message got out. I have also passed on information about the program to the Minister for the Environment. Basically, the message is that the community needs to be aware that, particularly along the Swan River, mosquitoes are always active during the warmer months, with their population at its greatest during spring, summer and early autumn, particularly following rainfall or unusually high tides. There are many mosquito-borne diseases in Western Australia: the Ross River virus, Barmah Forest virus, Murray Valley encephalitis and the Kunjin virus. There are no antidotes for any of those viruses, so people do suffer from them. The message is: be mosquito-wise and protect your family and your children. The information is available from SERCUL at their Cannington base. Centenary of Catherine Hill Bay Public School 152 16:31 Ms HALL 83N Shortland Catherine Hill Bay is one of those unique places in Australia. It was an old mining town and it has maintained its character over the years. On Saturday, 26 September, I attended the centenary of the Catherine Hill Bay Public School. I want to thank both Grant and Sandi Bourke, along with their daughter Candice, for opening up the school—which is no longer a school because Catherine Hill Bay is quite a small settlement these days—to the public. It was a celebration of the Catherine Hill Bay Public School. During the celebration, we heard about the history of the school, we visited the classrooms and we learnt that, at one stage, there were 90 students attending the school. It was closed in 1984. There were rumours that, at one time, there were as many as 127 students at the school. I was talking to Deadre Ham, who told me that her husband Bill attended Catherine Hill Bay Public School. She told me tales about how he used to jump over the back fence. His mother would then take him back to school, but he would be back home again before she got home. Catherine Hill Bay is a unique place and the school is a unique part of our history. Hindmarsh Electorate: Active Elders 152 16:33 Mr WILLIAMS 249758 Hindmarsh I would like to acknowledge a local community group in Ascot Park which is doing great things in my electorate of Hindmarsh. The Active Elders Association is a social group for the over-50s which meets every Wednesday and provides support for the elderly to stay active, be sociable and be part of the community. Groups like Active Elders are so important in caring for the aged. I heard a number of stories of how members had become involved because, quite simply, they were lonely at home following the passing of a loved one, or because they just needed to get out of the house. Last Wednesday I was invited to join them for afternoon tea, at which I got to meet the new president, Nora Lyons. Congratulations to Nora on her appointment. I wish her all the best for the coming year. I would also like to acknowledge Jan Hedger, who does a terrific job in her role as treasurer—winning grants, promoting the Active Elders and recruiting new members. Each week, the members do different activities. This week, when I arrived, they were locked in a competitive game of indoor bowls before I joined them in a few games of bingo in the afternoon. As a local community group, the Active Elders are also doing great things to support job seekers. Always looking to give back to the community, they have been a supporter of the government's Work for the Dole program. According to Jan and Nora, current job seekers Trevor Brown and Alicia Walker are doing a great job. Trevor has changed from being a shy person to one who is much more confident, while Alicia is fitting in very well. Jan boasted to me, proudly, how Active Elders have a good track record, having only recently seen Kyran Moore re-enter the workforce after spending some time with the group, and he is doing a great job. Congratulations to Nora, Jan and the members of the Active Elders. Immunisation 153 16:34 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle I recently met with RESULTS International (Australia), on behalf of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. One and a half million children die each year from vaccine-preventable diseases, with one-in-five children worldwide not fully immunised with basic vaccines. Through Gavi's tireless work, nearly half a billion additional children have been vaccinated to date. As a major purchaser, Gavi provides low-cost vaccines and support to countries that have a high burden of disease, reaching children in some of the most remote communities in countries such as Nepal, Solomon Islands and Myanmar. This highly sustainable model, which relies on countries co-investing, has huge potential, with 60 per cent of all births occurring in Gavi-supported countries. Immunisation, one of the most effective health interventions, not only saves millions of lives each year, but it transforms them. It is certainly no secret that better health leads to better education and a stronger economy. It is key to alleviating global poverty and achieving the sustainable development goals. However, despite an increase in investment for new vaccines, there is an urgent need for greater focus on effective delivery methods. Improving the cold chain capacity, to ensure vaccines are delivered and administered at safe temperatures, will avoid waste and ensure more children receive effective lifesaving vaccines. I commend the government for contributing $250 million at the replenishment conference, but ask it to increase bilateral aid investments in improved cold chain distribution. We have the ability and the obligation to ensure that every child, irrespective of geography and financial situation, is protected from preventable death. Mental Health 153 16:36 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore The first week in October is Mental Health Awareness Week. I cannot imagine too many people could say they do not know someone who has a mental health issue or who has never experienced any aspect of mental illness. One of the significant events in Shoalhaven is The Big Crack Up musical variety night. Jon Strang, group leader of the committee for the Shoalhaven Mental Health Fellowship, has been instrumental—no pun intended—along with the musical director, Emil Suljic, in co-ordinating the 16th such event. Many of those performing have, at some stage, had to deal with or continue to deal with mental illness. Other performers, from the goodness of their hearts, perform for free at this event. Local community groups recognise how important music is for both those who are new performers and those in the audience, so they provide sponsorship. They include the Saint Georges Basin Country Club, the Shoalhaven City Council and the Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre management. The staff of the entertainment centre were, in Jon's words, 'Just fantastic!' The performers giving their time and talent included Greg and Emil, Chris Langdon, Maya, Maverick, Virtual Street Corner Band, Edgehogs, Dos Enos, Janine, Tasty Mortals and Jam Tarts, and another group of talented blokes singing original songs, Glen and Warwick, who I know from their day jobs—one is a great manager of parks and gardens and the other a great visual artist. The multi-talent in our community is simply amazing. Of special note were Dos Enos, a group of very skilled young men who stated that they felt honoured to be able to perform in front of such a crowd, and also the Jam Tarts. Well done Deb for all your voice, and the double bass was absolutely soulful. Diabetes 153 16:38 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker—my mind was just on those jam tarts! I rise to congratulate a terrific young Canberran who has won the littleBIGidea national competition and will get the opportunity to travel to NASA in the United States. William Grame is an 11-year-old St Edmund's College student who has come up with a brilliant idea that will benefit many people who have diabetes. William has type 1 diabetes and has to test his blood up to 10 times a day. This amounts to a lot of test strips for which William often gets in trouble for leaving lying around. And so William's idea was born: to help others with diabetes dispose of their blood-testing strips more easily by designing a small, plastic disposal unit using a 3D printer. The disposal unit fits into the testing kits used by diabetics, who can then feed the strips into it throughout the day and dispose of them when it gets full. William's idea took out his age group category in Origin's littleBIGidea competition—which saw more than 850 students submit their ideas—so this is an enormous achievement by young William. I want to congratulate William and wish him all the best for his trip to the United States next year, particularly going to NASA. It will be an absolute high point. You are a bright Canberran, William. We are very proud of you; you have a bright future ahead of you and I look forward to hosting you here at Parliament House for lunch before the end of the school year. Way In Network 154 16:39 Mr VARVARIS 250077 Barton I am very honoured to be associated with the Way In Network and its passionate members: Councillor Annie Tang, the Deputy Mayor of Kogarah City Council, Linda Tang, Florence Chau, Elsa Shum, and the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, to name a few. Recently, I had the great opportunity to attend their 2015 gala dinner to celebrate the association's achievements and recognise the invaluable work they do in the Chinese migrant community, as well as raise much-needed funds for the Hon. Dr Peter Wong's China Vision. The Way In Network began in 1992, as a migrant women's association aimed at supporting and assisting women migrants in New South Wales to integrate into the broader Australian community. The association has helped women from Hong Kong, the People's Republic of China, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand and Taiwan. Over the past 23 years, the Way In Network has empowered countless women to successfully integrate into our wonderful multicultural community. I have watched the association grow over the years and reflect on how fortunate the community is to have an organisation such as the Way In Network to support its members to grow into confident individuals. The Way In Network has contributed to all walks of life through sport, academia, business and politics. There is no doubt that it will continue to play an important role in Australia well into the future. Congratulations to all the ladies for another fantastic year. Bendigo Electorate 154 16:41 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I rise to acknowledge some of the many wonderful things that happened in my electorate of Bendigo over the weekend. Let's start with the Heritage Uncorked event that happened on Friday night. Over 200 people sampled and celebrated the very best of Bendigo wine. What also occurred on the weekend was the absolutely wonderful play that was put on, called Us. Bendigo playwright Margaret Hickey wrote the play, and it was directed by Matt Emond. It starred Sally-Anne Upton. This was a beautiful play consisting of a series of monologues based upon characters and observations from Ms Hickey, which she had picked up when she grew up in Bendigo. There was also a bike-riding competition as well as a netball competition, just some of the many events that occurred in our town over the weekend. There was also the Bendigo farmers market, which sold out of much of its local produce. These are the great things that happened in our town. We got on with doing what we do so well in Bendigo. This is who we are a people. I urge people not to give up on Bendigo and not to judge us on what may have been on their TVs on Saturday night. Our town is a great town. It is an inclusive town; it is a town that celebrates its diversity. It is a great place to come, whether it be for the arts—and the other great announcement that we had was about the Marilyn Monroe exhibition that will be at the Bendigo Art Gallery—to see a play like Us, for the many sporting events that happen in our town or for our great foodie culture. Bendigo is a fun, diverse place, and I encourage everybody to believe in Bendigo. Hindmarsh Electorate: South Australian National Football League 154 16:43 Mr WILLIAMS 249758 Hindmarsh I want to congratulate the West Adelaide Football Club on winning the SANFL premiership this year after a 32-year drought. It was a great performance by the West Adelaide Football Club, and I was pleased to be there on the day and celebrating with a friend of mine in the outer. I want to put on record my congratulations to the West Adelaide Football Club as a whole; their chief executive, John Kantilaftas; their president, Richard Sykes; their coach, Mark Mickan; their captain, Chris Schmidt; and all the players that worked so hard to achieve a great result. I went out and watched West Adelaide during the season and always get to Richmond Oval a couple of times a year. It was great to see them getting a deserved result after coming close about a decade ago. I also want to congratulate the Woodville West-Torrens Football Club, another fine football club in my electorate, for reaching the grand final and having a very good season. Although West Adelaide came from ninth and obviously won the grand final, Woodville West-Torrens did very well as well. They had a very dominant year across the board and their reserves won the premiership, I think, and they had a great season overall. Good luck to them next year and well done on reaching the final. They were not the best team on the day—that is what the grand finals are all about—but I am sure they will be back next year and will continue the good work that the club does. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249127 I am indebted to the member for Hindmarsh. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 155 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Bendigo Electorate: Multiculturalism 155 16:44 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I rise with some sadness, but at the same time this is an opportunity to put on the record, on behalf of my electorate and many people that live in the City of Greater Bendigo, a few things that have happened recently. It is a grievance for many people, and I believe that this parliament and all of us as parliamentarians have a role to play in this particular space. For the second time in two months our town has been making national and international news for some very ugly and violent protests. It is heartbreaking for so many of us to see our town and our community become the latest stage and battleground for the far right and far left in this country—and that is all you can describe them as. The far right have been bombarding people in our electorate with a lot of misinformation for quite some time. They oppose the building of any mosque anywhere. The Bendigo Muslim community quite some time ago submitted a planning application, like any other community group or organisation, requesting to build a place to worship and a community space. They are a small part of our community, yes: there are about 300 of them. They are predominantly professionals—our doctors, our engineers and our dentists, people who have moved to Bendigo to ensure that so many of us have access to quality, affordable health care. They are the reason why our bulk-billing rates have gone up. They are also our engineers and our academics—people who our community can be proud of and who have played an active role in ensuring that we were able to secure a Defence manufacturing contract, the Hawkei contract. But they do not want me to stand here and say it is because they are Muslim. It is because they are Australian. They are proud Australians that are proud of their community and seek to do what any other group of faith do, because that is our right here in Australia as Australian citizens. We have freedom of religion, we respect others' cultural diversity, we embrace it and we share it. So it is quite heartbreaking to many of us to see what has happened in our town. But I wanted to use this grievance debate to put on the record some of the great things that are going on in my community. I wear yellow today—I have replaced my traditional red with yellow—to support the Believe in Bendigo campaign. On the grand final public holiday, our city was awash in yellow. Over 2,000 people—families—came together to share and celebrate the many cultures that make up our town, and we all wore yellow. We enjoyed music in the park and we shared food. This is Bendigo. The Bendigo believe campaign has become a vehicle in which people like me—people who are part of our business community, our health services, our mums and dads in our schools, and our community groups like our scout groups and our girl guide groups—can come together under one banner: Believe in Bendigo. The goal of this group is simple: it is to demonstrate to the world and to ourselves that we are stronger than those who try to divide us, that we are inclusive, we are multicultural and we are a fun and peaceful people. This group, Believe in Bendigo, will continue. It will continue to campaign. It will continue to ensure that those in our community who may not quite be sure about what is going on have the correct information. I would like to acknowledge at this point the bravery of many of the City of Greater Bendigo councillors who, like many other leaders in our community, have been bombarded by a lot of hate speech, intimidation and threats of violence which must be condemned and not tolerated. They have stood up to the bombardment of this negativity, this awful, nasty attack. They have stared it down and said 'No, we respect people's right to worship.' They have continued to support the planning application, and that is purely and simply all this is: a planning application that came before the City of Greater Bendigo, that they reviewed through the proper processes, that was supported at the council meeting and that was then appealed to VCAT—and VCAT upheld the council planning position. It is not right, in this country, to reject a