2017-08-10 45 1 4 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 10 August 2017

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017 1

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:32 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill will abolish access to the limited merits review (LMR) regime for reviewable regulatory decisions under the national energy laws. Through limited merits reviews, monopoly network businesses in electricity and gas have been able to seek review from the Australian Competition Tribunal of decisions made by the Australian Energy Regulator (the AER) and the Economic Regulation Authority Western Australia. This includes decisions on regulated revenues that flow through to network prices paid by energy consumers for electricity and gas transmission and distribution. To date LMR has increased consumer bills by $6.5 billion. The LMR regime was first reviewed in 2012 by an independent panel led by Professor George Yarrow. Amendments were made in 2013 with the goal of improving timeliness, reducing costs, increasing consumer participation and refocussing the process on the long-term interests of consumers. Despite these attempted reforms, energy networks were still routinely seeking reviews of the regulators' decisions, essentially using the Australian Competition Tribunal as a second regulator. In response the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Energy Council reviewed the LMR regime again in 2016. The review found that the 2013 amendments to the regime had largely failed, including that LMR: remained routine; had significant costs to all participants; presented barriers to meaningful consumer participation; led to significant regulatory and price uncertainty; and was failing to demonstrate outcomes that were in the long-term interests of consumers. The COAG Energy Council determined that the LMR regime was still failing to meet its policy intent with the consequence of higher prices for consumers. In the face of escalating energy prices the government is taking action to stop energy networks using the LMR to extract monopoly rents from consumers. That is why the government announced on 20 June 2016 that it would divest the Australian Competition Tribunal of its LMR function—effectively abolishing the regime. This bill will prevent the Australian Competition Tribunal from reviewing certain decisions made under the national energy laws, in particular, electricity network revenue determinations and gas access arrangements, with the exception of decisions relating to disclosure of confidential or protected information. Further, the bill will ensure that decisions made by the AER under those laws are not subject to merits review by any other state or territory body. Divesting the tribunal of its function of reviewing decisions made under the national energy laws should reduce pressure on electricity prices. It will put the power back to where it rightly should be, with the regulator. The AER is best placed to prevent inefficient costs being passed on to consumers. A strong regulator is the best way to reduce pressure on network costs which make up around half of the average electricity bill in Australia. Debate adjourned. Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017 2

Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017

First Reading 2 Second Reading 2 09:36 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill will allow the Commonwealth to introduce air pollution standards on non-road spark ignition engines and equipment which will deliver significant environmental and health benefits. Standards will cover outdoor power equipment such as leaf blowers, lawnmowers, chainsaws and brush cutters, as well as marine engines such as outboards and personal water crafts. Emissions from these products include nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and particulate matter. This bill will align Australia with other developed countries and major markets that already have similar standards, including the United States, the European Union, Japan and China. Australian standards will be harmonised to minimise any regulatory burden. Population and transport growth will increasingly put pressure on the clean air we currently enjoy, especially in urban areas. Recognising the importance of clean air, Australian environment ministers at the federal, state and territory level established the National Clean Air Agreement in December 2015. The introduction of these standards was identified as a key action. Small spark engines are extremely high emitters of noxious air pollution for their size. In fact, a two-stroke leaf blower can produce the same amount of nitrogen oxides as one car and the same amount of hydrocarbons as 150 cars. At peak times, they can contribute up to 10 per cent of air pollution in urban areas. Mr Bowen interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for McMahon will cease interjecting. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Because these products are operated within close proximity to users, their emissions have significant health impacts. New standards will deliver a benefit of up to $1.7 billion in avoided health costs over the next 20 years. In order to allow industry time to adjust to these new standards, they will be phased in over the next two years with the import of non-compliant products prohibited from 1 July 2018 and sale of non-compliant products prohibited from 1 July 2019. The Australian government has worked with industry for over a decade to develop emissions standards for these products and will continue this cooperation to ensure Australians continue to enjoy clean air in the future. Debate adjourned. Mr Bowen interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for McMahon will cease interjecting. He's on thin ice. I've only had one cup of coffee this morning. Mr Bowen DZS Would you like me to go get you one? The SPEAKER 10000 If only! Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Bill 2017 2

Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Bill 2017

First Reading 2 Second Reading 2 09:39 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Bill 2017 will impose a charge on any domestically manufactured products prescribed under the product emissions standards legislation. This bill, together with the Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Bill 2017 and the imposition of fees under the Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017, will enable full cost recovery of the costs associated with regulating prescribed products. Debate adjourned. Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Bill 2017 3

Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Bill 2017

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 09:40 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Bill 2017 will impose a charge on the importation of products prescribed under the product emissions standards legislation. This bill, together with the Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Bill 2017 and the imposition of fees under the Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017, will enable full cost recovery of the costs associated with regulating prescribed products. Debate adjourned. Product Emissions Standards (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2017 3

Product Emissions Standards (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2017

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 09:42 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill will support the implementation of the Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017 by making a consequential amendment to the Customs Act 1901. The bill amends the Customs Act 1901 to clarify that goods imported or exported in contravention of the product emissions standards legislation are not forfeited to the Crown under the Customs Act 1901. This will streamline the implementation of the product emissions standards legislation and ensure that all compliance and enforcement measures are overseen by the Department of the Environment and Energy. Debate adjourned. International Monetary Agreements Amendment (New Arrangements to Borrow) Bill 2017 3

International Monetary Agreements Amendment (New Arrangements to Borrow) Bill 2017

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 09:43 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today, I introduce a bill to amend the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 to renew the International Monetary Fund's New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB). These amendments will ensure that the standing appropriation and authority to borrow that allows the government to make payments to the IMF under the current NAB will continue for the renewed arrangement. The NAB is a multilateral borrowing agreement that under its renewal and will provide a line of credit to the IMF of around A$329 billion from 37 participant countries or institutions, including Australia. Australia joined the NAB as a founding member in 1997. On 4 November 2016, the IMF executive board agreed to renew the NAB for a period of five years, from its current expiry date of 16 November 2017 to 16 November 2022. Australia's funding commitments of around A$4.05 billion will remain unchanged under the renewed NAB. The broader terms and conditions of the NAB will also remain largely unchanged. The NAB has already been used numerous times to help manage crises, including assistance to developing, transitioning and advanced member countries. The renewal of the NAB forms part of a broader global effort to maintain the current level of IMF resourcing, to ensure that it has sufficient financial resources available to effectively fulfil its global role in economic crisis prevention and resolution. Ensuring that the IMF has sufficient financial resources in place provides confidence to markets and other economic actors that the IMF has the resources it needs to continue to play its role effectively. This is an important factor that underpins ongoing confidence to trade and invest. As a successful open-trading economy, Australia's prosperity relies on strong and stable growth in the world economy. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2017 4

Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2017

First Reading 4 Second Reading 4 09:46 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I am introducing the Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2017 which amends the Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Act 2012. This bill reflects the government's commitment to support the international education sector by reducing the financial burden on education providers while maintaining our strong student protections. International education is a cornerstone of our economy and Australia's largest service export. It contributed $22.4 billion and 130,000 jobs to our economy last year. The strong growth in the sector shows the government's policy settings are working to drive success and create job opportunities for Australians. This is only possible because of our reputation in providing high-quality education and offering unique, strong student protections. The Tuition Protection Service (TPS) is an initiative of the Australian government to assist international students whose education providers are unable to fully deliver their course of study. It is a key mechanism to protect students, and is funded by an annual levy on all international education providers which is credited into the Overseas Students Tuition Fund, or the fund. The levy comprises an administrative fee and base fee components which are based on a provider's enrolment numbers, a risk rated premium and a special tuition protection component. Since 2012, the TPS has provided assistance to 1,228 students who have been affected by provider closures, by placing them in alternative courses or refunding their unspent tuition fees. The success and strong growth of the sector, reflected by an increased number of international student enrolments and a comparatively low number of provider closures, has resulted in the fund reserves increasing sharply. The balance of the fund has already passed the original target amount recommended by the Australian Government Actuary and the TPS Advisory Board in 2013. The balance is forecast to exceed the upper target unless changes are made to current TPS levy settings. It is important to retain industry commitment to the TPS and to appropriately recognise international education providers that are managing risk effectively and contributing to stable growth in the sector. The TPS director has taken action to address this issue by reducing the risk rated premium component of the TPS levy to slow the growth of the fund. However, the risk rated premium is calculated based on the risk profile of each provider. Further reducing this component would result in the loss of an effective price signal to higher risk providers, and would not benefit low risk providers who are exempt from this component of the levy. Low risk providers pay proportionately more of the administrative and base fees, as the higher number of enrolments in these education providers has a significant multiplier effect on the fees collected. Further reductions to the risk rated premium would also give little incentive to providers to reduce their overall level of risk. A reduction to the current administrative and base fees will ensure the fund remains within the target range of $30 million to $50 million, as recommended by the Australian Government Actuary and endorsed by the TPS Advisory Board. If we are to continue to be one of the most sought after study destinations in the world, we must continue to improve the effectiveness of our consumer protection mechanisms. This bill will enable the Minister for Education and Training to proactively manage the fund in response to changing market conditions, by setting the administrative and base fees through a legislative instrument. This will ensure that international education providers are appropriately recognised for managing risk effectively, while ensuring sufficient reserves are maintained in the fund to meet future claims. The minister will still be able to increase the fees to an 'upper limit' set at the current legislated levels to ensure adequate tuition protection, if required. I turn now to the specific measures which will reduce the burden on the sector while maintaining our world class student protections. The bill contains new measures to require the minister to set the administrative and base fee amounts for the 2018 calendar year through a legislative instrument. The minister must do this by 31 December 2017 for the new fee amounts to take effect for the 2018 levy collection. The new amounts will help reduce the levy collections in a way that appropriately recognises international education providers managing risk effectively, while ensuring the fund remains viable to meet any future claims. A further amendment to the TPS levies act gives the minister discretion to make a new legislative instrument for the administrative and base fee amounts in following calendar years, that is, for 1 January 2019 onwards. It is anticipated that this will be a one-off reduction to the fund and the fee settings will not be updated every year. If the minister chooses not to make a legislative instrument in later years, the current instrument will be indexed annually until a new one is made. This will give providers some stability, as these amounts will not have to change each year. The minister must have regard to the sustainability of the fund and any other matters in setting the administrative and base fee components through a legislative instrument. To give certainty to providers, the bill will impose an 'upper limit' which the minister cannot surpass in setting the administrative and base fee amounts. The limit is set at the current indexed legislated levels. This amendment provides transparency and assurance to the sector by limiting the minister's power to determine dollar amounts for the administrative and base fee components of the TPS levy through a legislative instrument. The minister must cause the administrative and base fee components to be published in any manner he or she considers appropriate. This measure will ensure that the administrative and base fee amounts for each year are publicly available to providers to assist in planning their finances. In today's fast growing international sector, Australia's third-largest export, the government must play a proactive role in maintaining a healthy fund balance to protect overseas students' investment in their education. This bill will ensure that Australia maintains strong student protection mechanisms, appropriately recognise low risk providers and contributes to the stable growth of the international education sector. This will strengthen the industry's confidence in the TPS, and will ultimately result in better outcomes for students. This bill delivers on the objectives of the National Strategy for International Education 2025for developing Australia's role as a global leader in education, training and research through strengthening a fundamental student protection mechanism. I commend the bill. Debate adjourned. Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017 5

Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017

First Reading 5 Second Reading 5 09:54 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am also introducing the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017 which amends the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, or ESOS Act,as a consequence of the changes to be made to the Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Act 2012, or TPS Levies Act. It builds on the government's commitment to support the international education sector by reducing the financial burden on education providers while continually improving our student protection mechanisms. This bill makes consequential amendments to the ESOS Act to clarify that the TPS Director works out the TPS levy payable by each provider in accordance with the legislative instruments made under the amended TPS Levies Act. This includes legislative instruments made by the minister to set the administrative and base fee components, and legislative instruments made by the TPS Director to set the risk-rated premium and special tuition protection components. This bill gives effect to changes made to the TPS Levies Act to improve the operations of the TPS and ensure the government has a proactive role in managing the balance in the fund. I commend the bill. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 6 COMMITTEES Privileges and Members' Interests Committee, Public Accounts and Audit Committee 6 Membership 6 09:56 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong by leave—I move: That: (1) Mr Broadbent be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests and that, in his place, Mrs Marino be appointed a member of the committee; and (2) Mr Irons be discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and that, in his place, Mrs Marino be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, National Broadband Network - Joint Standing, Joint Standing Committee on Treaties 6 Membership 6 09:57 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Whish-Wilson has been appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and Senator Hanson-Young has been appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network and the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. RESOLUTIONS OF THE SENATE 6 RESOLUTIONS OF THE SENATE Murray-Darling Basin 6 Consideration of Senate Message 6 09:57 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received the following message from the Senate relating to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan: The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following resolution which was agreed to by the Senate this day: That the Senate— (a)affirms its support for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan; (b)expresses deep concerns about allegations of theft and corruption in management of water resources in the Barwon-Darling Basin raised by the Four Corners report on 24 July 2017; (c)notes the matter has been referred to the Australian National Audit Office and New South Wales authorities for investigation; (d)considers a state-based inquiry into allegations, revealed in the report, to be insufficient and that the only way to ensure confidence in states’ commitment to achieve the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is through a national investigation; (e)calls for the establishment of an independent national judicial inquiry through the Council of Australian Governments; and (f)calls on all governments to commit to achieving a healthy, sustainable Murray-Darling Basin which supports the future prosperity of the communities which rely upon it. The Senate requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives in this resolution. Copies of the message have been placed on the table for the information on honourable members. I do not propose to read its terms, which will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard. 09:58 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 09:58 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move, as an amendment: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words “the message be taken into consideration immediately”. In moving this amendment, I say that, if the House defers this and makes it an order of the day for the next day of sitting, the House will never have another debate on this issue. The opportunity to deal with this issue is now, and there is an urgency in dealing with the issue that is before us. The allegations that were made on the Four Corners program with respect to the Murray-Darling Basin are serious. A series of inquiries has been initiated as a result by the Auditor-General and by New South Wales ICAC; the New South Wales government has a separate review, the Matthews review; we also have a review that has been put in place by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Not one of those inquiries—even though all of them are being conducted with good intentions by those in charge—has the power to deal with the allegations that are before us in their totality. The allegations that are before us go to compliance functions of the New South Wales government. They go to the interaction between the New South Wales government and Commonwealth officials. They go to the actions of a former New South Wales minister as to whether or not he told the irrigators that they could pump at a time when they were not lawfully allowed to. They go to a series of issues which cross the federal and state boundaries. Only a judicial inquiry instituted through COAG has the capacity to deal with that. New South Wales ICAC will be able to have the power to compel witnesses to provide protection to whistleblowers and to be able to subpoena documents, but not once they hit federal officials. In the same way, the Commonwealth Auditor-General will have a series of powers, but the moment he hits state officials those powers stop. When you are dealing with the Murray-Darling Basin, you need to be able to have an investigation that can cross jurisdictions. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority with its inquiry, while it technically is a body that does cross jurisdictions, doesn't have the power to compel witnesses, doesn't have the power to subpoena documents and doesn't have the power to provide protection for whistleblowers. Yesterday we had this debate out, in a way, during the matter of public importance—during the MPI after question time. Let me remind the House of the arguments that were put by the government as to why we don't need a judicial inquiry. The member for Cowper finished his remarks by saying, 'Let's put an allegation about a billion litres of water being stolen into context,' and then told us how much water there really was in the Murray-Darling Basin: 'We're only talking about a billion litres of water when there are billions and billions of litres of water flowing down the river.' That's like arguing: 'Look, I know they stole the Lamborghini, but it was a really big car park. There were lots of other vehicles there. We really need to put this into context.' I thought that meant the government was probably starting with its weirdest argument, but then we finished off—and the environment minister will love this one—with the member for Barker arguing there is a different solution for fish stocks in the Coorong. Instead of it being about providing environmental water, what we needed to do was kill the native fur seals, because they, outrageously, are feeding on the fish. So the solution to look after one native species is to kill the other ones—kill the predators and it'll all be okay. Those were the arguments put yesterday by the government. Call me biased, but I just don't think they were compelling arguments. In its place, Labor is simply saying that, when you have allegations this serious, you have to have an inquiry with the power to get to the bottom of it. It may well be the case that some of the allegations turn out to be not well founded. It may well be the case that some of the allegations are worse than we thought. It may well be the case that what has happened and has been reported are not the only instances of this sort of behaviour. We don't know the answers, but we have a right to know. Why do we have a right to know the answers? Because the water being stolen under those allegations was paid for with $13 billion worth of taxpayers' money, which has gone into the projects and the plans to be able to restore the rivers to health—$13 billion. Members here, who represent within their local electorates irrigators that have not broken the law, seemed to want to brush this aside yesterday. They owe it to the irrigators in their area to say, 'If you're obeying the law, we will get to the bottom and find out about the people who are breaching the law.' That's how you respect law-abiding citizens—not by turning a blind eye. The government can't run that this is somehow just an issue for the Labor Party. Yesterday, unusually in an MPI, the member for Mayo, who is here now—not a member of the Labor Party but a member of the crossbench—took one of the spots because of her passion in wanting to make sure that the Murray-Darling Basin is restored to health. In the Senate, you have a range of parties. I don't think you can get a broader spectrum of parties than what you get when you look at the collection of senators who were all voting the same way yesterday. The principle there is: when you have allegations like this, that have rocked the nation and, in particular, rocked communities within the Murray-Darling Basin, the first thing you must do is get to the bottom of what has happened. The first thing you must do is say, 'We will have an inquiry with all the powers required to find out whether or not the allegations that were televised stack up, whether or not the behaviour of the New South Wales government was as bad as it appears to have been.' Only a judicial inquiry will provide those powers. I urge members of the House to vote that we deal with this immediately. What nobody on that side of the House should do is think that they can vote against this today, to turn a blind eye to the allegations, and ever again claim that they are on the side of restoring the Murray-Darling to health. Unless there is integrity in the water market, unless there is compliance being provided by the state governments, then irrigation communities, communities relying on environmental assets and every Australian taxpayer gets let down. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the amendment seconded? 10:06 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I second the amendment. It is imperative that we deal with this issue right here, right now. Quite frankly, we've seen these very, very serious allegations, which have really dented confidence in the Murray-Darling plan, and there's nothing more important than this parliament coming together and backing this essential plan. I was listening to the MPI yesterday. I grew increasingly concerned about the talking points that those on the other side had. The talking points seemed to go as follows: 'It's not that much water. What we're talking about isn't that important and it's not that much water.' The other argument that seemed to be in the talking points was that Four Corners wasn't telling the truth, that somehow Four Corners was leading everyone up a garden path. The only way to get to the bottom of this, the only way to ensure that we are able to actually find out what went on, is to have a judicial inquiry. This plan, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, was put in place because, after a century of squabbling and arguments between the states, we came to a national agreement. It is not good enough that the national parliament and the national government now shirk their responsibility when it comes to this important plan. When we see these types of allegations that dent confidence right down the system—South Australia, Victoria and also in New South Wales; we've had New South Wales irrigators, we have had people in Broken Hill saying they thought something was up and it wasn't until Four Corners actually aired these allegations that they saw the light of day—then it is critically important that this motion is dealt with in the House today. The motion clearly states support for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, clearly states that we have deep concerns as a parliament about this theft of water, and, importantly, calls for the establishment of an independent national judicial inquiry. It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth to actually deal with this issue. We cannot just say, as the minister for water has said in the past: 'This is just a localised issue. It's not that important. It's not something I'm going to get involved in.' He kept saying that until they realised, and I think the Prime Minister realised, he was getting a lot of flak and then suddenly the position changed. Today is an opportunity for this House to recommit to the Murray-Darling, to commit to a judicial inquiry. And it is a test. It is actually a test for all those on the other side, particularly those South Australian members of parliament. How are they going to vote? Are they going to put the interests of South Australians and, indeed, all those communities along the Murray-Darling Basin first? Are they going to demand that this House pays attention to these issues that mean a lot for South Australians, or are they going to shirk their responsibility? Are they going to shirk their responsibility and put this off for someone else to deal with this? The test is theirs today: will they bring this on for a proper debate and ensure we have an independent national judicial inquiry? I commend the amendment to the House and urge all members to support it. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that the motion be agreed to, to which the honourable member for Watson has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.  

The House divided. [10:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 70 AYES Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Feeney, D Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 75 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

The House divided. [10:201]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 75 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 70 NOES Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Feeney, D Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 11 BILLS Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017 11

Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017

Consideration of Senate Message 11 10:28 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the amendments be agreed to. In doing so, I don't want to delay the House for long. The significance of this legislation is that the Senate has returned the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017 to the House, having agreed to it and having amended it in a way that the government is happy to support. Once again, Labor finds itself on the wrong side of industrial relations reform and on the wrong side of creating jobs. Whether it was the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the Registered Organisations Commission, the reforms to the Building Code, standing up for the Victorian Country Fire Authority volunteers or standing up for the owner-operator driver truck drivers, this side of the House has been on the right side of industrial relations reform and on the right side of the workers. Once again, Labor finds itself on the side of the CFMEU—the side of people who give corrupting benefits to trade union officials. This legislation makes it illegal for businesses to pay corrupting benefits to union officials and makes it a criminal offence for union officials to take those corrupting benefits. Labor voted against that in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. Labor clearly indicated to the Australian public they're on the side of businesses that pay corrupting benefits to union officials. They should have supported this legislation in the same way they should have supported the raft of industrial relations reform that this government has supported, whether it was the previous administration or the Turnbull government. As a consequence, I recommend the amendments to the House. 10:30 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the speech we just heard, the question before the House is that the amendments be agreed to, and they're overwhelmingly amendments moved by the Labor Party that succeeded in the Senate. So we support the question that the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. Safe Work Australia Amendment (Role and Functions) Bill 2017 12

Safe Work Australia Amendment (Role and Functions) Bill 2017

Second Reading 12 10:31 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I rise today to support the Safe Work Australia Amendment (Role and Functions) Bill 2017 before the House. Labor has a long and established history of supporting the fight for workplace health and safety and for workers compensation. Since the fatal day back in 1956 when a bucket of piping hot bitumen fell off a multi-storey hoist on builders below, workers' safety and workers compensation has formed an important cornerstone in Australian working history. The core of any workplace health and safety legislation is a simple truth: whilst employers' rights to operate a functional and profitable business are important, they can never override the right for an employee to have a safe workplace. To put it simply, it is never acceptable to put profit before the value of a human life. I'll say it again: it is never acceptable to put profit before the value of human life. This is a core belief, an aspect of Australian Labor Party values. We will always fight for strong workplace protections and to ensure access for all employees to compensation when workplace protections fail. Of course, for workplace health and safety legislation to work in its fullest, it needs to be consistent, enforceable and accessible across the nation. If we are to take the concept of workplace health and safety seriously, we must be able to provide employers with enough information and resources to protect workers from preventable harm and to give employees access to the information and resources to protect themselves from harm and to be compensated when due diligence either is not performed or fails. Under this notion, it was Labor in government that established Safe Work Australia. As a reform focused body, Safe Work Australia has the scope not only to coordinate, monitor and promote national efforts on workplace health and safety and workers compensation but also to actively agitate for unification of workplace health and safety laws across states, with a direct line of communication to both the relevant ministerial council and COAG. This marked the first time since Federation that state and territory governments, alongside employer and employee representatives, had agreed to coordinate their efforts towards unification of occupational health and safety legislation and practice through a tripartite agreement. As a statutory body, Safe Work Australia has delivered on its goals of reducing workplace fatality and serious injury. However, we must always be vigilant. It has also achieved through helping to reshape and negotiate workplace health and safety laws across Australia by developing national policy to ease compliance and enforcement processes across state boundaries. Further, Safe Work Australia acts as a research centre by collating data and publishing reports and guidance material on workplace health and safety strategy for workers and workers compensation policy. I just checked the Safe Work Australia website today. It provides a sobering reminder of how important their work is. Twenty-four per cent of the workers who died in the period from 2003 to 2015 were employed in the transport, postal and warehouse industry. Two hundred and forty-seven workers who died in the agricultural industry between 2003 and 2015 died in a vehicle collision or rollover. Twenty-eight per cent of the workers who died in the construction industry during the same period died after a fall from a height. This year alone, there have been 18 deaths in the construction industry from 1 January 2017 to 2 August 2017 and, sadly and tragically, one since 2 August. Over the same period, there were 46 deaths in the transport, postal and warehouse industry and 23 deaths in the agricultural, forestry and fishing industry. These are workplace deaths that all could have been avoided. So many families have been heartbroken and devastated in just the first half of this year alone. Again, it is never acceptable to put profit before the value of human life, and it reminds all of us that we have a lot of work to do to ensure that this rate of death in our workplaces does not continue. Labor support this amendment, and we congratulate those opposite on the small step that they have taken to ensure national compliance and consistency with workplace health and safety. However, in congratulating them, we also ask: how serious are those opposite when it comes to workplace health and safety? A number of other reforms that the government have pursued since coming to office are inconsistent with this position on workplace health and safety. For all their hyperventilating about the need to reintroduce the ABCC, what practical outcomes has it achieved in improving workplace health and safety? All it has done is created more red tape between construction workers and their workplace rights—as I mentioned, there have been 19 deaths this year alone in construction. The ABCC, stitched up by this Prime Minister, reverses the onus of proof and makes it harder for workers to defend themselves. It makes it harder for them to speak up about workplace health and safety issues. And all we have from those opposite is complaints—rhetoric and complaints about how standing up for their workplace safety rights is somehow corruption, and it needs to be investigated by the ABCC. It is a commission that fundamentally restricts workers' democratic rights. It is a commission that strips workers of their basic rights and equity before the law, including in the area of workplace health and safety. It is a commission that gives workers no protections from the abuse of power of this new regulator. Time and time again, we have heard from workers, and from organisers of their relevant union, how they have been pulled before the ABCC for talking about issues of workplace health and safety. The case of a union and workers being investigated for talking about suicide in the workplace and the case of a union official who held in his arms a co-worker who died in his arms, and who was then pulled up before the ABCC, are just not acceptable. We will never forget those workers who have been killed in our workplaces while those opposite scramble to do their best to protect the big end of town and not take seriously what is going on in industries like construction when it comes to workplace health and safety. Nor will we forget the flippant disregard that those opposite have shown the transport industry in this country. Again, I remind the House of the statistic. So far this year, in the period between 1 January and 2 August alone, we have lost 46 people in the transport industry on our roads. When an independent umpire like the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal tells you that, unless change is made to the remuneration of truck drivers around our country, you can expect more deaths on the road, you should listen. Instead, when the government was told what was essential to do in terms of pay review aimed at saving workers' lives, this government's reaction was to shut down and abolish the tribunal. That's right; when presented with the hard evidence from the tribunal that was designed to examine safety on our roads and which made the unequivocal link between truck drivers' pay and road fatalities, this Prime Minister and this government simply shut it down. The name of the tribunal says it all: Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Despite this, those opposite still have the gall to stand here in this place and claim not only that they care about workers' safety but that they are the best friend of workers. All we have seen so far from this government in other bills are measures deliberately designed to strip workers of hard-fought protections, to shut down tribunals that could present solutions to resolve disputes and enforce protections and conditions and to further strip unions and their workers of the ability to examine and investigate places to ensure workplace health and safety. The government should be alarmed at some of the things we are hearing in our workplaces, and these should be the issues of the day that the government is pursuing. This government's ideology has clouded their capability even to see workers on the ground. So obsessed are they with clearing the tables for the big end of town that they barely notice the cries of those who are being hit by falling debris or placed in very dangerous workplace situations. We have seen this time and time again from them. It is part of their DNA. From the period of Work Choices to deliberate and orchestrated union busting to slashing penalty rates, those opposite have fought to stop workers standing up for their rights, including their workplace health and safety rights. Their actions speak louder than their words. If this government was serious about improving workplace health and safety, they would strengthen collective bargaining and strengthen the ability for workers to speak up without prosecution instead of gutting union power. They would understand that only those who feel secure in their work and workplace have the ability, the opportunity and sometimes the courage to raise and fight for safer work conditions for them and their co-workers. Despite the Prime Minister's ever-eroding farce of pretending to be the workers' friend, the number of antiworker bills passed by this government is closing in on 20. Labor is committed to ensuring that workers feel secure and safe in their workplace and have the tools and processes they need to resolve disputes and to re-address workplace issues as they arise. We need to fight to ensure that workers are able to collectively negotiate their conditions in a fair and sustainable way. This policy commitment underscores Labor's industrial relations policy. The work that Labor's Safe Work Australia is doing has proven itself to be useful, effective and life-saving. The recent mandated review in Safe Work Australia's role and functions has raised some areas where the act can be updated and reflect modern terminology to further clarify its role. This amendment seeks to address these issues within that report. Specifically, Safe Work Australia Amendment (Role and Functions) Bill 2017 seeks to update the language of the Safe Work Australia Act 2008 for ease of access, to bring it in line with current terminology and to guard this legislation against further changes in terminology in this space. This amendment also clarifies the role of Safe Work Australia to solidify its purpose and ensure it has a proper framework within which to perform its functions. To that end, this amendment also seeks to clarify and consolidate the functions of Safe Work Australia, including ensuring improvements in workplace health and safety and safety outcomes in workers compensation. In line with these amendments, Safe Work Australia will develop, evaluate and revise national workplace health and safety laws and workers' compensation policy, and support the strategies to ensure equitable access to information and resourcing of stakeholders. This amendment will allow Safe Work Australia to liaise with international workplace health and safety bodies to further act as Australia's expert in representing specialised collaborative international forums. We believe these changes and the clarifications presented in this amendment will strengthen Safe Work Australia and will allow it to continue its important work. I commend this bill to the House. 10:45 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the opposition for their support and members for their contributions to this debate. The Safe Work Australia Amendment (Role and Functions) Bill 2017 demonstrates the Australian government's strong commitment to working collaboratively with states and territories, and employee and employer representatives, to improve the safety of Australia's workplaces and its workers' compensation arrangements. The bill is informed by the recommendations of the review of the role and functions of Safe Work Australia, which was tabled in the parliament on 8 November, 2016. The bill clarifies Safe Work Australia's role and updates Safe Work Australia's functions to ensure they are clear, achievable, remain contemporary and support Safe Work Australia's role into the future. With the passage of this bill, Safe Work Australia will be better placed to respond effectively to the complex challenges that affect health and safety in Australian workplaces now and into the future. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 14 10:47 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 14 BUSINESS Withdrawal 14 10:48 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move: That the following order of the day, government business, be discharged: Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility) Bill 2017 Question agreed to. Mr FLETCHER L6B In March 2017, the government reintroduced the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility) Bill 2017. The bill proposed to provide SBS with some flexibility in its advertising arrangements to earn additional commercial revenue within its existing daily advertising cap. There would not have been any additional advertising on SBS as a result of the bill. The bill would have allowed SBS to schedule up to 10 minutes of advertising per hour in high-rating programs with a corresponding decrease in other hours to maintain the current daily cap of 120 minutes. It was estimated that SBS would have raised an additional $27.4 million of advertising revenue over four years as a result of the bill. Following community feedback and discussions with industry stakeholders, the government has decided not to proceed with the legislation. The government recognises that, in a challenging and changing environment for Australian television, there is an argument for stability in the sector. The Australian government is committed to maintaining the health and vibrancy of SBS. In the 2017-18 budget, the government provided SBS with an additional $8.8 million to replace the commercial revenue it has been unable to raise in the absence of the advertising flexibility legislation. This follows the provision of $4.1 million in 2015-16 and $6.9 million in 2016-17 of supplementation to SBS for lost revenue. The return of this funding in 2017-18, will ensure that SBS is able to continue its commitment to multilingual, multicultural and Indigenous radio and television media services. This will bring the government's total investment in SBS in 2017-18 to over $280 million. I commend this motion to the House. 10:50 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I rise to note yet another display of incompetence in the communications portfolio from this government, with the removal of this SBS advertising bill that sought only to weaken the SBS. Mr Fletcher L6B Yet another carping piece of negativity from the— The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The minister will be quiet! Ms ROWLAND 159771 It's important to note that the SBS advertising bill should never have made it to the floor in the first place. We shouldn't be here at its withdrawal. We on this side of the House understand the important role that SBS has played and continues to play in Australian broadcasting. We understand it has a vitally important role in the Australian media landscape as a voice for all Australians. It is one of the foremost outlets for the multicultural programming, news and content that showcases Australia's diversity. Now there's been a lot of talk this week from the Prime Minister, lecturing us all about how 'strong leaders keep their promises'. Well might this government look at its own record on the SBS, because on the night before the 2013 election the member for Warringah categorically promised that there would be no cuts to the SBS. But at the earliest opportunity he cut SBS funding by $53.7 million over five years in the 2014-15 budget, of which $22.5 million were direct cuts. The minister is quiet now, Mr Deputy Speaker! He is quiet now! That was $28.5 million of a hole left in the SBS budget, to be made up by permitting the SBS to show more advertising during prime time. We opposed these cuts and blocked the hourly-advertising limit on the SBS in 2015. Without a doubt this was a broken promise, and since then we have only seen this government attempt to undermine the SBS even further. In March, this government resurrected its plan to increase the amount of advertising on the SBS by introducing a bill to double the amount of advertising it runs in prime time—up from five minutes to 10 minutes per hour, within the daily limit of 120 minutes each day. It also wanted them to be able to pursue product placement in its programs. Labor is opposed to any attempt by this government to turn the SBS into another commercial broadcaster by stealth. SBS viewers should not have to watch more ads during their favourite shows to make up for the failures of this Prime Minister and his predecessor to honour their promises. At Senate estimates in May, under Labor questioning, the Minister for Communications and the Arts confirmed that the government would be taking steps to withdraw this bill. What an admission of failure from this government and what a vindication of the long-standing Labor commitment to our national broadcasters! We were vindicated in May when the government restored $8.8 million of funding to the SBS as part of the budget, and today we are vindicated by the removal of this bill. The SBS has earned the respect of the Australian people; it deserves the respect and support of the government to continue its path of innovation and comprehensive broadcasting, and to fulfil its crucial role in Australian society. The SBS's very existence is a reflection of Australia's multicultural society. Only this week we noted with the passing of Les Murray how SBS has been such an important vehicle for individuals in Australia to make a difference and to change us all for the better. Labor knows the SBS needs a strong commitment from government, and not greater commercialisation. We stand strong in our long-standing opposition to this government's repeated attempts to undermine the special purpose and nature of the SBS. We understand the risks—that increasing the amount of advertising in prime-time viewing could encourage the SBS to prioritise commercial revenue at the expense of its charter obligations and its unique role as our nation's ethnic broadcaster. We on this side will always stand up for our national broadcasters. The good news is that according to the SBS annual report the organisation is performing well, with increases in audience reach, share and engagement across its platforms. The broadcaster reports this growth was marked by an emphasis on new and more engaging ways of telling stories across all platforms which deliver on the SBS charter to positively influence Australia's internationally-envied reputation as a largely unified multicultural society. Since 1975 the SBS has served Australia well, and we in this place have a responsibility to support our public broadcasters. It is essential that the SBS is properly funded. As the chair and managing director noted in the SBS annual report, it is becoming even clearer than it was 41 years ago when the SBS was established that the SBS purpose brings Australian audiences a meaningful point of difference. We on this side are pleased to see the government admit its failure with this legislation, which would only have weakened the SBS to the detriment of us all. Question agreed to. BILLS 16 BILLS Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 16

Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Second Reading 16 10:55 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Last night, I spoke about the response of my electorate to the Turnbull government's ill-considered Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. It is a bill that is lacking any clearly or concisely articulated purpose or imperative. It is a bill that does not clearly and concisely outline what is broken and why there is a need for change. While I was speaking, the Minister for Urban Infrastructure interjected—I am glad he is in the House—interjected, saying: 'Your electorate is Canberra. That's no guide.' The minister then went on to suggest that Canberra was totally out of touch and that it was not in the real world. So I say to the Canberrans working in the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development: your minister thinks you're out of touch. Your minister thinks you don't live in the real world. Your minister thinks you do not reflect the rest of Australia. Your minister doesn't think you pay rent or have a mortgage. Your minister doesn't think that you are juggling that rent or that mortgage with your car repayments and your bills. Your minister has no understanding of you. And from that you should construe that he has no respect for your public service, for the service that you give to our country or for you. I say that to his department: he has no respect for you. But we should not be surprised given this government's complete and utter contempt for Canberra. Coalition governments have got form when it comes to Canberra. It's just the axing of thousands and thousands of jobs, no investment in infrastructure and complete and utter contempt and scorn. 10:57 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I'm very pleased to be able to speak on this bill today. As soon as I heard about the proposed changes to immigration measures in the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017, I immediately started planning a community consultation on these changes in my electorate office because I knew that it was an issue that was going to cause a lot of a lot of anxiety and a lot of distress and I knew that it would be an issue that my constituents would want me to go in to bat for them about. It is a divisive effort by this government; it is shameful. The attendance at the consultation in my office was overwhelming. I've never seen so many people at a meeting in a space like that. I really almost needed a football field. There were that many people distressed about the effects that these measures that this government wants to put forward would have on their families. It was clear to me that there are a couple of major problems with this bill. The constituents who attended and their family members made these things very clear. The first was the English language testing. There is obviously a view that the proposed testing doesn't actually measure peoples' ability to communicate. Instead it is a test that measures university-level English. I want to commend the efforts of the Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory. In their submission they mention this issue and note that the bill, at paragraph 212(e), requires applicants seeking to satisfy the general eligibility criteria for citizenship have competent English and note that there is a concern in the multicultural community that the legal definition of 'competent English' as defined by the department is that you've achieved a score of at least six in each of the four test components. I want to commend again the work of the Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory. It's clear to anyone who's at all in touch with our community that a measure of university-level English is not an appropriate measure of the standard of English that's required to communicate effectively and to contribute to our society. I fear that this will see skilled migrants with family members who haven't got level 6 English leaving our country at exactly the time when we need them. We want people coming into our country. We want people to become citizens. We do not think it is necessary for them to have university level English. It is an incredibly unfair and anti-family measure. This is a big point that was brought up by the distressed people who attended that consultation. This new test will effectively be splitting family units based on their English language ability. I just use as one example a Greek roofer who came to see me. He has been working here for about eight years, but his English language will never be at university standard. His wife is an Australian citizen. Their children were born in the Royal Darwin Hospital and are Australian citizens. But under the Turnbull government's plan, he will never be an Australian citizen. His wife and his kids are. He's been paying tax. He's contributing. He's a coach down at the football club. How is he coaching young Australians to play football? He has not got university level English, so how is he able to communicate? How is he able to fix roofs in Darwin without university level English? It's amazing how he's got by working, providing for his family, living the Australian dream in the Top End of Australia. He will never become an Australian citizen, and that is very sad and unnecessary. I ask those opposite: what do you want to be remembered for? Do you want to be remembered as the mob who just went about dividing our country based on whether people had university level English or not? Someone who managed to become an Australian citizen without having to do university level English testing contacted me recently, wanting to know if I could help her to bring forward her citizenship. She has already got permission from the department. Minister Dutton has already written her a letter to say, 'Well done, you're going to become an Australian.' What I noticed in her letter to me was that the English was not absolutely perfect, but I understood every word she was saying. In particular, I understood this part, 'We want to be a proud Australian citizen soon as we love and settled in this country.' Anything that is not clear there to those opposite? She has been living in our community. She has been contributing to our community. Her family, her children, are Australian citizens. She has waited longer than expected to become an Australian citizen, but she is patiently waiting and asking: 'I've been approved. Can I just get to a citizenship ceremony so that it can be confirmed, because we love this country that we've settled in?' The concept of Australian citizenship is effectively how we define what it is to be Australian. I believe that the changes that those opposite want to bring in actually undermine what it means to be Australian. It will change the way we define our country and ourselves, and I don't believe it's in the Australian spirit. I believe that the changes those opposite want to bring forward are not in the Australian spirit. It all comes down to what type of Australia do we want to be. Those opposite—probably they're a bit distressed about their lack of leadership, lack of vision for our country, lack of any new ideas other than taking from those with not much and giving it to the top end of town. I feel for them, in a way. It must be dispiriting to be a part of an organisation that is more about dividing the Australians than uniting Australians. While we are talking about social cohesion, those opposite are trying to bring forward a raft of changes that will mean that there is a group of people working and living in our society that, in reality, will never become Australians. I hope those opposite are not proud of that. It seems that this fear is crippling those opposite. In the face of this fear, we need to stand up, as I am doing today and as many on our side have been doing, to say these changes aren't helpful. We are a nation at a crossroads, in some ways. We could go down this track of disunity by dividing people by the level of university English they might have. Those opposite will continue to try to use reasons like national security. Our national security is far too important to be a plaything for those opposite to divide our country. All members agree that keeping Australia safe is vital, but have any of these changes been recommended by a security agency in this country? The answer is no. Will they stop people coming to our country? The answer is no. I'm not sure if those opposite are aware, but we actually want to build our country and build our society as we have from early in the 20th century when we had people coming from all around the world to literally build our cities and our society. The Prime Minister goes on and on about how we are such a successful multicultural community. Well, how did that happen? How did we become a successful multicultural community? Perhaps it was because we had an immigration program that we can be proud of that brought people into the country, screened them and brought them into our citizenship. Those opposite are deliberately trying to change a system that is not broken. They are trying to stand in front of flags and say it is part of national security. I, personally, find that a bit offensive. What is it actually going to do to improve national security? That's a fair enough question to ask. I can't see how it will do it. Commonsense says that, if those opposite were genuinely trying to improve national security, they would be looking at ways to create a community that is cohesive and united in itself against those who would do us harm, not creating a subclass of people who will never be able to proudly say, 'I am Australian'. Another reason, I have heard, for these are cruel changes is integration but this is not supported by these changes that those opposite seek to make. I have mentioned the Greek roofer in my electorate but I will also mention the Vietnamese horticultural community down in the rural area. This community of people came here after the Vietnam War and built a horticultural industry in that rural area that provides more output—more fruit and vegetable product—than the whole of the Ord system. Amazing, isn't it? Could they sit down and pass a university-level English test? Probably not. Some of them fought with our soldiers in the Vietnam War. They came out here as refugees. What does it say to those communities of people that we have taken into Australia? It says that we are going to deliberately change the rules of our country and our citizenship so that you are excluded and that, whilst your spouse or your children may be Australian, you will never be. So the entire basis of these changes is completely flawed. They don't make sense. They are immoral. They are fundamentally wrong. We need to remember that security agencies have not put these changes forward. There is no evidence to support these changes. We need to remember that we are the most successful multicultural society in the world for a reason, and that is that we have a great immigration program. To use language that's probably not Oxford-level, university-standard English: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Perhaps those opposite could reflect on the fact that dog-whistling on issues like this is on its way out because Australian values have shifted a bit from when Prime Minister Howard so expertly used division to get political success. In some ways, that was carried on a bit by the member for Warringah when he was the Prime Minister. But I think it also showed that it was not particularly successful then, and it's probably something that those opposite should reflect on, because it is not sending our country in the right direction. We want to have strength in diversity rather than division. Debate interrupted. PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS 18 PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS Speaker's Panel 18 11:12 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP I wish to make a brief statement. I thank the Speaker for his nomination of me as a member of the Speaker's panel. So that I can properly represent my constituents and advocate for my community, I will continue to exercise my deliberative vote. To that end, it is my intention to leave the chair before any division takes place. I thank the House. BILLS 18 BILLS Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 18

Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Second Reading 18 11:12 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo The Nick Xenophon Team cannot support the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 in its current form. The government has not shared with us the critical documents that will allow us to properly consider the proposed changes. We have not received a copy of the Australian values statement that the minister proposes to introduce via legislative instrument, nor have we received examples of the sorts of tests, English or otherwise, that prospective citizens would be required to pass. We cannot support a bill without being provided with all the relevant information. The Nick Xenophon Team is also particularly concerned about the very high bar that is being set for English language proficiency. We do not believe that it is reasonable or in the best interests of Australia if we are to continue to attract the best international talent to this country. The proposed IELTS band 6 English test requirement is higher than the entrance requirement for some Australian universities, and it's doubtful that many Australians who have English as their first language would ever be able to pass this test, let alone migrants who have English as their second or possibly third language. The language proficiency requirements of comparable nations to Australia do not require higher-than-university-standard English. The United States, for example, requires an ability to read, write and speak simple words and phrases in ordinary usage in the English language. In Canada, applicants must be able to demonstrate adequate knowledge of English or French, for which acceptable evidence includes completing of a secondary or postsecondary language program, or achieving level 4 out of 12 in the Canadian Language Benchmark test. The sorts of things that a level 4 can do include 'understand short social exchanges containing introductions, casual small talk and leave-taking', 'give a set of simple, common, routine instructions and directions to a familiar person', and 'understand short descriptive or narrative communication on topics of personal relevance'. Obviously a certain proficiency in English is necessary in order to enhance the contribution that every Australian and every new Australian can make to our country. You do need to be able to speak English in order to functionally communicate in this country—we understand that—and you need it to contribute meaningfully as an Australian citizen. But, as my colleague Senator Griff has said, many of us would know of migrants who have been amazing contributors to our community who have functional English but whose writing, grammar or spelling means that they would never be able to achieve the IELTS band 6 result. Furthermore, my colleague Senator Griff questioned whether all members of parliament would be able to pass such a test and said that they should also deeply consider whether their parents and grandparents would have been able to pass such a test—or, I might add, whether they would be able to pass the test now. Increasing the language test threshold would also create the perverse outcome that Australia would lose prospective high-quality migrants, entrepreneurs, professionals and hard workers, who want to come here and could contribute so much to our migrant country. Don't get me wrong: there is no greater gift that a country can give to a person than citizenship, and it must be something that we respect, we value and we treasure. But, in the citizenship ceremonies that I participate in, I can tell you: the migrants in my community most definitely respect, value and treasure the citizenship that they are offered. In fact, our whole community respects, values and treasures this. They are celebration times in my community. One of my local mayors enjoys our citizenship ceremonies so much and sees them as such a celebration that she ensures that there is a professional photographer to take family pictures of people who are receiving their citizenship, and she even bakes Anzac biscuits for all of the people attending. But I feel that a shadow has fallen over our community with this proposed legislation—certainly, there was not so much of a feeling of celebration at the last citizenship ceremony that I attended—and that is simply because of this legislation that is sitting here in this parliament. Australia has built its success on being a model, open society and, since the end of the White Australia policy, our country has drawn on the best talent from across the seas, not based on their skin colour, from people who seek to share in our democratic values—those values that make Australia a strong, pluralist and prosperous society. My colleagues in the Senate reserve their position on this bill, but the Nick Xenophon Team, at this point, cannot support this bill in its current form. 11:17 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle This is an important debate. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak as a representative of a place that is resolutely multicultural, a meeting place and a place of arrival—a place that has welcomed new Australians from all corners of the world for more than a century, and a significant meeting place for thousands of years before that. I am glad for this opportunity because Fremantle is a community that has struggled with questions of identity and inclusion in the past and has sometimes got those things wrong in the past—most grievously in relation to Indigenous Australians, but also in relation to new migrants. That struggle and that effort goes on, as it should. The need for greater inclusion and especially for reconciliation with Indigenous Australians continues, and it would be better for this parliament and this government to focus on those challenges rather than to seek to change our approach to citizenship in a way that is exclusionary. In his second reading speech on the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017, the minister said: Australians come from every culture, every race, every faith and every nation. Together we have built a modern and prosperous Australia. The success of our nation is based on our shared values, rights and responsibilities. We might each express the elements of our multicultural success slightly differently, but I don't think any of us would fundamentally disagree with that statement. The minister also said that we should never take that success for granted, and I agree, yet that is exactly what this bill does, by introducing changes that add nothing and that create nothing but instead are exclusionary, unwelcoming, discriminatory and distrustful. They are changes that will licence intolerance, especially in relation to people whose first language is not English. Changes to Australian citizenship should not be pursued or brought forward in this way, through an approach to lawmaking that is partisan, bad in process and bad in spirit. Australian citizenship should not be knocked around by changes that are substantially purposeless, changes that will do harm and will likely have an effect that is the opposite of the bill's stated intention, and changes that are contrary to our values. You cannot make something true simply by saying it, irrespective of the language in which it is said. This bill is not about strengthening Australian citizenship; it is about this government, in a time of weakness, using our citizenship to make a show of being tough. Citizenship is not a matter of administrative efficiency or service delivery or the allocation of resources. Citizenship is about identity and culture. Citizenship is a matter of profound significance to the individual. It's not too difficult to understand that. I would hope that all of us in this place, in addition to understanding it intellectually, might make an effort to understand it emotionally too. I know of people for whom achieving Australian citizenship has been a life saver, for whom crossing that threshold meant passing into a state of long-awaited and almost unimaginable security, peace of mind, acceptance and belonging. Of course, that brings with it thankfulness and even, I think, a secular experience of grace, a sense of the world as a place in which peace and freedom and equality and wellbeing can be a normal, stable, state of affairs. Not surprisingly, from this experience there often springs a desire to be involved, to contribute, to bond and to give back. In my former role as Deputy Mayor of Fremantle, I had the privilege of presiding over citizenship ceremonies from time to time, and I regularly attend those ceremonies now. I think it is characteristic of Australia that our civic rituals are quite plain and relaxed with little in terms of pomp and usually a line somewhere along the way of good humour and even self-deprecation. At the city of Cockburn, the Reverend Sealin Garlett always gives a wise, down-to-earth and moving welcome to country. Naturally, he has a perspective that gathers all of those who have come to this continent from across the water into a sequence of relatively recent arrivals. He always speaks to the new citizens in the language of our country, the language of the Noongar people of the Wajuk nation, and he translates into English too, which is helpful for us those of us who don't speak one of the many Australian languages. Like all aspects of our national identity, our citizenship evolves. While citizenship carries with it a set of mutual rights and obligations, and while it rightly presumes a commitment to common values, it is also an ever-changing sum of all those who share in it, and every person who takes citizenship is equal in holding that status. I think it is worth observing that the nature of having and the process of acquiring citizenship are rich with ironies. For Indigenous people, the idea that a fourth- or fifth- or sixth- or seventh-generation Australian might regard their citizenship as going miles deep into the bedrock of this nation probably seems to lack a certain amount of temporal perspective. While there might be a tendency to regard a person born into Australian citizenship as possessing a more fundamental Australian character than a person who migrates to this country, in reality it is the new arrival who has made an active decision to be a member of this community. It is the new citizen who has made an explicit commitment to citizenship. No-one who has it from birth takes a test or is required to make an oath of allegiance. On the surface, this bill is about extending the time frame in which citizenship can be sought and achieved. It is about making the language requirements more difficult. It is about changing the way we test and assess the values and allegiance of prospective citizens. On that question of delay, no particular reason has been given as to why this change is for the better. There is no evidence or advice from security agencies that argues for this change. It is already the case that citizenship processes have been slowed down administratively under this government. I am sure that every person in this place has been approached in the last year by people who cannot understand the delay that exists between completing the requirements and having citizenship granted. As a result of the government's posturing on migration and citizenship policy, people around this country have been put into a state of anxiety. People are worried that they won't be able to become citizens. They're worried that the government will further change migration law, which is a fair concern based on recent experience, and that their place here, their safety here, in this, their new home, will be imperilled. Again, I would encourage people to imagine what that anxiety must be like. The proposed change to English language requirements is being justified on the basis of some pretty common-sense observations by the Productivity Commission to the extent that English language skills help people participate more fully in Australian life, which is also good for the economy. There's no evidence that university-level English is needed for that to occur. If the government were genuine about helping new migrants and new citizens to improve their English, it would do better to provide more-flexible and higher quality resources for this to occur. To the extent that a tougher English test will function as a general obstacle and an obstacle that discriminates against people from non-English-speaking countries, against women, against single parents and against people who choose to live in rural or regional Australia, it is ridiculous and it is wrong. From the contributions of my colleagues—I am thinking specifically of the contribution by Labor's deputy leader, the member for Sydney—and from my engagement with civil society groups that support new migrants, I know that the proposal to seriously toughen the English language test will have the effect of keeping people from acquiring Australian citizenship. I am aware of migrants from war-torn countries who now live in the south-west of WA. They have become close and active members of their local communities, but their opportunity to receive English language education is limited. The only Australian Migrant English Program class in Mount Barker, for example, is available for 3½ hours per week. It covers all levels from pre-cert I up to cert III. That is less than one hour per level. The fact is that both the curriculum and the current resourcing of the AMEP are not sufficient to enable people to acquire English skills at the IELTS 6 level, and there is no logic in requiring that standard of proficiency. Under this bill, we can be confident that the kind of change this bill proposes will licence the kind of prejudice that sees people shout 'Speak English!' at new migrants, or at people with an accent or at anyone who sounds a little different. It is that kind of conduct, it is that kind of aggression, that is fundamentally un-Australian. It is hard to know where to start in relation to the changes that are supposed to make people conform more strenuously to Australian values, or else through some test or life assessment trip up those who might have slipped through with incompatible values. I think it is worth observing that you can't make anyone hold a particular value simply by making them say it. If a test requires people to do one thing or another in pursuit of something they want to achieve, chances are they will find a way to give the right answers. But the manner in which any society decides to test or assess—or even assert—national values says a lot about that society's confidence and trust in those values. I strongly believe that Australian values, which are enduring but not immutable, actually include being welcoming, trusting, open to change and outward-looking. I am personally confident that the Australian way of life speaks for itself, that it is compelling on its own terms and that it doesn't need to be taught or memorised. This question of pursuing a higher degree of allegiance, for what it's worth, has made me reflect on my experience in other places. I went to junior high school in Long Island, New York, in the mid 1980s, and every morning the school day began with students standing to pledge allegiance to the American flag. I was only in school for less than a year, but I can still recite the pledge, which I am just quoting, not pledging, when I say: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. As an Australian, I did not stand or take that pledge, but after a few weeks my home room teacher asked me if I would consider doing so. She said that it was making the kids uncomfortable, even though I explained I did not think it was really appropriate as a visiting Australian. I was a 12-year-old, and I agreed to stand out of respect and in order to fit in. But it did make me wonder how much the other students really understood the purpose and meaning of the pledge and why it was that even mild and easily-explained nonconformity created so much discomfort. I have affection for the United States; it is, still, a substantially open and pluralist society. It is increasingly multicultural and it contains multitudes. It is not for me to question how America chooses to practice civic rituals and observances. But I think it is fair to say that notwithstanding that daily pledge, there isn't, demonstrably, more liberty or more justice in the US than in Australia or in other similar social democracies. Here in Australia, to become a citizen you make a pledge or take an oath. I think that the text of that commitment is a simple and true expression of Australian values and of the rights and responsibilities that come with citizenship. I am quite certain, however, that making such a pledge more frequent, or extensive or vehement will have no particular effect on people's values or their allegiance. At citizenship ceremonies, I have had the honour of reading that text and asking people repeat it after me. I have watched on the faces of men, women and children the joy, and sometimes the enormous relief, as they become Australian citizens. I am quite certain the form of their pledges and the standard of their language skills make them eminently suitable new Australians. Needless to say, I oppose this bill and I will support Labor's amendments. To finish, I want to return to what I said at the beginning about the ways in which the Fremantle community has previously dealt with the issues of identity and inclusion. During the course of the Second World War, it was decided that people from certain countries should be classed as enemy aliens. In Fremantle, that included residents with Italian heritage even if they had been born in Australia or long naturalised. By August 1940, more than 1,000 Italians in Western Australia, many of them from Fremantle, had been interned. By 1944, there would be nearly 1,500. They were held at Rottnest Island and in Fremantle jail, before many were moved to a bush camp at Harvey. Those men were removed from their families for years. In many cases, their shops and businesses were ruined. Even those who were allowed to stay in the community were prevented from leasing or buying land; obtaining bank loans; travelling; or owning torches, radios, cameras, trucks and tractors. The effect of this policy—where we turned on ourselves, gave into fear and prejudice and irrationally treated people as enemy aliens—is still felt in the Freo community today. Let's not drift down that path again. Let's be very careful not to take the success of our tolerant, multicultural nation for granted. In the end, there is simply no case for the changes the government has proposed in this bill. Claims that the bill is about improving national security are without basis. Such claims should not be made. I have heard members opposite start their contribution to this debate by saying the government's primary role is to keep Australians safe. This bill has nothing to do with that—nothing. I repeat: there is no security analysis or advice on which these proposed changes are based, they do not respond to a present danger and they will not make Australians safer. Anyone who spouts that rubbish is kidding themselves; they are perpetrating a fraud on their communities and on Australia more broadly. The politics of fear is really the politics of desperation, of cowardice. Australian citizenship belongs to us all. It is precious as a matter of individual and collective identity. Its meaning is self-evident. The values inherent in Australian citizenship are transmitted in part through our confidence that fairness, tolerance, freedom and equality do not need to be rote learned or drilled in because they speak loudly for themselves. 11:32 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro This legislation is a classic example of an answer in search of a question. Really, what are we talking about here? We have had a thin veneer of suggestions and insinuations made in the course of this debate that reflect on issues of national security and patriotism. It reminds me of the old expression that 'patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel'. When it comes to national security, I defer to no-one in this chamber. I have spent the last 35 years of my life immersed in the security affairs of this nation. Nothing is more important to me than the safety of our people and our contribution, as good international citizens, to the safety of the world. In that context, I served 20 years in the Army and 10 years in the Reserves. When I was in the Army, I deployed to places like Somalia, Bosnia and Timor. I spent a year in Iraq. In government, I had responsibility for the transition of our operations in Afghanistan and spent a lot of time there. I have spent a great deal of my life immersed in the issues of internal conflict, civil war, counter-insurgency and terrorism. Above all, the one lesson I learnt from that experience is the importance of building social cohesion as the means to achieving national security. The genius of Australia has been in the success of our multiculturalism and how we have constructed that. So what is broken that the government is trying to fix? They always talk about our multicultural society as being a shining light to the world. And we have reiterated time and again the comments of David Irvine, the former Director-General of ASIO, who was at pains to point out that, for example, our Muslim community is the first line of defence against terrorism and has been of great assistance in that effort. We have managed to achieve that by being inclusive, by opening our hearts and our arms to citizens of nations other than ours and by making something of that process. I was just at a citizenship ceremony a couple of weeks ago, and to watch the faces of those people who voluntarily entered into that process of wanting to become Australian and the effect of that process itself in building their investment in this enterprise of ours—this Australia. To me, the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 does the opposite. This attempt to change the citizenship process in this country is about exclusion and not inclusion. That is the heart of this effort at what is contained in this legislation. Instead of that message of inclusion and instead of that message of our appreciation of the multicultural and multilingual benefits that we had from the immigration process, we are sending the message, 'No, there're people out there that we want to make life harder for, that we are not confident in in being citizens of this country.' I look at the various stories told, certainly, by members on this side and all of us of that experience in our electorates. Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, I know that in your own electorate you have this multicultural experience well reflected there. We've heard talk of the Snowy Mountains Scheme, for example, which sits in my electorate, which was the birthplace of the great multicultural expansion post Second World War where 100,000 migrants came to help build that scheme over those decades. All of them stayed in Eden-Monaro. In Cooma, for example, 15 per cent of the community—a country town—were born overseas. It's still quite a high level and does not mention those who are descendants of those who came here and helped build that multicultural society. In Queanbeyan 18.4 per cent were born overseas. Our communities in Queanbeyan are such a wonderful part of what we have been able to create in marrying up the great sense of community, the benefits of a country town and the richness and diversity of those cultural groups that have come to us. There is a complete rainbow in Queanbeyan. It is the most cosmopolitan town in New South Wales outside of Sydney. We take great pride and joy in the community and cultural celebrations of that. The one big event of the year that brings it all together is the Carnivale in beautiful Queanbeyan Park, where we celebrate the music, the dancing and the food of all those groups. I take particular great interest in traversing those food stalls on that day! It is probably not in the best interest of my health, but it is beautiful food. It is a great example of the rich tapestry. In country areas like mine quilting is a popular pastime. It is a big part of our rural culture. What we have done in Australia is very much like a beautiful patchwork quilt. We've taken those magnificent, colourful individual panels and we've stitched them together to create this wonderful whole. That takes love, patience, persistence and perseverance. To keep that success story rolling, we must continually work at this issue, constantly, in the signals that we send and the way we build this community. I also look at the electorate of the Prime Minister himself, who has become the quintessential hollow man through the abandonment of all the principles he once espoused in these gesture politics that we've seen—like the pointless paper plebiscite or the overused wet leaf in abusing and cajoling the banks and the electricity companies. And how is that going? In relation to our national security, we have the issues that have emerged out of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia with 50,000 breaches of money laundering provisions—directly associated with our national security, by the way—in funding terrorists. Where is the royal commission into that? Why isn't there more focus on that issue than this pointless paper exercise? I come back to the Prime Minister's electorate. There are Holocaust survivors in his electorate who have gone to make magnificent contributions to this country. One in particular, Frank Lowy, who delivered the inaugural Australian Multicultural Council lecture in Canberra on 20 September 2012, who became one of our most success businessmen, creating great benefit to our economy and jobs and becoming a great philanthropist, came here as a refugee boy and a self-described boat person fleeing the Nazis. His father died in Auschwitz. He said he could hardly speak English. And what did he go on to achieve? His line on this was he wanted a more muscular approach to civics education, to teach everyone—not just those seeking citizenship or immigrants but the whole nation. There is a great deficiency in our system in teaching all of us civics and the values of our democracy. He also said, while it may be handy for a newcomer to know that Don Bradman was our greatest cricketer, it would be far more useful to have a bedrock understanding of what it means to be a citizen. That's one of the Prime Minister's own constituents, and he should draw from that experience. That's the sort of thing we need to embrace and encourage. When they talk about values, what is it that they're going on about? Are we looking to the coalition to teach us values—the values of how people are treated on Manus and Nauru, or the values of how they treated veterans and pensioners in trying to cut their pensions, creating an underclass in this society? Are those the values that we're supposed to imbibe? Interestingly, in these questions, I was really interested to see some of the effective brainwashing propaganda that they're trying to put out as part of their so-called values. One of these was on so-called clean coal technology in these questions as part of the test. I'll just read a couple of paragraphs out of that to give you the flavour of this. It says: The worldwide coal industry allocates extensive resources to researching and developing new technologies and ways of capturing greenhouse gases. Efficiencies are likely to be improved dramatically, and hence CO2 emissions reduced, through combustion and gasification techniques which are now at pilot and demonstration stages. Clean coal is another avenue for improving fuel conversion efficiency. Investigations are under way into super-clean coal … and ultraclean coal … Super-clean coal has the potential to enhance the combustion efficiency of conventional pulverised fuel power plants. Ultraclean coal will enable coal to be used in advanced power systems such as coal-fired gas turbines which, when operated in combined cycle, have the potential to achieve much greater efficiencies. Defendants of mining point out that, environmentally, coal mining has two important factors in its favour. It makes only temporary use of the land and produces no toxic chemical wastes. By carefully preplanning projects, implementing pollution control measures, monitoring the effects of mining and rehabilitating mined areas, the coal industry minimises the impact on the neighbouring community, the immediate environment and long-term land capability. Tremendous propaganda. This looks like something straight out of North Korea. Then, of course, the questions go on to try to embed that and emphasise that, in a brainwashing exercise. One example is: Compared with ordinary coal, new, ‘clean’ coals may generate power A more cleanly and more efficiently. B more cleanly but less efficiently. C more cleanly but at higher cost. D more cleanly but much more slowly. This is the sort of thing that we're seeing. Is this the type of exercise we want to put our people through in achieving citizenship? Let alone trying to understand that, because we know for a fact that hardly anyone on the coalition side does understand the issues. Otherwise we would have seen them embrace and act much more quickly and effectively on their own Finkel review, and we're still waiting. I might point out, of course, that the Finkel review emphasised that they needed to make a decision on clean energy technology, and that particular aspect of the recommendations was immediate: in the time line that it set for its recommendations, that was at the zero-month mark. Well, that zero-month mark has well and truly passed. So, in terms of the values, the information and the education standards, we don't get filled with confidence at the approach of this government to dealing with those issues. Specifically in this legislation, one of the other values we'd be looking for would be emphasising the rule of law. We hear a lot about that from the coalition. What does this legislation do? It takes the minister out of the purview of review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, so what we're seeing is that the minister himself will be beyond the scope of merits review. So where's the democratic value or the rule of law emphasis in that? That's one of the things coming back to my own personal experience of these war-torn areas with these great civil disruptions. You can introduce elections and you can produce legislation, but what I learned in particular was that democracy was about a culture of democracy, the values grown over many, many decades and through many, many ways; it is deep and extensive in how a society operates. What we are seeing from this government is a complete lack of understanding of that issue and in that approach. This legislation will not do what they believe or claim it will do. It will only place more barriers in the way of building a cohesive society, where we have people enlisted in our vision and prepared to fight, die, defend, work for and imbibe the cultural values of our community. And that involves us working at all levels to embrace them, to respect their cultures, to value the fact they have other language skills. We are one of the worst countries in the world for depth of language skills. We should be embracing these people's skills and helping them to help others in this community to learn those skills. We should be out there asking them, 'What's the term for X, Y or Z', building our own appreciation. That's how we also build trade, how we build goodwill internationally, how we build our diplomatic capabilities: through those multicultural bases and communities. I had many conversations when I was out advocating for Australia to get a seat on the Security Council, and conducted multiple activities in Africa and at the UN with my friend Jose Ramos-Horta. In reaching out to those communities and those countries, quite often the discussions revolved around the communities we had here in Australia that were making such a difference and who were so welcome to us. Those arguments and that understanding of Australia as a multicultural country, an embracing country, made a big difference in that an endeavour. One of the more embarrassing moments I had in my life was during the Tampa affair. I was in the UN headquarters in Dili, working with Norwegian and UNHCR officers. This was the beginning of a period where they started to question Australia's bona fides in that respect. It's been the coalition that has been undermining that, undermining the standing that we have in the world in that respect. This will be taken as yet another step in the wrong direction in that tendency and that trend by this coalition. I would urge the government to rethink that. I know there are good people on that side who have argued against this, who have constituencies like the member for Reid's and who will understand that it's not going down well. It fits in the same category as that 18C assault. They need to forget this, move on and work with us to build a better Australia. 11:47 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin Australian values. We've heard a lot about them this week from government members. We've heard a lot of hypocrisy and a lot of cant as, in this place, in Australia's parliament, they've been trashing a core Australian value: that of representative democracy. It is clear now that the only thing our craven Prime Minister really values is clinging onto his office. Not to power, because it's pretty clear he has very little of that, but to office. The people who three years ago supported the right to be a bigot, have now gone several steps further. They have licenced further bigotry in walking away from parliamentary democracy when it comes to equal marriage because the Prime Minister is too weak to do what he knows to be right—that is, for this parliament to do its job, for its members to be allowed to make a law in support of another great Australian value, that of equality. How we treat one another is at the very heart of what it means to be Australian. It is to me, anyway. I'll state my attitude to Australian values: I cherish our egalitarianism and I cherish our diversity. So, too, the PM apparently. He says often that we are the most successful multicultural society. He's right. And he's also right to say so. But these words have been belied by his actions and by those of his government, which have undermined our multiculturalism and undermined our social cohesion already. We remember, on this side of the House, the awful hurt inflicted by the 18C campaign, the incessant dog whistling. These have been steps to the journey that has taken us to this unnecessary and deeply unhelpful and divisive legislation. We have before the House a proposal designed to fundamentally create two classes of Australians, to make citizenship more difficult to obtain for some people, but not others. Generally, these are vulnerable people: people who have entered Australia through humanitarian programs or as refugees. This is not my sense of Australian values. Of course, what it means to be Australian is an important question and one which should inform our careful consideration of how we approach Australian citizenship as a matter of law, but this government has this the wrong way round. As the member for Eden-Monaro said, this bill is 'an answer in search of a question.' Here's a history lesson for members opposite: values evolve. The views of our founding fathers—indeed, the absence from the records of our founding mothers—show the journey that Australian views have undergone. The views of those men cause me great discomfort in many respects. My own party—our own party—saw the world very differently at the time of Federation than we do today. I'm pleased that our values and Australia's values have developed, that we have seen things and people differently, that we have resolved to expand the boundaries of social, economic and political participation of our social compact and, indeed, of citizenship. Let us have this conversation and use it to inform any reform we make to our formal recognition of citizenship. Let's not go through a hurtful, divisive and unwarranted process such as this. What this bill and this debate show us, sadly, is that members opposite are not really conservatives so much as they are reactionaries. They are not concerned about preserving Australia's values, no matter what the Prime Minister may say of multiculturalism, but about winding back the clock. I felt privileged to have been here for the contribution of my friend the member for Fremantle, who spoke very movingly of what exactly winding the clock back means for too many Australians. But winding back the clock is at the core of this bill in its presentation, in the journey it has taken to get here and in its substance, and so I am very proud to join all my Labor colleagues in opposing the bill. It is a wide-ranging and very complex piece of legislation. Many of those matters it seeks to address deserves careful scrutiny, so I look forward to the consideration of the Senate inquiry and those recommendations, but some of its core components must be rejected outright. I refer in particular to the question of the English language requirement which is imposed—and I will go on to make some further comments about that—and the pointless imposition of a delay for people who are already permanent residents being able to progress their citizenship. I am also deeply concerned about some other aspects of the bill and in particular the expansion of the discretionary powers of the minister. Such an expansion would be troubling in any set of circumstances but under this minister is doubly so, particularly—indeed, this was touched upon briefly by the member for Eden-Monaro—in circumstances where discretionary power is increased and accountability is diminished. We are seeing fewer checks on the executive authority. The Liberal Party used to be concerned about these matters. The Liberal Party used to be concerned about rights. They have put all of these things in the dustbin of history. On that matter again I raise one other specific concern about the bill, and that is, of course, its retrospective operation. It has ordinarily been a principle that laws having retrospective effect should present a particular standard of justification as to why such effect is to be given. No such justification has been given. More broadly, justification for the measures set out in this bill is lacking to say the very least. The submission by the Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law is more generous than I would be in expressing its support for what it described as the 'broad objectives' of the bill, by which I take them to mean some of the words spoken by the minister in his second reading contribution and in particular those references to social cohesion. But in their very useful submission they go on to say: …we do not believe that the measures adopted in the Bill address these objectives in a proportionate and evidence-based manner. This is particularly problematic because the proposed changes have significant implications for prospective citizens, their families and society more broadly. Given these implications, it is incumbent on the government to justify why these changes put forward are necessary. But of course they have not even tried—not the minister in the long journey since these changes were initially flagged many months ago and not in contributions to the debate by government members. This isn't good enough. The citizenship law is absolutely fundamental. It is the bedrock of our society as well as our democracy. We deserve, and Australians deserve, to have the case for change made. One justification that has been offered by government members makes recourse to national security. But of course there is no evidence before us to suggest that any of the provisions contained in this bill were supported by our national security agencies or by reference to advice from those agencies. Going to the wider objective, the critical question of supporting our national security through bolstering social cohesion: it is fine for government members to speak of fostering social cohesion, but I am concerned that this bill, in substance and in the manner in which it has been brought before the parliament, will have the opposite effect to supporting social cohesion. This is a concern shared by many others—indeed, by most stakeholders, including the Kaldor Centre. These questions of process are important. I spoke earlier about the significance of working through the values that should inform citizenship and its place in our society and our democracy. This has to be a conversation, a two-way process—a dialogue. Yet we saw the absurdity of a submission process that was closed in terms of civil-society actors and, indeed, our capacity to consider the views of many community members. Going to the substance of the bill: there were two elements of the bill that many of my colleagues have spoken of, one being the English language requirement, and the member for Cowan drew on her personal experience in terms of teaching English. On this English language requirement, there are a couple of points that I should make in addition to those made by my colleagues. I think all of us in this place see the importance of conversational English. We see that in terms of social participation and of economic participation, of course. But, if the government were serious about supporting people in the process of seeking citizenship improving their English language skills, perhaps they might start by offering some support to people to further their English language skills development; instead, decisions made by this government, sadly, take us in the opposite direction. There is no warrant for the level at which the standard is to be set under this proposition. That is a matter that has been very clearly articulated by the member for Watson and the member for Cowan and many others on this side of the debate, and it is striking that government members have not sought to rebut these evidence-based propositions and, instead, have resorted to the rhetoric of their talking points. Then, of course, we have the delay, which does not recognise the existing requirements as to permanent residency. We have here a substantial change that sends a very disturbing message to many people, and to many of my constituents in particular—absent any sense of a wider purpose or, indeed, of a particular warrant in respect of the circumstances. This is extraordinary legislation from a government that is supposed to be about smaller government—absolutely extraordinary. The concerns that have been expressed by almost all those stakeholders who speak for and with multicultural communities deserve to be heard in this place and in the other place. I made a submission in respect of this piece of legislation because of the depth of anxiety in the communities that I represent, and I want to place on the record the sense of betrayal of many older members of the communities which make up the Scullin electorate. They have often been in Australia for a very long period of time and have made very substantial contributions to our community and our society but feel the imposition of this language test sends a message that somehow their citizenship is less worthy and that they would not have been afforded the rights they have today, a status that is so important to them, if they had arrived here some years later. This is a terrible message to send to people and one of the many reasons why this bill must be rejected. I'm disturbed to have heard, in the course of debate here, government members mischaracterise citizenship and look at this as a privilege. Well, if that is the case, why are we seeking to impose different standards on different classes of people? There are privileges that are connected to citizenship, and certainly, for me, it has been a great privilege, as someone who acquired Australian citizenship through the circumstances of being born here to Australian parents, to have attended many citizenship ceremonies and seen what the journey means to so many people I am very proud to represent in this place. For me, those ceremonies in the Shire of Nillumbik, in Diamond Valley, in Eltham or at the City of Whittlesea or South Morang have been absolute highlights of the time I have been a member of this place. To see what it means to people to join the Australian community is something which is extraordinary. To see this government, absent any justification, seek to impose unnecessary hurdles in the way of them seeking to make real and full their commitment to this country is a retrograde, unnecessary and, frankly, offensive step. So I say again I am proud to stand here in opposition to this legislation along with every one of my Labor colleagues. I look forward to the comments that will be provided through the process of the Senate inquiry on some of those more technical questions, but this is not how we should be making laws of this nature. The government has not made the case for any of these changes. I stand here proud of our multiculturalism and to represent such a wonderfully diverse community. I say to the members of that community that I stand here ready to fight for multiculturalism and for all of my constituents, wherever they may have been born 12:02 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I want to join with my Labor parliamentary colleagues and oppose the changes in the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. I do so because the government's proposed changes quite simply, as far as I'm concerned, are unwarranted, and I don't believe that there is any evidence-based reason for changes to the Citizenship Act. These changes, on the contrary, stand to undo all the great work we as a country have done to date to create the sort of social cohesion that has resulted in a successful, contemporary, multicultural Australian society. These changes are nothing short of divisive. As they appear to have been solely designed to deliberately exclude people, not to include them, it's a bill about exclusion, not inclusion. These changes present a calculated and harsh hurdle to Australian citizenship, one that has never been attempted by any other government. It's a 'little Australia' bill that bucks the visionary aspiration of Australia's nation-building project. I have the opportunity to attend many citizenship ceremonies in my electorate of Calwell. Having an electorate that has the highest intake of refugees historically, and more recently the highest intake from Syria and Iraq, and a very large multicultural community made up of established migrants and second and third-generation migrants, means that I have had the opportunity of seeing thousands of locals, migrants and refugees take up with great pride their Australian citizenship. Australian citizenship ceremonies in my electorate are incredibly important family and community occasions, and they're always filled with excitement, with joy and with pride. I personally really enjoy attending citizenship ceremonies. Each time they bring back precious memories for me personally, as they remind me of my own experience when I became an Australian citizen alongside my parents. At our local citizenship ceremonies, I see so many of my constituents embarking on what they see as a new chapter in their life here in Australia. I see their pride and the sense of achievement from the moment I shake their hand and offer them the Australian flag, which they so proudly hold, embrace and wave while they pledge allegiance to their new home and when they sing our national anthem for the first time. Each new citizen thanks me, their federal member, for the honour that we as Australia have bestowed on them by allowing them to become citizens and welcoming them as equals to our multicultural family. They are indeed grateful. They are excited. And many of them, who have come from war-torn countries, see this moment of citizenship as an anchor to a place of safety, stability and egalitarianism. Each and every time our newly minted Australian citizens look forward to participating in our democratic process. In fact, I am astounded at how quick they are to fill out their AEC form so they can get on the roll. And nothing is more moving than the children who stand next to the parents, in whom I see, reflected in their presence, the future of this country. Throughout this debate, I've thought about my own family, the people I grew up with and indeed my constituents more broadly. I think about how demeaning it would be to be excluded from attaining citizenship because you can't get to level IELTS 6 of the standard English test or how frustrating it would be to have to be told that you have to wait for a longer period of time now because the government has arbitrarily decided that you need more years to prove yourself. I think about the people who will never overcome this insurmountable hurdle proposed by this legislation. I genuinely do wonder: what is this all about? The preamble to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 states: … citizenship is a common bond … uniting all Australians … Citizenship is not only a legal contract; it's also of enormous symbolic significance that all of us are united and equal as Australians. Citizenship should not be reserved exclusively for those who happen to speak university-level English, while those of us who don't are to be relegated to some purgatory of Australian citizenship. I want to refer to the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia's submission to the Senate inquiry into the citizenship changes, where they state that this bill 'will dramatically change the rules determining qualification for Australian citizenship'. From my own personal experience, and also from the feedback I've received from the people in my electorate, this bill, which purports to expedite integration because of the level of English it imposes and to somehow protect our Australian values and cultures and even our national security, will actually be doing the opposite. It will compromise the multicultural society that millions of migrants have worked so hard to build over the decades. This is not a spurious view held by me or my Labor colleagues. It is the view of people who have skin in the game on the issue of integration, the migrant communities across this country and in my own electorate, from the English to the Dutch, the Italians, the Greeks, the Turks, the Yugoslavs—in fact, all of Arthur Calwell's new Australians, who have come from generations of migrants whose biggest contribution to this nation as citizens was to build this country. They did it without university-level English. There were thousands of young postwar migrants, many of whom worked on the iconic Snowy Mountains Scheme, my father-in-law included. In fact, many of them built their lives and their fortunes with very little English at all. As a matter of fact, under this bill—I've thought about this—my parents would never have become Australian citizens. Never. They had little education in Greece. They came to Australia as adults with a young family. They worked very hard day and night and did not have the capacity to learn English. However, they built a life for their family, they bought property and they educated both of their daughters to university level. In fact, one of those daughters ended up being in this place as a federal member of parliament. But God only knows where all that lifelong contribution would have gone had they been denied Australian citizenship. Maybe they would have been forced to 'go back to where they came from', as a former member of this House infamously once said. Australia has managed to get along with the process of nation-building and integration and has done it with many of us speaking variations of English, whether it is mother tongue English, university-level English, basic English or conversational English. In fact, the Greek-Australians have even developed their own idiom here in Australia. We call it Greeklish. It's actually quite funny but reflective of the reality of living in Australia. My point is that Australians have gotten along quite fine, thank you very much, and have been able to communicate and collaborate with each other with whatever English level they have able to them. You know what? Their commitment to Australia has been all the better for it. I believe we are the most successful multicultural society in the world. Even our Prime Minister used to say that once upon a time. But we didn't become this by accident or by punitive measures. The truth is that access to Australian citizenship has been fundamental to developing an inclusive and cohesive society, yet our own Prime Minister seems to have had a change of mind on this issue. Perhaps he has been convinced otherwise by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. In fact, the Prime Minister is now saying that this bill 'will ensure that many people who had not learnt English or had not been encouraged to learn English will do so.' You know what we are doing, he says? We're doing them a big favour. Leaving aside the somewhat patronising undertone, this is a very narrow and short-sighted prerequisite for citizenship. I want to make on thing clear: in opposing this bill I am not for a minute suggesting people who want to become citizens of Australia or who want to live here and become integrated in our community should not learn English. I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I do believe that being able to speak the English language is important to getting around, belonging and integrating. I really do. Our settlement services do a great job of providing English language classes to new migrants who want to become citizens. Historically, we have provided English language classes and helped people learn the English language since the days of Australia's first immigration minister, Arthur Calwell. The issue here is not learning the English language. The issue here is the standard of English, the IELTS level 6 university English that is being used to decide whether or not you can become an Australian citizen. That's the issue. The government appears to want to raise the bar so high that, in doing so, it will make citizenship tests insurmountable for many hardworking people, including many in my electorate. The Refugee Council of Australia has said of this bill: The current Bill would disproportionately affect refugees, and it would fundamentally alter the nature of Australian citizenship. The proposals in the Bill would effectively convert citizenship policy from being a tool of inclusion to a tool of exclusion. For those people in my electorate who have already been waiting for citizenship to come through, these changes also propose another hurdle. The government now wants them to wait another three years or so to get citizenship, causing further uncertainty and angst. The government, of course, will argue that new migrants and refugees need to work harder to integrate. They need to wait longer and learn not only to speak English but to speak university-level English before they are allowed to become citizens. Yet to the people of my electorate, especially the ones born overseas, becoming an Australian citizen was instrumental and fundamental to their sense of belonging. The people in my electorate are proof that you don't need university-level English to become a good Australian. The people of Calwell and their children are proof we should not use Australian citizenship as a tool to exclude people, nor to reaffirm our values. Our values are reaffirmed in the daily lives of my constituents. I believe FECCA is right when it is suggested this bill will permanent underclass of Australian residents who will be denied the rights and opportunities of being welcomed and included as Australian citizens. These changes, if they pass this House and are enacted, are set to exclude a whole cohort of people because of a language test that even many Australian-born citizens would find difficult to successfully complete. This is a view shared by the Australian Human Rights Commission, who said, 'Many Australia-born citizens would not possess a written or spoken command of English equivalent to this standard.' I want to thank all the civil society organisations such as FECCA, the many people in my electorate and others who are standing up and defending our rights because, quite frankly, I do not think the government is. I don't think this is just a case of snobbery. I don't even think it is a case of elitism, although it has been referred as such. I think this is blatant racism. It may sound harsh, but as far as I am concerned this is blatant racism by a government that stands to do one thing, and that is to divide the Australian community. I will finish with where I started. It leaves me to continue to ask the question that a lot of people in the Australian community are asking: what really is the point of these proposed changes? What is the point of this legislation? It does not add to our social cohesion; in fact, it is the antithesis of this. These changes will compromise our multicultural society. These changes take away the egalitarian nature of the Aussie way of life and thinking. These changes are detrimental and dangerous to a safe and cohesive Australian society. This is not the way a progressive, forward-thinking country behaves in a global community. 12:17 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. I would like to start by acknowledging the fine words of the member for Calwell, Maria Vamvakinou, who has a much greater understanding of citizenship than I will ever have. I thank her for her great words. There are many ways to become an Australian. Some of us were born here, and we can thank our parents and grandparents for that. Some Indigenous Australians have around 3,250 generations before them, as proud members of the oldest civilisation on earth. Some of us were born elsewhere to parents who were Australian. Some came to Australia later as children or adults choosing to make Australia home. Being born here doesn't necessarily make you a better Australian than someone who has chosen to make their home here. In fact, the opposite is often true. Those Australians who have made a conscious decision to make Australia their home and pledge allegiance to this nation often value their citizenship more than someone who has received it at birth. Citizenship is important. It has important implications for those who hold it and also, sadly, for those who do not. The preamble to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 says: … Australian citizenship represents full and formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia, and Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians, while respecting their diversity. As an Australian citizen, you do not require a visa to live in Australia. You have the right and, in fact, the obligation to vote in elections—not in postal surveys, but in elections. You can access government support programs that aren't available to non-citizens. As Australian citizens, we take for granted these rights and responsibilities. But for those who do not have citizenship, they can be priceless and cruelly out of reach. Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I attend many citizenship ceremonies. In Moreton, they are held regularly. I am always overwhelmed by the excitement and pride displayed by our brand new citizens, these proud new Aussies. In fact, I would say it is the best part of this job to be involved in these citizenship ceremonies. These ceremonies are a chance to celebrate the importance of Australian citizenship, to welcome new Aussies and, for the rest of us and those attending, to reflect on what it actually means to be Australian. I have had many, many occasions to reflect on what being Australian means to me. These things I hold dear: respect for the rule of law; respect for parliamentary democracy, and a parliament that does its job; and Australian values such as mateship, a fair go for all and offering a helping hand. Having a unique Australian identity which transcends skin colour and religion makes us the most successful multicultural nation in the world. But this piece of legislation, brought in by the Turnbull government, makes sweeping changes to the eligibility requirements for people seeking Australian citizenship. More than that, this bill proposes changes to the definition of what it is to be Australian and what sort of country we will become. The changes of most concern to me are the new English language test—and I say that as someone who taught English for 11 years and has an honours degree in literature—and the increase in the period of time that permanent residents must live in Australia before they can become citizens. The announcement by Prime Minister Turnbull of these proposed changes has caused immense stress to many residents of Moreton. Moreton is a vibrant, culturally diverse community—and 46 per cent of those who live in Moreton were not born in Australia. Compare that to the whole percentage of those born overseas, which is 28 per cent. Moreton has a large Chinese community, Taiwanese, Indians, former Yugoslavs, Pacific islanders, Somalians, Eritreans, Ethiopians, Sudanese, Rwandans, Filipinos, South Africans, Indigenous Australians, New Zealanders, Fijians, Koreans and Vietnamese, to name a few. The whole Moreton community is much richer, much more vibrant and much more creative and economically strong due to the contribution of these ethnic communities. My fellow Moretonites are worried that they or their relatives will not be welcome to become Australian citizens—that they will become people who live among us but won't be of us. The two changes that particularly disturb me are the addition of the university-level English language test and the additional time before an application for citizenship can be made. Before becoming eligible to be an Australian citizen you currently need to pass a citizenship test. And guess what? No surprise, but the test is written in English. So to pass the test you first need to be able to understand the English language well enough to read the test. This pernicious bill proposes to add a separate English language test which will assess the standard of English of persons applying for citizenship. Obviously you won't have to take this test if you are from New Zealand, Canada, the United States, England or Ireland. To pass this new test, it will be necessary to have a standard of English equivalent to that expected of university entrants. It is not a conversational English test; it is a comprehensive test that requires skills in speaking, listening, comprehension and writing. The applicant will need to be able to write an essay to complete this test successfully. The standard required is referred to as IELTS level 6. That is the standard required by some universities for entrance to their courses. That would be a much higher standard than any country in Europe, including Britain. This will make it much harder for people from non-English-speaking countries to become Australian citizens. It will be almost impossible for most adult migrants from non-English-speaking countries to become proficient in English to that standard after completing the 510 hours of English language tuition provided by the government—effectively 13 weeks of full-time study. There would be many Australians who have lived their whole life in Australia who would not have that standard of English competency. Teachers of language say an adult would need 2,700 hours of tuition—18 months of full-time study—to reach that standard. There is a real risk that requiring a standard unachievable for many migrants—because they will be working rather than sitting in a classroom learning the language—will create a permanent underclass of residents who will never be able to gain citizenship. They will live here, some will work here, but they won't be us. This could be a recipe for disaster. It may well unpick the fabric of our beautiful multicultural society. The other measure proposed by this Turnbull government bill is to increase the waiting time before being eligible to apply for citizenship. I point out that, even though we're debating this legislation now—we haven't had a vote—this measure has already been implemented before this debate is finalised. How do I know this? Because the department is not currently processing applications. This is an arrogant minister—Minister Dutton—who has made a decision before the parliament has actually voted on the legislation that would implement this policy. There is already a 4-year waiting time before someone can apply for citizenship. I stress that again: there is a four-year waiting time. What the Turnbull government wants is for migrants to have to wait for four years after they have been granted permanent residency before they can apply for citizenship. This will greatly extend the time they need to live in Australia without being able to pledge allegiance to the nation they call home. Some people initially come here as temporary workers or even students and they may have more than one four-year visa back-to-back and then some long-term temporary visas before they eventually become a permanent. These people could be living in Australia for 10, 12 or 13 years before they are invited to take an oath of allegiance to Australia. The government has already said they can live here as a permanent resident, so why would the government stand in the way of asking them to pledge their allegiance to Australia? It makes absolutely no sense. I think the member for Calwell might have touched on the motivation behind this and I support the member for Calwell. There is an element of racism motivating this legislation. Is it about national security? Let's have a look. The Turnbull government has definitely tried to wrap these changes up in the cloak of national security. There have been many tranches of legislation that have made changes to national security. This is not one of them. Labor has supported all of those changes and in fact made the amendments much better because of our input. Let me be clear: national security agencies have not recommended these citizenship changes. The recommendations actually came from two NSW members of the Liberal Party: one current serving Senator and a former lower house MP. It has nothing to do with our national security agency. The 4-year waiting time only affects people who have already been granted permanent residency. There are people who have already been cleared to live here permanently. If these people are a national security threat, why are they walking amongst us? It does not make sense. Last week I held a forum in my electorate so that my community could have their say about these proposed changes by the Turnbull government. The forum confirmed that the Moreton community is very concerned and fearful. I heard from many Moretonites that they're concerned about the new language test in particular. They're concerned that the level of English required will be too difficult for them or their family members ever to achieve Australian citizenship. I also heard—I had not considered this—that women will be particularly disadvantaged by the English language test. Many people come from countries where women are not as well educated as men, and these women would be particularly disadvantaged by having to pass a language test of a standard required for university entrants. While many migrant men will quickly enter the workforce in Australia and have daily contact with other English-speaking workers, often their wives or partners may not have these opportunities. It is much more difficult to become proficient in a language if you are not constantly exposed to conversation or dialogue. I was told that older family members would also be unlikely to pass a university-standard English language test. I was also told that other family members with learning difficulties—for example, dyslexia—will be disadvantaged by this much more difficult, university-level English test. Not only are these changes to citizenship eligibility fundamentally unfair and unwarranted; they will change the character of this great modern country. I'm not suggesting it's going to be a drastic change like we have seen in The Handmaid's Tale, V for Vendetta in the UK or George Orwell's 1984, but it will fundamentally change who we are as a nation. Who are we? We have a strong and long Indigenous history. Then British institutions were introduced and upon that we have built a great multicultural society. This legislation will fundamentally change that. This nation was built on migration. Before the White Australia policy was introduced, 29 per cent of our population was born overseas. This percentage fell after the implementation of the White Australia policy—it was the first bit of legislation passed by this parliament, in fact—and it went down to 10 per cent in 1945 or so. Then, following the war, we had the populate or perish policy and we had strong immigration growth. Seven million people arrived after the war. Currently 28 per cent of our population was born overseas. We are a multicultural country that is successful—the most successful on earth, I would suggest. Language barriers have never stopped migrants being successful in Australia. There are many stories of people running successful businesses, raising children and grandchildren but not being able to speak more than a few basic words of English. At the forum, I had on a panel Lewis Lee, who is a Chinese-Malaysian who came to Australia to study Greek, and also Galila Abdel Salam, who formed the Islamic Women's Association of Queensland 25 years ago. I could give you story after story but, I'm going to tell you about one guy: Peter Carozza the father of a good friend of mine, John Carozza. They came to Australia in 1952 as a boxer,. He came from a little village called San Marco Evangelista, 15 minutes outside Naples. When he arrived, they sent him out to western New South Wales out near Dubbo, where he said the dogs on the property were treated better than him. But he worked hard for two years and then moved to Sydney and then to Brisbane. He went to Brisbane and met his future wife, Beryl, at the Cloudland ballroom. In 1960, because he was homesick for Italy, he returned home and then decided to come back to Australia. He lived in Coopers Plains, built a house there, then moved to Moorooka and then Sunnybank, where Beryl Carozza lives now. Peter has since died, and I was a pallbearer at his funeral. Peter raised three children—John, Paul, and Maria—and all three of them are school teachers. Maria is the deputy principal at Runcorn Heights State School. Paul Carozza, many would know, is a great Wallaby, and John Carozza is a very good friend of mine. We've been in a band together. He's a great musician, a great artist, a great filmmaker and a great teacher. I remember this speech from a guy who could speak English. I have heard great speeches in my time, from Kevin Rudd, from Julia Gillard, from Ken Henry at the Press Club and from Obama, but Peter Carozza's speech is one I remember word perfect. At John's 21st, in very poor Italian English he said, 'John, there are times when I wanted to physically hurt you, but you are my son, and I love you.' If we are going to exclude people like Peter Carozza from this place, that is a bad, bad thing for this government to do, and I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider this legislation. 