2017-05-23 45 1 3 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 23 May 2017

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

BILLS 1 BILLS Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017 1

Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017

Second Reading 1 12:01 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I rise this morning to speak on the Fair Work Commission (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017, but I do so with a heavy heart—as we all will today—for obviously we have just heard the news in the last few hours of another most appalling terrorist atrocity conducted at a concert in Manchester, where 19 people are known to have died and 50 more are injured. We know that many of these people are young, innocent children and teenagers. In this parliament during all of our speeches today we will be sending our prayers to those injured, to the nurses and doctors fighting to save lives as we speak and to the families trying to find and make contact with their loved ones. We send our prayers and our strength to our law enforcement officials who continue the fight against terrorism. Back to the corrupting benefits bill. In his classic work, Free Market Economics, Professor Steven Kates has written: An economy works best where the population at large is disgusted by corrupt practices and refuses to accept dishonesty at any level. Those who act in a dishonest way need to be culled from the normal activities of economic life. …                                     …   … Where dishonest practices become the norm, especially where dishonest and corrupt government practices are common, no economy can expect to succeed. Corruption regularly drains away the potential profits of a successful business. It bleeds business dry and vastly reduces the incentives for productive economic behaviour while limiting the ability of business to finance innovation and internal growth. An ethical honest population is a necessary part of any successful economy. Whether it is in employer-employee relations, in the dealings between one business and another, or where it is governments involved with business, honest and fair dealing is essential. Acceptance of corrupt practice as just one of those things that no one can do anything about may be facing the inevitable, but it will condemn a society to economic stagnation. That is why this bill is important, because we have seen examples of corrupt practices uncovered by the Heydon royal commission that have simply become standard practice. These practices were where there have been a raft of payments between unions and employers that were simply designed to ensure companies got favourable treatment from the unions. The royal commissioner himself called these payments 'corrupting benefits'. These payments are often disguised by false invoices, marked as payments for training or similar. They are made as part of a deal in enterprise agreement negotiations or accompanied by a list of employee names who are secretly joined to a union. Some officials, the royal commission found, were paid private kickbacks for their personal gain. One CFMEU official used free building materials and labour to renovate his home in Brisbane. An AWU official used funds to buy an investment property and to renovate a house. Some officials used threats to pressure employers to pay the money in order to bolster union coffers. We know of a CFMEU official, documented at the trade union inquiry, who demanded cash for working in Canberra. A New South Wales CFMEU official demanded that employers pay 'donations' to drug and alcohol rehabilitation funds which were secretly siphoning money to the union. Others extracted payments to bolster their status and power—particularly, sadly, within the Labor Party. We must rule these practices as corrupt and unacceptable. Let's just have a look in further detail at some of these corrupt practices that were uncovered by the Heydon royal commission. Thiess John Holland paid the Australian Workers Union $300,000 plus GST while they built the EastLink freeway extension to Melbourne's eastern suburbs. The Australian Workers Union issued false invoices, disguising payments as training, back strain research, Australian Workers Union magazine advertisements, forum tickets and conference sponsorships. But none of these actual so-called benefits were actually paid or provided. The payments were never disclosed to the Australian Workers Union members or their employers. A second example: ACI Operations paid the Australian Workers Union around $500,000—half a million dollars—while they laid off workers at their Spotswood glass factory. The Australian Workers Union invoiced these payments as 'paid education leave'. But the payments were not used for that purpose; they were used, predominantly, to offset a loan to renovate the union's Victorian office and other general union costs. Another example: the infamous Clean Event, which paid the AWU in Victoria $75,000 to maintain an enterprise agreement that paid cleaning workers well below award rates and stripped them of their penalty rates. That is right, Mr Deputy Speaker, the union stripped them of their penalty rates and at the same time were taking a backhander of $75,000 from the company knocking off the penalty rates for workers, without letting them know. The payments were detailed in a secret letter between the Australian Workers Union and Clean Event. As I said, this was never disclosed to the workers. Level 1 casuals working at Clean Event were entitled to 176 per cent more per hour under the award than under the agreement sealed by these payments. Another case: Unibuilt paid one union official $32,000, and that money went to fund an election campaign. And that was paid while the company was negotiating an enterprise agreement with the AWU. I see the member for Bendigo at the bench, and the member for Bendigo said words during this debate—and I hope I quote her correctly—that the Labor Party is against all forms of corruption; they are against all forms of union corruption and they will not tolerate it. The question for the member for Bendigo is: if a union official is in negotiations with a company, negotiating on behalf of the workers, and that union official receives a payment of $32,000, which they put in their pocket and they use for their own personal benefit to run their own personal election campaign without telling the workers, is that a corrupt practice? This is the question that the Labor Party have to answer. Those opposite can stand up in this parliament and say, 'Oh, we're against all these corrupt practices,' but they have to say whether they consider that that practice is acceptable. Of course, we will hear nothing from the Labor Party on that. Then we have another example. Chiquita Mushrooms paid the AWU in Victoria $24,000 while it was casualising its workforce. The Australian Workers Union falsely invoiced the payments as paid educational leave and never disclosed it to the Chiquita employees. These examples go on and on and on. We have to say that these examples show that the current regulations are not working. If I am paying a lawyer to negotiate a contract on my behalf, I expect him to be working exclusively for my benefit. If he is copping a backhander from the person he is negotiating with, trying to get the best deal for me, that is a combination of a secret commission, a bribe and extortion. That is illegal—and so it should be. If a union is negotiating on behalf of hardworking Australians and they are getting backhanders or kickbacks, for whatever purpose, they should fully disclose that to those workers. That is what this bill is trying to do. The Labor Party come in here and say that they are against all these practices, but not one single member of the opposition has stood up and said that a union official getting $32,000 from a company he is negotiating with on behalf of the workers and using that to fund his election campaign is a corrupt practice. Well, shame on the Australian Labor Party. But the coalition is getting on and fixing this. In this bill we are responding to recommendations 40, 41 and 48 of the royal commission into trade unions. By amending the act, we will make it a criminal offence to give a registered organisation or a person associated with a registered organisation a corrupting benefit. We will make it a criminal offence to receive or solicit a corrupting benefit. We will make it a criminal offence for a national system employer, other than an employee organisation, to provide, offer or promise to provide any cash or in-kind payments, other than certain legitimate payments, to an employee organisation or its prohibited beneficiaries. We will make it a criminal offence to solicit, receive, obtain or agree to obtain such a prohibited payment. We will require bargaining representatives for proposed enterprise agreements—employers, employer organisations and unions—to disclose all financial benefits that the bargaining representative or a person or body reasonably connected with it could, or could reasonably expect to, derive because of a term proposed in the agreement. Failure to comply with these agreements will give rise to civil remedies but will not preclude agreement approval in the enterprise agreement. We have seen many examples recently where unions have agreed to slash the penalty rates of workers. We hear the Labor Party complaining about penalty rates being cut, but no-one has cut penalty rates in this country more than the unions. So it is only fair, if union officials are going to agree to cut penalty rates of workers, that those workers know that that union official is not copping a backhander; that they are not getting some form of secret commission; that they are not getting $32,000 to fund their election campaign to run here in federal parliament; that they are not being paid to have their house renovated. Workers deserve every cent that they get. It should not be siphoned off by corrupt trade union officials. That is what we need to address and we are addressing in this bill. The criminal penalties for payments with the intent to corrupt under this legislation will be a maximum of 10 years in prison and a fine of $900,000 for an individual or $4.5 million for companies. Maximum penalties for other illegitimate payments will be two years in prison or $90,000 for an individual or $450,000 for companies. Most importantly, if those on the Labor Party side think these payments are legitimate, let us have full disclosure. Let us have the disclosure, so that if you are working for a union and your union representative is out negotiating on your behalf, and he gets paid $32,000, that should be disclosed to the union members. Ultimately, that money has to come from somewhere. It either comes from the company or, more likely, it comes from the union workers themselves. It comes from the workers' pockets. It is money that could have otherwise gone to those workers to give them more pay. We have seen too many examples where that money has ended up in the pockets of corrupt union officials. This is a fair bill. This is a needed bill. I commend it to the House. 12:16 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017. I move, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the member for Gorton: That all the words after 'whilst' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'the bill contains some improvements to the existing law, they are not enough and the House declines to give the bill a second reading and calls on the Government to establish a National Independent Commission Against Corruption'. If this government was serious about tackling corruption, we would have a national anticorruption commission—a national ICAC, a national corruption watchdog like they have in New South Wales. This government thinks that the only place that wrongdoing happens is on one side of the fence, in the industrial arena. They are kidding themselves. People across the country do not believe that either. Anyone who thinks that there is not corruption taking place amongst Australia's biggest corporations can only be turning a blind eye, which is what this government does. Under this government's watch we have had report after report of some of Australia's biggest companies bribing overseas regimes like Saddam Hussein's—bribing Saddam Hussein's regime in order to get a contract. We have had reports over a long period of time that subsidiaries in the Reserve Bank paid money to individuals overseas in order to secure deals; all of that happening under the federal government's watch. And, as everyone knows, at the state level in New South Wales, when broad-based national anticorruption commissions have the power to go and look under every rock, not just on one particular side of the political fence, but across the board, they find that there are Liberal MPs and Labor MPs who have not just had their snouts in the trough, but have actually been on the take. Some of them have rightly been prosecuted. That is what you get when you have a proper national anticorruption commission. That is why I am moving an amendment that all the words after 'whilst' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: The bill contains some improvements to the existing law, they are not enough and the House declines to give the bill a second reading and calls on the government to establish a national independent commission against corruption. We have an opportunity here in this parliament to do what they have done in New South Wales and what the Australian people want: that is, establish a national anticorruption commission—a body that has the power to go and look under every rock at the federal level in the same way that they do at the New South Wales level. That body would have the power to investigate what the government says is its motivation for this bill, which is finding out if there is wrongdoing in the union movement—and if there is wrongdoing in the union movement, if there is corruption, then of course it does not matter where it happens, it should be rooted out and people should be brought before the courts and prosecuted and if they are found guilty they do their time or pay the penalty. The point is that in Australia we are meant to have equality before the law; we are meant to have a system of laws in Australia where no-one is exempt from the law no matter how high an office they hold, and if you are on the take and receiving corrupting benefits it does not matter what position in society you hold you should be brought to account. What they have found in New South Wales is that when you start looking you find things. An argument put by some says that we do not need a national anticorruption commission at the federal level because there has been no suggestion of corruption by federal MPs or federal public servants or others who have dealings with the Commonwealth. In some ways that is the point—you do not know what is there unless you have a body that has the power to look. If you have a body that has the power to look, that is when the public starts to know exactly what is going on behind closed doors. We have heard that within subsidiaries of federal government, bodies like the Reserve Bank, there have been longstanding accusations of improper payments being made—the kind of payments you would think that this government would be concerned about given this bill. There have been some limited attempts to investigate that, and I for one have been a member of parliamentary committees that have tried to get to the bottom of it. What you find when you start investigating is that a parliamentary committee is no substitute for a well-resourced watchdog that has the power to go in, get the documents, ask the tough questions and do the investigation that can then come up with the evidence that can be handed over to prosecutors. What is the justification for saying that corrupting benefits have to be outlawed for one particular group in society but it is apparently okay everywhere else—it is bad if you are a union but it is all right if you are one of Australia's largest corporations or is all right if you are a subsidiary of the Reserve Bank or it is all right if you are a senior official with the Commonwealth? There can be no justification for saying that. So, here is a challenge to the government: if everything that you have said is what you genuinely believe, then expand this bill so that it becomes the start of a proper national commission against corruption—a national anticorruption watchdog. What I suspect is that the government does not actually care about corruption at all—the government turns a blind eye to it. If you have a blue collar, this government throws the book at you but, if you have a white collar, it turns a blind eye. We have accusation after accusation of wrongdoing at the top levels of the corporate sector and this government does nothing about it. When you delve into the provisions of this bill, it shows that this is nothing more than a political stunt. The provisions of this bill are strict liability provisions and they make it very easy to prosecute, and they come with very harsh penalties, of jail time, but the provisions are so incredibly broad that the likes of the Law Council have said they do not have a place in a country governed by the rule of law. I know there are not many on the government side of the House who have ever spent a day standing up for Australian workers in their life, so how you actually do it might come as news to them, but what would happen if a union has been involved in a big industrial dispute with an employer and then says, at the conclusion of the dispute or part way through the dispute that has involved going to court, involved the expenditure of a huge amount of legal fees, 'We'll settle this dispute and we'll put it all behind us but we want you to pay our legal fees as part of that'? Is that caught by this law? Maybe. Maybe that is caught by this law. Who knows? The provisions of this law are so broad that the legitimate day-to-day activity that takes place between employers and employees and their representatives is now all under a cloud. But that is probably not surprising, because that is exactly the government's intent. The government's intent has nothing to do with increasing the application of the rule of law in Australia and everything to do with using the power of this place to pick a political fight—to pick certain sides of the political fence and say: 'Well, we don't like what you're doing because sometimes you come and campaign against us in elections, when we try to take the rights of Australian workers away. We don't like that, so we're going to put restrictions on you that we would never dream of putting on our friends at the top end of town in the corporate sector.' That is what this is about, and make no mistake. It is for that reason, because this bill is drafted so broadly and makes it so difficult for people to conduct what would otherwise be lawful activity, that I will not be supporting it. And it is also because it is crystal clear that the government is passing up the opportunity to establish a national anticorruption watchdog that is broad based, that this cannot be supported. So here is an invitation to the government: take this bill away, start again and come back with a bill that is applied to everyone in society—including all of us here in parliament. Come back with a bill that is a national anticorruption commission and a watchdog so that every one of us here in parliament is put under the same level of scrutiny and obligation as you want to apply to unions. Come back with a bill that puts companies and the biggest corporations in this country under the same level of scrutiny; that puts our top public servants—people who work in the tax office—under the same level of obligation and scrutiny as you want to apply here to unions. I bet the government will not do it, but I hope they do. And there is an opportunity now, here, with this amendment that I am moving, for people of goodwill in this chamber to say: 'Well, enough is enough. We need to establish that national anticorruption commission.' By supporting this amendment and telling the government to go back to the drawing board and come up with something that applies the rule of law, but that applies it as equally to politicians and boardroom directors as it does to union officials, they will be able to get some of these changes through. They might be able to get some of these changes through to deal with some of the concerns they have raised. As can be seen from the second reading amendment, we make the point that not only should people be held to account if they have done something that is wrong but that it is actually the Greens who have been leading the charge—not only for a national anticorruption commission but also for inquiry into why there are tens of thousands of people across the country who are young workers at Hungry Jacks, at McDonald's, at Coles and at Woolworths who are getting paid less than their award rates of pay. This is a good question. This is a very good question. Why is an 18-year-old who works Saturdays or Sundays at McDonald's, or nightshifts at Hungry Jacks, or at Coles or at Woolies, getting paid less than what is in the award? That is a very good question. But we can fix that with a bill, and we have a bill in parliament to fix that—to stop the legal minimum conditions in this country from being undercut. If that is what they are really concerned about—and I have heard a few government members refer to that in their speeches—then let's fix it. Let us pass laws that make sure that young workers in this country are not done over. Let us make sure that every young worker in this country is entitled to be paid properly on weekends and at nights. If you are serious about that, if that is your motivation for this bill, then get behind the Greens paid protection bill. Then every parent who encourages their kids to go off and work at McDonald's, Coles or Woolies will know that they are getting paid properly and every young person who works there will get paid their penalty rates for having to work those hours that are convenient for us when we all turn up on Sundays at the supermarket but that are very inconvenient for the people who have to do it. We could fix that; let us fix it. If that is really your concern then pass our bill in the Senate. But I suspect it is not. I suspect this government does not care one jot about the tens of thousands of underpaid retail and fast food workers around this country. I suspect all the government cares about is using legislation for political points to try and beat up the Labor Party. If you do not support our bill in the Senate to protect young workers then everything that you have said here counts for nothing. You do not actually care about young workers and you do not actually care about people getting their penalty rates; you just want to use it as a political excuse. The test is now very clear: if the government supports this amendment then this bill will be off the table and we can come back and have a discussion about what the Australian people want and what this place needs, which is a national anticorruption watchdog. I commend the amendment to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the amendment seconded? Mr Wilkie C2T I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 12:32 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise with great gusto and enjoyment to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017. It is unfortunate that the member for Melbourne has left the chamber because I was hoping to be able to set him straight on a couple of things. Unfortunately, and perhaps understandably, he totally misunderstands the intent and the effect of this bill. He talked about why it is that, in his opinion, this government is not applying the same strict standards across the board. Of course, he is fundamentally wrong on that, because on this side of the chamber we believe in the rule of law and we believe that no-one is above the law. In my short time in this place I have spoken about union corruption very often. I speak with some degree of authority, having worked in the building industry as a carpenter and joiner, as a builder, as an adjudicator, as a mediator and as a barrister for 30 years. There is not too much in the building industry that I have not seen or that has not come across my desk. I can tell the chamber without a shadow of a doubt that the building industry in this country is absolutely wracked with corruption. That is why, on this side of the House, we have been so forceful in trying to clean up the industry: because it impacts upon every single citizen. Every single taxpayer in this country is paying a cost, a margin, for union malfeasance. When you look at the budget announced just two weeks ago, over the next 10 years this country is about to embark on its largest infrastructure expenditure at some $75 billion. We, on this side of the House, are very proud to be part of a government that is putting its money where its mouth is. It is putting its money where its mouth is by putting important money into vital infrastructure projects like the $10 billion for the national rail project, which will impact on my electorate of Fisher. This federal government is making $10 billion available for state governments and territory governments to bid for rail projects. Once again, I call on the Palaszczuk Labor government to bid for the duplication of the North Coast railway line between Beerburrum and Nambour. It is an absolute no-brainer. I will be writing to the Deputy Premier of Queensland later this week, calling upon her to take advantage of that $10 billion. Mr Dick 53517 What about funding Cross River Rail? Mr WALLACE 265967 We do not all live in the cities, mate. That is what is wrong with you lot over there. There are a lot more people who live in the bush in the regions than live in the cities. We do not all live in the city. It is not all about city folk, and on this side of the House we believe that people who live in the bush and people who live in the regions should be given the opportunity to have world-class infrastructure. That is what we are trying to do. Equally, this federal government has allocated $650 million to the Bruce Highway upgrades south of Caloundra. That is on top of the $743 million we have already contributed. I am talking about this because, for every dollar that this government spends and for every dollar that a state government spends on infrastructure, my sums and my investigations over the last 30 years tell me that, particularly now, somewhere between 60c and another dollar is being spent on union corruption. Mr Dick interjecting— Mr WALLACE 265967 I hear my colleague over on the other side of the fence arguing with me. Mr Dick 53517 I'm just saying you're wrong. Mr WALLACE 265967 He says I am wrong, but that is fine—you would expect him to stick up for his union mates. But for every dollar spent there is union corruption in this country and in the state of Queensland, in particular. I will go back to other states shortly. What we are trying to do in this place is clean up infrastructure and building. We want to ensure that every dollar we spend goes to the project at hand—whether it is building rail or roads. Let us have a look at some of the problems we have in this country. If you look at the Commonwealth Games and some of the sites that are being built on the Gold Coast, on 9 May The Australian reported: The construction union could be fined as little as $40,000 for holding 'coercive' twice-daily two-hour stop work meetings that halted construction at the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games site and cost the head contractor $700,000. They have gone very quiet over on the other side of the chamber. The article continues: For 19 days last year, Queensland's Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union held two meetings every day at the $126 million Carrara Sports and Recreation project in an attempt to force contractor Hansen ­Yuncken into an enterprise agreement. Federal Court judge John Reeves has already ruled the action was unlawful, but construction watchdog the Australian Building and Construction Commission— that this government put back on the beat— yesterday asked for the union to be fined up to $162,000. The Commonwealth Games sites were brought, effectively, to a halt by this coercive conduct undertaken by the CFMEU. But it does not stop there. The Federal Circuit Court, on 15 December, handed down penalties totalling $37,500 against the CFMEU and its former Queensland president Dave Hanna for threatening ongoing industrial action at a Brisbane construction site unless a construction firm agreed to sign a secret deal with the union. Six working days were impacted by unprotected industrial action at the Brooklyn on Brookes apartment project in Brisbane in April 2014, prompting the issue of a return to work order by the Fair Work Commission. But these sorts of activities are not just going on in Queensland. In Western Australia the CFMEU and its most senior national leader, Dave Noonan, and top Western Australian officials were fined $277,000 over unlawful blockades at the $1.2 billion children's hospital in Perth. That is the same thing they did at the Lady Cilento Children's Hospital in Brisbane. Ms Chesters 249710 Where they found asbestos. Mr WALLACE 265967 The Labor Party and the CFMEU have no shame. You will grind projects to a halt, even if it is hospitals. Let us listen to what it was about rather than talk about asbestos or whatever it was that was shouted out on the other side. Mr Noonan admitted he organised a protest of 400 people to blockade the children's hospital site on 18 July 2013, forcing John Holland to abandon a critical concrete pour involving up to 45 truckloads of concrete and slurry. As a builder, I can tell you that that would have cost millions of dollars. The WA branch secretary, Mick Buchan, and then assistant secretary, Joe McDonald, admitted they incited the blockade—oh, because John Holland would not sign a whole-of-site CFMEU agreement that paid subbies at least the same as employees. They refused to do it. Ms Lamb interjecting— Mr WALLACE 265967 That is because they are subcontractors— Ms Lamb interjecting— Mr WALLACE 265967 Because they incited the blockade of a building site. They admitted it. Unbelievable. But wait, we go on. The CFMEU was slugged $540,000 for Fair Work breaches in Adelaide. Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide—the whole world is against the CFMEU! The construction union will have to pay more than $540,000 in penalties for unlawful conduct. Are you supporting that unlawful conduct? Ms Chesters interjecting— Mr WALLACE 265967 In South Australia, after losing an appeal— The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Order! I remind the member for Fisher to direct his remarks through the chair. I will ask those listening here to keep their voices down. Mr WALLACE 265967 I could go on. Mr Laming E0H Go on—extension, more! The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The member for Bowman is not listening. Mr WALLACE 265967 But it is important we understand why the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill is so important. It is because of the coercive conduct of unions. Unions try to muscle and strong-arm builders. Some builders kowtow and buckle to that sort of conduct, and that is very unfortunate. But on this side of the chamber we believe that no-one is above the law. For every corrupt payment that is received by the union, someone had to write the cheque, and we on this side of the House want to ensure that we disincentivise, as much as possible, companies from writing those cheques. So we have introduced the ABCC; we have introduced the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act; we have introduced the new building code; and we have stopped, and are committed to preventing, corporate tax evasion. Mr Dick interjecting— Mr WALLACE 265967 He laughs. You still want to talk some more, do you?—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We want to ensure that, as much as humanly possible, we try to prevent corrupt payments being made to unions. If you take the sugar off the table, if you disincentivise the person from writing the cheque in the first place with very significant fines and jail terms, we are confident that the CFMEU will no longer be able to muscle and strong-arm these building companies from simply doing their job. That is what they are trying to do; building companies are trying to do their job. But the CFMEU and other unions are holding them to ransom. Unfortunately, we have to come in with strong legislation to prevent that sort of conduct from happening. We on this side of the House are going after both unions that break the law and companies that break the law. We on this side of the House are not anti-union. I have said this many times before: we are not anti-union; we are anti-union corruption and we are anti-business corruption. That is why we are introducing these very strong penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment or a $900,000 fine for an individual, or a $4½ million fine for a company, who enters into these corrupt payments. We on this side of the House, unlike those opposite, do not look after unions that break the law; and we set heavy penalties for businesses that break the law. To any business in the building industry that is considering writing a cheque for hush money to get the job on the go, to keep the unions off their back, I want to talk to those directors right here, right now: is it worth facing a $900,000 personal fine? Is it worth your company being fined $4½ million? Is it worth you, Mr or Mrs Director, going to jail for 10 years if you write that cheque to keep the union off your back? I commend the bill to the House. 12:47 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I rise to enter the debate today following on from the member for Fisher, who had a lot to say about last week's budget and the Commonwealth Games but did not talk about the intent of this bill and what it will mean. In this year's budget, compared to years past, GDP growth is down, employment growth is down, wages growth is down and 100,000 jobs have simply been washed away. I will take the member for Fisher up on a point about infrastructure. For the largest infrastructure project for Queensland, the No. 1 Infrastructure Australia project, Cross River Rail, not one dollar has been allocated for the people of Queensland. So there are massive amounts of 'pork' going out across Australia but not where it is needed. The member for Fisher, like the bloated LNP in Queensland, is not interested in delivering infrastructure. They want a pat on the back for delivering $7.5 billion worth of infrastructure this year. 'Well done'—said no-one!