planning application on the basis of religion. That is something that some groups want to preach could be done and should be done. It is not right, in this country, that planning applications are rejected on the basis of religion. That is racist. That is a breach of our Constitution, a breach of our Citizenship Act and a breach of so many other acts, both federal and state. The council also needs to be acknowledged for standing up to some very threatening behaviour by some of those involved in this anti-Islam campaign. The worst of those were a couple of people, who were not from Bendigo, who came into our town and did a mock beheading out the front of the City of Greater Bendigo. They used this to try and whip up fear in our community via Facebook. Those actions must be condemned in the loudest possible terms. What we did see on the weekend was about 700 protesters—400 from the far right gathering in Rosslyn Park and about 300 from the far left—and about 400 police who worked really hard to ensure that things did not get a lot worse than they were. The police also need to be acknowledged for how well they kept the peace. Anybody who has seen these rallies, particularly those of the far right, would agree that they are intimidating, aggressive and do not represent who we are as a country. They fly in the face of everything that Australians hold dear. Those people are not patriots. If they were patriots then they would be defenders of our constitution and they would be defenders of our Citizenship Act and the responsibilities that come with Australian citizenship: the right to express your cultural heritage and belief coupled with the responsibility to accept the rights of others to express their heritage and cultural beliefs. These are our citizenship values, which so many of us in this place hold dear and believe in. And this is what I call on people—whether they be from Bendigo or from outside Bendigo—to respect. We in this place do not simply tolerate diversity; we welcome it. We thrive on it. It enriches who were are and it strengthens our community. I echo the words of my colleague and good friend, the member for Watson, from earlier today in the House: We do not need more racist hate speech— We do not need those words; I agree with him. … I urge those members of this place and the other place who still wish to weaken the Racial Discrimination Act at 18C to realise that the last thing this nation needs is a rise in racist hate speech. We are a nation where the world has come to live, and we are better for it. I agree with the member for Watson's words. As an MP who has been confronted by this since shortly after I was elected, I urge all of those in this place to stand together on this issue. We cannot allow the misguidance, the aggression, the intolerance and the hate speech of a few to divide our community. We have a lot of work to do in Bendigo and we all acknowledge that. The Believe in Bendigo campaign is not just a campaign to celebrate what makes us great and what makes us strong as a community. They are also embarking on an education campaign, teaching and sharing cultural and religious beliefs and values and making sure people understand the truth about Islam. I would like to acknowledge the Bendigo Muslim community for not just their patience but their willingness to share their story, so that many of us can dispel a number of the myths that have occurred and are still occurring. To the people on Facebook who may have a few words to say about this speech today, I would like to remind you of what your obligations are as Australian citizens. It is a privilege to be an Australian citizen. We must respect one another and respect who we are. Question what you are being told. Do not believe the outside propaganda that you are being bombarded with. You are better than that. Believe in Bendigo, believe in yourselves, and if you have questions, ask. Mallee Electorate: Agriculture 156 (Mallee) (16:54): Mr BROAD 30379 Australia has always been a land of droughts and flooding rains. But I wish to update the house—I guess it is a grievance—of the difficult season that we have encountered across the Wimmera and the Mallee and particularly the disappointing finish that we appear to be getting. 2015 has been a difficult year. Rainfall has very tight. But last Tuesday 6 October, with temperatures upwards of 39 degrees and hot northerly winds, has taken a lot of the edge off the crops. Credit needs to go to our farming communities that have done very well to put their crops in and to get the potential that they have, given the amount of moisture that has been around. No-till farming systems have been something that has really revolutionised our cropping ways. Summer spraying and trying to maintain moisture in the soil profiles and varieties is testimony to years and years of research and development and the benefits that has led to. There are times when even the best farmers, with the best science and the best technology, still cannot overcome the seasons when it does not rain. Livestock has been in the mix that has provided some opportunities. I think of the value of opening up trade. In 1990, as a 16-year-old, I had to shoot sheep for my father when we could not get 23c for some wethers. In those days, we were exporting sheepmeat to 12 countries. Now we export to 96 countries. The other day I sold some crossbred ewes with no teeth—they were a bit fat—for $110. Because we have opened up market opportunities, it has meant that those who have had some livestock amongst the tough season have still been able to realise some reasonable income and some reasonable prices. Water has been very tight. That is something that has been very evident even to the communities that the member for Bendigo would represent, where run-off water has been very tight. We have seen across the Wimmera and the Mallee the great benefits of the Wimmera Mallee Pipeline system. It is pleasing to see the Victorian water minister, Lisa Neville, commit $1 million to a scoping study to put in a pipeline for the townships of Wedderburn, which are not in my electorate, and for those farming communities through there, where they might be able to access pipeline water. I look forward to seeing the results of that scoping study. Once I see that, there will be strong merit for the federal government to add some support to that. Just to update the House, though, the soil types have played a big part. If you look across the electorate of Mallee, soil types to the north of Hopetoun are lighter soil types. Where you go south of Hopetoun, the soil types are heavier. The great, interesting part—for those who are not agriculturally aware—is that lighter soils and lighter rainfall can still produce yields. Heavier soils require more rainfall. Where the soil type has changed, the wheat yields have been next to nothing or very low, and it looks like barley may have finished in the soils north of Hopetoun. South of Hopetoun there have been a lot of crops that have been cut for hay and have been laid down. This is another thing that has the quirk of export opportunities: at least the hay market has stood up very well on the back of export hay. We are seeing, particularly in the electorate of the member for Bendigo, as she will be aware, the export oat and hay businesses that are out there at Epsom, where they are taking export oat and hay, compressing it and putting it into shipping containers. That is going into the feedlot dairy industry, both in China and the feedlot Wagyu beef industry in Japan. In some regards, you lose one commodity, but because of trade opportunities you create others and create processing businesses in our country towns and our inland cities. But at least that is providing some floor in the price of the hay market right across those areas. The areas that have missed out and really will not have much opportunity to cut hay and are now on the back of two-year droughts are Birchip, Watchem, Wycheproof, Charlton, Wedderburn and Culgoa—in that area. It is going to impact those communities quite significantly. It was pleasing to see that Jaala Pulford, the state Minister for Agriculture, has been out there and had a look. I talked to her this morning, and I hope that, as we are working with communities that are drought affected, there is a level of bipartisanship between the Victorian Labor government and the federal coalition government. It appears that there is. The communities there will have to be mindful that it is not just the farmers who are affected; it is also the small businesses. In those country towns, those small businesses also sell the papers, the milk and the local seed graders. So we will have to be mindful, as we look at a package to support them, that it is the broader reaches that are impacted by the seasons. Cash flow constraints are going to start to be felt in mid-January and February in 2016. These are grain growers, and they are not used to getting a cheque every fortnight, like you and I might be. They get a cheque once a year, and they are coming up to that cheque. Of course, the year is going to come around where they have deferred bills through to January and February 2016 and the income is not going to be there. The federal government has farm household assistance packages available. In my opinion, they have been rather difficult to apply for, and it has been a program that, I think, has not been administered as well as it could have been. It will be very important that rural financial counsellors are there to assist people with the paperwork. What I want to say to our rural communities is: do not self-assess; we want to stand by you. We know that you are going to be a profitable business. We know that you have exercised the best science and the best risk management strategies and used the best varieties but sometimes the season has not gone in your favour, but do not self-assess. The rural financial counsellors will be there to assist you. I will be talking to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Barnaby Joyce, and asking for some additional rural financial counsellors for those particular areas. When we think about drought reform and drought affected farmers, I think that low interest loans have been very worthwhile. Essentially, what the government does is borrow the money at government bond rates and pass that borrowing on to those agricultural producers. This does two things. It does not cost the Treasury anything as a booked account, but it puts competitive tension with the farmers' existing lenders to ensure that banks are mindful of the difficult season when offering packages. I will also seek to have meetings with banks and lenders and ask them to have conversations with their businesses and customers around the cash flow constraints that will come in, particularly as farmers go to put the crop in in 2016. I will also be having some discussions around the role of drought insurance—something that has been taken up across the world and on which Australia has probably been dragging its feet. I was in Washington over July this year, and seasonal insurance—they call it ranchers and croppers insurance in the United States—has become an integral part of the risk management strategies of their farming systems. It is something that we have flagged in the agricultural white paper, but it is certainly something that will continue to need to be rolled out and looked at. The other thing that I would appeal to the state government on is about that in the very difficult years that we farmed through in the millennium droughts they offered a 50 per cent shire rates rebate, or assistance. If you were receiving household support, you were able to then present that and the state government covered half the costs of your rates. It is only a small area in the state of Victoria, but I would appeal to the state Andrews government to certainly give that due consideration. Barnaby Joyce, the agriculture minister, has committed to come in and have a talk to those farmers. I want to say to the farmers something that was said to me when I was a young man and I first bought my first farm at 22. They said, 'You can be the hardest worker, use the best science and use the best varieties, but occasionally the wind blows against your face and things don't go your way.' What I want to say is that in those circumstances it is not your fault. Talk to your neighbours and talk to us. We are there to stand by you through what is a difficult time. Profitability, of course, will come back. It does rain. It always rains again at the end of a dry time. We believe in what you are doing. We believe in your contribution to the nation, and we will stand by you through this difficult season. Multiculturalism 158 17:04 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton It is a frightening thing to feel different to everybody else. We have all experienced it at some time in our lives, even if it is just a fleeting moment. My parents separated when I was in grade 1, and at the time it felt like we were the only family in our small town where we had separated parents. People in class can feel they do not know what the answer is to a teacher's question, or you might be the only teenager whose parents insist you must be home by 10 pm or midnight, or the only one who turns up at a fancy dress party—or what you thought was a fancy dress party—wearing fancy dress. Being that odd one out can be brief or it can be a lasting feeling. We all know what it feels like, so imagine if you felt a highly magnified version of that feeling every day—if you felt like your nation treated you like you did not belong. That is how some sections of our community feel every day, including some people in my electorate of Moreton, particularly the Muslim community. So we as Australians need to think more carefully about our actions towards others and the effects our actions might have. There have been some very troubling events in South-East Queensland in recent weeks. A man verbally abused a 35-year-old Muslim woman at a shopping centre just down the road from my electorate. Within a few days of that attack, some anti-Islamic graffiti appeared on rubbish bins in Sunnybank right outside my electorate office. The hateful message was stencilled in black paint on rubbish bins by cowards in the middle of the night. I would ask people to stop and think how that 35-year-old woman would feel after being attacked just because of her faith and how the Sunnybank residents who are of the Islamic faith would feel walking past that graffiti. I do commend the Brisbane City Council for getting rid of that graffiti quickly. Most of us obviously would never dream of acting in such a way towards any person, but, as the then Chief of Army, Lieutenant General David Morrison, said in one of his most famous speeches, 'The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.' All sensible Australians would be disgusted by acts like those that I just mentioned. We should be disgusted and we should voice our disgust, which is why I am standing here today. We should not accept such behaviour or any behaviour that targets any group in our community, particularly targeting them because of their faith. Sadly, we will see in the Senate this week a bill introduced by Senator Bob Day from Family First that will weaken section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. This bill is cosponsored by two Liberal senators, Cory Bernardi and Dean Smith. Another Liberal Senator, the Prime Minister's assistant minister, Queensland LNP Senator James McGrath, is on the record as saying he will cross the floor to support this proposed amendment. This is when the Prime Minister needs to decide what standard his government will accept and what standard he will merely walk past. Will he allow intolerance to be encouraged by watering down section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act; a piece of legislation that has served Australia—our multicultural community—so well for decades? Does the Prime Minister want to promote disharmony in our community? The Prime Minister needs to lead by example and ensure that no Liberal senators supports this divisive bill. He needs to speak up. This nation definitely does not need a rise in racist hate speech. What we are seeing in Australia in recent times, sadly, is an escalation of discrimination that is primarily on the basis of a person's religion. Discrimination based on a person's religion is not new. It has been going on for certainly thousands of years, and even when I grew up there was always a bit of rivalry between the Catholic primary school I attended and some other kids; I know many people will have experienced that particularly in sporting competitions. But this is an entirely different sort of singling out. It is hateful. Our Commonwealth laws do not protect us from discrimination that is based on the grounds of religion. In Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia, discrimination on the basis of religious belief or activity is prohibited, at least to some extent. That prohibition is contained in state laws. The man who verbally abused the 35-year-old woman in the shopping centre just down the road from my electorate of Moreton has been charged with public nuisance and wilful exposure. The Queensland police are also investigating whether he has committed an offence under the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act. Signs and symbols are important, and it is particularly important that the LNP government send a strong message to those that want to incite division, because this type of behaviour is unacceptable. They are breaking the law, particularly in those states that have laws banning religious discrimination, and if they are caught I believe they should be prosecuted. No-one should be discriminated against because of their religion, be they Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or whatever. I attended a meeting of my community leaders on the south side of Brisbane last Tuesday night. It was a meeting called urgently by the Queensland Police Service commissioner, Commissioner Ian Stewart, after the tragic incident