12:32 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor It's a privilege to stand today to speak on this legislation. I obviously don't support the legislation, but it brings me to the chamber to speak about Australian citizenship. It always makes me centre myself to think about my Australian citizenship. I am not Australian by choice; I was born in this country. When I was preparing today, I went through my memory for some important moments. Some of the most important moments in my life were to stand here and deliver my first speech, to listen to other members of the class of 2013 give their first speeches and, since then, to listen to members of the class of 2016 give their first speeches. My impression across those speeches was that in this chamber we carry with us the Australian story, from listening to the member for Barton deliver her first speech to remind us of the long trajectory of the first Australians present on this land to listening to my classmates of 2013 as we delivered our speeches that spoke of our history in this country. I got to listen to my colleague on my right over here deliver his second first speech in this place and talk about his family history in this country. There is no getting past that we are a nation of immigrants. When I gave my first speech in this place, I talked about the diaspora at Ballarat and Peter Lalor leading the Eureka stockade and I made reference to how similar the electorate of Lalor now is with the representative diaspora from across the world just like Ballarat was then. These are things that celebrate in our homes and in the classrooms across this country, and I feel this piece of legislation is a direct threat to the pride we have in who we are and to the pride we have in who we're still to become. We have had controversy over the citizenship of members of parliament and, you know, people in my electorate are confused. On the one hand, our parliamentarians know that we are all Australian citizens and proud to be Australian and that we've rejected citizenship in other countries. On the other hand this week, our parliamentarians are asking people who want to become Australian citizens to wait longer and to have a mastery of a language they don't see reflected in this chamber, day-to-day. It's an extraordinary thing that we are asking. Like others, I want to speak about the citizenship ceremonies that I attend, because I have been struck. They are now almost supersede visits to schools in my electorate. Knowing my love of education and schools, that's saying something. What I see in those citizenship ceremonies are the tears, the smiles, the joy, the absolute commitment and shared joy in that moment when they become Australian citizens, when they finish that pledge and are told, 'You are now Australian citizens.' A cheer goes up around the room and it is an extraordinary moment. When I go to those citizenship ceremonies, I speak about Australian values. I take our national anthem as something to share with that audience that day and I talk about the values that are reflected in our national anthem. I talk about the notion of Australian values that are embedded, particularly, in the second verse—let's face it, the first verse is a celebration of land and certainly doesn't talk about values, but the second verse speaks to values. It talks about 'toiling with hearts and hands'. I tell the brand-new citizens that day that. in Australia, we value hard work, we value diligence, and we value our heartfelt commitment to those things. The second verse speaks of welcome, the universal value of hospitality. I know as a student of classics, how important hospitality was in ancient Greek culture. There's been a continuous importance around hospitality—the hearth, the fireside—welcoming a stranger. That's there in our second verse. It says: We've boundless plains to share; Many people have spoken about this and that speaks to our generosity and that that's an Australian value. Most importantly, it speaks to courage: With courage let us all combine… And that's an Australian value. In those citizenship ceremonies, I speak about the courage that I know nothing of, personally. It is generations since my family, the individuals in my ancestry, left their homes to come to this country. I am not an Australian by choice. I was born here and I stand in that room with people from around the world who want to be Australian by choice and who have shown extraordinary courage in leaving their home to travel to another part of the world to set down roots and to determine to have children and create a future somewhere that they have often never been to—a stranger's land—and that is an Australian value. That courage is something we all value in Australia because we all have it in our history. I tell people at citizenship ceremonies about one of my ancestors, who was a 16-year-old girl, who left Ireland to escape poverty. She got on a boat on her own and did that journey, got off in Geelong and found herself a job in domestic service. I think about the courage of that young girl and I am overwhelmed by those thoughts. Then I look at the people in the citizenship ceremony and I know that they are replicating that journey from a different place in a different time. But their courage is the same. In the electorate of Lalor, we have many new citizens join us every month. Generally, across the month, we have four citizenship ceremonies—so around 1,000 new Australians a month in my electorate so it is reflective of an international diaspora. There're many conversations that I have had with people about citizenship. I am worried about this particular piece of legislation, particularly around the extension of time, because I know when I shake hands with every new citizen at a ceremony, I ask that question: how long have you been in Australia, and at what point did you make the choice to become an Australian citizen and put down roots here? I have never heard anyone say, 'Less than four years.' So it is my general observation that it takes four years to become an Australian citizen, because they say, 'Four years ago, I decided I wanted to become a citizen, and it has taken me four years to get to this day.' So I think that four years is a reasonable amount of time for people to become Australian citizens after seeking that. Many of them tell me about becoming permanent residents. I've had many conversations with people in my electorate about the IELTS testing, which is already controversial on the ground. It is already controversial. The cost of the IELTS testing is generally around $330 per test, and many residents in my community have come to speak to me because they may have sat that test three, four or five times. Some are very concerned because they considered themselves proficient in English when they arrived. They applied to be international students, and they walked through the door having passed tests that said they were proficient in English to study in Australia. They sit that test and then, a couple of years later, they sit it again and find their English has gone backwards, and they are studying in our universities. So it is already controversial. There are already people in my community who are not trusting that testing system. I want to speak directly about this English test because it's the other obstruction here that I find most concerning. I've taught English all of my adult life, until the last four years spent in this place. Many of those years I spent teaching teenagers who were children of new arrivals, refugee families, humanitarian intake families and some others who were here through other immigration processes. I have taught English as a second language to people from all around the world, so I understand the time it takes. I understand the very critical things about teaching English to people of other languages. One of the most important things that a lot of people do not understand is that it's not actually your skills in English that assist you to teach other people in a classroom; it's your understanding of their languages and their difference between their base language, or their first language, and the language that you are trying to teach. And of course we all know, or we all should know, in this place that English is one of the most difficult languages to learn, because of the complications around tense in particular that are not reflected in other languages. Deputy Speaker, I want you to think—I want everyone in this chamber to think—about some of the kids that I have taught across the years, who came to Australia preliterate, with no written language at all. They had to learn what language is in the first instance. They had to come to grips with an alphabet that is supposedly phonetic but turns out not to be when they get involved in it. English has complex tense structures, complex grammatical structures and complex language that they need to pick up. I might note too today that the most fun that can be had in an English-as-a-second-language classroom is teaching Australian colloquialisms. They're the things that most people want to learn first. That is because, as a nation, we are not hung up on the correctness of language. In Australia, we use language to communicate. We use language to comprehend, but we are not stuffed shirts about language in this country. Pedantry went out the window a long time ago in this country. We see language as living and changing, and our colloquialisms are reflective of that. Introducing an IELTS 6 test seems extraordinarily harsh to me. It seems extraordinarily harsh to people who might come here with refugee humanitarian support, where they might get 14 weeks of language support to help them learn the language. I have spent time in my electorate in recent times in classrooms with settlement support and have watched people in their 30s and 40s who may or may not be literate in another language—people who speak three languages and are now about to learn to speak their fourth, read their fourth, write in their fourth and come to grips with a whole new alphabet. It's a difficult thing. Level 6—university language—is extreme. This is absolute snobbery, and it is absolute snobbery because in this chamber, where we are sent to represent our communities, I see examples every day of people who would be in breach in an IELTS 6 test that is about correctness. It is absolutely about correctness—not about communication, not about comprehension, but about correctness. In this chamber, we sometimes hear soaring rhetoric—soaring rhetoric. At other times, we hear absolutely butchered sentences—and I would be guilty, just like everyone else in this chamber, of both. On the notion that we are going to test people for the correctness of their language: I have heard many speakers, particularly on the other side, talk about the length of time we want people to be in the country before they become citizens, and they have listed other countries and how long those other countries ask people to wait. In other countries, nobody asks for level 6 in their language. The UK, Germany and a lot of the EU require level 4; Spain and the Netherlands require level 3. There are classes of visas in this country which do not require that—in fact, an executive is required to have level 5. Generally, level 4.5 is required for different visas in this country and now we are going to up it to level 6, a university level, and one that I think is a bridge too far for most. I did a bit of research yesterday in my office. I went to the minister for immigration's Facebook page. I am rarely a pedant about language, but if the minister is going to set a standard for new Australians then the minister should certainly meet the standard himself. What I found was absolutely disappointing—absolutely disappointing! I found example after example where commas were missing, where capitalisation was misused and where phrases were butchered. I found sentences with six phrases and without a comma . My favourite sentence from a short study of the minister's Facebook page—and I will share this sentence—was the sentence written: The Government passed our Gonski needs-based school funding plan this morning. That sentence had no commas—no commas! That sentence also presumes the government passes legislation in this place, when we know the parliament passes legislation in this place. So I have rewritten the sentence for him. It should read: 'The parliament passed the government's Gonski, needs-based, school funding plan this morning.' In this place we shouldn't set a standard we cannot meet ourselves. And before everyone goes rushing to my Facebook page, yes, you will find errors, as you will find on all of the written material produced by people in this place—as we hear every day when we are on our feet. Let's not set a standard that we ourselves cannot seek to meet. Thank you. 12:47 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I would like to thank the member for Lalor for that informative speech—especially her last point that here we have a minister setting a particular standard, and a standard that he would not pass himself with that small example that we saw from his Facebook page. And this is the measure that the government is wanting to put through this parliament with this Australian Citizenship Legislation amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, I take it that you have realised by now that we are opposing this bill on this side of the House, and we are opposing it because it goes to the heart of what Australia has been and is today and what it has been for many years. If you look at our nation's history right through to where we are, we see a nation that has been cohesive; a nation made up of people from every corner of the world. It is a nation that has accepted migrants from not-so-lucky countries: migrants from nations devastated by wars and civil wars, and from places that have gone through hunger, devastation and earthquakes—you name it. We have encompassed all these people, including my own family. What we have had going for us in this nation is our multiculturalism. We don't have those ancient tribal hatreds. We may divide on politics, but at the end of the day the political parties in Australia have a very similar goal—and that goal is for a better Australia. We may have different ways of getting to it, but we don't divide on race, politics, religion et cetera, and that has always been the way. We have had waves of people who have come to this nation, and we have opened our arms and encouraged them to become citizens. By encouraging someone to be part of a family, you make them feel welcomed, they feel part of your family and there is comfort in that for those people. But at the moment we've started changing rules and regulations and changing the goal posts on people who wish to become Australian citizens. Let me just say that the majority of migrants that come to this place, as we heard from the member for Lalor just before, want to become citizens as quickly as possible because we have set a standard over the years. That standard has been that we welcome them. I think this bill is another diversion tactic from the government, looking at how we can divert from the real issues that affect us. I have said that many times. We have a government that is failing on jobs, a government where the economy is going backwards, a government that has done basically nothing on renewables, a government that is watering down our education system and a government that is making pensioners wait longer for their pension and is cutting their pension. This is another example of diversion. They say, 'Let's throw something in there that infuriates people and divides people,' and here we are. Our processes for immigration and settlement have been recognised around the world. We are used as a example. We look at Europe and other places where perhaps their immigration policies have not gone as well as ours. I've had many discussions with people all around the world on this topic. One of the things they praise us for is our multicultural society and our cohesive society. Other nations recognise this. I think our multicultural society is recognised because it respects and celebrates diversity, and it's the absolutely envy of other nations. Yet this government believes the system must be reformed. You have to ask yourself why. One of the reasons for our success in Australia is that we have opened our arms to people and made them feel welcome, and we do that by giving them every opportunity and encouraging them to become citizens, not by putting laws in that make it harder for them. By the time that people put the process in place, they are already permanent residents. You have to be a permanent resident to get your citizenship. So any checks and balances should have been done way before a particular person or resident wants to become a citizen. If that is the case—that's one of the reasons for this, as we've heard from the minister—then they are failing on their border security and their checks and balances. We know that in the history of Australia we had the Menzies government—a true Liberal government—that made laws to make it easier to obtain citizenship. Menzies did this because he had a vision for Australia. He did this because he knew that with the waves of migrants that were coming, the quicker we embraced them, the quicker we made them feel part of the family, the more cohesive a country we'd have in the future. He was right, and we did create the cohesive country that we are very lucky to live in today. Let's not forget that if migrants became Australian citizens under the current law and shouldn't have, it means that perhaps the law is flawed—that is, if we are hearing what the government is saying; that we need more checks and balances and we have to make it tougher and harder. We have had a cohesive society, so it's not flawed. We know that people learnt English when they came here. Many, like my parents, couldn't speak any English at all when they came here. My father still has difficulty. Sometimes I question him and say, 'Dad, why didn't you learn really good English?' On the other hand, my mother could speak fairly good English. He says: 'Where would I learn it? On the production line, where the people next to me were Italian, Polish and Greek? We worked like robots. There was a half-hour break for lunch, and then we'd go home dead tired at night.' I feel embarrassed even having asked that question of him over the years. But my family, like many other families, came here with very little English and very little skill. They worked in the lowest-paid jobs and made a life for themselves because Australia opened its arms to them. We have heard from many other speakers about the citizenship ceremonies and the joy that people have. Some of the events I enjoy more than anything else is the citizenship ceremonies. I reflect on them and think of my own family and my own story. You see people who are just so happy that they have become citizens. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you see the same in your electorate. There are people who have had difficult journeys to come here. There are people, as I said earlier, who have been in refugee camps. Others have come here by choice on business visas. Others have a uniting family visa. But all of them have one common factor: they are so happy and so pleased when they receive their citizenship certificate. Shaking those hands and looking at the joy in their faces just proves to me that we are, or have been, a society that welcomes people, and that is the best way to have a cohesive society. All these people, people that came from all over the world—from Europe, from Africa or from Asia, including Vietnam and China—have enriched our country. They have all contributed and made this nation great and the nation that it is. They have all raised families, who all have had the amazing wealth of being able to move between two or more cultures or languages, which is something fascinating that we don't see in other countries. We have such a rich tapestry and people that contribute to our nation, and this works because Australia managed to create an environment that was welcoming to immigrants. The language we used was inclusive. The language that politicians used was inclusive. This is all part of welcoming people, making people feel comfortable in our nation and making them feel as if they are Australians as well, and that is the end goal. I know that we've enjoyed this peaceful diversity for many decades, but let's not take this for granted, because if we start changing the language that we use in government as politicians, if we start tinkering or if we start to accept the type of divisive language that we've seen from different politicians, we start to slowly chip away at the kind of society that many generations before us have fought so hard for. This government would have people believe that this government is designed to strengthen citizenship. That is absolute nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'd like to know how it strengthens citizenship when we make it harder for someone to become a citizen. When you tell someone, 'No, we don't want you; we don't think you are ready; we don't think you're quite right yet,' I think that is more divisive than anything. It doesn't strengthen citizenship when it creates a society that divides people into us and them. This creates division and, as I said, it chips away at our harmonisation and the wonderful things we've had. It doesn't make sense. We can only assume that it's once again an attempt by this government to pander to those on the extreme right, to those conservative elements in the government and on the crossbenches, who have a very particular idea of what it means to be Australian. This, again, only divides people. You have to wonder why a bill like this is before the House when it does absolutely nothing to strengthen citizenship. I go back to what I opened my speech with, and that is that this is again another diversion policy to take away from the things that we should be debating in this place, like education, health, and jobs. On this side, as we've heard, we won't stand for it and we're not accepting it, and we will be voting this bill down. This legislation also aims to increase, as I said, the residency requirements to be eligible for Australian citizenship from 12 months permanent residency and a total of four years living in Australia on some kind of visa, to a minimum of four years permanent residency. We're just extending the time. Checks and balances are done before people get here, while they are applying for visas. They're not done at this point, so this does absolutely nothing. Then we have the issue of the language requirements. I gave you a small example about my family. There are millions of people who, for whatever reason, didn't learn English because of the circumstances they were in—factory workers, people who clean buildings and mums that stayed at home. Of course it's good to be competent in English and able to speak and read and write, but currently the only English test required for citizenship is the test itself in English. But again we see this government wanting to go from the current system to one that requires English at the IELTS level 6, which is university level. It's extraordinarily harsh, especially for refugees, people in their 30s and 40s and people—women, for example—who are much older and stay at home and don't converse as much as their partners who are at work. Our governor in South Australia, Hieu Van Le, came to Australia from Vietnam on a boat. When he first landed here, his English was extremely minimal—and today he's the governor of South Australia. Under this bill, we would be excluding people of the calibre of Hieu Van Le from becoming citizens—and that's why we oppose it. Good people who would make great citizens would have to wait longer. That is divisive. It tells people, 'We don't actually want you right now; we're going to make you jump through a million hoops.' Surely if the government expects a level of proficiency it also needs to provide adequate English lessons. But we have yet to see adequate English lessons and training for migrants. If you are genuine, increase classes. If you are genuine, fund English classes appropriately so people can actually learn English. But we have seen nothing on this side of it. Otherwise, this just becomes an exercise about stopping people from becoming citizens. According to experts, language testing does not reflect the ability of applicants to communicate under all circumstances in which they would be actively engaged in Australian society and the economy. If you look back at the millions of migrants who have come to this country, the majority would have been excluded from citizenship under this particular test that this government is providing. Unfortunately, many people would not pass this test who would make great contributions to this nation, as we have seen many migrants do. Instead of creating different classes of migrants, as has been the aim of this government, the government should find ways of strengthening our social cohesion, strengthening the things that we do well. And one of those things is multiculturalism; it will ultimately make Australia a better country, a safer country and a stronger country. Migrants have helped this country build it the way it is. They and their children and grandchildren have become integral parts of our society's fabric. This government should be ashamed of itself for undermining the very thing that makes Australia so special and unique—the pride that we have in our multiculturalism and diversity. 13:02 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I join with my colleagues on this side of the House in expressing outrage at this bill. But it is not surprising. I am not surprised at all that the government has submitted this bill, because of the attitude it displays to anyone other than what it believes an Australian should be, should aspire to and, in many ways, should look like. I think it is one of the biggest dog whistles I have seen in the 12 months that I have been a member of this House. There is no other way to describe it. The stupidity, the dishonesty and the cowardliness of this bill are writ large. I'm going to address those particular points as I move through my contribution to this debate. The first issue is dishonesty. Let us be clear how this bill came about. This bill has been presented to us and to the Australian public as being about keeping our borders safe, about protecting Australia and about the national interest in terms of security. That is patently untrue. This bill was not requested by any of our security agencies. It came out of a report that was put together by two people—Senator Fierravanti-Wells, and, I understand, Philip Ruddock. How can this be portrayed as being in the national security interest when it was not a request or a recommendation from any of our security agencies and has not been suggested by any of our security agencies? So let's get rid of that bit of dishonesty immediately. Why is this bill stupid? It is stupid because we know—as all of the speakers on this side of the House have articulated in their contributions—that, for anyone to become a citizen, they have to be a permanent resident first. I know that that has been said on a number of occasions, but it cannot be said enough. And to become a permanent resident takes some doing: it takes some time, and it also requires an enormous amount of vetting before somebody becomes a permanent resident. Yet now the minister is saying that, for citizenship: 'We're going to really test people; we're going to expect ridiculous levels of English language competency, and we're going to test for Australian values in someone who has already been a permanent resident for some time and has also jumped through many hoops to be on any class of visa in Australia.' So let's just get rid of that bit of dishonesty and stupidity immediately. Why is it cowardly? It is cowardly because it wants to put in place, as has been well articulated, the notion of signing up to a whole set of Australian values. Who has designed that? Who makes decisions on what Australian values are? The other evening, in the Labor caucus room—and I am very, very pleased to be able to say this—there was a fabulous event put on by some of our colleagues called the Bankstown Poetry Slam. It was one of the most uplifting, inspiring events I have been to. There were young people from Bankstown, from very many different cultural backgrounds, speaking in poetry, all of it written by them, about what it means to them to be in Australia—what it means for them and their family to have Australian citizenship. There was one young Muslim woman who spoke about being cedar—as in the tree—in amongst eucalyptus. That was just one of the most beautiful images. She spoke strongly of her love for this country. There was another young Muslim woman who said, 'I am Australia,' and then spoke about how she is Australia. They love this country. As we, on this side of the House, respect: you don't forget who you are, you don't forget where you come from, you hold on to memory and you hold on to language. But that does not mean that Australia is not the home and not the allegiance of the people that this bill is aimed against. So that is cowardly—to hide behind an English language test that's unreasonable and to hide behind a set of values that someone has decided on without actually looking at the reality of this country. Why is it—and I did not say this—politically stupid? It is stupid—and many of the people on the other side of the House in the coalition know it is stupid and unnecessary, and politically stupid—because many of you represent, as many of us on this side of the House represent, communities that are incredibly diverse. And isn't that what we want this parliament to be? Isn't that what should be reflected from this parliament? This parliament should embrace diversity. It should understand that the reality of this country is diversity, the strength of this country is diversity, and the make-up and the beauty and the vibrancy of this country is diversity. And yet those in the coalition have brought into this place a piece of legislation that goes against everything that this nation has built and everything that this nation stands for. And that is politically stupid. I hope that when it comes to the time of casting a ballot that people will remember who it was and which party decided that Australia was going to go back to a very long time ago—an ugly time in this country. Prior to becoming the member for Barton, I was the member for Canterbury, and Canterbury's city logo is 'City of Diversity'. The same could be said for Barton, and the same could be said for many of our electorates. For example, in the seat of Barton—and I had a really close look at this—of the 234,000 Chinese people from mainland China that live in Australia, 20,000 of those people live in the electorate of Barton. The second-largest and fastest-growing group of people in Barton are the people from Nepal. We have over 6,000 people from Nepal; over 5,000 people from Greece; and nearly 4,000 people from Lebanon, and people from Macedonia, the Philippines, Vietnam, India, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Korea, Italy and the list goes on—Pakistan and Sri Lanka. They are the people who believe in democracy. They are the people who have taken the enormous step, the hardest step, of leaving their country, their loved ones and everything that they know to come to a place for a better opportunity. And you will not speak to any migrant or to anyone that has chosen Australia as their home who does not say, 'I came here because I wanted to give my family and my children a better opportunity.' Without exception, that's what people will say to you. And yet we are debating a bill in this House that is so odious and that is so insulting to those people, who are Australians. They are Australians; they love this country and they pledge allegiance to this country in every way possible. Who do those opposite think that the small businesses in many of our electorates are owned by, and who works in them seven days a week? Who do they think many of the children are in our schools? Who do they think their parents are? They are people who have chosen—in some cases, many had no choice—to leave the places that they loved for safety and security. So, if it is passed, this bill has the potential to create a subgroup of people—of stateless people—in this country that does not exist now. Fair go; egalitarianism; helping your mate: these are the things that we hear all the time and that are supposed to represent this country. This bill represents none of that—none! It goes against everything that we supposedly stand for as a nation—everything! And that is why it is, as I said, duplicitous, why it is stupid, why it is dishonest and why it is cowardly. I will finish on a couple of points, just to wrap up what I've got to say. To me, it seems that political bravery would be for those on the other side to say, 'We know and we agree with what Labor people are saying, but we can't stand up for it within our party.' In politics you've got to know what your Rubicon is, and it seems to me that this should be one of such moments—one of such momentous moments, I have to say. Citizenship of Australia is the goal for so many. We have all been, on both sides of this place, to citizenship ceremonies. There is nothing more uplifting and there is nothing that will put more of a lump in your throat than when you see families bringing their children with pride, holding the little ones' hands, to become Australian citizens. Their faces tell the story of their pride and of their commitment to this country. I know many people have read out the pledge that is made at those citizenship ceremonies. The pledge is taken so seriously by the people. From this time forward I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey. Or: From this time forward, under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey. People do not say those words and cross their fingers behind their backs. People say those words with pride and joy—and often tears on their faces because of that pride and joy. How dare the government stomp on that? How dare the government think they have the right to determine who should be an Australian, what that value is, and, most importantly, the nature of our society? This country is an amazing place. Its history, like all countries, is not always shining. But when you put it together and when you walk down the streets of Hurstville or when you walk down the streets of any place in this nation, you will see that we are a nation that has been built on the incredible foundations of first peoples. And then layer, by layer, by layer migration over the last 230 years has melded us into a place that could be destroyed and undermined by this stupid, odious, dishonest and cowardly bill. 13:17 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I'm opposed to this bill. It's a lousy and disrespectful piece of legislation from a desperate government. Really, that's what's behind this; the government are desperate. They are falling in the polls and they are desperate to lurch further to the right to try and garner Australian people's attention. There's no doubt that Australia and many nations in our region are facing challenging times. An increase in terror related activities and the constant threat of domestic attacks are present in many countries in the world, and have thrust the issue of national security into the spotlight. But I want to make it absolutely clear from the outset that Labor is committed to keeping Australia and Australians safe. We have always worked properly and promptly to act on the advice from security agencies and in the national interest, but we also believe in fostering a unified community built on mutual respect. The bill before us today is deeply concerning. It's concerning because of the clear message that it conveys: not a message of unity and strength but a message of fear and indifference. It's important to note that this bill did not come about as a result of a recommendation from a review or a recommendation from our security agencies. That is very, very important to point out, and has been made clear by the Labor's spokesperson on this issue, Tony Burke. It was not based on the advice of the Australian Federal Police or the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or any other external or independent review of our citizenship laws and the powers and the means for our security and policing agencies to tackle crime and terrorism. This bill is merely a response to a report by two members of the Liberal Party, one of whom has left the parliament. Of course Australians should all sign up to our laws and values. Existing legislation allows the government to put forward any questions about Australia, which includes any aspect of Australia and life in Australia, including about our values. Indeed, there is a values test that already occurs for people who seek to become Australian citizens. The ability to speak the language of our country is, of course, a significant benefit to assist in social and professional situations, and at least a little English does help serve to reduce the level of isolation felt by a person who perhaps did not grow up here and learn English as their first language. Given the many personal benefits of speaking the language, the government should be more committed to assisting immigrants to attain English language levels that allow them to communicate with others and bridge those gaps to take full advantage of the opportunities available to members of the Australian community. However, being forced to obtain a university level of English is a whole other story, and that is exactly what this bill does. It will force people to learn and to undertake a university level of English. The bill requires those seeking Australian citizenship to attain a higher level of English proficiency before they are eligible to apply for citizenship. As a student of a second language, I know how difficult it can be to learn a new language, particularly as an adult and with many other responsibilities competing for time and resources. It can be an incredibly challenging task to even be able to hold a very simple conversation in another language, let alone reach a level of skill and nuance associated with a university level of language. The test that's proposed here is an increase in the English language proficiency test—the IELTS test in Australia—from level 4 or level 5, which is proficient, to level 6, which is competent. The process here will ensure that many will miss out on the opportunity to apply for Australian citizenship. There are people who have been living in this country for many years as productive members of our society who just cannot attain that additional level and are therefore lost to us as potential citizens of this country. New migrants to the country do receive some assistance in ensuring that they can improve their English literacy and proficiency, and that is through the Adult Migrant English Program. But the way it is at the moment—the way that program is structured and the support that people get as new migrants to learn English—it will go nowhere near delivering a level 6 competency in IELTS. That is the problem with what the government is proposing here. They're not going to provide the assistance that is necessary for people to reach the level they are proposing in this bill and therefore apply for Australian citizenship. Now, 510 hours is the amount that a new migrant gets in terms of English instruction through the Adult Migrant English Program when they come here. Anyone that is involved in languages and the teaching of languages would tell you that you need at least 800 hours to become proficient in a European-based language such as English, French or Italian. A minimum of 800 hours. So, what the government is offering here is completely inadequate. When you talk about pictographic-style languages, such as Chinese, Japanese or Korean, it is around 2,200 classroom hours before you can even begin to become competent in that language, and a minimum of two years living in the country to be considered for fluency. That clearly demonstrates the challenges that people face in learning a new language, and it becomes even harder the older you get, so we are discriminating against older people here. Unfortunately, the effect of this may be to discriminate against women. It is unfortunate that many women do not reach the same level of proficiency as their husband, as they have in the past, because, unfortunately, they are predominantly the ones that are involved in household duties and raising the children, and do not have the opportunity to undertake the necessary training. So, unfortunately, for many people this requirement will simply be well out of reach. Our concern is that it sends a terribly negative message to those people who live here for an extended period of time but, for one reason or another, do not reach a university level of English. It would be understandable for these people to feel disenfranchised and disconnected from the broader Australian community as a result of the government telling them that they are not good enough to become an Australian citizen. These people will never be able to pledge their allegiance to Australia; instead, they will exist as an underclass, forever reminded of their low status, as a result of their inability to achieve that university level of English. I want to raise here an example from within my own family. My wife's family are Italian, and I think about, 'What if this rule had been applied in the past?' Think about the postwar migrants that came to Australia. Think of the talent and the dedicated Australians that would have been lost to this country, potentially, if this rule had been in place in the postwar migration periods. People would have missed out on the opportunity of becoming Australian citizens. My wife's family migrated, predominantly from Italy, in the postwar period after World War I. My wife's nonna came in 1921, the Natoli family, and my wife's nonno came in 1916, the Casamento family from the Aeolian Islands. When they came here, they hardly spoke a word of English. But they got to work. They started learning the language, predominantly through working and interacting with Australians. And they ran a fruit shop, on the corner opposite St Vincent's Hospital in Darlinghurst. Because they were running that fruit shop opposite St Vincent's in Darlinghurst, one of their kids became interested in the medical profession, went on to study medicine at the University of Sydney and became a very well-respected general practitioner in the Coogee area—and a bit of a local legend, if I may say, to plenty of people in our community—and was the team doctor for Randwick Rugby club for 30 years and did that on a voluntary basis. That's my father-in-law, Joe Casamento—the son of these migrants who came to Australia with very little English and who has made an enormous contribution to the community that I live in. He's got brothers and sisters who've become professionals as well. In fact, from the three migrants that came in the early 1920s, there are now over 100 descendants in that family who have made an outstanding contribution to Australian society but who might have been lost to this country had these laws been in place when those people migrated to Australia in the postwar period. This bill also increases the general residence requirements to require citizenship by conferral, and a person will have to have been a permanent resident for a minimum of four years. The government claims this bill is also about bolstering national security. That's the rhetoric. But I fail to see how telling someone who wants to become an Australian citizen that they have to wait longer and take an additional step to pledge their allegiance to this new country is going to actually bolster national security. It may have a detrimental effect on a person's psychology, increasing their feelings of isolation and denying them a sense of belonging in our society. It is important to remember that those who apply for citizenship are already permanent residents and undergo rigorous character and security checks before they come here. If they are a security risk—as the government has said they are trying to weed out with this legislation—then they shouldn't be living here, because they shouldn't have been given a visa in the first place. There are plenty of preliminary steps in gaining a visa that ensure that we weed those people out from getting visas to live, on a temporary or permanent basis, in Australia. If there are problems with this process, then the government should be up-front with the Australian public and focus on preventing people who may become or may be a security risk from coming here in the first place. As I said, Labor is absolutely committed to working with the government to keep Australians safe from serious criminal offences and violent criminals. Such individuals, we believe, should not become Australian citizens and should not be living here. If that's the issue, then we're happy to work with the government. But that's not what this bill is about. This bill is about making people who've lived here and who have passed all of those security checks further isolated and making it harder for them to become Australian citizens. We note that the bill does contain additional measures, such as an ability for the minister to set aside decisions of the AAT concerning character and identity, where it would be in the public interest to do so. And, although that will be subject to judicial review, it may undermine the role of the AAT as an independent body. In conclusion, I and my Labor colleagues are opposed to this bill. There is no justification for it. The rhetoric does not meet the reality. All it is going to do is to isolate a very dedicated and passionate group of Australian people who seek to become Australian citizens, by making it simply too hard for them to become citizens of our great nation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 39 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Giles, Ms Patricia Jessie 39 13:30 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Today, I pay my respects to former senator Pat Giles. Pat was a remarkable woman and a trailblazer throughout her life and her multiple careers. A nurse, a feminist, a unionist, a politician and an international advocate, Pat always placed the fair treatment of marginalised groups at the centre of her work. Pat began her political career in Western Australia as a staunch supporter and defender of public education. She founded the Western Australian branch of the Women's Electoral Lobby in 1973, and as a union organiser worked to advance equal pay, maternity leave and antidiscrimination measures. Pat was the first woman elected to the executive of the Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia and chaired the first women's committee of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. When elected to the Senate, in 1981, Pat brought with her staunch advocacy for women's and worker's rights. In her maiden speech, Pat challenged the notions of what is personal and what is public, bringing discussion on abortion, family planning and child care into the parliament and placing them on the political agenda. She played a crucial role in the Hawke Labor government's initiatives to promote women's rights, always maintaining that all of Australian society would be richer if we could move 'out of the straitjacket of the past' through legislation such as the Sex Discrimination Act and the equal opportunity for women act. She was a great achiever, and we are grateful for her service. Leader of the Opposition 39 13:31 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie 'I would rather that the people of Australia could make their view clear on this than leaving this issue to 150 people'—that's the coalition government's position on same-sex marriage, quite eloquently put by the opposition leader. It sounds like he's giving public support for a plebiscite, and it was not so long ago—in 2013, I believe. We love it when the opposition leader voices a commonsense view, but his colleagues, his union buddies and the Australian voters must shudder at some of his musings. That comment can only be taken one way, as public support for a plebiscite. But did he vote for it? No. Why not? Being a man of his word would be a curve ball, given he's much better known for flip-flopping. He seems committed to maintaining his record of hypocrisy. In April he said it's 'reasonable to look for English language proficiency', but will he vote in support of English language proficiency for new Australians? Of course not. He says, 'Corporate tax reform helps Australia's private sector grow.' Did he vote for it? No. He talks tough on multinational tax avoidance, but when push comes to shove he rolls over and votes No. He says he'll support the findings of the Fair Work Commission, but votes no. Practise what you preach or change your speech. Your duplicity's an insult to your position of office. (Time expired) Honourable members interjecting— Energy 40 13:33 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter In the lead up to the 2013 election, coalition members promised Australians they would reduce their electricity prices by $500 each year. Guess what? It never, ever happened. And guess what happened yesterday? The Prime Minister promised the community he would reduce their bills by $1,500 per year. Again I say to all members present: don't believe him, because over the course of the last four years, electricity and energy prices have gone up and up and up. We know that every expert in the country, every key stakeholder, is saying the same thing: you can tinker around the edges at the retail point—fine, we have no problem with that; any benefit that can be derived there is a good thing—but you can't have it make a meaningful difference, you can't put prices down, without embracing the real problem, and that is the investment drought in the generation sector. You won't address that drought if you don't embrace Finkel in full, including the clean energy target. Why won't the Prime Minister do it? Because he can't control his party. But is it only that? Did he sign something in writing? Does the coalition agreement make a commitment that he won't introduce a carbon constraint? This is why the Australian people are entitled to see that agreement. Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! Before I call the member for Swan, there is a general warning in this House: I will not put up with any more of that. Swan Electorate: Employment 40 13:35 Mr IRONS HYM Swan Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton—nice warning! Last Tuesday I had the privilege of welcoming the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment to the Aloft Hotel in my electorate of Swan. We joined the Australian Hotels Association to announce the expansion of their commitment to the coalition's Youth Jobs PaTH program to 10,000 places. Our government's Youth Jobs PaTH program is all about giving local young people the skills they need, giving them practical work experience and getting them a job. There are three easy elements that have proved to be a great success: prepare, trial and hire. I would also like to congratulate and thank the WA Australian Hotels Association CEO, Bradley Woods, for his commitment to providing a platform for positive long-term employment for youth. Since the coalition was elected in 2013 the economy has created more than 700,000 jobs. The Youth Jobs PaTH program is a central element of the Turnbull government's comprehensive plan to get more Australians into work. As we know on this side of the House, the best form of welfare is a job. Since its inception, the PaTH program has seen nearly 7,000 individuals commence a training course, over 1,000 internships placements have started and 7,500 youth bonus wage subsidy agreements have been entered into. I congratulate the Prime Minister and Minister Cash for their work, and for the work they have done to achieve real outcomes for young Australians in a program which is supported by many industries, such as the AHA. Thank you. Shortland Electorate: Energy 40 13:36 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland The Prime Minister is the Jerry Seinfeld of the Australian parliament—just without the humour! He is all talk—all yada yada yada—but no action. This is greatly demonstrated by his inaction on electricity prices. What did we see yesterday? We saw yet more talk and yet more hot air from the Prime Minister. He seems to have forgotten that he has been in power for four years. In those four years, wholesale energy prices have doubled because of an investment strike, because this mob can't develop a sensible energy policy. Who suffers because of this? My constituents and constituents in every electorate around this country, who are seeing price rises right now. In New South Wales it has been a 20 per cent price rise. This is hitting my electorate hard. It is hitting the residents of Windale hard, the poorest suburb in all of New South Wales. This is all because the Prime Minister doesn't have the guts to stand up to his party room; to stand up to the fossils in his party room—fossils like the member for Hughes, who is in the chamber—to stand up and say what Finkel has recommended; to support a clean energy target; and to unlock billions of dollars of investment that will reduce pressure on electricity prices. Doing stuff with retailers is good, and I hope it leads to something concrete. But if the Prime Minister wants real action he needs to stand up to his dinosaurs, support a clean energy target and get serious about energy in this country. Energy 41 13:38 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes Mr Deputy Speaker, I did have a speech but I will put that aside for a minute. The idea—the absolute nonsense of an idea—that you somehow can put in some form of carbon tax and that it will unleash some type of investment strike is the complete and utter rubbish and nonsense that the Labor Party are peddling in this House! There is no investment strike in energy. We are seeing billions of dollars of investment at the moment into wind turbines and solar. But the problem is that it is complete malinvestment that is distorting the market, and it is the subsidies for those through the renewable energy target that is putting higher and higher costs onto the price of electricity and adversely affecting not only industry in this country but also consumers. If anyone is concerned and wants to know why we have such high electricity prices in this country, they should look at those opposite and look at the mess in South Australia. South Australia now has the highest electricity prices in the world! The highest in the world! What a magnificent achievement! And what do Labor want to do? They want to copy South Australia! They say, 'Look at the brilliant work in South Australia, with their 50 per cent renewable energy target. We will copy them!' You couldn't make this madness up, and yet that is what every member of the Labor Party wants to do. They want to turn all of this nation into South Australia and give this entire nation the highest prices for in the world for electricity. They are obviously ignorant of electricity in this country. They do not care about jobs, they do not care about households and they do not care about their constituents. They are living a green dream that is destroying this nation. (Time expired) Energy 41 13:39 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie In the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, at times some of the hottest and coldest places in the country, the rising cost of energy bills is hurting. Only last month we saw electricity bills rise by as much as 20 per cent. This hurts families and businesses. Families are already struggling with the lowest wages growth we've seen, under this lot. It's a double-edged sword for businesses because people have less disposable income, and now their overheads in keeping the lights and the fridges on are skyrocketing. So what's the government's answer? Bills will be easier to read! That's the big thing that came out of their crisis meeting yesterday. The only crisis we're seeing here is a crisis of leadership from the Prime Minister, cowed by the large energy companies. Surely having easy-to-read bills, being able to switch plans and not lose your discount if you are a day late paying a bill are just basic consumer protections that we should be able to take for granted. The government's delusional if it thinks this is going to solve our energy crisis. It needs to change what drives those prices. Fact 1: under this government, wholesale electricity prices have doubled, and that's why everyone's bills are higher. Fact 2: large coal plants have closed in a chaotic way, in a policy vacuum, hurting workers. Therefore, fact 3, we don't generate enough electricity. Until the industry know what the rules are, they can't make investment commitments. As the Business Council says, business as usual is no longer an option. (Time expired) Syria 41 13:41 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman The greatest humanitarian disaster in our time, in Syria, has just entered its seventh year. Today this building welcomed representative Mireille Girard, from Lebanon, and of course Thomas Albrecht, the regional representative for UNHCR. They've updated us on the talks in Geneva that are being led by Staffan de Mistura in an effort to bring the warring parties together, which up until now has been futile. The number of people affected by Syria is simply impossible to conceive, living here in Australia, with around 11 million people requiring assistance; 6.1 million displaced; and 5.1 million additional people over the borders, 2.9 million in Turkey and 1.5 million in Lebanon, a nation with a population only about three times as high. Through the bitter winters, we are having to find a solution with medicines, fuel, education and insulation for tents in precarious conditions where you can't even build a house because it's deemed to be a permanent structure. We need to be working as hard as we can, both with the world-leading resettlement program for Syrian refugees that former Prime Minister Tony Abbott supported and also with the very flexible funding that leading nations are giving to the UNHCR to enable them to deliver the Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan. It may cost $6 billion to help these people, and still we can't get a ceasefire or even an agreement to de-escalate. This will continue to challenge the world and continue to challenge the UN, and I urge every one of the members in this place to support those efforts. Energy 41 13:42 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Last night, as I slid into bed with the electric blanket on 2, I thought about those people who are going to bed cold because they can't afford the luxury of power. Meanwhile, AGL has just announced that its financial year profits could exceed $1 billion. Its gains are my constituents' losses. In my electorate of Paterson, electricity bills have risen by up to 20 per cent. This is abhorrent. In Paterson, the median weekly income for an individual is 11 per cent less than the median average across the country. For families, it's 15 per cent less. Rising energy costs are stretching budgets to breaking point. People are going cold—and hungry, in many cases. I am absolutely incensed that the Prime Minister's solution is to give the big energy chiefs a tap on the wrist, 'Naughty, naughty,' and say, 'Make sure you keep letting people know about their discounts.' It's simply not good enough. Their lack of transparency and shifting customers around are a small step in a ginormous marathon that's not being run. We know that the driving force behind price hikes is the absence of a national energy policy. You've been in government for four years, and you've done diddly squat. We've lost one in three renewable energy jobs since you formed government. The Australian people are sick of waiting for this government to get its act together. Until then, we'll all pay the price. But here's a dollar; why don't you send everyone out a survey, and they'll tell you that? Capricornia Electorate: Roads 42 13:44 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia The condition of the Koumala Range road is a tragedy waiting to happen. I urge the Queensland government to take action before the wet season begins in a few weeks. Due to the closure of the Sarina Range following Tropical Cyclone Debbie, the Koumala Range is being used as the main access for the entire community. Apart from the inconvenience and stress that the additional time is creating, use of the road is beyond its structural capacity. Heavy vehicles, shift workers, school children and workers commuting after long days are all using the narrow road, which contains many dangerous bends, is potholed where sealed, is slippery where not sealed, and has an alarming bridge crossing. Having recently driven the route myself, I believe the concerns are genuine and warranted. At a community meeting at Serena Range on 30 July residents raised fears that, unless urgent works are undertaken before the wet season, lives will be at risk. None of the state MPs bothered to attend that public meeting. I have written to the Deputy Premier requesting urgent action, but she has not bothered to respond. Perhaps I should have mentioned the Cross River Rail. That may have caught her attention. Energy 42 13:45 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons On 20 September the pensioners of Australia will learn what this government thinks of them. That is when their power prices will go up because the energy supplement is coming down for new pensioners. Single pensioners will be $14.10 a fortnight worse off. That might not mean much to this Prime Minister, as he lives in Point Piper and Kirribilli and wherever else, but it means a damn lot to the pensioners