—because we know that there is a cut in infrastructure spending in Australia. The member for Fisher, in his prepared notes written by either the minister or the IPA, ran the true lines about what this government thinks of workers in Australia, collective agreements and workers' pay. I will come back to that in a moment. Let us be absolutely clear from the outset: Labor will not stand for corruption in any form and we will support legislation that is properly drafted and applies to both companies and registered organisations. But this bill provides a different test for union officials and employers who work with unions than for politicians and public servants and corrupt activities between businesses. What I find really interesting is that even though this is part of the Heydon recommendations that were made more than 12 months ago, no action was taken by the government until after the penalty rates decision, without any proper consultation. So, you have to be skeptical about this government's motivations. Let me say that again. The Heydon recommendations were made more than 12 months ago. Despite the urgency, the nonsense we heard from the member for Fisher and his rant to this chamber, nothing has happened under this government's watch. They took no action to respond to any of Dyson Heydon's recommendations—not before the double dissolution election and not after it, not even when this parliament was debating the two antiworker pieces of legislation. That was the justification for the election we had to have. And the Turnbull government did nothing—sat on their hands and did nothing—until they realised that they were on the wrong side entirely when it comes to penalty rates. That is when the action really kicked in. That is why I am very keen to support the amendment moved by the member for Gorton today to the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill. While the government is happy to see wages of Australians cut—and that is what every single member opposite wants to see happen in Australia, while their priorities are of course now to deliver a $64 billion tax cut to big business, whilst at the same time cutting payments to families, parents, pensioners and job seekers—you have to understand the political motivation by a Prime Minister. When he is faced with the Leader of the Opposition 's private member's bill to preserve the take-home pay and conditions and to protect penalty rates, all of a sudden the urgency comes out that we have to introduce this bill. So, an unpopular penalty rates decision comes down, which, let's face it, everyone on that side of the chamber wants to see happen and has been encouraging, ensuring that we see a real pay cut. Never has it been clearer that when the government has its priorities—laser like, fixated on delivering multimillionaires a tax cut, making sure that big business is looked after—the penalty rates issue is really biting in the community. I am not sure whether those opposite walk in the same shopping aisles and go to the same pubs and clubs as members, say, on this side of the chamber do. Mr Morton 265931 Probably not. Mr DICK 53517 Probably not; they just said it: probably not. That is right. They are their own words. I will take that interjection. They do not go into the same shopping aisles and cafes and newsagents that we all go into. I did a listening post in the suburb of Gailes on Saturday. A government member: Do you live in Gailes? Mr DICK 53517 Well, I will not take that interjection. And isn't it funny: they laugh about a suburb in Australia. Somehow a suburb that is doing it a bit tough should be ridiculed and laughed at. That is absolutely pathetic. Actually, I will take the interjection. There is a reason the member for Bowman has had a long and distinguished career on the backbench: 14 years going strong. We never have to worry about the transfer from the member for Bowman moving forward to the frontbench. We can put that one in the bank; that is for sure. I do live in the electorate of Oxley, and, for the member's benefit, I live in a suburb called Durack—probably a suburb the member for Bowman has never been to. I talked to workers in Gailes on the weekend, a hospitality worker and a retail worker who were fearful that their pay was going to be cut. One worker told me that they have to get up at a quarter to three on a Sunday and go to work at a hotel, and they are looking at a $64 pay cut for that one day's work. It is not a lot of money for those opposite; I concede that. But taking $240 out of someone's pay packet in a month is a huge difference. You may want to have a laugh at people who live at Gailes. I take their concerns very seriously. So, on behalf of the 10,500 retail, food and accommodation workers in my electorate who are looking down the barrel of cuts to their take-home pay, I am supporting this amendment today—because those people, right across Australia, not just in my community but in every electorate in Australia, deserve to have this parliament fighting for their salaries and fighting for their pay and conditions. Extraordinarily, this bill was introduced and brought on for debate one week after the decision to slash penalty rates—which we know that the government clearly supports If we ever needed any more confirmation that this government is more concerned with saving its own political skin than standing up for vulnerable and low-paid workers, we have it here in lights. Be under no illusion that the timing of the introduction of this bill is all about a sad attempt to distract and divert away from this side of the chamber's proud defence for the protection of penalty rates and that it has absolutely nothing to do with any urgent need to address corruption. As I said, there are over 10,500 workers in my electorate who are looking down the barrel of a pay cut. But does the government stand by these workers? Will it stand shoulder to shoulder and lift a finger to help them? No. This government again shifts the blame for this disastrous decision. We know there has been a concerted campaign by the Prime Minister, the LNP and big business for that side of the chamber to cut the take-home pay of some of Australia's most vulnerable and insecure low-paid workers. Taking a closer look at the terms of the new offences, they differ from the model legislation recommended by Heydon and they differ from the existing bribery and corruption offences in the Criminal Code. We cannot have any confidence that this legislation does not unfairly target workers. The so-called 'corrupting benefits' offences are broadly similar to the existing Criminal Code offences of bribery of a public official, bribery of a foreign official and corrupting benefits given to or received by a public official—although there are key differences that raise many questions. The bill prohibits employers from giving cash or in-kind payment to a union or to a person nominated by a union, and it prohibits the union from requesting or receiving cash in-kind payments. The bill expressly excludes membership fees, wage deductions; benefit provided for employees—but possibly covers the provision of union training services; tax deductible donations; payments for services or in accordance with the law or a judgement. But the regulations can remove or add other payments, including the ones excluded in the bill. It is facts like these which show this government's lack of consultation and that it is rushing this bill through parliament in the face of this side of the chamber and the Leader of the Opposition's private member's bill to preserve take-home pay and protect penalty rates. We know that penalty rates put food on the table and books on school desks and go some way to compensating hardworking Australians who forgo family and leisure time to work on Sundays. We only need to look at what happened last week when we saw wages continuing to flatline in this country. We are not seeing the uptick in wage growth that we need to see in this nation. The latest figures show that wages are now falling in real terms and that the decline in real wages is coming at a time when cost-of-living pressures are rising. We know, and certainly when I speak to residents in my electorate, that they are finding it tougher and tougher to make ends meet. So the government's plans in response to this at a time of record low wages is to increase taxes on 10 million working Australians, while giving a tax cut to millionaires. I am really pleased that the Leader of the Opposition demonstrated to Australia in his reply speech that this side of the chamber is in touch with working Australians, that we know people on, say, $60,000 or $65,000 a year and living in the wonderful suburb of Gailes—which the member for Bowman wanted to have a laugh at—should not have to pay for extra health services. They should not have to pay for increased taxes to simply pay for those tax cuts at the other end of the scale. I do not think that is fair. I do not think it is fair that a millionaire gets a $16,400 tax cut but someone who is living in the suburbs that I represent and who is on a low income has to pay $352 a year more. How on earth is that possibly fair? This is the party that spent $200,000 on research to ask, 'How should the budget be framed?' Crosby Textor, for its $200,000 bill, came up with: 'Australians don't think that this government is fair.' This is a government that had to pay for research to find out what to say in a budget. Doesn't that say it all—that you have to write a cheque to a polling company because you do not know how to frame a budget. So they turn around and go: 'You know what the government needs to do? People said: "We don't think it's on our side." So, guys, make sure you use the word "fairness".' I can tell you what— An honourable member interjecting— Mr DICK 53517 That is right, whoever the interjector was: they do not walk in the same shopping centres as we do and they do not go to the same shops and worksites as we do, because, if they did, they would not have to ask: 'How should we frame the budget? What are the key buzzwords we should use?' They should come out to the suburbs in the south-west of Brisbane and talk to people about their pay and conditions and about how important penalty rates are for their wages and their families, and then they would not need to waste $200,000 on paying Crosby Textor to ask what they should frame their budget around. We on this side of the chamber know, and that is why the amendment has been moved by the member for Gorton: to ensure that we can protect penalty rates, and that we legislate to prevent the decision from taking effect, to stop Australians from having their penalty rates cut. Every single member on this side of the chamber supports this, and I would go so far as to say that a majority of Australians support this as well, because we know, from listening to the community, that we need to ensure that we do everything we can, with the privilege we have of serving in this place, to protect their pay and conditions, and that is what we on this side will continue to do. But, sadly, this government refuses to heed that as well. 13:02 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise today to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017. This bill will make it unlawful for unions to take payments from companies who sell out their workers. In my past life, I was a lawyer—I would say that I am still a lawyer; I still pay my fees. When you pay a lawyer to represent you, you trust that they will represent you fairly. You trust that they will not take payments from both parties in a dispute during negotiations, because you have paid your money to them to represent you. This is not a difficult concept to understand. It is, in fact, very, very simple. Yet somehow those members opposite and their union bosses still appear to have difficulty wrapping their heads around this very simple concept. Research agency Roy Morgan released a report at the start of the year that estimated that some 15 to 17 per cent of the Australian workforce is a member of a union. This is a record low. And yet at least 50 per cent of the Labor Party's candidates are chosen by the unions. This defies belief. How can you run 50 per cent of your candidates in an election with ties to a movement that represents only 15 per cent of the population? The maths of that equation do not stand up to scrutiny. We must ask ourselves: 'Why is it that the Australian public, as educated and hardworking—some entrepreneurial, some not—as they are, have abandoned the union movement?' I think it is simple. The Australian people do not enjoy being lectured to by hypocrites—and that is exactly what the modern union movement and its political arm in the Labor Party seek to do. Time and time again, unions have eroded the trust that workers have placed in them because of the secret payments, the militant behaviour and the perception that they no longer care about the average Australian worker. This does stand up to scrutiny. Unions do not represent the lowest paid workers in this country—not anymore. In fact, they are barely representative of the construction sector. They no longer enjoy the support of public opinion and they are overly represented by bureaucrats in the public sector. The largest percentage of union membership is made up of workers earning somewhere between $80,000 and $100,000, well above the national average. These are hardly the struggling battlers the unions fraudulently claim to represent. This is the great falsehood of the union movement, and the Labor Party by its very extension. They claim to be representing the lowest-paid workers in our country. They claim to be fighting for a fairer deal for Australia's most disadvantaged, but they are routinely selling out their own members. And this is what this bill that we are debating today is all about. It is theft from the most vulnerable people in this country—exploitation of their hopes and fears. It is theft from Australians who can least afford to pay union fees. In fact, many have no choice as to whether they pay these fees or not. Such is the nature of the modern day union movement, and it is shameful. It is truly sickening that the Labor Party have the gall to stand in this House and pretend to stand up for the lowest-paid workers in this country. They criticise this government, when they have long ago abandoned any credibility on this issue. The Heydon royal commission uncovered a raft of payments between unions and employers that were designed to ensure that some companies—not all companies, but just some really special companies—were given special treatment to ensure that they did not become a target for militant union industrial action. This is blatant, gun-to-the-head-type negotiations. The flow-on effects of this to the Australian economy are real and they are measurable. A good example of this, according to the Master Builders Association of Queensland, is that union activity can add up to an extra 30 per cent on the cost of building a house. I think that one of the most disturbing developments from the Heydon royal commission was the payments made to the AWU Victoria—the member for Maribyrnong and Leader of the Opposition's very own union. This is the man who is styling himself as the alternative leader of the country and leading those opposite. He is styling himself as the man who will represent Australia on the world stage. This is the man who has orchestrated the taking of secret payments from organisations like Clean Event and sold out the workers he claims to represent. These are people who are very hard working, and their working conditions are extreme. Thankfully, we have introduced this legislation to ban these secret payments between business and unions, and to require disclosure of any legitimate payments. This is a simple and efficient measure, as recommended by the Heydon royal commission, to make unions more accountable and more accessible. It is truly disturbing that these corrupting benefits, as the Heydon commission called them, have been identified in successive royal commissions into union activity since 1982. Mr Dick interjecting— Ms PRICE 249308 I will take that interjection from the previous speaker. Yes, perhaps we should have done something earlier. I accept that. But, thankfully, we are doing something now and it is good to see the Labor Party are considering joining forces with us. This simply reinforces the fact that unions are out of touch and no longer represent the members who pay their fees. They have long ago abandoned these workers and are looking out solely to feather their own nests. As we have heard time and time again more recently in this House, they have more in common with the big end of town than what we do and more in common with the big employers. In fact, we may actually be doing those opposite a favour with respect to this legislation, because as the doors are flung open this could very well restore some faith in the union movement. Let's hope the cobwebs are swept out. Clearly, as we have heard from members opposite, included in their talking points for this particular debate has been the discussion about targeting workers and the lowest paid in our society with cuts to penalty rates. I mean, if they really cared about the lowest-paid workers in this country they would have done something themselves about what we are discussing here today. It is truly amazing, the length and breadth of the hypocrisy of those opposite on workplace relations. It really is stunning. The Leader of the Opposition sets up a Fair Work Commission and puts his mates on it to investigate penalty rates in this country. He says time and time again, together with other leaders on the other side, that he will respect its decision. The problem was it was the wrong decision. So, therefore, it could not be supported. Come on! Give us a break! It hands down its decision, and suddenly it is the coalition attacking workers. The hypocrisy is just unbelievable. I do have some news for those opposite. You do not represent workers anymore. I see it time and time again. You do not represent the public of Australia anymore. You are out of touch and bordering on irrelevancy. My dear grandad, a man called David Dellar, was a WA state Labor politician in the 1960s. He was a very good man who worked hard. He represented the people who really needed good representation. He would be ashamed of what the Labor Party has become today. To avoid accusations of attacking workers from those opposite, let me assure you that in this bill the measures apply equal punishment to the companies and employers who agree to a backroom deal with the union as the union boss who makes the deal. As we know, it does take two to tango. We plan on ensuring that corruption is stamped out at all levels because we know that corruption, productivity and performance cannot coexist. On this side, we know that the Australian public deserves no less, and that is why we are introducing this bill. This measure will help instil some faith back into the union movement, which has been shaken by scandal after scandal and has hopelessly lost its way. We know that 50 per cent of those opposite will agree and, possibly, 50 per cent of those opposite will not agree. But I do encourage those members opposite to support this bill and support those lowest-paid workers who they claim to represent. They have not done so in many years, but it is never too late to start. I commend this bill to the House. 13:12 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney The Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017 restores and defends the rule of law in Australian workplaces. This bill bans corrupt and secret payments made between employers and trade unions. It also requires disclosure by both employers and unions of financial benefits that they stand to gain as a result of an enterprise agreement before employees have to vote on that agreement. The penalties for secret and dodgy deals will be substantial—and so they should be. Criminal penalties for payments with the intent to corrupt will be a maximum of 10 years in prison and $900,000 for an individual or $4.5 million for companies. Maximum penalties for other illegitimate payments will be two years in prison, $90,000 for individuals and $450,000 for companies. They are big penalties because those officials who rip off workers deserve to be punished. The role of unions and their leaders must be to put their members first. We have seen through the Heydon royal commission into trade unions that unions have let their members down and have traded away their rights in return for cash and kickbacks. The Heydon royal commission uncovered a raft of payments between employers and unions for favourable treatment and peace in the workplace. It also highlighted the lack of transparency relating to financial benefits obtained by representatives who were supposed to be bargaining in the best interests of their workers. These corrupting benefits are nothing to do with unions' first and only purpose of getting workers a better deal or more take-home pay. They are about lining the pockets of union officials and building union war chests to blindside and mislead union members and the general public on a whole raft of issues. We have read in the media about numerous eastern state cases where millions of dollars of payments have secretly transferred between employers and unions, and employers making payments to unions, accompanied by a lists of employee names which have been used to secretly sign employees up to the unions, including the Australian Workers' Union in Victoria. In WA, my home state, we have also experienced unions acting without integrity or fairness, including the Australian Workers' Union in Western Australia. These contractors paid the AWU Workplace Reform Association more than $400,000 in return for good relations with the union. These payments were fraudulently siphoned into a slush fund controlled by the then secretary of the AWU WA, Mr Bruce Wilson, who used the money for his personal benefit. SapuraKencana paid more than $350,000 at the request of the MUA at the same time it was planning to use foreign-crewed tugs for pipeline installation works at the Gorgon project in Western Australia. Dredging International paid almost a million dollars at the request of the MUA, apparently as part of a deal to finalise an enterprise agreement, including $200,000 for sponsorship of the MUA WA state conference. But, in reality, it was to secure an enterprise agreement with the MUA. Van Oord paid over a million dollars at the request of the MUA to avoid industrial disruption, including over $100,000 to the WA Special Purpose Fighting Fund, established by the MUA WA. I wonder what special purposes the unions fight for. Ms Price 249308 Fighting the coalition! Mr MORTON 265931 Perhaps. And there was $70,000 in sponsorship for MUA WA conferences and over $50,000 to an MUA WA training fund. Then we go to the CFMEU.    Thiess—again—paid $100,000 to the Building Trades Group of Unions Drug and Alcohol Committee while it was constructing the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link in Sydney. Apparently that payment was for industrial peace. The payment was falsely invoiced as being for 'drug and alcohol safety training' but was siphoned into the CFMEU's general account. Underworld figure George Alex made regular cash payments of $2,500 to an official of the CFMEU NSW to ensure favourable treatment of Mr Alex's companies that were repeatedly involved in phoenixing, leaving workers with unpaid wages and entitlements. Mirvac executives provided around $150,000 worth of free building work on CFMEU Queensland President David Hanna's house in order to secure industrial peace and favourable treatment by the CFMEU. Mirvac disguised the work by inflating invoices from subcontractors on their existing Orion Shopping Centre project. A number of Canberra construction companies paid a CFMEU ACT organiser more than $210,000 to win construction work here in Canberra. The CFMEU denied knowledge of the payments but did not report these allegations to any authority and paid the organiser a very generous redundancy payment when he quietly resigned from the union. I was due to speak on this bill on another day in this place and, on the day I was due to speak on this bill, it was revealed that the militant construction union, the CFMEU, had been hit with fines of almost $250,000 after the Federal Court found it had engaged in 'industrial bullying' and deliberately flouted the law during a blockade at the $80 million Perth Airport expansion project. In a scathing appeal judgment today, the court's full bench found the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union had shown it preferred to pay civil penalties rather than obey the law. This may come as an absolute shock and surprise, but it really should not—not when you have got ACTU secretary Sally McManus out there saying that unions should break the law when they believe it to be unjust. Mr Hammond interjecting— Mr MORTON 265931 Isn't it interesting that I get interjections from the member for Perth when I talk about the CFMEU! I like to take note of things that happen in this chamber, Member for Perth, and I remember the member for Perth was ejected from this chamber during question time. On the first occasion he was ejected because the matter of the CFMEU was being raised in this parliament. And here he goes again! I wonder if the member for Perth has come into this chamber because he heard those letters C-F-M-E-U being rung out across this chamber. Mr Hammond interjecting— Mr MORTON 265931 So he has come in here to interject once more. Perhaps today he will find himself ejected again, absolutely defending his union bosses, the CFMEU. Maybe the member for Perth and the member for Brand could interject and help me with the pronunciation of the name 'Mick Buchan'. I am not sure if I have the pronunciation right. He is not known as well to me as he is to those opposite. This is somebody who, along with the CFMEU's Joe McDonald, has committed 53 prior contraventions of the law. We need to do all we can to support and protect workers from union bosses who corruptly take benefits for their own personal gain and for their own organisations. These secret deals and kickbacks of corrupt union leaders and corrupt employers seriously disadvantage workers. They need to be outlawed, and this is exactly what this bill will do. This bill amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to respond to the recommendations of the final report of the royal commission and will help to restore the confidence of workers—confidence that the management of their union is accountable, transparent, fair and ethical. This bill, of course, still allows legitimate payments, like the payments of genuine union membership fees consented to by employees or safety training programs provided by unions at market rates—what a surprise! It will also require unions to disclose to all employees all financial benefits that they would derive from an enterprise agreement before the employees vote on that agreement. There is nothing wrong with transparency. On this side of the House we stand on the side of transparency. We have seen that very clearly this week. What do those opposite want to do? They want to hide behind their union bosses and they want to protect their corrupting benefits and payments. These are all fair and reasonable conditions. Perhaps most union members would think their delegates and officials would naturally act with the interests of workers first, but we know that is not the case. This is a real test for those opposite; they need to admit that. They say they believe in the worker. They stand in this place and tell us black and blue that they are the party of the worker. They want to say that they are the best for every Australian, but time and time again it is proven they are about big unions and big deals with big business. 13:22 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Tangney for his excellent contribution to the debate. Indeed, I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this debate on the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017. This bill will help to restore integrity to Australian workplaces. It will end the secrecy that has marked dealings between employers and unions for decades. It will ensure the corrupt payments between a business, employee, union or union official are banned, with significant criminal penalties for anyone who flouts the law. Penalties will apply equally to employers and unions who are both implicated by a secret payment. The Heydon royal commission uncovered more than 20 separate examples of payments secretly changing hands between employers and unions. One of the worst offenders, as revealed by the royal commission, was the Leader of the Opposition's own union, the Australian Workers Union in Victoria. The royal commission revealed hundreds of thousands of dollars of payments flying from companies to the union, including Thiess John Holland, ACI Operations, Winslow Constructors, Chiquita Mushrooms and, of course, Cleanevent. In return, companies had the assurance that the AWU would not agitate for better conditions or better pay for workers—the very workers they are supposed to represent. Commissioner Heydon also observed that these practices were not new but had been carrying on for the past 30 years. He also found that what he uncovered was just the small tip of an enormous iceberg. The royal commission found that not even existing laws on bribery, extortion, blackmail and secret commissions were enough to outlaw these arrangements. Those laws are not easily applied to payments involving unions and their officials. Even in cases where they can be applied, they have failed to deter the regular practice of such payments being made. Commissioner Heydon recommended that new provisions be introduced into the Fair Work Act to criminalise such payments. That is exactly what this bill does. This bill brings an end to the secretive, corruptive practice that has marked dealings between employers and unions for decades. The bill will rightly ensure that the true beneficiaries of workplace deals are the workers. I turn now to some of the matters raised in the debate. There has been some discussion about whether this bill will apply equally to employers and to unions. I can assure all members that this bill has been carefully drafted to capture both sides of a corrupting benefits transaction. As the final report of the royal commission stated, corrupt receipt implies corrupt payment. An employer who offers or provides a secret financial benefit to a union is as heavily implicated as a union who solicits or accepts such payment. The penalties for both parties are the same and both parties can be held equally liable for the one transaction. Similarly, each of the employers, unions and any employer association will have to disclose to employees most financial benefits they stand to gain under an enterprise agreement before employees vote on the agreement. Whether benefits are flowing to employers or to unions, workers deserve to know what they are being asked to approve in a deal that sets their wages and conditions. There has also been some discussion about whether this bill is fair for workers. This bill has been designed for workers. They are the ones being kept in the dark over these deals, and they are the ones who stand to lose because of them. By banning corrupting and illegitimate payments and requiring disclosure of benefits arising from enterprise agreements, workers will be protected from secret deals that conflict with their interests. They will also be told what deals have been negotiated into enterprise agreements they are asked to support. For example: in the case of Clean Event and a deal done by the AWU in Victoria, the royal commission found that in exchange for payments of $25,000 per year, the Victorian branch of the AWU in substance agreed not to seek better terms and conditions for three years for those of its members employed by Clean Event. For the workers employed by Clean Event the outcome was appalling. All involved benefited from the deal except for the people who the union was supposed to be representing. That is what the royal commission found. This is not why unions exist. Our bill will help to ensure that workers receive the benefit of honest employers and honest union officials who represent their interests. There has also been some discussion about consultation on the bill. I would simply refer to the two-year-long royal commission, which had 189 hearing days, heard from 505 witnesses, conducted public hearings all over the country and received and reviewed thousands of documents. This royal commission recommended the changes in this bill, which the government is adopting. I would like to thank the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for their inquiry into this bill, and all those individuals and organisations who contributed by preparing written submissions and giving evidence at the public hearings. The government is considering the committee's report. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 In accordance with standing order 43, the debate is interrupted. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 13 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Gellibrand Electorate: Mother of God School 13 13:28 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand This morning I had the absolute pleasure of welcoming the kids from Mother of God School, who had come here to our parliament in Canberra all the way from Ardeer in Melbourne's west, in my electorate. It is a very difficult journey for a school like Mother of God to do and I congratulate them on taking the initiative to come here to Canberra. They came to Canberra, and they brought with them questions about our democracy and questions about this parliament. They also brought with them this folder of persuasive writing on the need for more renewable energy in Australia to fight climate change. Michael and Noor presented this folder to me and the arguments that they had: arguments in favour of hydro, solar, biomass—or, as they called it, stinky poo—geothermal, tidal energy and wind energy. I talked to them about the need for our parliament to look more like their classroom and more like our community—to have more diverse representation, more diversity of cultural backgrounds and more diversity of gender. I was particular impressed when Chiara and Monika promised me that they would follow in the long tradition of female leadership in politics from Melbourne's west, a tradition forged by leaders like Julia Gillard, Joan Kirner and Nicola Roxon, my predecessor in Gillibrand. I promised those kids at Mother of God Primary School that while I was in this parliament I would fight to ensure that every child at Mother of God had every opportunity to reach their full potential, to ensure that Mother of God Primary School and Ardeer had the funding needed to ensure that their kids had the same opportunities as kids born on the other side of town, and that they could reach their full potential regardless of who their parents were or where they were born. Palliative Care Week 13 13:30 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies At the outset of my remarks, I express my condolences in relation to the tragic events that have occurred in recent hours in Manchester, and offer on behalf of all members here our thoughts and prayers to those affected by those events. This week is Palliative Care Week, and it is an opportunity to reinforce the value of palliative care services throughout our community. The focus of Palliative Care Week this week is on residential and community aged care, with a very special focus on discussions between family members and friends about care decisions, particularly at the end of life. Palliative Care Australia has produced this book, Dying to talk: discussion starter, for people in those circumstances. It is an opportunity to think about, talk about and discuss with loved ones what responses they want in relation to decisions that might be made about their care, and, particularly, their care in the dying and terminal stages at the end of life. This is a valuable resource. I commend it to anybody who happens to be listening to this broadcast this afternoon or, at some stage, reading Hansard. It is an important subject. It deserves much more attention, and there is an opportunity for family and friends to discuss important matters at the end of life. Canberra Electorate: Australian Public Service 14 13:32 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra This continent was once a series of scattered settlements and colonies and states. Our forebears had the wisdom, strength and determination to bring it all together as one nation. It was decided to make a new capital—Canberra. In the late 1950s the Prime Minister RG Menzies said: We are stuck with Canberra, whether we like it or not, so we might as well do it properly. He was determined to make Canberra a capital city of which all Australians could be proud. That included bringing government departments not already there to the capital. Sure, the people involved came kicking and screaming, but they could understand and appreciate that it was practical and necessary to have the relevant people in the same city. There is no doubt it has helped to create good government. Ministers need to be able to see and speak to their departmental officers and those in different departments need to know each other. It fills me with horror to think of present-day public servants being forced to move away from Canberra. Recently, I heard Barnaby Joyce say there is a chemistry when people meet face-to-face. Exactly so! The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN I remind the member for Canberra to use correct titles. Ms BRODTMANN 30540 The Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce. Modern communications are brilliant, but real personal contact remains vital. Why are we taking this retrograde step, scattering our government? Why are we spending millions to become less efficient? All right, I confess. I am quoting from a letter written by Heather Henderson from Yarralumla, who is the daughter of RG Menzies. Chisolm Electorate: Box Hill Hawks 14 13:33 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm A great time in Aussie Rules sporting history was made in the heart of Chisholm at City Oval, the home of the Box Hill Hawks earlier this month. The establishment of the first VFL women's team was celebrated with the presentation of the Box Hill women's guernseys to the members of their first VFL women's team. The Box Hill Hawks has a vibrant and important place in football history, and was established in 2000. On this day in May, history was made again. On the night, there was an exciting, energising vibe and great speeches by President Tony Pinwell, General Manager David Napoli and inspiring coach Patrick Hill. The success of the Box Hills Hawks is underpinned by the support of the broader football AFL family and their collaboration and partnership with the Hawthorn Football Club. President Robert Garvey and Hawthorn Captain, Jarryd Roughead, both attended on the night and were a testament to this support as the Box Hill Hawks captain Melissa Kuys made great speeches. It was a poignant moment in history, because on the same day Tracey Gaudry was appointed as the first female CEO of an AFL club. I am very proud that the involvement of girls and women in this great and uniquely Australian sport was so warmly celebrated in Chisholm. To top off this wonderful celebration of women in sport, we heard from the all-female footy podcast The Outer Sanctum, who are rightfully very passionate number one ticket-holders. Palliative Care 14 13:35 Mr HART 263070 Bass I thank the member for Menzies for his contribution with respect to National Palliative Care Week. Right now many Tasmanians are not able to choose where and how they are cared for before they die. Up to 70 per cent of people want to spend the end of their life at home, but only 14 per cent get the chance to do so. Too many Australians die in hospitals, and around a third die in nursing homes in aged care. Labor wants improved palliative care. The challenge is for Tasmanians to be as comfortable as possible at the end of their life. Last year Labor committed $35 million over four years for end-of-life care, including $2.3 million to Palliative Care Tasmania and $21.7 million for new palliative care at home packages, including in Tasmania. Labor recognises that aged care must focus on quality of life, including maximising the opportunity for people to remain at home and to be supported in their care at home. People are entering aged care with more than one chronic illness, meaning that the challenge in delivering aged care is a challenge in delivering palliative care. Labor listens to the communities it serves. Labor will make the right budget choices in funding health and aging, including palliative care—not giving away $65 million in unfunded, expensive tax cuts. It is really important that we listen to the people in our community. It is really important that we address the desire for people to be heard in relation to their care requirements. Being in hospital when you are dying is not necessarily the right choice. Domestic Violence 15 13:36 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee A number of years ago I spent a night with Senior Sergeant Bob Simpson of the Mildura police force. We talked about the role of domestic violence intervention orders and how, if you crossed over the river in Mildura, it was not binding when you got to the other side of the river, because of course you were in the state of New South Wales. It is pleasing that, after some advocacy in this chamber and now some work, the federal government is working towards Australia-wide intervention orders. The federal, state and territory justice ministers have agreed on a national framework that will allow for domestic violence orders issued in one state to be recognised and enforceable in any jurisdictions. There is a system being set up, called CrimTrac, which will ensure that police, when they go to intervene, will know that this person has that intervention order against them. It is very pleasing for me as a member of this government that we have been proactive about taking some steps to address this anomaly. We welcome state borders, but we need to make sure that at all times we protect the victims of family violence. We have more to do in this place. As well as protecting those who are victims of family violence, we still have to go out there and make sure that we teach our young men to be gentlemen and to respect the women in their lives. In doing so we can make sure that ultimately we get rid of this scourge out of the Australian community. Watts, Mr Jason William 15 13:38 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I would like to acknowledge the life of a great Australian, Jason William Watts—a really great bloke. He is being farewelled right now in Melbourne. Jason and I met when we joined the Army together. We went to the Defence Force Academy and the Royal Military College, Duntroon, together. Wattsy commanded bravely in East Timor. He has always been known as a loyal, kind, professional, thorough, non-judgemental bloke—a wonderful dad, a wonderful husband, a wonderful son. He loved cricket and footy. He was an outstanding sportsman, but he was humble and grounded. He loved his mates and was always there for his mates. Most of all he loved his family. Wattsy, you fought the good fight and ran a great race. Rest in peace. Jason Watts died of leukemia last week. He joins his wife, Jules, who was struck down by breast cancer in March this year. Jason and Jules are survived by their sons Connor, 13, and Dylan, 10, who have been embraced by the families and Jason and Jules's mates. If anyone wants to make a contribution to the boys' future, maybe a fundraising auction item, please go to www.wattsonourmind.com. Jason William Watts—what a great bloke. Mining 15 13:40 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn Adani announced this morning that they will hold off on their final investment in the Carmichael coalmine. Why could that be? Indecision from the Queensland government—perhaps as a direct result of Labor's infighting—talking of offering 'a royalties holiday' and then doing a backflip? Palaszczuk's previous commitment to supporting the project seems to be on hold as Jackie Trad tries to go for the premiership. A $16.5 billion project and thousands of jobs in Central Queensland are in the balance. Whether you like coalmining or not, business needs certainty; business does not need a backflip on this policy. Flipping and flopping around on the coal industry is not helping jobs in Central Queensland. Business has no time for factional fighting in the ALP or this infighting. Adani's decision has shown how damaging a state government can be to major investment. Queensland is now-anti-jobs; they cannot commit to the Galilee Basin. They refuse to build the Rookwood Weir—2000 jobs. Red and green tape is smashing small business. Vegetation management will be back on the agenda for our farmers. Do we want jobs in Central Queensland? Do we want to improve the standard of living for Indians who— (Time expired) Brand Electorate: The Lab Factory 15 13:41 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand It was my absolute pleasure last week to introduce my colleague and friend the shadow minister for the digital economy and member for Chifley to the remarkable women responsible for creating the Lab Factory in Rockingham. Donna Bates, Diana Henderson and Kate Stagg are the brains behind The Lab Factory. Shorthand for The Collaborative Factory, it is an innovative business delivering a co-working space that is so much more than just a serviced work environment. The Lab Factory is providing a space where committed individuals and businesses come together to work alongside each other and develop and gain skills from each other's shared expertise and knowledge. It is enabling established businesses and start-ups to invest in a collaborative environment with a shared goal of seeing those engaged in the workplace flourish. It is an example of how local businesses across Brand are innovating and driving commerce in local economies as the economy changes. My electorate of brand has been hit hard by the changing economy as the mining and construction boom has ended. There is high unemployment across the cities of Kwinana and Rockingham but there is also hope. Visiting The Lab Factory with Ed Husic and talking to the team, we saw that people are willing to look beyond the jobs of the past to create new opportunities into the future. Donna, Diana and Kate are creating a dynamic and unique workspace in Rockingham, which is allowing a mix of businesses from start-ups to established enterprises to collaborate, share and innovate. Together, these businesses are successfully challenging the status quo. I wish them the very best of luck into the future. Wright Electorate: Sport 16 13:43 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright This is not the first time I have stood in this place to advise the House of the success of Riley Day, a 17-year-old athlete from my electorate. A local sports hero, she raced onto the scene when she won the 150-metre sprint at the recent Nitro Athletics series, leaving a London Olympian and a world champion in her wake. She won the multiple state and national titles and has left records tumbling. After the starter's gun has gone off, Riley is off and running. She has officially secured her place in the Australian team to compete at the Commonwealth Youth Games in the Bahamas this year. The Beaudesert State High School student will compete in both the 100 metres and 200 metres at the championships. The electorate of Wright is a breeding ground for sporting excellence. Congratulations to those who were successful in the last round of the Local Sporting Champion Grants program: Ashley Swadling, for sailing; Lucas De Vere, for basketball; Molly McGill, for bicycle motocross; Maxwell Sigley, for cycling; Alyssa Cornell, for equestrian; Sebastian Robinson, Kieran James and Oliver James, for surf lifesaving; and Hayley Reynolds, Alexandra Roberts, Benjamin Roberts and Lara Roberts for athletics. Well done to all of our local champions and heroes. Riley, it is a pleasure to have you in our community. Good luck at the Commonwealth Youth Games. Schools 16 13:44 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I rise to congratulate Our Lady of the Sacred Heart school on their fete that was held on the weekend. I was privileged to help open the fete with Father Dan Carroll and the principal, Mr John O'Connor. Dozens and dozens of parents are involved with this event, which raises tens of thousands of dollars for this important local parish school. At the fete I was overwhelmed by the number of parents, teachers and members of the community who were confused and concerned about the cuts by this government to the Catholic school sector in Australia. I stand with Catholic Secondary Principals Australia and the work that they do, along with the Australian Catholic Primary Principals Association, which have written to the minister calling on him to properly consult with the sector: The Catholic principals stand in solidarity with the Catholic education systems and they support system funding and the co-responsibility that goes with it. Hence, Catholic school principals stand united with the broader Catholic school community in the face of a deliberate strategy by the Government to undermine the system by pitting principal against principal, school against school (evidenced by the misleading letters to each school and the funding estimator website). CaSPA and ACPPA want to make it clear that the tactic will not work. We on this side of the chamber know the important work of local parish schools. We will continue to keep fighting for their funding, unlike the government, which is trying to cut it. (Time expired) National Palliative Care Week 16 13:46 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson I rise to acknowledge National Palliative Care Week, which is being marked around the country this week. The week focuses on both residential and community aged care, and this year's theme is 'You matter, your care matters. Palliative care can make a difference.' The week highlights the fact that people in aged-care often have more than one chronic illness that affects their health in different ways. Specialised palliative care can help manage their symptoms and improve their quality of life. However, specialised palliative care is not always available in all aged-care facilities, and patients who are not in aged-care facilities sometimes prefer to spend their final days in the familiar surroundings of their own home. Just last month we saw the Primary Health Network in Mackay rally to help a bloke that I knew quite well, Clinton Lowe, a young fellow who had brain cancer. The Mackay Hospital Foundation chair, Michael Jones, worked with Ryan and Sonia from the Primary Health Network to facilitate a high level of care, with a hospital bed and medical supplies, in Clinton's home. I would like to make special mention of Pam Hosking, a palliative care nurse navigator from Mackay Hospital and Health Service, who made that rapid response possible. Across North Queensland there are dedicated specialists and groups who provide that care at a time when it is needed the most. Ozcare, Blue Care and CQ Community & In-Home Care work in conjunction with clinical nurses and hospitals and also with dedicated palliative care facilities such as the eight-bed palliative care ward at the Mater hospital in Mackay. Australian Public Service 17 13:47 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Oh, the hypocrisy of those opposite when it comes to their rhetoric about decentralisation. We have had National Party MPs and senators out there saying that they are the party of the bush and they are going to bring public service jobs to the bush. Let us check their track record since they got elected in relation to job cuts to regional areas like Bendigo. First, the 100 per cent Australian-taxpayer-owned Australia Post shut down the Bendigo mail centre, so now the mail that arrives in Bendigo sits on a platform, is put on a truck and is bussed all the way down to the other side of Melbourne, to Dandenong, to be sorted; then it is put back on a truck and brought back up to Bendigo—what a disgrace. Then we have the Bendigo tax office, which was shut down by this government. People in central and northern Victoria are told that they should go to Melbourne if they need support. Those are more public sector jobs lost. Then we have the job cuts at Centrelink, hitting our smart centre and our call centre, with casuals being laid off and full-time people being laid off when wait times of blowing out. Those are more public sector jobs lost to the Bendigo electorate. Finally, the government shut down the Australian Emergency Management Institute. In a bushfire-risk area they shut down this facility on Mount Macedon, costing 60 jobs. The government are not serious about public sector jobs in the region. If they were they were, they would restore every job they have cut since they have been elected. Banks Electorate: East Hills Cross-Country Carnival 17 13:49 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks (   Last Tuesday, 16 May, I had a fantastic visit to the PSSA East Hills cross-country carnival, which was held at Padstow North Public School in my electorate. It was great to see so many schools in my electorate participating, and the 10 schools from my electorate included Padstow Heights, Padstow North, Padstow Park, Revesby, Revesby South, Tower Street, Panania Public School, Panania North, Picnic Point and of course East Hills. It was great to see all the kids participating—there were hundreds of kids in the cross-country events. Padstow North has hosted this important carnival for quite a few years and is fortunate to have nice big grounds to run these races. I want to thank Jamie Wong from the P&C at Padstow North and all the parents from Padstow North who were involved in this important event, as well as, of course, Natalie Armstrong, the Padstow North school principal—I know there is a lot of work that goes into putting this event on and to bring all the people together from our local community. Finally, I thank Ros Rowland, from Panania Public School, who is part of the PSSA committee, for her role in organising the event. About 50 kids will go on to the Sydney South West carnival, and I congratulate all of them. Indigenous Affairs 17 13:50 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth This morning we gathered in the Great Hall to celebrate the 20-year anniversary of the publication of the report Bringing them home, which detailed the horrors of the stolen generation. We also gathered to mark the publication from the Healing Foundation of the report Bringing them home 20 years on. I had the great privilege of sitting next to these men who are in the gallery here today—men from Kimberley Stolen Generation, including Frank Parriman, the CEO; Mark Bin Bakar, the chairperson; and also John Ross and Gordon Marshall. John shared his story about being taken away when he was two years old. The Leader of the Opposition then spoke and told some of the stories from Bringing them home, starting with evidence from a young boy about children who were put in a police ute and taken to Broome, and the mums were put in there as well, and then detailing the horror of the mums being kicked out of the ute and the kids being taken down to the Broome lockup. Just like Kim Beazley wept all those years ago, we shed tears at the table as Gordon Marshall, who is here in the gallery, shared his story—he was that boy, and here he is today. I take this opportunity to tell you all that we will never forget and we are sorry, and the three words that always ring true are reconnection, recovery and reparation. Here's to you. Gilmore Electorate: Small Business 17 13:52 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore Mr Deputy Speaker, 27.5 is a great number for local businesses. Last week Treasurer ScoMo and I visited two of these businesses who will benefit from the government's company tax cuts now put in place. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN I remind the member for Gilmore that she should be using correct titles. Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 I am sorry—the Treasurer. Tim Gleeson from Gleeson's Transport and Val and Aaron from Flooring Xtra in South Nowra hosted our visit. They are just two of thousands of small and medium businesses across Gilmore. As a former business owner making, distributing and exporting fudge, I know how crucial these tax cuts are for local enterprise—and there is no fudging the figures! It is great for business and great for jobs. In addition, I am proud to confirm to business owners that they are now considered a small business if they have a turnover of up to $10 million. Of course we know that is turnover, not profit. As a timely reminder for the end of the financial year, all small businesses can immediately access the instant asset write-off—they can pay for up to $20,000 worth of new equipment and claim it back straight away. Importantly, this instant asset write-off has been extended to June of next year. Some other improvements for small businesses include simplifying the need to pay PAYG instalments as calculated by the ATO and being able to choose to pay GST on a cash basis. With the change in definition of small business, other benefits include fringe benefits tax exemptions that can be assessed simply, and so too can GST compliance. That will be a lot less cost for businesses as from July this year. Unincorporated businesses will qualify for the eight per cent small business tax discount—(Time expired) Greenway Electorate: Nappy Collective 18 13:53 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway For several years I have been pleased to support an initiative called the Nappy Collective. My electorate office in Seven Hills has been a drop-off point for locals to deliver their surplus unused nappies once their babies have grown out of them. Each year I have been overwhelmed by the generosity of our local residents in Greenway who have supported this initiative, and every year it gets bigger and bigger. The collection ran last week, and I would like to thank everyone from the Greenway community who donated their surplus nappies. They go to people who really need them. Every donation helps parents and babies who are in need, and over the years the initiative has collected nearly two million nappies to support families who need assistance. I would like to give a particular shout out. I was informed this morning that a local resident and her two friends recently dropped off an amazing 5,160 nappies that they collected from their neighbours, friends and relatives for The Nappy Collective. It was organised by Jenny Ousta and her friends Bec Lubric and Mary Geracitano. And, at the risk of using a prop, I want to show you this picture that my office has sent me. You can see that the nappies are filling up half my electorate office, and it is for such a worthy cause. A lot of people say they are proud to be members in this place. I am proud of the residents I represent in this place. Dunkley Electorate: Infrastructure 18 13:55 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley The Victorian Labor government's recent budget announced $187 million to destroy 200 jobs at Seaford in my electorate by moving stabling yards from Carrum to Kananook at Seaford, and compulsorily acquiring the land of seven Seaford businesses, with no proper consultation—businesses such as Page Bros Jayco, putting 50 jobs at risk. That is nearly $1 million spent per job taken, with hundreds of families impacted. This is supported by Premier Daniel Andrews and, frustratingly, Labor state members for Carrum and Frankston, Sonya Kilkenny and Paul Edbrooke. The alternative is to spend no money and take no jobs by state Labor signing off to commence our $4 million federal government plan to electrify and duplicate rail from Frankston to Baxter. This would move stabling yards at or near Baxter on unused land and create jobs through maintenance workshops. This federal funding would provide metro public transport for Langwarrin, Frankston South and Baxter. It would also connect the local university and hospital, thus increasing enrolments by an estimated 20 per cent and improving accessibility to the hospital. That $187 million would go a long way to building this project. So I call on state Labor to stop moving the stabling yards to Seaford, to support local jobs, and to sign off on our $4 million federal government funding. Thank you. Menzies 'Forgotten People' Address: 75th Anniversary 18 13:56 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland This week marks the 75th anniversary of Menzies' famous 'Forgotten People' speech, and it is appropriate to reflect on his true legacy, rather than the hero worship we have seen from those on the other side. The true legacy is this: no-one was more in favour of World War I than Robert Menzies, yet he refused to serve. Later on, in the 1930s, he stopped the wharfies refusing to sell pig iron to Japan. And no-one was a greater appeaser of Nazi Germany than Robert Menzies. So much so that 11 days after Germany invaded Poland, he was still in favour of appeasement. This is what he wrote to our high commissioner in London: I feel quite confident that Hitler has no desire for a first class war. Nobody really cares a damn about Poland as such. He wrote: Some very quick thinking will have to be done when the German offer arrives to provide for a resettlement of the whole map of Europe. This is 11 days after the invasion of Poland. After World War II he supported the Suez invasion. After that, he entered Australia into the Vietnam War on a lie—a lie that cost 500 Australians their lives and wounded 3,000 further Australians. This is the true legacy of Robert Gordon Menzies: a warmonger who deceived the Australian public and cost Australian lives. Murray Electorate: Rail 19 13:58 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray Last Thursday I had the opportunity to visit the electoral towns of Euroa and Violet Town in the seat of Murray. The message coming back from the community leaders was very clear. They are sick and tired of having a substandard passenger rail service right through the north east. The North East Line of Victoria services appropriately 150,000 people: Euroa, Violet Town, Avenel and some of the smaller towns. But Wangaratta, Wodonga and Albury in New South Wales are all serviced by the North East line. This area has been ignored by the state Labor Party for too long. There has been no new rolling stock from the Labor Party of Victoria for the North East Line. It is an absolute joke. It is great to see that the National Party, with Darren Chester as the lead minister, is starting to invest in state passenger rail: $100 million to fix up this line so that we will be able to effectively have a reliable service to service the north east. There are over 150,000 people who are currently putting up with a Labor Party in Victoria who totally neglect and them and ignore regional Victoria. The ability to bring this stage of the track up to a significant level is something that we have been working on for many years. There has been significant waste on this track for many, many years. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 10000 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 19 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:00 The SPEAKER 00APG Members, given the tragic events overnight in Manchester, you will understand that we are joined on the floor of the House today by the United Kingdom's Deputy High Commissioner, Mrs Ingrid Southworth. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! STATEMENTS 19 STATEMENTS Manchester: Attacks 19 14:00 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth On indulgence—Australia's heartfelt sympathy and resolute solidarity is with the people of the United Kingdom. We stand with them today, as we always have and always will, steadfast allies in freedom's cause. So far we know that at least 19 people have been killed and about 60 injured as a result of an explosion at the Manchester Arena shortly after the conclusion of an Ariana Grande concert last night. As I speak to the House now, the cause of the blast is unknown, but the authorities in the United Kingdom are treating it as a terrorist attack. This would be the deadliest attack in the United Kingdom since the London bombings of July 2005. Our thoughts and our prayers are with the victims of this attack and with their families. As parents, we keenly feel the anxiety of those waiting to learn of their children's safety on this terrible night. This incident, this attack, is especially vile, especially criminal, especially horrific, because it appears to have been deliberately directed at teenagers. This is an attack on innocence. Surely there is no crime more reprehensible than the murder of children. This is a direct and brutal attack on young people everywhere, on freedom everywhere. Already we are seeing the stories of bravery, solidarity and compassion emerging from this tragedy, as people rallied without a second thought to help each other. Emergency workers rushed to the arena, towards the danger, as concert goers fled from it. On the streets and online, beds, phone chargers and cups of tea were being offered to those caught up in the attack. This morning, I have spoken with our Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, Tony Sheehan, and to Alexander Downer, our High Commissioner in London, who is liaising closely with the British authorities. I have also spoken to Her Excellency Menna Rawlings, the British High Commissioner, and, Mr Speaker, as you acknowledged, we welcome the presence of her deputy, Ingrid Southworth, in the House today. In this House, built upon the values and the freedoms of British people, of the British parliament itself, surrounded, here we are reminded of the freedoms that British people established at Westminster. We stand with you and we thank you for being here with us today. The Australian High Commission in London is making urgent inquiries to determine if any Australians have been affected by this attack. I urge any Australians in the UK to heed the advice of the British authorities and to contact the United Kingdom's Anti-Terrorist Hotline if you have any information that you think may be relevant to the incident in Manchester. Australians in the UK or at home who are concerned about friends or relatives who could be affected by this attack should call the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade consular line, which, within Australia, is 1300 555 135 and, from overseas, 61 2 6261 3305. Australian and British agencies work closely together—none closer—right across the full spectrum of our counterterrorism work. These partnerships are enduring and they are essential to keeping our nation safe. This attack comes just two months after a terrorist targeted Westminster, striking at the very heart of democracy, killing six innocent people. Safely enjoying public places, from sports arenas to local markets, is part of the way of life in the United Kingdom, just as it is here. It is a basic human right to be able to go out into public places and public spaces, to shop, to go to a concert, to do our business, to take our exercise. Keeping Australians safe is our first priority, as keeping Britain safe is the first priority of Prime Minister May. We already have strong arrangements here to protect public places, including close cooperation between governments, law enforcement agencies and the operators of public venues. My government is working intensively with the other jurisdictions in Australia and cooperating with our international counterparts to further develop our national strategy for protecting places of mass gathering. We have seen too many crimes perpetrated through acts of violence and terrorism in places of mass gathering not to realise that we need to do more to keep our public places safe. It is a very, very high priority. Too often we stand in this chamber offering our sympathy and support to those confronting horrific attacks like the one we have seen today. Once again, Australia stands with Britain in resolute solidarity, partners in freedom's cause. Tireless in our defence of our people's safety and their liberty, our nations will never give in to terror. 14:07 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I rise to support the words of the Prime Minister. We use words as our tool of trade in this parliament, but sometimes, at some moments, you realise that words are inadequate to cover the grief, to explain what has happened. I am thinking of parents, siblings and family members in Manchester. It is the very early hours of the morning there—nine hours behind us. How do words help explain the inexplicable? Yet right now words are what we have to offer. The people of Britain should know that we feel their pain and we share their shock and anger. I have spoken to the British High Commissioner. I have offered her the condolences of my party. And I acknowledge the welcome presence of the Deputy High Commissioner. We have been informed, as the Prime Minister said, that this is being treated as a terrorist incident, but there is much more to find out. We condemn this crime—if that is what it is, and it appears to be—without hesitation, and the people of Manchester should know that we are fully aware of their grit, their northern determination. It is heartening to hear the stories even now seeping out. But instead of locking doors and closing up, the people of Manchester are helping those who are to be evacuated, responding in a way that we hope we would if we were in the same dreadful circumstances. I think, though, as a parent, it is to parents I wish to briefly speak. What makes this different to a casualty on a battlefield is that you think when your kids go to listen to music they would be safe. My eldest two are teenagers and they go to concerts, like so many here and so many elsewhere. When you see that shaky iPhone footage on that relentless 24-hour coverage you see so many young people. They are dressed to go out to a concert, to dance and to listen to music. I can only begin to imagine the pain of parents wondering where their kids are when the first reports and the first texts came out, and when they realised that their family—their kids—are at this concert. I can only begin to dimly imagine the parents whose calls are being unanswered and their messages go through to that voicemail. I also think today, 'How do I explain this to my own kids?' How do we make sense of this to our own children? I will say that it would appear that this has been done by evil people. I will say that we do everything we can in this country to make you safe. I will say to them, 'Of course you can still keep going to concerts.' But there are deeper answers, of course, for us to find in coming days and weeks. Again, I would say this: in this place, periodically, when we see this kind of footage we think, 'Not again.' The French theatre, the Bataclan theatre, the stadium in Paris and the scenes outside of Westminster—I think all of us here think, 'Not again.' What I think we also need to say to people is that the world should not get used to this. We should not accept this as the normal state of affairs. We should never believe that this sort of crime cannot be stopped and that we need to change. This is not the normal course of events. The world and absolutely most of us are far better than that. Today I offer my prayers and support to the people going through this and a promise to lots of kids wondering about all of this that this is not the normal course of events and we will never accept it as the normal state of affairs. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I ask all present to rise in recognition of the deceased and the injured. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the House. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Pauline Hanson's One Nation 21 14:13 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. This year there have been allegations that One Nation failed to declare the donation of a $100,000 plane, adopted a constitution which breached electoral laws and conspired to defraud electoral authorities. When allegations against One Nation have been mounting for months, why is it that when Labor raised this issue yesterday the Prime Minister had taken no action? Is the Prime Minister dragging his heels because he is more interested in One Nation preferences? The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call the Prime Minister, I listened carefully to that question. It had a very long preamble and only one question at the end—or two—the substance of which, by my hearing of it, the Prime Minister does not have responsibility. I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, if I may, I will refer to the first of the two questions within the question, which specifically went to yesterday's question to the Prime Minister and asked: when Labor raised this issue yesterday, why had the Prime Minister taken no action at that point? That is clearly within his responsibility. The SPEAKER 00APG The second question I am very clear on, and I acknowledge that my ruling on that is not being contested. I do have to say: I have spoken about the length of preambles and I have spoken—probably not that eloquently—about how you cannot just simply badge something at the very end. I do have to say: I flag that for a reason. We are at the beginning of question time, and I am not prepared to allow the question in that form; I am really not. We will move on. National Disability Insurance Scheme 21 14:15 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is ensuring that people with a significant disability can access the care that they need to live with dignity? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approach? 14:15 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a critical social and economic reform. It is a great national enterprise. It was established under the Labor government, with the full support of the coalition. It was a bipartisan enterprise. But unless it is fully funded it fails to deliver to the very people who need it most: Australians living with severe and permanent disability. The opposition have consistently claimed that they fully funded the NDIS. We expect this from the opposition leader, because he prefers to play politics with this issue rather than deal with the substance. He says one thing on this and, as on so many other issues, he does another. He said on 11 May that the Disability Insurance Scheme was fully funded when Labor was in office. In his budget reply speech he said: Labor did not just create the NDIS; we fully funded it, we budgeted it … But then, only yesterday, as he endeavoured to justify defying the wishes of the majority of his own shadow cabinet, defying the advice of his own colleagues to support the government's decision to increase the Medicare levy by 50 basis points—instead of supporting that, he has wanted to differentiate himself and play the old politics of envy to which he is so accustomed nowadays. And when he sought to justify that, he said he had a fairer and better way to fund the scheme. Well, was it funded or not? Yesterday he admitted he had not funded it at all. He admitted it needed more money. He claimed to have an alternative method. Everything he said in government, everything he said in opposition, until yesterday, affirmed that great untruth which we all saw through but which he adhered to: that it had been funded. But of course now he admits what we know to be true: that there is a funding gap. We have presented a fair way of dealing with this: to increase the Medicare levy by half a per cent. It is exactly the approach he took when he was in government and which he called on us to support—and we did—and which he said we would be 'stupid' or 'dumb' if we did not support. We supported it, we backed it in, because we knew it was fair. He can do the same today as Craig Emerson has urged him to do, and as more and more members of the Labor Party know in their hearts is right: support the NDIS, back it in and pay for it. (Time expired) Pauline Hanson's One Nation 21 14:18 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister undertook to report to the House after he had taken advice from the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, the Minister for Justice and the Attorney-General about revelations of One Nation irregularities. What can the Prime Minister report? 14:19 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I am advised that the Australian Federal Police received a referral on 22 May concerning the matter that had been in the media yesterday morning that the honourable member raised with me, and, as such, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on it. National Disability Insurance Scheme 22 14:19 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the government is making the choice to sustainably fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches? 14:19 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Hughes for his question. He, more than many and most in this House, understands the challenges faced by families living with disabilities. He is a neighbour of mine in the electorate of Hughes, and he and I know very well the work of Sylvanvale, which is now in his electorate. It does outstanding work supporting people with disabilities in the community and in the day programs they offer. We all believe on this side of the House—our full cabinet, our full ministry, our full membership here—that these families deserve the certainty of knowing that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded and fully paid for. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L They deserve that certainty. And we know that it is not fully funded from the Labor Party themselves. Julia Gillard herself said, on 15 May 2013, that increasing the Medicare levy would erase approximately 55 per cent of the total cost of the funding. She said on 1 May: The amount raised from the additional Medicare levy will not fund the full cost of disability care when it's in full operation. Indeed, the member for Jagajaga said that 40 per cent, or $5.4 billion, would need to be found and 'we'll need to find that in our budget'. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs will cease interjecting. Mr MORRISON E3L The only problem was that the budget measures that they said supported it they had already spent. They had already spent the recycled savings on private health insurance. They had already spent the savings on retirement incomes they had announced. And you cannot spend money twice. That is how the $55.7 billion funding black hole came into being. It was not fully funded by those who sit opposite. They even claimed savings that they never even introduced and passed in the parliament, and abandoned when they were in opposition. So, the NDIS is not fully funded and was not fully funded until we handed down the budget during the last sitting week, where we ensured that we would fully fund that by a ½ per cent increase in the Medicare levy two years from now, when those extra bills come in. There was a joint press conference with the member for Lilley, the member for Jagajaga and the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who said: …we all contribute and we all share. That is what Medicare is about. That's what the Medicare levy is about. She said: … it's not an easy choice. I know I'm asking Australians in their millions to step up to paying an increase in the Medicare levy. Now, we supported that call in the parliament. And I want to know what happened to the man who said this: The increase in the Medicare levy will help fund DisabilityCare Australia, which I believe is the most profound piece of social justice and civil rights policy since Medicare. That was said by the Leader of the Opposition. Where is that man now? Budget 22 14:22 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the bank tax, which Labor will not stand in the way of, but I note concerns reported in today's media that there is a $2 billion hole in the government's bank tax. Does the Prime Minister stand by the forecasts on the bank tax, on what it will raise in the budget—a budget handed down two weeks ago? Or is his budget already falling apart? Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting, or I will need to take further action. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:23 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth For somebody who claims to be supportive of the major bank levy, the Leader of the Opposition is doing a very good impersonation of somebody who wants to stand in its way. The Leader of the Opposition is part of an extraordinary trifecta. We have the member for Sydney, the shadow education minister, who does not support needs based funding for schools. She has abandoned that. She has abandoned David Gonski. We have the Leader of the Opposition, who talks fire and brimstone about the banks and now is trying to stand in the way and throw obstacles in the way of the major bank levy. And then of course we have the member for Jagajaga, who has committed her life in this place to helping those who are disadvantaged, to helping those with disabilities, and now she is part of a team that is opposing the full funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. You have to ask yourself: the one thing that we know the Leader of the Opposition stands for is one political convenience after another, and it is always his. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 23 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:24 The SPEAKER 00APG I would like to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon an Australian Political Exchange Council delegation from Vietnam. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 23 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Mining 23 14:25 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. If Adani, as reported, leaves Australia, 500 million Indians will go without lights and the world will suffer, as low-grade Indian coal and cheap technology belch eruptions of CO2. North Queensland, with the highest unemployment and crime rates, will lose Adani's $3 billion in exports—and the other Galilee mine's $6 billion—and 90,000 jobs. Minister, can you meet with the budgerigar leadership of Queensland and impose upon Galilee coal advanced ultracritical technology and superhybrid carbon capture gumtree plantations and initiate a government authority to build an Australian-owned, multi-user clean electric rail line? (Time expired) 14:26 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. I am very happy to meet with the delegation, as he proposes. He knows that the decision about the rail line is to be made by the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, but he also knows that the Carmichael mine has received all its Commonwealth and state approvals and has been warmly welcomed by the people of North Queensland. The people of Mackay, Rockhampton, Townsville, Charters Towers, Richmond and Hughenden have all strongly welcomed it, because it will create some 4,000 direct jobs and up to 8,000 indirect jobs. It has received the strong support of local mayors, local unions and local people— Mr Pyne 9V5 What about Jackie Trad! Mr FRYDENBERG FKL but not of Jackie Trad, as I understand, because there is now division in the state government. We know where the member for Dawson stands on the Carmichael mine. We know where the member for Capricornia stands on the Carmichael mine. We know where the deputy leader of the government and the Prime Minister stand, but we do not know where the member for Herbert stands, because the member for Herbert was happy to go to the Townsville port with the head of Adani and the local mayor and have her photo taken as Adani announced that Townsville would become their headquarters. There is 11 per cent unemployment in Townsville. Youth unemployment is some double that. The member for Herbert has now gone quiet, and so has the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition goes to Townsville and says he is all for jobs and apprentices, but when he goes to the rest of the country he says it is too hard. This is the same Leader of the Opposition who said, 'If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there.' This is the same Leader of the Opposition who said, 'I don't know what Julia Gillard said, but I agree with her.' This is the same Leader of the Opposition who sold out the workers of Clean Event. This is the same Leader of the Opposition who sold out the owner-operator truck drivers. This is the same Leader of the Opposition who sold out volunteer firefighters. When the lights are on, the member for Herbert and the Leader of the Opposition will say what they think you want to hear, but when the lights are off and you need their help—as the people of Adani are now finding out—the member for Herbert and the Leader of the Opposition are nowhere to be seen. Budget 23 14:29 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government is providing certainty to people with disability that the services they rely on will be secure and sustainably funded? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:29 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce As the member knows, the NDIS is being implemented by the coalition, just as it was designed by Labor, to be a national insurance scheme. Eventually about two-thirds of the entrants will be Australians who were born with a disability and about one-third would have acquired a disability—the point being that any Australian or their family may come to need the NDIS. That is precisely why it has always been viewed as fair that, for an insurance scheme, all Australians with some reasonable capacity should contribute a small amount, depending on that capacity. And who agrees that that is fair, as we noted yesterday? The disability sector, every single member of the coalition, everyone who was in Labor in 2013 and 75 per cent of the shadow cabinet now—and the list grows daily. John Della Bosca has said: 'The government has put money where its mouth is and is fully funding the NDIS, a victory for people who have fought so hard. We all have a role to play.' Craig Emerson has said: 'Labor should support the full Medicare levy rise. In doing so, it would lock in the NDIS.' So, with near universal agreement, why not just support the levy increase? Keep in mind that Labor have now opposed the savings designed to fill the gap and opposed the revenue measures designed to fill the gap. There is only one explanation for why they will not agree to the levy increase, and that is a bloody-minded commitment to cling to the discredited myth that the scheme was 'fully paid for'. Why prioritise the myth that the member for Lilley fully funded the NDIS over the practical needs of 460,000 Australians when the member for Lilley cannot even explain it himself? Here is a summary as good as it gets in 2013, the best attempt at explaining the myth: LEIGH SALES: So can I ask just a very simple question: will the budget … show where the money will be coming from …? WAYNE SWAN: Absolutely. … LEIGH SALES: So when I look at the budget in a few weeks, I will be able to say, "… here's exactly where the money's coming from"? WAYNE SWAN: No, well, what you'll see is the forward estimates, but what you'll see is a general profile on what the Government has done over a period of time and may have done in this coming budget to make more headroom— I do not even know whether 'headroom' is a budget thing, Treasurer! All of a sudden, the most important expenditure in Australia's history has become a Hyundai—headroom! And then he says: … you want to have surpluses on average over the cycle … and that's the discipline that the Government is applying. Even now, we have got to cut him loose! You have got to support— (Time expired) Budget 24 14:32 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, the budget forecasts that the bank tax will raise $1.6 billion in its first year. But the big four banks have reported that it will cost them just $965 million after tax in the first year. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon will resume his seat. Members on my right, including the Leader of the House, are interjecting. I cannot hear the question. I am not going to keep doing this every question time. The member for McMahon will begin his question again. Mr BOWEN DZS My question is to the Treasurer. The budget forecasts that the bank tax will raise $1.6 billion in its first year. But the big four banks have reported that it will cost them just $965 million after tax in the first year. Does the Treasurer stand by the forecast for the bank tax in the budget which he brought down just two weeks ago? 14:33 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I do. If you go to table 9—if you want to follow along—at 5.18, the cash gross estimate for 2017-18 is $1.2 billion. That is on a cash basis. Mr Bowen interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L Yesterday was an accrual figure; that is the $1.6 million in 2017-18, which is on the fiscal balance. There is a difference between the two—underlying cash and fiscal. I am sure you can remember it. Mr Bowen interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon will not interject. Mr MORRISON E3L That is the figure for 2017-18, and that explains the difference between the numbers. Health Care 24 14:34 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister outline to the House how the government is taking action to guarantee Medicare and fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme? Is the minister aware of any threats to these important services that Australians rely on? 14:34 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Fisher for his question. He fought very hard for the $5 million investment into youth anxiety, depression and suicide prevention through the Thompson Institute at the University of the Sunshine Coast, as well as for support for the $64 million investment into breast care. Like every member of this House, he also fought hard to ensure that we are guaranteeing both Medicare and the NDIS. In terms of Medicare, there is the investment in the GPs and in the broader medical community through the partnerships we have struck—the landmark agreement—with the GPs, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the AMA. And there is the work done with Medicines Australia and the Pharmacy Guild. These things are actually delivering real results in our GP practices and in our pharmacies. We are guaranteeing Medicare at a higher level still through the $2.4 billion that is being invested in support of Medicare. The Medicare Guarantee Fund will ensure that Medicare gets the first call on the budget every year and, of course, through the Medicare levy. The Medicare levy does not just guarantee Medicare; it also guarantees the NDIS. And why do we need to do that? Because the NDIS was never fully funded. Those opposite left a $55 billion black hole in the NDIS budget. They know it and we know it. Their shadow cabinet knows it. The Leader of the Opposition refused to fund the NDIS fully when in government. He refused to fund it when we offered savings to do the job. And now he refuses to fund the NDIS from his own levy. We have heard about Craig Emerson today and we have heard about John Della Bosca. But what is it that disability and medical groups say? We know that the AMA and that the Royal Australian College of GPs support the disability levy. We know that People With Disability Australia, National Disability Services, Mission Australia and UnitingCare Australia all support the NDIS levy. Interestingly, the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations said of the levy: It will also provide assurance for all Australians – if they or someone they love acquires a disability, the NDIS will be there for them. But the Leader of the Opposition will not. Why is this the case? When he was in government he said of anybody who opposed the levy that 'it would be dumb'. No-one could be that dumb is what he said. So we have the situation now where a Leader of the Opposition, who believed it was critical and fundamental to support this—and dumb not to—now opposes it. He should be supporting this. It is the right thing to do it, his party knows it, his cabinet knows it, his rival knows it and he knows it. At the end of the day, he is not— (Time expired) Budget 25 14:38 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to his previous answer, in which he claimed the relevant figure that will be raised by the bank tax is $1.2 billion this year. If that is the case, why did the Prime Minister yesterday tell the House that the net revenue received by the Commonwealth shown in the fiscal balance impact is $1.6 billion? Why is this tax so poorly implemented? Why is this government so incompetent? 14:38 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Can someone get him a budget paper? It is pretty simple. The accrual figure in Budget Paper No. 2 2017-18 is $1.6 billion. It is an accrual figure! The figure that I just referred to was gross cash receipts of $1.2 billion in 2017-18. That is a gross cash figure! Mr Bowen DZS You are moving the goalposts! Mr MORRISON E3L No, there is no movement of the goalposts! The shadow Treasurer has gone out to some accountants' picnic and thinks that somehow he has come back with some clever observation. All I know is that the shadow Treasurer is running the lines of the banks. How many bank executives have you met within the last couple of weeks? How many lunches have you been to with banks and with your former staff who work for the banks? How many of those has the shadow Treasurer been tucking his knees under the table with recently? He comes into this place as the grand champion of the big banks! When this shadow Treasurer was the Treasurer, he came up with a bank tax which taxed pensioners' bank accounts. Mr Hill interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce is warned! Mr MORRISON E3L And do you know what he said? He said 100 per cent of that would be passed through to the bank depositors themselves. When it comes to taxing the banks, all he could see were pensioners' bank accounts. But, on this side of the House, we have structured a levy which understands that we want to ensure that bank deposits held by ordinary Australians are not captured in this levy, as they were under the shadow Treasurer's levy. The levy has been structured to reflect that position. It is a fair levy. They say that they support it, but, I have to tell you, the way that they have been carrying on in this House shows that they have just become a puppet for the big banks. Education 26 14:40 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is delivering fair, transparent and needs-based funding for all government, independent and Catholic schools, including in Brisbane? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:40 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. Forty-six primary and secondary schools, and more than 26,000 students in the honourable member's electorate of Brisbane, will benefit from the government's record investment in schools. We are investing an extra $18.6 billion in Australian schools over 10 years. Schools from every sector—government, Catholic, independent—will benefit from our record funding. But we are not just delivering record funding; we are delivering record needs-based funding, as recommended by David Gonski and as endorsed by David Gonski. It is needs-based funding that is fair and transparent. For the first time in Australia, all schools will receive funding from the Commonwealth based on need. Who could possibly object to a funding model that is based on fairness, transparency and need? For years the Leader of the Opposition—all of the opposition, indeed—and, in particular, the member for Sydney have claimed to be the great champions of needs-based funding. The Leader of the Opposition was so devoted that he called for it 75 times. But, now, we have heard from members of the Labor caucus. Mr Evans interjecting— Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The members for Brisbane and Griffith are warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 The member for Sydney told her colleagues that the Greens would be moronic to support the government school funding package. She claims it would be moronic to support needs-based funding. She, drenched in sanctimony and inconsistency, sits there claiming to be the apostle of equity and fairness, yet she objects to the schools and the students with the greatest need getting the greatest support. What a mockery! What a pathetic trio they are—a shadow education minister that abandons needs-based funding, a Leader of the Opposition running interference for the banks that he claims he wants to subject to a royal commission and, of course, the member for Jagajaga abandoning the commitment to fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The opposition have never supported needs-based funding—only rhetorically. What they have supported are 27 secret deals—27 special deals—which Ken Boston, one of the members of the Gonski panel, described as nothing more than a corruption of David Gonski's vision. We are delivering it. We are delivering the actual needs-based funding that Gonski recommended. The opposition should support it. (Time expired) Budget 26 14:43 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer's previous answer and I also refer to Morgan Stanley's note, issued today, which indicates the bank tax will raise $1 billion in 2017-18. Given the government has gone from claiming that it will raise $1.6 billion—yesterday by the Prime Minister—to $1.2 billion today by the Treasurer, what will be the shortfall in the bank tax over the forward estimates? 14:44 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I note the reference that he made to the additional agency that provided a quote. They would not have been provided with a copy of the legislation. Mr Bowen DZS Nobody has! Mr MORRISON E3L This is right. The banks have. The banks and their advisers and boards have all been provided with copies of the draft legislation, and we have continued to consult with them over the course of the last week or so. That legislation will be introduced into the parliament during this sitting fortnight, as I suggested. The shadow Treasurer is showing a rather surprising misunderstanding— Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith will leave under 94(a). The member for Griffith then left the chamber. Mr MORRISON E3L and lack of knowledge when it comes to comes to budget measures. There are fiscal accrual measures and there are cash measures. He is basically asking questions about both of those. He would know that there is a difference between fiscal and cash. The attempt that the shadow Treasurer is trying to engage in here is to try and throw up dust. The assumptions behind the numbers hold, and the measures that have been presented in the budget are as I outlined them in my budget speech and are as presented in the budget documents. They are very clear. They set out the net cash position and the gross cash position. They set out the gross fiscal and the net fiscal position as well. They are all there to read. All you have to do is spend a bit of time reading the budget rather than playing politics. Schools 27 14:46 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy representing the Minister for Education and Training. Will the minister inform the House how the government's needs-based funding model will provide the greatest funding increases to the most disadvantaged students in schools like St Mary's school, Colac, in my electorate of Corangamite? Will the minister outline to the House— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin and the member for Franklin are warned. The member for Corangamite will begin her question again. The member for Ballarat joins the warned list as well. Ms HENDERSON ZN4 My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy representing the Minister for Education and Training. Will the minister inform the House how the government's needs-based funding model will provide the greatest funding increases to the most disadvantaged students in schools like St Mary's school, Colac, in my electorate of Corangamite? Will the minister outline to the House how the government's Quality Schools reforms have been received by the community? 14:47 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Corangamite for her question. I know that she welcomes the Turnbull government's $18.6 billion increase to school funding over the next decade—a 75 per cent increase to true needs based funding in a transparent way to create a nationally consistent system. No wonder it has been warmly received by the Grattan Institute, by the primary schools association, by the Christian schools association, by the government schools association. Corangamite has 66 schools: 53 government schools, nine Catholic schools and four independent schools. An opposition member interjecting— Mr FRYDENBERG FKL The interjection says that they are worse off. In fact, news for the opposition is that every one of those 66 schools in Corangamite are better off thanks to the Turnbull government's reforms—like St Mary's in Colac, with 275 students, which will get nearly an additional $6 million over the next 10 years. Indeed, the Catholic sector receives more Commonwealth funding per student than any other sector in every state and territory. I think that is important to understand. We are coupling these reforms of additional funding with also a focus on excellence: literacy and numeracy testing for grade 1s to encourage early intervention; literacy and numeracy for student teachers to assist them; a national certification process for new principals. I am asked whether there are any obstacles to this. The obstacle comes from those opposite, who have support for 27 secret deals. They are supporting less money for schools and they are turning their backs on David Gonski, who they described as the doyen, the architect, the oracle of a needs-based funding model. They are turning their back. The member for Chifley says that I like to finish with a quote, so I will today. I know the member for Sydney thinks that the person who gave this quote does not have a vote, but he does have a voice—and guess who it is from. It is from Craig Emerson, the former Labor Minister for Tertiary Education. He says: Now, here is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to lock in a school-funding system that can give every disadvantaged child a chance of a good education, and Labor has pledged to block it. It's heartbreaking. (Time expired) Budget 27 14:50 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to section 674 of the Corporations Act and Australian Stock Exchange listing rule 3.1, which require corporations to provide accurate updates to the Stock Exchange on matters which may affect their share price. Inconveniently, the figure that the banks have nominated that they will have to pay is less than the Prime Minister's budget forecast. So what is it, Prime Minister? Are the budget numbers wrong or are the banks lying? 14:51 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth My old friend Neville Wran used to say, 'Anyone can go to jail if they get the right lawyer.' I think the banks must be regretting that they have recruited the Leader of the Opposition as their advocate. I have never seen a more pathetic or confused attempt to try to throw dust in the way, obstacles in the way, of the major bank levy. It may well be—if banks have a different view about it, different assumptions, they are entitled to express that. The same officials, the same Treasury that has served governments of every complexion over many years, have made those estimates, have made those assumptions, and they are set out in the budget papers. I refer the Leader of the Opposition and his offsider the member for McMahon to those papers to study them, and perhaps in doing so they can learn the difference between cash and accrual. That could be a very good step in their accounting familiarity. Regional Australia: Infrastructure 28 14:52 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the government is boosting growth in our agricultural sector through its investment in regional infrastructure, particularly in my electorate of Maranoa? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any threats to our plans to secure the future of regional Australia? 14:53 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for his question and note the great benefit that the Inland Rail will be to the seat of Maranoa, especially around Goondiwindi, which will have the capacity for growth and the capacity for greater connectivity to Brisbane, greater connectivity to Melbourne, greater connectivity to Sydney. It will be a real boon to the inland areas of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. It will deliver over $22½ billion of direct and indirect benefits. It will create 16,000 jobs in construction, with 700 ongoing jobs. It will benefit Labor seats as well: McEwen, Blair, Maribyrnong. As the Australian Logistics Council says, it will have transformative potential. As the NFF says, it will be the crown jewel. New South Wales Farmers is ecstatic about it. Pacific National, one of the great logistics companies, says that the Inland Rail is it true game changer. So this is an article of vision. It is an article of infrastructure. It goes hand in glove with dams, with the Building Better Regions Fund, with Roads to Recovery, with the Bridges Renewal Program. It goes with our program of making sure that our nation's infrastructure matches up with the infrastructure of places such as Canada, the United States and Europe. It is something we have been fighting for for so long but we are actually delivering. You ask if there is any risk to it. We would never know. The member for Grayndler, Mr Albanese, the big easy, is never allowed to ask a question. We will never find out. He is almost mute. Do you know why he can't ask a question? It is because he is in the race. He is in the race for this fellow's job, and the race is off and running! The member for Sydney knows the race is off and running. She has got her sandshoes on. She knows it is on. They are all looking down. As for the member for McMahon, we wouldn't know. He is still in front of the mirror, but he is thinking about going for a run. If you want to back a roughie, there is the member for Corio. He is backed by Bob Hawke, so I would put a few dollars on him. The member for Rankin—if you want a roughie—you would put a bit of money on him. The member for Blaxland— A government member: What about the member for Lilley? Mr JOYCE E5D The member for Lilley hasn't got a hope. I tell you what, the member for Lilley is in a neck-and-neck race with the member for Fenner, the member for Hunter and the ambulance. So the race is on. The shadow minister for infrastructure, the member for Grayndler, Mr Albanese, the big easy, will never get a question here, but he gets a few questions on Sky and he gets a few questions on ABC 24. The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will refer to members by their correct title. Mr JOYCE E5D The member for Grayndler is getting a few questions somewhere else. He is talking, but he is just not talking to him! (Time expired) Education 28 14:56 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney How is it fair or needs based that in this budget Peel High School— The SPEAKER 00APG Could you start the question again? It was not clear to me who it was to. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M It is to the Prime Minister. How is it fair or needs based that in this budget Peel High School in the Deputy Prime Minister's electorate will lose $1.68 million over the next two years, while the Armidale School, with fees of up to $20,000 per year, gets an extra $16.3 million over the decade? 14:57 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I have looked up Peel High School on the government's estimator app and it shows that it will receive over 10 years $8½ million of additional funding. Funding per student will go from $4,171 to— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right will cease interjecting! Before I call the member for Sydney, I remind her of her point of order yesterday, which was an abuse of the point of order, and the fact that she has already been warned. The member for Sydney on a point of order. Mr Pasin interjecting— Mr Hastie interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Barker and the member for Canning are both warned. The member for Sydney will state the point of order. Ms Plibersek 83M Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point of order is relevance. These figures are New South Wales government figures— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney will resume her seat. The Prime Minister is completely relevant to the question. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr TURNBULL 885 The honourable member has said in defence of her question that these are New South Wales government figures. I remind the honourable member that this is the Commonwealth parliament and we are talking about Commonwealth government spending. What I am saying to the honourable member is—as every parent at Peel High School can see—that in 2017 the funding per student from the Commonwealth is estimated at $4,171 and by 2027 it will be $6,659. Those are the figures set out by the Commonwealth department of education. I refer the honourable member to them. Western Australia: Energy 29 14:59 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the government is supporting economic development and exports from Western Australia? Is the minister aware of any alternatives? 14:59 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I thank the member for O'Connor for his question. I recognise his deep interest in economic development in Western Australia through exports. Australia is an energy superpower, and we are on track to becoming the largest exporter of LNG in the world by 2020. This remarkable growth has been built on the foundation of a $200 billion investment phase. Of course, our success in attracting overseas investment has to do with many factors, including our significant gas reserves and our proximity to Asian markets but also our skilled workforce and the certainty that we provide in terms of tax and regulatory regimes. For example: the INPEX-led Ichthys project—the $45 billion LNG project at Browse Basin—is the single-largest overseas investment by the Japanese company. This will not only be a great story for Western Australia but also for Australia. The life of the Browse Basin project is about 40 years. There will be about nine million tonnes of LNG produced and the construction phase alone provided 10,000 jobs, many of them in Western Australia. This project came about because of positive engagement by the then Liberal Western Australian government and the coalition federal government, underpinned by long-term supply contracts. I was asked about alternative approaches, and there certainly are alternative approaches. It is like A Tale of Two Cities. I can draw the analogy between what has happened in Western Australia and what has happened in Queensland. In Perth, the Browse Basin project was backed by the Western Australian Liberal government and the federal government. We backed investment, we backed jobs and we backed this project back in Western Australia. But in Brisbane, the Queensland Labor government is in chaos over the Adani coalmine. They are in absolute chaos over the mining project. That is because the Premier is in an ideological battle to the death with her deputy, the Greens proxy, who is trying to undercut the Adani project—putting at risk jobs and investment. Now, here in Canberra the Leader of the Opposition is all over the place when it comes to jobs and investment. He tells Adani that he backs the project, yet Labor voted against our efforts to finalise amendments to the Native Title Act, which are fundamental to secure this investment. They are absolutely fundamental to secure this investment. So, you can back the coalition on jobs; you cannot trust Labor on jobs. Schools 29 15:02 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that Victorian public schools face a $630 million funding cut, according to the Victorian government's own numbers, and with schools in Corangamite set to lose $12 million over the next two years alone, how is his policy fair or needs based? Ms Henderson interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Corangamite is warned! 15:03 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question, which I assume is based on education union figures. Is that right? Ms Plibersek interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 Well, the honourable member can table the Victorian government document if she likes. She can table it—why not? Table it! What about the New South Wales government document you were referring to? Do you want to table that too? Ms Plibersek interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 It sounds like it is not there! In the electorate of Corangamite, ably represented by the honourable member, the year-on-year growth from this year is going to be 4.6 per cent in 2018, 4.6 per cent in 2019, 4.6 per cent in 2020 and 4.3 per cent in 2021. All Commonwealth funding grows from $83 million in 2017 to $99.2 million in 2021. School funding is increasing across the nation by $18.6 billion over the next decade. But, most importantly of all, it is needs based. It is based on the needs of the student, not on the political needs of the opposition. The member for Sydney has been posing as a champion of underprivileged schools for years, and now she has been exposed. She is trying to defend one inconsistent secret deal after another. She knows— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I have warned the member for Sydney yesterday and today. I cannot caution her any further. She will leave the chamber under 94(a). The Prime Minister has concluded his answer. The member for Sydney then left the chamber. Defence Procurement 30 15:05 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister outline to the House how the government's investment in defence industry will generate thousands of jobs for hardworking Australians, create a stronger economy and ensure our national security? How will Western Australia benefit from the largest military build-up in our peacetime history? 15:05 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Canning for his question. And I almost feel sorry for the member for Sydney. I would quite like for her to have another go; she was going so well! But unfortunately she is not in the chamber. But I digress. The SPEAKER 00APG I can arrange for you to have a conversation with her immediately, if you would like! Mr PYNE 9V5 Well, I would not want to do that—although she is very good company. Last week the Prime Minister and I and the Minister for Defence launched the Naval Shipbuilding Plan. In the Naval Shipbuilding Plan, Western Australia is a big winner. Western Australia will build 31 of the 54 new vessels that this government has commissioned for our Australian Navy—31 out of 54. And the first one of those, the Pacific patrol vessels, I cut steel on only a month ago. That is a $300 million project employing more than 500 people. Austal, in Henderson, has already begun work—almost finished work—on two additional Cape class patrol vessels, a $63 million project employing 400 people. And Austal has announced that it will employ a further 100 new apprentices in cabinet making, fitting and turning, and ship welding at its set-up in Henderson, which I know the member for Canning has been deeply interested in, trying to find local jobs for the young people in his electorate, in apprenticeships. Western Australia will build 10 of the 12 offshore patrol vessels, worth $3 billion to $4 billion and employing over 400 people. And I recently turned the sod on Civmec's new shipbuilding facility at Henderson—an $80 million new shipbuilding facility which I began a month ago. It has a larger footprint than the MCG and is taller than the Sydney Opera House. That is the scale of the work that is being created because of the decisions this government has made in the last four years. Civmec says it will have 1,000 people working in it, including 100 apprentices at Civmec's new facility at Henderson. And Western Australia does a lot of the sustainment work. In this financial year alone, we will spend $140 million on the Anzac class frigates in sustainment at Henderson and $150 million on the Collins class submarines in sustainment. And this Prime Minister announced $100 million of new infrastructure at Henderson and HMAS Stirling on top of the $366 million that we have already committed to the redevelopment of the HMAS Stirling base. So, in stark contrast to this government, on that side of the House they reduced funding for defence to 1.5 per cent of GDP. They did not commission one Australian shipyard to build one vessel in this country. We are transforming the defence industry in this country, particularly in Western Australia, at Henderson, of which we should all be proud. Mr Turnbull 885 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 31 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 15:09 The SPEAKER 00APG I remind the House that the Address in Reply will be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General at Government House at 5 pm this afternoon. I will be glad if the mover and seconder, together with other honourable members, will accompany me to present the address. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 31 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 52 of 2016-17 31 15:09 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 52 of 2016-17 entitled Performance audit—managing underperformance in the Australian Public Service: across entities. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 31 DOCUMENTS Presentation 31 15:09 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BUSINESS 31 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 31 15:10 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in order to facilitate the work of the Federation Chamber in considering the appropriation bills: (1) on Wednesday, 24 May the Federation Chamber to meet from 9.45 am to 1.30 pm and from 4 pm to 7.30 pm; (2) on Thursday, 25 May the Federation Chamber to meet from 9.45 am to 1.30 pm and adjourn without debate; (3) on Monday, 29 May the time scheduled for private members' business in the Federation Chamber to be allocated to government business; (4) on Tuesday, 30 May the Federation Chamber to meet from 12.15 pm to 1.30 pm for government business in addition to its scheduled hours of meeting, and the period from 4 pm to 4.30 pm also to be allocated to government business; (5) on Wednesday, 31 May the meeting of the Federation Chamber to continue until 1.15 pm and then suspend until 4 pm; (6) on Thursday, 1 June government business in the Federation Chamber to continue until 1 pm and an adjournment debate to take place from 1 pm to 1.30 pm; (7) on Tuesday, 13 June the period from 4 pm to 4.30 pm to be allocated to government business and there to be no Grievance Debate; (8) on Wednesday, 14 June the Federation Chamber to meet from 1 pm to 1.30 pm, in addition to its scheduled hours of meeting, with an adjournment debate to take place from 7 pm to 7.30 pm; (9) on Thursday, 15 June the meeting of the Federation Chamber to continue until 1.15 pm and to be adjourned without debate; (10) on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, 20-22 June, Members' constituency statements to continue for 60 minutes, irrespective of divisions in the House; (11) on Wednesday, 21 June the Federation Chamber to continue until 1.30 pm before suspending, and the time scheduled for government business from 11 am to be allocated to private members business until 6.30 pm, as determined by the Selection Committee, to be followed by a Grievance Debate until 7.30 pm; and (12) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister. For the interest of members of parliament, this will allow the consideration in detail of the appropriation bills to occur in the Federation Chamber from one portfolio to another, as has been the case in previous years. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 31 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Banking and Financial Services 31 15:10 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Perth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government failing to protect consumers from the economic power of the banks. I call upon all those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:11 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth Before I get to articulating the ways in which this government has failed to protect consumers from the economic power of the banks, let me put into context the importance of getting it right. What does it look like on the ground? Well, the impact and the necessity and the importance of getting it right are stark when you look at the sheer number of customers held by the big four banks—those consumers affected by the ways in which the banks go about conducting their business: 3.15 million customers with the NAB, 3.8 million customers with Westpac, five million customers with the ANZ and 7.4 million customers with the Commonwealth Bank. That is almost 20 million Australians who bank with the big four and, when we look at the market share of the big four, when combined with their subsidiaries'—Westpac's St. George brand, the Commonwealth's Bankwest brand and NAB's UBank—the big four have a total market share of somewhere just shy of 75 per cent. That is why it is just so important to get this right, and it highlights why it is such a tragedy that this government continues to drop the ball when it comes to managing relationships with the banks. Let me make it clear that there is one party, the Labor Party, that understands the need to have confidence in banks and financial institutions. The Labor Party understands how important it is to deal with unethical behaviour that compromises that confidence. It is the Labor Party that understands the importance of having a healthy banking and financial services sector, and it is the Labor Party that supports a strong banking and financial services sector. But what we will never support, for as long as we have breath in our bodies, are practices, systems and cultures that allow consumers to continue to be ripped off, small business owners who are working hard and doing the right thing to lose their livelihoods, and retirees to lose their life savings. If we are truly honest with ourselves we know, and if those on the other side are honest with themselves they will confess to the number of constituents who come through their doors on a daily basis with stories of predatory behaviour and harsh treatment by the banks in the sector. What they should admit but what they fail to admit is how this government is failing those constituents in relation to truly protecting their interests. One need look no further than the paltry, inept approach—tinkering around the edges, at best—taken by this government in the recent budget in relation to dealing with the banks insofar as they affect consumers. The government has attempted a no-net-red-tape approach, increasing regulation in some areas but decreasing regulation in others. And of course who could go further than looking at this attempted trojan horse, commonly known as a levy on the banking sector. We can try as hard as we might to make the numbers stack up but once again they fail dismally. We will see, while one is drilling down into the detail of these so-called attempts to deliver benefits to consumers, the need for a royal commission to truly get to the bottom of what is at heart in order to ensure consumers are protected from predatory behaviour from the financial services sector. The so-called $6 billion levy on the banks—what a wonderful trojan horse this is: falling apart at the seams before you even get into the gates of Troy. It is a poorly designed attempt at trying to protect consumers, for these reasons: not because it is not important to make sure the banks give back to the community but because of the fact that when you look at all the other paltry changes attempted to be made by this government it risks achieving no net benefit. There is absolutely nothing in this rushed attempt to win over the electorate that would stop the banks passing on the costs of this levy to mums and dads, consumers and small businesses. The ink is barely dry on this budget and we already know that the shortfall in relation to accruing the so-called benefits of this levy adds up to something in the range of $2 billion. For Westpac, the $260 million annual liability under the levy represents a $68 cost on each of their 3.8 million customers. How is that possibly delivering a benefit or a protection for consumers in the banking sector? The cost of the new banking levy has pushed up borrowing, making it even harder for new entrants to establish new banks undermining the budget measures. Now, it is true that we have no objection to the banks paying a levy, but what we have here is a rush job. There is a clear discrepancy between what the banks are actually saying they will raise and what the government is telling everyday Australians. Look no further than yesterday in parliament. On three separate occasions, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer would not confirm how much money the banks were actually able to claim back in deductions. Only a frustrated, desperate, panicked government, trying so hard to be something they are not, would come up with a scheme which on one hand says they are going to tax the banks and on the other hand is going to let the banks claim the costs of paying the tax in the form of a deduction. If they were serious about wanting respect from the financial services sector—the only thing that these banks will respect in government is when they have a government prepared to give them a royal commission, and this government is pulling up short. Meanwhile, at the same time, talk about Robin Hood! While the government is giving a $65 billion tax cut to big business, of which over $7 billion will be given to the big four banks, they are imposing a $6 billion levy with absolutely no guarantee or protection for consumers that they will not be hit with the cost. This is a government literally taking money out of the pockets of banks' consumers, only to give that money back to the banks in the form of a tax cut. We have here the Minister for Small Business, who has come along to listen to what we have to say here in relation to the ways in which small business operators are also affected by the big four banks. He is not doing much listening and he is not doing much acting. He comes up here off the long run yesterday in question time and cannot work out why, he says, that 'Labor hates small business'. 'Why is it that they hate small business?' he asks. Well, Sunshine, there is one party in this town that protects small business and it is the Labor Party. It was the Labor Party that went to the election in 2016 ensuring a policy that would make life better for 95 per cent of small businesses. Count them: 95 per cent of small businesses would have benefited from a tax cut with a turnover of up to $2 million. The truth does hurt and the numbers hurt. This is just fantastic! This is where the government gets it so wrong. They think that, by doing a deal to make the top end of town like them more, somehow they are landing on the focus group initiative of fairness. That is right: 'What is going to deliver a benefit to consumers? What is going to deliver a benefit to small business? I know! We are going to give the big banks a $7 billion tax cut.' Even if they got this levy right, even if they got the $6 billion water tight, so consumers were not going to have to lump the cost, it would still see the banks $1 billion in front. Go figure! That does not sound like the great protector of small business, to me. While the minister is concentrating so hard on sticking up for the big end of town, we on this side have actually been working for consumers. We have been working to make sure that consumers were protected. It was the Labor Party who went to the last election advocating for consumers, to make sure that, under the Australian Consumer Law, penalties for companies engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct would be commensurate to their conduct and we would actually see those penalties increase to $100 million. This minister has done very, very little. On budget night, the Minister for Small Business got up to profess: My most important job as the Minister responsible for Consumer Affairs is to ensure Australians are protected from being ripped off or misled, so people can make purchases with confidence. I would like to ask those who are playing this game at home to go back through the minister's press releases and press conferences and try and work out how many times he has actually mentioned the word 'consumer'. How many times has he actually mentioned the word 'consumer' out of—count them—29 media releases? Apart from a bit of lip-service on budget night, not once. That's right: not once—you win the prize! As far as failing goes, we are seeing them failing to get the bank levy right and failing by giving a $7 billion tax cut. As far as report cards go, it is an 'F' for failure. (Time expired) 15:21 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The last time the member for Perth and I debated a matter of public importance it was supposed to be about consumers that time too, except on that day, 7 February this year, the member's home state was in the middle of an election campaign. Naturally, it was then that the member for Perth spent his entire MPI contribution telling the House, the federal House of Representatives, how wonderful a WA Labor government would be. There was a lot of talk about Premier Colin Barnett, but there was very little talk about consumers—very little. It is interesting that the member for Perth has not brought up the WA state of affairs today, considering the funding cuts his WA Labor mates have brought to the Western Australian regional areas. It is interesting to see the WA Nationals investment in Royalties for Regions now in jeopardy. Those projects which have brought so much benefit to so many country communities across Western Australia—and they have; I have been there and seen them—did not get a mention today. It is interesting that the member for Perth, who talked a lot in February about Western Australia's unemployment, is not quite so effusive in his praise of the Premier of Western Australia today. The hypocrisy of the WA Labor government and its mates here in Canberra is truly breathtaking. So happy they are to lecture about funding for country WA projects, but then they cut them just weeks into government. And it is the same here in Canberra. While this government gets on with the job, all those opposite do is bluster, blow bag and lecture. At the core of everything that I do as the minister responsible for consumer affairs is make sure Australian consumers are protected. Whether that is an update to the mandatory standard for product safety or increasing penalties on those who take advantage of consumers, this government is taking real action to protect consumers. The member for Perth talked about press releases. He was not in the Gillard-Rudd years when it was 'government by press release'. I much prefer to use action rather than just mere words, Member for Perth. Much as those opposite do not like it, this government does not spend its time pacing the press gallery in search of a headline to get our name in the newspaper, nor do we issue press releases or shop out op-eds claiming that consumers are ripped off and say, 'We will give the ACCC powers'—powers that it already has. No, we are an action government. Mr Hammond interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 No, we do not do that, Member for Perth; we are indeed an action government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN I remind members sitting here on the frontbench that the small business minister has the call. Mr McCORMACK 219646 It is like a bunch of galahs on a telegraph line. Opposition members interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 Magpies, galahs—call it what you like. We are a government that gets things done. We will continue to get things done. We are a government which is very much up to the job. That is the contrast between this government and those opposite—indeed, it is. They come into this parliament, they move motions to say how deeply and heartfelt they feel for those who have been taken advantage of. But when this government puts some action on the table, something that will actually protect consumers, they crab walk away. On budget day the government announced it will introduce a major bank levy on our five major financial institutions with liabilities of at least $100 billion. As members of the community who benefit so substantially from the public, it is only fair that the banks do their bit to help pay for the hospitals, schools and pensions, giving back to the community where they have benefited so mightily. The levy recognises that the banks pose an element of risk to our economy, and it asks the big banks to help compensate the community for this risk. The levy will also raise revenue to help bring the budget back into balance and maintain our AAA rating. You will recall that we once had a budget surplus. That was in the years where Howard and Costello were organising the financial levers. Then, of course, we had those sorrowful years of Rudd-Gillard-Rudd, with the member for Lilley in control: years of economic mismanagement. Mr Champion HW9 When are you going into surplus? Mr McCORMACK 219646 2020-21, Member for Wakefield. It was years of economic mismanagement under those opposite. It works in tandem with the reforms being implemented by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority—this is the bank levy—and the government. APRA will have the power to remove and disqualify senior executives and directors from all APRA-regulated institutions, and there will be civil penalties of up to $200 million for larger authorised deposit-taking institutions and $50 million for smaller authorised deposit-taking institutions. As well, APRA will also be able to impose penalties on authorised deposit-taking institutions that do not appropriately monitor the suitability of their executives to hold senior positions. The levy provides a more level playing field for smaller and non-bank competitors. That is what you can expect from the coalition government. We are the government which has amended section 46 to prevent the misuse of market power to help level the playing field for small business. We are the government which enacted unfair contract protections for small business. The bank levy will increase competition between the big banks and smaller regional and foreign banks. My message to consumers is that if they do not like the actions of their bank— Mr Clare interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Blaxland is warned. Mr McCORMACK 219646 then they should take their business down the street to their local customer-owned bank or credit union. There are many good ones. I know there are many fine ones in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker, as well as mine. This deliberate policy decision is designed so that the affected banks will absorb the levy, as they should, rather than pass it on to their customers. So whilst those opposite talk about how deeply they feel for consumers, they do not match the serious action we are taking to ensure they are protected. Our plan, unlike that of the Labor Party, does not punish savers or depositors, such as pensioners, as Labor's proposed deposit tax did. Those opposite wanted to tax every single account holder in the country, regardless of the company they banked with, and included pensioners and ordinary account holders. Instead, ours is a modest contribution from the big five banks and is just 6c in $100 of specified liabilities. It is only on the liabilities of those institutions with more than $100 billion. The levy will not apply to deposits protected by the Financial Claims Scheme or mortgages or additional tier 1 capital. It is a fair contribution from those banks, which Australians backed during the global financial crisis and which are posting profits of more than $30 billion a year after tax. This levy ensures that Australians are compensated for the banks' risk, there is increased competition in the bank sector and customers are treated equitably. We are enshrining fairness in Australia's financial sector. We are creating a one-stop shop, known as the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, where consumers and small businesses can go to resolve their disputes with banks and other financial institutions. There will be a new banking executive accountability scheme to make sure the pay of very senior executives at the banks reinforces their obligation to act in the interests of consumers. Getting things done—that is what this government is doing. In addition to this, the ACCC will have the powers and resources to undertake monitoring of residential mortgage pricing. It will require relevant banks to explain any changes, or indeed proposed changes, to fees, charges or interest rates. At the heart of everything this government does is the desire to get the job done for Australians and to take action, real and meaningful action, to protect consumers. We are taking action to make that a reality. Only this government will hold the banks to account, have them pay their fair share and level the playing field in Australia's banking sector. Only this government backs small business the way it wants to be backed. The member for Perth talked about a $2 million threshold. He called me sunshine. Well, we are allowing the sunshine to come in—we are making the threshold $10 million. If you are any good with your numbers, Member for Perth, $10 million is five times what your side of parliament proposed. So it is a $10 million turnover threshold, the tax rate is going down to 27½ per cent—the lowest it has been for many, many decades—and the instant asset write-off is being extended by 12 months. It is now available to far more businesses than ever would have been looked after by those opposite. If ever there was a government with the back of small business, it is this one. (Time expired) 15:31 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield The honourable gentleman ended on a nice note but prior to that he called all of my colleagues galahs, magpies and all sorts of things. It was quite unfair, coming from this government. He just indulged the House with 10 minutes of confusion, with incoherent meanderings like some sort of muddleheaded wombat at the dispatch box, giving us all his bons mots of wisdom. You can just see the enthusiasm on the backbench. I do not think Keith Pitts heart has raced that much. Now he really is excited! But you cannot blame the minister for such a confused, incoherent meandering history lesson when this is a government that has had two prime ministers, three defence ministers, a couple of treasurers, a dozen other ministerial changes and a revolving door in the National Security Committee. Who knows what comes next out of this government. They wander from one end of the horseshoe to be other. They have spent all this time defending banks against a royal commission. We get these arguments from the Prime Minister in question time. He says, 'Royal commissions are a lawyers picnic.' You guys held one into trade unions and one into roof bats, constantly referred to them and made many lawyers very rich, yet you rock up in the House with the argument, 'It's a lawyers picnic and we couldn't possibly have a royal commission into the banks.' You have to think, 'How does this government's mind work? In order to avoid a royal commission, they launched multiple inquiries and made multiple regulations, all on the rush, with nobody really know where they are going—anything but a royal commission. They come in here with this tough rhetoric against the banks but they neglect to mention that they are giving a $65 billion tax cut to corporate Australia—$7 billion of it going to the big four banks. I bet they are really angry. I bet they are quaking in their boots every time they have a meeting with you. I bet small business is so enthusiastic about that $7 billion tax cut for the big four banks. Even if that not enough, there are the income tax cuts to the bank CEOs. On his base salary, the tax cut for the CEO of the Commonwealth Bank will be $170,000. I bet he is unhappy with you! I bet he is terrified of this government. If you go off his full salary for last year, it would be a $246,000 tax cut. So, they spent all this time defending the banks, backing the banks in, and then out of the blue comes this bank levy, put in the budget at the last moment, having been leaked to sky News—$14 billion was wiped off the share market; there was probably a bit of trading going on, with a few people making some dollars on information that had leaked out of the budget, but never mind that. They come in here, they beat their chests about the banks, but the truth is that this bank levy is pretty badly designed and the cost almost certainly will be passed on, from what the banks are saying—Ken Henry says it will be passed on, and Westpac says it will be passed on to shareholders, to customers, to staff. We know this is basically going to morph into a consumer levy. That is where it is going. That is where the banks are pushing it. Bank CEOs are openly thumbing their noses at you, and yet your response is to come into this House and say, 'Oh, don't worry, they won't be able to pass it on.' How can you say that? I defy any member opposite to tell me how they can prevent the banks from passing this on. This whole meandering along the policy continuum from one end to the other indicates the last days of a Prime Minister who is floundering around. It is the last days of a backbench who, a bit like wombats, are going round and round in circles, not knowing what the government lines will be next week or the week after. As the Qantas CEO says, who knows who is next? So you had better buckle up for the Prime Minister's next great gambit to save his prime ministership. We all know you have a leader in waiting up the back. Here is the member for Goldstein! If Angus Taylor can give it a go, why not you? The reality of this government is that they are confused and they do not know what they believe in. (Time expired) 15:36 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks Let us talk about banks and rewind to a very difficult period in Australian history, between 2010 and 2013—the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era. We hear a lot from the opposition about banks and the evil of banks and all the things they are going to do to banks, so I went back and looked at who was actually responsible for banks between 2010 and 2013—who was the Assistant Treasurer from September 2010 to December 2011, and who was the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation from September 2010 all the way through to the election in 2013? And who, during that time, did absolutely nothing about banks? It turns out it was the Leader of the Opposition—the Leader of the Opposition was responsible for regulating the Australian banking system for three years, during which CBA had to pay $136 million compensation over Storm Financial, NAB had to pay $115 million in relation to a class action by shareholders, a Macquarie fund manager was jailed over insider trading, and a whole range of other things happened. I looked at what the then government did in the regulation of banks in that period, and I could not find anything substantial at all that happened in those three years. We hear them rail against the big end of town and the evils of banks, but when in power they did absolutely nothing. In contrast to them, this government is doing a huge amount when it comes to banks. Those opposite have one policy, which is to hold a royal commission, which will take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars; they have not offered one constructive solution to any practical problem in the banking system at all. There was nothing three years ago, and there is no specific constructive policy at all today. That is a great indictment of them. What are we doing? A lot. Firstly, those opposite had a system with three different tribunals and ombudsman services. It was very difficult for consumers—you had the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal and also the Credit Ombudsman Service. It was really hard to navigate; it was difficult for consumers with three different bodies to go to. We say let us create one body—straightforward, simple for consumers, very low cost and able to have real teeth—to address those situations where consumers are ripped off by banks, and that is the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. It is this government that is delivering it and its introduction is going to be a very positive event for consumers. Those opposite did absolutely nothing about executive accountability in banks. One of the things we learned in the recent House Economics Committee inquiry was that not one senior executive from any of the major banks has been terminated for any of the substantial number of incidents of poor treatment of consumers that have occurred in recent years. So not one executive suffered any consequence under those opposite, and there was no regime in place to deal with this very serious situation. So we are going to create one. We are going to create a strong executive accountability regime. We recommended a regime through our committee. It is pleasing that the government is taking such a strong action here—regulated by APRA, a register of senior banking executives, fines of up to $200 million. It is called actually doing practical things to improve the situation. Those opposite huff and puff when interest rates change and rail against the banks, and so on. But in their time in government there was not one regulator with any focus on the issue of competition in banking. Of course, in a perfectly competitive market it is very difficult to pass on price increases because competition will make that so much harder. No regulator under those opposite ever looked into this most fundamental issue. In the budget, the government announced that the ACCC will have $13 million of funding to focus in a very granular and laser-like fashion on the issue of competition in banking in the Australian sector. It is a very important issue. There is not enough competition in the Australian banking sector. The ACCC, for the first time, will systemically investigate this issue and put a very close lens particularly on interest rates through its mortgage residential pricing inquiry that will happen until June of next year. How many new banks were licensed by Australian companies getting started under the previous government's six years? Zero. There was not one new bank started in Australia under the previous government, and that is a massive problem. We are changing the regulation to encourage new banks to get started. Competition is good for consumers. The more competition, the better the outcomes. This government is taking action. The Leader of the Opposition was personally responsible for this area in government. He completely failed, as did his entire team. 15:41 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle It is with great honour that I stand to support the member for Perth for bringing to this House today the debate around the government's failing to protect consumers from the economic power of banks. At long last, this House actually gets to have a debate that might focus on Australian consumers—the people who should be at the very heart of our considerations and deliberations in this House. Members opposite in this government have fought tooth and nail at each and every opportunity to block any of Labor's suggestion so far about bringing the banking sector and the financial sector in Australia to account for the destruction to tens of thousands of millions of Australians whose lives have been ruined by some of these banks. You are purporting to put a big levy on top, but we, in fact, know that that levy is immediately going to be passed on to Australian consumers. That is the problem. That is a huge problem. Notwithstanding the muddled mindedness of members opposite when they try and articulate what exactly this levy is worth and what we expect to be delivering from it, the one thing that we do know and the one thing that all the big four banks' CEOs agree on is that the cost of this levy will be worn by either consumers, staff, suppliers or shareholders, but not the banks. So it is going to be the consumer or the poor staff that take a big cut in the neck. This is a time when our four banks last year recorded record profits and the same four banks in the same financial year sacked or shredded more than 2½ thousand full-time jobs. It is the same time when this government is doing absolutely nothing about the record low wages growth in this country. It is the same time when this government is delivering $65 billion worth of tax cuts that these four banks are going to take—thank you very much—$7.5 billion of. The levy on the big banks is, in fact, a tax-deductible levy. How crazy is this scenario! You have a situation where the government finally says, 'We want to be seen to be doing something about these banks because we are too gutless to call a royal commission on them.' They are too gutless to actually make these guys stand up and be accountable to all of those men and women whose lives have been destroyed by unethical behaviour and by outrageous predatory behaviour by some of these banks. This is a project that is far too big for the government to want to take on. So the Prime Minister goes to Westpac and gives them a lecture about how they need to behave better. He stands up in this House and says: 'We will hold these banks to account. We're going to ask them not to pass on any of this levy to consumers.' But absolutely everybody—everybody except members opposite—knows full-well that it is not the banks that wear the brunt of this tax at all. Indeed, one of the other matters that I would like bring to light in this debate is the absolute furphy that this Prime Minister articulated that somehow this tax on banks would help provide a level playing field for smaller banks in Australia. We heard members opposite just now talk about how it is going to allow more new banks onto the playing field. I would just note the report today of the downgrading of the ratings for those smaller banks in Australia. I have two in my electorate: Newcastle Permanent building society and Greater Bank. All are being downgraded. Why? Because of the setback—the cost of borrowing has been pushed up by this strategy now. So the notion that this is somehow creating a level playing field is complete nonsense. The Australian people will know it is nonsense. The customer owned banking sector is going to know it is nonsense. It is about time this government stopped being the gutless wonders they are and brought on a royal commission, which is what we need. 15:46 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I think I should probably start by responding to something said by the previous speaker. In particular, I think it is disgraceful that she got up here and used the phrase she did at the end of her speech. In this parliament we set standards about conduct and manner, and sometimes we get a bit boisterous, shall we say. Sometimes we get up and say things that might challenge and we have robust debate. But when you get another member getting up and calling everybody on one side of the chamber 'simply gutless wonders' because they will not do what you want them to do on an issue of policy—where you might actually have a genuine disagreement—the person who says that stands condemned. Mr Champion HW9 Poor snowflake. Mr TIM WILSON IMW And you would think the people on the other side of the chamber might have a bit of class and just accept the criticism and move on. But let us move on and deal with the substantive issue, which is around this rather pointless motion, which frankly makes a mockery of this chamber: the idea that a government should stand condemned for a falsified debate that the opposition is running because they seek to achieve political advantage. The previous speaker spoke about how eventually a person might pay a consequence of a levy. Who else is going to? Who? There are only people who live in this society, in this country, in this economy. Of course a person is eventually going to pay the cost of a levy, a tax. Just about everything you do in this place imposes higher costs and higher levies, and eventually it is paid for by people. But you have a fictitious idea of who exists in our society. There are these people at the top end who you envy and you promote hatred towards because you cannot stand them for their success. Why do you not actually recognise that everybody in this society has a responsibility to carry the consequences, to share the burden equally, and to make sure that we all have an investment in the future of this country? So the fictitious nature of this debate—this class envy that has been pushed out there by the opposition, for no benefit apart from the rhetorical arms which they throw out in this chamber—simply makes a mockery of this chamber. There are some home truths. The reality is that banks provide a useful service to the Australian community. Last time I checked, most people could not just afford to buy their own home without some assistance from the banks. So what do they do? They engage in a transaction. Mr Champion interjecting— Mr Hammond interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Perth and the member for Wakefield have had their turn. Mr TIM WILSON IMW They go off and speak to the person at the bank. They show documents and they try and establish their equity. They then go off and buy a home. And then they go and build their family and their future, with security. I think that is actually a pretty noble service, frankly. That somebody believes strongly in building a country from the bottom up, from the citizen up, the idea that individuals can form families, build community and the foundations for country is actually something of which we should be appreciative—all of us; it is a good thing. But that does not mean that sometimes even those service providers get things wrong. They do. People who get elected to parliament even get things wrong sometimes, believe it or not, such as this ridiculous motion. The question is: how do you deal with it? When problems come up, do you address them? Do you try to get the banks to solve them themselves? If you do not, you design properly designed regulations and frameworks in law to make sure that they are held to account. Or, do you create a pointless and needless and expensive witch-hunt? Actually, those opposite have chosen the latter. And do you know what the government is doing? The government is creating a sensible and practical level of regulation for the banks so that people who have problems can have them addressed. If you have an issue today with a bank—it does not matter who you are; you could be on our side of politics or your side of politics, of the 24 million people in this great country—you can go to an agency that will help. We are setting up a one-stop shop, an Australian financial complaints authority, which creates an external dispute resolution model and greater transparency for internal dispute resolution by financial firms. Opposition members interjecting— Mr TIM WILSON IMW I see the members opposite now starting to shift away and move around, because it might be making them feel a bit uncomfortable, when the government actually comes along and produces a practical, sensible, outcomes-driven improvement in the banking sector to address the problems Australians are experiencing, unlike the absurdity of what they are proposing in their motion. And in the end, banks will be held accountable, through both regulation and the marketplace. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Before I call the member for Wills, I remind the member for Goldstein to address his remarks through the chair, and that goes for the other speakers as well. I also remind some of the members on this side who are not in their correct places that it is disorderly if they call out. 15:52 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I thank my friend the member for Perth for raising this important issue in this afternoon's debate on the matter of the banks. And what a performance by the member for Goldstein! I mean, seriously: we have seen reports today that there is a $2 billion hole in the government's bank tax, a black hole. It is also a big lie. Australians will find out that the coalition government has lied to them. The first big lie is that there is a $2 billion hole in the revenue. Research by Morgan Stanley states that disclosures by the banks confirm that a levy of six basis points will not raise enough to meet the government's revenue-raising objective. That is the first big lie. The second big lie: the government has made the levy tax-deductible, because they were strongarmed by the banks. What a big capitulation by this shambles of a government. Thirdly, this is all wrapped up in the fact that they are too gutless to hold a royal commission. What an absolute shambles. What a mess. Regardless, we know that there is this significant problem that is literally being ignored by this government: the misconduct in our banking sector—and it is something Australians have every right to be concerned about. We have all seen the criticisms in the media about the banking sector, which, rightfully, have raised considerable disquiet across the community. I doubt there are members in this House who have not had constituents come into their office to tell them about their experiences with their bank and the issues they face. I have certainly seen my fair share, and I have been in this place for only nine months. Substantial numbers of incidents refer to the problems that people have, particularly with the big four banks, as the member for Perth has outlined. The vast majority of Australians bank with those top four banks, some 75 per cent of the market share. Such an extreme concentration alone would probably justify the significant oversight and ongoing scrutiny of the big banks. But how can anyone not demand action when we see examples of retirees having their retirement savings gutted, families being rorted out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, small business owners who have lost everything and life insurance policyholders who have been denied justice? One is Mr Pashalis, a man who was denied a payout by CommInsure after being diagnosed with terminal leukaemia. Mr Pashalis was offered a settlement by CommInsure only after the media exposed internal documents suggesting the repeated use of delay tactics to avoid paying out claims and the use of questionable and outdated medical definitions to deny him and other customers their fair due. The tales of misconduct which come to light more and more often make this matter too egregious to ignore. To be clear, Labor supports a strong and profitable banking and financial services sector. We know the banking sector is crucial to our economy. But Australians need to have confidence in their banks and financial institutions to uncover and deal with unethical behaviour that compromises that confidence. We will never support practices, systems or cultures that allow consumers to be ripped off, small business owners doing the right thing to lose their livelihoods and retirees to lose their life savings. So Labor went to the polls last year promising that we would have a royal commission into Australia's banking and financial services sector. But we did it because the number of scandals, and the many examples of misconduct and poor practice, simply demanded a response—something that this government is incapable of providing. To be sure, media scrutiny has uncovered a lot. The media have fulfilled their role. But a comprehensive commission of inquiry is the only way to properly address the rip-offs, scandals and misconduct that we have seen in this sector over recent years. We simply need to get to the bottom of the systemic and cultural issues in an independent, thorough and transparent way. I do not understand why those opposite do not see the logic of this. It is plain. It is right before them. But they are too stubborn. Sixty-five per cent of all Australian voters supported Labor's banking royal commission when it was first announced. So there is a clear and identifiable problem, which the government is ignoring. And we can see that a considerable portion of the public are justifiably concerned. They want action. Yet we have had nothing—no meaningful action; no steps taken by this government. Our Prime Minister is a former banker himself. There is nothing to stamp out the misconduct in this sector. What we have instead is a joke of a so-called solution. When the Prime Minister called the CEOs of the big four banks to come before the House economics committee hearings, the hearings saw CEO after CEO refuse to answer direct questions, release important reports or take genuine responsibility for the failings of the banks. The government are a shambles on this and on the bank levy, and they are doing nothing to stop the associated costs being passed on to customers. They are doing nothing to address the genuine issues in the banking and financial sector. They are merely tinkering around the edges and disregarding the public's interests. It is a disgrace. 15:57 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I welcome the opportunity to speak about the ways in which our government is protecting consumers in their dealings with the banks. Before I do so, on indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, as the chair of the UK parliamentary friendship group, I just want to associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in question time today on the abhorrent, senseless crime that has occurred in Manchester. Our hearts go out to Manchester and to the people of the United Kingdom in the wake of this terrible tragedy. I have spent my working life fighting for justice for consumers, as a journalist with the ABC, including on the consumer advocacy program The Investigators, as a lawyer and now as the member for Corangamite. There is a glaring irony in today's MPI before the House. In contrast to members opposite, who have no policy to combat bad bank behaviour, what we are presenting to this parliament, as announced in our budget, is comprehensive reform. It is extraordinary that the members for Perth, Wills, Wakefield and Newcastle have not presented one idea in this discussion today about how to protect consumers—because proposing a royal commission is not a policy. Proposing a royal commission is a policy cop out. It demonstrates that the Labor Party does not have any ideas. It demonstrates that the Labor Party is prepared to put on hold the strong action that is required to deliver justice to consumers, to customers and to small businesses who are being ripped off, misled and deceived and who are being delayed and who are being denied justice by the banks. Today in my contribution I want to focus on the significant reform that has been announced in the budget by way of the establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, which will be established by 1 July 2018. This is an industry funded, one-stop-shop disputes resolution body. What is so significant about this body is that it will provide free, fast and binding determinations for consumers. AFCA will be able to award fair compensation when consumers have wrongfully suffered a loss as a result of the conduct of a financial services provider and will therefore be able to deliver real outcomes for consumers. The Turnbull government is focused on delivering genuine outcomes for Australian consumers—unlike those opposite, who are only interested in playing politics. Today was an opportunity for the Labor Party to present some policy ideas about what it might do about its aspirations—how it will stand up for consumers, how it will stand up for those who have been ripped off by the banks. But all we have seen from members opposite is a policy vacuum. This complaints authority is fundamental reform. It gives consumers the opportunity to go straight to this authority and get the justice they deserve. The Labor Party want to inflict years and years of litigation on consumers and businesses either in the Federal Court or in the Supreme Courts around this nation. Mr Craig Kelly 99931 Think of the lawyers. Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Think of the lawyers, but let us think of the justice as well; let us think of the cost of justice. To subject consumers to the Supreme Court and the Federal Court as the only option is no option at all. That is what the Labor Party is saying. Do members opposite understand how much it would cost to litigate and to go to appeal and perhaps even go to a High Court appeal? The member for Isaacs might know, being a former silk, but that could run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, I commend the government on this absolutely fundamental reform. It shows that our government is serious about standing up for consumers, is serious about justice, is serious about free, affordable access to justice and is serious about action with real policy ideas, not the vacuum of no ideas from those opposite. 16:02 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The government are failing to protect consumers from the economic power of the banks—I think that is a truism. I am very pleased to join with the member for Perth on this, and at the outset I make it clear that Labor supports a strong banking and financial services sector; what we will never support, though, are dodgy practices that allow our fellow Australians to be ripped off. We will not allow Australians who have worked hard to save, small business owners and retirees to lose their livelihoods and their life savings. Norma and Peter in my electorate are two hardworking people whose experience illustrates the need for a royal commission into the banking and financial services industry. They tell their story as they never want to see what happened to them happen to anybody else. Norma and Peter were told by their financial advisers that leaving their retirement funds in an account was a terrible use of their money and that they needed to do something more with it. They were lied to and urged to invest their $500,000 of retirement funds into a scheme. They did not suspect anything was wrong until a few years later when they had not received their distribution payment for that month and they began to get anxious about the solvency of their funds. Again they sought advice from their financial advisers, who said they could not get a safer investment. As they began to think things may not be right, they tried to withdraw their money and were told that their withdrawal was deferred for 180 days. Then they discovered they were not able to get one cent out of the scheme; Norma and Peter had lost it all. All their hard worked for retirement savings—gone. Norma and Peter were sucked in, ripped off and thrust back into the workforce in their twilight years. They were duped by dodgy advice from dodgy financial advisers to invest their retirement funds in dodgy deals. They were deliberately misled, and they deserve justice. We need Australians to have confidence in their banks, financial institutions and advisers. We need to uncover and deal with unethical behaviour in our banks. We obviously believe that a royal commission into Australia's banking and financial services sector is the only way to truly get to the bottom of the rip-offs, scandals and misconduct. Retirees like Norma and Peter have had their retirement savings gutted. Families have been rorted out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Small business owners have lost everything. Life insurance policyholders have been denied justice. The Prime Minister needs to take responsibility and call a royal commission. He needs to side with ordinary Australians and he needs to stop defending the banks. In my electorate, I also have a constituent who was a financial adviser to one of the big four banks. He warns that any royal commission will need to be able to get to the bottom of dodgy practices, practices undertaken particularly by planners contracted to the big banks. The story of Norma and Peter is not a one-off—it is far from it. If those opposite were not so out of touch, they would know that to be true. The problems are systemic. That is why we need a royal commission. The banks will blame customers: 'The customers were ignorant. They didn't understand what they were being told. They didn't ask the right questions.' The banks do not want customers to understand what they are doing at times—the ones that are not doing the right thing, that is. The royal commission needs to be able to get past any smokescreens. We need to concentrate on the ways in which the banks are being more responsible for ensuring the financial understanding and literacy of the customers they are dealing with. When the big four decide they are too big to worry about treating consumers well, treating Australians well, our whole country suffers. The government's reform is no substitute for a proper royal commission. Labor believes that a royal commission into Australia's banking and financial services sector is the only way to get to the bottom of these rip-offs, these scandals and the misconduct that we have seen in the sector over recent years. Recently the Prime Minister had the idea of bringing CEOs before committees to answer questions, and we saw that the answers just were not really there; they were not really forthcoming. I have a final hot tip for those opposite. Your 'tough on banks' rhetoric is not believed by the Australian people. Give it up and sign up to a royal commission into the banking sector. 16:07 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm In my years of working in the business world—granted, something which those on the other side have very little experience in—I found that the best people are the ones who come to you with solutions rather than being part of a problem. However, perhaps it is because most of those on the other side have not worked in business and have no regard for bank customers and no interest in having immediate solutions that, in relation to the banks, the Labor Party have clearly earned the title that they are part of the problem. The incidence of Labor harnessing and cementing their position as part of the problem is increasing every day. In fact, today in this House we saw Labor members become spokespeople for the four major banks as to why they should argue against the bank levy. Labor was part of the problem for the entire time they were in power, including the time when the opposition leader was minister for financial services. They did nothing. They were part of the problem. They were happy to let all the bank customers, average Australians, suffer at the hands of the various areas of misconduct of the banks. However, by contrast, immediately the Turnbull government came to power we acted in relation to the banks. Unlike those on the other side, we put the interests of bank customers first, not politics. The Labor Party were becoming increasingly flummoxed by the Turnbull government's immediate, constructive and effective measures and recommendations that we put in place as a result of the banking inquiry. With respect to budget measures, the Labor Party are completely skewered. Why? Because their solutions have zero substance. In fact, all they can do is bleat about calling a royal commission without really knowing what it means. The member for Solomon raised a few examples, including that of Norma and Peter. A royal commission would do nothing for Norma and Peter. It would last up to 10 years. It would line the pockets of bankers' lawyers. It would cost a lot of money, a lot of time and a lot of anxiety, and Norma and Peter would get nothing out of that, whereas the Coleman committee's recommendation of the one-stop tribunal is immediate, effective and constructive action. It is an immediate solution and outcome—something the Labor Party are not very good at. The inquiry elicited much information about the banks, particularly in relation to the conduct of senior executives, mismanagement of cases and cases of misleading advice, all of which gave us the constructive context to provide effective recommendations. All of the inquiry recommendations deal with the here and now. We are acting here and now. We are not expecting Australian customers to wait another five to 10 years for lawyers to wield documents in and out of court and to deal with a royal commission with no act of compensation and nothing effective for the bank customers. We also put in place measures to make the banking sector more competitive—perhaps something else those on the other side do not understand. Competition is good for customers. We gave our very able corporate watchdog, the ACCC—which got nothing in terms of increased resources during Labor's regime—more resources in this regard. A royal commission, as I said, will line the pockets of bakers' lawyers. What is more, the Labor Party cannot work out whether they are the banks' friend or foe. The bank levy is certainly being well received by constituents in Chisholm and broadly across Australia, but the Labor Party are quoting the four big banks in defence of why they should not be imposed on with this bank levy. They say, 'We don't like it because they will pass it on to customers.' They know full well that that levy is staying on the banks. This is a fair and reasonable tax on our banks. There is over $30 billion in pooled profits, and this is $1.5 billion out of that more than $30 billion. It is the bankers who make the decisions on where the money goes, and they will know that that tax should not go to their customers. Labor also did nothing in relation to the problem of the lack of competition. Our measures represent a fair additional contribution from our major banks in recognition that the concentration of the banks poses a structural risk to the economy. It applies to Australian banks, which are the second-most profitable in the world. The Turnbull government is just getting on with it. The Turnbull government is delivering here and now. Only the Turnbull government have acted, delivered and put in measures to mean more choices, better services and greater protections for all bank customers across Australia. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The discussion has now concluded. BILLS 41 BILLS Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017 41

Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017

Second Reading 41 16:12 The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The original question was that this bill be read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Gorton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Melbourne has moved as an amendment to the proposed amendment that all words after 'whilst' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment to the proposed amendment be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne be agreed to. As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question negatived, Mr Bandt, Ms McGowan and Mr Wilkie voting aye. The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the amendment moved by the member for Gorton be agreed to. Question negatived. The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 42 16:18 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH 42 GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH Address-in-Reply 42 16:19 The SPEAKER 00APG I suspend the sitting until 6.30 pm in order that I may present the address-in-reply to His Excellency the Governor-General at Government House. I shall be glad if the mover and seconder, together with other honourable members, will accompany me to present the address. Proceedings suspended from 16:19 to 18:32 18:32 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House that, accompanied by honourable members, I waited today upon His Excellency the Governor-General at Government House and presented to him the address-in-reply to His Excellency's speech on the opening of the first session of the 45th Parliament, agreed to by the House on 11 May 2017. His Excellency was pleased to make the following reply: Mr Speaker: Thank you for your address-in-reply. It will be my pleasure and my duty to convey to Her Majesty the Queen the Message of Loyalty from the House of Representatives, to which the address gives expression. BILLS 42 BILLS Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 42

Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017

Second Reading 42 18:33 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I rise tonight to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. This is a bill that cuts $22 billion of funding from Australian schools. It would leave Australian schoolchildren, particularly public schoolchildren, worse off. For that reason, we will oppose this legislation. Consequently, I move: That all the words after ''That'' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ''the House declines to give the bill a second reading because the bill: (1) would result in a $22.3 billion cut to Australian schools, compared with the existing arrangements; (2) would see an average cut to each school of around $2.4 million; (3) removes extra funding agreed with states and territories for 2018 and 2019, which would have brought all under resourced schools to their fair funding level; (4) would particularly hurt public schools, which receive less than 50 per cent of funding under the Government's $22.3 billion cut to schools, compared to 80 per cent of extra funding under Labor's school funding plan; and (5) results in fewer teachers, less one-on-one attention for our students and less help with the basics''. Labor opposes the principles and the practical effect of this legislation. It takes us from a sector-blind, needs-based funding model established under Labor to the exact opposite—a sector-specific system which cuts support from some of our neediest students. This bill would entrench a system that is not fair, that is not needs based, that is not sector blind, and our practical objection is that it rips $22 billion from our schools over the decade. It continues to leave students who have a disability with uncertainty, it abandons important reforms and it surrenders our ambition to improve Australian schools. At the heart of our differences with the government lies a difference in values. Labor believes that no matter how rich or poor your family is, where you grow up or which school you go to, as a community we should make sure that you get a great education. It is the promise we make to every Australian child at their birth. As John Dewey said: What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children. If I were the education minister I would want every single classroom in Australia to be a classroom that I would be confident that my own children would be able to learn in. I want no day, no minute wasted in any child's education because the people or the resources were not there to teach that child properly. Labor understands that getting a great education is the ticket to a lifetime of opportunity. A good education is crucial to allowing young people to get good, well-paid, rewarding jobs to become the innovators, the carers and the business and community leaders of the future. But a strong education system is also a critical building block for a strong economy and for our national prosperity, and education is the best chance we have to tackle disadvantage and help young people to go on to have happy and fulfilling lives. In contrast, those opposite have never really valued an education system that delivers for every child. They have cut education whenever they have had a chance. They tried to cut $30 billion from the 2014 budget. They have been particularly neglectful of funding for public education. That was the legacy of the Howard government, and it continues in this bill. We have been told by some commentators that we should take the win, that we should be grateful that the Liberals have finally paid lip service to the principle of needs based funding. Well, whatever the Liberals may say, this funding is not needs based, and it is not sector blind. As a matter of logic, it cannot be sector blind when it entrenches different funding levels for government and non-government schools, and it cannot be needs based when thousands of public schools and parish Catholic schools lose funding and some of the wealthiest schools in the country get a funding increase. So, at the heart of our needs based funding model is the Schooling Resource Standard: the amount of money, based on evidence, that every child in Australia needs in order to get a quality education, and loadings on top of that to make sure that kids who start behind get the help they need to catch up. David Gonski and his panel found that all levels of government needed to work together to get schools to that fair funding level. Labor set the target of fair funding at no less than 95 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for all schools. The panel said that what mattered was the total resources that a school had available to educate a child, not whether that funding came from the Commonwealth or the states. Labor's fundamental principle and promise was that all schools and all school systems would get the extra funding they needed by 2019, or 2022 for Victoria. They would get the fair funding level in every state and territory and every system. The review recognised that this was a hard task. It said: Not all states and systems have the same capacity to fund their school systems adequately. Knowing this, we were prepared to give some states and sectors more help to make sure that every child got their fair funding level. But we also locked the states and territories into lifting their effort, their funding, because we were not prepared to allow the states and territories to cut their funding while we increased ours. We put in 65 per cent of the extra funding needed to get all schools and systems to their fair funding level, and we asked the state governments to put in 35 per cent of the extra funding needed. Of course, all of these requirements were chucked out the window when the member for Sturt became the Minister for Education. Nowhere in the Gonski review does it suggest that public schools deserve to receive just 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard from the Commonwealth government or that non-government schools should receive 80 per cent. In fact the arbitrary imposition of this eighty-twenty rule means that this bill enshrines a sector specific rate of Commonwealth funding for different systems. It means that some wealthy schools will actually be much better off, while thousands of public schools and parish Catholic schools will be worse off. And there is no requirement for the states and territories to ever lift their contribution to take their public schools closer to the Schooling Resource Standard. At no stage has the government provided any defensible reason for this eighty-twenty rule. Perhaps worst of all, this package is not fair. In 2013 those opposite campaigned to match Labor dollar for dollar on schools funding and to deliver proper funding for students with disabilities by 2015. This bill breaks both those promises. They have had four years in government, and neither one of those commitments has been met. This $22.3 billion cut is the equivalent of losing 22,000 teachers. Even with the lower level of funding, there is a much longer time line for that funding to be available in schools. Around 90 per cent of the government's much lower funding will not even begin to flow for the first four years—not until year 5 of this arrangement. Under the government's proposal, schools will not reach the new lower targets until 2027—after 80 per cent of children sitting in classrooms today and tomorrow have finished their schooling. These new lower targets will not be reached until some 15 years after the original review of school funding. Just remember that, under Labor, this is going to happen in the next couple of years. This is a lost opportunity for a generation of Australian children. We do not want to waste a day of these children's education, let alone waste years with this sort of delay. It is immoral. These children will have started and finished their schooling without ever reaching their fair funding level. The abandonment of a fair sector-blind needs-based system of education funding has particularly negative effects for public schools. More than 50 per cent of the extra funding in this package goes to private schools. Under Labor's school funding plan, 80 per cent of extra funding would have gone to public schools—because public schools still educate most of the children with the highest needs. Seven in 10 children with a disability are enrolled in public schools, seven in 10 children from a language background other than English are enrolled in public schools, eight in 10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students are enrolled in public schools and eight in 10 children from the bottom one-quarter of socio-economic disadvantage are enrolled in public schools. Because of these cuts, only one in seven public schools will reach a fair funding level by 2027. Compared with the existing legislation and arrangements, New South Wales public schools will lose $846 million over the next two years while, just as an example, The King's School in Sydney, with fees of about $30,000 a year, gets $19 million extra over the decade. South Australian schools will lose $265 million over two years, while Scotch College in Adelaide, with fees of about $25,000 a year, gets almost $10 million extra funding over the decade. Tasmanian public schools will lose $68 million over two years, while The Friends' School in Hobart, with fees of about $18,000 each year, will get $19 million more over the decade. The Northern Territory, with the nation's most disadvantaged schools system, gets the smallest increases—not even enough to cover inflation. Take Anula Primary School in suburban Darwin. Twenty-two per cent of its students are Indigenous and around half of the students have a language background other than English. By 2027 this school will get about $4,232 per child from the Commonwealth government. That is an increase of just $554 over 10 years. Ten years! Compare that with Trinity Grammar School in Sydney, with fees of up to $24,000 a year for primary school children. That will receive $7,799 per student, which is an increase of $2,734 per student over the same time period. Trinity Grammar has great resources. It has a low-need student population. How does it get an increase in funding from the Commonwealth government that is five times larger than a public school in suburban Darwin? In what way is this needs based funding? How can those opposite claim that this is fair with straight faces? Tasmanian public schools get the second-roughest deal from this government. These systems will have no choice but to reduce the number of teachers and the extra support they provide—things like speech pathologists, school counsellors and extra literacy and numeracy teachers, all of the things that we have seen from the early years of investment in needs based funding. How is it fair that the poorest kids get the worst deal? I really have been quite shocked by the attitude of members opposite, who are prepared to back these funding cuts in their own electorates. Yesterday, the member for Gilmore backed $19 billion of cuts to schools in her electorate over the next two years alone. We used the example of $1.3 million from Nowra East Public School alone. It is shocking—school after school loses funding in Gilmore. Today, the member for Corangamite backed $11 million of cuts from public schools in her electorate over the next two years. Just one example: Belmont High School in her electorate stands to lose between $1.2 million and $1.6 million. To his great credit, Adrian Piccoli, the former education minister in New South Wales, from the National Party, said that Gonski matters for country kids. The needs based funding model matters for country kids. The Deputy Prime Minister is actually backing cuts of $26.3 million to public schools in his electorate over the next two years alone. Is he serious? Does he really believe that kids in his electorate would not benefit from an extra $26.3 million over the next two years? There will be $1.6 million in cuts to Peel High School alone while, just as a comparison, The Armidale School, with wonderful facilities and fees of up to $20,000 per year, gets an extra $16.3 million over 10 years. In what world is this fair? The member for Sturt backs $12.7 million of cuts in his electorate, including Linden Park public school getting a cut of $895,000 and Norwood Morialta High School getting a cut of $1½ million. For the member for Boothby, there are $17 million of cuts in her electorate, including Mitcham Primary School getting a cut of $650,000. Perhaps the strangest one, though, is the member for Melbourne. If the member for Melbourne supports this legislation, like his education spokesperson does—and media reports have him supporting this legislation—he is backing cuts of $10 million from schools in his electorate over the next two years alone, including Parkville College losing between $2.1 million and $2.5 million and Carlton Gardens Primary School losing over $100,000. I just do not understand. I do not understand what the government is doing, and I do not understand why the Greens would back these sorts of cuts, including to the public schools that they pretend that they are standing up for. It is not clear whether members opposite do not know what is happening in their electorates or they do not care. But they should absolutely take heed of the warnings from the head of the New South Wales education system and from the Catholic schools that you cannot trust the numbers in the government's own funding calculator and the fact that school systems are warning principals, teachers and parents not to trust those numbers. But we should not be surprised. After all, this is the government that, as well as the census debacle and so on, actually presided over a Naplan online debacle that the schools had to ban because it could not get the program right. As I have said, public schools will be very hard hit by this, but Catholic schools will also be very hard hit by these cuts. Catholic parish schools have warned that the cuts will force them to raise fees or, in some cases, close schools. The Reverend Anthony Fisher, the Archbishop of Sydney, said in The Australian Financial Review on 8 May: What's already apparent is that the government's new 'capacity to pay formula' will force fee rises of over $1000 for a very significant number—at least 78—of the Catholic primary schools in Sydney alone. For some areas of Sydney fees could more than double. Modelling in other states has found the same. In fact, modelling since then has suggested much larger rises too. Catholic schools say that they are set to have lower funding allocations in 2018 than they have in 2017. So we have seen a Liberal Party, which says that freedom of choice is hardwired into its DNA, absolutely abandoning Catholic parish schools. In fact, this morning, the government leaked school data to the newspapers in a transparent attempt to embarrass Catholic schools—embarrass principals, teachers and parents, who are fighting for funding—and stop them running a campaign standing up for their schools. Incidentally, this is the same government that refuses to release all of the data and all of the modelling that it is basing its numbers on. You cannot actually tell how the government has got to the numbers in the school funding calculator. Under this government's proposal, there is no guarantee that Catholic schools will ever reach their fair funding level. And, instead of respectful discussions requested by the bishops, we have had insults hurled by the Minister for Defence Industry and the Minister for Education, accusing Catholic principals, teachers and parents of—and I am quoting—'dishonest behaviour'. The worst examples are here in the ACT, where there will be significant funding cuts as a result of this package. Good Shepherd Primary School in the ACT, with fees of around $3,300 per year, will see a funding cut over the next decade of $2.6 million. This low-fee local catholic school will see a cut to funding of $2.6 million over a decade. Just as a point of comparison, Geelong Grammar—one of Australia's best-resourced schools—will get a funding increase of $16.6 million over that same period. I ask again: how is that fair? We are also profoundly deeply concerned about the lack of detail about how students with disability will be supported in this bill. There is no clear funding attached to this announcement. I have written to the minister. I have asked him to share what each school and each system will get to support children with disabilities in their learning. To date, he has refused to provide that information. It is simply not good enough to see a bill introduced into the House of Representatives without this information available to parents of children with a disability. What effect will this bill have on funding for the education of their children? Do they not deserve to know that before they are being asked to support, not support or criticise this legislation? Do we as their representatives not deserve to know that before we are asked to sign on, sight unseen? This government has, incidentally, flagged their intention to reduce funding for some wealthy independent schools. I want to put on the record today that we support that move and, if the government were to bring in separate legislation that achieves that end, we would be happy to vote for it. But it is important to note that, while some wealthy schools will receive lower funding growth over time, many wealthy schools will receive very significant increases under this government's funding formula. The government that have been trying to defend their broken promise on matching Labor's funding dollar for dollar. They have been trying to defend their $30 billion of cuts in the 2014 budget. They have been trying to defend those cuts by saying, 'Money doesn't matter.' Ms Rishworth HWA That's right—they say it all the time! Ms PLIBERSEK 83M They have been saying: 'Money doesn't matter. It's all about the reform.' Well, I ask members opposite: where is the reform in this bill? Where is the reform that is expected of school systems? This bill actually removes from law the commitments to deliver quality teaching and learning, to deliver school autonomy and an increased say for principals and school communities, to deliver transparency and accountability and to deliver for students with extra needs. It removes those commitments from law. The first objective of our act was to ensure that the Australian schooling system provides a 'high quality and highly equitable education for all students.' You will not find that in the government's bill. Does it not matter anymore? Does a high quality and highly equitable education not matter for Australian students? Mr Giles 243609 It matters to us! Ms PLIBERSEK 83M The government says that a new national agreement will be taken to COAG mid-2018. Ms Ryan 249224 Sometime down the road. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sometime. It is the vibe—who knows. What will be in that national agreement? We do not know. What we do know is that years of reform have been wasted because, first of all, the Liberal's first education minister, the member for Sturt, said reform was 'just red tape'. He said that states and territories can do what they like; reform is just red tape. This education minister wants to take reforms out of the legislation through the bill that is before this parliament. We are also told, incidentally, that sometime next year bilateral agreements will be sought with the states. I thought they were against state by state, territory by territory arrangements. Is that not what they have been railing against? This bill also reflects the reduced expectations in our education system as a result of the $22 billion of cuts. This bill has cut the targets that we set. It no longer aims for Australia to be one of the top five highest-performing countries in reading, maths and science by 2025. It no longer aims for our schooling system to be considered high-quality and highly equitable by international standards by 2025, nor to halve the gap between the outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and other students by 2020. After all their talk about the need to reverse Australia's declining education performance, this government will not back itself to achieve better. This bill is unfair. It abandons a needs-based, sector-blind funding model. Labor created a needs-based, sector-blind funding model because we wanted to end the divisive system-versus-system fight for funding, because it is not the system that matters—it is the child. We created needs based funding because we want to make sure that all schools have the resources they need to deliver a great education for every child. We created needs based funding because we believe that children from disadvantaged families and communities should have the best chance at succeeding in life. But instead of properly funding all our schools, this government is giving big business a $65 billion tax cut. It is giving millionaires a tax cut. What sort of society would we be if we were to take funding away from a proper education for our schoolchildren and give that money to multinational companies and millionaires as a tax cut? This is not just robbing individual children who miss out; it is robbing our nation of the full value of the gifts and talents of every Australian child. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Giles 243609 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 19:02 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee What a riveting half an hour! I sat there with great passion and listened to the voices in the background there, and the question I had to ask myself was: 'Hasn't anyone got a calculator?' Everyone sat behind the member for Sydney and they listened with great passion, but no-one got out a calculator. I never thought that increasing funding was actually a cut! I do not know where that came from. I think back to when I was a young man and I was playing guitar; my wife saw me playing guitar and she thought, 'If I hook-up with him, he's going to be a rock star!' There was going to be this great thing in the future—that I was going to be a champion rock star— Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 Order! Leave the chamber! Mr BROAD 30379 but, unfortunately, she did not get a rock star; she got a politician—quite a step down! If you had heard me play guitar, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would have known that I was never going to be a rock star; I was only ever going to be something at quite a level down, and that might just be a politician. If we all look at the budget from 2013, where they put forward the proportion of money that they claimed to have put aside to fund education, we see that they did not put the money aside. So it is easy to say it is a cut, but it is not a cut if you do not put the money on the table. The disturbing part to me is that those opposite, at this instance, think that they are ready to take on government again and that they are ready to take on the Treasury and to manage the books of Australia. I think the lesson that everyone should get out of that last half hour is: they are not ready—not yet. And the reason they are not ready is that they have not worked out that, before you spend money, you have first got to put the money aside. Before you can deliver a project, you have got to explain to the Australian people how you are going to fund it. In half an hour there was a great opportunity for the Australian Labor Party, who want to be the next government, to explain to the Australian people how they are going to fund it. Anyone can say, 'I'm going to do this and I'm going to do that,' but unless Labor can explain to me how they are going to fund it, it is an empty promise, just like my wife might have thought I was going to be a rock star. Once she heard me play on my guitar she realised it was indeed an empty promise. Mr Giles 243609 I hope she's not listening now. She would be very disappointed! Mr BROAD 30379 She knows it was an empty promise and she is disappointed! But not as disappointed, I have to say, as the Australian people would be if they were to put you in power again and realise that your promise once again is empty. Show me where you have made provision for an additional $22 billion. You cannot do it. You still refuse to do it. The thing is, if you are going to give out an extra $22 billion in education in this current environment we are in, you have to start to list the things you are going to cut. What are the things you are going to cut? Ah, you do not want to talk about that. No, you do not want to talk about that. The reason is, of course, when you actually do get the Treasury you have to find savings before you can spend. You have to put the money aside. This is the difference between us, the responsible financial managers, and you, who have not yet done the legwork in opposition. Opposition should be a time to reflect, a time to plan, and a time to show to the Australian people that you are worthy of being an alternative government. But not yet. What we have done in this instance is actually put money aside. There are 119 schools in the electorate of Mallee. There are 23,062 students. Every one of those 119 schools will receive more money. In everyone's language, receiving more money is not a cut but an increase. My esteemed colleagues here have better financial backgrounds than me, but I always thought that if you give someone more money it is not a cut. Mr Van Manen 188315 No, it's not! Mr BROAD 30379 That is right; it is actually an increase. Every one of those 119 schools will be better off. Those schools' principals have been coming to me as early as yesterday, saying, 'We support this legislation,' because this is, in reality, more money for those schools. Every student is better off. An additional $5.7 million across the electorate of Mallee will go into education. Can I just draw back for a sec here and say that money alone does not deliver results. There are, in fact, three things that are important for education. There is, of course, the culture of the school and the teachers. When I go around and visit the schools, one of the things I do as a federal member is give away Australian flags. When I give away an Australian flag I make sure I visit the school. One of the things that is important is the culture of the teachers. When I give away these flags it gives me a chance to walk in, talk and have a look at these kids and see whether they are engaged. I have to say that the teachers I have in the Wimmera and Mallee—my patch; a third of the state of Victoria—are very engaged teachers. They actually care about their job, they care about their students and they work very hard. The second thing that is important is the facilities. The facilities, I have to say, have largely been mismanaged by the state Labor government. Some of the facilities I have in my state schools in Victoria frankly need a fairly good upgrade but are neglected by the Andrews government. If we look over the last 15 years, it has largely been Labor governments that have run the state schools in Victoria, and it has been very poor. Within these facilities I always come across the product of the Gillard government's Building the Education Revolution program. What a great name! That is a great name: a revolution. Building the Education Revolution. Every single time, without fail, the schools say to me, 'If only we could have administered that funding better.' In contrast, the Catholic schools were given autonomy to manage their money, whereas in Victoria it was administered in such a way that they had to use a very set precinct about the way it was delivered. The delivery of that has been appalling. Mr Zappia HWB Who was in government at the state level? Mr BROAD 30379 No, it was very clearly directed from the Gillard government. Bear with me here. The Catholic schools were able to get local contractors. Instead of building a school hall, I recall, they were able to actually build things they wanted to build. It is not just money; it is actually how you deliver it. That is in contrast to the Gillard government's Building the Education Revolution. The third thing that delivers good education is the home life. I do not think enough is quite made of this. It is one thing to talk about education being teachers and facilities, but the third thing is the home life. If you do not have parents who are engaged in their children's education, if you do not have children who are getting breakfast, for example, then is it little wonder that we will have disappointing educational outcomes? The challenge for us is that—over progressive years it goes from: 2016, $16 billion of federal money; 2017, $17 billion of federal money; 2018, $18 billion of federal money; then, there is a significant ratcheting up of another $18 billion on top that we are delivering. The thing that worries me is we still are not seeing our literacy and numeracy rates increasing. Part of that, I have to say, is the home life. We have too many students in the electorate of Mallee who are going to school without breakfast. I think that is something that is getting lost in the discussion around education funding. Education for a child is not just the teachers and it is not just the facilities; it is also the home life. More work needs to be done in this space to start to tackle holistic education if we are going to have our young Australians reach the potential that we want them to reach. We have done a little bit in our office in that we deliver posters. Fifteen thousand posters have just recently gone out of '100 ways to praise a child'. They are little posters that you can stick in people's toilets. They are helping parents to encourage students in their self-esteem. We now have growth charts, as well, to try and get people to eat better. We have times tables charts. We have ABC charts. All of these sorts of things are about encouraging the home life, which is part of a holistic education. One hundred and nineteen schools and 23,000 students will be better off. This government is actually standing behind the education of our children. When it comes to education, the ability to know what is the difference between a cut and an increase is to understand when you are getting spun a lie and when you are not. It is when you are able to do determine what somebody is telling you. I hope to goodness that our education produces people that can think for themselves rather than people that listen to the waffle that we just heard for the last 30 minutes. The future of our education system is good because we are looking at it and delivering it, and because we have put the money aside. A needs-based funding system does work for regional Victoria, which I represent, because we have needs. I have to say: the government that I am a part of is, for the first time, able to really put our hand on our heart and say, 'We are addressing this.' We have listened to the work of David Gonski through his report. We are implementing in the most efficient way and in the best way. Incidentally enough, there are only 15 financial members of the Australian Labor Party in the electorate of Mallee—only 15, I have to say. Mr Keogh 249147 True believers! Mr BROAD 30379 True believers! I will say they are true believers; misinformed, but true believers they are. At election time, those 15 members were handing out at the pre-poll. As people were walking in, they were saying to them, 'Health and education.' 'Health and education' was their slogan. It sounds very impressive. Who is not going to vote for health and education. You should have seen the look on their face when I said to them at the time, 'Health and education, and lower taxes.' They were very happy with that. It is no wonder that the two-party preferred in Mallee is 75-25. But if you look at— Mr Keogh interjecting— Mr BROAD 30379 Yes, health and education— Mr Keogh interjecting— Mr BROAD 30379 I did. Health and education, and lower taxes. And if you look at— Mr Keogh interjecting— Mr BROAD 30379 I did. What a great commitment! And if you look at the electorate of Mallee— Mr Keogh interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 Order! The member for Burt will refrain. Mr BROAD 30379 people realise, because they are small business people and country people with high bulldust radars, that if you want to pay for something you have to put the money on the table first. So I challenge the Australian Labor Party, as they talk about this and as they talk about their education package, that they will take the opportunity, over all this speaking that they have before them, to lay on the table exactly where the $22 billion is that they are going to commit into the future, how they are going to pay for it and what they are going to cut out of the current budget, or take out of the current budget, to show that they are going to deliver it. If they fail to do that, they are proving to the Australian people that they have wasted the last four years, that they have not used the opportunity of being in opposition to do their preparation work, to put their books together, and to say to the Australian people that they can trust the Treasury books in their hands. In contrast, we have a fully-funded package that delivers for the 23,062 students in the Mallee. Every one of the 119 schools will be better off, there will be more money, and they will be funded properly by this government. 19:15 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin The Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 before the House is a betrayal. It is betrayal of the Gonski report. It is a betrayal of students. It is a betrayal of parents. It is a betrayal of teachers and school communities. But, most fundamentally, it is a betrayal of our collective future. That is why I am proud to join the deputy leader, the shadow minister, and all my Labor colleagues in making clear my opposition to this bill and everything it represents. It is not needs based funding as we understand it on this side of the House. In Labor, when we talk about needs based funding, we are talking about the needs of individual students to get the educational support they need to fulfil their potential. On the other side of the House, it is very clear that the need is base politics—the basest of politics. We see that in the broader priorities this government has put before us in refusing to invest in schools, refusing to invest in our human potential and choosing instead $65 billion in tax cuts for companies, the majority of which will be realised by overseas shareholders. That is the poverty of this government's vision for Australia. That is its lack of confidence in Australians, particularly young Australians. We are focused today, as we join this debate, on what is at stake, and I stand up here as a Victorian member who is extremely conscious that in the next two years $630 million will be ripped from public schools in my state. I cannot begin to imagine what will be lost in terms of individual lives. It was interesting to be in the chamber for the contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Mallee. There are a few things in his contribution that deserve a response—firstly and fundamentally, his reference to the importance of someone's home life as a foundation for education. This shows how he and too many of his colleagues fail to understand needs based school funding. For us, we are determined to make sure that the support we put into schools and schooling overcomes the disadvantages that come to some through the lottery of birth, the lottery of a postcode. Members opposite, including the member for Mallee, are blind to this. They are blind to it, but it is something that we see as critical to our challenge in supporting equity and excellence in schools education. He also laid down a challenge about funding, and I think we need to respond to it here. We have got runs on the board in a couple of senses. Firstly, we found the funding. We prioritised the funding for the National Plan for School Improvement when in government. Secondly, in the last term, in the last parliament, the member for Adelaide, who was a fantastic shadow minister for education, and the shadow cabinet made the tough decision to continue to support the full Gonski. This week, as we approached the debate on this bill, we made the same decision. We prioritise education, not tax cuts. On the maths, I say this to the member for Mallee: taking $30 billion out and putting $8 billion back is a cut and a pretty big cut, with profound consequences. I think it is worth reflecting on how we come to be debating this issue, because all of the questions of schools funding are complex in Australia—they are complex by reason of the history of our Federation and the history of how schooling systems have evolved in Australia. For more than 40 years there was an interminable argument about the Commonwealth's role in funding schools education in Australia. It took a Labor government, the government of Julia Gillard, to bridge that gap, to end the wars over schools funding and to recognise that quality education is a national responsibility and should be something that matters to every Australian. That is a Labor tenet. It took a Labor government to over those 40 years of inertia and conflict. Of course, since then, we have seen obfuscation, denial and failures of process as well as substance. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made clear that our opposition to this bill is based on principle, in terms of it failing to secure needs-based education, but it is also based on some of the practicalities. She spoke about the practicalities in terms of the funding arrangements. But the practicalities that go to process are significant also, because they highlight so many of the flaws that are contained in the bill which is before the House. The member for Sturt promised a unity ticket on schools funding at 2013 election. That was the election where I was first elected, and I remember the signs up in my electorate: 'Dollar-for-dollar matching'. Well, that was of course a lie; it has been proven to be a lie. Since then, we have seen him crabwalk away from that promise. And in the current minister we see a minister who is capable of talking around any issue without getting to its crux, and that is what has characterised his engagement in this portfolio from the moment he took on those responsibilities. He has failed to engage with the states and he has failed to engage with the schooling sectors, particularly systemic Catholic schools, as anyone would have observed. This failure to engage characterises the failings which emerge in this legislation—those practical failings. Government speakers have been speaking a lot about transparency. But, whatever this proposal is, it is not transparent. We do not have the data. We know that the data from the funding calculator that our Prime Minister so proudly displayed in a ranting performance in question time today is not adequate. We do not have the evidence before us to properly assess all the claims which are contained in the materials underpinning this bill. And that just is not satisfactory, because this legislation is so important. The quality of schooling is so important not only to individual Australian children but also to all of us, if we are serious about Australia's future as a high-wage, high-skill economy. In question time today we saw the hollowness of the government's agenda—the recourse from the Prime Minister and the minister representing the Minister for Education on tired talking points. These were things that were drawn out during the contribution of the shadow minister, in particular this tiresome reference to overcoming 27 separate arrangements. In the provisions contained in this bill there will of course be separate arrangements, but they will be a blunt instrument without the strings attached to require an effective partnership between the states, the territories and the Commonwealth to get to the core of the Gonski vision, and that is a common student resourcing standard across the country. Under Labor, we were to reach that recommended standard for most schools in two years time and, for the rest, those in my state of Victoria, by 2022. But what is before us now in this arrangement? Abandoning Commonwealth responsibility for our national education standards; abandoning Commonwealth responsibility to every child in school today, because 10 years from now only one-seventh of public schools will have reached the schooling resourcing standard—only around 15 per cent in 2027. Often when we look at long-range forecasts and decisions in this area, there can be arguments for looking to a 10-year vision. But let's think about a schooling cycle. As a parent of a child in grade 1, I think about how far down his schooling journey he will be by 2027. This sort of delay cannot be afforded; it comes at a cost that is much, much too great. And that is what makes the cheap politics of the Prime Minister so much more than simply disappointing; as I said at the outset, it is a betrayal of all of us. On this side of the House we stand firm for this principle: every young Australian deserves every chance to reach their full potential and have a quality education. We recognise the economic benefits for them but also the weight of evidence about the wellbeing that comes from being successful at school. Fundamentally that is why, in 2013, Labor introduced a funding model to ensure that every student would receive a great education. Reference to the Schooling Resource Standard guaranteed that young Australians in most disadvantage would receive the extra support to get the individual attention to reach their potential. And now we have a government which has turned its back on those students in particular, as well as all of our students. What is at stake here is a cut of $22 billion, the equivalent of sacking 22,000 teachers. These cuts will impact most significantly on our public schools. Under Labor's model, the majority of the additional Commonwealth investment was going to government schools. As the member for Sydney said, these schools educate the vast majority of students with disability—a matter I hope to have time to return to further—most kids who do not speak English at home, most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids and most kids from low-income families. This model is providing much less for those schools and so much less support for those kids. Accordingly, it is a model which, almost by definition, will undermine the education of those children, including many in my electorate of Scullin. Mill Park Secondary College in my electorate has pioneered some fantastic innovations in teaching practice which will be fundamentally undermined by cuts of $1.8 million. Cuts of a similar level, or nearly as high, will impact on Epping Secondary College down the road. The other day I was outside Epping Views Primary School, which will be the victim of a cut of $800,000 over the next two years. This will dramatically impact that school's capacity to service a growing and diverse population. What the Gonski review fundamentally said was that the Commonwealth and state governments need to work together if we are to ensure that every child receives the education they deserve. Of course. What matters here is the total resources provided to schools, not which government provides those resources. Labor understood that in government and Labor understands that now. The contrast on the other side of this place is instructive—whether it be the contemptuous disregard shown by the member for Sturt in the agreements that he entered into or the more fundamental withdrawal from responsibility that we are now seeing from Minister Birmingham. Fundamentally, the agreements that we entered into recognise this. The Prime Minister has turned his back on those agreements. He says in effect that it is not the total funding that matters. Under this bill, let's be clear: the states are not locked into keeping their share of the bargain and are only required to maintain the 2017 per student funding level. This is not enough, especially for those students most in need of extra support. Underpinning this are concerns of process. There is no detail about how students with disability are to be supported through this bill, which makes significant changes to those arrangements. We on this side of the House remember the promise that the disability loading would in effect be finalised by 2015. Well here we are, in 2017, and uncertainty continues. It is clear that, under this government, every Australian does not count when it comes to getting a quality school education. When we go beyond the high-level concerns—and it is difficult to do so, because they raise such profound issues—and look to the detail of this bill, we see many other causes for concern. In particular, there is the removal of critical objects from the former bill that shaped our attitude to the purposes of a national engagement effectively taking national responsibility for school funding and the outcomes that come from schools. When we look at this bill we see a rushed job. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 51 ADJOURNMENT Schools 51 19:30 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports Labor does not agree with the government's education changes or the proposals for spending $22 billion less over the long term on education. But the thing that has surprised me about this budget and the doubling down by ministers, such as Minister Pyne and Minister Birmingham, is their attack on and cuts to an unexpected target: the Catholic education system. Today, there was what I can only describe as a sectarian attack against one of my local Catholic schools—a beloved local school, St Columba's, where we always have our Anzac Day masses—in The Age. Outrageously, they were claiming on the front page of The Age today, obviously with a briefing from the education minister, that St Columba's was making a 'windfall' of $200,000! A 'windfall'! Some bishops were probably going to consume this in some huge feast for prelates! Rubbish! Nonsense, The Age newspaper! The Catholic system knows far more about their parish schools than education minister Simon Birmingham or Minister Pyne do. They know how people in electorates in the Catholic community choose their schools. This school, St Columba's, might be taking more refugees or more poor people, or people on health cards who are in our area. Therefore, within its budgeting, the Catholic system has decided to support it. I was speaking to the Catholic Education Office in Victoria today. They pointed out to me that 210,000 students from 140,000 families attend one of the 500 Catholic schools in Victoria statewide. That is one in four Victorian children. Catholic schools pride themselves on the quality of the education they provide and they refer to their values based education. It is a distinction that many parents look for when they select a Catholic school to send their children to. There are five Catholic primary schools in my electorate, and these cuts to their funding will affect the quality and availability of education to the residents of Melbourne Ports, despite the false claims—indeed, the infamous claims—in The Age that they are making windfalls from a falsely projected number that the federal education minister has given without any understanding of the local circumstances that govern these schools. I know this because in the Jewish schools in the area we have exactly the same problem. They have a higher SES rating because Caulfield, for instance, is a relatively wealthy suburb. But for a couple of the schools in my electorate, the people from the whole electorate—the poor ones—decide to go to a couple of schools because they are supported, in this case by the Catholic education system and, in the case of the Jewish schools, by the community in general. A decrease in funding will result in these schools cutting programs from their curriculum and reducing class sizes. A representative of the Catholic Education Office in Melbourne told my office just today that schools in the local parish will be forced to lift fees by $5,000 a year. That is over $100 a week under Malcolm Turnbull's and Simon Birmingham's plan. Catholic constituents in my electorate simply cannot afford this increase in school fees. Many of the families have several children attending school. Of course, it was not always this way. At the last federal election, the coalition committed to an increase of funding to Catholic schools by 3.5 per cent to six per cent per student each year from 2018. Now it would appear that the only increases will be in the school fees forced on already struggling families. Catholic Education Melbourne explained to us today that calculations indicate a funding cut of about $25 million in real terms for Catholic schools in Victoria in the first year, increasing by $25 million each year after that: $25 million in 2021, $50 million in 2022, $75 million in 2023 and so on. These cuts to Catholic schools will impact the education of children as they will force schools to find savings to cover the Turnbull funding cuts. There is a wonderful principal at St Aloysius, Therese Stewart, in my electorate, who says, 'My school needs to know what the government is going to do.' She urges the minister to meet with leaders of Catholic Education to— (Time expired) Queensland Coal 52 19:35 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax The socialist Left are on the march. We know that the member for Grayndler is seeing some acute weakness in the Leader of the Opposition, so he is of course leading his band of socialist revolutionaries. It is not dissimilar to what is happening in the state of Queensland, because there we have the same situation: the socialist Left in Queensland, under their fearless leader, Jackie Trad, the deputy premier, is trying to topple the premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk. Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. This Labor Party factional civil war is almost like a Shakespearean play, but the ramifications are in the real world. If it were not for the material adverse impact of what is happening in that Queensland saga it would be entertaining. In Queensland this internal Labor Party factional battle is putting at risk a $16.5 billion investment by the Adani Group—$16.5 billion—all because the Labor state government cabinet, at the 11th hour, cannot make a decision around the terms of the deal relating to royalties. This deal process for the Adani investment has been going on since 2010. It has been going on for seven years. For seven years they have been trying to get this deal over the line. If you go back seven years, Gillard was just lining up Rudd. That is how long ago it was. The iPad was just about to be launched. Syria was at peace. But in all the time that has passed, the Adani deal has been up against legal and political activism, with at least 10 appeals and judicial processes as a hurdle to be jumped. We have had the Greens and GetUp. We have had groups that are purported to be environmental groups, funded partly by overseas interests, at times enjoying taxpayer subsidisation, trying to block this major investment. Seven years later, here we are: the 11th hour of the deal, but the Queensland state Labor government has decided to have an internal civil war because one person wants to be premier over the other. It raises the question: what is wrong with the Adani deal? What is it that the Left, what is it that the Labor Party, with the Greens, do not want to see in this deal? Either they do not want to see jobs or they do not want to see the Indian people have electricity. In Townsville alone there is an 11.3 per cent unemployment rate, with youth unemployment almost double that. We have an opportunity for the Galilee Basin, with six potential mines in the pipeline, to produce 15,000 jobs, and the Labor Party wants to mess it up at the 11th hour of the Adani deal. They do not care about the jobs. In India there are 240 million people without electricity. For every one Australian there are 10 Indians without electricity, but the Left of the Labor Party do not want the Adani deal to go through. They have absolute disregard for the Indian people. Or is it just the fact that they completely do not understand the very basics of economics and commerce? You do not at the 11th hour of a deal mess it up, because you are compromising not only the interests of that deal and the interests of the people and workers particularly of Northern Queensland; you are also comprising our national interest as a country because you are raising sovereign risk. We are an open, free-market liberal democracy that is very reliant on capital coming into Australia. If the Labor Party allows the left to stranglehold these investments coming in, they put at risk our national interests. Regional Australia 52 19:40 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi Tonight I rise to talk about the profound opportunity that exists for regional Australia. I will call on my community to keep on speaking up and encouraging others to do the same, and I will call on the government to take a strong leadership role to make the best of the opportunities regional Australia has. The national spotlight is firmly on Australia's regions, and quite rightly. There is nowhere more innovative, nowhere more agile, than in regional Australia, and the strength of our regions I believe lies in our connectedness. Our survival depends on building connections. People in rural Australia know that education, health and employment have to be addressed together. We believe in connections and we know it works. For regional policy to have legitimacy, it needs to have the same approach—to make connections with the government, with issues and with the community it affects. We know that this approach works. It is an approach that has allowed me to represent my community as an Independent member since 2013. It has seen the establishment of the Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project and a cross-border approach to vocational education and work force development. In Indi we ensure that the community plays an active role in developing their own solutions, and we call this 'The Indi Way'. The government has an opportunity, and I believe it has the goodwill, to lead for regional Australia. But to do so it must adopt a coordinated approach. For too long the budget and specifically the regional budget statement have been seen as a way of understanding the government's plan for regional Australia. When I read these documents, all I see is a collection of individual investments across portfolios that tell me nothing about the government's overall strategy or vision for the region. I believe regional Australia deserves more. Last week Senator the Hon. Fiona Nash, Minister for Regional Development, unveiled 'Regions 2030: Unlocking opportunity in regional Australia'. It outlines the government's vision statement for regional Australia and its key initiatives but, for me, there is a missing link—how do these initiatives connect to support economic growth; how do they connect to bring better health and educational outcomes? I welcome the government's commitment to invest in working partnerships with communities and to support local decision making, but I want to build on this. The government knows that for regional Australia to reach its full potential it needs to build a lasting consensus across all levels of government, issues and communities, and it needs to invite experts and communities to have input. This should form the foundation of a regional policy for successive governments. In the weeks following the budget I have been out and about asking the people of Indi what does the budget mean to them and what do they need and what is missing. The message has been so clear: they are talking about connection—connection between education and health and infrastructure. The government has acknowledged that a one-size-fits-all approach to regional development will not work, but it still has not told us how it will address these matters to actually recognise the challenges and opportunities for regional Australia. I have called on the government to establish an inquiry into regional development and decentralisation. An inquiry is about bringing skilled minds together to solve a problem, and the objective of this inquiry is to have a serious discussion about unlocking the potential for regional Australia. These terms of reference—which were tabled yesterday in a notice of motion—would look at decentralisation in the broader context. I believe there is another opportunity for the government, if it can ensure that the Regional Australia Ministerial Taskforce builds connections between initiatives and across portfolios to make the best of opportunities. In conclusion, to my community I say: you get this. Hundreds have responded to my budget survey to tell the government to focus on health, education, infrastructure and environment. People in Indi have a voice, and, as your representative, I will ensure that government hears it. Go to the website, fill in the survey and encourage others to do the same. To my colleagues in this House, I say: you get it. You understand, as local representatives, that your community have strong views about connectivity. And to the government I say: you are the final piece of this puzzle. I know you want to get it and you want to listen, but to do so you really need to build connectivity across portfolios, issues and communities. (Time expired) Wide Bay Electorate 53 19:45 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay The federal division of Wide Bay truly is a rich part of the world in terms of its culture and economy. In the eastern part of the federal division we have Noosa, a cosmopolitan, world-class tourist destination. As you go north, we have Gympie and Maryborough, rural and regional centres providing for the country with crops, grazing and manufacturing. As you go west out to the beautiful areas of the South Burnett, you have Murgon and Cherbourg, other areas that contribute to the $1 billion agricultural contribution to the local economy. On Tuesday 16 May I was lucky enough to attend a small business forum in Murgon put on by the Burnett Inland Economic Development Organisation, otherwise known as BIEDO. It was a really good evening, with over 50 participants. Those providing services to the local area, small businesses and business operators attended. The BIEDO organisation is led by its CEO, Kristy Frahm, who does a wonderful job with her team. Their main goal is to build resilience, sustainability and innovation, both socially and economically, in the regional areas that they service. Whilst I was at the small-business forum I spoke to Mark Smith, who owns Mark Smith's Menswear in Murgon. He gave me a number of good points on how to get more people into regional Australia. I spoke to Jason Kinsella and Susan Kinsella from Moffatdale Ridge winery, who spoke to me about their part of the local agricultural industry and how to take greater advantage of regional tourism, particularly from the domestic point of view. It was also great to see Keith Campbell, the local mayor, there, and Deb Frecklington, the member for Nanango, my state colleague. Doing business in rural and regional Australia is tough. It is more exposed to drought and weather events, and, if you are a retailer in a small town and one of the major employers shuts down, you are more exposed in that regard, too. So it is important that the Australian government helps our small rural and regional businesses. The people at this forum really appreciated the fact that we have added $200 million to the Building Better Regions Fund in this year's budget. They appreciate the fact that we understand that in rural and regional Australia small business turnover should not be $2 million; it needs to be $10 million, where the margins are smaller but they still have a big turnover. Lowering the corporate tax rate to incentivise rural and regional business is another area that they appreciate, as well as the $20,000 instant asset write-off and the further 12 months that we have extended that for. Locally, this community of the South Burnett really does appreciate the $11.2 million the federal government is investing in upgrading the Wide Bay and Bruce Highway intersection, which is notorious both for its poor safety record and also for being a barrier to the local economy. Finally, on another note, and from a cultural point of view, it was my great pleasure to take part in the Reconciliation Fun Run last weekend from Murgon to Cherbourg. It was a seven-kilometre fun run organised by the Ration Shed Museum from Cherbourg. There were 500 participants. It really was a great display of community, cooperation and reconciliation. There were some notable people involved in the fun run; there was Rob de Castella, and Chris Sarra attended, and Deputy Mayor Kathy Duff had a go, too. It truly is a wonderful experience to run with all of these people, and the smiles on their faces made me very, very proud and happy to be a part of it. We need to keep up the momentum on reconciliation. This week is a very significant week, it being 50 years since the 1967 referendum, and I am proud to be part of a government that is closing the gap on the targets in relation to Indigenous affairs. (Time expired) Shipping 54 19:50 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle As an island nation, we rely on merchant shipping and our naval defence to a greater extent than many Australians would consider in their day-to-day lives. Having our own capacity in these areas is a matter of critical self-sufficiency. It is a capacity we should have at all times; it is not something we would want to find is lacking when a crisis hits. Of the goods that Australians import or export, an overwhelming proportion is transported by ships, which travel here through a changing and volatile region. In those circumstances, we should all be concerned that our coastal shipping industry is in decline and has been left to wither by a regulatory framework that does not accord proper value to Australian shipping and does not work effectively to protect the jobs, conditions and safety of Australian seafarers. That means there are very few Australian owned and flagged vessels, it means we do not maintain sufficient merchant marine capability, and it means there is not currently an Australian general license vessel capable of transporting petroleum. And it means our marine environment is at risk of the disasters that are more likely to occur when both ships and seafarers fall below the high standard that our industry has always set. As I noted in the submission I made to the government's Coastal shipping reforms discussion paper: The Coalition Government's record has been to undermine Australian shipping and to actively weaken the position of Australian seafarers and their representatives. Until there is a serious and meaningful change to that approach it is likely that Australia's self-sufficiency … will be further weakened, and that jobs and skills in those areas will be further reduced. With respect to Australia's naval capacity and operations, the government is embarking on a significant shipbuilding program, which I support. But it is impossible to support an approach to that program which does not maximise the opportunity for Australian industry participation or provide fair opportunities for WA. I am not some kind of mad parochialist. I understand that national projects and funding have to be shared. I am glad that South Australia will continue its important role as a shipbuilding hub. What I do not understand is why Western Australia has to be ignored and short-changed at every turn. And I get particularly frustrated—and my colleagues get particularly frustrated—when I hear Western Australian Liberals pretend that everything is peachy keen. We are getting the scraps from the table, and the WA Liberals are smiling and rubbing their tummies. Last week the government released its Naval Shipbuilding Plan, and the neglect of Western Australia was as plain as day: there is $89 billion dollars of Defence manufacturing and investment, out of which WA gets barely $4 billion. Yet Senator Reynolds's first response was to blame the WA minister for defence industry, Paul Papalia, because he did not accept a briefing from the government. What on earth would a briefing achieve? There is no additional investment and there are no jobs in a briefing. In fact, the report makes clear that, with all the work South Australia is getting, there will likely be a workforce shortage in that state. So, in addition to the massive shipbuilding imbalance, the report explains that millions will be invested in South Australia to create workforce capability that does not currently exist and that workers will be brought in from interstate and overseas to make up the gap. Imagine how disappointing that is when we know that Western Australia has those skills and those workers. Yet the Minister for Defence Industry, who is a proud South Australian, cannot wipe the smile off his face as he tries to con us in WA into believing that we have got a good deal. The minister must take us for fools if he thinks we will be comforted by his repetition that WA will build 31 of the 54 new naval vessels. The minister knows very well that the Pacific patrol boats and the offshore patrol vessels represent a tiny fraction of the value and scope of the naval shipbuilding work. Last weekend, the minister was quoted as saying that all the non-combatant vessels—that is, all the PPBs and the OPVs—will be constructed in WA. That simply is not true. The first two OPVs will be built in South Australia, and there is already strong lobbying underway to make it more than two. It is galling to hear the minister claim that WA is not equipped to be involved in the build of the future submarines or the future frigates while he is busy pouring millions and millions of dollars into addressing shortcomings in South Australia. Industry experts argue that a distributed build or block build model could easily enable fabricators and shipbuilders in WA to share in the work on these massive multidecade projects. It makes a lot of geostrategic sense, but today the minister continued with the smoke and mirrors. He made a big deal of $100 million dollars in infrastructure for WA—a figure that has been announced and reannounced three times. He made a song and dance about 100 apprentices at Austal when he knows that the shipbuilding workforce nationwide is expected to be 6,000. He allocates $25 million for new maritime training facilities in South Australia when there are hundreds of skilled and experienced Western Australians out of work and he has the hide to declare WA as a big winner. We are heartily sick of being taken for mugs by the Turnbull government. The numbers do not lie. We are not getting our fair share of Defence shipbuilding work. (Time expired) Mining 55 19:55 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Precisely two weeks ago in this place the Treasurer stood here and delivered the budget. It was a budget that was focused on the better days ahead and it was a budget that had at its heart unlocking opportunities across sectors in our great nation. So imagine my surprise when I woke up this morning to hear news emanating from the Palaszczuk Labor government in Queensland that one of our nation's great opportunities had been put at risk as a result of the decision—or perhaps a lack of any decisive decision—taken yesterday by that government. Of course, I am speaking of the Adani Carmichael mine in the Galilee Basin. To provide some detail, this is a mine that will see 60 million tonnes of coal exported a year—remembering that there are about six billion tonnes of coal mined around the world. It is a project that would provide 5,079 jobs during the construction phase—remembering, of course, that this is in a region which is experiencing shockingly high unemployment rates—and 4,520 jobs during the operation phase. You might ask why a South Australian would be so concerned about this. Obviously there are questions around the national interest, but there is a much more parochial concern. Mr Speaker, you know as I do that Arrium, with their steelworks at Whyalla, is a business that is in a quite precarious position. What we have there is a business that employs 1,600 South Australians in Whyalla directly and another 1,400 indirectly. It entered administration in April 2016 with debts of around $4 billion—$2.8 billion of that debt is owed to Arrium's financiers, Australia's four big banks. Arrium have effectively secured the contract from Adani to lay 400 kilometres of railway line, or at least to supply them 54,000 tonnes of steel. That is the railway line that will link the Carmichael coalmine to Abbot Point, at the coast. The South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy chief executive, Rebecca Knol, said the deal was a vital breakthrough for Arrium's administrators KordaMentha and the city of Whyalla, which is facing massive job losses if the steelworks closes. Mr Speaker, you might ask yourself: if that is being put at risk, who else is running interference? The usual suspects—there are environmentalists who are campaigning heavily against Australia's largest potential coalmine. Disappointingly, we saw Westpac indicate recently that they would rule out lending funds to the project, preferring instead, in their words, 'a project with higher quality coal'. But I am not here speaking of that. Mr Speaker, someone who occupied your position once gave me the best advice anyone could ever give someone in politics. I am speaking, of course, of the Hon. Neil Andrew. He said, 'Tony, whatever you do, be consistent.' I am going to call out some inconsistency right now. In Whyalla, Nick Xenophon and Rebekha Sharkie will talk about Aussie jobs and the need to protect Arrium's steel workers. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Barker needs to refer to members by their correct titles. Mr PASIN 240756 The member for Mayo—sorry, Mr Speaker. They call out the need for Aussie jobs, but in this place, when they are asked to stand up and support the Adani project, there is deathly silence. The member for Mayo has indicated that she is not convinced it is in the national interest to support this project to the tune of $900 million—which, of course, would be a multi-user railway line from Abbot Point to the coal port. What I ask Senator Xenophon and the member for Mayo to do is to go to Whyalla. Tell the steelworkers in that community that it is not in the national interest to secure the future of this mine and the $74 million of railway steel that will be contracted as a result of this. As Neil Andrew indicated to me, you have to be consistent. I want them to stand up for Aussie jobs, to stand up for the Adani coalmine and to do it now. The SPEAKER 00APG It being 8 pm, the House stands adjourned until 9.30 am tomorrow. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 55 NOTICES

Tuesday, 23 May 2017

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ) took the chair at 15:59.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 57 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Hindmarsh Electorate: Meals on Wheels 57 16:00 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh For over 60 years, Meals on Wheels has played such an important role in the lives of thousands of Australians. In the course of a year, over 10 million meals are delivered by some 75,000 volunteers to more than 120,000 recipients all over the country. In my electorate of Hindmarsh alone, hundreds and hundreds of people receive Meals on Wheels every year. In Hindmarsh, these meals are delivered by around 425 wonderful, exceptional, fantastic volunteers, who volunteer their time and service. I want to take a moment to commend the marvellous volunteers and the wonderful people who run Meals on Wheels in my electorate, in the branches of Henley and Grange, Edwardstown, Glenelg and West Torrens. People rely on this service for good, nutritious food, but, when these volunteers deliver food, they do more than just that. They check on the wellbeing of their clients. They provide a smile, a chat and some companionship. Sometimes they are the only person to have contact with them from the outside world. Meals on Wheels is all about people in the community joining forces to help others. Importantly, Meals on Wheels helps make it possible for people to stay in their homes, where they are happiest and can enjoy some independence. This is such a vital service. I have been approached by many of the Meals on Wheels branches and their volunteers in Hindmarsh. They are scared that the changes being implemented by the federal government will mean that fewer people will be able to receive this very essential service. They are also concerned that the cost of the service may rise. They are calling on a commitment from the federal government for long-term financial sustainability for their organisation—to be able to plan forward and know what the future holds for them and to be able to continue to support their clients with meals and the delivery of meals. I join them in this. I have written to the minister, expressing these sentiments and asking for more support for the Meals on Wheels branches around Australia that service our community. The federal government needs to stop expecting our most vulnerable people to contribute more and more in order to pay for the $65 billion tax cut it wants to give to the big end of town, to the big businesses. It needs to start supporting those people who need it most. Some of those people are the most vulnerable in our community. As I said, Meals on Wheels volunteers are sometimes the only contact someone receives from the outside world, sometimes the first contact when something has gone wrong, and sometimes they are the very first people that will contact authorities when someone is ill or not doing too well. We need to support them. We need to do all that we can to ensure that they are funded properly to continue doing the great work that they do in the communities of all of our electorates. I am sure all of us meet with many wonderful volunteers that serve Meals on Wheels and we want to see them continue in doing that. Farrer Electorate: Murray Cod Australia 57 16:03 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer As I travel throughout my electorate of Farrer, I am continually impressed and inspired by the commitment, foresight and passion of our regional enterprises. Just one of these places that I had the pleasure of visiting last week was Murray Cod Australia, located in the small rural village of Bilbul, on the outskirts of Griffith. Murray Cod Australia is the nation's only large-scale producer of this fish species, which, as the name suggests, is unique to the Murray-Darling Basin. The company has recently expanded due to growing demand in supplying both local and overseas markets with what is one of the most unique and largest species of freshwater fish in the world. This is a very important business to the Australian economy. Murray cod populations had declined severely since European colonisation due to a number of causes, including severe overfishing, river regulation and habitat degradation. Today, this species is actually listed as a vulnerable species, a stark reminder of the need to regulate and protect our native fish species. The Bilbul facility includes an enclosed aquaculture nursery comprising 34 large tanks with around 300,000 fingerlings. Hygiene and biosafety is of utmost importance in the facility. Staff and management are always vigilant against diseases that can decimate an industry. The local environment is also carefully controlled to ensure the best growing conditions for the fish. They grow from one gram to 100 grams in 12 months. After a year, they are then moved out into one of 12 single megalitre ponds which contain up to 25,000 fish per pond. According to the manager, Paul Van der Werf, the Murray cod is not the friendliest of fishes and will basically eat anything that moves, which, at Bilbul, is generally its own kind. To combat this, the fish are extremely well fed. Local farmers in the area are also keen to be involved in the company via lease arrangements, as aquaculture production can easily be integrated into existing agricultural systems. Another advantage in aquaculture is that the water can eventually be recycled for valuable irrigation. The modern Murray cod industry is very much in its infancy. There are excellent growth prospects for the industry as a whole, with potential to increase demand in Australia and through our export markets in South-East Asia. Aquaculture is the world's fastest growing food production sector. By 2030, it is projected that aquaculture will provide more than 60 per cent of global seafood. Right now, Murray Cod Australia is finding it a challenge to keep up with the demand, but it has very definite plans for future growth. To improve stocks, the company has opened a hatchery at Grong Grong near Narrandera, which produces over 800,000 fish each year. I would like to thank partners Matt Ryan and Roger Commins and, of course, Paul and his team for their hospitality. I wish them well. We should all look forward to Murray cod coming to a menu near us in the near future. Skilled Migration Program 58 16:06 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports The Turnbull government's changes announced on 18 April to global 457 visas is causing chaos for companies that specialise in recruiting finance, education, engineering and IT workers. The government's changes focus only on the supply of overseas labour and do nothing to upskill Australians. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong, has said that we are committed to 'make sure that at least 10 per cent of all the employees on major projects are apprentices'. In my own electorate of Melbourne Ports, we are seeing results of the Victorian government's policies at the state level. The state Labor government, in contrast to the federal government, is working on infrastructure projects, such as the Melbourne Metro Rail Project, which, according to The Australian's Greg Brown, is a $10.9 billion project which will provide over 4,000 jobs from 2019 to 2022. Could you imagine the results if our federal government mandated that 10 per cent of apprentices, trainees and engineering cadets—as the Victorian government is doing—be part of any major project that receives Commonwealth dollars? Simply changing the 457 visa program may hurt many of our nation's businesses and, in turn, harm our international competitiveness. I notice that in today's Financial Review Patrick Durkin refers to Randstad's CEO, Frank Ribuot, who is also involved with the French-Australian Chamber of Commerce & Industry. Mr Durkin said about Mr Ribuot: … he realised three of his top recruiters, an Englishman, a Dutchman and an Irishman, would soon be forced out of the country. Mr Ribuot was quoted as saying, I have top people who miss the March 18 cut-off by a matter of months … He goes on to explain: They have moved their families, sold their houses, paying taxes but will be left high and dry. Some of them have been here 22 months but under the rules had to be here 24 months. In industries like IT, which Mr Randstad works in, finding the right person for the job can be hard, especially if the position requires specialised skills. The only solution to this is skills and training. We need to upskill our local workforce to fill these positions and not cut funding to TAFE and universities. The Financial Review article claims that 50 per cent of people who will be impacted by the abolition of 457 immigration work visas are in senior management, 65 per cent of the people in business are in favour of keeping the existing 457 visas, 83 per cent said the changes would have a strong and extreme impact on the ability to attract overseas talent and 96 per cent said their businesses already contributed to the training and upskilling of Australians. Banks Electorate: Community Events 58 16:09 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks Last Sunday, 21 May, I attended the presentation day for the Penshurst West Youth Cricket Club at Club Central Hurstville. It was good to be there to present the Banks Outstanding Sporting Achievement Awards. The awards were presented to 10 players who had demonstrated outstanding sportsmanship and community spirit over the season. The club also acknowledged the efforts of Peter Murphy, who is a volunteer at Penshurst West Cricket Club. He has given many hours of support to the club over many years. I would like to thank in particular the club president, David Gibson, and Treasurer Belinda Gibson for their dedication to Penshurst West Youth Cricket Club. It is very clear that their efforts make an enormous difference in holding together what is one of the largest cricket clubs anywhere in the St George district. Through their efforts, they have built one of the great sporting clubs of our region. Thank you to the Gibsons and to all of the other volunteers who make the club work, and to the award winners on Sunday. On Sunday I also attended the Panania Public School P&C Mega Fete. This fete is so mega that it is held only once every four years. It is a massive event and there were literally thousands of people in attendance at the Panania Public School Mega Fete. There was a range of stalls, a trash and treasure and really good-quality roads with the kids—I got strong endorsement of the rides on the day from various people I know well—and there was plenty of food. I want to thank Gillian Westwood, the P&C committee president. They have a particularly active P&C at Panania Public School, and I know that many people have put in literally months of work to make the mega fete such a success. I would also like to thank and acknowledge Sandra Palmer, the school principal, and Martha Adams, the relieving principal, for everything they do for the school and the broader Panania community. On 7 May I attended the Revesby Heights Hornets Cricket Club presentation at the Revesby Workers Club Sports and Recreation Centre. Revesby Hornets is one of the smaller cricket clubs in our area, with 43 players across four teams, but despite their small size they won two premierships, in the under 10s and under 13s, in the 2017 season. There is a really strong sense of camaraderie at this club, and that is largely down to the efforts of Club President Steve Brown, Club Secretary Jonathon Brown and all of the other parents who work so hard so that these kids have the opportunity to play cricket, to learn about the sport, to make friends, and to learn a little bit about themselves in the process. So, thank you very much to everyone at Revesby Heights Hornets Cricket Club. (Time expired) 16:12 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I am committed to always helping the member for Banks and I think if he could just pass on to our friends in Panania that if they have that fete every four years they should call it the 'mega four'! If I am being unhelpful, you tell me. Mr Coleman 241067 I will pass it on. Mr HUSIC 91219 Thank you. I very much appreciate that. That joke worked much better in my head, by the way, Member for Banks! I want to take this opportunity to recognise a true Chifley champion, Jason Hooper, for his outstanding achievements. He won an impressive three gold medals and one silver medal in swimming events at the World Masters Games in New Zealand last month. The World Masters Games, a global multisport event for athletes of masters age, is held every four years. This year, Jason brought home gold in the 50-metre breaststroke, 200-metre freestyle, 400-metre freestyle and silver in the 50-metre freestyle. However, this was not Jason's first victory. He has been competing as a champion disabled swimmer for over 26 years and during that time he has won a remarkable 163 gold medals, 46 silver medals and four bronze medals. But it has also been more than just competitions and medals for Jason. In 2015 he swam for seven hours straight at Mount Druitt pool for Wesley Mission, and good on him for that. Jason, who was born with Apert syndrome, which affected his limbs, was not going to let anything stand in the way of helping him to help the homeless. I recently caught up with him to celebrate— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 The member for Chifley will resume his seat. The debate is adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 59 ADJOURNMENT 16:13 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley I move: That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn. Question agreed to. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 The Federation Chamber stands adjourned until 9:45 am tomorrow. Federation Chamber adjourned at 16:13