at Parramatta. I would particularly like to pass on my condolences to the family, friends and work colleagues of Curtis Cheng, the poor gentleman who was going about his business serving his community. The meeting that was called by Commissioner Stewart was held at the Islamic College of Brisbane in Karawatha. The MC was Sultan Deen. There was a great turn-up of people from all around South-East Queensland, from the Islamic community but also the Queensland Police Service and the Anti-Discrimination Commission. The Australian Federal Police had a strong presence there as well. There were young people and older people, men and women. It was a great turn-up where they shared their concerns and also ideas about how we can make our community more harmonious. Commissioner Stewart called the meeting to assure the community members of his and the Queensland Police Service's commitment to providing a safe and inclusive Queensland. That is the sort of leadership that we like to see and that Australia needs. That is how communities are united and how an inclusive modern society is strengthened. It is up to all of us to do our part to promote inclusiveness in our everyday lives. It is the small gestures that can make all the difference—focusing on what connects us, not what divides us and not our differences. That is how an inclusive multicultural society should be: we are united by what we have in common and we forget about our differences. Obviously, in a place like Australia sport is a great way to connect people that have differences. On Brisbane's south side I have a very multicultural community. I am proud to say that the member for Rankin, Jim Chalmers, and I will be holding our second annual cricket match between the Moreton Muslim community and the Rankin Muslim community. I will go on the record and say that last year the Rankin community won, but we are looking for some revenge when we play on 1 November at St Laurence's playing fields at Runcorn. I thank St Laurence's, a Catholic school, which will be hosting this match between these two communities. This will be, as I said, the second match, and I thank Ali Kadri from the Holland Park mosque, who has helped to organise the team for Moreton. I will let the member for Rankin talk about the team that is being organised for Rankin, but in my electorate I have various Muslim communities: the Bosnian community, the Somali community and the Sudanese community—not particularly well known for their cricket-playing ability, I would stress. So it is a bit hard to try and find a representative cricket player from each of these mosques, but thankfully some of the other mosques have been able to step up and find players. Obviously communities from countries like Pakistan and some of the South African Muslim communities have been able to provide cricketers, but I am looking forward to finding someone from the Bosnian, Somali and Sudanese communities who can be a part of the representative side. This event kicked off last year, and Queensland Cricket supported it and supplied kit and equipment and umpires as well. It was played in great spirits. I do thank St Laurence's for letting us move on to some better facilities, but we particularly wanted to play last year at the Runcorn State High School because of its connection with some of the young men who have been led astray by the deception that is being perpetrated by Daesh and we wanted to make a symbolic statement that the Islamic community was a strong presence on the south side. When we have those people who turn up trying to say they are not racist but who are particularly targeting one group, the Muslim community, I say to them that they need to listen carefully to the second verse of our national anthem, which talks about welcoming those who have come across the seas. We need to welcome those, making sure that we recognise the differences and not listening to those people who want to focus on the things that divide us. Obviously, I am always wary of people that go out in organised rallies that are particular targeting a group of people. (Time expired) Forrest Electorate: Tuia Lodge 159 17:15 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest On Saturday I was privileged to open the new wing, which is the expansion of Tuia Lodge, a community-managed aged-care facility in Donnybrook in my electorate of Forrest. The Commonwealth government invested $2.76 million in this project, and the local community and the Tuia Lodge Committee have added $1.4 million to make this project a success. It is a great partnership between the committee, the community and the Commonwealth, and I congratulate all those who were a part such a wonderful project. In particular, I want to mention Mr Lui Tuia and the Donnybrook Aged Care Committee, who have been absolutely resolute and steadfast in their support, and magnificent in their actions to make this project happen. The Donnybrook Community, led by Lui and the committee, have been fundraising for the Lodge for decades. There are two critical times in our life when we need support from the community, from family and from the government—that is, in childhood, as we grow and are educated, and when we are aged and needing care. Hubert Humphrey was a Vice President of the United States in the sixties, and he said in his final speech, words that were taken from others who went before him, like Ghandi: The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped. Those words are equally valid today, and no more so than in a small regional centre like Donnybrook. Country towns should not have to see their elderly go off to a major regional centre for care—it is not good for the resident, it is not good for the families and it is certainly not good for the community. We need to encourage families to maintain their bonds with their elderly relatives, and not simply see them go off to another major regional area, and potentially limit the amount of time that they can be in touch with their relatives. It makes it very difficult for the family. As we know, our senior citizens are an absolute asset and we must be sure that they can be reached by us all. Keeping families close enough to be in contact is critical to the welfare of not only the elderly citizen but also all of the family members. The other issue is that people must remember that when we go into an aged-care facility, we are actually swapping one home for another. When we go into a facility, this becomes our home. That is why having the community around to assist and care for us in that environment is so important, because most of us want to spend whatever days that we have left in the company of those that know us best—who we have perhaps grown up with, who we have lived with all our lives, and even community members who have known us throughout our lives and who are there as volunteers, as they are in this community of Donnybrook. Tuia Lodge has so many volunteers who fundraise. Donnybrook is a shining example. The local community recognise the growing need for aged-care services and they took personal and community responsibility to provide that within their community for their people. With such passionate and wise leadership of Lui Tuia and the commitment of the Donnybrook community, they have worked tirelessly to build their capacity to support aged care within their community. Tuia Lodge was born out of this environment. It has not been easy. It has taken an awfully long time and it has grown over the years, but this is a community that has looked after itself and its vulnerable members. It has not simply waited for somebody else or a government, for instance, to do the hard work—they have done it themselves. That is why this is such a special facility. I congratulate Lui and his committee, and the entire community of Donnybrook who have contributed in so many different ways—whether it was buying a raffle ticket or helping out on a cake stall—this has been an outstanding outcome, and this latest expansion is just part of that. Some contributed by buying a brick in the previous expansion, and I recognised so many names there. Every dollar counts in aged care in small communities. Of course, across Australia we have seen community managed aged-care facilities often whither, mainly because often those communities have become completely reliant on government to provide those services, and as a result most regional aged-care centres are now owned or managed by large corporations. But it does not have to be that way. Donnybrook is the beacon. This small community, this small caring community shows how such communities can manage if they are really dedicated. What also matters to the people who live in that community are the people who look after them. I wanted to mention Keryn, the manager at Tuia Lodge. She provides so many personal touches and cares about each of those residents as if they were her own. Those of us who have loved ones in aged care want to know that those we love are being loved, and that is exactly what Keryn and her team do for the residents in Tuia Lodge. It is the most beautiful place, and it is special because of the love and care that is provided by Keryn and her staff and all of that army of volunteers who help out. There are many different forms of aged care, and we also see right throughout the broader Donnybrook community a range of people who come in as volunteers to Tuia Lodge in so many ways. On the weekend there were so many people there for the opening, and so many people who not only had residents into Tuia Lodge, but those who for many years had worked as part of the original fundraising and management committees and those who felt a real connection or who had loved ones within Tuia Lodge. The new wing is a beautiful area that has ensuites. They have a long waiting list and their services are in great demand. But it is not just the building that is in demand; it is the level of care that is provided. That is what Tuia Lodge offers. It is really a credit to Lui Tuia and to his team. I really want to focus on the efforts of Lui and his wife Helen. There was great tribute paid to Lui at the opening of this particular part, and people actually gave him a standing ovation which touched him and his wife very much. It is very fitting because Lui has put his heart and soul into Tui Lodge and done an extraordinary job over many years. Yes, he has had a whole raft of community members and various committee members and those who fundraise tirelessly, but one of the best things about this particular centre is that it is for the community and by the community. I think living in small rural and regional towns, often when you get to later in life it is very difficult to find the care that you need. To be able to live in a really small community like Donnybrook and yet have access to such great quality aged care is a real tribute to the community itself. Again, it is being brought about by extraordinary leadership and there are very few people in Australia who would know more about aged care and the aged-care system and the challenges facing aged care than Lui Tuia. He is at the lodge almost on a daily basis. Whatever needs doing, he will be there to do it, along with his family and, as I said, a whole raft of amazing volunteers of all age groups. They were there on Saturday, providing a wonderful afternoon tea for all of the visitors. They are constantly available for any help that Tuia Lodge needs. I really want to commend the whole community of Donnybrook—all of the volunteers and everyone who has done anything to support Tuia Lodge and who will continue to do so. I encourage each and every one of them to continue their efforts to make sure that what is offered at Tuia Lodge now continues to be offered into the longer term, for all of the residents and for the benefit of the whole community. 17:25 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon I have spoken in this place many times about the China free trade agreement. I have outlined, in some detail, the benefits that will come to my electorate and to Australia at large. To our exporters, lower tariffs will mean that more Australian businesses will have access to lucrative and ever- growing Chinese markets. For the Northern Territory this will mean beef, seafood, fresh fruit and vegetable producers and our mining and energy producers will see the barriers come down in front of them. It means our service providers, in time, will be able to compete on a level playing field in one of the world's largest single markets. Consumers and businesses will understand, by now, that lower tariffs on imports mean that the manufactured goods we buy from China will be cheaper. And, very importantly, workers should understand, by now, that the visa system that we have in place to manage the Australian labour market will remain unchanged. Even if the unions are screaming otherwise, the 457 visa system will not be changed. People who have been following the debate will know that any worker coming to Australia from China—or, in fact, any other country that we have a free trade agreement with, be it Korea, Japan, the United States or Chile—will not be displacing an Australian worker. Any worker coming in from overseas will have to demonstrate their skills and competencies. The free-trade agreements may change the method of the test, but not the principle. Despite the fact that all this information is in the public domain and despite the 18th century rhetoric of 'floods of Chinese workers' that the CFMEU and the MUA have been spruiking, people now understand that is simply not the case. The public is waking up to these union lies. This debate has been run, and there is a general understanding that the sort of agreement we are entering into with China is already in place with dozens of other countries. In fact, some of them are nearly identical agreements which were introduced by Labor governments. Chile, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand and the United States—we have free trade agreements in place with all of these nations. Some of these agreements went through while Labor was in government, but all of them went through this parliament with general bipartisan support. Despite all this, the disgusting scare campaign funded and administered by the trade union movement continues. And, in what I am sure they will tell you is a coincidence, it continues in marginal seats which Labor hope to win at the next federal election. I see my colleague, the member for Robertson, in here. She also has been a victim of some of this scare campaigning by the unions. This campaign has sunk to a new low. Last week, Australian unions began circulating a pamphlet through union channels in Darwin and Palmerston. It appeared on the Facebook pages of union staffers and a Labor-aligned local government aldermen or councillor. When I checked this morning, similar information was posted on the Australian Unions website. This information I am referring to is an invitation to all union members to attend a debate on the merits of the China free trade agreement. The proposed debate is supposed to be held at a community hall in Palmerston between an Australian Manufacturing Workers Union representative and myself. I have no problem with debates, because we do that here in this place; it is how we test ideas and how we formulate policy. The problem I have with this proposed debate is that the unions invited the entire union membership base at the Top End before they even considered asking me. The first I heard about this was when one of my local aldermen, who is Labor aligned, had publicity on her Facebook page saying: 'Come along and see this debate. Come and get the facts.' How can you have a debate when the other person is not even going to be there? This is not an attempt by the unions to stage a debate. This is another union stunt. I know that it is a stunt because the member for Robertson has also had exactly the same thing happen in her electorate, and so has the member for Dobell. There was not even any consultation with us as to whether or not we were available. They just decided to stage this absolutely disgusting rally, this supposed debate of merits, and all they are trying to do is rally up the trade sector to support the union movement, so that one of their organisers can get up there and say: 'We're here but Natasha Griggs is not here. Lucy Wicks is not here and Karen McNamara is not here because they don't care.' What a load of rubbish. You actually need to make sure that people are available before you put out the advertising. As far as I am concerned, the unions are not going to have me debating this sort of rubbish with them, because it is not a real debate. They are staging another stunt. As I said, my message to the unions, who are pouring their membership fees into marginal seat campaigns across the country, is this: if you want a debate on the China free trade agreement or any other topic, bring it on—but make sure that it is a proper debate. That is what this place was built for. We have been debating the China free trade agreement in this building for several months, and it is a debate that the unions are losing. Over the course of those months, the misinformation your puppets on the opposition frontbenches have been sprouting has been tested and it has been found lacking. The ideas that you have put forward through your Labor appointees have been debated and they have been found to be unsound. Many of the things that the unions have said in their advertising and via their puppets on the opposition frontbenches are simply not true, and I think people have actually cottoned onto that. The unions are supposed to be representing their good members. They are supposed to be the advocates for workers' rights and conditions. That is a noble cause, but they have strayed so far from their path. How can they look into the eyes of the members they represent and tell them that their membership funds are being used for a set of coordinated stunts to support their allies' political aspirations? How can they tell the people they represent that the fees they are using, which are supposed to pay for their advocacy and protection, are instead being channelled into 21 marginal seats to try to change the government? This debate has already happened. Here in this place, questions have been asked about the free trade agreement and those questions have been answered. Arguments from those opposite have been put forward and have opposed the China free trade agreement, but those arguments from Labor have not stood up. We have seen the union movement, for reasons I do not understand, lashing out at agreements that will create jobs and wealth and opportunities for all Australians. Now that the Australian public have seen through their untruths, their exaggerations and their outright lies, they are now, in desperation, staging these stunts. They could not win the debate in here, so they have taken their bat and ball and they are going home. To those of you involved in this, you can stack an audience and you can create an echo chamber of your own opinion, but you cannot call it a debate. Debates are what happen here in this chamber. Debates have two sides involved. This is not a debate; it is a farce. Let me say loud and clear, here on the public record, that I will have no part of it. I will not be a party to any Labor or union stunts. In the Territory, I will leave those stunts up to Senator Peris and her Labor staffer who is contesting the election with me when it comes up next year. I think that they need to focus on making sure that they represent the people, because I know what Territorians want. Territorians can see through these lies. They can see. They want a government that is going to create jobs, and that is what we are doing. 