in my electorate. They cannot afford a cut of $14.10 per fortnight. Pensioner couples will be $21.20 a fortnight worse-off. These people are already on low incomes. They are turning the power off at night. They cannot afford heating. In the last few weeks, my air conditioner at home has been off because mice have chewed through the control panel. I have had a small taste of what pensioners have to put up with in the cold winters in Tasmania: there is no heat in my house. This is how pensioners live. I cannot believe that this government is going to make it harder for pensioners to warm themselves over winter by cutting the energy supplement. It is an absolute disgrace. Make no mistake, axing the energy supplement is a $1 billion cut to age pensioners, disability support pensioners and people on Newstart. These are the people in the community who can least afford a cut to their incomes and these are the people this government cuts the most. Berowra Electorate: Sydney Youth Musical Theatre 42 13:47 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I rise today to congratulate the Sydney Youth Musical Theatre on an outstanding production of Monty Python's Spamalot at the Hornsby RSL Club in my electorate last month. The Sydney Youth Musical Theatre has been operating since 1979. It performs two shows each year—a senior production comprising 14- to 25-year-olds and a junior production comprising 10- to 18-year-olds. The performers rehearse for up to five months and the production is of a professional standard. Spamalot tells the story of King Arthur's quest to find the Holy Grail and is based on the classic Monty Python film Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It includes characters such as King Arthur, Sir Lancelot, Sir Robin, Sir Galahad and the Lady of the Lake. Joining the Court of Camelot are some new appearances from 'killer rabbits' and 'a flatulent Frenchman'! I would like to acknowledge the cast of the production—Oscar Blaxland, Jacquie Bramwell, Fred Pryce and Jeremy Zolewski. I also want to acknowledge the production team—Adam Haynes, Frankie Voon, Melissa Ayers, Harry Baxter and Matilda Bromley. The Sydney Youth Musical Theatre is led by its president Kristy Stimson, treasurer Bruce Bartle and secretary Andrew Bartle. I was delighted to present the Founders' Awards to Claire Cox, who played Concord and Mrs Galahad, and Luke Arthur, who played the historian and the French taunter. The next production by Sydney Youth Musical Theatre is TheWizard of Oz this November and it will again be at the Hornsby RSL. I congratulate the cast, crew and committee of the Sydney Youth Musical Theatre on another outstanding production. Energy 43 13:48 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Yesterday the PM boasted about the fact that he had had a talkfest with energy retailers. Well done, PM—the day before, AGL sent hundreds of emails to Victorian customers. I quote from one of the emails a constituent in my electorate received on Tuesday, the day before the talk fest: 'Due to a system error, you've been mistakenly receiving a discount on your electricity bill. As you're no longer eligible for the discount under the terms of your energy plan, it will be corrected from 27 August 2017.' Well done, PM—a day after AGL had written to people in my electorate saying they would no longer receive a discount. This particular customer has been hit with the increase in electricity prices. Last year the same usage was about $300 for the month of July. This year it's $406 for the same usage for the month of July. That's a massive increase to this particular household. This is after this mob in opposition said that every household in the Bendigo electorate would receive a discount in their energy bills—$550 in the pocket for every single household and business. They turned up to fish and chips shops and said, 'This place will get a discount on their energy bills.' They were wrong. Bills have gone up and up because of this government's failure in leadership and failure to crack down on wholesale prices. Their lack of leadership is costing Australians jobs. Griffith Salami Festival 43 13:50 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer As the latest federal member to represent the community of Griffith in the New South Wales Riverina, it is an honour to be invited as one of the guest judges at my very first Griffith Salami Festival later this month. For the record, the official name is Festa delle Salsicce. For those of non-Italian extraction—that's Festival of the Sausage. I may or may not bring my sausage dog, Snag. I am told there are two types of Italian families in the Griffith area: those who make the best homemade pasta sauces and those who make the best salami. Given over 13 per cent of the region is of Italian heritage—around 500 families—the competition is intense and fought out each year between locals and salami connoisseurs from around the nation. The event, now in its 18th year, started among a few families many yeas ago when a friendly rivalry decided there should be an annual winner. This year's colder weather allows the salamis more curing time, making them even more delicious. Proving we are truly one of the great multicultural societies, Aussies are allowed to submit an entry, although I suspect they are not permitted to win! Entries are judged by an expert panel with an Italian luncheon complete with local wine and live music to celebrate the occasion. To all my colleagues: it's been a long, cold winter, and I invite you all to celebrate the edge of spring with me in Griffith on the 27th of this month. Siete tutti accolti a venire. Energy 43 13:52 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam In a few weeks' time the pensioners in my electorate are going to get three envelopes. The first is going to be an envelope with a power bill in it. It's going to demonstrate that their power bill has gone up by about 20 per cent over the last 12 months—this from a government which promised to bring power prices down. In fact, wholesale prices have almost doubled on their watch. The second envelope is going to be one from Centrelink. This is going to tell them that they are going to get a $14.10 cut to their fortnightly pension. Of course, if they are a couple pensioner, the price will be $21.20, nearly $550 over the course of a year. That might not be a lot to the Prime Minister, but it's a lot to the pensioners in my electorate. The third envelope is going to be the one that is the most expensive of all. That is the envelope that is costing Australians $122 million, the envelope which shows how out of touch this Prime Minister and this government really are: the unnecessary and expensive envelope which will have a postal vote on same sex marriage. We know that the power prices aren't going to get any better under this government, because they are hopelessly conflicted and have no plan. Prime Minister, instead of puffing yourself up at the press conference and telling us how strong you are, get strong on power prices. Do something to get your house in order so households are not suffering—(Time expired) Coltzau, Dr Adam 43 13:53 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I would like to congratulate St George doctor Adam Coltzau on being awarded the Queensland General Practitioner of the Year and subsequently becoming a finalist for the national title. Taking out the Queensland award and being nominated for the national award are testament not only to Dr Coltzau's dedicated service to the medical profession but also to his commitment to rural Australia. He is a GP, anaesthetist and obstetrician working between the local St George Hospital, the St George Medical Centre and his outreach clinic in Bowen. Beyond his medical service to the St George community, Dr Coltzau is giving back to our new generation of doctors and, I have no doubt, inspiring rural practice throughout his commitment to rural medical training and health care as a senior lecturer at the University of Queensland. As a young student, Dr Coltzau found himself in St George only to return a few years later as a junior medical officer. Dr Coltzau also regularly facilitates professional development meetings for other GPs within a 150-kilometre radius of St George to ensure health care in the region is at the cutting edge. I have no doubt that today, in addition to expressing my personal congratulations and thanks to Dr Coltzau for his extensive and unwavering rural service, I am doing so on behalf of the people of the Balonne Shire. It is obviously crucial to recognise the hard work of our health professionals who work tirelessly across rural Australia, often in the most unique and challenging circumstances. Energy 44 13:55 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth In this place, I have the enormous responsibility and great privilege of having responsibility in the consumer affairs space. Every day I get calls from mums and dads and pensioners who are being crippled by power prices. They cannot afford to pay for the heating that they desperately need and deserve in the middle of winter. In the face of wholesale prices doubling, and in the face of 20 per cent increases in power prices, what does this Prime Minister do? He has a chat. He gets the heavy hitters in for a cup of tea and says, 'Look, can you kind of just do something around the edges?' Then what does he do? He rolls out in front of a press conference and tells everyone just how strong he is. Well, we all know—to borrow a phrase from James Jeffrey—that the first rule of being in strong club is you don't say you are in strong club. This Prime Minister is no Tyler Durden, I'm telling you right now. This Prime Minister reminds me of Getting Strong!, which parents in here will know is a great tune by the Wiggles. We have the Yellow Wiggle, the Red Wiggle, the Blue Wiggle and the Purple Wiggle. What do we have in this Prime Minister? We have a grey Wiggle. Have a look at the lyrics to Getting Strong!: 'Running on the spot getting strong.' That's all this Prime Minister, this grey Wiggle, does: run on the spot. Things are so bad under this grey Wiggle that, if I had to choose between the real Wiggles and this Prime Minister in relation to directing energy policy in this country, I'd take the Wiggles any day of the week. Forrest Electorate: Busselton Jetty 44 13:56 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest Congratulations to the Busselton City Council on their world-class foreshore development. The Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and I announced $1.5 million from the federal government during the Prime Minister's visit to the city last Wednesday. The Prime Minister was the first Prime Minister to visit Busselton in 71 years, and hasn't the city changed since then? He arrived at the Busselton-Margaret River Regional Airport, which the Liberal-led government is contributing $9.78 million towards. He arrived at the new City of Busselton premises, where he met with 141 emergency service volunteers, community service organisation volunteers and other local volunteers, as well as schoolchildren, in a truly wonderful event. The Prime Minister then made his way to the iconic foreshore, where he saw one of WA's top tourist attractions, the Busselton Jetty, which has more than 400,000 visitors every year. It is the second most visited icon in Western Australia, along with the Jetty Train. The funding will go towards the revitalisation of the jetty precinct and the foreshore redevelopment, making the Busselton foreshore a world-class waterfront destination. The redevelopment will also support and encourage further investment and further tourism in the city. I thank the Prime Minister for his visit to Busselton and the South West last week. Prime Minister 44 13:58 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield All Prime Ministers make compromises, but it's rare to find a Prime Minister so compromised. The Prime Minister is compromised by his blood feud with the member for Warringah. The Prime Minister is compromised by a cabinet filled full of conspirators and plotters. The Prime Minister is compromised by his mercenary conduct in the HIH collapse. The Prime Minister is compromised by his protection racket that he's running for the banks as they casually snub their noses at our laws. The Prime Minister is compromised by the Liberal Party's strong relationship with the Honoured Society, with the Mafia in Victoria. The Prime Minister is compromised by former ministers in this government who sit in this House and pop— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wakefield will resume his seat. The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for Wakefield will withdraw immediately. Mr CHAMPION HW9 I withdraw, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 00APG And he will resume his seat. Groom Electorate: Dairy Industry 45 13:59 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom It was a great honour last week to open the new Norco Rural store in Toowoomba in the company of board members, co-op members and local staff. Norco promotes itself as the last truly farmer-owned dairy cooperative in this country. It was good to be there to celebrate with our mayor, Paul Antonio, and LNP state member for Toowoomba South, David Janetzki. The last decade of Norco cooperative's presence on the Darling Downs has seen their local dairy farmer membership base grow to 60 farms. This new store will support them and other farmers with standard agricultural requirements, as well as the latest innovations and technology. Despite challenges and low prices, the Downs remains an important milk production region with new opportunities emerging such as the Au Lait Australia and Nature One Dairy joint venture. It is a $35 million, Toowoomba based, integrated milk project, which, I am told, has the potential to fly two jumbo jet tankers to Asia each day. Their other projects include infant formula, milk powder and UHT products. Therefore, I am so very pleased that the dairy industry has a very promising future on the Darling Downs. In our history—in the 1950s, 60s and so forth—we supplied dairy products, including butter in particular, direct to the UK. Having seen that trade die over the years means this development in our industry is so much more important for our region. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 45 CONDOLENCES Sciacca, Hon. Concetto Antonio 'Con', AO 45 Report from Federation Chamber 45 14:01): The SPEAKER 00APG ( The question is that the motion be agreed to. I ask all honourable members to signify their approval by rising in their places. Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the House. Giles, Ms Patricia Jessie 45 14:02 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House of the death on 9 August 2017 of Patricia Jessie Giles, a former Senator. Patricia Giles represented the State of Western Australia from 1981 to 1993. As a mark of respect to the memory of Patricia Giles I invite all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the House. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 45 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Turnbull Government 45 14:02 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has failed to put downward pressure on power prices by implementing the clean energy target recommended by the Finkel report. He's wasting $122— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Members on my right are preventing me from hearing the question. I will ask the Leader of the Opposition to begin his question again, and, at this early stage, I warn members about the consequences of interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition will begin his question. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has failed to put downward pressure on power prices by implementing the clean energy target as recommended by the Finkel report. He's wasting $122 million on a survey because he's too weak to have a free vote in the House. When will this policy paralysis on the energy crisis and marriage equality end? Why can't the Prime Minister lead his government instead of being humiliated by the right wing of his party? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right! 14:04 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Only somebody as confused as the Leader of the Opposition would combine a question about same-sex marriage and energy prices into the one question. I can assure honourable speakers that the two issues are entirely unrelated. As far as energy prices are concerned, the fact of the matter is that a recklessness on the part of Labor governments in the past has led us into the position we are in today. There is no point kidding ourselves about this. The largest single factor on energy prices—electricity prices—right now is the price of gas. Why is gas so expensive? It is so expensive because a federal Labor government and a Queensland state Labor government allowed a big export facility to be built on Curtis Island without any regard for the consequences for the Australian domestic gas market. We do not criticise exporting gas. We are about to become the biggest exporter of LNG in the world and that is a great achievement. But a government which is mindful of its responsibilities to the people it represents would at least have done some planning and given some thought to the domestic market. The Labor Party did not, and that is why we have had to take the strong measures we have taken. As I said yesterday, the spot price for gas on the east coast has already come down several dollars a gigajoule, but it is a massive problem. We are short of gas on the east coast, a shortage created by the failure of Labor policy. Ms Owens interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Parramatta is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 And it is exactly the same approach the Labor Party took in South Australia where, as we know, they allowed a huge rollout of renewable energy to be undertaken without paying any regard to the fact that the wind does not blow all the time—you would think that would be obvious. They paid no regard to that. They had no storage, no planning, they allowed baseload generation to close down, and the consequence has been what we have seen in South Australia—that state has the most expensive, the least reliable electricity in Australia. By contrast, we on this side are taking action to bring prices down so that people get a better deal. Yesterday we ensured the commitment of the big retailers to make sure that their customers would know what is the right plan for them. Too many families are paying more than they need to for electricity. We have acted on gas, we have acted on retail prices, we are acting on networks and we are acting on long-term planning with Snowy Hydro 2.0, a massive contrast. (Time expired) Mr Stephen Jones interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Whitlam will cease interjecting. I remind the member for Parramatta she has been warned. She can choose whether she stays or goes. The member for La Trobe has the call. Trade Unions 46 14:07 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe My question is also to the Prime Minister: Will the Prime Minister advise the House on how the government's corruption benefits legislation will improve transparency and outlaw secret payments to the detriment of workers? 14:07 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The Heydon royal commission revealed what many knew—that there had been a long history, over many decades, of secret payments made by employers to trade unions in order to secure benefits for those employers. Those benefits, which Justice Heydon described as corrupting benefits, were a major feature of his report, and his recommendation was that any benefit paid by an employer to a union or a union official which was not for a thoroughly legitimate purpose for services rendered should be unlawful. The law now passed by the Senate has done that. But, equally, any payments paid between an employer and a union, even if for a legitimate purpose, should be disclosed. We have seen dozens of examples of unions, particularly the AWU, receiving payments at a time when there was an enterprise agreement being negotiated. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 What about Cleanevent? What about that great achievement of advocacy on the part of the Leader of the Opposition's union, where workers who were entitled to $50 for per hour overtime ended up with a deal at $18 but the union ended up with $75,000 completely undisclosed? What about the $32,000 contribution to the Leader of the Opposition's campaign, which he forgot to disclose for quite some years—whoops!—and that came from Unibuilt, an employer whose members were members of the Australian Workers' Union? Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney! Mr TURNBULL 885 The reality is the law was not fit for purpose. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney is warned! Mr TURNBULL 885 The reforms that have been introduced put transparency above secrecy and put integrity above corruption. Labor opposed all of these reforms. They stood in the Senate and defended corruption against integrity. They defended secrecy against transparency. It is patently obvious that, if you are a trade union or a trade union official and you are dealing with an employer, as you do all the time, you should not be taking benefits from that employer and in particular you should not be taking benefits that are not fully disclosed, particularly at the time of negotiations. Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 This is a long overdue correction of a major flaw in the law. Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 It is to the Labor Party's internal shame that they did not support it. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Moreton is warned! I remind members that, during question time, where there are issues that are quite divisive in the chamber, members expect me to be able to listen so that I can conduct question time properly. The member for Moreton bellowing through the Prime Minister's answer does not assist in that regard at all, and that goes for other interjections as well. A number of people have been warned. I will have no hesitation in ejecting them. I am trying to listen to the questions and answers carefully. If members object to something that is said in either a question or an answer, they can't complain if I have not heard it properly. The member for Sydney has the call. Marriage 47 14:11 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Commonwealth Electoral Act protections against electoral fraud, bribery and intimidation don't apply to his $122 million survey? 14:12 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The survey, as she describes it, will give every single Australian their say. Mr Bowen interjecting— Ms Catherine King interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 It will be conducted in accordance with the law. It will give every Australian their say, and I encourage every Australian to exercise their right to have their say. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Ballarat will leave under 94(a). The member for Sydney will resume her seat for a second. The member for McMahon is warned! The member for Ball a rat then left the chamber. Workplace Relations 47 14:13 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline to the House why it is important for employer and employee organisations to act in a way that promotes transparency? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:13 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Berowra for his question. On this particular day, after the Senate has passed the corrupting benefits legislation and we have accepted their amendments, it's good to ask: 'Why is it that the Leader of the Opposition is always on the wrong side of industrial relations reform that is designed to support workers? Why does he always find himself on the side of the union bosses and, in this case, on the side of those who had been taking corrupting benefits from employers over many years?' The government has acted yet again on industrial relations reform in this country and yet again finds itself on the side of the worker and of the honest union official. And yet again the Labor Party finds itself on the side of the dodgy union official and the corrupt union boss. This is not the first time. Since this government has been in power—since 2013—particularly in the last 18 months and since the election, we have reintroduced the Australian Building and Construction Commission opposed by Labor; we have reintroduced the Registered Organisations Commission, which was opposed by Labor. We have protected the Victorian CFA volunteers against that thuggish union—again, opposed by Labor. And we protected the owner-operators of trucks across Australia who were being intimidated by the union movement—again, opposed by Labor. The Labor Party even voted against the update of the Building Code in the Senate last night to try and disallow that instrument. Why do they always find themselves on the wrong side of this debate? The answer is very simple: it is because the Leader of the Opposition is hopelessly compromised by the CFMEU and by his own history as the national secretary and the state secretary of the Victorian division of the AWU. While this government continues to act, the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition in particular runs scared from his handlers like John Setka in the CFMEU. If he had any strength, if he had any backbone, he would have at least expelled John Setka from the Labor Party and distanced the Labor Party from him. He himself says Labor has zero tolerance for criminal and corrupt behaviour, be it by employers or union reps in workplaces. Zero tolerance means no tolerance, so this Leader of the Opposition doesn't have zero tolerance all the time. Sometimes he has a little bit of tolerance for union corruption, because otherwise he would've voted. The SPEAKER 00APG The— Mr PYNE 9V5 I withdraw, Mr Speaker. He would have voted in the Senate last night for the corrupting benefits legislation. He would vote in the coming session for the legislation we will introduce to ban dodgy union officials from holding office in the union movement. The SPEAKER 00APG I remind the member for McEwen he is not only delaying the member for Sydney but has been warned, so, unless he has a question, that will be the last thing he says for the rest of question time. Marriage 48 14:16 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I ask again a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Commonwealth Electoral Act protections against electoral fraud, bribery and intimidation will apply in his $122 million survey? 14:17 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The protections that will be in place for the postal plebiscite will include all the protections under the telecommunications legislation, which makes it an offence to tamper with the mail. It will be covered by the protections under the Census and Statistics Act, which makes it an offence to provide false or misleading statements. And, of course, the Criminal Code itself contains multiple offences which would prohibit a person from interfering with the collection of statistics, including making it an offence to obstruct, hinder, intimidate or resist a Commonwealth official in the performance of their functions. So there are protections contained in that legislation. But it's pretty straightforward for the opposition to reflect on this. If they wanted to have a compulsory attendance ballot with all of the protections of the Electoral Act, they should have voted for it. They made the decision to frustrate the will of the people expressed at the election, and we are fulfilling it with this postal vote. Education 48 14:18 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy My question is for the Attorney-General. Secularist attacks upon Christianity inundate. Nativity scenes are gone. Stars are removed from Christmas trees. Now the Queensland government eradicates Christian moral teachings from schoolyards. Can we be assured that the replacement won't be humanism—to quote Lenin, 'communism's father and mother'? Stalin and Mao, 72 million dead; Charles Darwin; Adolf Hitler's master race, 26 million dead—and education in Australia tells of Pax Romana replacing Roman tyranny. The Magna Carta, the abolition of slavery, the collapse of communism and history's six greatest scientists—all of this from the carpenter preacher from Nazareth? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG If members can cease interjecting, please, I'll just point out to the member for Kennedy that the Attorney-General is not in the House, but the Minister representing the Attorney-General is obviously happy to address the wide range of remarks in the member for Kennedy's question. And he only has three minutes. 14:20 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling Yes. Citizenship 48 14:20 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the action the government is taking to protect Australian families from dangerous non-citizens, including criminal gang members, and keep us all safe? Are there any risks to the government's approach in relation to these important matters? 14:20 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for Gilmore for her question and thank her very much for the work that she does to keep her community safe. As we've always said, the first priority of the Turnbull government is to keep Australians safe, and we have cancelled a record number of visas held by non-citizens who have committed crimes against Australians. In fact, the number is up by 1,200 per cent, and it includes some 540 visa holders who have committed offences of assault, 415 for other violent offences and 441 for drug offences. We have cancelled 52 visas for people who have committed murders, and 110 for rape and other sexual offences. I am also pleased to inform the House that we have now cancelled 147 visas for non-citizens who were members of outlaw motorcycle gangs—members who were involved in the distribution of drugs. The biggest distributors of drugs in this country are outlaw motorcycle gang members. They are also involved in robbery, extortion and murder. But I'm sorry to inform that there has been an unintended consequence from the cancellation of these visa holders who are outlaw motorcycle gang members. It seems that we have created somewhat of a shortage in the hired muscle required by the CFMEU on building sites around the country. This wasn't an intended consequence, but it is a positive one. And it is difficult for the Leader of the Opposition. He reaches always for his glass of water right at this point in time—right on cue. He knows what's coming, because the CFMEU aren't only involved in extortion rackets on building sites, breaking the arms of carpenters and people who won't pay the extortion money to the CFMEU; they're also deeply ensconced in the Australian Labor Party— Ms Chesters interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bendigo will leave under 94(a). The member for Bendigo then left the chamber. Mr DUTTON 00AKI led by this Leader of the Opposition. Right on cue, at this point he turns and talks to his colleagues, pretending that this conversation is not taking place. And what happens is that the Labor Party is dictated to and run by the CFMEU. They've donated, over the last five years, $8 million to this Leader of the Opposition and this Labor Party. You would have thought— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will just pause for a second. He needs to withdraw the accusation that they donated personally to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr DUTTON 00AKI Mr Speaker, I'm happy to seek clarification about whether they have donated to the Leader of the Opposition's campaign. The SPEAKER 00APG No, no—the minister will withdraw. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I withdraw, Mr Speaker. I withdraw. The point of this story is: how could you trust this man to be Prime Minister of this country? His integrity must be in question when he condones the behaviour of the CFMEU thugs around the country. The Labor Party, under Bob Hawke, dealt with the BLF and they dealt with the thugs on building sites who were members of the BLF. This Leader of the Opposition is no Bob Hawke, and let me say: this Leader of the Opposition, as he's demonstrated every day to the Australian public, is unfit to be Prime Minister of this country. Marriage 49 14:24 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, thousands of voters in my electorate of Lingiari have no access to direct mail services. Many can only send and receive mail once a week. Around 20 per cent are not on the Electoral Roll. During elections, the AEC takes two weeks to visit over 220 polling places to provide these people with an opportunity to have their say. How will the Prime Minister guarantee that Australians like these will be able to have their say on marriage equality in his survey? 14:24 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member doesn't want any Australian to have their say unless they're a member of the federal parliament. He doesn't want Australians to be consulted. He said 20 per cent of his constituents are not on the electoral roll. Then they wouldn't have got a say in a compulsory plebiscite either, and they don't get a say in an election. Mr Snowdon interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lingiari is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 So it's far from a tribute to the energies of the honourable member that he hasn't got all those constituents onto the electoral roll. So I would encourage him, as an enthusiast for democracy, to get those constituents onto the electoral roll so that they will be able to participate in this plebiscite, which will ensure that every Australian has their say on this issue. The only reason it isn't a compulsory attendance ballot is the Labor Party's opposition. If I may add to an earlier answer, Mr Speaker: when the Leader of the Opposition opened up by mingling same-sex marriage and energy, I responded by saying the two issues did not have anything in common. Ms Husar interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lindsay is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 They do have one thing in common: over six years of Labor government, the Labor Party did nothing about either. Energy 50 14:26 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Minister for Resources and Northern Australia: Will the minister update the House on the importance of energy security and affordability to hardworking regional Australians, particularly in the agriculture industry? What are the obstacles to securing the jobs and productivity of Australia's $60 billion agriculture industry? 14:26 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for her question and note how important the cattle industry of Central Queensland, the coal industry and the cane industry are to the member for Capricornia. We understand how important it is that you have affordable power if you want to move water to irrigate sugar cane. We know how important it is to have affordable and reliable power to keep the meatworkers in a job in Rockhampton. We know how important it is to make sure that we stand behind coalminers and behind coal-fired power. We're not ashamed of that. It is interesting that recently what we have seen is that the Labor Party have adopted the South Australian power policy. They believe in 50 per cent renewables, and now we see that in South Australia they have regressed back to diesel generators. They have nine diesel generators going into their power grid. If we wait around long enough, they'll be back to the horse and cart and donkeys. It's an amazing regression that has happened in the power policy of South Australia, and one would think that that would be a splendid example to avoid, but it's actually the splendid example that the Labor Party are going to replicate nationally so that we can have the chaos across our nation that they currently have in South Australia. The member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition, went to Central Queensland lately. We've been going through social media and we've been going through all his media releases, and there's one word he can't mention. It's a word that cannot mention its name. It's the Lord Voldemort of words. Guess what that word is: he can't say the four-letter word 'coal'. He can't say it. Maybe he'll come to the dispatch box. It's religious. It needs a psychologist to work this one out. He has a problem with it. He has a problem with the people of Collinsville. He has a problem with the people of Claremont. He has a problem with the coalminers at Moura. He has a problem with labourers in general. He has a problem with Bowen, because he's chasing all the votes in Balmain. He's left behind the blue-collar workers who used to be in the AWU, if I have to remind you. He does not believe in coalminers. He does not believe in steelworkers. He does not believe in power workers. He does not believe in anybody involved in the mining industry. He goes to Central Queensland, and what is he going to give them? He's going to give them public transport. Well, I am sure that's going to be a big advantage for people in Alpha! They can now have a light rail to get the unemployed people from one side of town to the other side of town, because he won't stand behind the Galilee Basin. What are you going to do? Are you going to put a light rail down Herbert Street in Bowen? Is that the policy for Central Queensland? Why can't this person who used to be in the AWU actually start to represent labourers? Why has the Labor Party given up on labourers? Why do you have such an aversion to cheap power? You know why you have an aversion to cheap power? Because you want cheap wages. (Time expired) Marriage 50 14:29 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand My question is to the Prime Minister. When asked on Sky News this week, the Attorney-General couldn't say whether Australians overseas would be able to participate in the $122 million survey on marriage equality. Does the Prime Minister know whether these Australians will, in fact, receive their survey forms? 14:30 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I am advised by the minister that where Australians are overseas, are on the electoral roll, have registered as an overseas voter and provided their overseas address, then their request for a response will be sent directly to them. Energy 50 14:30 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes My question is to the Minister for Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on what the government is doing to strengthen energy security and maintain energy affordability? What hurdles stand in the way to achieving this security for hardworking Australian families? 14:30 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Hughes for his question, and acknowledge that he strongly supports the actions of the Turnbull government yesterday to call in the retailers and to put consumers first. The Prime Minister secured important commitments from those retailers—important commitments to ensure that they provide clearer information to their customers, more comparable information to their customers and stronger protections for low-income earners to ensure they can save money on their power bills. The actions of the Turnbull government yesterday have been warmly received. Energy Consumers Australia has said that it will have a positive effect. The Consumer Action Law Centre has said that it was a positive start. Queensland Consumers Association has talked about it as being a positive move and National Seniors Australia has said it was a step in the right direction. I was asked if there are any obstacles to this approach. We know that under the Labor Party, power prices went up by more than 100 per cent. So when we received positive acclamation for our reforms in our meeting yesterday, you can imagine what the member for Port Adelaide did. He went out on ABC Radio this morning and he said, 'This has been the position of the Labor Party for a couple of years now. It is clear policy we took to the last election.' So we went to their election platform and nobody can find anywhere where they committed to these retail reforms. The same applied to what we have done to rein in the networks. The member for Port Adelaide put out a press release on 25 May, saying he had long argued for these reforms to the limited merits review. So we went to their election platform. It was absolutely nowhere to be seen—absolutely nowhere to be seen! The Prime Minister has talked about how prices are rising because of gas. On 21 June on Sky News the member for Port Adelaide was asked six times about the states lifting their mindless bans and moratoriums on gas, to which he gave the very meek response, 'Look, I'm not a scientist; I'm not a geologist.' That is what the member for Port Adelaide said when he was asked to take decisive action and to call upon his Labor colleagues in Victoria and in the Northern Territory to lift their bans, to get more gas into the domestic system and to lower prices for households. Only the coalition government will deliver lower energy prices, because the Labor Party is driven by green-left ideology, whereas we are driven by engineering and economics. Marriage 51 14:33 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner My question is to the Minister for Small Business, and it goes to his responsibility for the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The ABS had five years to prepare for the census and the government made an absolute shambles of it. But the government has given the same agency just weeks to prepare for the $122 million postal survey. Has the minister sought or received advice on whether there are any risks associated with this process? 14:34 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Fenner for his very first question to me. It's taken more than 12 months from him to finally ask a question. But did I get a question about small business? No. Did I get a question about small business tax cuts? No. Did I get a question about the instant asset write-off which has been extended for 12 months? No. What could be more fair than giving the people their say about the issue of same-sex marriage? We are giving all Australians a say. The Turnbull government is committed to delivering on its pre-election promise to give the Australian people a say on whether or not the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. I am pleased that the member for Fenner has asked me this, because he can participate in this as well, as all Australians can. If the member opposite and many of those opposite had not cast such doubt on the census prior to the census, maybe we wouldn't have had such questions about the census before. The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW The question quite specifically is asking whether advice has been sought and received on the risks. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The minister will resume his seat; I haven't called him. Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business is right. The 30 seconds that was a question was specific, but the preceding 20 seconds certainly was not. That widens it beyond if the member for Fenner had simply just asked the last part of the question, so the minister's in order. Mr McCORMACK 219646 The member for Fenner might cast doubt on the last census, but can I assure him that the response rate for households was 95.1 per cent, on a par with any previous census. It was on a par with the census conducted by the member for Maribyrnong. Opposition members interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 You might laugh and you might mock, but your electorates rely on the information that comes from that census. When you're knocking the census, you're knocking the good public servants who work very hard. The member for Canberra and the member for Fenner should be sticking up more for those public servants who work for the Australian Bureau of Statistics. By knocking the census you are knocking the public servants who work for the ABS—good, hardworking, diligent public servants. I would have thought better of the member for Fenner. I would have thought better of him prior to the last year's census, and I would have thought better of him now. An issue has been directed to the Australian Statistician, David Kalisch, asking the Australian Bureau of Statistics to request statistical information from all Australians on the electoral roll as to their views on whether or not the law in relation to same-sex marriage should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. What could be more fair than that? Give the people their say. If a plebiscite is so good for the republic, as we had from left field from the member for Maribyrnong recently, why not have a postal survey for and on behalf of the people for same-sex couples to marry? Energy 52 14:38 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson My question to the Minister for Small Business is—be thankful for small mercies!—a question about small business. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to protect consumers and small businesses from the impact of unreliable and expensive energy? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:38 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Two in a row! I thank the member for Dawson for his question. He understands, unlike the member for Fenner, the pressures and the daily demands of high energy prices for consumers and small business. The member ran his own small business. He grew up on a family sugarcane farm, so, like all of us on this side of the House, he wants to take action to help consumers and small business cope. We recently met Debbie and Mark Ahern in Mackay at Debbie's Seafood & Deb's Fish Cafe, one of the more than 17,000 small businesses in Dawson. Starting with a single truck and one employee in 1997, Debbie's Seafood has grown to 29 people today—a great mum-and-dad operation. Debbie and Mark's success is thanks to hard work and determination. It's thanks to investment and support by the Liberals and Nationals through the $20,000 instant asset write-off and thanks to tax cuts for small business down to 27½ per cent—the lowest they've been since 1940. Like millions of Australians in small business, Debbie and Mark want to keep doing what they do best, and that is running their business and creating jobs. But uncertainty in the energy sector hurts their chances of doing that. They told me power prices should be more competitive. We need prices to head downwards. Debbie and Mark have coolrooms and cookers which need a lot of energy, and the cost affects their ability to hire more people and to grow. Debbie and Mark's feedback is like what I have heard from small businesses right across the country, including in Labor electorates. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Energy and the Treasurer met with energy company bosses just yesterday to help get a better deal for Australians. We know the impact high energy costs have on the hip pocket and we have a long-term plan and a short-term plan to help deliver energy security for Australians and to give small businesses and consumers the confidence they deserve, they want and they expect. The ACCC has commenced an investigation into the National Electricity Market and retailer behaviour to ensure the market is operating competitively. Longer-term, Snowy Hydro 2.0—the Prime Minister's dream—will not only generate thousands of jobs. It will also provide power for half a million homes—the Prime Minister's reality. I am asked about alternatives. I look with some despair at the sorry lot opposite—what a completely bleak alternative. Labor won't take action on energy like we have with energy bosses. It is all ideology over engineering and economics for Labor. Those opposite are hell-bent on an ideological target with no regard for household bills and no regard for reliability. Labor is the same party which had 13 different policies in eight years. Labor is the party of the carbon tax, the party of the citizens' assembly. Labor is not going into bat for lower energy prices—never did. Labor is not going into bat for small businesses and families—never will—and Labor is not going into bat for a fairer deal. With all due respect, they would not know how. (Time expired) Marriage 53 14:41 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Has the minister sought or received advice on whether there are any risks attached to the process for the postal survey on marriage equality and, if so, what did the advice say? 14:42 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Feast or famine, and today is a feast. I have had a meeting with the ABS statistician, David Kalisch. He assures me that the ABS, with good public servants who the members for Canberra and Fenner should be defending in this place, should be sticking up for, will do their very best to make sure that this household survey is conducted responsibly, conducted well. What could be fairer than giving all Australians their say on this issue? That is what is going to happen with the postal survey. Economy 53 14:42 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar My question is to the Treasurer. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Mackellar will resume his seat. The member for Perth, the member for Kingston, who is interjecting even now, and all those up that end will cease interjecting. Members want to hear the question asked. The member for Mackellar has the call. Mr FALINSKI G86 Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer update the House on what the government is doing to ensure Australia has a competitive and growing economy? Is the Treasurer aware of any threats that undermine national economic growth and reduce living standards for hardworking Australians? 14:43 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Mackellar for his question. He will be pleased, as members on this side of the House are and indeed all members of the House should be, that the government's national economic plan is getting results. In the last 12 months, in the fiscal year, more than 240,000 Australians got jobs. More than 240,000 Australians got jobs as we continue to implement our national economic plan to drive growth in the economy because that is how you boost Australians' wages and their incomes, which is so important. Cutting taxes for small and medium-sized businesses and seeking to extend that across the economy, providing investment in our infrastructure of some $75 billion over the next 10 years, investing in building the capability of our defence forces and assets here in Australia, investing in innovation and science and opening up the trade agenda—all of these things are driving growth in our economy. Over the last 12 months, some 240,000 jobs were created. It isn't bad enough that those opposite, the Labor Party, when it comes to addressing these issues have an industrial relations policy—on this side of the House, our industrial relations policies are putting the rule of law back into the building and construction industry. We're making sure that corrupt payments can't be made to union officials. If it isn't bad enough that the Labor Party's industrial relations policy is written on a brown paper bag—that's the Labor Party's industrial relations policy; they should be very familiar with the sight. If it's not bad enough that that's their industrial relations policy, when it comes to taxing the Australian economy and taxing Australia out of business, this opposition wants to set new limits. Under our budget policy, there is a speed limit on taxes. Our budget policy says the taxes as a share of the economy cannot rise above 23.9 per cent. That is there over the budget and the forward estimates. But the member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer, at the last election made it clear that Labor will abolish the speed limits on taxes in this country. Indeed, at the election, the projection of their tax to GDP over the next 10 years would get to 25.7 per cent. In today's terms, in this current year, that would mean there would be $31 billion more in higher taxes under a Labor government than under this side of the House. How do they think someone is going to be able to get a higher wage and a job in an economy where Labor is pressing down more than $30 billion in higher taxes in just one year? The Labor Party is driven by the politics of envy; we're driven by the economics— (Time expired) Marriage 53 (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:46): Mr BURKE DYW My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Can the Minister for Small Business confirm to the House, as the minister responsible for the Australian Bureau of Statistics, that there has only been one meeting to discuss the marriage postal vote, that there has been no written advice and that there has been no discussion of the risks? If there has been discussion of the risks, in writing or in those meetings, could he please advise the House what those risks are? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House on a point of order. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, the government's been more than happy to allow the small business minister to take these questions and to answer them. He's done a— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will resume his seat. Opposition members interjecting— Mr Shorten 00ATG It's his job though! The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The Leader of the House will resume his seat. Members will not interject—unless those on my left wish me not to hear the objection and to simply move on to the next question. The Leader of the House. Mr Pyne 9V5 As I said, the government is more than happy with the Minister for Small Business's answers to these questions, but the fact is that the direction for the postal plebiscite was issued by the Treasurer. He is actually the responsible minister until the direction is handed over to the Special Minister of State, and then he represents the Special Minister of State as well. So actually the question is directed to the wrong minister. The Treasurer should be the person answering these questions, as he issued the direction for the postal plebiscite. The SPEAKER 00APG I'm happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr BURKE DYW Thanks, Mr Speaker. The reference to the Australian marriage law postal survey is on the letterhead of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, for which the minister is responsible. The question that is being asked is about what advice that minister received. That is what we are asking. That question as to what advice he received cannot be asked of any other minister. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House. Mr Pyne 9V5 The way the Westminster system works, as you would know— Opposition members interjecting— Mr Pyne 9V5 I will explain it to the Manager of Opposition Business, although he was once in the cabinet. The Treasurer is the cabinet minister in the portfolio. The SPEAKER 00APG I'd say to the Leader of the House that the history of Westminster is quite long, so I don't want him to explain it. I'd like him to get to his point of order. Mr Pyne 9V5 We are fortunate to be part of it. The truth is that the Treasurer is the cabinet minister in the portfolio of Treasury. He issued the direction. The Minister for Small Business is part of the Treasurer's portfolio. The responsible minister for this postal plebiscite direction is not the Minister for Small Business, it is the Treasurer. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I'm ready to rule on this issue, if members will cease interjecting. As members well know, it's the Prime Minister's prerogative to direct the question to any minister, so if he wishes to do that, he can. The Treasurer has the call. 14:49 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Thank you, Prime Minister. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members will cease interjecting! The members for McEwen and Gellibrand will leave under 94(a). The members for McEwen and G ellibrand then left the chamber. Mr MORRISON E3L I thank the Prime Minister for the reference. The Census and Statistics (Statistical Information) Direction 2017 is a registered instrument. It's laid before this parliament—it was registered last night. It would be very easy for the Leader of the Opposition or any other members of the opposition to review the entire direction. That direction was obviously drafted on the basis of substantial advice. It included consultation with the Australian Statistician and, indeed, with the Minister for Small Business and other relevant ministers. It was a matter determined by cabinet, and I issued the direction. The direction is set out there as a registered instrument. Mr Burke DYW I seek to table the page from the AEC web page that the website has crashed on the enrolment page. The SPEAKER 00APG Leave is not granted. The member for Corangamite. Taxation 54 14:51 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite Thank you— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Ms Claydon interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Newcastle will under 94(a). The member for Newcastle will leave immediately, without speaking to the member for Eden-Monaro, or I will name her. The member for Newcastle then left the chamber. Ms HENDERSON ZN4 My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government's business tax cuts will benefit all hardworking Australians? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that pose a threat to Australian small businesses, including the 17,000 small businesses in my electorate of Corangamite? 14:52 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for Corangamite for her question. She is a most passionate advocate on behalf of all of the small and medium-sized enterprises in her electorate of Corangamite. Like everyone on this side of the chamber, she has been working incredibly hard as a member of our government team to cut taxes for small and medium-sized enterprises because she understands that small and medium-sized enterprises are the true job drivers in our economy, employing more than 6.5 million Australians. She knows this first hand because she and I have visited a number of businesses in her electorate, including the Irrewarra bakery, which employs around 40 full-time employees and 10 part-time employees. It will get a company tax cut as a result of our tax cuts and will only be paying 27.5 per cent rather than 30 per cent. This is good news for those business owners who are looking to employ and who are looking to invest and grow their businesses. But there are, I'm afraid to say, alternative approaches. Unfortunately, those opposite would seek to punish small and medium-sized enterprises. They will punish those enterprises because they will hike up their taxes. They will slug small and medium-sized enterprises 30 cents in the dollar rather than 27½ cents in the dollar. They will do that despite the fact that those small and medium-sized enterprises represent around 97 per cent of all business in this country. Labor will not stop there. They will also impose a minimum of 30 per cent tax on the distributions of discretionary trusts. It is just another Labor tax grab on 270,000 small businesses. The Leader of the Opposition, who once supported trusts, needs to explain why it is that he'll provide an exemption to farm trusts but not to those small businesses who provide farmers with farm supplies such as fertilisers for crops and stock feed for livestock. They also have lumpy income, and yet he would seek to punish them. This is in addition to the fact that Labor is raising taxes across all other areas, like personal income tax and like the fact that it will change negative gearing to hurt small investors like teachers and police officers, those people on average incomes. Unfortunately, Labor is all about the politics of envy, not the economics of opportunity. They will punish small and medium-sized enterprises. They will punish hardworking Australians. Those on this side of the House will represent them. Donations to Political Parties 55 14:55 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that allegations involving Victorian Labor—sorry, Liberal—leader, Matthew Guy— Government members interjecting— Mr DREYFUS HWG he's your leader—and alleged Mafia boss, Tony Madafferi, would be carefully examined by federal— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Isaacs will resume his seat. Members on my right! Mr Frydenberg interjecting— Mr Porter interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for the Environment and Energy and the Minister for Social Services will cease interjecting. The member for Isaacs will begin his question again. Mr DREYFUS HWG My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that allegations involving Victorian Liberal leader Matthew Guy and alleged Mafia boss Tony Madafferi would be carefully examined by federal authorities, but the Prime Minister's office has already claimed that the AEC investigation has concluded. Given that the Prime Minister has promised a careful examination of this matter, how did the Prime Minister expect the Electoral Commission to conduct a careful examination in less than 24 hours? Has the Prime Minister asked the AFP, with its stronger powers, to thoroughly investigate? If not, why not? (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister can address himself to the question that was asked. 14:57 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Australian Electoral Commission has advised the Special Minister of State that there is no evidence that disclosure obligations in the Commonwealth Electoral Act have been breached and, at this time, there is nothing in this matter that would warrant referral to the Australian Federal Police, and the AFP has not received any referrals. In the past, the member for Isaacs, who is the shadow Attorney-General and a former Attorney-General, has always been very generous with his free advice to the Australian Federal Police. If he feels that this conclusion by the AEC is inadequate or the AFP should have matters drawn to their attention, I have no doubt that he will write to them in the normal way. Economy 56 14:57 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister update the House on the importance of a competitive tax regime to support investment and growth in our economy, and are there any threats to this approach? 14:58 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I thank the member for Parkes for his question, because maintaining a competitive tax regime is critical to keeping the Australian economy strong. That is, in fact, the very reason why the coalition took such a strong jobs and growth plan to the last election, because this side of the House is absolutely committed to making sure that the Australian economy is strong and to creating employment opportunities for Australians. We recognise this as the only parties in this chamber—the coalition of the Liberal Party and the National Party—that are focused on Australia's small business sector, as opposed to the Australian Labor Party, which, of course, continues its assault on Australia's small business sector. The fact is that we live in a more competitive world than ever before. We absolutely cannot be complacent about what we need to do to remain attractive as the destination for investment. Indeed, when the coalition is pushing forward with our plan to reduce the company tax rate, we recognise that around the world we need to be competitive. The UK rate is heading towards 17 per cent, the Trump administration in the United States aims for 15 per cent, our peers in Singapore are at 17 per cent, and Hong Kong is at 16½ per cent. That is why we are committed to reducing the company tax rate over the medium term. In fact, let me use some words that I think sum up what we are trying to do: The Government's tax reform agenda has a strong focus on ensuring that Australia remains an attractive place to invest. …   …   … Cutting the company tax rate is an important step along this road. This recognises the benefits to investment and growth from lower company tax rates … Who would have said that? The Prime Minister? It's sensible. Or the Treasurer? It sounds like something the Treasurer might say. But, no, it was actually the Leader of the Opposition who made those comments. This is the guy who will say anything at any time, depending on what audience he is talking to. This is the same guy who said to Julia Gillard that he was a Kevin Rudd supporter and who said to Kevin Rudd that he was a Julia Gillard supporter, the same guy who supports a plebiscite on same-sex marriage when he's in front of the Australian Christian Lobby, the same guy who stands up in front of a room of accountants and says that the Australian Labor Party supports lower company tax rates, but then when he gets into opposition stands up in front of the trade unions and says that the company tax rates should not be cut and that they are a waste of money. The simple fact is that this bloke opposite cannot be trusted to manage the Australian economy. He can't be trusted with investment in Australia, because you can see the discussions that are to be had. When they consider investment opportunities all around the world and they sit in their boardrooms, there would be a director who would say: 'Let's invest in Australia. The Australian Labor Party supports lower company tax rates.' Then you would get a director on the other side of the room saying, 'Oh, no, that's not correct; they support higher company tax rates.' You can't make critical investment decisions with the Leader of the Opposition, who flip-flops more than a pair of thongs. Donations to Political Parties 56 15:01 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that allegations involving Victorian Liberal leader, Matthew Guy, and alleged mafia boss, Tony Madafferi would be carefully examined by federal authorities. The member for Dunkley has since admitted to discussing fundraising arrangements with Barrie Macmillan, the bagman in this Liberal Party fundraising scheme. Given the Prime Minister's promise of a careful examination, are federal authorities examining whether the member for Dunkley breached any Commonwealth laws? The SPEAKER 00APG Quite predictably, the Leader of the House on a point of order. I will hear him. Mr Pyne 9V5 Thank you, Mr Speaker. Obviously, the Prime Minister has answered the previous question. All of the matters raised by the member for Isaacs are not within the Prime Minister's responsibilities and therefore he should not be required to answer the question. Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business will just pause for a second. The member for Wakefield has been warned at least once. He can leave under 94(a) and I will hear the point of order from the Manager of Opposition Business. The member for Wakefield then left the chamber. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, it's certainly not unprecedented and certainly not unusual to ask the Prime Minister of this country whether the federal authorities are conducting an investigation. The SPEAKER 00APG No, and I can just rule on that part of it. That question has been asked and answered. Mr Burke interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No, hang on. My problem with this question is asking the Prime Minister whether authorities are looking into a certain matter. The Prime Minister has answered the question on the substantive matter, but to then go to a fishing expedition about whether the Prime Minister is directing, almost, that investigation, I think puts the question out of order. Infrastructure 57 15:03 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher My question to Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the minister update the House on the rollout of the government's $75 billion infrastructure investment plan and how projects are benefitting communities across Australia, including in my electorate of Fisher? Is the minister aware of any threats to the successful rollout of infrastructure projects? 15:04 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I thank the member for Fisher for his question. I recognise he is a passionate advocate for infrastructure in his electorate. We have seen record funding for the Bruce Highway and the Sunshine Coast Airport. He, along with the member of Fairfax, are great champions for connecting this magnificent part of Queensland with the infrastructure that will provide long-term benefits to the whole region. The member for Fisher actually began his working life as a carpenter and joiner, as an apprentice, and went on to become a builder and then a construction lawyer, with over 30 years' experience in the industry. He understands better than most the need for value for money for taxpayers on our construction sites. This government is committed—right across Australia, through a record infrastructure investment program of $75 billion over 10 years—to delivering jobs, improving productivity and reducing congestion. The Turnbull-Joyce government is committed to delivering infrastructure, driving productivity and ensuring good value for money, right across Australia. We are also committed to making sure that small businesses can compete fairly, without the fear of union intimidation. We have successfully passed legislation relating to corruption—the corrupting benefits bill, the registered organisations bill, and bills to do with the ABCC and the building code. And this legislation is important because it makes sure that the government can deliver value for money, despite heavy-handed union tactics. This is what the CEO of the Council of Small Business of Australia, Peter Strong, had to say in the Australian Financial Review just last month about union tactics: This problem of union bullying is even more sinister. Small business people, their families and their employees are being targeted by a particularly nasty part of the union movement. …   …   … We want and need the leader of the Labor Party and other elected Labor members of parliament and senators to not just condemn this behaviour but to take action. I'm afraid they'll be waiting for a very long time for this leader of the Labor Party to take any action when it comes to union bullying. You can't trust Labor with jobs. Those opposite are a threat to jobs in the small business sector. Small businesses employ 5.6 million Australians. On this side of the House, we're on the side of small business people and the people they employ. Labor takes orders from their union bosses. We're cleaning up work sites, while they're covering up the union bullying tactics at every opportunity. Don't take my word for it. Secret payments were uncovered during the Heydon royal commission. This is evidence from the Heydon royal commission: Thiess John Holland paid the AWU Victoria $100,000 plus GST for each of the three years of construction of the $2.5 billion EastLink project to extend a freeway in eastern Melbourne between 2005 and 2007. These payments were disguised by false invoices from the AWU in varying amounts. Now the government has banned these secret and corrupting payments from businesses to unions. We're on the side of small businesses. We are on the side of Australian workers. On this side, we're supporting jobs, we're supporting small business people, we're supporting infrastructure investment and we're supporting lower energy prices. We're getting on with the job of delivering a safer, stronger and better Australia. And the Turnbull-Joyce government is delivering for all Australians. (Time expired) Billson, Mr Bruce 58 15:07 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's ministerial standards prohibit former ministers from lobbying members of parliament on any matter relevant to their previous portfolio within 18 months after ceasing to be a minister. Bruce Billson ceased to be small business minister in September 2015. Reports now confirm that MPs were lobbied by him as soon as he was appointed to the Franchise Council in March 2016. Has the Prime Minister taken any action in relation to what is an obvious breach of ministerial standards? 15:07 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for raising that matter with me and I will raise it with the secretary of my department to investigate. Broadband 58 15:07 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom My question is to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, representing the Minister for Communications. Will the minister update the House on the progress of the National Broadband Network? How is this nation-building infrastructure improving productivity and access to jobs across the country? 15:08 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I do thank the member for Groom, who's a very fierce advocate for improved connectivity for his electorate, for regional Australia, and indeed for the entirety of Australia. We have reached a very significant milestone: 5.8 million premises around the country are now able to connect. When we came to government, the number that were connected was a mere 50,000. It was 50,000, and now 5.8 million are able to connect. In the member's electorate of Groom, we also have a very good story. Active premises in September 2013 numbered 1,211; it's now 39,000 active premises in Groom, and 68,000 able to connect. In the third quarter results released by NBN, it was demonstrated that, for the 12th consecutive quarter, NBN has met or exceeded its rollout and revenue targets. What do we hear from Labor? They say, 'We would have done better.' Labor says they would have done better. If the shadow minister had been around in 1969, when a rocket reached the moon, her response would have been, 'No, we would have got to Mars.' That's her answer. I will say this to the shadow minister: your rocket never even left the launch pad. This is typical Labor. They make the big announcement. They were going to build the NBN over eight years to connect every premises in Australia in 2009. They were going to do it. It's like the NDIS. Remember, how they were going to fully fund the NDIS? That's Labor; they were going to do it. Remember how the member for Adelaide was going to end the double drop-off? She was going to end the double drop-off. She was going to build 260 childcare centres. When the program was cancelled, she'd built merely 38. Ladies and gentlemen, members of the House, the Labor Party is the 'gonna' party. They are always going to do it, but if you want to get it done, come to this side of the House. This is the side of the House that gets it done, and when it comes to the NBN we are getting it done, with 5.8 million premises able to connect. Mr Turnbull 885 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 58 DOCUMENTS Presentation 58 15:11 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. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 59 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Questions in Writing 59 15:11 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Mr Speaker, I have a question pursuant to section 105(b). I wonder whether you could write again to the Prime Minister, who has still failed to reply to question in writing No. 641. It's been on the Notice Paper since the 7 February. You last wrote on 10 May. 15:11 The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the member for Bruce. I will write accordingly. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 59 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Marriage 59 15:12 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failure to have a free vote on marriage equality in the Parliament I call upon 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— 15:12 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Marriage equality is important and it matters. It's not the biggest challenge that Australia faces and it's not something that requires a three-month campaign and a $122 million optional survey. We could be here right now voting for marriage equality as the elected representatives of the people of Australia, just as we do on national security, on Medicare, on education and on the matters that touch the lives of every citizen of our nation, but the government have decided that gay people should be subject to a different law making process. They think that same-sex couples should have to write to everyone else in this country for the permission to get married. They think that LGBTI Australians should have to ask permission to be considered equal to Australians who will not even see the law they are casting an opinion on. This is wrong. It is a ridiculous waste of time and taxpayer money. On Tuesday, we remembered Dr G Yunupingu, who died of kidney disease, yet $122 million would fund dialysis in remote communities for decades. It's National Homelessness Week, and $122 million would provide 2,000 new beds for people currently sleeping rough. We could put 1,900 new teachers in our schools, we could train 4,500 new nurses or we could help auto workers find new jobs and new industries. But because of his weakness the Prime Minister is spending $122 million to try to save his own job. This is a method of voting which is calculated to disenfranchise Australians, particularly young people and people not that well off. That last paragraph is a direct quote from the Prime Minister, back when he used to believe in something, before his ambitions seduced his ideals. We have already seen the ugliness this debate holds for LGBTI Australians and their families. Extremists are rerunning their old smears against same-sex couples and their children. The member for Warringah is out there claiming this is a vote on political correctness and on religious freedom. The disgraced former Speaker, Bronwyn Bishop, has spoken about polygamy, bestiality and killing children with disability. Every hateful ideological hobby horse will be saddled up for this vote. And it is clear who is responsible: in less than 48 hours the Prime Minister has gone from promising to call out extreme voices to saying they're entitled to their view. He's gone from guaranteeing a respectful debate to saying it's up to individuals. He calls that strong leadership. Strong leaders do not need to say, 'I'm a strong leader'; they prove it by acting on their convictions, by fighting for what they believe in and even by taking a political risk. Strong leaders lead; they do not stand by and allow children of same-sex couples to be treated as pawns. And yesterday we learned that the Australian electoral rules will not even apply to this vote. There will be no protection against ballot fraud, electoral bribery, intimidation, interfering with the electoral roll or publishing misleading and deceptive material. Who can forget that pathetic red-faced public tantrum from the Prime Minister on election night, when he sooked about one text message. Now he is giving his blessing to billboards, websites, pamphlets, TV advertising and online material that will vilify and demean LGBTI Australians and their children. We know this bile will end up in the playground, in the schoolyard and on the sporting field. The slogans will be shouted at the children of same-sex couples. Young people who are gay will be confronted by it on social media every day. I loathe the trolls and the haters but I expected more from the Prime Minister. I hold the Prime Minister responsible for every hurtful bit of filth this debate will unleash. That is not because the Prime Minister has said it, not because the Prime Minister agrees with it—he clearly doesn't—but because the Prime Minister has licensed this debate. You are the leader, Mr Turnbull; you have given permission. I will never hold you in the same light again. I hold the Prime Minister responsible and Australians will too. LGBTI Australians have every right to feel let down by their parliament today, every right to consider this postal survey the latest in a long line of insults. I don't blame them for that. I can understand why an LGBTI person receiving a survey—with the Australian coat of arms on the corner of the envelope and asking for everyone else to decide if you are equal—would want to chuck it in the bin. I wouldn't blame you. But let me say to you that that is what they want you to do. The strongest supporters of this survey have always been the most vocal opponents of marriage equality. They have stacked the deck against young people, against expats, against Australians who support equality but regard this vote as a waste of time. The opponents of marriage equality have set this process up to fail. But we cannot let illegitimate tactics deter us; we cannot sit on the sidelines. I can understand LGBTI Australians' sense of frustration and of betrayal by the parliament. But the most powerful act of resistance is to vote yes for equality. Maintain your hope, maintain your enthusiasm and vote yes. And make sure your friends, relatives, colleague, classmates and teammates vote yes too. Get your name on the electoral roll today; make your voice heard. Voting yes is not about endorsing this illegitimate process, it's about refusing to walk past our fellow Australians when they need us. This is my message for business leaders, sporting clubs, the union movement and community groups: it's time to get involved; it's time to organise and fight for equality. This survey is costly, this survey is unnecessary, this survey places unfair pressure on one group of Australians to justify their relationships. This survey is a political contrivance from a Prime Minister who spends all his time counting Newspolls. This survey denies the parliament the chance to lead. We didn't need a survey to tell us to say sorry. We in this parliament led; we did the right thing and the community backed us. This $122 million survey denigrates the parliament. It risks putting Australia in a hell of a place, further behind the rest of the world. But there is one thing this survey will not do: it will not change Labor's support for marriage equality. If Prime Minister Turnbull stops blocking marriage equality legislation from coming into this parliament, the men and women of the federal Parliamentary Labor Party will vote for equality in overwhelming numbers; and if it is not resolved by the next election, a new Labor government will legislate to make marriage equality a reality within the first 100 days. No slew of discredited surveys will deter us. Parliament created these laws. It is time for parliament to amend them. We didn't have a survey for the other 20 changes to the Marriage Act, and we don't need one now. The Prime Minister has abdicated responsibility for change. He has declared himself too busy to campaign for it, but he's prepared to unleash this public farce on the citizens of Australia but not prepared to take responsibility for its outcomes or its consequences. In two years of a prime ministership defined by moral cowardice, this is a new low, but in the end it is not even about what the Liberals or the Nats or Labor think; it's about our fellow Australians. My final message to LGBTI people is this, and it's a message to their parents and their siblings and their children and everyone who loves them: I know this has been a week of heartbreak, following years of disappointments. I know that some Liberals worked hard not to have this outcome, and I respect them for that. I know that LGBTI Australians are frustrated, they're angry, they're sad, and they're bewildered that it has come to this. But I want you to know: you are not alone. You are not alone in this fight ahead. Over the next few months, terrible things will be said about you and your families, about your lives, your identities and your choices, and the Prime Minister will not stand up for you. I am sorry you have to endure this. But Labor will stand up for Australians. I give you this promise: we stand with you. When you don't feel like you have a voice, we will speak up for you. When you feel attacked, we will defend you. When we hear prejudice and discrimination, we will not cross the road and pretend it is not happening; we will call it out. I will be voting yes. I will be campaigning for a yes vote. I will do my bit, and I encourage people to join the movement for marriage equality, because no true leader is ever too busy to fight for the fair go in this country. Equality is not a diary appointment that you meet in three or six or eight months time. We say to young Australians who are gay: we are voting in this survey, we are participating in this survey, because of you—not because we respect the process but because the Labor Party will not let gay Australians and young gay people cope with this survey, this evaluation of their relationships, on their own. I say to LGBTI Australians: while ever there is a Labor Party, you are never on your own. 15:22 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland It's a sad day when the Leader of the Labor Party comes to the dispatch box and basically says he doesn't trust the Australian people to have their say on an important social issue. He comes to the dispatch box after saying himself, in 2013, 'I'm completely relaxed about having some form of plebiscite'—the Australian people making their view known. The Leader of the Labor Party, who used to believe in giving the Australian people a chance to have their say, is now cynically trying to divide Australians with his tactics in this place, and this MPI today says a lot about the hypocrisy and the double standards of this Leader of the Opposition. He doesn't trust Australians to have their say. He will sink to any low and throw away any previously held view to secure some sort of political advantage. He would rather try to win a debate in this place than deliver a social change that he claims to support. He had six years in government to deliver this reform, and he failed miserably. He is a complete phoney when he stands here with his confected outrage, instead of engaging in this process and supporting the Australian people in their chance to have a free vote. Now, Mr Deputy Speaker— Mr Snowdon IJ4 We had a free vote, you idiot! The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The minister will take his seat. The member for Lingiari will withdraw. Mr Snowdon IJ4 I withdraw. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Thank you. I call the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Mr CHESTER IPZ Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Throughout— Mr Snowdon interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Lingiari will leave under 94(a). He knew why I asked him to withdraw—and not an explanation. The member for Lingiari then left the chamber. Mr CHESTER IPZ Throughout Australian history, it has been not uncommon for the Australian people to say they don't trust politicians, but I think it's the first time in Australian political history that the Leader of the Labor Party has said he doesn't trust Australians. I find it quite extraordinary that people on this side of the House actually back the Australian people to have their say, while the Labor Party is sending a message to all Australians that we don't believe you're capable of having a respectful debate on an important issue. The Leader of the Opposition wants a free vote for 226 members and senators, but he wants to deny a free vote to millions of Australians. On this side of the House, we believe we can have respectful, moderate and responsible debate on this issue. There will be times during this debate, over the next couple of months, when some people will express views that the Leader of the Opposition won't agree with, and I won't agree with them either. We will call them out. It's called freedom of speech though. We have to exercise that freedom and right with a great deal of responsibility. I encourage all Australians to get themselves involved in this debate, in a respectful and moderate way, as the vast majority of Australians will. The Leader of the Opposition's position on this issue is a little bit confusing for the Australian public to follow. He used to support a free vote for all Australians. I refer to this article in The Australian newspaper last year. I quote the headline: Federal election 2016: Bill Shorten flips on gay marriage plebiscite In the opening line he says he's: … completely relaxed about having some form of plebiscite … The article goes on to say: Mr Shorten told the Australian Christian Lobby forum in his electorate that he preferred "the Australian people make their view known" to the 150 MPs in federal parliament. "Personally speaking, I’m completely relaxed about having some form of plebiscite," He goes on to say: But in terms of a plebiscite—I would rather the people of Australia could make their view clear on this than leaving this issue to 150 people. It is worth reminding the House about the facts on this issue—and the Australian people might be listening today. The Commonwealth has the necessary constitutional power, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Statistician have the necessary statutory power to request information from Australians, who are enrolled on the electoral roll, about whether or not they agree the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. The appropriation to the ABS has been made by the Minister for Finance, from the finance minister's advance, which had been appropriated by the parliament under the appropriation act of 2017-18. The ABS will make arrangements for the secondment of officers from the Australian Electoral Commission to assist the Australian Statistician with this process as required. Before we get caught up in all the emotion, these are the facts surrounding the decision that was made by the government this week. The ABS, supported by AEC officers, as appropriate, will make relevant announcements about timetables and practical arrangements. All Australians will have the opportunity to update their details on the Commonwealth electoral roll until 24 August 2017. I, like many other members in this place, would encourage the Australian people to make sure they do update their enrolment details to make sure they are enrolled, to make sure they have the opportunity to have their say on this important social issue. The Prime Minister has made it clear that in the case of a positive result in support of change, under either approach, the Turnbull government would enable consideration of a relevant private member's bill and the vote on such a bill can occur before the end of the year. In relation to some of the commentary regarding legal protections in place for a postal plebiscite, I want to stress that, under the Telecommunications and Postal Services (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1989, it's an offence to tamper with the mail, including: stealing mail bags from Australia Post employees, stealing mail from Australia Post, tampering or interfering with mail bags, tampering or interfering with letters or other articles that are being delivered by Australia Post, obtaining a delivery item by deception, helping someone else obtain a letter or other delivery item by deception, using the postal service to harass or threaten someone else, or interfering with a post box or stamp vending machine. There are protections in place to make sure the postal plebiscite can be conducted in an orderly way. Quite frankly, I trust the overwhelming majority of the Australian people, to act responsibly and to conduct themselves in a respectful and moderate way. Frankly, I am disappointed that those opposite don't have that level of trust in the Australian people. We call on every Australian to participate in this debate with courtesy and respect. I believe Australians will judge anyone very harshly, on either side of this debate—for same-sex marriage or against same-sex marriage—if they pursue inappropriate and offensive arguments. Rather than trying to scare voters, I urge Labor to encourage all Australians to have their say, so this issue can be resolved once and for all. The Leader of the Opposition says he wants a free vote on this issue. I am confused as to why he thinks the Australian people aren't entitled to have a free vote on the issue, given it was the policy the government took to the last election. It was successful in that election. This is all about politics, when it comes to the Leader of the Opposition; this is nothing about policy. He is seeking to divide the coalition rather than progress this issue in a way that would achieve the reform he claims to support. Dr Aly 13050 They are not doing anything; you are doing it to yourself! Mr CHESTER IPZ I said this on radio last week when I was interviewed by Fran Kelly: if we'd had the vote in February and if the Australian people had supported the plebiscite, gay couples would be on their honeymoons right now. If we'd had the vote in February, and if the majority of Australian people had supported it, gay couples would be on their honeymoons and we wouldn't be having this discussion in the chamber today. The Leader of the Opposition and those opposite like to claim this is too divisive, as if Australians are not capable of having a debate on a sensitive social issue. He's got to get fair dinkum on this issue. If the issue has the support of the leader of the Labor Party—he claims he does support it—and it has the support of the leader of the Liberal Party, it has the support of the leader of the Greens— Ms Plibersek interjecting— Mr CHESTER IPZ That is a very good point, Member for Sydney. It has all that support and the support of some National Party ministers, and those opposite are telling me we can't win the debate. These people have the largest megaphones in the country. These people have had more opportunities to prosecute their case in support of same-sex marriage than anyone else. Let's get fair dinkum about it. The leader of the Labor Party, the leader of the Liberal Party, the leader of the Greens and some National Party ministers support it, and yet we're led to believe by the Labor Party that we're not capable of having this argument in the public eye in a respectful manner. I call on those opposite to put away the hyperbole and focus on the merits of the issue. This plebiscite is about keeping a promise. In the last election, the members on this side of the House and our candidates throughout Australia campaigned on giving the Australian people a chance to have their say on this issue. The Leader of the Opposition doesn't get to decide which promises we can and cannot keep. When politicians across Australia are faced with an ongoing deficit of trust with the Australian people, the best thing we can do is to keep our promises. We promised the Australian people they would have their say on this issue. We promised the Australian people they would have the chance to have a vote. The only people who are stopping the Australian people having a say on this issue are those opposite. Those opposite do not trust the Australian people to have their say. Ms Husar interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Lindsay will remove herself under 94(a) for that comment. She will withdraw, then remove herself. Ms Husar 263328 I withdraw. The member for Lind s ay then left the chamber. Mr CHESTER IPZ We took a promise to the Australian people that we'd let them have a chance to have their say on this important issue. Australians want to have their say. We trust them and want to give them that opportunity. 15:33 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney This week, I once again had to look the children of same-sex parents in the face and try to explain to them why it was that this parliament didn't have the guts to actually stand up and say that their parents' relationships are just fine. I had to talk to young gay and lesbian teenagers and try to explain to them why it was that this parliament doesn't have the guts to stand up and say, 'It's just fine to be gay or lesbian, transsexual, bisexual, intersex; it's just fine.' Instead, we have to go through a $122 million survey that this parliament will then end up voting on anyway and that is not binding on this parliament. It has come to this: a rigged policy, a rigged proposal that is designed to see marriage equality fail in this country. This is a process that is designed by the opponents of marriage equality. The Prime Minister, who calls himself a supporter of marriage equality, gives into the process that is designed by the opponents of marriage equality then says, 'Yes, I'm a supporter of marriage equality, but I'm too busy to campaign.' I have never seen a better example of someone who means well feebly than this Prime Minister who says, 'Yes, I'm a supporter, but I'm too busy to campaign.' What we see with this $122 million process is actually the cost of the Prime Minister hanging onto his job for a few more weeks, giving in to the right wing of the Liberal Party for a few more weeks—$122 million of taxpayer money! At least when he spent $1.75 million in the election campaign it was his own money to hang onto his job; now it's taxpayers' money that he is using! The member for Gippsland, the minister, was talking about how we don't trust the Australian people. That is absolutely false. That is one of the first lies that has been told repeatedly in this campaign. Of course we trust the vast majority of the Australian people to have a decent, civilised debate. I trust that the minister—the member for Gippsland—is a decent person who is prepared to have a civilised debate. But there are two things I would say about this. Why didn't John Howard give Australians the opportunity to have a say in 2004 when he changed the Marriage Act for the first time? And why did the 'old' Malcolm Turnbull say that this type of process flies in the face of Australian democratic values when it was proposed for the republic? Why did George Brandis, the Attorney-General, say last year that this sort of process would lack legitimacy? Because they know that this sort of process is designed to disenfranchise people; it is designed to disenfranchise young people. Look at all these young people that we have up in the gallery today. How many of you are over the age of 18 and on the electoral roll? It would make you unusual: 254,000 people between the ages of 18 and 24 are not currently on the electoral roll when they should be. That is more than 13 per cent of this age group, the group that is most guaranteed to vote for marriage equality because they just do not get why we are taking so long to do the wrong thing. They're disenfranchised because they are not on the electoral roll. The million or so people overseas: are they going to get a vote on this? They won't get a say in this. What about the people that the member for Lingiari was talking about today, the Aboriginal people in his remote communities who get a postal service once a week if they're lucky? Are they going to get their say? No, they won't. This process is designed to stop people having their say. It's not to give Australians a say, it's designed to stop them having a say. And, oh, my goodness! The Australian Bureau of Statistics, that did such a stellar job with the Census that they had five years to prepare for, have five weeks to prepare for this, and we see already on the first day outages on the Australian Electoral Commission website as people are trying to update their electoral enrolment. We have seen the first lies of the campaign and we have seen the first debacle today with people trying to get on the electoral roll and not able to because the website is crashing. And the lack of legal protections: honestly! I asked the Prime Minister today if the Commonwealth Electoral Act will protect people in this postal survey. He waffled, as he usually does. He used 10 words where he could have used one. But you know the one word he could have used that would have been accurate? 'No'. That would have been the one word he could have used that would have been accurate. People won't be protected in the way that they should be under the Commonwealth Electoral Act during this survey. I just want to finish on this: we have already seen the dogs of war unleashed in this debate. We have seen Bronwyn Bishop talking about bestiality and polygamy and killing babies. And we have seen Tony Abbott say that marriage equality, two people who love each other, is a war on our society. These are exactly the sorts of comments we want to avoid in this debate. (Time expired) 15:38 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I concede frustration in beginning this address. As the only member in this House who is actually engaged to their partner of the same sex—and I notice that all the members opposite are walking out— Ms Plibersek 83M You don't know that! Mr TIM WILSON IMW Respectfully actually, I do. Nobody else has spoken about it. For seven years I have been engaged, and, tragically, it has mostly been during the entire time of the previous government, as well as the current government. To the member for Sydney: I am sorry, I want to get this issue resolved. It's frustrating to watch the moral posturing on the issue by many on the other side who have constantly delayed, stalled, blocked and opposed change before changing their opinion in favour—now with zeal. Respectfully, some of us have always had a consistent position, and taking a lecture about the failure to pass a change in the law from the opposition is a bit rich. They had the potential for so many years to deliver this. It was immensely frustrating to watch that they didn't. Firstly, we had Kevin Rudd who opposed it on religious grounds. Then we had Julia Gillard, who opposed it on feminist grounds. And then we had Kevin Rudd, who would vote for it and did not act. I do not think it is in dispute that I have a slight difference of opinion from some people—sometimes on my side of politics—on this issue. But since the coalition has been in government, there have been no surprises. In the last term, the government was elected on the basis of opposing change, a position I personally do not agree with, and then took a position to the last election in favour of a plebiscite and a free vote. We could have had this issue dealt with and resolved by the beginning of this year but the opposition opposed a change, through blocking a plebiscite. It may not have been my first preference, but we have to concede it would have been done. You would concede that as well, because we would hope—to the opposition—that, as you announced today, you are going to support a change in the law and advocate for it. My views about the plebiscite are based on a strong belief in institutions and maintaining trust in them. A number of people I speak to talk about the importance of trust in public life. I hold very strongly to that. But I think the trust in our institutions is also of tantamount importance. Frankly, I care less about the trust of one government or another or a politician or another, because we are temporary—whereas the parliament is timeless. We are a parliament founded under the Constitution by the people. The Constitution says it is the role of the federal parliament to make laws related to marriage. That was unanimously confirmed in a 2013 High Court decision. Parliamentarians are also within their rights to consult their community to inform their judgements. But I am also an Edmund Burke fan. I owe the people of Goldstein my judgement in the situation. Everyone knows that if there were a bill before the parliament I would vote for it. But we don't have one. We are where we are. A number of people have suggested that colleagues, including the members for North Sydney, Leichardt, Brisbane and I just need to cross the floor to stop this process. I'm sorry, that's false. If a bill passed this chamber right now, it would still need to be passed by the Senate, and the ugly truth, despite the moral posturing of our opponents, is that it won't do so, because Labor will not deliver the numbers that are needed. They say they can but they can't. A series of Labor MPs are using their conscience vote to vote against a bill. So passing a bill through the House is pointless. The task before us is to win. For the past two years, opponents stopped arguing against our freedom to marry. They have been arguing process. From their messaging so far, they have been using statements like 'freedom of speech, religious freedom and political correctness,' and the opposition has raised this. My personal view is those arguments are laughable. The choice is not whether we engage or not. The choice is whether we allow these statements to go unresponded to. The choice is whether we stand up to those who want to keep us down. The choice is only to win. For those in the community who support the change in the law as I do, I say this: This is a moment in our nation's history. It is the moment to change the country for the type of country we want to be, to make it better. We cannot shirk our responsibility or a fight. Minorities never get to set the terms of the battlegrounds they fight for their rights. The battlefield is always set by others. They have won not because their terms have been in their favour, but their arguments, history and justice have been on their side. In this debate, we have always had to convince the majority of Australians to change the law even though they have never lived our shared experience. And we have, despite exceptional odds. Now is not the time to cower; it is not the time to hide. It is the time to stand up, to stand up for yourself, your loved ones and the type of nation that we want to be. 15:43 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs Labor's views and my personal views on the marriage equality plebiscite and the $122 million postal survey are well known. Both are a terrible idea. Both are a waste of money. Both would divide Australians and hurt our LGBTI community and are nothing more than a cop-out. This $122 million postal survey is happening only because this Prime Minister cannot solve his own internal party problems. Of all the options for dealing with marriage equality, this is the worst. It will be non-binding and voluntary. It will disenfranchise young people and remote communities who are not on the roll or who have trouble accessing the postal system. It will be difficult or impossible for people living overseas or on holiday to take part. There will be no legal protections against voter fraud or bribery or intimidation, no protections against dishonest and deceitful campaign material and no recourse for challenge through the Court of Disputed Returns. The Prime Minister has confirmed this today. It is rigged against a yes vote, that much is clear. Let me say at the outset that I understand why some in the LGBTI community are so outraged by all this that they would want to boycott the vote completely. I'm here to say: please don't. This government and the anti-marriage-equality activists who support them are doing everything they can to stack the odds so they can get a no vote and pretend that is the end of the matter. We cannot let that happen. We cannot let them win, because the only thing worse than having this vote at all is having it happen and a no vote being the result. That is why I, so many of my parliamentary colleagues from all parties and I hope a large part of the LGBTI community will be strongly campaigning for Australians to vote yes to marriage equality. I certainly will be voting yes. I will be voting yes because lesbian and gay Australians are equal and should have equal rights under our law. But that does not mean for one second that we endorse this $122 million postal survey as legitimate. The use of a plebiscite to change our laws would have undermined our democracy in which the Australian people elect representatives to make laws in this parliament. But this ridiculous postal survey is a perversion of our democracy. It's something that has been foisted upon us, foisted upon Australians and foisted upon the LGBTI community. The Liberals claim this hopelessly flawed survey will resolve this matter once and for all. Garbage! The elected members of this parliament decide the laws of this nation under our Constitution. We could be voting on marriage equality next week if the government had not become lost in a maze of its own making. Whatever happens with this hopeless process from a hopeless and incompetent government, the Australian people will get their chance less than two years from now to elect to this place representatives who actually do represent their views and who are willing to do the work they have been elected to do. That is not just in relation to marriage equality. Policies across the board from power prices and jobs to health and education have all been trashed by this government of incompetence and chaos. But, if this reckless, wasteful survey is not struck down by the High Court, we must make sure we don't let the 'no' side win. So I urge all Australians: if you're not on the electoral roll or if your address details are not up to date, act now. Now is the time to mobilise and unite. This entire rigged exercise is designed to divide Australia and to encourage hateful words and arguments in order for the 'no' case to win. We can make sure that does not happen by spreading a message of love and togetherness, but it will not be enough for people who are already passionate yes voters just to vote. We have to get out and talk to those people who are supporters but may not be passionate enough to send their vote in. We have to talk to undecided voters. If you are young and passionate, please go out and talk to your friends, to your parents and to your grandparents. This is a totally different vote to the kind that Australians are used to. It is voluntary, not compulsory, and it may be won by the side which can convince the most people to vote. It will require all our energy and it deserves it. This $122 million opinion poll is a truly terrible idea, but, if it goes ahead, we must be ready to win. We must be ready to fight for yes. 15:48 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I start my contribution by urging all members in this place to speak on this issue with respect. We recognise that not everyone shares the view that most of you have on the other side and that I have: that the Marriage Act should be amended so that same-sex couples can marry. What we have seen in this debate today—and I must say it was led by the Leader of the Opposition—was a lot of vitriol and a lot of abuse. I do not think that is appropriate on this topic in this place. I will be the first to condemn hateful, vindictive, offensive words that are said in this debate. We have already heard some hateful words in the Australian community, but can I make a very important suggestion to members opposite: please do not bring those hateful words, which might be watched by a small television audience of 3,000 or 4,000 Australians, into the national parliament. Do not highlight those words. Do not give them any sense of promotion, because that causes more distress. I am saying to members opposite—we saw it from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday and we've seen it again today—do not restate hateful words and cause more grief amongst those who want to see change. I do condemn the bringing of hateful words into this parliament. That is absolutely, frankly, unacceptable. That's a contribution that you can meaningfully make to this debate. I am very disappointed by the Leader of the Opposition's change in position in relation to a plebiscite. A postal plebiscite was not our preferred option as members opposite know, but we are sticking with our commitment to all Australians. We are giving them a say. I remind members opposite of what the Leader of the Opposition said in 2013: I would rather that the people of Australia could make their view clear on this, than leaving this issue to 150 people. We have made this decision because, on such a deeply personal issue as this, we believed it was important that every Australian had their say. This was a view previously held by the Leader of the Opposition and, like so many issues of policy, we see him flip-flopping on this one. The Leader of the Opposition's hypocrisy is compounded by his announcement that he's going to hold a plebiscite on a referendum, which is not required for constitutional change. He is going to hold a plebiscite in relation to moving to a republic, when only a referendum is required. We have already seen sheer and gross hypocrisy from the Leader of the Opposition. We understand this is not a perfect pathway. There are some people in the community who do not want to see this postal plebiscite. But we are doing this, and I believe that we will see a majority 'yes' vote arise out of this plebiscite. If that occurs, I will be voting, 'yes' to change the law to allow same-sex couples to marry. There has been some reference today about the Commonwealth Electoral Act. We have seen it doesn't protect Australians from lies, from misleading statements because we saw the Labor Party in action at the last federal election. We saw the myriad lies, the 'Mediscare' campaign and the absolute joke of deception from Labor in the last federal election. That's very disappointing. What hypocrisy from Labor, urging a free vote because, as from 2019, Labor's position is: there will be no free vote. The ALP's policy is that all members must vote for marriage equality and if they don't, they will be expelled from the Labor Party, meaning some members currently in this House and in the Senate will not be allowed to be members of the Labor Party. Let's not forget all those members back in 2012, including the members for Watson, McMahon, Hunter, Chifley, Blair, Lilley and former member for Griffith, Kevin Rudd, and former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who voted against same-sex marriage. We are getting on with the business of putting this before the parliament. I believe in a change to the Marriage Act and I very much hope it will happen. (Time expired) 15:53 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith This week I met an adorable grade 1 kid and he drew me a maze. He asked me if I was any good at mazes. I said, 'Not really, but I'll give it a go.' We were drawing mazes together and talking. He made me this beautiful little picture. I'm never going to forget it. It just had the word 'love' on it and it was coloured in. On the back of it, he wrote his name. He has two dads. He is a member of a rainbow family. His dads are worried about what's going to happen to him and his brother through this survey process. There are so many other parents around this country who are worried about what's going to happen to their primary school-age kids during this survey process. I know they are feeling pretty bad right now. I know that families across this country, siblings, friends, parents and LGBTI people are feeling like curling up in a ball and hiding under the table. I understand why. I understand why they are thinking they might not participate in this insulting survey, where millions of Australians are being asked to fill out a survey about whether other people's relationships have the same status as theirs and about whether other people should have the same human rights as they do. That is insulting and it's offensive. I wanted to say this: the people who gain to stand from us not participating in the survey—by 'us' I mean everybody who wants to see marriage equality—are people who oppose marriage equality. It is worth pointing out just who the biggest winner is from this household survey. It is a household survey; that's the way that the Commonwealth Statistician has described it—a household survey. He might as well describe it that way because they are going to post out survey papers to a household, and who knows who will fill them out at that house and send them back? There does not seem to be any checking on that. Who knows whether a husband in an abusive relationship might take his wife's ballot paper and fill it out for her? We do not know because this kind of national survey is uncharted territory. But let's talk about who the biggest, most successful winner out of this survey is. It is certainly not LGBTI people or their families or their friends. It is the member for Warringah. The Prime Minister has handed his chief rival the platform he has been waiting for. This is the part that Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, was born to play. From now until November, the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, will be travelling the country making the 'no' case while the Prime Minister is hiding at Point Piper because he is too busy to campaign for something he supposedly believes in. There won't be a single Liberal Party branch meeting in this country that the member for Warringah will not go to. He has even got former Prime Minister John Howard riding shotgun with him. Once again, the Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister are squaring off over a national vote. We all know how helpful the current Prime Minister was to his cause last time. We all know about that. I remember 1999 very well. This all shows how pathetic this current Prime Minister is. He has given Australians and this nation the worst possible process, but he won't even go out and campaign for what he says he believes in. How are we supposed to trust him? How are people who live in this country supposed to believe in a Prime Minister who professes to care about marriage equality and believe in marriage equality, but who won't even get up and campaign for it? Why is he abandoning LGBTI people, their families, their friends and everyone in this country who actually believes in human rights and in not having an opinion poll about whether people should have them? Why is he abandoning us? This is his process. The Prime Minister has been in a leadership position and has led a party room that has decided to have a national household survey, run by the ABS of #censusfail fame, on whether you have the same human rights as the person living in the house next door. This is happening on this Prime Minister's watch and he is responsible for it. Mr Deputy Speaker, think back to those children we met from rainbow families throughout this process and throughout the advocacy that we've all been engaged in for a free vote in the parliament and a change to the law to allow for marriage equality. Think back to those kids and what's going to happen—the lack of respectful debate we have already seen, including from Bronwyn Bishop herself last night on television, with the talk about bestiality and disability. How on earth are we expected to stand up and look them in the eye when our own Prime Minister won't do it for them? (Time expired) 15:58 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I am very pleased to speak on this matter of public importance about same-sex marriage and this government's commitment to let all Australians have a say about this important issue. We clearly put our commitment at the last election to hold a plebiscite on the question of whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. Across Australia, including in my electorate, people now expect us to deliver on this promise. It is as simple as that. We will deliver on this promise with work underway for a mail-out to be sent out to enrolled constituents across the country starting on 12 September and with a result by 15 November. The government is delivering what we committed, despite the best efforts of Labor, the Greens and others in the Senate as recently as this week to prevent all Australians from having the opportunity to have their say. Australia needs to have a plebiscite on same-sex marriage because it's an election commitment that Australians voted for and, just as importantly, because changing the definition of 'marriage' alters one of the most fundamental cornerstones of life as we know it. The simple fact is that marriage is a framework that has existed for centuries, and it is a framework that continues to remain relevant today, even in a society where marriage is no longer the only family structure in which children are raised. Families exist in all kinds of ways outside so-called traditional structures. There are de facto, same-sex, single-parent, blended, foster and many other types of families. And I support these changes. Some would say that that makes the framework of marriage something that should change. Others, like me would like to fully explore what the impact of removing gender from marriage would mean—not for consenting adults but for our next generation. In my view, it is not enough to simply say 'it's time' to change the Marriage Act or 'just do it', as some have said. That would be falling into the trap that the great writer CS Lewis once described as 'chronological snobbery': silencing detractors by dismissing their views as out of date. This may be just my personal view, but the whole point of holding a plebiscite is that what matters is not my view but the views of every Australian. One gentleman who has made his views known to me already is Bernard from Umina Beach, who emailed me a few days ago. Let me read you in full what Bernard had to say: 'Dear Lucy, I have a gay daughter and nothing would make me prouder than to walk her down the aisle if she decides to get married. That's if—by way of the promised plebiscite—the Australian people vote democratically to change the law to allow gay marriage. However,' Bernard writes, 'if your party decides to lie in exactly the same fashion as did Julia Gillard with her "no carbon tax under the government I lead" and betrays the Australian people by not holding a plebiscite and simply taking a vote in the parliament, then as one of your constituents I can assure you I will never support the Liberal Party again, no matter what the cost of a Labor government in the future. Marriage,' said Bernard, 'is not a political argument to be tossed around in the parliament. It is a highly personal and spiritual undertaking which a section of the community now wants to change at the expense of the honestly held beliefs of other members of the community. If the democratic majority approves that, then well and good; that's as it should be. But change in this matter by any other means, particularly by deceiving those of us who put you in power, is an unforgivable breach of faith.' The letter ends, 'Yours sincerely, Bernard.' I place on the record my thanks to Bernard, whose words, along with many of the comments on my Facebook page and in my inbox, and my letterbox, have been respectful, passionate and insightful. These comments, many of which include strong disagreement with my position, have no claims of failure or bigotry and are not hurtful, however vehemently the writers of these comments may disagree with my position or with the position that others have taken in their comments. This type of debate is a shining example of why, rather than trying to scare voters, Labor should be encouraging all Australians to have their say so that this issue can be resolved by November. If the Australian people vote yes in a plebiscite, marriage will be changed forever. If the Australian people vote yes in this plebiscite, even though I will be voting no in November, I will respect the outcome of the plebiscite and the vote in parliament, and I ask others to also commit to respecting the outcome of this plebiscite. I will honour the result of this plebiscite, even if the outcome is not what I voted for, because I have confidence that, by providing all Australians with the opportunity to have their say, the nation will have fully worked through the implications of such a fundamental change. (Time expired) 16:03 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman I have four sons, four boys aged between 17 and 27. I love them dearly. I love each and every one of them. If you walked through my house or swiped through my phone, you would see lots of photos of those boys—smiling, laughing, growing up. There are photos of them at school, photos of them playing sport, photos with their families and friends, and photos with their partners, all over the walls in my house. And, like I said, you can look through my phone and you will see lots of photos of them there too. I raised each and every one of them to have the same values: to be kind, to be loving, to be compassionate and to show empathy with every single person they share this world with. They've all grown up into very different people. One's a tradie, one's a small-business owner, one's currently studying a bachelor of mathematics degree and working in hospitality at the same time, and one's a year 12 student who has a vision of heading off to uni next year. So they are all very different. While their interests have led them into different paths in life, they've all used the values and the morals that they were raised with to guide them into becoming very, very fine young men. They're men who I am really proud to call my sons. I love each of those boys equally. They'll probably tell you that's not true. They'll probably tell you that I prefer one over the other, but that's not true. I do love each of those boys equally. It's because of that that I am truly hurt, as their mother, that this government sees one of them not the same as the others. This government has set out on a campaign to marginalise, offend and discriminate against one of my sons. He's a 27-year-old man, he's a university graduate and he's gay. As a young man, my son used to say to me that he worried about not having children, about not getting married. He says that he knew his brothers had a different right to a commitment that he didn't, a commitment that made life worth living. I was talking to him on the phone just this week. He said to me: 'Marriage isn't just about love, Mum; it's about sharing your life. Marriage is about the legal right to decide on financial and property matters with the person you love.' He's frustrated by how much time—that's what he said to me—and how much money has been wasted on this issue already, and how the government is happy to waste another $122 million simply to delay the inevitable. Because it is inevitable. It's inevitable because Australia is full of kind and passionate people. They are in the majority. They're not bigots who try to make the most noise. It is inevitable because we in Labor 100 per cent support equality for all Australians and we will deliver it, no matter what. We don't need a $122 million rigged opinion poll or household survey to tell us what a small population in the country think, to do our job. After weeks of infighting and being undermined by his party's ultraconservative hard right, this PM knows how weak he looks. No-one could possible believe he's a strong leader when, after claiming to support marriage equality, he forces through this $122 million household survey. We could use that money to put more teachers in schools, employ more nurses or make more aged-care places available to our seniors. If this PM really wanted equality he could call a vote today. I tell you what: I'll sit down right this second. I'd gladly stop speaking if it meant they would call a vote right now. I would do what I was elected to do. But, instead, we know this Prime Minister has resorted to a postal method which he himself has recognised as a calculated method, designed to 'disenfranchise Australians, particularly young people.' These are not the actions of a strong leader, a weak leader or any form of leader at all; these are the actions of someone who is being led by others, being led by ultraconservatives in his party. I hope that the Prime Minister sees the light, I really do. I hope he decides not to proceed with this $122 million household survey and calls a free vote in parliament. But I can tell you, no matter what, no matter how we have to vote, I can 100 per cent guarantee you I will be voting yes for my son. I will be voting yes for every single son, daughter, mother, father, every family and friend who has a loved one and who wishes to marry the person they love. I will be voting yes for marriage equality. 16:08 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa As we've heard throughout this debate, marriage equality is important to those opposite, and strong leadership is. Let me tell you what strong leadership is. It is a Prime Minister who is going to put this to the people to make sure that this important issue is resolved by the Australian people. This is a significant change to the social fabric of our society. It is one that should be determined by the ultimate democratic body in this nation, the Australian people. The Australian people should have their say. Everyone's views should be respected. This debate should be predicated on respect, not the vitriol that we've heard from those opposite today. Those that do bring that vitriol, on both sides, should be called out, whether they are former speakers or former members of the parliament—no matter who they are. We have a responsibility as elected leaders to lead our community, to let them determine this in the privacy of their own homes, for them to be able to have that say in the future of our nation on a significant change in the social fabric of this nation. That is something that every Australian should have the right to do, not 226 politicians. There would be no validity if we went through a free vote in here, where we see the conjecture about someone voting one way or another, rather than having the Australian people, the ultimate democratic body in this nation, making that determination. There can be no going back on the validity of that result. Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 Like Bronwyn Bishop? The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Lyons will listen in silence! Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Everybody's voice should be heard, no matter whether they are with the LGBTI community or those on the conservative side of our society. They should all be heard; their voices are just as precious as each and the other. But it's our job as the nation's leaders to make sure the debate is undertaken in a respectful matter. Instead, we have sat here and we have let the vitriol overtake a debate on the mechanism by which we are going to determine this significant and very important matter. We should be better than this. And the reality is that the Labor Party could have come with this. If same-sex marriage were so important to the Labor Party, as they espouse, then we could have sorted this in February. The Australian people could have gone to the polls and been able to give us a direction. We could have had that validity and the result. We could have walked away and the Australian public would have had certainty about where we were going. We heard before in question time from the member for Lingiari about some people in his constituency who will not get a vote. Let me tell him that my constituency is just as big, and the reality is that I have over 16 per cent of my electorate vote by postal vote every election. The reality is that the mechanism which they are trying to diminish is one that can be undertaken and can give a proper result for every and each Australian's view. It should be done, and they should be given their opportunity to do it. But what price do we put on democracy? One hundred and twenty-two million dollars is being espoused here as a huge amount. This is the Australian people's voice; they should have that opportunity. One hundred and twenty-two million dollars is lot of money, but this is a significant change in this nation's history. And if it is passed then $122 million is money well spent. You can never put a price on democracy. To do it, you are cheapening what we are here to represent and protect. So we need to ensure that we walk out of this place and ensure that we lead our communities—that we call out the vitriol that may come out at a local level for what it is. We should make sure that people feel confident and safe in giving their view and be able to do that with confidence, knowing that when we come back to this place the Australian people will have given this parliament the direction to undertake. That is strong leadership and that is what our Prime Minister is providing to each and every one of us—to this nation. For him to stand up and put on the record exactly how he will vote is leadership. It's him telling the nation exactly how he's going to vote. That's something that is so powerful. We on this side still respect the office of Prime Minister, and so do the Australian public. I have to admire the Prime Minister, who has his personal views on this. He has been proud enough to come out with them and has made a pathway forward instead of trying to find a way to frustrate the nation in determining this once and for all. That is something we that we as a nation should be proud of, that leadership; we have a Prime Minister who will forge his way through to give the Australian people a say on this important matter, and we should respect that until the day we die. Thank you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The time for the discussion has concluded. I will remind the member for Lyons that if he disagrees with rulings or comments from his chair, there are ways to do that—not in open debate across the chamber. BILLS 69 BILLS Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment (Small Business Access to Justice) Bill 2017 69

Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment (Small Business Access to Justice) Bill 2017

First Reading 69 Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 69

Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Second Reading 69 16:15 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield This is a very important bill which we are discussing in the House today, because it goes to the heart of what kind of country we are. Australia is a great country, with much of its greatness being developed in the postwar period. Of course, our nation's character in the postwar period has been defined in many ways by our successful long-term, large-scale migration program. It was Arthur Calwell, a former member for Melbourne, who stood in this House soon after the postwar period and talked about Australia at this time having around 22 million people. He was prescient in what kind of country we were going to develop into it. When you look at Calwell's speeches around this time—it's important to see what he was saying as the postwar immigration minister and the father of this program—he said 22 November 1946: We Australians are a young and virile people and our national heart beats strongly. But the body, of which that heart is the motivating force, is a huge land mass, an island continent of some three million square miles with 12,000 miles of coastline. Before a body of such vast dimensions can be operated at full efficiency, its heart must beat strongly and be fed by the extra life-blood which only new citizens can supply. They are such noble sentiments in the wake of World War II, such a terrible period when so many Australians served, when the nation's territorial integrity was threatened, when there was the threat of invasion and when there was the threat of isolation from the United Kingdom and from America through interception of our sea lanes. It was important that we put down this marker that we were going to develop as a country. As part of that development we were going to bring people to Australia, settle them and make them new citizens. That was part of the postwar settlement. That was part of the postwar recovery. That was part of the nation we were to become. Nearly every family has been touched by this migration program. Nearly every community has been touched. In my country town, which was a predominantly white Anglo-Saxon town, we had Lebanese shopkeepers: the famous Rawady brothers' deli in the main street of Kapunda. Every community, every city and every town was touched by this postwar migration system, and it's useful to think back to the sentiments that Calwell said around 1945, this time on 2 August: That these people can be absorbed into our community life in the course of one generation is proved by the fact that the Australian-born children of most foreign-born parents have played their part in the fighting services in the defence of Australia in this war and regard themselves as Australians, having equal citizen rights and bearing equal national responsibilities with every other Australian. This was recognising that so many of our troops had foreign-born parents even at that time. He warned the House and the nation when he said: Unfortunately, campaigns are fostered in this country from time to time on racial and religious grounds by persons who have ulterior motives to serve. The activities of such people cannot be too strongly condemned. They are antiAustralian and anti-Christian, and make not for national unity and national wellbeing but for the creation of discord and bitterness that is harmful to Australia at home and abroad. That was what Calwell told this House, and they are words that echo down the generations. They are a warning of what could happen from time to time in Australia: outbursts of racial and sectarian intolerance, of racism and of sectarianism which is fostered by people who have ulterior motives and who seek to damage this country, not to protect it. You only have to go and look at the One Nation memes and websites, at the sorts of things they are saying not just about good Australians but about members of this House and members of the other place, to know that those campaigns are still run from time to time. I know that the member for Bendigo has seen such sectarianism, such poison, in her own community and fought it off. This bill is a sign of the Prime Minister's weakness and of the government's weakness—the fact that they would mess with what has been a bipartisan, community led, community accepted approach to citizenship over all of these years, which has been so successful when you compare it to the rest of the world. We do not have the problems of many other nations. When people come here, the sun doesn't just scorch their backs; it bleaches all of the troubles and the wounds of the old world out of their souls, and they become Australian very, very quickly. They are more Australian than they are anything else. If you go to any citizenship ceremony, you see this. You see people proud to be citizens. I always remember these images from citizenship ceremonies. There was an African man literally covered with Australian flags. The children, the young people, always look more Australian—they are always dressed in the latest clothes, and they look more like each other than they do their parents. They look hip and trendy. I remember one bloke who showed up in his stubbies, and he had a singlet on. I think it was a Bundy singlet. He was a longstanding English migrant who came here as a child and was finally getting his citizenship. Any citizenship ceremony will tell you that these people want citizenship. They want to be part of Australia. They don't want to be part of anywhere else in the world. They want to bring their customs here. They want to protect their heritage. They want to honour the journey that they have made to Australia, in same way that everyone does, in the same way my English father did and the same way my forebears did, no matter when they came. This is a critical bill about the character of the country, about the nature of our country. And to change it in such a way, without bipartisanship, without accord in the community, is a terrible indictment on this government. Those members of the government who think seriously about these things know it to be true. No matter what they say in their speeches or the sentiment they express, they must understand this is desperate, desperate stuff in attempting to appeal to sections of the community which, as Calwell reminded us, appear from time to time but must be resisted and must be faced down. I could talk about all the problems of this bill—about the values statement, which we don't need, because people already make a commitment to this country in the current citizenship ceremonies. I could tell them that the English language test at the moment is perfectly okay and that, in the English language test that they seek to implement, many of the people who came here in that postwar migration process would not pass. And all of those good Australians, some of whose children sit in this very chamber, would have been excluded from our national life. I don't think my friend the Treasurer of South Australia would mind me talking about his father, who came here from Greece, who worked in factories all his life. When we were in Young Labor, we used to go to the chicken shop down there on Jetty Road, in Glenelg, and Tom, who is now Treasurer of South Australia, used to always insist that we had free chicken and chips and stuff. His dad was there working day and night as a small business man. He did not speak very good English, but Mr Koutsantonis was a great citizen of this country—a very great citizen of this country. Tom always tells a story about his dad, who gets together with the next door neighbour every afternoon on the verandah. His dad does not speak very good English and the next door neighbour does not speak very good Greek but they get together every afternoon. That journey from Greece is the Australian experience, because his son is Treasurer of South Australia. In the next breath, I could talk about Tung Ngo, who came here from Vietnam. He came out of a refugee camp in Hong Kong, I think it was. Half of his family, his parents, went to Louisiana and the other half came to Australia so he was separated from his parents but he was grateful for the opportunities that Australia gave him, and now he sits in the Legislative Council of South Australia. We are an extraordinary nation where people can, in one generation, be fully accepted into our national life, and yet this bill would have excluded so many of those people. It would have excluded most of the workers in the Snowy Mountains scheme, most of the workers in our factories at Holden and on the docks, all of those people. Mr Taylor 231027 I grew up in this country. Mr CHAMPION HW9 We have the government minister telling me I am wrong. He tells me he 'grew up in this country' so he knows it. Mr Taylor 231027 I grew up in the Snowy. Mr CHAMPION HW9 He grew up in the Snowy, apparently, so he knows it. But he was not there in the Nissen huts at Jindabyne. Mr Taylor interjecting— Mr CHAMPION HW9 His granddad was the boss, he tells me! I bet you your granddad, if he was here, would tell you this is a stupid idea. Mr Taylor 231027 Everyone had English lessons. They all learnt to speak English. Mr CHAMPION HW9 It's good that you should raise this because this is at university level. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN This is a very interesting debate but we must let the member for Wakefield conclude it on his own. Mr CHAMPION HW9 I thank you for your protection, Deputy Speaker. I do not often get it and I do not probably deserve it. I do not mind debating the government minister. I will take all his interjections into the Hansard. But this bill has serious problems with it, and those opposite know it's got serious problems. The government funds English language training—if we want to talk about that—to high school level, to conversational level, but they are asking people to meet a university-level test that, frankly, a lot of people would struggle with. I could think of a few members from other states who may struggle with it rather badly. Some of them would really struggle with it. So why are we making people who come here from Afghanistan or from Sudan or from the Congo or any of these other places, who desperately just want to start a new life, who want to become Australians and who, in a very short time, will become part of the national fabric? The daughter of one of the Afghan leaders in my community is a chemical engineer. From Afghanistan they came, she's a chemical engineer and she married an Irishman. This is a good story. Our country is a strong nation because of this experience yet those opposite are messing with it. You can go and have a look at shadow minister Burke's speech to find all of the technical problems and all the reasons why we are opposing it and all the reasons why there should be a Senate inquiry. But the best thing would be for the government to withdraw it, to sit down with the community and with the opposition and start again. That would be a greater act of statesmanship than the sorts of interjections, platitudes and history lessons we get from the other side. It is tremendously important that this bill is resisted. The national character of our nation, which the Calwell and the Chifley governments gave birth to, but was supported and implemented in large part by the Menzies government, should be continued in the same spirit and faith in which it was begun. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 72 ADJOURNMENT Australian Defence Force 72 16:30 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, welcome back. Welcome back to the parliament to all my colleagues. No doubt for all of us the winter recess has been very busy, whether out in your electorate, on international delegations, undertaking parliamentary committee work around the country, or taking the important opportunity to reacquaint ourselves with family, friends and our communities. Over the winter recess, I had the extraordinary honour of visiting the Australian Defence Force operating in Afghanistan and the Middle East region. In doing so, I was participating in the ADF Parliamentary Program. This is an excellent program, open to all parliamentarians, that enables us to witness firsthand the working lives and service experience of the women and men of our Defence Force. While each of us serving in the Parliament of Australia may hold different political views, we all recognise the importance of our Defence Force and the sacrifice our service women and men make in the service of this nation. I travelled to Kabul in Afghanistan with five colleagues: the members for Oxley, Burt, Whitlam, Batman and Fisher. Together we shared an extraordinary experience on the ground with the women and men of the ADF's Task Group Afghanistan, made up of personnel of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Army and the Royal Australian Air Force, and Defence civilians, all deployed on Operation Highroad, which forms an important part of the NATO-led Operation Resolute Support. Our Defence Force continue to make a significant contribution to the peace and prosperity of Afghanistan. The service women and men of the Australian forces working across the Middle East region are dedicated and committed. They are representing the national interests of Australia in one of the most challenging environments in the world, and they do so with the utmost professionalism and pride. We had the opportunity to travel in the Australian-made Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle, a vehicle built in Bendigo that performs so well in the conditions of the Middle East that the forces of other nations look on the Bushmaster with envy, and which the Dutch and British forces have also enlisted to work on their operations in the Middle East. The Bushmaster is an Australian military vehicle we can be very proud of, and I certainly am. I would like to thank all those involved in making this trip happen and those who supported us on it. Thank you to the soldiers, and some sailors, who got us around on the ground, ensured our safety and helped me in particular with that very heavy body armour. I thank the Air Force personnel who delivered us safely by air. In particular I would like to thank our escorts, Major Erica Abend and Warrant Officer Class Two Jeffrey Marshall. My sincere thanks also to Flight Sergeant Carolyn Carruthers of the RAAF, Captain Danielle Andretzke of the Australian Army and Flight Lieutenant Veronica Manalvo of the RAAF. These three lovely women helped me manage in the combat first aid training scenarios in the very challenging 50-degree heat. They were very kind to the pollie, and I thank them for it. I also look forward to seeing, in the electorate and not in Kabul, my future constituent Captain Jason of Wandi. On Sunday, 23 July, I had the immense honour of being a guest of the Royal Australian Navy at Fleet Base West, HMAS Stirling in Rockingham. I was invited to welcome home HMAS Arunta. The Arunta returned to Rockingham following a nine-month deployment to the Middle East region on Operation Manitou, which is also part of Operation Highroad. This was the longest Middle East deployment by a Royal Australian Navy vessel since 1990. As I stood alongside the friends and family of the 191-strong ship's company, I saw firsthand the joy and delight and quite a few tears, including my own, on the faces of the boys and girls and men and women as they waved in their loved ones to the shore. Despite the stormy weather and grey skies, it was the brightest of days for the crowd of nearly a thousand people who stood and waited in the wind and the rain waiting to be reunited at last with their mums and dads, spouses and partners, sons and daughters and cousins, waiting to bring their families back together. For nine long months the service women and men of the Arunta did their duty and performed their service to our country. They did so a long way from home, covering nearly 50,000 nautical miles. It's always hard to be separated from your loved ones, but in doing so the Arunta's crew engaged in counterterrorism and maritime security operations that are imperative to making our world a safer place. I would like to congratulate the service women and men of the Arunta on a job well done—or Bravo Zulu, as it is said—and I congratulate the families who have now welcomed their loved ones home. I hope you all enjoy your well-deserved leave. We in the parliament thank you very much for your commitment, service, professionalism and pride. The nation thanks you also. Thank you for your service on HMAS Arunta, and welcome home. Flynn Electorate: Gemfest 73 16:35 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn Emerald and The Gemfields are towns in Flynn that have a lot of great people and many places to visit. Emerald is the modern service centre for the entire central highlands region. It has major industries which include beef, with large stud cattle and commercial operators. We have 117,000 head of cattle go through the Emerald saleyards each year, which is about six per cent of the state's saleyards' through-put. It is the backbone of the CQ economy. One of the new beef products we produce is organic beef, which is proving very successful on the markets—both Australian markets and also the export markets. Emerald is also famous for its agriculture and horticultural products. We have the 2PH farm, the largest a citrus-growing mandarin farm in the southern hemisphere. They export product to all over the globe. We have table grapes, cotton, wheat, high-grade wheat, hard biscuit wheat, macadamia nuts, melons, potatoes, mung beans and chickpeas. Chickpeas were very successful last season and added to our economy on the central highlands. Of course, we have coal in the mining division. The Bowen Basin has high-quality black, coking and thermal coal. We have 32 coalmines in the district, employing about 25,000 workers in CQ. As for gem mining, the central highlands are home to some of the country's best sapphire mining. The towns of Sapphire, Emerald, Rubyvale, Anakie and Willows are towns that make up the gem fields. They are accordingly named along those lines. Other states have iconic towns like Lightning Ridge, Broken Hill in New South Wales, Coober Pedy in South Australia. In Western Australia you have Kalgoorlie and Coolgardie, which are famous towns that have been around for a long time. But we in Central Queensland have The Gemfields. To celebrate the gem mining industry on The Gemfields each year is Gemfest. Gemfest is growing bigger and bigger each year. It is now in its 30th year, and it's on this weekend. Gates will open at 9 am. There are jewellery shops with plenty of made-up sapphire rings, bracelets and all types of jewellery that the shops out there have produced over the years for the tourist trade. Tourists flock to The Gemfields in those cool winter months. They come from all over Australia. The grey nomads are among the biggest things for the economy during those cooler months. There are heritage horse-drawn carriages and opportunities to learn to prospect—to be the best in the business. You can sieve for your own sapphires. Of course, there are food stalls. There are classes in lapidary—that is, the art of how to cut a rough sapphire stone into a beautiful bit of jewellery. There are all sorts of colours when it comes to sapphires: yellows, blues, greens and even pinks and, of course, the parti colour, which is the blue-green mixture. It's all there and it'll all be happening this weekend. I will be attending. As part of our tourist attraction, we have the official opening of the Sapphire Gemfields Interpretive Trail. This covers the five towns in The Gemfields and it's a link between each of those villages. Tourists can go on a trail and at each town and between the towns there will be some sort of landmark feature that explains what has happened over the years gone by. Those are not young towns; they have been there for over 100 years. The common is a square mile of land that takes in most of Sapphire and some parts of Rubyvale. This is where animals—cows, goats and pigs—can all run freely throughout the town and no-one actually has the right to remove them unless it is severe drought weather. Northern Australia 73 16:40 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert The development of Northern Australia is incredibly important for my electorate of Herbert. Townsville is the largest city in Northern Australia and, as such, has the capacity and capability to take a leading role in the development of Northern Australia. However, I am also very aware that Townsville and the surrounding regions can learn a great deal from other regions in Northern Australia. The key to the success of the development of Northern Australia is genuine collaboration between local government, the state governments across the three states that make up Northern Australia and the federal government. During the winter break, I visited the Northern Territory with members of the Joint Committee for Northern Australia. The purpose of our trip was to gather evidence about tourism and the opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in relation to employment. The committee travelled to Uluru, Alice Springs, Katherine and Darwin. My congratulates go to the secretariat for their coordination; this trip was very well organised and incredibly fruitful. As we travelled through the Territory it became very obvious to me and the other members of the committee that the answer to opening up tourism in Northern Australia lies not in fancy, over-the-top attractions but in the availability of necessary infrastructure. Northern Australia does not need a Sydney Harbour Bridge type attraction because we are gifted with incredible natural beauty, as we experienced at Katherine Gorge. Tourists experience the city life in Sydney and Melbourne. But if they want to experience the laid-back Australian lifestyle and see incredible natural wonders they choose the Aussie outback, rainforests and one of the great wonders of the world, the Great Barrier Reef, they come to Northern Australia. If people want to experience and delve into the oldest living culture in the world, then there is no other place like Northern Australia. We have 60,000 years of history with our First Nation people and their stories and cultural sites to visit. Overwhelmingly, tourism operators told us tourists want a genuine cultural experience with Aboriginal tour guides. Tourism in Northern Australia from the 21st century tourist perspective is about experiencing the amazing diversity of cultural heritage and the real Australian lifestyle. All of this was supported by James Cook University's professor of tourism, Phillip Pearce, who was the first professor of tourism in Australia. The professor and I caught up last week, and his expert advice reiterated everything I had discovered through my Northern Australia committee visit. Modern-day tourists want, in effect, a backyard experience. They want to experience the real Australia. The old 20th-century philosophy of 'build it and they will come' is outdated and not needed in Northern Australia. The new thinking is 'build it to provide access to some of the most gorgeous and untapped natural resources and then people will be able to come and visit'. For rural and remote communities in Northern Australia, the consistent evidence provided was about the need for infrastructure such as roads and bridges; access to regular and affordable air travel; housing and training for staff; and access to water. And the list goes on. Investment in infrastructure, both minor and major, will mean much bigger things for Northern Australia. Opening up opportunities for more local guides, roads in smaller island communities, adequate signs on the roads, bicycle tracks and smaller iconic infrastructure is the way forward. This was confirmed in public hearings in Northern Australia. Opening up opportunities with infrastructure build will make an enormous difference—particularly in the beautiful Kakadu, where the weather plays such an incredible role in access to area. Bill Shorten and Labor understand this potential, and that is why a Shorten Labor government will inject $1 billion into the Northern Australia Tourism Infrastructure Fund to provide financing and concessional loans to build new tourism infrastructure in Australia. Northern Australia's tourism industry is being let down by ageing infrastructure that is not fit for purpose for the needs of a growing and changing market. We need to make sure the infrastructure is in place to encourage more people to visit Northern Australia and experience all that we have to offer. The World Economic Forum's 2017 Travel and Tourism Competitive Index ranked Australia 7th for overall competitiveness but 14th for infrastructure. What is even worse is that the ground and port infrastructure in Australia is ranked 53rd. (Time expired). Fairfax Electorate: Aged Care 74 16:45 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax The health, safety and wellbeing of older Australians is paramount to the Turnbull government. On the Sunshine Coast, where my electorate of Fairfax is based, we have a disproportionately large population of mature-age Australians. You'll be interested to know that the most recent census said that in Queensland just over 15 per cent of the population is made up of people 65 years of age or older. On the Sunshine Coast and in my electorate of Fairfax in particular, it's 19 per cent. Having such a large group of seniors on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland is something of which I am enormously proud. It goes to show that our part of the world is, indeed, one of the healthiest places on earth. The Sunshine Coast has been providing and will continue to provide a way of life which is envied the world over. I am delighted to be able to represent so many seniors. It is also why I decided earlier this year to establish a seniors advisory committee led by Carol Cashman. This committee helps me enormously. They ensure that any issues of great importance to Sunshine Coast seniors are placed on my radar and, through me, onto the agenda of our ministers. They also ensure that we receive feedback on government policy in relation to their impact on seniors and they also help run public forums. Only last Friday I was delighted to have the honourable Ken Wyatt, the Minister for Aged Care, with us in the electorate at the Living Choice Twin Waters Retirement Village. There we had a forum with over 150 seniors packing the hall of that fantastic retirement village. We ran an interactive workshop which ran for over 90 minutes. There were 18 tables and seven key topics under discussion, all around the area of aged care and health. Every single table workshopped the key issues of importance to them and then fed it back to the minister for the minister to respond to and take on board. This was key because it allowed the seniors within the Sunshine Coast area to express their view. Let me, for the purpose of the House, mention some of the most common sentiments from that workshop last Friday. If there were common sentiments, they were around the need for simplicity, consistency, continuity of care, fairness in relation to contracts and greater accountability in governance. What I found, which should be of no surprise given the recent reports on the Four Corners program, was much emphasis and focus on retirement villages. Indeed, the No.1 issue raised across the tables was the power dynamic in retirement villages and a belief by some that it is unbalanced and favours the operators. There was a call for simpler access and consistency of care that is required regardless of living arrangements or stage of life. So we do have some issues here. As the minister rightly pointed out from his own experience and the advice he has received, the vast majority of seniors who are in aged care or retirement villages enjoy a happy life and are well looked after, but we as a government cannot tolerate any mistreatment whatsoever, particularly of our senior citizens. I want to publicly and in this House thank the minister not just for visiting my electorate of Fairfax but for taking the leadership he is taking, because, in order for us to coordinate an approach nationally—a lot of these issues are state and territory issues—we need the leadership of somebody like the minister to engage with those jurisdictions. He is also looking at the previous 2007 parliamentary inquiry report and the 2011 Productivity Commission report to identify short-, medium- and long-term recommendations to take this forward. We need to continue to put the wellbeing, health and safety of seniors at the top of our priority list. Blair Electorate: Anniversaries 75 16:50 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Tonight I want to speak in recognition of three significant anniversaries commemorated in my electorate of Blair: the 45th anniversary of the Box Flat coalmining disaster, the 50th anniversary of the Immaculate Heart Catholic Primary School, and the 90th anniversary of the Lowood branch of the Queensland Country Women's Association. The Box Flat mining disaster was one of the darkest days in Ipswich's history. In the early hours of the morning, on 31 July 1972, Ipswich was physically and emotionally rocked to the core. The night before, a fire had broken out in the Box Flat mine at Swanbank near Ipswich, and it couldn't be extinguished. In the early hours of the morning, a group of 17 men entered the mine to investigate options to contain and extinguish the fire. Shortly afterwards the mine exploded, shaking homes right across Ipswich. And I remember it, as a child. The rescue team died; 17 men died then, and another man passed away 14 months later due to injuries sustained. It was the most costly disaster in the history of Ipswich, and one of the worst mining tragedies ever to be experienced in Queensland. At the time, Ipswich was a town built on the back of coalmining. To have such a terrible disaster occur in an industry that was so integral to the city's history and life was nothing short of devastating. To their family and friends, and fellow workers in particular, losing 18 sons, husbands, brothers and fathers in the prime of their lives was simply heartbreaking. Box Flat is a tragic reminder that we must never compromise or put at risk the safety of men and women who go to work each and every day. To commemorate the 45th anniversary of the Box Flat explosion, a special memorial service was held at the Ipswich-Rosewood Coalminers Memorial at Limestone Park. I want to commend and recognise the special efforts of the Ipswich city council, led by Acting Mayor Councillor Paul Tully; the Ipswich-Rosewood Coalminers Memorial Trust; the CFMEU; and the members of the Ipswich community, family and friends who each year make the service possible. Their hard work ensures that the memory of that day is not forgotten and that the lives of those 18 miners will always be remembered. Immaculate Heart Catholic Primary School recently celebrated a milestone: 50 years since its birth. The Immaculate Heart school was founded in 1967 to meet the need for a Catholic school in the growing, then-outer suburb of Leichhardt One Mile in Ipswich. Setting up that school was no easy task. Parish priest Father Gerry Ronayne struggled to find a teaching congregation who would agree to staff the school, and for three long years the school actually sat empty. But the parish and the local community wouldn't be dissuaded and, after years of hard work, lobbying and fundraising, the school was finally opened. Now Immaculate Heart Primary School is not just home to over 200 local students from the Leichardt One Mile area; it is an important and integral part of the local community. It's not a big school, but it punches above its weight, and the Catholic community, along with the Baptist community, in Leichhardt and One Mile have been integral to the growth of the community and also to flood recovery and evacuation in disasters, as the area is commonly flooded. School Principal Petrea Rawlinson and her entire teaching staff do a wonderful job in the school each and every day, producing students who are an absolute credit to their school and the community. To celebrate 50 years is a fantastic achievement, and I want to congratulate them warmly for what they have done. Finally, I want to pay tribute to the Lowood branch of the CWA which recently celebrated its 90th birthday. It was formed in a meeting on 8 July 1927, with 20 ladies in attendance. The branch has since dedicated itself to the small rural communities north-west of Ipswich. During the war years, the branch undertook a number of activities, including holding workshops for making camouflage nets, taking part in the CWA sheepskin-vest appeal, and organising clothing drives for the victims of bombing in the UK. Today, their branch is no different, providing support and assistance to a number of worthy causes. The branch provides facilities for local community groups including on Meals on Wheels, the Lowood Lions and the Lowood Slimmers Club; it runs fundraisers for organisations, including the Domestic Violence Action Centre, the Ipswich Hospital Foundation and the Public Rural Crisis Fund. It also holds cooking classes for local students, many of whom have come from vulnerable or special-needs backgrounds. They are a great group of women. I want to congratulate them for what they do. They've been engaging in the community for 90 years, led by wonderful individuals like Val Shelton. I'm extremely proud to have this outstanding group of women in my electorate. On behalf of the community, I want to thank them for what they do. Little Haven Palliative Care 76 16:55 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay The proper and responsible care of those who are at the end of life is of great importance to me. We must always assist local organisations that provide the comfort, support and care to those with terminal illness or with a chronic illness requiring palliative care. One such organisation is Little Haven Palliative Care in Gympie, in my electorate, and they desperately need our support. Little Haven was founded in 1980 as a small community initiative, and is now a major palliative care operation in the region, with nurses servicing the Gympie region as far west as Kilkivan and as far east as the Cooloola coast. In the past five years, the number of patients at any given time has doubled. Families are accessing support for longer, and they are accessing support earlier. Despite this, the level of real funding to Little Haven has not changed over the past year. This funding is supplied by the Queensland health department. This is not sustainable. In the weeks leading up to Christmas, Little Haven received eight new referrals as the local private and public hospitals shut their doors over the holiday period. This took their number of patients up to 80, well over capacity. Two of these patients tragically passed away on New Year's Eve, and two tragically passed away on 2 January. The on call nurses worked in excess of 12 hours a day, putting further pressure on Little Haven's already stretched budget. Little Haven struggle to meet rising healthcare costs, and the state Labor government is failing to help them. From a federal perspective, specialist palliative care services like Little Haven are not eligible to apply for funding under aged-care packages, even though they are providing vital support to deliver care at the end of life and keeping patients in the place they'd rather be—that is, at home. Little Haven has a structural deficit of half a million dollars, with the shortfall only being partially made up with donations. Gympie's a generous community, which digs deep to support Little Haven. Last month my wife, Sharon, and daughter, Yve, ran in the Gratitude Walk and Fun Run for Little Haven, which raised $10,000. Little Haven can't continue to rely on the gratitude of private citizens to this extent to fund its vital services. When it comes to health care, people ultimately look to government to secure funding. And while palliative care is primarily a responsibility of the states, I believe that the Commonwealth can do more. While we have fantastic aged-care facilities that receive funding from the Australian government to provide quality of care, 70 per cent of Australians would prefer to pass away at home, but only 14 per cent do so. Indeed, my mother and father-in-law both had their wishes granted, and they passed away at home after long, terminal illnesses. This was only due to the support of Little Haven. Little Haven strives to fulfil this desire of most Australians, with 60 per cent of their patients passing away at home and another 24 per cent spending less than five days in hospital. I think we can do more for a community driven service like Little Haven. The recent federal budget provided $8.3 million to primary health networks to better coordinate palliative care services in the region. I have discussed the need to properly fund Little Haven with Assistant Minister for Health, David Gillespie, and we both understand how important this service is to the community. More support for Little Haven will deliver better health outcomes for the Gympie region and beyond, bringing the standard of care for those dying closer to other countries in the Western world. I want to thank Little Haven's business manager, Sue Manton, whom I have known for quite some time, for her tireless work and advocacy. I'll continue to work with her as I call on both state and federal governments to provide support for palliative care in Wide Bay. Palliative care services, especially community driven ones, have long been neglected in Australia. It's essential we treat the dying with the respect and dignity they deserve. These people have built our communities, nursed us and taught us, and we owe them and their families the support they deserve in their final days. House adjourned at 17:00 NOTICES 77 NOTICES

Thursday, 10 August 2017

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ) took the chair at 10:00.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 78 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Bass Electorate: Marriage 78 10:00 Mr HART 263070 Bass This week we have seen the Turnbull Liberal government push forward with its plans for a plebiscite on marriage equality. I would like to take this opportunity to echo the comments made by Senator Wong in the Senate yesterday: this plebiscite is nothing but a desperate, damaging and expensive stunt arising out of the Prime Minister's failure of leadership within his own party room. It is something that I fear will unleash hatred and division amongst our LGBTI community, despite protestations that is it is possible to conduct a rational and respectful debate and bring the community together. Yes, it is possible to have a rational, respectful debate, where the framers of the Constitution intended such debates to occur, and for that reason the debate should occur in this parliament. But I digress. Considering that this government now proposes a statistically irrelevant non-compulsory opinion poll, I put a question to the constituents of the Bass electorate via Facebook, asking them how best to spend the $122 million of public funds that is now earmarked for the postal plebiscite. I received almost 200 comments in response in less than 24 hours, reaching over 6,000 people, a sample that I might suggest is as statistically relevant as the postal plebiscite itself will be. I was heartened by many of the suggestions coming from my constituents. Responses suggesting expenditure on health were by far the most common, including funding for mental health and aged care, which is not a surprise, given the issues facing the Tasmanian health system at the moment. Chronic underfunding by the state Liberal government has led to ambulance ramping, bed block, blown-out waiting lists and understaffing at our major hospitals, putting both patients and staff at risk. Education also featured highly in well over half the responses, with a fantastic suggestion of funding a band program in every school in Australia. There was also great support for channelling funding into housing—for example, installing solar panels onto every public housing property in Tasmania—as well as addressing homelessness in our communities. One comment suggested that $122 million invested in increasing Centrelink's resources and workforce would ease the burden on the system, bringing down telephone wait times and speeding up processing times for claims. Legal aid and community legal centres received many mentions also. Given that the funding for these services is often uncertain, $122 million would ensure that vulnerable and disadvantaged Australians would have access to legal services and to representation in a system that often leaves them marginalised. I know that there are many instances where people who are in full-time work, not just those who would normally count as disadvantaged, cannot by any stretch of the imagination afford legal advice. I know that many of the social services I deal with, including community legal centres, would heartily welcome a renewed commitment to funding public legal aid. Banks Electorate 78 10:03 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks On 20 July I visited Carlton South Public School in my electorate to talk to the kids in years 5 and 6 about government. It was a great and spirited discussion with lots of excellent questions from the kids at Carlton South. I would like to thank stage 3 coordinator James Nobbs for facilitating my visit, and also principal Darren Galea for welcoming me on the day and more generally for everything he does in our community. Carlton South Public School is one of the largest of the 50 schools in my electorate, with around 600 students, and it is always good to visit what is a very strong and vibrant community. On 30 July I visited the Sydney Mandarin Christian Church on Woniora Road in Hurstville. It was good to join with members of the congregation for morning tea and to learn more about the community. The church was established in 1989 and has been an important part of the Hurstville community ever since. Of course, Hurstville has one of the largest Chinese-background communities of anywhere in Australia, and the Banks electorate has one of the largest constituencies of people of Chinese background of any electorate in the nation. It was great to visit the Hurstville Mandarin Christian Church and talk to the church leaders and parishioners. I would like to thank Pastor Wen-Kuo Chin for his hospitality on the day and indeed the other members of the church committee for their hospitality. We had an excellent discussion on a wide range of issues, and I look forward to visiting them again in the future. On 1 August I attended the meeting of the St Therese Padstow P&F. St Therese is a Catholic school in my electorate. It has about 200 kids and is a very important part of the Padstow and Padstow Heights community. One of the issues which have really troubled the school for a long time is the access in and out of the school, particularly along Harvey Avenue, which is a very narrow street—there is a lot of complexity for parents in dropping off their children and picking them up after school. I have been in touch with the council about this issue, which affects many, many families in our local community, and certainly will continue to seek to find a resolution, because it is a very difficult situation at Harvey Avenue. It is great to see the P&F taking so many positive steps for the school community. I would like to thank Daniella Morrison, the P&F president, and Jacky Vella, the school principal, for everything they do for the Padstow community. Television Audio Description Services, Vision Impairment 79 10:06 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I rise to speak about audio description for blind and low-vision Australians and call on the Turnbull government to stop dragging its feet when it comes to increasing the availability of audio description services on free-to-air television. Audio description is a verbal narrative track that can be switched on to describe key visual elements in a television program, such as facial expressions, scenery and action sequences during natural pauses in dialogue. It assists children, adults and elderly people with blindness or low vision to know what is going on during a program. However, despite the fact that many other English-speaking OECD countries provide audio description on television, Australia does not. It is completely unacceptable that Australia lags behind the rest of the world on this key human rights issue. On 6 April this year, the government announced the formation of an audio description working group to 'examine options for increasing the availability of audio description services in Australia.' This announcement followed the ABC's successful trial on iview, which concluded in June 2016, over a year ago. In April and May this year, along with Senator Carol Brown, the shadow minister for disability and carers, we noted our concerns that the Turnbull government is dragging its feed on AD, because the terms of reference for the working group are ambiguous and the working group isn't due to report until the last day of this year. We noted that the extent to which the Turnbull government is committed to actually achieving access remains unclear. Since the initial meeting of the working group, I have received a number of concerns from consumer advocates who attended. These include that, indeed, the terms of reference are ambiguous. It is unclear if the purpose of the working group is to develop a road map to actually introduce audio description or to simply continue discussion about whether AD is possible on Australian television. It would appear that legislative change is not within the scope of the working group, and this is deeply troubling. While non-regulatory options should indeed be explored, it is very concerning if regulatory options are off the table. Voluntary AD has not been provided, despite this having been on the government's agenda for a decade and despite the government's successive grant of licence fee relief to commercial television broadcasters. One could indeed say there is a market failure that needs to be addressed by government. Further, in 2012, Labor legislated for captioning for deaf and hearing-impaired people, so why should there not be equivalent regulation mandating audio description for blind and low-vision people? Why should the provision of an essential human right of access to information be subject to the individual appetite of broadcasters? Another concern is that the technical and cost obstacles to providing AD are not being articulated clearly. Labor believes it is imperative for this government to reap a return on broadcasters' use of radio frequency spectrum, and this includes for blind and low-vision Australians who need audio description. La Trobe Electorate: Road Infrastructure 79 10:09 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I am calling on the state Labor government to get on and build the Beaconsfield Interchange and the extension of O'Shea Road. The federal government under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, back in April 2016, committed to a $1 billion plan for upgrading the Monash Freeway. Parts of that plan were the completion of the Beaconsfield Interchange and the extension of O'Shea Road. Why are these projects so important? First of all, the Beaconsfield Interchange, once built, will be an access point to an advanced manufacturing hub, and potentially create defence jobs when we also have the extension of O'Shea Road. The Beaconsfield Interchange has been without two on-off ramps for close to 12 years. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:10 to 10:34 Mr WOOD E0F As I was saying before, I'm now calling on the state Labor government to get on and build the Beaconsfield Interchange and the extension of O'Shea Road. The Turnbull government has committed $500 million for stage 2 of the Monash. This commitment was made back in April 2016 by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. The money is there on the table. We need them to immediately start work and get on with the job. Five hundred million dollars is sitting there—federal funding—which has been committed, yet it's not been spent. It's a disgrace. Why don't they get on with the job? Tomorrow, they could actually go out there—this is VicRoads—and issue a notice of acquisition, working with the Casey council, which is a local planning authority, and O'Shea Road could be finished by the end of the year. There is no excuse. This project is so important for the south-east of Melbourne and the residents of Beaconsfield, Berwick, Officer and surrounding areas because it's going to ease traffic, especially on Clyde Road. State Labor needs to get on and build the O'Shea Road and the Beaconsfield Interchange now. The federal funding is there. There is no excuse not to start work asap. In fact, they've had pretty much 18 months where they have done nothing. In conclusion, as they are finishing stage 1, they should immediately go on to stage 2 and extend the extra lane from Clyde Road right out to Cardinia and also from South Gippsland Highway right out to Warragul. Why? Because again, the federal funding is there—$500 million is there. Get on and do the job. Cunningham Electorate: Volunteers 80 10:34 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham A fortnight ago, the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party had our state conference. One of the parts of the conference that I particularly enjoy is the time in which we celebrate party members who have received life membership. I'm sure my colleagues across the chamber will have local people in their party branches who don't seek anything out of their work but who just believe in our democracy and value their opportunity to participate in the political process. They get out there on rainy, cold elections and stinking hot elections, beating the path and doing all the work to make sure those elections can happen in a way that is really inclusive in this country. I really value and appreciate that. I want to recognise nine locals from Illawarra who have, combined, given over 400 years of dedication to our party and also to our community and their democracy. Firstly, I want to recognise Joseph Caruana, Joe, who's from the Balgownie branch. He's been nearly 50 years in the party and very active during all of those years assisting in campaigns and polling activities. He's also very involved in his local community. He was the secretary, during the 1980s, of the George Cross Falcon Club in Cringila, which supports the Illawarra's Maltese community. He's also been involved in attending Maltese conferences as a delegate of that community. He's very important to our branches and also as part of that very active Maltese community. Stella Chapman from the Bulli-Woonona-Helensburgh branch has been in the party for 40 years. She's held all sorts of positions in party bodies. She's an important member who helped establish a new branch—Bay and Basin branch on the South Coast. I have to say that during her employment in the sixties and seventies she worked to start a union for women and was threatened with the sack, so she's been very active representing others and being a voice for others. Kay Heffernan, from the Mt Kembla-Unanderra branch is another life member. She is not only a campaigner but a very active member of her local Catholic community parish, who has done a lot of community work. I recognise Colin and Melissa Markham: Colin was a long-term state representative in our area, and both he and Melissa are very active party members. Also, they are, more broadly, very active community representatives. It was very sad that illness stopped them from being there, but it was great to see their work recognised. John Wark, from the Thirroul branch, is a fabulous local member and does a lot of history and research work for the party. In my colleague the member for Whitlam's area, can I put on the record Fay Campbell, a wonderful woman I have known for a long time from the Dapto branch; Ferdinando Lelli, a member of our Warilla-Mt Warrigal branch and a long-term member; and Hans Strecker of the Albion Park-Oak Flats branch. (Time expired) Robertson Electorate 80 10:39 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson Over the last several weeks, I have spent a great deal of time out in my electorate on the Central Coast to listen to local people about what is important to them. I was in Spencer, Mooney Mooney and Kariong for a number of community forums so that we could discuss the issues that matter to the local residents of each of these communities. We also held morning teas in Terrigal and Saratoga. I also wrote to tens of thousands of residents across my electorate, putting the call out and asking what is important to them. We asked what their No. 1 issue was in the community and what they would like to see changed. From that survey, I am pleased to see that more than 1,000 responses have come in to date, with more continuing to be collected every day by my office. Many of the comments emphasised to me that families and businesses across the Central Coast are passionate about seeing our region thrive but also about making sure that we are safe and secure. Colleen from Kincumber said that she was concerned about drugs and crime in our community, as did Shauna from Somersby. Marie from Woy Woy said that we need more jobs for locals. But one issue that stood out was the price of energy. Charles from Umina Beach said that if he could raise one issue in the parliament—and I do so now on your behalf, Charles—it would be that energy become more affordable. Roy from Saratoga said that the high cost of electricity was an issue for him. Garth from Green Point said that power prices were his No. 1 concern. Kerry from Booker Bay said that electricity and gas prices were out of control. Patricia, a pensioner from Erina, said that she and so many other people need to see lower electricity prices, while Warren from Umina Beach called electricity prices 'madness'. Alan in East Gosford said the No. 1 issue in the community was the cost of living pressures. Jim from Niagara Park asked for reduced energy costs. James from Ettalong Beach said that energy prices were his No. 1 issue on the Central Coast. Geoff in Terrigal said that the cost of living pressures were too high. I have been writing back to every single person, because, as you can hear, families and businesses are doing it tough. I will also be writing to inform them that our government is committed to tackling these issues. This week, the Prime Minister secured agreement from energy retailers on immediate measures and ongoing changes that are to be backed by law to put families and small businesses first. It includes contacting all customers who are on expired discounts and telling them how much they can save on a better deal, in easy-to-read language. We are demanding that companies report to the government and to the ACCC on what they are doing to get families a better deals and also how many families remain on expired deals. We are also ensuring that families and individuals on hardship programs won't lose any benefit or discount for late payment. On top of this, we have moved to secure more gas supplies to put downward pressure on electricity prices. But, as so many locals have shared with me, there is more work to do, so I am looking forward to holding more community forums across the Central Coast in the coming weeks to continue this important conversation with my community and to hear from local residents about what really matters to them. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Before I call the member for Fremantle, if no member present objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a total of 60 minutes. The member for Fremantle has the call. Fremantle Electorate: Schools 81 10:42 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle One of the many privileges and joys of being a representative is the opportunity to visit schools in one's community. Education is the great driver and guarantor of opportunity and equality—and, of course, our schools exist to deliver that. But schools are more than that. They are community hubs and places where social capital is built and reinforced in the bonds between teachers, students and families and through links into the wider community. In the last month or so, I have visited a number of schools across the seat of Fremantle to hear from principals, teachers and support staff and, most importantly, to engage with students. I had a lovely time meeting the year 6 class at Jandakot Primary, which not long ago visited Parliament House as part of their studies in democracy and government. They produced some colourful and detailed charts about the legislative process. To be honest, I wish I had taken some copies, because they were excellent and would have been very helpful to me as a new member. I know from my own experience that education involves an entire community. At Jandakot Primary School that starts with Principal Ian Hastings. I want to acknowledge his energy and leadership. I also want to acknowledge the school board chair, Brad McAullife, and the P&C President, Hayley King, who have both been actively engaged in improving the school's built environment and character, drawing on the Jandakot area's aeronautical heritage. Further to the west, South Fremantle Senior High School and Hamilton Senior High School have begun the transition to the new Fremantle College, which will open its doors next year. I was glad to visit the site the other day to see the new building works. I thank Foundation Principal, Miles Draper, and his team for their passionate and practical commitment to revitalising and expanding the learning and innovation spaces. They are leading the transformation that my community has looked forward to for some time. At Southwell Primary in Hamilton Hill I witnessed a lovely example of a small but close-knit school that works together to achieve the best possible outcomes for its students. Diversity is the foundation principle at Southwell, with 50 per cent of students coming from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background and another 25 per cent of the kids coming from migrant families. All children are taught to speak Nyungar, and there is a strong focus on Indigenous culture and history. I congratulate Principal Elizabeth Melville and all the teachers, education assistants and other staff for their work. In my first year as a representative, I visited more than 25 local schools. In each of them I found teachers, students and community leaders dedicated to the great cause of education. But I have to reflect on those school visits with mixed feelings because I know that that network of school communities could be better enabled if it had better resources to respond on the basis of need and resources that meant more teachers and more help for students who will otherwise struggle to achieve their potential. Unfortunately, we have a government that has walked away from needs based schools funding. That means WA schools will receive hundreds of millions of dollars less than was listed in the last Barnett budget. Calare Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours 81 10:45 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Three very deserving residents in the Calare electorate have been named in the 2017 Queen's birthday honours list. I would like to take the opportunity to recognise each of them today. Firstly, Peter Veenstra of Clifton Grove in Orange has received a medal of the Order of Australia. Peter moved to Orange in 1984 when a friend informed him about a position at Kinross Wolaroi School. He phoned about the position from a phone box in the small town of Banana. He then went to teach at Kinross Wolaroi for 15 years whilst also taking on the role of student welfare coordinator. He was also a sports administrator and believes one of his greatest achievement was getting the South African rugby team to play at Wade Park in Orange in 1992, following the end of apartheid. He has become an integral part of our community through his involvement in various organisations, including the Lyndon community drug and alcohol service, Royal Far West, the Australian National Field Days, Orange Police Citizens Youth Club, the Orange sports council advisory committee and Cabonne council. He has also served as chief executive officer of Central West Rugby Union since 1987, marking 31 years. He has just retired from that position. I can attest to his effectiveness in that role as he often drafted me in to sit on the Central West Rugby Union judiciary. He often used to entice members to sit on that panel through the cooking of his wife, Lida! I know Lida would be very proud of the award that Peter has just received. I congratulate Peter and also Lida. Marion Wilson of Canowindra has dedicated her life to health care. For this she has also been recognised with a medal of the Order of Australia. Marion has been team leader and area coordinator of the Orange health centre. She served as director of the health promotion unit which was based in Bathurst and is currently a board member of the Canowindra Retirement Village Association. She has worked as a community nurse in the central western area health service and has been instrumental in the development of multipurpose services bringing health services together for the benefit of people in country communities. She has also been a past chair of the district council and a member of the strategic mission committee and the Macquarie Darling Presbytery. She is also currently Chair of the Canowindra Food Basket, a cultural officer with the Canowindra CWA and a member of the Uniting Church. Maisie Scott has received a medal of the Order of Australia. She has undertaken years of volunteer work and was inspired by her late husband, Charles. She is a patron and life member of the Rydal Show Society, a member and volunteer of the Rydal and district and agricultural pastoral association since 1966 and chief cooking steward since 1991. She is also a life member of the Portland Show Society, was an organiser of the Meadow Flat gymkhana for 20 years, was a member of the Meadow Flat Progress Association for 50 years and has been a member of the Bathurst Legacy Widows Club since 2002 and volunteered as a publicity officer and secretary. She is a former Blue Mountains delegate, was land cookery judge for the New South Wales Country Women's Association for three years and was president and treasurer of the Portland CWA and inaugural president of the Meadow Flat CWA. I congratulate— (Time expired) Hamilton, Private Herbert 82 10:48 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson There are few people in the world that are so alone that they would record their boss as their next of kin, but such was the case with Herbert Hamilton. He was a farmhand in Millers Forest, which is in my electorate of Paterson. Bert, as he was known, enlisted in the Australian Army on 7 December 1915. In his papers he declared that both his parents were dead and he had no known family. As a child, he was a ward of the state. He left Australian shores to fight in the war and arrived in France in August 1916. Here Private Herbert Hamilton was taken on with C Company of the 51st battalion and joined preparations. The attack went ahead on 3 September. After the battle, Private Hamilton was listed as missing in action. His death was later confirmed, on 23 April 1917, by a court of inquiry. In 1922, the Army records office wrote to Bert's former boss, Tom Elkin, whom he had listed as his next of kin on his enlistment papers. The office was looking for Bert's relatives so his medals could be issued. But Tom had no knowledge of any relatives. For almost 100 years, Bert Hamilton had no-one to mourn his passing, and his medals were never issued. I am relieved to report that that has changed. Private Hamilton's memory is now honoured in my electorate of Paterson. This is due to the impeccable and tenacious work of two local historians, John Gillam and Yvonne Fletcher. As part of their local centenary of Anzac commemorations contribution, Mr Gillam and Ms Fletcher discovered anomalies in the issue of medals and mementoes and even reports of a 2½-tonne stockpile of unclaimed war service medals. Raymond Terrace and District Historical Society president, Ken Barlow, supported the historians' application to DH&A to have the medals issued to the society's approved museum to appropriately commemorate Private Hamilton's service and sacrifice. When this stalled, I was honoured to intervene by contacting the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Dan Tehan, on behalf of the historical society. The medals were issued and a precedent was set for other bonda fide applicants to have the medals issued posthumously. I was given the honour—it was, indeed, such an honour—of making the official handover of these medals to Mr Barlow at a ceremony attended by various RSL sub-branch representatives. Private Herbert Hamilton, you are no longer alone. Paterson remembers you. Organ and Tissue Donation 83 10:51 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I rise today to acknowledge and recommend a worthy program that recognises a very special, deserving person in my electorate of Hasluck in Western Australia. I hope all Australians were aware that last week was DonateLife Week. The very special person in my electorate I wish to acknowledge is Mr Norm Rudd of Bellevue, who recently underwent a heart transplant. I thank Norm for coming forward to raise awareness of organ and tissue donation as part of this year's DonateLife Week. Norm was born with a congenital heart defect known as Tetralogy of Fallot, and has spent his life fighting heart problems. Early last year Norm underwent a life-saving transplant that gave him a new heart and a new lease of life. Norm made a decision to himself to be an organ donor, as he recognised that people don't always realise the impact organ and tissue donations have until you, or someone you know, need an organ. There are 267 living donors who last year donated a kidney or part of a liver and continue to lead a normal life. The message Norm wanted to get across was that we don't need our organs when we're gone; however, they may be able to be used by someone else. He also said that when we become an organ donor we take a raincheck and only use them when we have finished with them. Your donation can be used to make someone's life worth living. I encourage all of my Hasluck residents to sign up as organ donors through the new online registration process. Thanks to this new online registration process, it is now faster and easier than ever to register your donation decision on the Organ Donor Register. All you need to do is use your mobile phone, tablet or computer and visit donatelife.gov.au, or just type in 'donate life', where you can register in just minutes. A minute of your time can save and improve the lives of 10 or more people needing an organ and improve the lives up 70 people through tissue donation. As minister responsible for the Organ and Tissue Authority, I am very passionate about urging all Australians to jump online today and register their donation decision. Some of the key reasons people give for not registering is that they don't have enough time to register or they haven't got around to it yet. The aim of the new online registration is to address these barriers and assist people in registering their decision to save lives in a fast and secure manner. Last year, a record 1,713 Australians received a transplant thanks to the generosity of 503 deceased and 267 living organ donors and their families. However, with 1,400 Australians still currently on waiting lists and a further 12,000 people on dialysis, I would ask all Australians to consider becoming an organ donor. Registering is easy, but the other important step I encourage you to take is to talk to you family to let them know what your wishes are, because when they know your wishes they are more likely to honour your wishes. Live Animal Exports 83 10:54 Mr FEENEY I0O Batman This June Australia once again faced reports of horrendous animal cruelty taking place at the Al Rai livestock market in Kuwait during the Festival of Sacrifice. It is alleged that Australian sheep found their way outside the approved Export Supply Chain Assurance System, ESCAS, and were slipped into the Kuwait marketplace, where they suffered in the heat before being sold off individually to face backyard slaughter. This represents a severe breach of the ESCAS regulatory framework, which has once again undermined public confidence in the system and allowed for Australian sheep to potentially be subjected to terrible treatment. This is not acceptable. Labor has written to the minister, Barnaby Joyce, expressing our concerns over these reports, requesting that the minister ensure this investigation is expedited and asking for assurance that if the exporters are found to be in breach of ESCAS they will be held to account. ESCAS is set up to make sure that an Australian animal does not endure abuse like this. Yet, once again, the horrendous animal cruelty we witness shows the urgent need to review the current ESCAS system and establish the office of the Inspector General for Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. Ahead of the 2016 federal election, Labor released a six-point strategy calling for a review of the ESCAS, including its sanctions, to ensure that it's working as effectively as it needs to be. More importantly, we called for an independent inspector general of animal welfare, who will have the authority and the responsibility for overseeing implementation of laws, investigating breaches and providing independent advice to the federal government on reforms where the need for them exists. If we do not release publicly available information on breaches, actions taken and sanctions imposed on the mistreatment and abuse of Australian animals overseas, we will have to continue to rely on charities such as Animals Australia to be the watchdog of this multibillion dollar industry and to bring animal abuse cases to our notice. Achieving a strong animal welfare system requires strong national leadership and a willingness to make our systems transparent and strong. Australia needs a strong ESCAS system that works and that enforces strong sanctions when that framework is breached. The coalition has failed to invest, reform and care about this system. I do not want another year to go by with another allegation of animal cruelty and ESCAS failure. I call on the government to join with Labor and to implement our proposals. Murray Electorate: Manufacturing 84 10:57 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray My home town is Shepparton in my electorate of Murray. It is home to some of the best manufacturers and processors in the country. I have had the privilege of visiting some of these places in the last few months. In my office here in Canberra I have a wonderful display of products made at Pental in Shepparton. They manufacture well-known household products such as White King bleaches, Country Life soaps, Huggies, fabric softeners and Jiffy firelighters, just to name a few. They have been operating in Shepparton for more than 60 years. They are a leader in innovation in personal household products. I would like to thank Paul and Carmine for showing me around the factory recently. Just a few hundred metres down the road from Pental is one of the oldest engineering companies in the country—Furphys. Many people in this place may be familiar with the saying that you're telling a furphy. Quite a few of them do get told around here. I'm sure that many members have been accused of telling furphies in the past. The saying originated back in World War I, when soldiers would tell tales around the Furphy water wagon. The wagon was and still is made in Shepparton, but 150 years later they are manufacturing stainless steel tanks for the dairy industry, the food and beverage industry, the mining industry and the pharmaceutical industry. I am sure many Victorians have also tasted the Furphy beer, which is named after the foundry but manufactured in Geelong. I recently visited the Furphy site and spoke to managing director Adam Furphy, who is the fifth generation of the family to run this business. Adam showed me the latest expansion of the company sheds and the new technologies that they are adding to the capabilities of their business. The Furphy name has even made its way into the parliament—the end of the famous water cart is now on show in the press gallery. In the same industrial precinct is Rubicon. Rubicon is a leading manufacturer and developer in water technology and management of gravity-fed irrigators. Rubicon designs, develops, manufactures and tests all of its own products. They're doing contracts in China, America, India, New Zealand, Spain, Chile and others. Certainly, they are the world leaders in water efficiency projects around the world. In Murray, it's not just the large manufacturers who are making waves across this country. We also have one of the very few, and possibly the largest, camel dairy farms in Australia operating just outside of Kyabram. Chris and Megan, a young couple who have started up this enterprise there, purchase the camels from Central Australia and make a whole range of products—not just the milk. I was lucky enough to taste the milk, and, having grown up on a dairy farm, I think it's much more palatable than I remember the cow's milk being. I am proud that Murray is the home of manufacturing to so many areas. It's an honour to represent these companies, and I encourage everyone to think local and think Australian made when it comes to purchasing home groceries or industrial products for your business. Nothing can replace the quality of Australian grown, Australian designed and Australian made. Skilled Migration Program 84 11:00 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today to talk about labour market testing and the visa processes that we have in this country. Randalls Equipment is a small company based in Point Cook in my electorate. It is a successful second-generation Australian-owned family business that designs and manufactures grapples for logging and other purposes. It is a small business that provides 16 local jobs in my electorate in high-end manufacturing. They service the domestic forestry industry, export to Indonesian and Malaysian markets and import world-class harvesters. Over the winter break, the managing director, Peter Randalls, contacted me with a matter of urgency as the company required a 457 visa application situation to be resolved before it resulted in further damage to the company. As the supplier of the Scandinavian Ponsse machine, sales in 2015-16 were significant. As a result of the specialist resigning and there being no-one in Australia capable of training users in the Ponsse machine, sales dropped a staggering 58 per cent. The changes announced in April by the government impeded the ability of Randalls to quickly employ an identified specialist, meaning the company was facing devastation. Peter understands that the requirements for a 457 visa should be complex. In fact, he summed up, sitting with me, what most Australian attitudes are towards foreign worker visas. He said he thought the process should include himself sitting in Canberra, if necessary, with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and having to put a very clear case for why it was important for the continuation of Australian jobs that he have this person on board. I am happy to advise the House that, after I made representation to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, common sense prevailed in this case and the visa was granted. I am advised that the specialist is set to start work at Randalls Equipment this week. There is no doubt in my mind that there has been, as we have seen, exploitation of this visa class and subsequent exploitation of workers in this visa class. But, in this instance, like most Australians, I support this 457 visa being issued so that 16 other local people in my community continue to be employed in manufacturing and so that Australians in this company can be trained in the areas of expertise that this person will provide. I will visit Randalls Equipment next week and be fascinated to see the high-end manufacturing that they are doing as a small company in my electorate that has been running for 70 years, has potential for expansion and, in fact, plans for strategic expansion across Australia. I would like to put on the record that I appreciate the support provided by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on this issue. Muir, Mrs Joan, OAM, Godbee, Mr Max, Evans Head Bombers Rugby League Club 85 11:03 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Last month the Grafton community farewelled one of its greatest advocates for the disabled, the aged and many other causes—Joan Muir. She was 96. After serving with the Australian Women's Army Service during World War II, Joan came back to Grafton with her husband and became a teacher at the Caringa special school—a school for children with disabilities. She was a teacher there for more than two decades. She was later made a life member of Caringa Enterprises, which the school had become. In the late sixties, Joan joined the Clarence Village association to advocate for the aged. Today, the meeting hall at Clarence Village bears her name in recognition of her tireless work. She was a member of numerous organisations that are too many to name. For these, she received an OAM. She was a true champion of the Clarence Valley. Her dedication to the community will be forever remembered by the families of those she touched. Joan is survived by her four children, Wally, Michael, Peter and Fiona, and their families. Rest in peace, Joan. Max Godbee was a respected athlete and sports editor in the Clarence Valley who recently passed away at the age of 86. His career at The Daily Examiner in Grafton started in the 1950s, and he taught many in the community the value of sport. He was a member of the Yamba Surf Life Saving Club from 1952—a life member—and remained an active member, performing patrols, competing, coaching and administrating the club for over five decades. His love of sport was profound. He is survived by his two children, Michelle and Paul, and his grandchildren, Chris and Timothy. Rest in peace, Max. The Evans Head Bombers are the smallest club in the Northern Rivers Regional Rugby League community, but this doesn't stop them scoring tries for local charities. On 5 August the Evans Head Bombers took on the Murwillumbah Mustangs for their sixth annual charity day to raise money for cystic fibrosis. The day was a great success, raising over $10,000. It brings the amount they've raised to over $40,000. This isn't the first time that they've raised money for a charity. Previously, they've raised more than $7,000 for local charity Our House, as part of their Think Pink Cancer Awareness Day. It was a culmination of work by organisers Maree Butcher and Alma Keogh. This year, Cystic Fibrosis Day was driven by Tahli Butler, Rockett Milsom and Taysha Butler, who are the coordinators of the fundraising team. There were over 20 sponsors from the local community, who also donated auction items to this event. This event could not have been possible without the support of the rugby league community. I'd also like to acknowledge the auctioneer, Brian O'Farrell, club president Grant McGeary, treasurer Jo Slade, committee member Annie Dries, and all the community who supported this project. Marriage 85 11:06 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman After the government's infighting came to a head on Monday, I sat down and penned some words on what same-sex marriage means for me as a mother and as an MP. I shared these words with my electorate, and it was really warming to see the support that I received. Some related to my pain, as the mother of a gay man, to see one of my children being discriminated against. Some personally recognised the humiliation that they themselves are subjected to as members of the LGBTI community. Many people, though, regardless of their sexuality, recognise this for what it is: a weak decision by a weak Prime Minister, intended to insult and divide and to delay the inevitable. In a society that is continually moving forward and progressing, equality is inevitable. Once, people were against interracial marriage, giving women a vote or recognising Indigenous Australians as people, but times change and societies move forward. A country can only move forward with a strong leader—not one who has been unconvincingly whimpering out the words, 'I'm a strong leader,' when everyone else is thinking the opposite, not one who leads a dysfunctional rabble that would rather throw their hands up and say, 'I can't do this,' and ask the Australian people to do their job for them. Elected representatives are elected to represent everyone, regardless of whom they love, and to pass legislation that moves Australia forward. This can mean making really tough decisions, conceding defeat and admitting that sometimes the other side has it right. But your government, this government, refuses to do that; instead, they are employing a form of vote collection which Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has previously recognised as a calculated method designed 'to disenfranchise Australians, particularly young people'. That's how he described a postal vote. It's really no surprise that all of those who were publicly against marriage equality were the ones pushing for a postal plebiscite: people like my neighbouring MP, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, who as the member for Dickson has just overseen the closure of—wait for this—a post office in his electorate. He's just overseen the closure of it. Even this government knows that marriage equality is inevitable, but it wants this to fail. Even though they know the Australian people want marriage equality, they want this to fail. Even though they know that allowing two people who love each other to be treated the same as everyone else, they want this to fail. Marriage 86 11:09 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Today I encourage people to enrol to vote for the forthcoming plebiscite on marriage for same-sex couples. This is your chance, a once-in-a-generation opportunity, to have a say on the future of the country but, more important than that, it is an opportunity to do something great for our country. If you've turned 18 since the middle of last year, all I can do is encourage you to make sure that you go to aec.gov.au to make sure that you can have your say in improving this great nation. If you would like to participate in helping make sure that the Goldstein electorate is one of the electorates with the strongest votes in the country, I recommend contacting my office on (03) 9557 4644 or contacting me at tim.wilson.mp@aph.gov.au. This is your chance to have your say but, more importantly, to make us a better country where every Australian feels equal, feels accepted by society, and where we value the commitment between people equally under the law. I would like to encourage the voters of Goldstein to vote yes in the forthcoming plebiscite on marriage for same-sex copies. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make this country a better place, where every single person feels equal in their dignity and respected by the law. When you look at the challenges that our country faces, it's important that we be a united nation, where everybody has a chance to contribute to their best endeavours. It's an opportunity for individuals to come forward and form families as a foundation for community and a great nation, and it is when people come together and show that commitment to each other that we have the foundations of a great Australia into the future. That is what marriage is—it is not some legal term; it is a social construct, a cultural construct, of commitment between individuals. It is the job of the law to fully respect those people. That is why this is not just a vote yes for people who may be affected directly; it is also a vote yes for friends, for families, for co-workers and for people who want to have the type of country that we want to be. You have the chance to make that happen, and only you have that chance. So, if your ballot paper has been sent to you, I recommend you collect it and you make your own decision. But I stress that I will be voting yes and I would encourage you to do so as well. This is not a debate between politicians. This is about you making a conscious decision about the type of country we want to be. Make sure you get that postal ballot, you take it to a mailbox and you send it back, to make sure that you have your say and we can make our nation a more perfect commonwealth. Hobart Airport 86 11:12 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I implore the government to stop treating Tasmanians as second-class citizens. They continue to do this; they continue to leave Tasmania off the map. Of course, I am referring to Hobart being the only capital city airport in Australia that has no Australian Federal Police presence. We used to, but in 2014 the federal government withdrew the AFP from Hobart Airport. At the time we asked some questions of the government, the infrastructure department, the Office of Transport Security and the AFP—we asked everybody we could to get to the bottom of why the government had taken the Federal Police out of Hobart Airport. We didn't really get a satisfactory answer. Indeed, the only thing we got was that it was an AFP resourcing decision. In light of recent events and everything that is happening and the fact Hobart is about to get a direct international link for freight and possibly in the future for passengers, we have been calling for the government to explain this decision, and we have been asking for a review of it. We have heard very little from the high levels of government, but it is pleasing to see that we finally got one of the Tasmanian Liberal senators to come out and say that we cannot risk security by leaving this port without any AFP protection. So there is at least an acknowledgement by one Liberal senator that there is an issue at Hobart Airport. But we have also had the police commissioner in Tasmania write to the commissioner of the AFP about this. The Premier has said that it is an issue, and the Tasmanian police minister has said that it is an issue. Everybody in Tasmania says we cannot have Hobart Airport there with an international freight link about to start, and international passenger flights probably occurring, and with everything that is happening at the moment, and not have an AFP presence. All you've got to do is go down to Hobart Airport and talk to the current security staff, who are contractors and doing a great job, and to the airport staff and the people who are trying to deal with the passengers down there, to hear that this is a really serious issue. People are concerned about not having any permanent police presence at Hobart Airport at all. There is no permanent presence at Hobart Airport today at all, and this government needs to explain why that is the case. We understand that it is going to be reviewed in the review of all the airports that's happening at the moment in light of what we saw just a week or so ago. But what we actually need is the government to explain the original decision, what we need is a review of that original decision, what we need is some assurance to Tasmanians, and what we need is Malcolm Turnbull, as Prime Minister, to guarantee to people in Hobart going through that airport that they are safe. They need to be told that they are safe, that there will be a police presence at Hobart Airport, that the decision to remove police will be reviewed by the government, and that we'll get a decision fairly soon, hopefully, because this is concerning Tasmanians. It is not fair. We are continually left off the map by this government and we have had enough. Taxation: Family Trusts 87 11:15 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes This morning I would like to talk about Labor's attacks on family trusts. Firstly, by way of disclosure, I have never participated in a family trust or been a member of one. But what Labor are doing is an attack on families, it is an attack on small business, and it is an attack on entrepreneurship in this country. There are a couple of things to make clear. What will this will actually do? Labor say it is to reduce inequality. But, like many of Labor's policies, it has the opposite, perverse effect to the outcome that they are trying to achieve. If they go ahead with their crackdown on family trusts, it will only attack and affect small business. As the economist Judith Sloan has noted: Let’s be clear on one thing: the change being proposed will not affect the really wealthy. Where the individual trust distributions exceed $137,000 a year, Labor’s policy has no effect What Labor's policy on the taxation of trusts will do is hurt honest small-business owners that distribute relatively modest sums to beneficiaries, while not laying a glove on the wealthy. So, there you have it: it will not affect the large income earners. But, as with most of Labor's policies, when they talk about inequality they target the middle class. They target hardworking family small businesses. They want to make them poorer and less well-off. This is where we see flaw after flaw in all of Labor's policies. The other thing that's of real concern about Labor's proposal is that it simply drives a wedge of division. Many people do not understand the workings of family trusts, and rightly so—people going about their business do not understand the complexity of our tax system. To not understand a family trust is to not understand the structure of how many small businesses work. Whether it's the husband, the wife, the family or the kids, they all often get in and lend a hand. And the income and success of that family business is distributed through a trust, which pays exactly the same rate of tax as every other Australian who earns income. So, it's just division and class warfare that we are hearing from Labor. But the real concern is that Labor say this will raise $17 billion. It will not raise anything like that whatsoever. Instead of using a family trust, people can simply restructure as partnerships or they can do it through company structures. So, the money raised will be limited. But Labor will use the perception of all this new taxation revenue to make promises that they cannot afford—promises they will never ever be able to finance. (Time expired) Shipping 87 11:18 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam Two days ago, the Prime Minister stood in front of an Australian flag and told Australians how strong he was. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I will remind the member for Whitlam that props are not allowed in the Federation Chamber. I ask that you put it away. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B He didn't stand in front of this flag, and there's a good reason for it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I ask the member for Whitlam to put the prop away. Mr Stephen Jones A9B He didn't stand in front of this flag, because he is busily conspiring with ship owners to have this flag removed from Australian vessels and replaced with a foreign flag, so that he can replace the crews on those Australian vessels with foreign crews. Over the last 20 years, international sea freight to and from Australia has more than doubled. Mr Zimmerman interjecting — The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The member for North Sydney will cease interjecting. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B But, remarkably, over that very same period, the number of Australians working on those ships has decreased. Flag-of-convenience shipping and temporary licences have been a critical part of this decline. Foreign crews on these flag-of-convenience vessels can earn as little as $1.20 an hour. They have less training and are often unaware of our sensitive coastal environment. We do not blame them, but we do blame their employers and we do blame this government, which is conspiring with employers to do them out of a job. The most recent example is the CSL Thevenard, which has been operating around the Australian coast for nearly a decade carrying cement, fly ash, gypsum, mineral sands and other goods. This work has been conducted safely by qualified Australian seafarers. The ship was recently sailed to China, purportedly for dry-docking, where its Australian crew was sacked on 5 July. There were 40 Australians who worked that ship. They were from Tasmania, from your state, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, of South Australia, and one of the crew members was from Moss Vale, in my electorate. With extraordinary indifference to the fate of these workers, the coalition government has issued the company that owns this ship a temporary licence allowing it to continue to operate in Australia with a new crew of overseas workers. Now, the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 clearly states that coastal shipping should be undertaken by an Australian vessel and/or crew of an Australian vessel if they are available. With over 500 seamen currently waiting for a job in Australia, this is clearly not the case. Today I'm calling on the Turnbull government to immediately cease issuing temporary licences to foreign vessels when there are Australian ships available. As an island nation, shipping is central to Australia's economy and national security. A strong leader would know this. A strong leader would put the interests of Australian workers and their families first. If the Prime Minister really was a strong leader, he'd do something about it. He'd do something to fix it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. STATEMENTS 88 STATEMENTS Cuthbert, Ms Elizabeth Alyse 'Betty', AM, MBE 88 11:21 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney I would like to associate myself with the remarks made in the House by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition following the very sad recent passing of Betty Cuthbert. I want to commend both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on their incredibly moving speeches in tribute to a person who will last throughout the ages as one of Australia's greatest athletes. For a person whose interest in sport is little known, it was a surprise to me in 2000 how infectious the Sydney Olympic Games were for our city and for me personally. There are few events in our life, I suspect, that will ever match the spirit that we saw in Sydney during 2000. I was extraordinarily privileged to have the opportunity to attend the opening ceremony of the 2000 Olympics. I think for every Australian in that stadium it was one of the most exciting, moving, exhilarating and incredible experiences, as the world's eyes looked to our city. But, of course, the most poignant moment of that whole ceremony was that leading up to the lighting of the Olympic flame. To this day, I will never forget the reaction of the crowd as Betty Cuthbert appeared on the track, pushed, as she was in her wheelchair, by Raelene Boyle. When she came into the stadium arena, the crowd was exhilarated but also so incredibly moved. To see her hand the flame to her good friend, Dawn Fraser, and to be reminded of her own Olympic contribution during those games was something that I will forever treasure. It was appropriate that she played that role at the Sydney Olympics for both her sporting record and her achievements, but also because it reminded us that she became Australia's golden girl at the first, and previous, time that the Olympics were held in Australia—the 1956 Melbourne Olympics. I can only imagine that for Melbourne, and for Australia, hosting those Olympics in the 1950s would have created the same sense of excitement and anticipation that Sydney did in 2000. Just as athletes like Cathy Freeman starred—our hearts stopped as she completed her own race in 2000—the whole nation would have been behind, and just so overjoyed to see, the success of Betty Cuthbert at the 1956 Olympics. She was, of course, one of our greatest athletes. At the 1956 Olympics, she was able to walk away with three gold medals. She was then to achieve a fourth gold medal at the Rome Olympics eight years later. That followed a period in which she, like many athletes, had retired from the sport but got the calling to return to the vocation that she loved and it followed the 1960 Olympics in Tokyo, where due to an injury she sadly had to bow out of competition. Her coming back eight years after her great achievements in 1956 to win the 400 metres was something that I know excited all Australians at the time. Those four gold medals are really the pinnacle of what was an incredible athletic career. It's worthwhile reflecting on the fact that during her career she recorded world records for the 60 metres, the 100 metres, the 200 metres, the 220 yards and the 440 yards. She is the only athlete, according to my understanding, male or female, to this day who holds gold medals for all three sprint events—the 100, the 200 and the 400. Of course, for 40 years, alongside Murray Rose and Dawn Fraser, she was one of the only athletes to win four gold medals for Australia at the Olympics. She was only to be beaten in that record by Ian Thorpe at the 2004 Olympics in Athens. Of course, all of those records and achievements, as worthy as they are, say little about Betty Cuthbert the person. What we know of Betty is that she was an incredibly modest person, who didn't want the public acclaim and accolades—who was, in fact, extremely uncomfortable with becoming a national hero, as she did. After the 1956 Olympics, she went back to working at her father's nursery and tried to avoid the media spotlight. But she also recognised in 1969, when she was first diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, that she could be an example—and how brave she was to endure for so long that disease, which saw her wheelchair bound in the end and which saw her legs, which had driven her to such fame, wither away underneath her as she became incapacitated with MS. The 2000 Olympics reminded us of that bravery as did so much that she did during the course of her life. I think it is important that today we reflect upon Australia's Golden Girl, a truly great Australian that we continue to be proud of because of her achievements. We thank her family, and particularly Rhonda Gilham, her long-time friend in Western Australia, who cared for her during those last decades when she was suffering from MS. A Sydney girl originally, a Western Australian in the end, but a great Australian. Vale, Betty Cuthbert. Murray, Mr Les James, AM 89 11:27 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I am very glad to speak to this condolence motion and have the opportunity to add my remarks to those made in the House yesterday by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in honour of my dear friend, my close friend, Les Murray, who passed away on 31 July at the age of 71. I got to know Les while I was working at SBS. We became very good friends, forging a bond over our shared passion and love for football. It was that passion for the world game that introduced Les, or as we fondly came to call him, Mr Football, to the nation. Les was born on 5 November 1945 in Hungary, as Laszlo Urge. At an early age he began to play football, and he dreamed of playing the game professionally for the famous Hungarian national team—the mighty Magyars—the golden team of the 1950s, but with the Soviet invasion of Hungary Les escaped to Australia as a refugee. His migrant story inspired him to become a passionate advocate for multiculturalism in this country and it gave him such an opportunity. He once said: As a refugee who came here with nothing, I am very grateful to this country for the opportunities I have had. Refugees, perhaps more than other immigrants, are more likely to make a positive contribution to their new country, driven by a need to give something in return for being given a chance to start again after a terrible experience. As Les's family settled in Australia, Les began attending high school in Wollongong—in the seat of Whitlam, actually. He spent much of his time in Wollongong arguing the merits of football, or soccer as it was called then, with his rugby-mad classmates. I would love to have seen those arguments. In 1971, he took a job with John Fairfax and Sons as a journalist on the Sydney Sun and then he joined Network 10 in 1977 as a sports commentator. He finally joined the newly-created SBS in 1980. It was said to be a chance meeting in an office hallway at SBS that gave Les the opportunity to go from being a part-time Hungarian subtitler, which is what he was doing at SBS at the time, to becoming the face and the voice of the fledgling station's commentary of the world game. In fact, Les was said to have coined that term, 'the world game', which later became the name of the SBS football program he hosted and the title of the book he published. The nation will best remember Les as one of the best sports journalists that this country has seen. He was a superb, professional broadcaster. He was really the best of his generation. He was a trailblazer and a driver for the world game in Australia. Les was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 2006 for his services to football. His family, of course, and his friends remember him as a loving partner, a loving father to his two daughters, a loving grandfather and a wonderful mate. And I have been so fortunate to be able to also call Les a mate, and I will miss him so much. I will miss his irreverence, his wit, his infectious laughter and his passion for and knowledge of the game that he loved so much—the game he raised, with his best mate, Johnny Warren, over 24 years in partnership. They raised it together to such magnificent heights of shared passion, which they shared with their fellow Australians. I am grateful for the knowledge and the wisdom that Les shared with me in the time we spent together and the laughter I enjoyed from his very often salty humour. I was also very fortunate to be in Brazil with SBS when I was working there—the home of the 'joga bonito', the beautiful game for which Les was so passionate—for the last World Cup that he commentated. I shared many caiparinhas with him in Brazil. We spent a lot of time together, and I was proud to be able to raise a toast to his career in an official capacity during that very historic last broadcast that he gave from Rio. I know his other mates such as Craig Foster—'Foz', his co-presenter at SBS—Ken Shipp, the head of sport at SBS and all his friends at SBS will miss him so much. My thoughts are with them all. I know he was such an important part of their lives. They should know that he was an important part of this nation's life, and not just the football community but the whole nation mourns his passing. Labor leader Bill Shorten last week, when he led the call for a state funeral for Les, said: Les is a national icon who did so much to grow the world game and to champion multicultural Australia. He deserves nothing less than the full symphony of tribute and respect. … I can think of few people as deserving of this high honour. I am so glad that the New South Wales government and Premier Berejiklian made the decision to offer Les's family a state funeral, which they have accepted. This coming Monday, family, friends and all those who loved him will pay tribute to Les's life at the state funeral in Sydney at Saint Mary's cathedral. Guests are encouraged to wear white in honour of a multicultural world. I will be there to say farewell to 'Lesamundo', my friend. I want to thank you, Les, for all you've done for football and for the people you've informed, delighted and entertained over a wonderful life. Vale, Les Murray. May you rest in peace. Murray, Mr Les James, AM 90 11:33 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I was deeply saddened to hear the news last week of the passing of 'Mr Football' himself, Les Murray. Today I want to make a contribution as not only the co-chair of the parliamentary friends of SBS but also the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Multiculturalism, but mostly I want to make a contribution as an avid fan of his work and legacy. It would not be an overstatement to call him an Australian icon. 'Mr Football' always insisted on calling soccer 'the beautiful game'. I recall his presence at the annual Harmony Day friendly exhibition soccer games, which were played here between SBS and the politicians. They were, of course, anything but friendly sometimes, especially when the SBS squad underestimated the ferocity of the politicians' side. These games were played on a Thursday morning on that peculiar oval-shaped pitch on the Senate side. Les Murray was ever present, as always at any occasion that promoted football or soccer. He bestowed always the virtues of the game by bringing together people from all walks of life. I recall a particular Harmony Day game in 2013 when the then Minister for Sport, and captain of the pollies' team, Senator Kate Lundy, who was about to go into a 50-50 challenge with Les Murray, was alerted to some hazard by my husband, Michalis, actually, who was playing as a marquee defender for the pollies' side. She was alerted and as ‎Michalis yelled out, 'Watch out for the Australian icon,' everyone responded, 'Which icon?' as they looked around. The truth was they all knew who the icon was. That was the presence of Les Murray on the soccer field. Les was a tireless promoter and advocate of football. We have said that on many occasions. He was the voice of the world game in his adopted home, Australia. He will always be remembered as a true Australian sporting icon. He captured the hearts of lovers of the world game here in Australia with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the sport and his passion for every heroic victory and every devastating defeat. But it was his work in integrating migrants into Australia through football and making the world game Australia's football that I want to remember today. Les arrived in Australia as a young refugee from Hungary and a war-torn Europe. Because of this, he spent his life advocating for the rights of migrants and refugees. Outspoken and brave, Les fought for the protection of and justice for refugees. The role Les Murray played in developing football in Australia and making it part of our mainstream sports should never be underestimated. It was Les Murray, alongside Johnny Warren and other sports commentators, such as Andy Paschalidis, George Donikian and, more recently, Craig Foster that gave football its voice in Australia. I remember spending many Sundays sitting with my family, and Les would beam into our living room through his SBS TV footy show, The World Game, as it was known. I distinctly remember that I felt very proud that here was a person who spoke impeccable English with a 'woggish' accent. It resonated with me because he spoke just like my family and my neighbours. Of course, there was nothing to be ashamed of or to hide from. Having an accent should not impede you from being heard and partaking in public speaking in mainstream Australian TV. When he occasionally had the opportunity to show his prowess in other languages, I marvelled at the way that he crisscrossed and fused other languages with his English. He did it so beautifully. I think it was a real reflection of the multilingual nature of this society of Australia. I remember thinking how fabulous English sounded with an accent. Les Murray made it cool to be ethnic. With football, he gave all migrant families a tool to feel proud, a vehicle to integrate with a sport that they could all excel in. I have seen that happen even today with the juniors and young kids in my electorate—that sense of pride that they are very, very good at playing this wonderful, beautiful game. Together with others, Les made this 'wog game' mainstream. But even when soccer became acceptable, respectful and chic, Les always paid homage to its humble origins from the ethnic migrant communities and clubs—the South Melbourne Hellas soccer club, the Melbourne Knights in my electorate, Adelaide Juventus, Hakoah, Marconi, APIA, Sydney Olympic and so many others. Les Murray's legacy continues today through his children, our children and everybody's children who have turned the world game into Australia's football. My condolences go out to his family, including his wife and two daughters, his friends, his colleagues at SBS and beyond, and the football fans and sporting community who are indeed mourning the loss of this monumental Australian sporting icon. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Don't forget the West Adelaide Hellas club in South Australia! 11:39 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I also rise today to add my remarks to this motion of condolence at the passing of Les James Murray, AM, previously known as Laszlo Urge. I want to join the remarks made by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and my colleagues who have also spoken at this sad passing. For myself, my experience is not one of having some intricate involvement in the world game or having some intricate and detailed involvement or past history with Les, other than this: when I was a young child my dad introduced me to the great sport, as we called in the very early eighties: soccer. Dad used to play that sport. I started to play down at Armadale City with my friends from primary school. We would watch the world game on television. I still have a particular recollection of staying up really late one night to watch the FIFA 1990 World Cup. Every weekend, or as many as I could muster, I would have to specially tune the television so that we could get channel 28 reception. It was grainy—it would usually only come through in black and white—in the hills area around Perth. We couldn't get good SBS reception when I was growing up, but we could delicately tune the television and eventually bring it onto SBS and watch the world game. That is where I learnt not just about soccer, but came to know Les Murray. To me, to all my friends and I'm sure to many people in this country, he was not only the voice but the image of soccer. He was synonymous with the world game for all of us growing up and now, more recently, watching the game on television and learning about it. That's where I moved from being a child who loved running out on the park on the weekend. I'm not saying I was very good, but I was definitely enthusiastic. It was much like my dancing, as my wife would say. From an interest in playing the world game, in running out with my mates on to a pitch, it took me into a love and a joy of understanding the game, of understanding how the game was played around the world, seeing the differences and being able to observe and understand it. It is Les who brought that to Australian television screens and to my generation. It's how we learned to play the game, because it was the only show going around that brought that to us. Of course, I love AFL, I love rugby, I love rugby league. In fact, if there is a sport and a ball and you have to get it from one end of a field to another, I will play it and love it. But the elegance of the world game is undeniable. Les taught that to me and to so many others in this country. It took me through high school, playing football there. I even graced the senior team as the goalkeeper. It's something that has then turned into a joint love for my wife and myself. One of our first trips abroad was to Europe. We got to watch the Socceroos play Brazil in the 2006 World Cup. On further trips through Europe we have watched football games, including on our honeymoon in Barcelona. Those unique experiences, that love and understanding of the game, was brought to me, as it was to so many, by Les. There's so much more that can be said and has been said. I don't think I can do any more justice than those comments that have already been made. So I won't try and repeat them with a litany of Les's history and individual contributions to the game, other than to make this observation, which I think has not been made hitherto. Not only was Les Murray the master of the world game and the voice and image of the world game in Australia; he was also featured in the Vaudeville Smash song Zinedine Zidane, which everyone should google on Youtube and watch to see just how eloquently he can pronounce so many difficult to pronounce—for Australians—footballers' names. It's a beautiful piece of music. It's elegant and I think it's often over looked in the discussion of Les's contribution. In closing I pass on my condolences, and the condolences of the people of Burt and all of my friends, the people that I grew up playing soccer with. Les was such a big part of our lives growing up. Our condolences to his family. Vale Les Murray. 11:44 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I rise to pay tribute to the great Les Murray. Les Murray was born Laszlo Urge in November 1945 in a small town on the outskirts of Budapest in Hungary. The family migrated to Australia in 1957 under the Hungarian Refugee Assistance Scheme in the wake of the Hungarian uprising of 1956 that was crushed by the Stalinists of the Soviet Union. By the end of 1967, Australia had provided sanctuary to about 14,000 Hungarian refugees, bringing the total of first-generation Hungarians in Australia to just over 30,000. Les Murray never forgot where he came from and was a strong supporter of the rights of refugees and a passionate supporter of multiculturalism in this great country. Murray had an extraordinary passion for football, known, when I was growing up, as soccer. When I was talking to him at Drummoyne Oval a few years ago, at the upgrade opening, he was very proud of the fact that, when I was young and he was younger, you had to talk about soccer. And you couldn't call it football—if you did, people would assume you were talking about rugby league or, in the southern states, Australian Rules Football. But, over his lifetime, it successfully became the No. 1 sport for young people in this country. It also became, of course, as we have seen recently with the extraordinary success of the Matildas, a game played by both young boys and young girls in ever increasing numbers. He had been interested in football from a very early age, but his passion was sparked after watching a replay of the 1960 European Cup final. He began working as a journalist in 1971. In between time, he found time to perform in a rock music group, Rubber Band, where he was the lead singer. He moved to Network Ten as a commentator in 1977, where he changed his name to Les Murray. The interesting thing about Les Murray is just what a cult figure he became. Indeed, TISM, the Melbourne band, have this wonderful song—What Nationality is Les Murray?—in which excerpts of the recordings of Les Murray calling games, pronouncing everyone's name absolutely correctly and in which his passion for the game shines through. He moved to SBS in 1980 as a Hungarian language subtitler but soon turned to covering football. He was president at the outset of the National Soccer League, and he hosted several World Cup broadcasts as the sport transitioned to the A-League era and as the Socceroos, after a long gap from 1974, returned to playing in the World Cup. He always referred to football as The World Game, which was the title of the SBS's football program. He also referred to it as the beautiful game, a common name given to soccer because of its simplicity and because of the skills that are on display. Murray was inducted into the Football Federation Australia Hall of Fame in 2003 before he retired in 2014. Murray was made a member of the Order of Australia for services to football on 12 June 2006, as part of the Queen's Birthday honours list. Les Murray has two daughters, Tania, a singer song-writer, and Natalie, a television journalist and presenter. Michael Ebeid, the CEO of SBS had this to say: No one better embodied what SBS represents than Les Murray. From humble refugee origins, he became one of Australia’s most recognised and loved sporting identities. Not just a football icon, but a great Australian story and an inspiration to many, to say that his contribution to SBS and to football was enormous, doesn’t do it justice. This is a devastating loss for all of us … Indeed, Australia had no greater champion of multiculturalism than Les Murray. There is no greater champion of the way that sport can unify us as a nation and, indeed, us as a human race than Les Murray. His passionate support for young people, his support for equality, his opposition to racism and his determination to lift up this country was quite extraordinary. As someone who arrived here from such humble beginnings as a refugee, I think he deserves to be considered up there with any of our sporting heroes. I pay tribute to Les Murray and I pass on my condolences to his family, to his many thousands of friends and also to the millions of Australians who will miss hearing him call The World Game. Murray, Mr Les James, AM 92 11:51 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam I want to add my voice to the great tributes that we have heard this morning and yesterday from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to this great Australian, to this icon of The World Game—the game we now know as 'football'—and to somebody who very proudly called his adopted town of Wollongong home for many, many years. Les was born in Hungary and arrived in Australia in 1957 at the age of 11. Both Wollongong and Australia were very different places back then. Les was part of that great wave of European postwar immigration that came to Australia and that not only made the Illawarra great but also made Australia great. He brought with him from Hungary a great love of football—and it is little wonder, because in the 1950s, when he came to Australia, Hungary was considered one of the best football-playing nations in the world. Les's father was a steelworker. He joined with the literally thousands and thousands of men who came mainly from Europe to the Illawarra to work in the steelworks of Port Kembla, which were then operated by BHP. Les himself went to Berkeley High School in my electorate. It is now known as the Illawarra Sports High School. However, the students of the Illawarra Sports High School still remember and honour the great contribution that Les made to his sport, to his region and to his country. Each year, the school houses compete for a perpetual trophy known as the Les Murray Cup. The school held a very special and moving ceremony last week to mark his death. One of the students, Liliana Spiroski, had this to say: He … described our school to be the most multicultural school in all of Australia. Being an individual who fought for people seeking asylum and being the face of football, I … hold immense respect for Les. Les Murray should be a role model to all of us. Very fine words, indeed—words that I think everyone in this chamber would agree with. I want say a few words about Les as a refugee. As everyone knows, Hungary was invaded by the Stalinist Soviets in 1956. Les's father was an activist and had to flee. He was fleeing persecution and he knew that his family was in danger. He was smuggled out of Hungary. Remarkably, at the height of the hysteria about the people smugglers here in Australia, Les took the very brave stance of defending the people who had helped his family, even if they were being paid. He could have stayed silent, but he used his position of authority, and the great respect that many Australians had for him, to stand up for something he believed in. Les anglicised his name to fit into the world of commercial media, but he never lost his pride in his origins. He was a great champion of multiculturalism. Fittingly, his family have requested that those attending his state funeral on Monday wear a white ribbon to honour multicultural Australia. It has been said by other speakers that his love of football defined him. He, of course, played football himself, for St George-Budapest. His big break came—however, he didn't realise it at the time—when he took up a job in the newly created SBS as a Hungarian subtitler. By accident, happenstance and conversations in the hallway, as so often happens, in no time people recognised the personality and the skill of the man, and he moved into the sports department. Les and former Socceroos captain Johnny Warren became one of the greatest double acts in Australian broadcasting, a partnership that lasted 24 years and which people will be talking about in another 24 years time. In 1986 he hosted the SBS coverage of the World Cup. He eventually covered eight of them. He was inducted into the FIFA Hall of Fame in 2003 and appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in 2006. Nobody has done more to popularise the world game, the beautiful game, than Les Murray himself. He wrote four books, including his well-titled autobiography, By the Balls. He was very, very generous to those who were coming through in the game after him. Indeed, after the Australian women's team, the Matildas, clinched the Tournament of Nations last weekend—they beat Brazil, 6-1—the captain, Lisa De Vanna, declared: 'The Matildas did it for Les. We did it for Les.' She revealed that the team coach had inspired the team with a prematch pep talk, 'We're going out there and we're going to win this one for Les.' They wore the black armband in honour of his contribution and his life. Caitlin Foord scored two goals, and it's very fitting that she went to the very same high school as Les Murray himself: the Illawarra Sports High School, in my electorate. When Les Murray first came to Australia and when migrants came to my region, they were often marginalised. Many, like Les, had to anglicise their names to fit in or to ensure that those who perhaps didn't have the same grasp of language that Les and others did could actually pronounce their names. If we talked about the great game—the world game, the beautiful game—it was as soccer, not football. It was a minority sport. Even in a region such as my own, with such a wealth of talented people and talented families who grew up on football, it was the minority sport. Things have changed so much: 60 years later, multicultural Australia and football are both mainstream. Les Murray has probably done more than any other Australian to make that a reality, and it is so fitting that we will hold a state funeral for him on Monday and that we honour him in this parliament today. Vale, Les Murray. 11:59 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I would like to add some brief comments to pay tribute to the life of Les Murray and the impact he has had on our nation. I would also like to relate a personal story about football. Les Murray was a larger-than-life figure. I come from a state that is not a football state, it is an AFL state. I grew up in a small country town in the 1970s where soccer, as it was known then, was very rarely played and not particularly well-regarded. Of course, through the SBS TV network and other mediums the game of football as we now call it was becoming better known. What had a large impact in my life was the arrival in the early 1970s in my home town of Katanning of a migrant community of Malay people who had come to work in the local abattoir. When I was a year 2 schoolboy we had a predominantly Anglo community, with some Aboriginal kids, and all of a sudden we had two Malay boys turn up, Duka Ebin and Halid Taela. They are still friends of mine today. During school lunch hours, we used to play football—Australian football, as we knew it. But these two new guys brought a soccer ball along, and within days the entire year group were playing soccer with these kids and having a wonderful time. And, as I say, those boys are still friends of mine today, and it just shows the power of sport to break down cultural barriers. We are all equal on the sporting field—we are all equal everywhere, but I guess it's most demonstrated on the sporting field. The contribution that Les Murray made to this great nation of ours revolves around his contribution to the sport of football and its promotion to where it is now probably the most played sport in the country, certainly in my now home town of Albany. In a community of 37,000 people, on a Saturday morning nearly 800 kids are playing junior soccer. I guess that's testament to Les Murray's life, that so many Australians now see football as a game that is their first choice, and it's certainly given those migrants who have come from communities and countries where football is their main game an opportunity to move straight into mainstream Australian society and be accepted as equal with all the rest of us. So, vale Les Murray. My condolences go to his family. It was certainly a wonderful life and a wonderful contribution. 12:02 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports I will speak briefly on Les Murray until the minister who was meant to be here at 12 o'clock shows up. I am sure the government will see that he gets his skates on. Les Murray comes from a wonderful tradition of Hungarian immigrants to Australia. I was happy, and fortunate, to be part of that subculture, not through my own family but through family friends—the dear departed Stephen and Magda Curtis. We watched soccer; we enjoyed it. Les Murray was a great figure who all of the Hungarian-Australian community admired, including the family friends who I grew up with. This is a chance for me to remember my dear family friends, Stephen and Magda Curtis, who came from the same great contributing tradition of refugees from the Hungarian revolution that Les Murray came from. 12:04 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders (   The passing of Les Murray provides a moment of great reflection for fans of Australian football. The players and the coaches, of course, are the front line, but the voice of football in Australia has been Les Murray. We know his fabulous story. Born in Budapest, he immigrated to Australia in 1957. He played in the lower grades of football with St George-Budapest. But it was really off the pitch that he made his mark and was one of the great contributors to the expansion of football right throughout Australia. On any Saturday morning, young boys, like my own boy, James, who's eight years old, are playing out their dreams on a soccer pitch. They dream of and imagine playing football for Australia. Our family is no different—we have a young boy who loves it. It truly is an international game. I think Les Murray is one of those who have contributed to the rise of Australian football, which reached an apotheosis only in the last week, with the brilliant success of the Australian Matildas and the growth of Sam Kerr into one of the world's leading female players, if not the leading female player. Les started his working life as a journalist in 1971. He moved into broadcasting, with a stint at Channel Ten in '77, before moving to SBS at the commencement of the 1980s, and that's where he lifted the game. He lifted football into the common understanding of people right across Australia. Along the way, he commentated on the football world cups and World Cup qualifiers between 1986 and 2014. He retired from commentating and broadcasting in 2014. The absence of what I wouldn't describe as his dulcet tones but more as his enthusiastic, energised tones has meant that perhaps something is a little bit missing from our commentary—without reflecting on any others involved. His was a unique voice, in a unique role, like Bill Collins in race calling, Lou Richards in AFL and so many others along the way. For over 40 years, he was the face of football-calling. He spoke on international matches, he hosted On The Ball, Toyota World Sportandthe famous The World Game on SBS. And he had an impact. He was the person who spoke of the world game. He was made a Member of the Order of Australia along the way. He was a proud father to two daughters, to whom we give our condolences, along with all his other family members. Above all else, we recognise that, whilst our airwaves were the lesser for his retirement in 2014, our country is the lesser for his passing in 2017. But, along the way, he gave an enormous amount to the growth of football within Australia. With the indulgence of the chamber, I will also take this opportunity, in my capacity as Minister for Sport, to express deep and profound regret at the passing of Betty Cuthbert. She was rightly called the 'Golden Girl' of Australian athletics, with the 1956 achievements in the 100 metres, the 200 metres and the 4 x 100 metres relay. The fact that she missed the 1960 Rome Olympic Games but came back to win the 400 metres in the 1964 Tokyo Olympic Games is just an incredible achievement. She won four Olympic medals, all of them gold. She's one of only five Australians to have won four or more gold medals, and one of only two women, along with Dawn Fraser, to have done so. Of all of the different things about Betty Cuthbert, perhaps the most striking and the most notable was the sheer joy and enthusiasm she brought to her athletics. I think two of the great photos of Australian sport are, firstly, of Betty Cuthbert cresting the tape in the 1956 Games with pure heart and nerve and sinew on display, with the mouth open and just that extent of effort. Then, on Tuesday morning, The Australian ran a magnificent photo on its front page of a young woman putting on her spikes, in colour, the golden hair, and just joy—joy in participation in athletics. And we need more of that. She was the ultimate role model, on the athletics track and off the track: modest, humble, energised, enthusiastic, and then, of course, what she lived through with her multiple sclerosis showed immense grace. And so she was the embodiment of courage, of grace and of speed—and, oh, what speed! We will miss her. ADJOURNMENT 95 ADJOURNMENT Williams, Ms Louise 'Lou', Dorevitch Pathology 95 12:10 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen I want to start today by acknowledging a shining light of our community—it's a pity the minister's gone—who recently passed away. Lou Williams was a fierce advocate for those suffering from mesothelioma, or asbestos cancer. Her drive and commitment will be truly missed. Lou was exposed to asbestos as a child in the 1970s and lost her father to mesothelioma in 1985. She battled cancer for 15 years. She was a tough fighter who worked tirelessly for other sufferers to have PBS access to much-needed medication, especially Keytruda. Lou championed Keytruda as she knew the benefits of it firsthand from her own experience. The electorate of McEwen and all Australians are so incredibly lucky to have had such a dedicated, bold and empowering advocate for those impacted by mesothelioma. Despite her health issues, Lou would always have a smile and a chat. Lou will be forever missed in our community. On another note, I would like to speak about an important issue that touches both on health care and the rights of workers, and that is Dorevitch Pathology's unjust practices towards its hardworking staff. Dorevitch is one of the leading pathology providers for doctors, specialists and hospitals around Victoria. What people don't know is that Dorevitch Pathology has a shocking track record when it comes to the conditions of its staff. The enterprise agreement that the workers have been working with has been expired for 10 years. For 10 years this company has been fighting against the rights of workers to have decent conditions and decent pay. For 10 years it's been able to drag its feet in negotiations, during which time some of the workers have been earning just the bare minimum modern award rate, and in which time a full-time worker has been earning up to $7,000 less per annum than the pathology industry standard. The HWU says that Dorevitch would need to increase its wages by 28 per cent just to match the minimum wage increase over the past 10 years. And what has it offered in the EBA? Nothing—a big, fat zero per cent increase. The injustices don't end there. Dorevitch has outright refused to allow for a clause that will force it to begin bargaining for their next agreement six months prior to its expiration date. While it refuses to come to the bargaining table, it is busy finding other ways to exploit its hardworking employees. How? In an industry which has provided good sick leave, Dorevitch is actually proposing to reduce sick leave entitlements by over 50 per cent. Dorevitch staff, like others in the health industry, are routinely exposed to transmissible illness in their workplaces. But instead of doing what's right, Dorevitch turns a blind eye. Instead of acknowledging the risks that its staff are exposed to, it simply wants more bang for its buck. This is a company that has a net profit after tax of $104 million. Once again, the appalling practices don't stop there. Just last year, the HWU caught Dorevitch unfairly dismissing a staff member, claiming she refused a drug test. Not only did she not refuse a drug test but the Fair Work Commission found that the test breached the national standards on urine drug testing and Dorevitch's own drug testing policy. The Fair Work Commission heard cases where Dorevitch management had deliberately bullied or intimidated staff who wanted to support workplace rights. Unsurprisingly, Dorevitch was sanctioned. But it's too little, too late. Dorevitch staff have had enough. On Tuesday this week, 500 HWU members at Dorevitch went on strike. As of right now, 89 union activists have been locked out indefinitely. HWU members have been on strike for 48 hours and will continue until next Tuesday. But, you know, this is where it gets interesting, and it happens with these big companies that just want to bully and intimidate their workers. What was Dorevitch's peace offering? What do you think it would do to people who are fighting to get wages so they can put food on the table and pay their bills? This multinational, multimillion dollar company offered their employees a gingerbread cookie. They expected that that would make all things reasonable and be a compromise for poor working conditions. It's just another example of companies taking advantage of workers on this government's watch. At this time, while these people are fighting to keep wages above the poverty line, the Prime Minister gives himself a $16,000 pay rise. These people working just want to keep up with the cost of living, put food on the table and pay their bills. It is not fair that big companies treat people like this, and we are not going to stand for it. It is time the government got a spine and started looking after working Australians. O'Connor Electorate: Infrastructure 96 12:15 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I'm looking forward to the long trip home to my electorate tomorrow more than I normally do, not just to see my family and my beautiful wife but also because tomorrow afternoon I'll be representing Fiona Nash, the Minister for Regional Development, at the opening of the Cranbrook Community Hub. Cranbrook is a little community of 300 or 400 people on the Great Southern Highway. I drive through it all the time when I'm down between Katanning and Albany. They've turned what was a liability in their town—an old supermarket building that was empty, that had been abandoned—into a community hub which will include a medical facility and involve home and community care facilities. There will be a day care centre, a gymnasium, training and art-and-craft rooms, an office space and also an exhibition space. I will give a good shout out to the shire CEO, Peter Northover, and his team in Cranbrook. They are really having a go, really trying to develop their community. It was fantastic to be able to support them with $300,000 from the National Stronger Regions Fund two years ago, which leveraged $1.35 million towards the project. I will give a shout out also to Cassie Hughes, who has moved on from the Cranbrook shire now but who was very instrumental in driving this project in its early stages. The good news doesn't finish there. Last week the Building Better Regions Fund round 1 grants were announced. Across my electorate we received $13.561 million, which will leverage over $37 million worth of investment in my communities. The first project is the Collie truck stop. The Shire of Collie is putting in a truck stop and RV dump point. Collie is on a very important freight route through to the port of Bunbury and has a high level of truck use, but is also developing its tourism industry. This will be a great asset to recreational vehicles and means Collie will be able to become accredited as an RV-friendly town. The Williams Lions Park redevelopment project received $360,000 towards a $774,000 project to refurbish and enlarge its playground in the centre of Williams. I drive through Williams, on the Albany Highway, all the time, as do 4,000 other vehicles a day. Williams is halfway between Perth and Albany, and the redevelopment will give people the opportunity to stop. In particular, people with families, like my young family, will be able to get the kids out of the car, have a bit of a break and maybe spend a little bit of time in the town. That's what this program is all about, to try and drive some economic activity and bring more people into these regional towns. Norseman received a grant to develop a cultural, visitor and community precinct. The town of Norseman is on the start of the Eyre Highway, at the terminus of the Eyre Highway and the Esperance-Goldfields highway. All the interstate traffic coming through the Eyre Highway goes through Norseman. The cultural centre, which will feature some of the local Ngadju culture as well as some of the woodlands environment of the area, will certainly encourage people to stop and spend some time in Norseman, enjoy the environment and get to know some of the local Ngadju culture. That's a very important project, and I'm pleased to see that the Goldfields got a little bit of love in this round. Manjimup also received a grant, for its South West Energy Experience project. Manjimup is a beautiful tourist town in its own right. The South West Energy Experience, which is a museum of the development of energy in the South West, will add to the critical mass. The one that I am most pleased about and that I think will have the most impact is the Great Southern Housing Intiative. This is a $10 million contribution from the Commonwealth government to nine shires that have banded together for a 79-house project across the Great Southern. Now, many of these small towns are finding it hard to attract private investment to build decent housing stock, which you need to attract good professional people to come and work in your towns, to keep your elderly people there and to build appropriate accommodation. So, those nine shires—Broomehill-Tambellup, Cranbrook, Gnowangerup, Jerramungup, Katanning, Kent, Kojonup, Plantagenet and Woodanilling—will all benefit from that. I am very, very pleased with that. I want to give a big shout-out to Keith Williams, the CEO of the Shire of Broomehill-Tambellup, who drove that project. I look forward to catching up tomorrow with him and all of those other shire presidents in Cranbrook to celebrate not only the opening of the Cranbrook Community Hub but the success in the latest round of the Building Better Regions Fund. Turnbull Government 96 12:20 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman This really is a divisive government. It may well be the most divisive government Australia has ever seen, with a very clear agenda to further inequality. This government wants to divide Australia when it comes to racial inequality, through offensive language and harmful immigration policies. They want to divide Australia when it comes to marriage equality, forcing a non-compulsory, non-binding postal plebiscite—that they have designed to fail—on same-sex marriage, and they want to divide Australia when it comes to economic equality. They have policies that benefit the rich and the powerful whilst harming the most vulnerable in society, the very people we, as politicians, are elected to protect. People like many of the constituents in my electorate of Longman. According to the recently released 2016 data, the average weekly personal income is $580 a week. That's the average. Now, whilst that means that there are people earning more than that, it also means there are a lot of people who have to struggle to get by with much, much less. And when I say that people are struggling to get by, I really mean it. The median rent has grown to $320 a week at the same time we have power prices skyrocketing. The cost of living seems to be growing higher every day. People really are struggling to get by. This government could be doing something to really help people, like the people of Longman, but they are not. Instead, they are cutting the take-home pay of over 10,000 people in the electorate. They are cutting energy supplements. They are demonising anybody who goes to seek support from Centrelink. Prime Minister Turnbull makes no attempt at all to hide his campaign against people who need our help the most. He makes no attempt to hide his campaign for the rich. He is actually fighting for the rich. Labor will fight for those who need it the most. While this government's policies are continuing to ensure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, while they are continuing to grow inequality in Australia, as I said, we will fight them. We will fight for families. We will fight for the families in Caboolture, we will fight for the families in Burpengary, we will fight for the families and seniors that live over on Bribie Island. We will fight for workers in Dakabin, we will fight for workers in Woodford, and we will make sure that we fight for workers in Narangba as well. And we will make sure that when this government gives tax cuts to millionaires—they are over $16,000—we will fight them on that as well. And when the government throws billions and billions of dollars in tax cuts to big businesses, guess what? We will fight them as well. Taxpayers' money should not end up as bonuses for wealthy CEOs. It should be used to ensure that we are making Australia better. Now, this is no easy fight, of course. We have acknowledged this repeatedly. This is not an easy fight. Complex tax reforms have been considered by many, many governments before, but they always get shelved. They are particularly difficult and they get shelved. But we won't be shelving them—they won't be shelved by our leader, Bill Shorten. They won't be shelved by the Labor Party. We've scrutinised the complicated trust law, which is being exploited by the rich to avoid paying their fair share. We have made some sensible proposals to close these loopholes. While Prime Minister Turnbull is fighting for the rich, the Labor Party is, like I said, fighting for the poor. We are fighting for equality. The member for Bowman said recently, 'Equality does not mean I have a jet ski and my neighbour has a jet ski.' That's what he sees as equality—that we both have jet skis. What we will fight for is making sure that the students in my electorate have the same educational opportunities as the students in his electorate. That's what equality is. We make sure people have access to the health care that they need, not what they can afford. That's what equality is. And we will make sure women are paid for the work they do. We will make sure that the women working in female-dominated industries, like early childhood education and care, are paid the same as a man in a similarly qualified position in a male-dominated industry. That is what we will do. We in the Labor Party will never stop standing up and fighting against inequality in whatever form it takes. Refugees 97 12:25 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Today I would like to reflect on a recent visit I took to Jordan and Lebanon, as part of a sponsored trip by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and supported by Save the Children Foundation, to look at refugee camps in the northern parts of Jordan and also in the western parts and throughout the Beqaa Valley of Lebanon. The purpose of this trip, in particular, was to look at how Australia's aid money is being spent and whether it's being spent effectively for people who are seeking assistance following displacement due to the Syrian crisis and the Syrian civil war. The trip took place only a couple of weeks ago, and it started when we went to Jordan and visited different parts of the country and talked directly to officials about the challenges faced by those who are affected by the Syrian crisis, displaced as refugees, who have located themselves in the northern parts of Jordan. Working with UNICEF and other organisations, Australian government aid money is going towards, particularly, supporting children who are out of schooling arrangements to make sure that they still have the best chance and the best opportunity in life. I think every Australian would understand that these are the victims of the Syrian crisis, who have, through no fault of their own, been caught in the middle of a civil war and have had to relocate to Jordan. We are very cognisant of the importance of helping children who need support and assistance to make sure they're in the best position to be able to go and live a full life, and not just because it's in the interest of the children but because those who are uneducated, who feel socially displaced or who feel isolated are susceptible to radicalisation and being brought into conflict later on. We also visited the Zaatari refugee camp, five kilometres or thereabouts from the Syrian border. We spoke specifically to some of the community-based organisations and volunteers as well as the international organisations who are working with people, again, to support and assist young children in their education. They are also working to take young adults on a journey towards legitimate work pathways and skilling themselves up so that they are then in a position to be able to help rebuild the country of Syria when this conflict ends. In addition to that, we looked at how Australian government aid money is being spent to support recycling programs, because, when you have about 80,000 people in one place, you have a problem around waste disposal. But these programs are also around the opportunity of creating industries that not just can help support people in the camps but also can help build skills capacity and, ultimately, produce products that can be made commercially available. Having worked with refugees in different capacities, I know that one of the great challenges for people who have been detained for one reason or another is that they become deskilled from their traditional professions and they become deskilled from the habits of life. One of the key things that our money is going towards is helping those people continue on their career pathways. Increasingly, the discussion is not just about the challenges in the refugee camps but how you liberalise the arrangements so that people are in a better position to be able to go on to work and contribute to Jordanian society and to be in the best position, when they relocate back to Syria, to rebuild their nation. After visiting Jordan, we went to Lebanon, in particular Beirut. We met with officials who are working with victims of domestic or family violence, which our government aid money is supporting as well, particularly women who are suffering from the injustices of abuse from family members. There is important work being done there to make sure that they have safe havens, particularly when they become prey or victims of violence by people in like circumstances, including their husbands, and where there is not the standard that we must always accept in our country, which is that everybody has equal dignity in their rights and that people have the opportunity to be free to live a life without violence. We also visited, throughout the Beqaa Valley, numerous community organisations who have been working with groups like Save the Children to continue to support the education of many young people who had come from Syria over to Lebanon and were living in, and their parents were often working in, temporary accommodation within farming communities, so that they can continue to work, they can continue to live out their lives in safety until they are in the best position to return to Syria as well. I'd like to thank the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for their support for this visit. It was very instructive and informative. There's a clear national interest in us being able to do something sensible to make sure that we're able to help people, as well as supporting the Save the Children Foundation. Thank you. Australia's Aid Program 98 12:30 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle In the week in which we observe the 50th anniversary of ASEAN, it's worth reflecting on Australia's recent engagement in our region. There's no doubt that we're living in the Asian century, which is our good fortune, but the potential and promise across the Asia-Pacific are subject to economic, social, environmental and security challenges. Unfortunately, the starkest single change to the means and quality of our regional engagement since 2013 has been the evisceration of our international development program. This enormous shift was never flagged and hasn't been explained. The Australian public was told that the approach to international engagement under the coalition would be more Jakarta than Geneva. The reality is that aid cuts to countries in our region have been both steep and recurrent. The starting point was an almost across-the-board reduction of 40 per cent to our bilateral and regional programs in Asia. In the case of Indonesia we have reduced our development assistance by $248 million, which is between a third and a half. In the case of Timor-Leste—a tiny country whose wellbeing Australians have been proud to support—we have cut assistance to an emerging nation in which 50 per cent of children suffer from malnutrition that manifests in physical stunting and developmental delay. In 2013 Australia's aid program was cited by the OECD as a model for others to follow—a properly funded and resourced program delivered by a dedicated aid agency that operated at the cutting edge of theory and practice in seeking to save lives and reduce poverty. Yet in barely four years of the Abbott-Turnbull government we have seen the dissolution of AusAID, the savage and repeated sacking of our aid budget, and the abandonment of bipartisan agreement to scale up our aid program to 0.5 per cent of GNI as part of our commitment to the Millennium Development Goals. Our abdication of leadership and responsibility in this space is not in Australia's interests or in keeping with our national values. These cuts are an abrogation of responsibility at a time when other international donors are also stepping back. The 2018 budget proposed by the new Trump administration would see the US aid budget cut by one-third, or US$11 billion, with heavy and disproportionate cuts likely in our region. And let's not forget, at a time of conspicuous consumption when it comes to defence budgets, that there is no better investment, dollar for dollar, in regional security and economic self-sufficiency than well-targeted international assistance. In response to the US cuts, more than 120 retired generals and admirals wrote to congress arguing that aid programs are 'critical to preventing conflict and reducing the need to put our men and women in uniform in harm's way'. And Secretary of Defence James Mattis, in his previous role, put it very plainly when he said: If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition … This year the OECD will again conduct its peer review of Australia's aid program, at a time when, under this government, we have seen the largest cut to Australia's aid budget in our history—the least generous level of aid contribution by any Australian government, with the structural and cultural harm done to the human capital that is crucial to effective aid programming and delivery. It demonstrated failure to comprehend the geostrategic importance of properly funded and directed international assistance. It is easy to cut aid budgets. It takes courage to maintain them. It is easy to play to shallow self-interests, to the idea that charity begins at home, to the idea that people in other countries aren't working hard enough to help themselves. It's easy to take advantage of the fact that foreign aid cuts don't directly affect the domestic constituency. And it's easy to pretend that relatively insubstantial trade agreements represent some kind of foreign policy achievement. But it is much harder, clearly, to make a strong case that Australia's development assistance is key to our national and economic security and it is too hard, apparently, to defend Australia's record as a generous and sensible provider of life-saving assistance in a region that includes some of the poorest countries or to argue that it is part of our character to lift up the individual lives and national prospects of our neighbours, our regional brothers and sisters. Let's not kid ourselves about what sharply reduced development assistance means. It means lives lost due to poorer maternal health outcomes. It means children go without an education. It means democratic institutions are weaker and there is greater instability across our region. It means that Australia's role and influence is diminished at a time when we should be showing leadership. I pay tribute to the public servants within DFAT who have fought for and continue to fight for Australian aid, and I pay tribute to the many Australian organisations that provide assistance to people facing aching and grave disadvantage, especially those like Fred Hollows who have pioneered distinctively Australian approaches to changing lives for the better. To the many people who do that incredible work, thank you. What you do is valued. What you do deserves better support from your government. Robertson Electorate: Employment 99 12:35 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I rise to update the House on the coalition's major commitment to the Central Coast to deliver 600 new federal jobs into Gosford. But more importantly today, in the short time I've got, I would like to deliver a snapshot of the reaction we have been hearing from our local community about why we need those jobs in Gosford and the impact they will have on families and local businesses. Together with the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, we have confirmed that new Australian taxation jobs will be advertised later this month for positions within the new purpose-built office that will be completed within just months on Mann Street in Gosford. Construction to date has injected $7.5 million into the local economy, which has been a massive boost already. Importantly, I am advised that most of the work has been completed by contractors who are local to the Central Coast and our surrounds. A variety of positions will be available at the ATO offices in Gosford, with the ATO looking for people with tax and legal expertise and customer service, leadership, administration, finance and accounting skills. Ongoing, non-ongoing full-time, part-time and casual roles will be available. Local people are registering their interest with the ATO but are also reaching out to express just how important these jobs will be to rejuvenate Gosford. There is a lot more to say about this project, including Labor's dismal failure to back it. But today I would like to put aside my own thoughts and hand over to the voices of people on the Central Coast for whom this will be a game changer. This includes people like Maria, who said: 'The incoming job opportunities for our region are great news for all of us. I just registered to the ATO website in order to receive some more information about current vacancies and applications.' Suzie from Terrigal described it 'as a fantastic opportunity for all Coasties,' and Sandra from Bensville admitted she lives in hope that this will lead to more opportunities. Wayne and Colin at Blackwall wrote to say that they were enthusiastic to see the ATO jobs coming to Gosford. Michael from Kariong took it further, saying that the benefits will go hand in hand with the coalition's $45 million investment in the Central Coast Medical School and Medical Research Institute, an $85 million project that I will say is taking shape thanks to this partnership between the coalition government, the University of Newcastle and the New South Wales government. Michael said about this: 'I think it shows that you and the coalition are fair dinkum about real services and opportunities. I have registered with the ATO and hope to be working in the new building.' Max from Gosford also linked it to the new medical school, describing both the ATO jobs in Gosford and our commitment to a medical school as 'commonsense public policies that will make our community socially and economically sustainable'. This ties in to another letter from Warren at Wagstaffe, who sees the potential for a financial technology hub in Gosford. Warren is already working to attract a major accounting or legal firm to locate a branch office in Gosford. Trisha at Green Point also believes in the potential for more companies to see the benefit of relocating their operations to the Central Coast. She believes, as I do, that we should keep talking up our region so that soon multinationals and major multinationals can be attracted to our regional capital city of Gosford. Judy and Bob from Ettalong Beach wrote to congratulate the government on its vision that the people of Gosford and surrounds will have opportunities to enhance their careers and experiences at their 'home base'. Bob and Judy said: 'It'll create a windfall, including less distance to travel for work, plus the relaxing atmosphere of the Central Coast environment.' Russ at Saratoga declared: 'This is a big moment for Gosford. The infrastructure was necessary to get Gosford CBD off and running. Matching it later as part of a cultural precinct is really going to help make things happen, so thank you for all the hard work in its planning.' To Russ and to the many others who've asked about the progress of a regional performing arts centre in Gosford, I do want to say that we are determined to deliver on this world-class infrastructure—and, in fact, the Turnbull government has committed $10 million towards this important project. It's up to Central Coast Council, of course, to finalise the location and design, and I'm seeking a community update from the council about their latest progress on this important project. Finally, I'd like to share this comment from Lauren at Peats Ridge, who said: 'As a born-and-bred coastie, I'm really excited about the future plans for Gosford and very fortunate to be a part of this community. I have registered for Gosford's ATO jobs and very eager to be a part of this great opportunity.' This is about the future of Gosford, a future defined by Lauren and many others as one of great opportunity. Thank you to everybody in my local community who has contacted me so far. I commit to continue to listen and to keep working with and for our community. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:41 .