17:35 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs On 24 September, the newly appointed Minister for Women, Senator Michaelia Cash, was asked on ABC Radio National whether the coalition government's recent announcements of a range of measures aimed to combat family violence would make up for $12 million of drastic cuts to community legal centres in 2017—almost fully one-third of their Commonwealth funding. In what could only be described as patronising and disrespectful comments, the senator stated: It concerns me that there continues to be a false and misleading campaign of misinformation. It does disappoint me that there continues to be this myth perpetrated that there were funding cuts. The cuts never came into being. For this government to accuse community legal centres of leading a false and misleading campaign of misinformation is really beyond the pale. It really does go to show just how arrogant this government is and just how arrogant this new Prime Minister is. The senator's comments demonstrate a complete lack of respect for the critical work conducted at community legal centres all across the country. They highlight what millions of Australians across the country already know: the government is out of touch and has no regard for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable of our society. The Abbott-Turnbull government have presided over the most swingeing cuts to legal assistance services in many years. Now, apparently, they not only deny their appalling record on this issue but they actually have the audacity to attack those who point it out. There are four Commonwealth funded institutions providing legal assistance across Australia: community legal centres, legal aid commissions, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services, and family violence prevention legal services. Each is critically important to ensuring access to justice for all Australians, not simply those wealthy enough to afford it. It is self-evident that, in a civilised prosperous nation like ours, justice must be available to the many and not the few. As I have said in the past, a right only able to be enforced by the wealthy is really nothing more than an arbitrary privilege. Thanks to cabinet leaks earlier this year amid the disunity of the Liberal government, we now know that the Attorney-General Senator Brandis spoke grandiosely in cabinet of his role to: … stand for the rule of law. It is encouraging that the senator appears to understand what Sir Anthony Mason referred to as: … a responsibility of the first importance. However, I would remind the Attorney-General that his deeds must match his rhetoric. In the words of former Federal Court judge the honourable Kevin Lindgren: The rule of law and a strong independent judiciary are empty ideals if people cannot access the courts. Ensuring that the most vulnerable in our society can access justice is a cause particularly close to my heart. As Attorney-General, I was proud to have expanded funding for legal assistance services by $52.3 million over four years as part of the 2013-14 federal budget. But it is clear that Senator Brandis and the government do not share my respect and appreciation for the importance of legal assistance services. In one of his first decisions as Attorney-General, Senator Brandis slashed $43.1 million from legal assistance services and community legal centres. He cut $10 million from environment defenders offices, $9.6 million from CLCs more broadly, $13.4 million from ATSILs, $6.5 million from legal aid commissions and $3.6 million from FVPLSs. The government went even further in last year's horror budget. They cut another $6 million from CLCs and $15 million from legal aid. Then, in the 2015 budget and in the new national partnership agreement that this government negotiated with the states, the Commonwealth ripped another $12 million from CLCs, a cut conveniently scheduled to fall on the community legal centres just after the next election. Senator Cash has accused community legal centres of being 'misleading'. But it is the senator who is misleading, not those working hard on the front line. Senator Cash insists that her government's 'cuts never came into being'. She should talk to lawyers and staff working on the front line. She should go and visit those centres where programs have been cut. She should talk to the clients who have been turned away—and there is only more to come. In 2017, legal assistance funding in Australia is due to fall off a cliff, with funding to community legal centres falling from around $42 million to around $30 million—a total drop of around $12 million. Peter Noble, the chief executive of ARC Justice, who oversees the Loddon Campaspe Community Legal Centre in Bendigo and the Goulburn Valley Community Legal Centre in Shepparton, has correctly observed: Whichever way you look at it, $12m will come out of the budget of community legal centres nationally from July 2017. Whether you want to call it non-renewable funding or a cut, that doesn't matter in my books, and it won't matter to women in court who receive our help. Everywhere around Australia when I have visited community legal centres I have heard a similar message to that expressed by Peter Noble of the Loddon Campaspe Community Legal Centre. It is a story of cuts that have produced staff losses. It is a story of cuts that have produced a drop in the services provided to our community. This is coming at a time when the government is saying that it wants to support extra services in relation to family violence. I know, and community legal centres across Australia know, that a large proportion of their work is directly bound up with family violence services and this government needs to reconsider the cut—what the community legal centres sector describes as 'funding falling off a cliff in 2017'—that it is going to inflict. 'Funding falling off a cliff in 2017', a cut of about a third of the funding that is made available by the Commonwealth for community legal centres, is not consistent with providing support for extra services for family violence. In fact it is the reverse. It is a failure to recognise the immensely important work that is done by community legal centres in this area. If Senator Brandis is serious about standing up for the rule of law, I urge him to repudiate Senator Cash's comments and to commit to properly funding vital access to justice services. If Prime Minister Turnbull is serious about 'respecting the people's intelligence' and leading a consensual, consultative government, I urge him to discipline Senator Cash for her insulting comments and engage in a constructive dialogue with a legal assistance sector that simply wants to have its voice heard. On that last point of having its voice heard: while the government is reconsidering, as it should, the cuts that it is planning to inflict on the community legal centre sector from 2017 onwards, it ought to be reflecting on and removing the gag that it has imposed on community legal centres in the national partnership agreement that it has negotiated with the states. It is entirely wrong for a Commonwealth government to seek to remove entirely the role that community legal centres have played for many years in making their voice heard for law reform and making suggestions to governments as to appropriate changes that can be made to the law—changes that can, in effect, remove the need for legal advice for thousands and thousands of people. That is why we need to hear from community legal centres, which are often best placed to make comments to government about what is appropriate law reform. So, not only should the government be reconsidering the cuts it is seeking to inflict on community legal centres and not only should the government stop pretending that there were no cuts but it is about time it removed the gag it is seeking to impose on community legal centres in the form of the national partnership terms. (Time expired) Infrastructure 164 17:45 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler On Thursday of last week Labor's leader, Bill Shorten, outlined our plan for infrastructure in Australia. In his speech the Leader of the Opposition recognised that in order to generate economic growth, in order to generate more jobs and in order to generate more liveable cities and regions that are connected we need more infrastructure. In spending taxpayers' money on infrastructure we need to do it in a transparent and responsible way. That is why we established Infrastructure Australia, making sure that projects stacked up in a transparent way and that those projects were funded that would produce the greatest return to the national economy and to the improvement of the living standards of the Australian people. That is why we have been very critical that projects that had been through the Infrastructure Australia process, including the Melbourne Metro, the Cross River Rail project and the Managed Motorways program, were all cut, as well as projects that had not had published business cases funded, including the East-West Road project in Melbourne, the Perth Freight Link and WestConnex in Sydney. The WestConnex project, of course, is connected to my electorate. I am in favour of roads. I do not believe that you can have just public transport. But I am also in favour of public transport, because I do not believe you can just have roads. You need to have an integrated transport system in order for cities to function properly. In relation to WestConnex I agree that people travelling from Western Sydney need an improved M4, that the current circumstances whereby it just stops at the T-junction and traffic is funnelled onto Parramatta Road is not acceptable. I also agree that there needs to be much better access for freight on the M5 to and from the port of Botany. As I said in a speech to the Bus Industry Confederation on 24 March 2015: For as long as this project has been discussed, its object has been to take cars from Sydney's west to the CBD and freight to Port Botany. As it is currently proposed, Westconnex does neither. I'm all for a solution to ease traffic congestion in Sydney. But this project will not meet its objective, and I am concerned that it could add significant congestion where WestConnex meets the local street network. What concerns me is that it is unclear where the traffic will go once it reaches the St Peters Interchange. There are also concerns for the residents of Haberfield, Rozelle and Annandale about the traffic implications of the extended M4. We do not know where the exhaust stacks will be, and we do not really know the impact the project will have on these suburbs. The other thing that concerns me is that governments are investing millions of taxpayer dollars on this infrastructure but the decisions have not been transparent and we do not know whether they are based on a business case that stands up to scrutiny. In fact, when in government Labor funded $25 million for a study to ensure that the business case into any improvements on Sydney's road network, particularly getting freight to and from the port, was complete and transparent. We are yet to see the result of that study. In May 2014 I wrote an article for the Daily Telegraph in which I said: Investing in new roads or new rail can be a very effective way to reduce congestion and boost economic productivity … but that when governments spend scarce dollars they ought to be certain up-front that they get it right and that the investment delivers on the desired outcome. I wrote that under the current design WestConnex was 'a road to a traffic jam'. That was nearly 1½ years ago, and we still do not know whether they have it right, and it still looks like being a road to a traffic jam. With the WestConnex project we are told that the business case has been done, but I call on the Baird government to release the business case to public scrutiny. In December 2014 I called on the premier, Mike Baird, to release the full business case after the Audit Office of New South Wales report identified serious deficiencies in the planning and quality assurance processes surrounding the project. The audit report stated that the preliminary business case: … fell well short of the standard required for such a document. While the New South Wales audit did not address the issue of value for public money, it identified serious deficiencies in the project planning and evaluation. The plan that has been done to date does not demonstrate the benefit to the public. I am concerned about where the cars that travel to the end of the interchange are going to go and the impact that will have on our local community. Cars will be transferred onto local streets that are already congested. They will impact on the traffic on the exciting main street of Newtown. We are told that there will be no clearways in King Street, and I have spoken to the New South Wales minister, Duncan Gay, and got an assurance that that will be the case. But we need to make sure that that is made absolutely certain, otherwise the Newtown CBD will be impacted adversely—with consequences for jobs and for economic activity. The Newtown shopping area is the most-visited shopping, food and entertainment area outside the CBD. This is an interesting, active and energetic area, and it has a great sense of community. This has partly built up by people using the main street and walking around the area. They see their neighbours, talk to each other and the community is built. While we have been told that there will be no clearways, WestConnex is not in control of what happens in the local streets. So we need to make sure that it occurs, because the RMS is not part of this project. The WestConnex project stops and the RMS takes over. I have not seen—and the local people have not seen—any plan from the RMS to show that it has the flow-on traffic organised. That is a concern. Likewise, traffic could be channelled onto Campbell Street in St Peters. Anyone who has a look at that street and then into Edgeware Road in Enmore knows that the consequences of this are quite bizarre—to suggest that this will be a major thoroughfare that will then just stop at that intersection. No wonder the local community is concerned. The other thing which appears not to have been considered by either the RMS or the WestConnex Delivery Authority is the integration of roads and public transport. The former prime minister, we know, had no interest in public transport. However, when planning major infrastructure road projects it is incumbent on the planners to ensure that, where possible, roads and public transport are integrated. In a city of the size of Sydney, which is continuing to grow, we must plan to ensure that we are not continually putting more cars onto our roads. It just leads to further congestion. We need to plan to enable the use of public transport and active transport to promote sustainability and liveability in our cities. There is no evidence to date that these issues have been considered or planned for in any serious way by any of the relevant authorities. Part of the problem, of course, is that there are so many different authorities; it is very hard for the local community to be able to engage in proper community processes. The WestConnex Delivery Authority website shows cute little icons that tell us of the jobs to be created, the apprentices who will be trained, that drivers will save 40 minutes from Parramatta to the airport, that urban renewal will occur and that traffic will be removed from local roads. But it does not pass proper scrutiny. Anyone who goes to that area around the St Peters interchange knows that it is already a massive struggle to get from there either to the airport or to the port. Increased traffic flow into this area, where you have the largest residential growth occurring anywhere in Australia—around that South Sydney area—means gridlock. The New South Wales government really needs to explain far better what will happen to the traffic once it leaves that interchange. While traffic will be removed from local roads in some areas, it will be transferred onto the narrow streets of the inner West and the inner city. Of course, as we know, the greatest way to have urban renewal is public transport. Have a look at projects like the Regional Rail Link in Victoria and you can see how successful urban renewal projects can be. This is, of course, a state government project. It is partly funded by the federal coalition government, but it is managed and operated by the state government. It has a responsibility to give the community information, to give assurances that they can rely upon, to show the community the plan for dealing with the traffic that arrives at the end of the WestConnex route and, importantly, to show the business case. I think communities are prepared to accept some disruption for infrastructure development. What they will not accept is that disruption when you have no business case and no transparency in the process, and providing those things is what the New South Wales government must do when it comes to this project. Robertson Electorate: Alcohol and Illicit Drugs 165 17:55 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I rise to highlight a really important initiative that has been launched thanks to the vision and hard work of representatives of my local community. Last month we held the first meeting of a tackling drugs and alcohol committee at Ettalong Diggers on the peninsula. This Friday the committee will meet again. Tackling the problem of drugs and alcohol is a critical issue and one that impacts families and communities right across the Central Coast. I would like to start by recognising Bill Jackson, the CEO of Ettalong Diggers, who came to me with the idea to start this committee. He began by asking the question: can we do more? The answer he determined as he spoke to me was yes. Out of this concern, out of this desire by Bill Jackson—a fantastic leader in our local community—out of his interest and his ability to see an opportunity to make a difference, this committee was created. In talking with Bill and specialist representatives, and in fact our police and our health representatives, as well as with parents and local residents in my electorate, it became pretty clear to me that this is a community asking what we can do to help. It is a strong sign that people on the Central Coast want to make a real and demonstrable difference in tackling issues related to drugs and alcohol. At our first meeting we heard from a number of influential local leaders from our community, including government and non-government health representatives and club and pub licensees and managers, including Superintendent Daniel Sullivan from the Brisbane Water Local Area Command; Tina Davies, the regional liaison officer representing the New South Wales state government; Steve Childs, service manager from drugs and alcohol from the Central Coast Local Health District—and I would also like to acknowledge the CEO, Matt Hanrahan, who has been doing some important and fantastic work in this space; Andrew Tuck, CEO of Coast Community Connections; Julie Clark, project officer of Family Drug Support; Russell Cooper from the Gosford RSL; Ben Bradley, representing Davistown RSL Club; Daniel Brian from the Central Coast Leagues Club; Tim McGavin from Ettalong Bowling Club; and Zane Tredway from the Central Coast Hotel. During the course of the morning's meetings there was some terrific discussion outlining some of the serious challenges facing our region and what might be the possible local opportunities to make a difference in our community. One of the proposals to emerge from this discussion was the idea that people suspected of being drug affected and potentially banned from one licensed venue could also potentially be stopped from entering all pubs and clubs in the Brisbane Water Local Area Command. This concept is actually based around the Brisbane Water Liquor Accord and, if agreed to and implemented, could see the 'banned from one, banned from all' policy extended if it is seen to be helping to lower alcohol- and drug-fuelled violence. As Superintendent Sullivan said, people have to know the consequences matter. There was also discussion around applying for category 3 funding under the New South Wales ClubGRANTS scheme to run local awareness and educational campaigns. This idea, which has since seen some fantastic coverage in our local media, came from the pubs and clubs industry representatives who are looking to be able to direct some of the resources obtained through the ClubGRANTS scheme to programs that can make a real difference to us locally. In particular there was a very strong will to use these funds to tackle drug and alcohol problems in our region in a lasting and positive way. We heard during the committee meeting that around eight out of 10 crimes involve alcohol and that there is a similar rate of alcohol abuse when it comes to domestic violence. Other people around the table raised other important issues, including around education and also the challenge that some young people on the Central Coast simply think that they want to be able to try it. Of course, this can have serious flow-on effects for families, who in turn need education and support in order to be able to get through some of the challenges that they face. So it is clear from this committee and the feedback from people in the electorate how important community-led action is in this area. In recent months, a drug and alcohol treatment service on the peninsula was given funding certainty by this government for another year—Coast Community Connections at Woy Woy. This organisation offers long-term treatment and rehabilitation programs to help individuals and families affected by substance abuse. One of the programs, the Evolution Youth Service Alcohol and Other Drugs project, known as Evolution AOD, is a youth focus service that provides counselling to young people aged between 12 and 18 who experience problems due to the use and misuse of legal and illicit drugs. A counsellor works with young people in our community to develop and implement education and early intervention programs, facilitate therapeutic groups and provide assessment and brief interventions to young people. They are assisted by a youth support worker who engages young people, building and strengthening relationships with them and their families. I will also speak briefly on the issue of ice. While I understand that the National Ice Taskforce has been working hard at considering potential next steps, on a community level we have also been actively discussing what can be done. There is a clear understanding—and we saw this in the discussions with our committee—that the fight against illegal drugs can be best effective when the community and our law enforcement agencies work together. Information from members of the public is an essential part of helping police and other agencies bust drug manufacturing and its distribution. To encourage the community fight against the ice epidemic, the government has invested $1 million to help establish a national Dob in a Dealer campaign. The campaign will ask community members to report people who are dealing in illegal drugs and engaging in activities that are associated with drug labs and distribution. Ice is ruining individuals, destroying families and hurting communities like ours on the Central Coast. While governments and police and even our stakeholder committee who met recently can make laws and undertake operational activities, the community is an essential partner in the fight against ice. A key point raised within the community was the response to advertising and awareness. Independent evaluation into a recent campaign found that 94 per cent of the youth who saw the ads said they had taken some action as a result, either by talking to their peers or their parents or by changing their thinking about ice. And 51 per cent of at-risk youth who had seen the ads said they would now avoid using ice. I would also like to place on record how the coalition government is aware of the need to promote responsible alcohol consumption in our community as well. We are undertaking a range of activities, including funding of $19 million over four years to continue the successful Good Sports program as well as leading the development of the next national alcohol strategy in collaboration with states and territories. But there is still a lot of work to be done. So I look forward to Friday's meeting of our Tackling Drugs and Alcohol Committee to continue the important work done so far with our community on the Central Coast. In the few remaining moments I have left, I want to talk about a fantastic small business out at Somersby that is exporting to the world. They have recently been awarded a grant as part of the coalition's Industry Skills Fund program. RR Taylor Manufacturing is a fantastic local business in my community. They have received a grant of more than $12,000 to enable and quip them to finalise the manufacturing of a very important new product called the MetaMizer 240 SSS. RR Taylor Manufacturing Solutions does exactly that. They provide manufacturing solutions that may include making machine components or the assembling, warehousing and distribution of a finished product. They employ 16 people at Somersby, and they have really grown since moving back to the Central Coast in 2003. The MetaMizer 240 SSS is an innovative solution. In simple terms, the business development manager, Greg Trusler, told me that the machine sterilises and shreds medical waste. It then produces a granulated product that can be put into a waste stream. There has been significant interest in this product in South-East Asia over a number of years, particularly from Sri Lanka. In fact, I am advised that the business was one of a number of Australian companies exhibiting at the Arab Health medical exhibition held in Dubai earlier this year. The Industry Skills Fund grant will enable the business to accelerate the training required to export around 20 of these machines, in coming years, to Sri Lanka and beyond. They will be placed in hospitals across the country. This is really opening up the domestic and international markets to this great Australian business; it is a great Aussie business that has all started from the Central Coast. These sorts of stories of innovation are stories that I am proud to champion and proud to tell as our region grows, particularly at Somersby where this business is located. International Development Assistance 167 18:05 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand Last month I travelled to Papua New Guinea as part of a delegation to inspect Australian development programs with Save the Children. I was joined on this delegation by the member for Batman, the member for Herbert, the member for Mallee and Senator Dastyari from the other place. They are politicians from all political persuasions but also people who share a concern for the wellbeing of people in other nations in our region. In the Eastern Highlands province at Goroka we visited a centre for survivors of sexual assault, rape and family violence, which is supported by Australian development assistance. Naomi Yupe, who is one of the founders and directors of the support centre, was awarded an Australian Leadership Award and studied and lived in my electorate of Gellibrand, in Melbourne's west, at Victoria University in 2012 and 2013. The centre she works at opened three months ago thanks to Australian development assistance funding and, as of when we were attending, has already seen 35 victims pass through the project. One of the most confronting parts of the trip to PNG was sitting and listening to Naomi telling us about how a teenage girl came to be at the clinic. She had been gang-raped in a coffee plantation by a group of drunk men in the area. Even worse, due the inadequacies of the judicial system in the area, she was forced to continue to live side-by-side with the perpetrators in her community. The family violence support centre, supported by Australian development assistance funding, was her only place of refuge and support. This centre is the only one of its kind for more than half a million people who live in the surrounding areas and without Australian development assistance funding this service would not exist. Australia funds multiple projects that tackle domestic and family violence throughout PNG. We also fund immunisation programs to help protect young children against polio and health projects to fight new strands of drug resistant tuberculosis—a growing challenge for Papua New Guinea. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have capitalised on PNG's love of national rugby league football to get young children into early childhood education and to learn literacy and life skills. The visit on the trip to the Buk bilong Pikinini site was a particularly special one for me, seeing kids not only being thrilled to run around with former rugby league stars in the PNG Highlands but also being taught the basics of English and in the literacy programs. To this end, we also fund education programs for young girls and we visited a particularly moving school that had won innovation project funding. We also support the institution of public administration and initiatives that help to create the next generation of Papua New Guinean leaders. The Australian Federal Police train local police and build capacity to reduce corruption and implement processes to enforce the rule of law. Despite this, on their current trajectory, PNG are unlikely to meet their Millennium Development Goals. Thirty-eight per cent of the population lives below the poverty line and it is estimated that approximately 40 per cent of children in the country are stunted. To make things worse, the country is currently experiencing a devastating drought brought on by the intensification of El Nino and other unusual weather conditions. Problems stemming from the lack of water are amplified in some regions by overnight frosts that are destroying what is left of subsistence farm crops and food gardens. With almost 85 per cent of the population living in rural areas and many relying on subsistence farming for their survival, this is having crippling effects. According to the PNG's National Weather Service, these conditions are likely to last through to 2016. In this context, Australian aid is critical to the wellbeing and development of Papua New Guinean Society—it makes a real difference. Unfortunately, many countries in our region have not been as shielded from the government's cuts to aid funding as Papua New Guinea. Despite the commitments made prior to the election and soon after the election of the coalition government, cuts to the aid budget was announced in the first Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook to the tune of $3.7 billion over the forward estimates. The cuts have continued since, according to the Lowy Institute; with the exception of Cambodia, Timor-Leste and Nepal, aid to countries in Asia has been cut by over 40 per cent since this time. Cuts to the aid programs from outside our immediate region have been cut deeper still, with aid to the Middle East by 43 per cent and sub-Saharan Africa by 70 per cent. In total more than $11 billion has been cut from Australian aid projects since the election of the coalition government. In fact, this government has cut aid to its lowest level in generations; it is now at its lowest level since records began in the 1960s. Our spending on aid has dropped to 0.22 per cent of gross national income, which means that Australia now only spends 22 cents of every $100 on aid. Respondents to 2011 Lowy Institute poll thought that 16 per cent of the entire federal budget was spent on foreign aid, when in fact it was less than 1/12 of that figure. A recent report by the Australia Institute charts the increases and decreases in foreign aid funding since a specific department for it was introduced by the Whitlam government in 1974. It has found that the current Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party will preside over the largest cuts to foreign aid of any foreign affairs minister in Australian history. The Executive Director of the Australian Council for International Development, Marc Purcell, has lamented the government's aid cuts, saying that it undermined Australia's reputation amongst the international community. Other high-profile individuals in the international aid sector have been similarly critical of the government's cuts. World Vision's CEO Tim Costello has said that the cuts will put lives at risk, saying: It seems incredible that we should be willing to undermine the stability and security of our own region. Oxfam's Chief Executive Helen Szoke said that the cuts could jeopardise disaster relief preparedness and that Aid not only saves lives and helps people rise out of poverty, it is an essential investment in the security and stability of our region and our economy. In December 2014 Save the Children's CEO Paul Ronalds warned of the 'serious consequences for some of the most vulnerable communities in the world', and that was before the most recent round of aid cuts. What seems to be getting lost in the current debate is that Australian aid works. In PNG in 2013-14 alone we established 14 family and sexual violence units, trained 4315 teachers and financed 600,000 children to attend primary school. In the past we have maintained over 2000 kilometres of PNG's most economically important roads, strengthened health and HIV/AIDS services—preventing an epidemic of that disease—and enabled 24,848 babies to be delivered under the supervision of skilled staff and immunised 54,393 children against measles and other diseases. Australia continues to play a role in promoting vaccination and immunisation, not just in our region but throughout the world through public-private partnerships, such as the Gavi Alliance. Five hundred million children have been vaccinated worldwide with their support and it could not have been so successful without Australia's input—as Gavi's largest donor. It is depressing to see that the coalition has sought to gut funding for international aid while the rest of the world continues to view it as a priority. On 25 September the United Nations adopted a new framework for aid, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, along with 17 ambitious goals, the Sustainable Development Goals. This new platform will succeed the Millennium Development Goals, which expires this year. The third goal, relating to health and wellbeing, includes ending the epidemics of AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis by 2030—an ambitious target that will require extensive programs in our region. The Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has been working within our region and throughout the world to eradicate these diseases. So far, the Global Fund's programs have resulted in 17 million lives being saved, a decline of a third of people dying from these diseases. Australia has in the past been a generous donor to the Global Fund—given the disproportionate focus of the Global Fund's efforts in our own region, this has been a very good investment for Australia, indeed. The Global Fund replenishment meeting is scheduled for mid-December this year, and I implore the government not to continue to look to the aid budget only for savings, but to look at it as a platform we can use to make the world a better place. This year the Minister for Foreign Affairs declared her intention for Australia to bid for a place as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council for 2029-30. However, the aid cuts under her watch and the unusual extended lead time for the bid have left onlookers perplexed. The shadow foreign affairs minister and Deputy Leader of the Labor Party, Tanya Plibersek, said, although Labor supports the government playing a bigger role in the international arena, that: We welcome the announcement by the Government, despite the fact that it's a very long way off. When we are actually going backwards on climate change, we have had the largest aid cuts in the history of Australia... and we've also had concerns about our treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, the effort to secure a spot on the UN Human Rights Council will be very difficult for Australia. If the Government wanted to increase its diplomatic activity and aid budget, it could work with Labor today at bringing our aid spend back to a respectable level. Australian aid projects have benefited millions of people in our region and throughout the world, alleviating poverty and creating prosperity. As well as being good for its own sake in a moral sense, a prosperous and stable region is in our own national interest, particularly our own strategic interests to our north. In the United Kingdom, Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron has realised this and has committed to spending 0.7 per cent of gross national income on aid. When he was asked about the policy, he said: We accept the moral case for keeping our promises to the world's poorest, even when we face challenges at home. It says something about this country. It says something about our standing in the world and our sense of duty in helping others. In short, it says something about the kind of people we are. And that makes me proud to be British. I could not agree with this sentiment more and I hope that in future years we will be able to have a conservative Prime Minister of Australia echo these sentiments in this parliament. Grafton Jacaranda Festival 2015 169 18:15 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page It is the time of year for the famous, indeed world-renowned, Jacaranda Festival, which is held annually in Grafton. It begins on the last weekend of October and runs until the first weekend in November. I invite you to attend, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks, if you have not before. It is a week full of a lot of fun activities. The very first festival was held in 1934 and was Australia's first folk festival. It is also Australia's oldest floral festival, with community engagement still a strong as ever. We focus the celebration around the first Thursday of November, which is the iconic Jaca Thursday. This half-day public holiday sees the main street closed and traders taking to the street in colourful displays of acting, singing and performances. Another tradition is the crowning of the Jacaranda Queen. This year there are four hopeful queens, who will be guided through their quest by the watchful eye of the matron of honour, Debbie Bowling. Debbie herself was nominated this year by Judy McSwan and she was honoured to be the festivals 81st matron of honour. The four vying for this year's title of the Jacaranda Festival Queen are Kirsten Knox, who is sponsored by the South Grafton Ex-Servicesmen's Club; Kahlia Payne, who is sponsored by the Clarence Coast Riders; Leah Wallace, who is sponsored by the Daily Examiner; and Charlotte White, who is sponsored by Westpac Grafton. We also have five girls vying for junior princess honours. Meggie Ryder is a talented 13-year-old and attends McAuley Catholic College; Madeleine Viddler is a 14-year-old performer, who has competed in many dance styles; Abigail Kennedy is a 12-year-old South Grafton high school student; Grace Spies is a 13-year-old, who is in year 8 at Grafton High School; and Laura Hall is 14 years old and attends McAuley Catholic College. The festival's special guest this year is Stella Wilson, nee Cooper. Stella was born in 1934, the first year of the festival. She first took part in the festival when she was in kindergarten and continued her involvement throughout her primary and secondary years, performing at every festival. In 1955 Stella was crowned the Jacaranda Festival Queen. Of course, like all events, there are a multitude of people who work tirelessly in the background. The Jacaranda committee do an outstanding job in putting together this huge event. I would like to acknowledge the following people: the president, Trevor Green; the vice president, Helen Weatherstone; the festival coordinator, Donna Hunt; the treasurer, Peg James; the honorary secretary, Helen Templeton; the executive committee, which includes Steve Cansdell, Scott Baker, Clay Murphy and Kristin Smith; the queen candidate director Gail Harding, who is assisted by Anne-Marie Crawford; and also the junior queen directors, Karen Hackett, Enid McKew and Leanne Smith. As part of the week-long celebrations there are also a host of other events such as the Jacaranda Ball organised by Jenna Atherton; the float parade, under the directorship of Jen Townsend; the Open Gardens Display, organised by Scott Baker; the Venetian Carnival, under the directorship of Gail Harding; the Baby Show and Children's Party organised by Kathryn Lentfer, Michelle Call and Nikki Cousemacker; and, of course, the Culture on the Clarence, a community fair day, which is organised by Casey Challacombe. And there is the afternoon tea party as well as business competitions, picnic in the park and the Jacaranda fun run. The sponsors for 2015 are the Clarence Valley Council, Westlawn Finance, Flight Centre, Blanchard's Bricks and Pavers, Gateway Lifestyle, Grafton Shopping World, Newcastle Permanent, Harveys Jewellers, McDonald's, Telstra Grafton, Bendigo Bank, First National, Ford and Dougherty, the BCU, Coca-Cola and Elders. Madam Deputy Speaker, I encourage you to come to Jacaranda Festival; it is always a great week. I would also like to talk today about Bounce Back From Disasters in Kyogle. Last Thursday night I had the opportunity to go and look at the hard work of the Kyogle Red Cross, who recently hosted the Bounce Back From Disasters event in Kyogle. This event gave members of the Kyogle community information about what to do in disasters. It also introduced them to the responders and service providers in the community that are best placed to help during and after a disaster. Thanks to this event, we are all more informed and know who the local emergency management team are. The event included speakers from all of our local emergency services agencies and representatives from volunteer groups. Brian Hoffman from the State Emergency Service, Daniel Ainsworth from the Rural Fire Service and Val Ferris from the Red Cross all spoke about how they could help during times of natural emergencies. Assistant Inspector Andrew Synott from the Kyogle police, a representative from the Department of Families and Community Services and Jen Haberecht from the Department of Primary Industry also presented information to the community. Robyn Cahill and Pat Saville were also two special guests. They were Girl Guides in 1954, during the huge flood that engulfed Kyogle, and they spoke about that. The Kyogle CWA made sandwiches for the event. The Kyogle Lions Club donated drinks and put on a barbeque for those attending. The idea for the event came from a leaders forum. I acknowledge the executive involved in getting this event together: Nicola Mercer, Noelle Lynden-Way, Ken Moore, David Aberdeen, Jeff Breen, Councillor Maggie Creedy, Anthony Smith and Jacqueline Horder. One of the highlights of the evening was the Drama in Rural Towns students performing a short one-act play called Resilience. The program is an initiative of the Village Hall Players, a touring theatre company which offers young people eight to 17 years old an opportunity to participate in all aspects of theatre, from acting to singing to directing to sound and lighting, in both Kyogle and Casino. Resilience was written by the students and workshopped under the direction of Lynette Zito. The premise of the play is that children who were in some way involved in a flood in Kyogle are interviewed for a national kids news television program one year later. They were to talk to kid journalist Sophie—played by Erin Walsh—about their fears and problems during the flood and what they learned. The students involved were: Erin Walsh, Sinead Jolliffe, Tanea Attwood, Faith Chivers, Chloe Chivers, Anika Seegel, Scarlett Barron-Duncan, Jess Cochrane, Emmilee Taylor, Henry Nettleton and Brooke Walsh. I acknowledge those students; they put on a great performance. I would also like to acknowledge today a Lismore local, Dave Alley, who has just completed a record-breaking run around Australia. He arrived back in Lismore on Sunday—I just missed him; I was flying out of the Lismore Airport at three o'clock and he was coming by just after that, so I could not say hello to him as he ran by. He has run 80 kilometres—close to two marathons—every day since April 19. He is quoted as saying: I have never looked more forward to seeing that Lismore sign more than I did today— after arriving at Oakes Oval in Lismore. He said: I won't lie, it was tough, the toughest thing I have ever done in my life. Second only to leaving these guys— his wife and children— at home, that was really hard as well. To see them today was really special I will never forget that. Mr Alley said that remaining in constant touch with supporters via social media had been crucial during his marathon effort: The support has been overwhelming, that is what has got me through … He said the messages of support 'made me get up every day and push on to get those 80 kilometres every day.' He went on: A lot of blood, sweat and tears went into this. There were several times as we went around when it could have fallen apart. I had my fair share of setbacks and injuries but we got on with what we had to do. Dave completed the 13,383km milestone in a record 169 days. Dave, what you have done has been inspirational. He also raised a lot of money for a charity, so I thank and acknowledge Dave for that. National Broadband Network 171 18:24 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I rise today to speak on an issue that I have spoken on many, many times in this chamber and in the House, and an issue that I have been campaigning on for the last three months—the lack of decent internet connections throughout most of my electorate. Canberra is facing a real digital divide. Large areas in the north of Canberra are listed on the NBN rollout map. However, very few parts of my electorate, the south of Canberra, appear on that map. In fact, Coombs and Wright—which are greenfields sites—already have NBN up and running. A few streets in a few suburbs in my electorate in the south are on the NBN rollout. The rest of it is just one big blank. Under Labor, every home in the ACT would have had access to a world-class fibre-to-the-premises version of the NBN. However, today, the availability and quality of broadband in some Canberra suburbs, like Monash and Theodore, is the lowest in the country—and we are talking here about the national capital! I am concerned that this lack of internet access is impeding the ability of Canberrans to maximise opportunities and to realise their full potential, particularly when it comes to small business, educational opportunities and active citizenry and engagement in civil society. These are people like Phuong, who lives in Calwell. Phuong recently contacted me because he was having an extremely difficult time getting a broadband connection to his home. He currently has no internet service despite spending countless hours on the phone and thousands of dollars on temporary solutions. I am quoting now from Phuong: My three children need online access for their school. We work in an IT area and we need internet access for work and for home use. Our quality of life has greatly suffered because of lack of Internet connection. I want to express my dissatisfaction to the lack of service. I hope that those with authority are aware of this issue so that nobody else has to go through the whole horrible process as me. Rod, also from my electorate, has written to me saying: Yet more broken promises from this government. When is the Federal Government really going to govern for all of the people and not its special interest groups? Efficient internet access is no longer a luxury in the modern world, but a necessity. Why do parts of Australia have to go without a proper internet service? Why are some Australians not valued the same as others? Why does this country have to fall behind other countries in this vital area of communication? Or there is Warwick, who says: Since Labor introduced the NBN development, I, like most other people who use the Internet, have been looking forward to this service, as it provides a better service at lower user cost. Unfortunately, everything came to a standstill as the current Government dithered around deciding how to do things cheaper and faster. Now it seems we're further from this service than ever and if it does arrive it will be an inferior product that will require upgrading as the old copper connections deteriorate. Or there is Rhiannon, who says: I have a clearer Skype connection in Cambodia than here in my own home!!! I am talking, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the nation's capital. I am talking about 20 kilometres from here. There is Honour, who says: One more reason why this government is failing Australians. To me, that sentence really sums up the situation in my electorate. Canberrans are sick and tired of being impeded by their lack of internet. Since I held a community forum with the shadow communications minister Jason Clare in June, I have been contacted by hundreds of Canberrans who are extremely frustrated with their lack of internet access. I have had hundreds of people who have signed my petition calling on the Liberal government to prioritise Canberra's NBN rollout. As I said, for most of my electorate it is just one big blank space. We are not even on the map. We have no idea when we are going to be getting NBN. When we were in government, the NBN was going to be rolled out this year and next year here in Canberra in my electorate. But we do not know when it is going to happen under this government. We have those couple of suburbs, Coombs and Wright, that already have it. Denman Prospect probably will, too, because it is a greenfields site, and there are a few parts of Phillip, O'Malley and Isaacs that have it. But the rest of the electorate is just one big blank space. What is so frustrating is the fact that in the north of Canberra, Gungahlin has the NBN—and has had it for some time—thanks to the Labor government. As I said earlier, it means that we have this huge digital divide across Canberra. We have a huge discrepancy between the haves and the have-nots in the fact that the people of Gungahlin are now connected to the NBN and have the ability to work from home and to set up small businesses that have world-class internet connection. They can do their homework from home and engage in educational activities—as one would expect in the nation's capital in the 21st century. They can engage actively as citizens of our community, by watching what is going on in the news and by watching what is going on on Twitter and in social media, and by tapping in to the resources that are available now on so many websites. They can actively engage in small business, in education and in citizenry opportunities. They can realise their potential because they have access to this nbn world-class internet. Unfortunately, as I said, in my electorate there is one, big blank space with nothing. Apart from Coombs, Wright and those streets in some parts of Woden and Weston, that is it. And we have no idea when we are going to get it. What does this mean? You have heard from some of my constituents who have told me about what the frustration of the lack of the nbn means for their lives. There is the cost it means for Phuong. I did not go through the details there, but he listed the various attempts he has made over the years to try to get a decent internet connection. It has cost him thousands. He has listed the endless cost, the endless phone calls and the endless amount of time he has had to put in to try to get a decent internet connection, just so his kids can do their homework, so that he can pay his bills at home and so that they can engage in civil society. The other day I had a mobile office at Calwell. Again, Calwell has a shocking accessibility and speed rate—one of the lowest in the whole country—as does most of that south-east part of Tuggeranong. I had a petition going on the nbn, to actually get us put on the rollout map—that would be nice. We have a new prime minister, the 'prime minister of infrastructure', the 'prime minister of communications' and the 'prime minister of technology'; it would be really nice if we could actually get the nation's capital connected. I had this mobile office going down at Calwell on the weekend and met a gentleman from Calwell there. He told me about the fact that he is a lecturer at Charles Sturt University, which as we all know is in Bathurst. He also has his own small business, and he is finding it absolutely impossible to be able to connect and keep up to date with what is going on at the university. At the nbn forum that I mentioned before, that I hosted with the shadow minister for communications, I heard from many people. One single mum told me that her son is falling behind because he cannot access the internet at home, so he cannot do his homework. It means that she has to spend countless hours in the library after she has been working all day just so her son can get access to the internet. I heard of one couple who have to stand on the roof of their garage to get a connection, and met another gentleman who would actually like to work from home—to run a small business from home. This is average, normal everyday stuff for other parts of Australia but in my electorate people cannot do it. This gentleman now has the cost of hiring an office space so that he can actually run a business. Ideally, he would like to run that business from home. If he were connected to the internet he would be able to run that business from home, but he has actually had to hire an office space just so that he can be connected to the internet and run his business. The productivity costs that take place as the result from us not being able to be connected to the internet and the nbn are just phenomenal—not just in terms of lost productivity but also in terms of lost opportunity, and also in terms of the loss of realisation of the full potential of my constituents. So, yes—I have a really big grievance. I want Canberra on the nbn rollout map, and I want it on it now. My constituents wanted it yesterday. So I will continue to lobby for these Canberrans because we must get placed on the nbn rollout map and we must be on it now. (Time expired) 18:34 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes Tonight, I rise to talk about a most appalling and unforgiveable decision by the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission—to approve what is known as the Moorebank concrete recycling facility. They simply failed to take into account that neither the assessment nor the modelling of fine particulate matter referred to as PM2.5 had been undertaken by the proponent, despite the fact that this failure was specifically pointed out to them during the public meeting. They ignored what happened at the public meeting and approved this even though there was no assessment and no modelling of fine particulate matter PM2.5. Why is this so wrong? Firstly, in New South Wales there is a statutory requirement to model and assess all sources of air pollution, and that is exactly what clause 3.1 of Approved Methods for the modelling and assessment of air pollutants in New South Walesstates. It is simple. If you are having a development and you have a known source of air pollution emissions, you must assess it and you must model it. Yet, for unknown reasons, neither was done for this. When we talk about fine particulate matter, this is referring to the microscopic solid or liquid matter suspended in the Earth's atmosphere. It is important to note that particulate matter is not one particular chemical substance; its sources are extremely varied. It is classified by its particulate size rather than what it is made of. The way we measure it is by PM2.5, PM10 and PM0.1, known as ultrafine particles. Particulate matter is a known emission from a concrete recycling plant. When you smash concrete up into small pieces to recycle it, you release dust and particulate matter in the atmosphere. There are numerous scientific studies that make this very clear. So, from the outset, there is simply no excuse for not modelling the fine particulate matter. Why should this be of specific concern to us? Why should we care about particulate matter as air pollution in our atmosphere? We hear all the time about carbon pollution. Of course, when people talk about carbon pollution, it is actually carbon dioxide, CO2, that clear odourless gas. Particulate matter is the actual grit and the dirt in the atmosphere, as I said before. It is our deadliest form of air pollution because it has the ability to penetrate unfiltered deep into the lungs and bloodstream, causing permanent DNA mutations, heart attacks and premature deaths. Recent studies have found evidence that exposure to particulate pollution causes lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and stroke. In fact, on 17 October 2003, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced it had classified particulate matter as a carcinogen to human beings, based on sufficient exposure to the causes of lung cancer. In 2005, the World Health Organization stated: Several key findings that have emerged in recent years merit special mention. Firstly, the evidence for … particulate matter (PM) indicates that there are risks to health at concentrations currently found in many cities in developed countries. Moreover, as research has not identified thresholds below which adverse effects do not occur, it must be stressed that the guideline values provided here cannot fully protect human health. Secondly, an increasing range of adverse health effects has been linked to air pollution, and at ever-lower concentrations. This is especially true of airborne particulate matter. We have a cancer-causing agent. We have a requirement that it must be modelled and assessed under the guidelines. The failure to do was highlighted to the Planning Assessment Commission, and they just completely ignored it. This is absolutely outrageous. I now turn to particulate matter in general and why fine particulate matter is even more deadly. The New South Wales Environment Protection Authority, the EPA, in a document entitled Managing particles andimproving air quality in NSWstate: The particles of most concern are fine particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Unlike larger particles, these smaller particles invisible to the naked eye can be breathed deep into the lungs and even pass into the bloodstream. The New South Wales department of environment state that the smaller PM2.5 particulates are considered more dangerous to human health as they are more easily drawn deeply into the lungs and that they are closely linked with serious health impacts, particularly heart and lung disease. Again, it is the most dangerous form of particulate pollution; it was not modelled and not assessed, and the Planning Assessment Commission closed their eyes and their ears to this. The folly of this is simply unbelievable, especially when it was drawn to their attention. You could understand the Planning Assessment Commission being ignorant of the facts and not having any understanding of this matter, but for them to ignore the matter when it was drawn to their attention is unforgivable. Not only was there a failure to consider this matter, but let us have a look at what the specific standards on the ground are—so should we be concerned? We know we have standards which are being considered at the moment under the National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure, known as the NEPM. At the moment we have an advisory standard of an annual average of eight microns per cubic metre. That is what the World Health Organization says and that is what our environment protection agencies say we should set as the maximum threshold—eight microns per cubic metre. In fact, the New South Wales EPA says that its view is that the 2.5 threshold, which is the NEPM reporting standard, should be adopted as the compliance standard. We hope that by 31 December this year we will have a standard of eight microns per cubic metre, with the plan over time to reduce it to seven microns if we think eight microns is too high. That is where we need to be. Where are we in Liverpool, where this development is going ahead? Have a look at the Liverpool air quality monitoring site data. Over the past calendar year, the average has been 8.6. The particulate matter exposure in Liverpool is already above what our authorities, including health authorities, recommend it should be. We are already substantially above, and yet here we have a development that is going to add to that and make the situation worse. This is known by the Planning Assessment Commission, and they have just closed their eyes and closed their ears and allowed this development to go ahead. This is an appalling situation. Thankfully the Liverpool council, I understand, is appealing this decision. We cannot have the Planning Assessment Commission failing to look at the evidence, failing to consider the relevant data, especially when it involves carcinogenic substances and especially when the level of the substances in the atmosphere in the local area is already above what it is recommended it should be. And they want to take it higher! This is simply outrageous. I would like to make a few recommendations for the Planning Assessment Commission, because they have failed in their duty. They have failed to give this project due consideration. It goes to the competency of our planning authorities if they are this appalling and make such flawed decisions. The decision, firstly, must be overturned and the approval for this facility must be withdrawn. The proponent should be required to undertake a detailed assessment and modelling of fine particulate matter from the proposed facility and the effect on the local environment. That is what they should have done months or years ago, as the guidelines state. Secondly, the detailed assessment of the effects on the local community should not be undertaken just by theoretical modelling alone. We already have concrete recycling plants in many places around this country. We have the technology now to set up monitoring stations near those plants that enable us to record exactly what fine particulate matter is being emitted. Let us look at the situation on the ground at existing concrete recycling plants rather than go through some theoretical modelling to come up with something. That is what the public deserve. Nevertheless, irrespective of that, we know PM2.5 in the area is already above the level it should be. If there is one iota of a chance that the local community will be affected by a carcinogenic substance, the Planning and Assessment Commission should knock this proposal on the head. If we want to have concrete recycling plants, by all means let us have them but let us not have them next to residential suburbs where the air pollution has the potential to adversely affect people's health. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. ADJOURNMENT 174 ADJOURNMENT 18:44 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I move: That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:44   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 175 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Western Australian Roads (Question No. 831) 175 831 Ms MacTiernan L6P asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 25 June 2015: What sum will be invested in Western Australian roads in (a) 2014-15, (b) 2015-16, and (c) over the forward estimates. Mr Truss GT4 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) $706.86 million in Australian Government infrastructure funding was committed to Western Australian roads in 2014-15. In addition, $499.06 million was paid in 2014-15 for road infrastructure to assist Western Australia as a result of the GST revenue shortfall in 2015-16. (b) $807.04 million in Australian Government infrastructure funding has been allocated in the 2015-16 Budget for investment in Western Australian roads. (c) $2396.08 million in Australian Government infrastructure funding has been allocated in the 2015-16 Budget over the forward estimates from 2016-17 to 2018-19 for Western Australian roads. In addition, on 18 June 2015, the Australian Government announced $100 million for the Northern Australia Beef Roads Fund and $600 million for the Northern Australia Roads Package as part of the White Paper on Developing Northern Australia. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development is currently working with the relevant jurisdictions including Western Australia to determine projects to be funded through these programmes. Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (Question No. 848) 175 848 Mr Kelvin Thomson UK6 asked the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 11 August 2015: (1) Is there any restriction in the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System arrangements on animals exported live from Australia to another country and killed in that country before being further exported as boxed meat to a third country. (2) Are any animals exported live from Australia to Kuwait and killed in Kuwait before being further exported as boxed meat; if so, what is the extent of this practice. Mr Joyce E5D The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No, the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) relates to how exported livestock are treated from their arrival in the importing country until they are slaughtered. It does not cover the distribution of meat in importing countries. (2) Animals are exported for slaughter in Kuwait under ESCAS, however the department does not require information on where the meat ends up. See answer above. Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development: Casual Staff Contracts (Question No. 869) 175 869 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 17 August 2015: In respect of labour hire firms contracted by the Minister's department(s) in 2014-15, (a) how many positions were filled using casual staff from labour hire firms, (b) what sum was spent on the provision of these casual staff, and (c) what roles did these casual staff fulfil. Mr Truss GT4 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) 1. (b) $30,876 (GST excl). (c) Financial operations (to cover short-term absences and sick leave). Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development: Contracted Services Payments (Question No. 887) 175 887 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 17 August 2015: In respect of fees for late or delayed payment of contracted services or products by the Minister's department(s) in 2014-15, (a) which services or products do these fees relate to, and (b) what sum was spent. Mr Truss GT4 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department did not pay any late fees in 2014-15. Department of Agriculture and Water Resources: Office Space (Question No. 910) 176 910 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 17 August 2015: In respect of office space leased or owned by the Minister's department(s), (a) where are these offices located, (b) how much space (in square metres) is each office, (c) how much of this space is currently unused, and of this, what is the cost of (i) rent per month, (ii) utilities, including electricity and/or gas, telephone and internet, (iii) office furniture and/or hired equipment, including artwork and plants, and (iv) any other associated services. Mr Joyce E5D The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) See Tables 1 and 2 below (b) See Tables 1 and 2 below (c) The department does not lease or own office space that is currently unused. From time to time the department may have workpoints that are not occupied. The department undertakes an annual workpoint count as part of the Commonwealth Property Data Collection activity where workpoints are counted at sites with more than 500m2 of office space. In September 2014 the department reported 634 vacant workpoints across 11 sites around Australia. (i) See table below. All costs provided reflect information contained in the department's financial system. (ii) Monthly utilities costs are included in the table below. The figures do not include telephone or internet charges as the department does not allocate this cost on an individual site basis. The total expenditure for telephone costs for the domestic portfolio in 2014-15 was $7.372m. (iii) For the domestic portfolio the department is not aware of any hired office furniture or equipment including artworks and plants. This information is not available for the international portfolio. (iv) See Table 1 below for other associated services cost for 2014-15 for the domestic portfolio. This information is not available for the international portfolio. Table 1: Domestic Portfolio — Department of Agriculture *measures land, rather than office space. Table 2: International Portfolio — Department of Agriculture Note: The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) manages the department's international portfolio. Amounts detailed below are an estimate and may include residential costs. Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development: Offices Efficiency Upgrades (Question No. 923) 178 923 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 17 August 2015: In respect of the Minister's departmental office(s), has the building(s) received energy efficiency upgrades; if so, (a) when, and (b) how has this upgrade affected (i) average energy use, and (ii) average energy cost. Mr Truss GT4 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. In respect of the Department's Canberra premises, the energy efficiency ratings were established at the commencement of the current leases. Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development: Advertising (Question No. 995) 178 995 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 17 August 2015: What sum was spent by the Minister's department(s) on advertising and associated services in 2014-15, and what policy areas did this relate to. Mr Truss GT4 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: $60,698 (GST excl) was spent on advertising and associated services in 2014-15. Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development: Office Equipment (Question No. 1013) 178 1013 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 17 August 2015: What sum did the Minister's department spend in 2014-15 on the purchase and/or lease of (a) food and beverage equipment, and (b) exercise equipment, for staff in the (i) Minister's office, and (ii) departmental office(s). Mr Truss GT4 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Nil. Department of the Environment: Office Equipment (Question No. 1027) 178 1027 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 17 August 2015: What sum did the Minister's department spend in 2014-15 on the purchase and/​or lease of (a) food and beverage equipment, and (b) exercise equipment, for staff in the (i) Minister's office, and (ii) departmental office(s). Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of the Environment, during 2014-15 spend the following amounts on: (a) Food and Beverage equipment (i) Ministers office $ Nil (ii) Departmental offices $748.00 (purchase of a fridge to replace faulty item) (b) Exercise equipment (i) Ministers office $ Nil (ii) Departmental offices $ Nil Department of the Environment: Mobile Phones and Tablets (Question No. 1063) 178 1063 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 17 August 2015: (1) What sum did the Minister's department spend in 2014-15 on the purchase and/​or lease of (a) mobile phones, and (b) tablet devices for (i) Ministerial staff, and (ii) departmental staff.(2) What sum was spent on telecommunications contracts associated with these devices by (i) Ministerial staff, and (ii) departmental staff. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The sum that the Minister's department spent in 2014-15 on the purchase and/​or lease of: (a) mobile phones for:    (i) Ministerial staff was $19,615 (GST exclusive).    (ii) departmental staff was $60,782 (GST exclusive). (b) tablet devices for:    (i) Ministerial staff was $5,247 (GST exclusive).    (ii) departmental staff was $19,089 (GST exclusive). (2) The sum spent on telecommunications contracts associated with these devices for:    (i) Ministerial staff was $138,155 (GST exclusive).    (ii) departmental staff was $323,196 (GST exclusive). Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development: Departmental Staff Lost and Stolen Equipment (Question No. 1171) 179 1171 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 17 August 2015: In 2014-15, what sum was spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment of departmental staff, and what goods were replaced. Mr Truss GT4 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: $3,251 (GST excl)—three iPhones and one data card. Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development: Ministerial Staff Lost and Stolen Equipment (Question No. 1191) 179 1191 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 17 August 2015: In 2014-15, what sum was spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment of Ministerial staff, and what goods were replaced. Mr Truss GT4 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Nil. Department of the Environment: Ministerial Staff Lost and Stolen Equipment (Question No. 1216) 179 1216 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 17 August 2015: In 2014-15, what sum was spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment of Ministerial staff, and what goods were replaced. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Nil. In 2014-15 no items of equipment were lost, stolen, or misplaced. Department of the Environment: Departmental Staff Domestic and International Travel (Question No. 1237) 179 1237 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 17 August 2015: (1) In 2014-15, what sum was spent on (a) domestic travel, and (b) international travel, for departmental staff.(2) Of this, (a) on what dates, and to what locations, did the Minister travel, (b) how many departmental staff accompanied the Minister on this travel, and (c) for what purpose was the travel. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In 2014-15 the Department spent (a) $4,762,630 (GST inclusive) on domestic travel, and (b) $2,195,475 (GST inclusive where applicable) on international travel for departmental staff. (2) The table below outlines international travel where departmental staff accompanied the Minister. To attempt to provide information for domestic travel would involve an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources. Department of Finance: Departmental Media Events (Question No. 1342) 180 1342 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, on 17 August 2015: In respect of departmental costs for media events and photo opportunities in 2014-15, what (a) date was each event held, (b) location was each event held at, (c) sum was spent on each event, (d) announcement and/or issue did the event relate to, and (e) was the expenditure for. Mr Morrison E3L The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) The Medibank Private Share Offer Pre-Registration launch date was 28 September 2014. The Medibank Private Share Offer Prospectus launch date was 20 October 2014. (b) The location for both announcements was the Melbourne Convention Centre, Melbourne. (c) The sum of $19,895 inc GST was spent on the Medibank Private Share Offer Pre-Registration announcement. The sum of $31,228 inc GST was spent on the Medibank Private Share Offer Prospectus announcement. (d) The events relate to the announcements of the Pre-Registration open for the Medibank Private Share Offer and the announcement of the availability of the Medibank Private Share Offer Prospectus. (e) The expenditure was for venue hire, staging at venue, signage, filming, webcast and conference call, signers, and photography. Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development: Ministerial Media Events (Question No. 1347) 180 1347 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 17 August 2015: In respect of ministerial costs for media events and photo opportunities in 2014-15, what (a) date was each event held, (b) location was each event held at, (c) sum was spent on each event, (d) announcement and/or issue did the event relate to, and (e) was the expenditure for. Mr Truss GT4 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No Departmental costs were incurred in 2014-15 for ministerial media events and photo opportunities in addition to the normal costs of preparation and attendance, where appropriate. Ministerial Costs (Question No. 1372) 181 1372 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 17 August 2015: In respect of ministerial costs for media events and photo opportunities in 2014-15, what (a) date was each event held, (b) location was each event held at, (c) sum was spent on each event, (d) announcement and/or issue did the event relate to, and (e) was the expenditure for. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Minister's office is involved with range of national, state and regional media events and photo opportunities. To itemise each event, its location, costs and the issue to which it related in 2014-15 would involve an unreasonable diversion of staff resources. Department of Finance: Ministerial Media Events (Question No. 1373) 181 1373 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, on 17 August 2015: In respect of ministerial costs for media events and photo opportunities in 2014-15, what(a) date was each event held, (b) location was each event held at, (c) sum was spent on each event, (d) announcement and/or issue did the event relate to, and (e) was the expenditure for. Mr Morrison E3L The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Minister for Finance incurred nil costs for media events and photo opportunities in 2014-15. Department of Finance: Department Conferences (Question No. 1394) 181 1394 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, on 17 August 2015: Did the Minister's department host any conferences in 2014-15; if so (a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s), (b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details, (ii) travel, and what are the details, and (iii) social events, and what are the details, (iv) travel, and what are the details, and (c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference. Mr Morrison E3L The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: Comcover Launch (a) 2 July 2014 at the QT Hotel Canberra. (b) $26,456.50 (including GST) was spent on the conference, which included: (i) $13,000 (including GST) on morning tea, lunch and afternoon tea (200 guests); (ii) Nil on travel; (iii) Nil on social events; and (iv) See answer to (ii) (c) The outcomes of the event were: The launch of the Commonwealth Risk Management policy that became effective from 1 July 2014; Enabling attendees to better understand the full range of services offered by Comcover including insurance broking, overseas medical and travel assistance, risk management, and education and training; and Informing attendees of the requirements of Comcover's policy, in relation to the various classes of cover provided for the 2014-15 policy year. The Comcover Launch was targeted at APS officials with insurance and risk management responsibilities. Indemnities and Insurance clauses seminar (a) 19 March 2015 at the National Library. (b) $5,359 (including GST) was spent on the seminar, which included: (i) $4,306.50 (including GST) on morning tea (297 guests); (ii) Nil on travel; (iii) Nil on social events; and (iv)See answer to (ii). (c) The seminar was targeted at APS officials with insurance, risk, procurement, legal or delegate responsibilities and enhanced their ability to negotiate, execute or manage contracts on behalf of the Commonwealth. Department of Finance: Ministerial Conferences (Question No. 1425) 182 1425 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, on 17 August 2015 : Did the Minister host any conferences in 2014-15; if so (a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s), (b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details, (ii) travel, and what are the details, and (iii) social events, and what are the details, (iv) travel, and what are the details, and (c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference. Mr Morrison E3L The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: Nil. The Minister for Finance did not host any conferences in 2014-15. Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development: Ministerial Hospitality (Question No. 1451) 182 1451 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 17 August 2015: In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs. Mr Truss GT4 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In 2014-15 the Minister held functions at departmental or agency expense for the CEO's and board members of portfolio agencies and for visiting Ministers from other countries. Department of the Environment: Departmental Hospitality (Question No. 1476) 182 1476 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 17 August 2015: In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Details on catering and hospitality by the Minister during the period from 1 May 2014 to 30 September 2014 was provided in the response to a previous Question on Notice (see QoN 282). No further expenditure on catering and hospitality by the Minister has been recorded. Sale of Bulimba Barracks (Question No. 1488) 182 1488 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, on 20 August 2015: Will the Minister support an Australian Government contribution, in the amount of 10 per cent of the sale price of the Bulimba Barracks site, to the Brisbane City Council to defray infrastructure costs incurred as a consequence of the development of this site. Mr Morrison E3L The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: I thank the Member for Griffith for her question. The sale of the Bulimba Barracks, and subsequent proceeds of sale, fall within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Defence. Immigration and Border Protection: Discussion Paper (Question No. 1516) 182 1516 Ms Rowland 159771 asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 8 September 2015: In respect of the joint announcement he made on 20 August 2015 of a series of community consultations to be had on the discussion paper, 'Australian citizenship—Your right, Your responsibility', have these consultations taken place; if not, why not; if so, (a) did his department organise these consultations; if not, who did; (b) how many were held; (c) when were they held; (d) where were they held; (e) how many were attended by: (i) him; (ii) the Member for Berowra, and (iii) the Parliamentary Secretary for Social Services; (f) what total number of people attended each consultation; (g) can he provide an attendance sheet for each consultation; (h) when and how were the consultations advertised, and (i) what total sum was spent on the consultations, and can he provide a breakdown of the costs. Mr Dutton 00AKI The answer to the honourable member's question is: The consultations have taken place. (a) The Department of Immigration and Border Protection organised the consultations. (b) Five small group meetings were held from 25 June 2015 to 16 July 2015. (c) Seven public meetings were held from 24 August 2015 to 4 September 2015. (d) Small group meetings were held at offices of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in Sydney, Melbourne and by videoconference, and at Parliament House, Canberra. Public meetings were held in the following locations: NSW—Hurstville Entertainment Centre, Hurstville, Sydney QLD—Multicultural Community Centre—Diverciti Centre, Brisbane VIC—City of Casey Council Chambers, Narre Warren NT—Darwin Museum and Art Gallery, Darwin SA—Thebarton Community Centre, Torrensville WA—Girrawheen Senior High School, Perth TAS—Brighton Civic Centre, Bridgewater. (e) (i) (ii) (iii) I did not attend the consultations. The Member for Berowra attended one small group meeting and seven public meetings. The Parliamentary Secretary for Social Services attended five small group meetings and two public meetings. (f) Over 300 people attended the consultations. (g) It would be inappropriate to provide the attendance sheets for the consultations, as these contain personal information of the attendees. (h) Invitations to provide written input: DIBP website: notice on the Australian Citizenship—your right, your responsibility web page (from 26 May 2015) Posts on DIBP's Facebook page (26 May 2015 to 23 June 2015) Tweets on DIBP Twitter account (26 May 2015 to 16 June 2015) Direct email invitations (5 June 2015 to 12 June 2015) Direct hardcopy invitations (6 June 2015) Public notices in metropolitan and ethnic newspapers (6 June 2015 to 24 June 2015) DIBP ethnic liaison officers (throughout June 2015) National General Assembly of Local Government (14 June 2015 to 17 June 2015) Invitations to attend public meetings: Public notices in metropolitan and ethnic newspapers (22 August 2015 to 2 September 2015). Posts on DIBP's Facebook page. Tweets on DIBP Twitter account DIBP website: What's new item on the Department's website home page linking to dedicated page promoting the public consultations (from 24 August 2015 to 8 September 2015). Emails to local community groups from the Department's Ethnic Liaison Officers (24 August to 3 September 2015). (i) The total sum spent on the consultations is as follows: Immigration and Border Protection: Discussion Paper (Question No. 1517) 184 1517 Ms Rowland 159771 asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 8 September 2015: In respect of the 'Australian citizenship—Your right, Your responsibility' discussion paper, (a) who is the author, (b) when was it written, (c) when was the (i) first, and (ii) final, draft produced, (d) who proof read it, (e) who authorised the final version, and (f) what sum did it cost to print and distribute in hardcopy. Mr Dutton 00AKI The answer to the honourable member's question is: (a) The discussion paper is a Commonwealth Government document. (b) The discussion paper was written in the period leading up to 26 May 2015. (c) (i) and (ii) The first and final draft of the discussion paper were produced in the period leading up to 26 May 2015. (d) The discussion paper was subject to normal proof reading processes. (e) The discussion paper is a Commonwealth Government document and was authorised by the Government. (f) $8,781. Department of Finance: Communication Devices (Question No. 1522) 184 1522 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing on 9 September 2015: In respect of the $12,111.00 tender to Ethan Group Pty Ltd for 'Communication Devices' (CN3289245), (a) what devices were purchased, (b) how many of each type of device was procured, (c) what is the cost per device, and (d) how many of these devices are for use by (i) Ministerial, and (ii) departmental, staff. Mr Morrison E3L The minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) What devices were purchased: Apple iPad Air (32 GB, WiFi, Cellular—Space Grey) (b) How many of each type of device was procured: 15 (c) What is the cost per device; and $734.00 (GST exclusive) (d) How many of these devices are for use by: Ministerial—nil departmental staff—15 Department of the Environment: Training (Question No. 1539) 184 1539 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 15 September 2015: In respect of the $22,000.00 tender to Interaction Consulting Group for 'Learning Development'(CN3290785), (a) what are the aims of the training, and (b) how many, (i) Ministerial staff, and (ii) departmental staff, received training, and (c) what is the full itinerary of the training. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The contract with Interaction Consulting Group for 'Learning Development' (CN3290785) is for multiple deliveries of the course titled 'Job Applications and Interview Skills'. The aim of the training is to provide departmental employees with the skills and confidence to compete for Australian Public Service vacancies. (b) (i) No Ministerial staff have attended the training. (ii) 18 departmental employees have attended the training under this contract to date. The contract runs through until 30 June 2016. (c)The full itinerary for this one day course is as follows: