2017-09-07 45 1 4 House of Reps 0 0

Thursday, 7 September 2017

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

 

COMMITTEES 9603 COMMITTEES Appropriations and Administration Committee 9603 Report 9603 09:31 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the annual report for 2016-17 of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). PARLIAMENTARY ZONE 9603 PARLIAMENTARY ZONE 09:31 The SPEAKER 00APG I advise the House that I have briefed the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration on one aspect of the design of the fences currently being installed on the northern and southern grass ramps of Parliament House as part of the perimeter security enhancements approved by resolutions of both houses on 1 December 2016. I now present a written statement on the matter for the information of all members: Parliament House security upgrade works—Perimeter security enhancements—Addendum. BILLS 9603 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill 2017 9603

Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill 2017

First Reading 9603 Second Reading 9603 09:32 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I introduce a bill to implement two government measures—a new regulatory regime for financial benchmarks used in Australia and the appointment of a new Indigenous Policy Commissioner to the Productivity Commission. Schedule 1 to this bill delivers on the government's commitment to strengthen financial regulation and better protect Australians from the possible abuse and manipulation of financial markets by sophisticated financial institutions at their expense. It builds on a range of other measures pursued by this government to improve the integrity, resilience and fairness of the financial system, including: $127.2 million to enhance the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's powers, data analytics and surveillance capabilities and allow ASIC to take more surveillance and enforcement action; a comprehensive review of ASIC's enforcement regime to ensure that it adequately deters misconduct and fosters consumer confidence; and the implementation of a new Banking Executive Accountability Regime, which will strengthen the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's powers to remove, disqualify and penalise senior executives from any prudentially regulated institution. The government is taking action now. Financial benchmarks are used to value trillions of dollars of financial products. Unfortunately, however, both internationally and domestically, there have been significant shortcomings in the regulation of these benchmarks. Globally, there have been many cases of market misconduct regarding the determination of financial benchmarks, particularly interest rate benchmarks such as the London Interbank Offer Rate, the LIBOR. As of August 2017, penalties paid by financial institutions globally had reached around A$25 billion. Australia has not been immune to such conduct. When we came to government we inherited evidence of significant abuse for many years. In 2013, a number of global institutions entered enforceable undertakings with ASIC in relation to their conduct regarding the bank bill swap rate—Australia's most important interest rate benchmark. More recently, ASIC commenced formal court proceedings against three of our four major banks for alleged market manipulation and unconscionable conduct in relation to the bank bill swap rate. This case is ongoing. In 2015, in response to these issues and regulatory developments overseas, I directed the Council of Financial Regulators—the government's peak advisor on financial regulatory issues of systemic importance—to consult on options to reform the regulation of financial benchmarks. Following a detailed policy development process and extensive engagement with key stakeholders, the CFR recommended that: administrators of significant benchmarks be required to hold a new 'benchmark administration' licence and comply with enforceable ASIC rules; ASIC be empowered to compel submissions to significant benchmarks in the case that other calculation mechanisms fail; and the manipulation of any financial benchmark or financial product used to determine a financial benchmark used in Australia be made a specific criminal and civil offence. The government accepted this advice, taking action now, and this schedule implements these reforms to our banking and financial system. Together, these reforms will enhance the robustness of these critical components of our market architecture and help ensure continued confidence in Australia's financial system now. I will now provide additional detail on the reforms. Following royal assent, all administrators of 'significant' benchmarks will be required to hold a new benchmark administrator license issued by ASIC, or receive an exemption. Significant benchmarks will be designated by ASIC in a legislative instrument—with the consent of the minister—if: the benchmark is systemically important to the Australian financial system; there is a material risk of financial contagion, or systemic instability, if the availability or integrity of the benchmark was disrupted; or there would be a material impact on investors in Australia if the availability or integrity of the benchmark were disrupted. Other benchmark administrators will also be able to 'opt in' to the licensing regime if they believe that it is advantageous to do so. By only requiring the administrators of 'significant' benchmarks to obtain a license, the government has appropriately balanced the need to ensure the integrity of Australia's financial system, against the additional regulatory costs associated with a more heavy-handed approach to licensing. Once licensed, a benchmark administrator will be subject to a range of ongoing supervision and regulatory requirements, including an obligation to assist ASIC, APRA and the Reserve Bank of Australia in the fulfilment of any of their statutory functions. Licensees will also have to comply with enforceable ASIC rules based on the International Organization of Securities Commissions' Principles for financial benchmarks, in line with global best practice. Consistent with the principles, these rules will impose requirements relating to IT security, business continuity planning, and the separation of business functions (aimed at limiting the potential for manipulation). To ensure that benchmarks can continue to be generated during times of financial market stress, ASIC will also have the power to compel market participants to make submissions to ensure the continued generation of a financial benchmark. Even though no significant Australian benchmark currently relies on submissions as a matter of course, given the significant market disruption that would occur if such a benchmark was not generated, this power is crucial to: futureproof the regulatory regime; and provide investors with confidence with regard to the robustness and availability of significant benchmarks. It is also a power of last resort. ASIC will only use this tool in the situation where the continued generation of a significant benchmark is under serious threat and the failure to generate that benchmark would have significant consequences for the functioning of Australia's capital markets. It is not a tool for the government to manage the day-to-day operation of our financial system. Manipulation of financial benchmarks is currently enforced using existing laws relating to market manipulation, false trading and market rigging. However, these provisions are not specifically tailored to the manipulation of financial benchmarks. To ensure consistency with overseas regimes and provide additional clarity to market participants on what constitutes acceptable conduct, this schedule makes clear that any action intended to influence the level of any financial benchmark—significant or not—or financial product used to generate a financial benchmark is a specific criminal and civil offence. This will best ensure that such conduct is appropriately captured and penalised. The creation of new offences can be meaningless, however, unless they are backed with penalties large enough to effectively deter misconduct. That is why we are instituting sizeable, but appropriate, penalties for manipulation of any financial benchmark. Demonstrating the government's resolve to stamping out market manipulation, benchmark manipulation will be subject to up to 10 years imprisonment for an individual and, for a body corporate, fines equal to the greater of: 45,000 penalty units (almost $10 million); three times any benefits derived from the manipulation; or 10 per cent of the entity's turnover in the previous year—and that is the greater of those three. This will give ASIC the power it needs to be a 'tough cop on the beat' and crack down on any and all attempts to manipulate a financial benchmark. This is crucial to maintaining investor and consumer confidence in our financial system. Importantly, legitimate business activity to support the operation of these critical markets is clearly outside the scope of these provisions. These reforms, once implemented, will also align our regulatory regime with international best practice and a number of our key trading partners, including the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, Singapore and Canada. This will not only reduce the risk of regulatory arbitrage that would arise from gaps in the implementation of global standards but, more importantly, it will ensure that Australian businesses and individuals do not lose the ability to issue and trade financial products that reference Australian benchmarks overseas, and in particular in the EU. The ability to issue and trade these financial products is dependent upon our regime being deemed equivalent to our key trading partners. Loss of this ability is a serious threat—and it is a situation that we cannot let eventuate. That is why I asked the parliament to ensure that this bill, and the associated ASIC supervisory levy bill, are passed before 1 January 2018, when the EU's regime commences. Schedule 2 to this bill contains amendments to the Productivity Commission Act 1998. In his Closing the Gap report to parliament on 14 February of this year, the Prime Minister announced a new role for the Productivity Commission in Indigenous policy evaluation, and the expansion of the commission to include a new commissioner to oversee this work. A number of high-profile reports have highlighted the need for more evaluation of policies and programs that have an impact on Indigenous Australians. The commission's Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage report of 2016 found that only a relatively small number have been rigorously evaluated. There is a pressing need for further evaluation to better understand which policies and programs are effective in improving outcomes for Indigenous Australians. Demonstrating the Turnbull government's commitment to improving outcomes for Indigenous Australians, this schedule provides for the appointment of an additional commissioner—for a maximum of 12 (excluding the chair)—to oversee the Productivity Commission's work to evaluate policies and programs that have an impact on Indigenous Australians, with a focus on what works. This commissioner will be required to have extensive skills and experience in dealing with policies and programs affecting Indigenous Australians, as well as experience in dealing with Indigenous communities. The commissioner will be expected to have a strong understanding of the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and good links with communities. Full details of all the measures I have outlined are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Bill 2017 9607

ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Bill 2017

First Reading 9607 Second Reading 9607 09:43 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Amendment Bill 2017 forms part of a package of bills to reform the regulation of financial benchmarks. In 2016 the government committed to recover the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's regulatory costs from those entities that create the need for regulation rather than ordinary taxpayers. This is part of the government's commitment to responsibly balancing the budget. This bill, consistent with this commitment, ensures that licensed benchmark administrators and benchmark administrators that are required to hold a licence but fail to obtain one are required to pay an annual supervisory levy equal to their regulatory costs under ASIC's industry funding model. Full details of the measure and the government's reforms to the regulation of financial benchmarks are contained in the explanatory memorandum for the Corporations Amendment (Financial Benchmarks) Bill 2017. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 9607

Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017

First Reading 9607 Second Reading 9607 09:45 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, the Higher Education Support Act 2003, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, the Social Security Act 1991, the Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Act 2003, and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to create the right incentives to improve housing outcomes for all Australians. Australians are entering the housing market later in life than previous generations and home ownership is falling out of reach for many younger Australians. With house prices high, difficulty saving a deposit is a key barrier to getting into the market. That's why the changes contained in this bill are essential and why we need to act now. The government, in these bills, will help Australians boost their savings for their first home by allowing them to build a deposit inside superannuation. Older Australians will also be given greater flexibility to contribute the proceeds of the sale of their home into superannuation. This will help free up housing stock, in particular larger homes, for younger families by reducing barriers to older Australians downsizing form homes that no longer meet their needs. These changes were announced in the budget and this bill gives effect to those announcements. Schedule 1 implements the First Home Super Saver Scheme measure. From 1 July 2017, individuals can make voluntary contributions of up to $15,000 per year and $30,000 in total, to their superannuation account to purchase a first home. These contributions, along with generous deemed earnings, can be withdrawn for a deposit. Withdrawals will be taxed at marginal tax rates less a 30 per cent offset and are allowed from 1 July 2018. For most people, the First Home Super Saver Scheme could boost the savings they can put towards a deposit by at least 30 per cent compared with saving through a standard deposit account. This is due to the concessional tax treatment—the very generous concessional tax treatment—and the higher rate of earnings often realised within superannuation. Many employees will be able to take advantage of salary sacrifice arrangements to make pre-tax contributions. Individuals who are self-employed or whose employers do not offer salary sacrifice will be able to claim a tax deduction on personal contributions, meaning savings effectively come out of pre-tax income. The amount of earnings that can be released will be calculated using a deemed rate of return based on the 90-day bank bill rate plus three percentage points (consistent with the shortfall interest charge). The First Home Super Saver Scheme will be administered by the ATO, which will determine the amount of contributions that can be released and instruct superannuation funds to make these payments accordingly. Schedule 2 implements the contributing the proceeds of downsizing into superannuation measure. From 1 July 2018, people aged 65 and older will be able to make an exempt non-concessional contribution of up to $300,000 to their superannuation after selling their main residential home. The measure will apply to homes held for a minimum of 10 years, and both members of a couple may take advantage of it. That is, up to $600,000 of contributions may be made by a couple upon downsizing. These contributions will not be subject to existing age and work tests that apply to voluntary contributions for those aged 65 or older. Therefore they can be in addition to any other contributions they are eligible to make. That is, the $1.6 million test for making non-concessional contributions will not apply. The government is confident that these reforms will go towards creating the right incentives to improve housing outcomes for Australians. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum, and we commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. First Home Super Saver Tax Bill 2017 9609

First Home Super Saver Tax Bill 2017

First Reading 9609 Second Reading 9609 09:50 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is a part of implementing the First Home Super Saver measure in schedule 1 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No.1) Bill 2017. The bill imposes the First Home Super Saver Scheme tax. This tax is intended to remove the incentive to withdraw money using the scheme without ultimately buying a first home or recontributing to superannuation. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No.1) Bill 2017. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Tax Integrity) Bill 2017 9609

Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Tax Integrity) Bill 2017

First Reading 9609 Second Reading 9609 09:52 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Housing is fundamental to the wellbeing of all Australians and is a driver of social and economic participation, promoting better employment, education and health outcomes. To support Australian households, the government has designed a comprehensive package of measures which include assisting first home buyers, increasing the supply of affordable housing and reforms to housing related payments to the states and territories. The government is ensuring home ownership is more achievable for Australians, and that they have access to secure and affordable housing, while continuing to strengthen the integrity of Australia's tax system. This bill implements measures announced in the government's 2017-18 budget housing affordability package to both improve the integrity of the tax system and increase the supply of rental accommodation. The first two schedules of this bill deliver on the government's commitment to reduce pressure on housing affordability by better targeting deductions relating to residential investment properties. Travel related to use of residential premises Schedule 1 to this bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to disallow deductions for travel costs relating to residential investment properties. The existing law allows deductions for travel relating to income produced or gained from residential investment properties. When a property is used for a mixed purpose, such as a holiday home and rental; or where the travel is for a mixed purpose, such as travelling to maintain an investment property and simultaneously go on a family holiday; travel expenses need to be split between income-producing and private purposes. The problem here is there has been widespread abuse around excessive travel expense claims relating to residential investment properties. As a result of these changes, travel costs for individual investors inspecting and maintaining residential investment properties will no longer be deductible. This will stop residential property investors from using the tax system to pay for their holidays by claiming costs as a rental expense. However, these changes don't prevent investors from engaging third parties, such as real estate agents, to provide them with any necessary property management services. These expenses will remain deductible. We have consulted the community and stakeholders in developing this measure. Public consultation on the exposure draft legislation and explanatory material occurred over four weeks. Some minor technical changes have been made in response to the consultations, to provide clarity to taxpayers. Disallowing travel related to residential investment properties has an estimated gain to revenue of $540 million over the forward estimates. The changes will improve the integrity of the tax system by addressing the systemic risk of excessive and incorrect claims for travel expenses associated with residential investment properties. Limiting depreciation deductions for plant and equipment in residential premises Schedule 2 to this bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to limit deductions for plant and equipment assets used for producing assessable income from residential premises to when the asset was first used for a taxable purpose. The tax system currently creates opportunities for plant and equipment to be depreciated by multiple owners of a property in excess of its actual value. Plant and equipment items are usually mechanical fixtures or those that can be easily removed from a property such as a dishwasher and ceiling fan. We have seen significant abuse of the tax system with property investors claiming excessive deductions for these items. These changes will improve the integrity of the tax system by better targeting deductions for plant and equipment forming part of residential investment properties. As a result of the changes in this bill, investors who purchase new plant and equipment for their residential investment property after 9 May 2017 will still be able to claim a deduction over the effective life of the asset. However, subsequent owners of the property will not be able to claim deductions for that plant and equipment. Instead, acquisitions of existing plant and equipment items will be reflected in the cost base for capital gains tax purposes for those subsequent investors. These changes will not affect capital works depreciation deductions relating to residential property investments though. These changes will apply on a prospective basis, with existing investments grandfathered. Plant and equipment used or installed in residential investment properties as of 9 May 2017, or acquired under contracts already entered into on 9 May 2017, will continue to give rise to deductions for depreciation until either the investor no longer owns the asset or the asset reaches the end of its effective life. Again, the government has consulted the community and stakeholders in developing this measure. In addition to releasing exposure draft legislation and explanatory material for a four-week consultation, Treasury also engaged with key stakeholders, including quantity surveyors, accounting organisations and a large range of industry representatives. In particular, this bill allows investors to claim a deduction for plant and equipment installed in a new residential investment property where the property has been purchased within six months of completion, even if the property has been tenanted. This means investors who have purchased a newly-built residential investment property are not disadvantaged when no other person has claimed a depreciation deduction. The change to limit these depreciation deductions has an estimated gain to revenue of $260 million over the forward estimates. Together with the changes to travel deductions, this bill will improve the integrity of the tax system by better targeting deductions for residential investment properties. The full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Vacancy Fees) Bill 2017 9612

Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Vacancy Fees) Bill 2017

First Reading 9612 Second Reading 9612 09:59 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. To support Australian households, the government has designed a comprehensive package of measures which includes assisting first home buyers, increasing the supply of affordable housing and reforms to housing related payments to the states and territories. The changes contained in this bill are part of the government's 2017-18 budget package to reducing pressure on housing affordability. This bill amends the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 to implement an annual vacancy charge on foreign owners of residential real estate where property is not occupied or genuinely available on the rental market for at least six months in a 12-month period. The vacancy charge builds on the government's existing foreign investment regime which seeks to increase the number of houses available for Australians to live in. The charge provides a financial incentive for the foreign owner to make their property available on the rental market. The charge payable will be equivalent to the residential application fee that was paid by the foreign person at the time the application to purchase the property was made to the Foreign Investment Review Board. The vacancy charge applies to foreign persons who make a foreign investment application for residential property from 7.30 pm on 9 May 2017. For eligible foreign owners of residential real estate the vacancy charge will be levied on an annual basis. The annual vacancy charge is expected to result in greater use of foreign-owned properties. Reporting and notification requirements are also expected to provide greater visibility of vacancy rates for foreign-owned properties. The Australian Taxation Office will administer the vacancy charge. This bill represents an important component of the government's comprehensive plan to reduce pressure on housing affordability. Full details of the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. PARLIAMENTARY ZONE 9612 PARLIAMENTARY ZONE 10:01 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approve the following proposal for works in the Parliamentary Zone which were presented to the House on 4 September 2017, namely: 1.Questacon signage; 2.International Flag Display; and 3.Seating at Commonwealth Place. This motion concerns three applications for works approval for works within the Parliamentary Zone. Under section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, approval of both houses of parliament is required for such works, and this motion seeks that approval. I will briefly describe the three works. Firstly, there are two new signs pointing the way to Questacon, the National Science and Technology Centre, which are proposed to be built: one near the intersection of King Edward Terrace and Parks Place West; and the other near the entrance of the Questacon car park off Parkes Place West. The second works approval concerns a proposal to extend the international flag display, which is located on the southern shore of Lake Burley Griffin on either side of Commonwealth Place on Queen Elizabeth Terrace. This displays flags for all the countries which have a diplomatic mission in our national capital. There is capacity presently for 100 flags, but that is not sufficient and therefore the National Capital Authority has submitted application for works approval to install eight new flagpoles, remove five trees, remove and replace plaques, and upgrade in-ground lighting. Thirdly, new timber bench seats on Commonwealth Place jetties have already been installed, subject to parliamentary approval. This has been done as a safety measure to stop cyclists from riding on the jetties. I commend this motion to the House. Question agreed to. BILLS 9613 BILLS Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 9613

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017

Second Reading 9613 10:04 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth In getting a sense of the intent of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, I certainly commend the remarks of the shadow minister for social services, the member for Jagajaga, to the House in which she made it very clear that, if one were to simply read the title of this proposed legislation, one could be forgiven for thinking it was looking at some fundamental reform of the social services sector. I certainly echo the comments of the member for Jagajaga in that nothing could be further from the truth. One doesn't have to dig too far into the minister's second reading speech in order to get a sense as to where this legislation actually runs off the rails. It runs off the rails because it is based, fundamentally, on a misconceived premise that cheap headlines on so-called 'crackdowns' on drug addicts who are using welfare to support their habit are going to be the panacea to transitioning those who are urgently and desperately looking for work in the employment market. We know that nothing will be further from the truth. If only life was that simple. The real problem here and the real grave injustice that we see as a result of this legislation is that one actually doesn't have to scratch too far from the surface to realise just how far off the mark this actually is. In order to get a sense as to how misplaced the government is in relation to the proposed implementation of this bill, it is writ pretty large in the first few paragraphs of the minister's second reading speech, in which he asserts: … the community has a right to expect that taxpayer-funded welfare payments are not being used to fund drug and alcohol addiction and that jobseekers do all that they can reasonably do to find a job, including addressing any barriers which have prevented them from doing so. It's those needless headline grabs that really do a grave disservice to the gravity and seriousness of the situation of those who are currently receiving entitlements under our welfare system but who are also desperately and genuinely looking for work. Like all things, one must do much more than simply accept a headline grab such as that in order to work out whether there is any real justification for this bill in the first place. As usual, the numbers don't lie. Let's look at the numbers in terms of any perceived justification for such an incredibly invasive set of proposed reforms which will simply erode rights and liberties with absolutely no net gain, because the numbers, again, are very telling. Let's look at the extent to which similar proposals have been rolled out in the community in various other jurisdictions. Let's take New Zealand, for example. It's certainly a country that is coming up more than it otherwise would in this place, with the greatest of respect to those in New Zealand, and I'm delighted that we've added to their population by virtue of the Deputy Prime Minister's contribution. So New Zealand is certainly a very topical country in all matters and forms of debate at the moment. So let's look at the numbers in New Zealand, including the Deputy Prime Minister. In 2013, the New Zealand government instituted a very similar drug-testing program among welfare recipients. In 2015, of the 8,001 participants tested, guess how many returned a positive result for illicit drug use? You'd think that if there were some significant numbers behind the 8,001 positive tests, this could be worth looking at. There were 22 participants who tested positive for illicit drug use. If we want to go further afield, we can go to the United States and look at the numbers there. The numbers in relation to those subject to testing are equally stark. For instance, in the 2004 testing program in Missouri in the United States, 38,970 welfare applicants were tested and 48 tested positive. In Utah, where 9,552 welfare applicants were screened, there were 29 positive results. Just imagine for a moment—and we haven't seen any details of this—the vast cost of undertaking such a program with any real efficacy at all when those numbers reveal that there is a very small positive result rate, having regard to the fundamentally implicit trade-offs involved in undertaking such a so-called reform. If one isn't sufficiently persuaded about the numbers and just how few such an enormous change would affect, one should quite conceivably go to the evidence to see whether there is any real peer-reviewed, independently objective evidence that demonstrates that such a gross invasion of privacy amongst those who are currently receiving welfare payments is offset by such a program. On that note, since the second reading speech response from the member for Jagajaga, the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee has handed down its review of this legislation. I take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to the Labor senators who in a very quick time digested an enormous amount of information on this bill and produced a very fine dissenting report as to the very good reasons why there is no meaningful justification for the implementation of this type of program. Let's look at the evidence. The evidence that was reviewed by Senators Singh and Watt—and what a tremendous job they did—makes it very clear that there is simply no evidence at all to support such an invasive and unnecessary program. The committee heard from an enormously large number of addiction medicine and drug specialists, including Professor Alison Ritter from the University of New South Wales, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians chapter of addiction medicine, St Vincent's Health Australia, the Rural Doctors Association of Australia and the Ted Noffs Foundation. All of those experts unanimously raised serious concerns about the government's proposal to drug test new jobseekers. Let's take the evidence of Dr Cassandra Goldie from the Australian Council of Social Services. She stated: ... there is … no evidence that this drug testing proposal would improve health, social or employment outcomes for people. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary … The drug test measure would direct very precious dollars—the overall costs of which are unknown—to a measure which has been widely condemned by leading health experts. But she was not a lone voice in the wilderness in relation to raising fundamental objections to this program. Professor Adrian Reynolds, President of the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians said that the chapter was 'quite honestly at a loss to see why a drug-testing trial is considered a necessary or effective way to address these issues'. I have found that quotes are very useful in circumstances like this. I take my leave from the minister for energy, who is quite partial to using the occasional quote himself, usually preceded by a fact. I also note that, in addition to the facts and the quotes that have already been received by the committee, the government had neglected to consult with medical professionals before announcing these messages. One would have thought that, if there were any substance whatsoever in this shameless headline grab and this shameless persecution of those who are already vulnerable in our community, one might have undertaken some consultation with the medical profession. But what we heard is: Addiction medicine specialists in the drug and alcohol sector more generally have not been properly consulted on these measures. We were surprised by these measures. Our analysis and advice is that the measures will be costly and ineffective and that government should consult with the sector on the development of evidence-based solutions to prevent and better address substance use disorders and increase the availability of treatment services across the nation. The member for Jagajaga continued, in her second reading speech, to outline even more crucial sectors of the community who were not consulted. She said: Dr Alex Wodak, the President of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, said: "Had the Turnbull government consulted experts before unveiling this plan, they would have been advised to drop these measures pronto. Drug testing trials for people on income support have been trialled and abandoned in a few countries— And this is really the crux of it— "In addition to causing significant harm to affected people and the wider community, they came at an enormous cost to the taxpayer. Isn’t the government supposed to be reining in wasteful spending?" Isn't it indeed. What we see here on any assessment is that not only do the numbers not stack up but the evidence is not there to indicate that such an invasive program is likely to have any net benefit, either for the community, for the Treasury coffers or, most certainly, for those who are already vulnerable in this community, who, quite frankly, need support as opposed to demonisation. Even if one were prepared to disregard the numbers, which are stark, and even if one were prepared to disregard the evidence, which is clear, one would then need to ask, 'Well, to what extent has this actually been thought through when it comes to looking at the availability of treatment?' If such concerted efforts are going to be taken to so-called crack down on those who are addicted to illicit substances and are also receiving welfare entitlements, one would have thought the appropriate and responsible thing to do would be to ensure there is sufficient availability of treatment. But, again—surprise, surprise—nothing could be further from the truth, which, again, simply demonstrates that this proposed legislation is nothing more than a desperate grab to divert attention away from a hopelessly dysfunctional government. Let's look at the availability of treatment. The dissenting report from the Senate committee confirmed that not only we are entirely improperly placed to provide any wraparound services to those who may be subjected to these trials but there are already insufficient treatment options available to Australians who are seeking treatment for substance abuse issues. If anything, what we are going to see here is that the government's proposals will exacerbate the issue. The committee heard that Australia currently treats 200,000 people for substance abuse issues each year, but that an additional 200,000 to 500,000 people would like to receive treatment but it is unavailable to them. So there is absolutely no clear way through this hopeless mess, which is simply designed to obfuscate from the real issue: a government entirely incapable of doing anything meaningful to lift Australians into a prosperous position, and certainly those Australians who are the most vulnerable. Even if all of that—the issue about the numbers, the issue about the evidence and the issue about lack of available treatment—weren't sufficient to persuade those to strike down this bill, let's go back to that fundamental grab bag of desperation from the conservatives: law and order. Let's have a look at it to see whether there is any reasonable prospect that implementing this program will have an effect on law and order. Well, again, if the rubber hits the road in relation to this hopeless program, it will exacerbate crime issues. It has been made very, very clear that the likely prospect of the other social impacts in relation to the implementation of this program is that it will simply worsen the broader drug problem and increase crime. On any analysis and at every level, this program is invasive, it's unnecessary, it's entirely wrongheaded and it is nothing more than a smokescreen to cover up what is a hopelessly incompetent government. 10:19 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo For some of us in this place today is actually an anniversary. It is a special day for me. I'm one of those who, on 7 September 2013, were elected as an MP for the first time. Whilst there are only a few on this side who have this key date etched in our memories, a lot of Australians remember this date for other reasons. It is the date that this government came to office and, unfortunately, for lots of Australians it's a date that they mourn, because very soon after that election the cruel treatment of the most vulnerable in our community started. Their 2014 budget came shortly after that. In fact, their MYEFO which was presented in 2013 started the big cuts to our social welfare state and the attacks on people who receive social security support welfare payments. Many of those attacks, despite being rejected by this place several times, are contained within this bill that is before us today, and this government continues to wage war on not just the most vulnerable in our community but decent people who are genuinely looking for work. Through this bill, and in the media, this government is trying to demonise every jobseeker. The government makes out that jobseekers are a scourge on our society and are dragging us down, when they are not; they are simply looking for work. Yes, I, like many in this place, have acknowledged that there is a very small proportion of people in our community who are currently on Newstart benefits who are intergenerationally unemployed. There are some very complex social issues going on within these households and these communities. I have some in my electorate and these individuals and families are doing it incredibly tough. But this is not new for our community or society. For generations, we have had people living on the margins who are in need of support. They're in need of our compassion; they're in need of our understanding; they're in need of wraparound services. These families and individuals are known not just to our federal agencies like Centrelink and Medicare but to many state instrumentalities and agencies. Our police know who they are. Our schools know who they are. Our DHSS departments around Australia know who they are. They are the people who have had a lot of tough knocks who need support, encouragement, hope and opportunity to be rebuild. Yet, instead, what we see from this government, and in particular in this bill, are more roadblocks and draconian measures that attack the most vulnerable in our community. Some of the measures put forward in this bill do not encourage people to look for work. Instead, they belittle, vilify and make it incredibly challenging for this cohort to look for work. This includes the measures around drug testing. Many on this side of the House and many experts have condemned the government, broadly and widely, for these measures because there is no evidence that this kind of harsh, draconian approach actually works. We know from research in New Zealand, where they introduced a similar measure, that it did not help people into drug treatment. It did not help people back into work. It was a costly exercise that was rolled out to just win political points against their opponents. It is what a desperate government does to try to cling onto power and a desperate Prime Minister to try to stay in his job. Why is the government pushing ahead with it? It is because they need a bad guy. They need to go out there and continue to vilify jobseekers who are looking for work. The other point I wish to make is that the government doesn't understand fully who our jobseekers are. In Bendigo, there are 5,800 people currently registered to look for work through jobactive, yet on SEEK.com there are only 400 jobs advertised for Bendigo. So that doesn't suggest that these people need tough measures to get them to look for work; that suggests we just don't have enough jobs in Bendigo. I meet lots of people who come to forums and who come to my office and say, 'Lisa, I applied for every job advertised. Two hundred jobs I applied for! But I know that my chances of getting one of those jobs are slim because there are 5,800 other people in Bendigo applying for those jobs.' What this government does is spend a lot of time trying to paint those 5,800 people in my electorate as dole bludgers—but they are not—instead of investing in creating genuine job opportunities. What it's done instead is create a PaTH program, which is a $4-an-hour job, taking jobs from young people. They've said to Coles, Safeway and McDonald's, who already employ young people in high numbers, 'How about we give you subsidised free labour and pay them an extra $4 an hour through their PaTH program?' These young people, many of whom are unemployed, don't need training; they need access to entry-level jobs. Yet this government has decided and put out there that these young people don't have skills—they don't have work; they're not ready for work, so let's create a rip-off $4-an-hour job for them. We know that the $4-an-hour job is a rip-off because (1) very few young people have taken it up, and, where they have, they haven't ended up in full-time work afterwards and (2) the government has used it as a reason to kick young people off Newstart and youth allowance, which just forces more young people into poverty. There is another fact that the government is refusing to acknowledge, which the PaTH program—one of its employment programs—is making worse: new figures show that 43.5 per cent of young Australians aged between 20 and 24 are locked into part-time casual work. You could say that's because they're at university—true, some are—but 43.5 per cent of 20- to 24-year-olds are not engaged in university. So there is a problem. It speaks volumes about young people being unable to access good, secure, full-time jobs. The government says, 'That's okay; we'll drug test them all. The reason why they're not getting into full-time jobs is that they're on drugs.' Wrong! It is just wrong, and it is wrong for this government to vilify young people by suggesting that. It is simply a smokescreen for the fact that it is not willing to do the hard yards to rebuild the apprenticeship system and the entry-level job system in this country. A generation ago, a young person could leave school at 15, 16 or 17, or they could finish high school at 17 or 18 and finish university in their early 20s, and walk into an entry-level job. It may have been a traineeship at the Commonwealth Bank or a graduate recruitment position in any of the many Public Service agencies that we have. Today those jobs are rare; they just don't exist. What we have seen from this government, through its PaTH program and other employment programs and through this bill, is that, rather than doing the hard yards for Australian young people and rebuilding those jobs, it is instead seeking to demonise and bring in harsher measures for people who are already living up to their mutual obligation. We in this country have for a long time believed in mutual obligation when it comes to accessing Newstart or social support payments whilst looking for work. I would argue that the vast bulk of jobseekers are living up to their mutual obligation. Whether it be through Work for the Dole, volunteering or actively applying for those 400 jobs that exist when there are 5,800 people applying for them in my electorate, our jobseekers are doing everything they can to get themselves into work. The government is not living up to its side of the bargain, though. It is not creating real job opportunities for people looking for work. Instead, it is continuing its cruel, harsh attacks on people who are looking for work and people who are the most vulnerable in our community—which are not all jobseekers. The government is not genuine at all. Recently I held a jobactive Centrelink forum in my electorate, and the comments that came through at that forum really speak to the frustration that many in regional communities have with this government's approach to welfare and looking for work. Some of the comments included: 'We try to avoid the job networks at all costs. We contact our students after they leave to try and help our current students find work after graduation.' But the job networks are just not working. Another comment was: 'Newstart is not a new start at all. It is punishment.' Another comment was: 'Big businesses are the job snobs. People who are unemployed are not job snobs.' People say they want to work, but it is big business who snub them in favour of cheaper labour, whether it be overseas backpackers or whether it be through one of the government's dodgy employment programs. Another comment was: 'Stop making us feel subhuman. We want to work. We'll do anything to work, but the more that this government demonises jobseekers, the harder it is for us to be employed.' People spoke about the culture of the job agencies and the culture of looking for work: 'I'm made to feel like a criminal when I go in. I feel like I have a parole officer, not someone who's supporting me to find work.' Again: 'Stop making us feel subhuman or feel like criminals.' The culture that this government has created within the unemployment and job agency space is about demonising and vilifying. It is not about positive encouragement to look for work. Another participant said: 'Most people want to work. We don't want to be punished for being unemployed. It's not by choice. We want to work.' Another comment was: 'As more labour hire companies enter the market, it reduces the amount of jobs available.' That's a fact. All the full-time jobs this government is talking about are not direct employment. They are through labour hire. They are insecure jobs. People could be sacked at any moment—client request, moved off site. The figures that the government talks about are rubbery, because they're not telling the full story of employment. Another participant said: 'I've signed up for three labour hire agencies—can't get any work. It appears that I cost too much because of my age.' Another person told us: 'Two years with the same company, still classified as casual. I have no choice.' Another comment was: 'The current government has lost all sense of humanity, decency and respect for their fellow man and all Australians.' These comments go on and on about this government's treatment of people who are genuinely looking for work. Some of the people who have been to see me who are looking for work are older people who have been told that they're just too old, so they do something positive: they volunteer in their community. This is another measure that Labor has real issues with in this portfolio—forcing older people to look for work when they are contributing through volunteering. They can't get work. There are literally not enough jobs for people over the age of 55. They are competing with younger people. They are competing with people who have just as many skills as them, and there is an age bias when it comes to employing people in our community. But, rather than tackling that side of it, this government has said: 'We're just going to strip you of your ability to volunteer. We're not going to acknowledge the discrimination that exists, and we're just going to make it your fault.' They make it the individual's fault because it fits their narrative to demonise these jobseekers. The Work for the Dole program which the government champions is confusing. I met with one young man who has worked previously at Centrelink. He has 10 years work experience. He's university educated. It is just that the government has sacked a whole bunch of people from the Bendigo ATO office and the Centrelink office, so he is struggling to find work in his field. He's been forced to participate in the Work for the Dole program. He has basically exhausted all of his options with the three providers in our area, because he challenged the programs that they were sending him on. Somebody with a career in administration with social support has been sent out to work on heavy machinery. How does that work? Where is the safety involved in that? This government's Work for the Dole program, PaTH program and employment programs for people looking for work are a joke. They are not suitable and they are not practical. This bill that the government have put forward is just another attempt to demonise good Australians looking for work. This bill that they've put forward creates harsh, draconian measures that seek to save their own political skin and not help people into meaningful work. 10:34 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Reform is to make changes to something, especially in institutional practice, in order to improve it. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 is not reform. It's a mishmash of semi-reasonable stuff dressed up as reform. There are a few administrative improvements, but really it's just a crucible for the government's latest instalment of damaging, mean measures. Time only permits me to focus on a few of the schedules. Indeed, I was going to talk about other bits, but I am going to make some remarks on the drug-testing trials. It is the most ridiculous and offensive part of the bill. I want to try to step out the reasons that I say so, and I will try to remain somewhat measured and logical on this. I actually woke up at about 4 am this morning and I was thinking, as you do in that blurry first moment, what city am I in, where am I and what has to be done today? And I remembered that I was listed to speak on this bill and I hadn't really prepared anything—although I'd read it. While wishing that I was still asleep, I was thinking about the part of the bill dealing with the drug-testing trials, and it made me mad—furious—and woke me up. The things running through my head then were exceedingly and totally unparliamentary: ignorant, prejudiced, scuzzbucket, brain-dead moron and bottom feeders. They were the kindest epithets to describe those amongst those opposite who dreamed up this particularly special piece of public policy. I was reflecting on why I felt so strongly. It is because addiction has touched my family story for my entire life in ways that I have never talked about and cannot fully talk about publicly as they are not my stories to tell. I can say that my father died when I was four. He was a doctor. He battled alcoholism and addiction to prescription drugs. My mum loved and lived with this, and talked to me when I was an adult. My mum went back and did a Year 12 subject, because she never finished high school, and studied psychology. She actually topped the state and won the prize. She beat all the VCE and mature-age students. She did her research on addiction. It made sense, I suppose, of parts of her own life but it also showed the genetic predisposition, which always made me a little scared. I've actually got this weird little totem, or homage, to self-protection in the form of a little Valium tablet that a doctor gave me 15 years ago for something. I never took it and I still have it in the cupboard, knowing perhaps that I have bad genes and hoping that my refusal to ever take a Valium will somehow protect me. My extended family and friendship group, though, has also been touched by addiction through my entire adult life. I have supported people close to me to recovery over the decades and been there through the relapses. I've pulled needles out of the arms of overdosed victims. I've resuscitated people I love. I've called ambulances. I've also attended funerals of people who had lost their battles. I wish I could truly share my experiences and speak from the heart but, as I said, they are not all my stories to tell—perhaps one day. From 2000 to 2002, I also led a large inner-city community in Melbourne as mayor at the height of the then heroin epidemic. People were literally dying in front yards, dying in shop doorways and dying in laneways. I was deeply engaged in the policy and advocacy work with the then state government to battle the heroin epidemic. I recall one moment I was particularly proud of where I was interviewed by Derryn Hinch when he was a broadcaster. He was ranting, in his particularly 'ranty' mode, about how we should just let them all die. I was very proud of my self-restraint, because what I didn't share was that I'd just been punched in the head and wrestled to the ground in the Bourke Street Mall by someone I loved because I wouldn't give them money. These experiences have given me at deep conviction, a firm belief, that addiction is a health issue—a health issue, a health issue, a health issue—which must be treated as a health issue like other health issues. Making it a moral issue simply does not help and criminalising addiction does not help. It's a health issue, a health issue, a health issue. I firmly believe that as a community we must do much more to help people battling addiction. I detest what heroin addiction does to people. It takes prisoner their conscience and makes them do awful things while they have to watch, chained inside the box in their head. It does not destroy their morality. I detest what ice addiction does to people. It drives them crazy with irrational rage, hurting themselves and everyone around them, and does lasting damage. I despair at the impact on my community. I heard stories while doorknocking. The particularly hard ones are from the mothers, begging, wishing, that society would understand this is a health issue and provide more help. I firmly believe that, with regard to health issues, legislators and policymakers must listen to doctors, researchers, experts; not politicians, shock jocks or ignorant, prejudiced views. Public policy should be based on evidence, reason and research. If this is a health issue, it's notable that the Minister for Health is not listed to speak on this bill—alas, poor Yorick. What advice did the government take when deciding to legislate to remove this illness from the list of reasonable excuses? Did we hear from the Chief Medical Officer? Doctors groups? Scientists? Researchers? Other jurisdictions around the world? No; none. It was dreamt up as a political measure in the monkey pod. Even worse, it flies in the face of evidence from overseas and from our own experts that this doesn't work. I will just read a small segment of the quotes from the Bills Digest in the submissions from expert groups. The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre said: There is no evidence that any of these measures will directly achieve outcomes associated with reductions in alcohol or other drug use or harm, and indeed have the potential to create greater levels of harm, including increased stigma, marginalisation and poverty. The Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association said: This proposal does not have an evidence base and is likely to engender greater harm to the community. The Penington Institute—I actually worked with David Penington when he headed up the then Victorian government's inquiry into heroin reduction and the crisis, as I said, back in 2000. I came to have the most enormous respect for that man. He had been vice-chancellor of Melbourne uni. He'd been dean of medicine. He was a conservative establishment figure, but he had the courage to change his view through the course of the inquiry through listening to the evidence, and he did that publicly. The Penington Institute said: In Australia there is a real lack of funding for drug treatment services—including medically supported drug treatment. The Government would have been better off making stronger investments there rather than attacking the vulnerable. The Australian Council of Social Services, which opposes the measure, said: No expert in drug and alcohol addiction has supported the random drug testing of social security recipients. Trials elsewhere have failed to achieve any positive results. … …   … It is unclear what these measures hope to achieve. They are highly unlikely to address people's addictions if they have them and will lead to more people living in poverty. The drug-testing trial will likely be expensive and achieve nothing. We could go on. We've got submissions of the same ilk from Anglicare, Catholic Social Services Australia, UnitingCare Australia, Melbourne City Mission, the Samaritans and so on—people who actually work in this field. Perhaps the most nauseating part of this debate has been watching our humble battler millionaire Prime Minister talk about this being a policy borne of love. A policy borne of love would seriously examine the true state of drug and alcohol treatment and rehabilitation services in Australia, and provide funding and do something about it. A policy borne of love would understand that addiction is an illness. Stopping using heroin is—and this may sound strange, but I have supported people through this—something harder than any of us in this chamber, I expect, will ever have to do. But, in terms of recovery, that's the easy bit. That's why people relapse time and time again, because rehabilitation takes months and years and years, plus community support. You have to confront the mess you've made of your life. You have to confront the shame, the humiliation, the stigma and the damage to relationships, and you have to rebuild life as an adult from nothing in so many instances. A policy borne of love would talk to the families who have lived through these experiences. It would listen to those in the community working in this area who know what is needed. A policy borne of love and a desire to actually do something would not be conceived with no evidence, no advice and no implementation planning that will further stigmatise people. They are making it up on the run. They have no idea of the cost. It would make rehabilitation and recovery less likely, if implemented. If the government were interested in a policy borne of love and a desire to actually do something, they would be calmly, logically exploring—and even debating here based on expert advice, not prejudiced opinion—what the experts, doctors and researchers say may actually make a difference and help long-term addicts, save lives, reduce harm to families and reduce harm to communities, particularly through crime. To be honest, we all—I know what we all get—get a lot of the same mail in this place. We all hear from experts. We hear lots of models, pleas, evidence and examples of what happens elsewhere that seems to be working. For example, for heroin addiction, we could pay some greater attention—or the government could—and at least properly assess the potential benefits and the arguments for and against things, rather than pre-emptively ruling things out based on some sort of flawed moral framework. They are things like safe injecting facilities and assisted treatment for the hardest-core, longer term heroin addicts. We are written to about this stuff. Only last week there was another study sent to us all. I don't know. Does it work better than methadone? There's lots of evidence in other countries from recent trials that it does for some people. I'm not saying it's the right or wrong thing. I'm not a bloody doctor, scientist or expert. I don't know. But I think we do a terrible disservice to the community, families and people we represent when we moralise and point-blank refuse to innovate or keep our minds open in responding to the scourge of addiction. The Bills Digest and submissions coherently set out the many issues and reasons why this aspect of the bill should be consigned to the bin. In the time I have remaining, I'll turn my attention to a couple of other aspects that, again, make life even harder for those who have the least. One is the proposal to kill the bereavement allowance. It is a short-term payment for up to 14 weeks for people when their partner has died. Getting rid of this is really nice; it's classy stuff, government! It's paid for a maximum of 14 weeks at the rate of the age pension and is subject to the same income and assets test. For a pregnant woman who has lost her partner, the allowance is paid for 14 weeks or the duration of her pregnancy, whichever is longer. Schedule 4 of this bill will replace the bereavement allowance as it currently exists with short-term access to the jobseeker allowance—paid at a lower rate and with a more stringent means test—to save $1 million. That's going to make a big difference to the debt and deficit disaster you mob are creating! But I'll fess up here: as an Australian, I'm happy to agree—right here, right now, government—that it's okay to not treat pregnant women who've just lost their partner as jobseekers or students. We could find the $1,300 extra over 14 weeks for them to grieve. We could keep this payment. I'm okay with that. You can imagine the job interviews, can't you? Your partner has just died and the government's saying, 'Hey, you've got to go to job interviews next week. You've got to do four job interviews. We'll give you extra kleenex.' This schedule could be removed, meaning that the measure does not include changes to the bereavement allowance. Another one that picks on the vulnerable—and particularly hits people in my electorate—is removal of the intent to claim provision. This is a pretty simple rule that says, 'When you go to Centrelink, you can have your claim backdated to the day you first turned up and were eligible for a payment.' This change would further add hardship to people who aren't able to collate the required information immediately. I know it happens. Not everyone gets their paperwork done on day 1, particularly people who are homeless, in the middle of a separation or in hospital, or those who have serious health issues or can't access technology—because, God knows, you could die and need the bereavement allowance for someone else while you were trying to get through to Centrelink on the 1800 number! There's a particularly huge impact on people in my electorate—particularly migrants—as 55 per cent in my electorate were born overseas, with at least 60 per cent speaking a language other than English at home. These are people who often have to find additional documents to keep the Centrelink beast happy. They often have to get copies of these documents from other countries, which is not a quick process. They can rush themselves, but they can't always rush a foreign embassy or international mail service. Some people need a bit of a hand to fill out forms or understand what clause 72B actually means. They can find it difficult. The changes to the liquid assets test currently before the parliament—proposed in another bill—to extend the waiting period up to 26 weeks, depending on your liquid assets, would effectively mean that, before you get 5c from Centrelink, you have to basically run down every last dollar of your savings. It's a nasty, mean little measure designed to make people run down their savings, push them to the brink of poverty and take away that tiny bit of dignity, in terms of a security blanket of a grand or two that they might have built up for hard times. I've said enough and I think you get my sense of frustration with many measures in this bill. The government could choose to strike out the ridiculous bits—the bits that are there just to bait us to oppose it or as some sort of sop to the right wing of your party—but we'll see. Some bits of the bill, of course, are worth supporting, but I think we've heard enough on those in other speeches. 10:49 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I commend the member for Bruce for the many good points he made about this Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. My contribution will be made from the perspective of someone who represents one of the communities which has been singled out for these drug trials. I was born in that community. I grew up there. I have lived there most of my life. I am raising a family there. I have seen the absolute best of that community. I also care deeply about our most pressing and persistent challenges. I am not naive about those challenges and I don't pretend them away. I care deeply about people who are dependent and people who have fallen behind or have fallen down. I am in this place, as so many of us are on this side of the parliament, to try and help people up and not kick them while they are down. Unfortunately, this bill is not about genuinely helping people. It is not a genuine attempt to get people off welfare and into work. It is about chasing cheap, tabloid headlines and it is about denigrating Logan city, where I am from, in the government's usual, sneering and snobby way. This drug trial, this policy, has been tried elsewhere and it has failed dismally. Medical experts, one after the other, have said that this is a terrible idea; that it won't work, that it's likely to be counterproductive. As I said, we do have our share of challenges in my community, but pushing the most vulnerable people to the brink will make homelessness, unemployment and crime worse not better, with consequences for the entire community. This Turnbull government, it pains me to say, is so desperately out of touch that they would rather waste money on schemes that won't work, instead of genuinely supporting local jobs in Logan city and the surrounding suburbs. If those opposite spent more time caring about those jobs and less time chasing cheap headlines or running my community down, we would all be better off. You can see why, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, a lot of people in my community feel, with some justification, that ministers from the other side of this parliament only ever show up in Logan city to bag it. So they can spare us their lectures about our community. They wouldn't know the first thing about our challenges and this bill shows that they don't have a clue about how to properly go about addressing them. The bill includes a whole range of budget measures from the 2017 budget across the social services, employment and human services portfolios, and implements a whole range of complex measures. Others have made contributions on those. I would like to focus exclusively on that drug-testing trial, including in my electorate and in Logan. I want to focus on five reasons why it is a bad idea. The first is the most obvious: it won't work. As I have said, the experts have told us and it has been tried elsewhere and it didn't work. It failed dismally in New Zealand in 2013; it didn't meet its objectives. It failed in the US states of Missouri and Utah. The experts have voiced their very real concerns that testing could encourage people to use less traceable drugs like synthetic cannabis or even just switch to alcohol. There is a six-week lag for people who are trying to give up cannabis, which still shows up in the tests. We will have long waiting lists, which mean that people who do want the help they need won't be able to get the help in a timely fashion. That brings us to the second concern: the issue around health outcomes. The list of health experts who oppose this trial is too long to list in a 15-minute speech. That is how many people have come out saying that this is a terrible idea. Let me just pick out a few of those organisations, Deputy Speaker. The Australian Medical Association described it as, 'A mean and non-evidence based measure that simply won't work.' The Australasian College of Physicians said, 'This will fail and it will lead to poor outcomes.' The president of that organisation said, 'All indications are that it will further marginalise people who already experience a greater burden of social, physical and personal disadvantage.' The Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs said, 'Not only will this fail to reduce drugs; it will increase crime and drive social division.' St Vincent's Health Australia, the Rural Doctors Association Australia, Harm Reduction Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service, UnitingCare Australia—almost 1,000 doctors and nurses signed a letter, and they have more than 20,000 combined years of experience—said, 'There is no evidence to suggest the policy will work or help people with drug addictions.' Not one health or community organisation has come out in support of this trial. The third reason I think this is a horrible idea is that it will be counterproductive when it comes to things like addressing crime in our community. This point was made very effectively and very well by the Mayor of Logan City, Councillor Luke Smith, not by any stretch a Labor person. Our mayor in Logan City has come out courageously, I think, against these drug trials. He wasn't consulted on them, but he's made some very good points. There was a story in The Courier-Mail under the headline 'Crime spike warning over drug test trial', in which Mayor Smith said: They're going to find a different way to feed their addiction. We're concerned this could lead to crime spikes. That is a very real concern that a whole range of people in our community have—that pushing vulnerable people to the brink will force them to find other ways to feed their addiction. The fourth reason it's a terrible idea is that, as I alluded to a moment ago, there was no consultation with our community. The community doesn't want this drug trial. I don't just mean people associated with the political parties; I mean people right through the community. We've got terrific community organisations in Logan City. They are the best in the country. People are spending all of their days, all of their time, often all of their careers, trying to help people who have fallen behind or fallen down. They are trying to help them back up—that great objective that we should all share. They don't want this drug trial. They weren't even told about it in advance. The media knew about it before the council and all of these community groups. The Mayor of Logan City said that this policy was based on an 'atrocious lack of understanding of what's going on on the ground', and he described it as a 'disgrace'. But it's not just the mayor who is saying that. Cath Bartolo—one of the best people in my community—who runs a terrific organisation called YFS, described the measure as 'punitive' and 'not backed by evidence'. She is on the front of our local paper, the Albert & Logan News, and is quoted as saying, 'It would not reduce unemployment in Logan. It's a punitive approach.' That's just one of the community groups that has come out and slammed it. Our local churches have also spoken about this. Father Dave from St Paul's at Woodridge, one of the great Catholic Churches in my electorate, has spoken on this. It's not usual for Father Dave to come out and have a spray about government policy but, in the Catholic Leader, Father David Batey from St Paul's, said: At a human level, it could be heartless. At a practical level it could be something … but it probably needs more sociological consideration of what happens to people. It seems like one more thing that is going to make people who are poor, even poorer. 'Make people who are poor, even poorer'—the words of one of our very highly regarded local Catholic priests. Logan Rosies is an organisation that goes to Woodridge station and other parts of our community to hand out food to the homeless. The coordinator of that organisation said: What it's doing is increasing the stigma. I could go on and on, but all of these community groups have made the point that it won't work and that it stigmatises our community unfairly. The fifth reason that this is a bad idea is that it's a waste of money. It makes no sense given the mess that those opposite have made of the budget. We've got gross debt at half a trillion dollars. The deficit for this year is 10 times greater than it was expected to be in Joe Hockey's first budget in 2014. We've got debt and deficit through the roof. They can't tell us how much this program will cost. They're throwing good money after bad on a proposal which all of the experts say won't work. The government don't even know how much this testing will cost because they haven't decided what kind of testing it will be and there are very different costs associated with the different kinds of testing. We also know that, if they try to do it on the cheap, there's a real risk of some false positives. If they try to do it cheaply, just to get to some kind of half-hearted outcome, they might get more positives than is actually the case. The more expensive tests, of course, will blow out the budget problem even further. So, despite overwhelming expert advice, local objections, a lack of consultation and a lack of evidence—despite all of these things—the Turnbull government is pushing ahead in my community of Logan City. It just goes to show how arrogant and out of touch this Prime Minister and his government are. They think they know better than thousands of nurses and doctors, community organisations like those in my electorate, the churches, the health groups and the AMA. In their arrogance, they think that they know better than people who have spent their entire lives trying to help people who have drug addictions. And that really is what this is all about. They are chasing headlines and going out of their way to denigrate Logan City, and they think that they know better than the experts. Of course, they've got plenty of form in wasting money on these sorts of ideological exercises. We know the High Court is dealing with one of them today: the $122 million that is being wasted on another ideological frolic because they don't have the Australian community's best interests at heart. If they genuinely cared about helping people out of welfare and into work, they wouldn't, without evidence and at a significant cost to the budget, demonise jobseekers. They wouldn't fly in and out of communities like mine just to bag them; they would actually consult with communities about their genuine needs and the sorts of programs that actually have some prospect of helping people who are in this awful situation that we would not wish on anyone. That the minister responsible for this drug-testing trial, Minister Tudge, was the same guy who brought so much pain into my community—and, indeed, into lots of the communities of those on this side of the House, including the member for Moreton's community—with the Centrelink robo-debt debacle says everything about this government. Only the Liberal Party could allow Centrelink to stuff up something as badly as robo-debt was stuffed up and then promote them to handling drug trials in communities like mine. If you can't even handle debt recovery, what possible hope do you have—whether it's Minister Tudge, Minister Porter or anyone else—of successfully delivering this program the right way. To make it worse, the member for Forde has just been bumbling around the electorate. Countless people who are just desperate for an alternative have come up to me in Waterford and Loganlea on his side of the Rankin-Forde border. When it comes to issues like this, they know they will never get from the member of Forde a member who will stand up for the interests of the community when ministers fly in and bag Logan City. They will not get that from the current member for Forde, and we hope that, after the election, there will be a very different member for Forde. Those opposite haven't heard the end of this. We will oppose this policy proposal for all the reasons I have identified, including the five I have principally mentioned. We will fight this. It's badly motivated. It's mean-spirited. It won't work. It's costly. The community doesn't want it. It's counterproductive. The list of problems with this ridiculous policy goes on and on. We will oppose it because we listen to the experts. We will oppose it because we consult with our communities. We will oppose it because we care about helping people who need help—not punishing and demonising them with policies like this. We are always up for a genuine conversation, a genuine discussion, about how to help people who are battling addiction receive the treatment they need. But we will never, ever be in the cart when it comes to kicking people in the guts when they're down and out. They need us to be in this place standing up for them, speaking up for them and devising policies that actually have some prospect of working for people who find themselves in a situation where they are addicted to drugs. It is not the role of the federal government to make these lives worse; it is the role of the federal government to do what we can to make these lives better. I'm proud of how we work together in my community to address our challenges. I'm disappointed to see this legislation brought before us when it will jeopardise all of those efforts, when it will damage the community, when it will be counterproductive and when it will fail anyway. 11:04 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. At the heart of the raft of reforms that were in the bill presented on I think 22 August is the implementation of drug testing for welfare recipients. This really highlights the very big philosophical debate here: what are welfare payments supposed to do? Are they obligation free or do they come with a mutual obligation? Are they simply, as the definition would say, government provided support for those unable to support themselves, with no strings attached? Or is it taxpayer support to bridge the gap to allow recipients to, firstly, live with some dignity and, secondly, return to the workforce if they've been in it previously or enter the workforce for the first time where it's deemed, of course, appropriate that they should present for work? I think all of us in this place accept that the best form of welfare is a job. Quite simply, the best form of welfare is a job. I'm an absolute disciple of the second definition—that welfare payments are about assisting one through a tight period in one's life. Then government services bring the tools to get that person into the workforce. Not only is that good for the individual person; it's fundamental to the long-term viability of their families. We know that children who grow up in households where no-one ever works, in households that are totally reliant on welfare payments, will find it harder to achieve the levels of education that they need to be a success in their life. We know that, while anyone can fail at parenting, the level of failure for those households is higher. Every member of this House knows that because those people come to us for help when their lives are falling to bits—'I don't know how to handle this. I'm having trouble with Centrelink. I can't manage my payments. I can't keep the payments up on my kids' mobile phones.' Everything we do in this place should be about bringing about a better future for the citizens of Australia. Not all those decisions are easy. Sometimes you have to take a tough line. I listened to the last two speakers with great interest. There has been a long list of naysayers who say that this will not work, this is flawed and this will cause fundamental damage in our society. Not quite as long a list of people but a very similar list of people opposed the introduction of the cashless debit card in Ceduna and in the East Kimberley. I spoke in this House earlier this week on the outstanding 15-month report that we've received on that particular reform. Of course it was opposed by the Greens and by any number of academics. They said it would be counterproductive and that we didn't have good evidence to introduce it—all the same arguments. I know the Labor Party supported us through the introduction of that trial, and I thank members of the opposition for that support. I suspect it would not have come about if it were not for the then member for Brand's support. He was a passionate believer that this was the right path. I think he met some strong resistance within his own party room. But it has been delivered, despite the predictions of doom. People said that people would go around it, they would alter their behaviour and there would be a swing up in the crime rate. There are very similar arguments in this debate at the moment—if we force welfare recipients to take a drug test, it will drive them to prostitution and crime. That has been alleged. That's the kind of thing that was alleged about the cashless debit card as well, but that wasn't the outcome. It's not what we've seen at all. In fact, we've seen in those communities huge improvements on a whole raft of measurable statistics. I think this amendment, which addresses schedules 12 and 16, should absolutely be supported. The transition to work, for those who have been unemployed for some time, is a difficult task. The drug testing will identify those who are taking illicit drugs, because we know it's difficult to engage with training at the right level if you are under the influence of drugs and alcohol and, for some workplaces at least, it's impossible to get on the work site, because that where you could be tested there as well. There is not testing at all work sites; there are some where you can operate under the influence of drugs and alcohol—it's not permissible, but you may not be detected. One of the things I think every member of this chamber is facing is the reality of the ice epidemic. Like probably every other member of the chamber, I've attended a number of ice forums around my community and met with local groups that are trying to respond on behalf of families and victims. One of the things that parents say to me is: 'Can't you do something about the money? We don't have any control over the money. Our children need help, but they get money from the government and they go and spend it, and we don't have any control over it.' Well, that's difficult to do because once you're 18 you are an individual and you will be treated as an individual. But I think those people are expecting help from us when they look into our eyes and say, 'Can't you do something?' Well, we've been trying, and previous governments have been trying. This government has put $685 million over four years into drug and alcohol services and $300 million into the National Ice Action Strategy. But it's not enough and it's not solving the problem. So I think we have to look further at this group of welfare recipients. I think a previous speaker was taking the line that welfare recipients aren't drug takers and that this was not a particular issue in this group of people. In fact, the statistics tell us that they are about 2.4 times more likely to be drug users than the general population, and it's an absolute block to their progression. Those who test positive will come under extra management. There will be an income management part of this remedial action, but I think the most important parts are the associated services that will accompany it, and those will be extra counselling and extra assistance with weaning themselves off drugs and alcohol—drugs, particularly, in this case. That person will be treated as an individual with issues. They won't be treated as just a great block of humanity, if you like; they will be treated as an individual with issues and they will have tailored programs to assist them to make this change. Those who rail against this legislation tend to focus on that part that looks like big brother or government treading on the individual. It's nothing like that at all. It's not meant to be like that. It's meant to be about assisting these people to make the changes that they need. I think that to ignore these issues is a failure of government and a failure of all of us in this place. It's important to remember that this is a trial. I said to the people of Ceduna: 'Remember, it's a trial. If it's no good, we'll get rid of it.' We don't keep doing things that don't work. Well, sometimes, unfortunately, people do, but it's not my intention to keep doing things that don't work. If we have this trial of 5,000 people around Australia and it's as bad as those opposite tell us it's going to be, well, we won't keep doing it. But, if it works, like the cashless debit card works, we will keep doing it. We will expand the trial. If it is making a change to people's lives and delivering the things that they need—delivering safer households for their children, delivering long-term educational outcomes—then it's something we should back. But we won't know unless we try it. So I think it is so important that we go ahead. I commend the minister. We are having a trial to see whether this is the thing that can make the difference—the kind of turning point that the cashless debit card may be. I often told the good leaders of Ceduna: 'It is highly likely, quite possible, that in the future we will look back on this time in history and say, "You were the brave people that changed the course of the way these things are done in Australia."' It is quite likely—I hope it comes about—that we will say the same thing about this particular piece of legislation in 10 years time, but I don't know. We'll see how the trial eventuates. In 2015-16 there were 4,325 occasions when people did not meet some form of their obligation because of drugs and alcohol. That's a lot. Certainly a lot of people could still meet their commitments under the influence of drugs and alcohol, so these are very concerning figures. The member for Bruce made a very heartfelt and personal contribution. I thank him for that. It's not easy to expose your past in this place and talk about people close to you. He didn't want to go into detail, and I certainly don't blame him for that, but it was a heartfelt contribution, and I thank him for that. One of the points he made in it stuck with me. He said, 'It doesn't help to make drug use a criminal offence.' Do we extrapolate from that that the member for Bruce actually thinks we should decriminalise drug use around Australia? There might have been a time, when I was a very young man sitting around a table with my mates, having a glass of red, when that might have sounded like a good idea, but I tell you what: once you've had children and had a look at the bigger world, it doesn't seem like a good idea. It seems like a very, very bad idea. Anyone who would entertain that kind of proposal I will oppose vigorously. The damage that is being done in our community at the moment by drug use is absolutely huge. As I said, it will be intergenerational and it will haunt Australia and, in fact, most of the Western world and beyond. It will haunt us for generations. We need to try everything. We need to try out every tool we've got in our toolbox to have a go at this. This is one tool that's on offer, and I for one am very strongly in favour of backing it. 11:17 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 and enthusiastically support the amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga. This Turnbull government legislation includes several measures announced in the 2017 budget, with the primary purpose being the aggregation of several payments into one jobseeker payment and the establishment of a drug-testing trial and the removal of exemptions for jobseekers who experience substance dependence. Unfortunately it really is no surprise that the Turnbull government has chosen to go down this road. We've now seen punitive measures like some in this bill being taken in a wide range of the Turnbull government programs. Remember, this is the government that unleashed debt collectors on pensioners and people on disability support, for money that they did not even owe. Remember, this is the government that said the only way to end the problem of youth unemployment was to make young Australians wait six months before being able to access any income support or to make them do $4 an hour internships that would not even have a guaranteed job at the end. This is a government that is so vicious in the way it treats people, particularly those who are the most vulnerable in our community. There are several measures within this bill that Labor will oppose. As such, I say up-front: we do not support this bill from the Turnbull government, a callous, disconnected government. In particular, one of the most disgraceful elements of this bill is contained in schedule 12: the establishment of a trial of drug testing for jobseekers. This measure provides for a two-year trial in three regions: Mandurah, Canterbury-Bankstown and Logan, just to the south of my electorate—and I commend the member for Rankin for his passionate speech prior to me. These trials involve mandatory drug testing for 5,000 people on Newstart allowance and youth allowance. The government plans to use a two-step process to select individuals for testing. First, the government will profile a group of people who they deem more likely to use drugs; and, second, it will then randomly select individual recipients from this profiled group. The tests will then be conducted by third-party drug-testing providers. The government has not announced the cost of this, nor does it know the detail of the types of tests that will be conducted. Under the process set out in the bill, a person who tests positive to a prescribed drug will be subjected to income management for a period of at least two years and they will also be subject to ongoing random drug tests. Labor always welcome proposals from the government to address drug addiction. We know that this is a problem in our community. But these proposals actually have to have people who can find treatment and work together—the people and the treatment service provider need to be matched up. That is what will produce the best solution for each individual. Last week, the Senate committee investigating this proposal heard that half the number of Australians who want treatment for drug and alcohol addiction cannot access it. I said that correctly, Deputy Speaker Bird: half of those. Why is that? It is because service providers cannot keep up with the demand. We've heard many people talk about the scourge of ice in our communities, particularly in the bush and regional parts of Australia. The Department of Social Services also admitted the Turnbull government did not source information regarding the current waiting time for treatment services in the trial sites and don't even know how long the 120 people they estimate will test positive may have to wait for treatment. If you know anything about the treatment of drug addiction, when people are ready you need to act urgently. We are going to have a red flag raised, but we don't have any idea how long it will take for people to be actually treated. This proposal from the Turnbull government only seeks to window-dress a complex issue. It is a three-line slogan for the newspapers rather than something for the good of Australian society. Virtue-signalling to the Right of your party does not help one person beat their addiction. It is faux concern writ large. Deputy Speaker, you might recall that drug testing has been part of the international welfare debate for a very long time. Advocates for such a punitive measure often argue, without any basis in evidence, that drug testing does a number of things, like somehow ensuring that people are ready for work or sending a message that drug use is unacceptable. It is a shame for this out-of-touch Turnbull government that very few industry experts, stakeholders or even local councils of the proposed trial sites support the policy. I now understand why the Turnbull government didn't bother to consult any of these people, because they would not have liked what they heard. In fact, the Logan mayor, Luke Smith, had to hear about this decision on the ABC. The government could not even pick up the phone. That's right—not consulted by the Turnbull government; he heard about it through the media. As reported in The Courier-Mail this week, Councillor Smith is rightly concerned that this testing regime is being forced onto vulnerable locals. He is worried that it will cause problems with homelessness or crime in the community, and this minister has done nothing to alleviate these concerns. If the Turnbull government had bothered to consult drug and alcohol experts like the Penington Institute or social services groups like the Samaritans, they would have heard these exact concerns. Groups like these who have a long history in this area have been putting forward this serious issue and many more in publications, position papers and media releases for quite some time. The Turnbull government has been unable to provide any evidence to support the establishment of their drug-testing trial. Medical professionals, the drug and alcohol treatment sector and the social services sector have raised significant concerns about these measures—not only the impact it will have on jobseekers but that it won't be effective in identifying those with a serious problem or provide them with any treatment. The AMA, as the peak professional organisation representing medical practitioners in Australia, submitted to the brief Senate inquiry the following: … the AMA considers these measures to be mean and stigmatising. The AMA considers substance dependence to be a serious health problem— I'm glad that the health minister is here to hear the AMA's concerns— one that is associated with high rates of disability and mortality. The AMA firmly believes that those affected should be treated in the same way as other patients with serious health conditions, including access to treatment and supports to recovery. …   …   … The AMA is concerned that the approach could inadvertently result in increased incarceration for welfare recipients with a substance dependence. The Australian Council of Social Services, the peak body for community services, in their budget snapshot from May opposed the measure, saying: … the Budget continues to demonise people with a range of new welfare crackdown measures. No expert in drug and alcohol addiction has supported the random drug testing of social security recipients. Trials elsewhere have failed to achieve any positive results. ACOSS strongly opposes this measure. You heard earlier the contribution from the member for Jagajaga who provided an extensive list of organisations that do not support this measure. In addition to the organisations I've already mentioned, we have the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, St Vincent's Health Australia, the Rural Doctors Association of Australia, Harm Reduction Australia, the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, the Kirby Institute at the University of New South Wales, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association, UnitingCare Australia, Homelessness Australia, the St Vincent de Paul Society, Wayside Chapel, Anglicare, Catholic Social Services Australia, the National Social Security Rights Network, Odyssey House, Jobs Australia, Community Mental Health Australia, the Public Health Association of Australia and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services, to name but a few. What an extraordinary job Prime Minister Turnbull has done in gathering the opposition of each and every one of these organisations. If only his own political party were as united behind him. All of these organisations either oppose or have strong concerns about the Turnbull government's proposed drug-testing trial. This Turnbull government policy does not enjoy the support of the relevant sectors' experts and stakeholder groups. It is just another attempt by the harbour-side mansion gang to demonise jobseekers without any basis in evidence and likely at significant cost to the budget. This change will not help people to overcome addiction. This is not how addiction works; instead, they'll be pushed into crisis, they'll be pushed into poverty and they'll be pushed into homelessness and potentially even into crime. Let's look to overseas examples. Drug testing of income support recipients has been tried in several countries. Surely, the government department turned their mind to that and looked through the evidence to see where it has been effective. In 2013, the New Zealand government instituted a drug-testing program among welfare recipients. In 2015, only 22 of 8,001 participants returned a positive result for illicit drug use. This detection rate was much lower than the proportion of the general New Zealand population estimated to be using illicit drugs at a cost to their budget of approximately NZ$1 million. Similar results were found in the United States. In Missouri's 2014 testing program, of the state's 38,900 welfare applicants, 446 were tested with only 48 testing positive. In Utah, 838 of the state's 9,552 welfare applicants were screened, with only 29 returning a positive result. These are costly initiatives that drive people into poverty and crime and that taxpayers must fund. It is a waste of taxpayers' money. In my role as the deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I've looked at this bill and evaluated it with respect to our commitments and international obligations to protect human rights. The committee reported that the proposed drug testing limits the established right to privacy and seriously questioned whether this limitation can be justified by the Turnbull government. The randomised drug test is not reliant on any reasonable suspicion that a person has a drug abuse problem. You've heard about the process. It will be randomised. Any selected person is forced to disclose private medical information to the third-party external firm contracted to conduct the testing and subjected to an invasive medical procedure. If they test positive once, even if it was the first time they had used an illicit drug or if it was a false positive, their payments are quarantined for two years. Furthermore, it is unclear if there will be adequate privacy safeguards as to the medical and drug related information disclosed to a privately contracted provider of drug tests. By its very design, this proposal seeks to limit the privacy rights of a large group of people in order to identify a very small number of people who might have a drug problem. For example, in relation to drug testing in Florida, only 2.6 per cent of welfare recipients tested were found to have used drugs, despite exposing a significantly large number of people to these invasive drug tests. The Human Rights Committee reported that the drug-testing proposal limits the established right to social security—which, I point out to those opposite, is a right—and seriously questioned whether this limitation was possible to justify by the Turnbull government. The statement of compatibility with human rights in the bill's explanatory memorandum does not address the availability of less rights and restricted measures. This is particularly important in the context of the right to social security, given a strong presumption that retrogressive measures are prohibited under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that Australia is a signatory to. The committee reported that the proposed drug-testing proposal limits the established right to equality and non-discrimination, and seriously questioned whether this limitation could be justified by the minister or by the Prime Minister. Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal to protection of the law without any discrimination on things such as race, sex, religion, political view, nationality or other status. When a person's drug use becomes an act of dependence, of addiction, this person has a disability. Not only does this fall within the other status within the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but a person is also protected from discrimination by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Human Rights Committee—a committee that doesn't have a Labor majority—has serious questions about potential infringements with entrenched human rights: the right to privacy, the right to social security and the rights to equality and non-discrimination. But here we are: standing in the chamber with this Turnbull government legislation seeking to ram the whole bill as it stands through the parliament with these concerns not being addressed by the minister. This is yet another measure from an arrogant, divided, lost, aimless Turnbull government, a government that is unwilling to address the inequality being experienced by so many in our society and a government that is so vicious in the way it treats people, particularly the most vulnerable in our community. The way this regressive drug-testing regime is being targeted towards particular communities—particularly low socioeconomic-status communities—raises the serious question: does the Turnbull government disapprove of illegal drugs or does it disapprove of poor people? I will leave that for others to decide. I say again the commitment of the Labor Party. We enthusiastically support the amendments moved by the member for Jagajaga. The other parts of this legislation, we do not support. 11:32 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I join my colleagues in expressing grave concern about elements of this bill, and I commend the member for Moreton on that very powerful speech. There are a number of elements of this bill that Labor is very, very concerned about, and we have heard at length from colleagues today and throughout the course of this week about their concerns about the drug testing. Concerns have been raised by many Canberrans about the drug testing. I've received a number of emails and messages. I've had conversations with people at my mobile offices and my coffee catch-ups about the fact that these are measures of grave concern, not just to Labor but also to the Canberra community and, I know, many parts of the Australian community, as well. I join my colleagues in expressing concern about this—and, as I said, there are a number of concerns about this bill which I will outline. These are concerns of not just members here on this side of the chamber—our Labor members who have fought the good fight on this issue—and not just members of the Canberra community and not just members of other communities but experts throughout the country. The member for Moreton highlighted the question: where is the evidence? There is no evidence that this drug-testing idea is going to work. Judging by what has happened internationally, it would suggest that it has been less than a success. In 2013, the New Zealand government instituted a drug-testing program among welfare recipients. In 2015, only 22 of 8,001 participants tested returned a positive result for illicit drug use. This detection rate was much lower than the proportion of the general New Zealand population estimated to be using illicit drugs. And similar results were found in the United States. In Missouri's 2014 testing program, of the state's 38,970 welfare applicants 446 were tested, with 48 testing positive. In Utah, 838 of the state's 9,552 welfare applicants were screened, with 29 returning a positive result. These were costly initiatives that drove people into poverty and crime. The suggestion from this government is that this idea, which has been roundly condemned, is essentially what they want to do to these people. It has been roundly condemned by the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, St Vincent's Health Australia, the Rural Doctors Association of Australia, Catholic Social Services Australia, the National Social Security Rights Network, Community Mental Health Australia—and the list goes on and on. The recent Senate inquiry heard overwhelmingly from medical professionals that these proposed drug-testing trials are deeply concerning. They made it clear that these drug-testing trials will not work. What did they say? I am quoting here from Matt Noffs from the Ted Noffs Foundation: This bill is not only going to fail, it will increase crime in the community and that should be a major concern for all Australians … Dr Marianne Jauncey from the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and Other Drugs has said: At a time when we desperately need money for frontline services, it's being spent in a way all the available evidence tells us won't work … Doctors don't necessarily speak with a united voice—we're a very varied group of specialists and people with different backgrounds across the country, so when you do hear doctors speaking with a united voice I think people should listen. Minister for Health, when you hear doctors speaking with a united voice, I think you should listen. Dr Reynolds from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has said it is: … an expensive, unreliable and potentially harmful testing regime to find this group of people. Existing evidence shows that drug testing welfare recipients … is not an effective way of identifying those who use drugs, and that will not bring about behaviour change. On top of the evidence that we heard from this range of medical professionals, there was also an open letter from 109 addiction specialists, 330 doctors and 208 registered nurses to the Prime Minister calling on him to drop the drug-testing trial. To the minister, who is sitting here in this chamber, I say: please listen. As Dr Marianne Jauncey said, it's very rare that you get united voices across the medical profession, but 'when you do hear doctors speaking with a united voice I think people should listen'. As I said, there are a range of measures in this bill that are deeply concerning to Labor and to members of my community. My dear 78-year-old mother lives by the mantra 'old ain't dead'. That was a message that we got loud and clear at a recent positive ageing forum that I held with the shadow minister for ageing and mental health, the member for Franklin. I thank her for taking time out of her busy schedule to listen to the concerns of Canberrans about impediments to their positive ageing. These are impediments to their being able to realise their potential to live an intellectually and physically stimulated life that is healthy and fulfilled until the end of their days—a life where they're fit, they're healthy, they're being intellectually stimulated and they're actively participating in the community. At this positive ageing forum we heard from over 80 Canberrans about the impediments to their achieving that aspiration. The forum was such a success that we'll be holding another one either later in the year or early next year. These Canberrans met to discuss their experiences and to talk about how they stay fit and healthy, and the value that they bring to our nation's capital and the fact that they want to stay active, be recognised and make an active contribution to our community until the end of their days. At the forum, the discussion ranged from aged care and retirement villages to the role of pets, nutrition, exercise and access to sunshine for health and wellbeing. It came up with a number of positive ideas, but it also provided the opportunity for Canberrans to vent their frustration about the impediments that serve as barriers to their actively participation in our Canberra community, in our nation's community, in the lives of their grandchildren and their children and in the broader citizenry of this nation. They raised concerns about the lack of support to navigate the My Aged Care portal and the complex nature of accessing aged-care services, healthcare cards and the pension. Aged care is of significant concern for many Canberrans, and the stories provided at the forum were personal, powerful and saw many participants in tears just talking about their experiences. It was clear that, while community organisations work to help senior Australians—senior Canberrans—to stay active and engaged in our society, the Turnbull government has sat on its hands and provided no positive ageing strategy. A major concern raised at the forum was the lack of housing for older Canberrans, particularly women. There have been reports that a number of older women are couch surfing. We've all heard these reports. It's happening in our electorates each and every day. Older women are couch surfing or sleeping in cars as a result of unaffordable housing or the lack of crisis accommodation. In Canberra, 316 people aged 55 years or older sought help from homelessness services last year, and 44 per cent of this group were women, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. A number of factors contribute to the homelessness of older women. They include the breakdown of a relationship. One of the major issues, though, is domestic violence—women fleeing domestic violence. It includes rent prices and insufficient superannuation to retire on. Whenever I speak on the fact that we do, as a nation, have a challenge in homelessness among older women and older men, I get women, particularly, coming out of the audience, coming up to me after I've spoken, in tears, talking to me, and the pattern is the same. These are women who are working. They're on very modest incomes. They're in the private rental market—and rents here in Canberra are high. They have very little superannuation, because they've been out of the workforce quite a bit. They're invariably divorced or they've had a relationship breakdown. A number of them have been victims of domestic violence. They've brought up the kids on their own, and they are terrified of their retirement. They are absolutely petrified about ensuring they have a comfortable retirement, because renting a property in Canberra—and I'm sure it's the same in many parts of the nation—on the aged pension is a real challenge, let alone heating that property and maintaining a car on very little superannuation. This is a major challenge for us as public policymakers. It's a major challenge for our nation. It's a major challenge for Canberrans, and it was one of the most significant issues raised at my aged-care forum. Also raised was the need for women to have access to decent superannuation and a decent retirement income through superannuation. We all know there have been countless surveys, and just recently the Not so super, for women study revealed a woman's median superannuation total by retirement was $80,000. My dear old mum retired with less than $20,000—she's on the age pension now. Now, that is just 47 per cent of what a man the same age accumulates over the same time—$80,000. The author of the study said that, on average, women retire with less than three years worth of modest retirement living. I speak to these women whenever I make speeches about the challenge of homelessness. This government has shown, through its policies, how out of touch it is with Australia. A main concern for the forum was the plan that the government has to increase the pension age, with particular reference to the discrimination that older Australians face in the workforce. There are measures in this bill that make the situation even worse. Around 375,000 Australians will be hit by the Turnbull government's plan to increase the pension age to 70, and the hike to the pension age means that, between 2025 and 2029, Australians who are currently in their 50s, who have been planning their retirement, will be stung by this change. I was just talking to my uncle, and my cousins are going to be affected by this—my cousins live in Wodonga. We were going through the charts just recently and found that they will have to work for longer. The proposed changes will likely see Australia on track to have the highest pension age by 2035. Rather than increasing the pension age, the government should focus on the ever-increasing delays in the processing of age pension claims. The amount of time that some Canberrans have had to wait for their simple claims to be processed is deeply concerning. Members of my community and throughout our society have contributed to our economy their entire working lives, yet they are being forced to wait months for their age pension applications to be processed. We know this government has a very poor track record when it comes to looking after the most vulnerable in our community, but turning its back on age pensioners and forcing them into uncertainty is completely unacceptable. It's not just the pockets of age pensioners that this government has its hands in. Some special benefit recipients aged between 55 and 59 are volunteering in our communities for 30 hours per fortnight to meet their contribution requirements so they can receive Newstart, and part of this legislation will require recipients to make up 15 of those 30 hours with paid work. I'm not sure where this idea came from and I'm not sure whether this government has actually had any engagement with women and men who aren't in the workforce and are over 55 and looking for jobs. I have had two men aged over 55 working in my office as volunteers. They had lost their jobs. I couldn't afford to pay them, but they made a significant contribution. From that work, they have managed to get a paid job, but they went through some very significant challenges. The fact that this government has introduced this requirement is just breathtaking. What evidence does the government have that this is actually going to work? Where is the evidence that this is going to work? These people are already finding it very, very challenging to get work due to the ageism that is prevalent in Australian society, and the government is making the situation even worse. I join with members of my party, the Labor Party, who have spoken against the unfair measures in this bill. It's been a common theme over the last four years that, in the absence of adequate support being provided by the government, Labor has been the only voice for vulnerable Australians, the only voice protecting vulnerable Australians. (Time expired) 11:47 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I too speak in opposition to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 and in support of the amendment moved by the shadow minister. The problem with this bill is that it represents a typical right-wing government ideology, a typical coalition government ideology. It is an ideology where people who receive welfare, people on government payments, ought be viewed with suspicion, that they should be seen as undeserving and people who are seeking to bludge and receive something for nothing from the government. The government doesn't understand the difficulties that many low-income families and pensioners and people who are struggling to make ends meet go through every day just to survive, just to put clothes on their kids and feed their families. That is inherent in what the government are seeking to do today through this bill. They don't understand what it is like to struggle. They don't understand how difficult it can be for a kid who grows up in a family where the parents don't work, the parents may be drug-addicted or one parent may have been in jail for a period of time. A kid in that circumstance is at a disadvantage in getting an education, getting into further education or getting into employment. The fact is that a kid in that circumstance is behind the eight ball from the start. They have very, very little chance. If you look at the evidence of studies on intergenerational poverty and breaking that cycle, for those born into that circumstance through no fault of their own it is a very, very difficult situation to get out of. The government don't believe that Aboriginal people have the right to be angry about what has happened to them in the past and the disadvantage that their people continue to face on a daily basis, with the difference between their life expectancy, educational levels, health outcomes and employment outcomes and those of other Australians. That is evident in the fact that it was the coalition, the Howard government, that refused to make the apology to the stolen generation, refused to say sorry for those acts of injustice that were perpetrated on Aboriginal people for many, many decades in this country by Australian governments that we all know now were wrong. They were simply wrong. Yet John Howard, as the Prime Minister and leader of a coalition government, refused to apologise. And, when Kevin Rudd delivered the apology from that very dispatch box there, there were members of the coalition—who still sit in this House, on the government front bench—who walked out of this parliament in disgust. They are still members of this parliament and they still bring that approach of not understanding the plight of Aboriginal people to reforms such as those in the bill that we are debating here today. They believe that workers should be seen and not heard, that workers don't have the right, through unions, to collectively bargain to better themselves and that, if they just worked a bit harder, they'd all be able to make a lot more money. They don't understand what it is like to be homeless, to not have a place to sleep at night, to sleep in the car with your kids when you've been booted out of your home and you've got nowhere else to go and you can't get into public housing—and, in New South Wales, that would be because the state Liberal government don't invest enough money in building more of it. They don't understand what it's like to be unemployed—the psychological effect that can have on you and your family, when you are going to job interview after job interview, being rejected because an employer doesn't like the look of you or because you may not have that additional period of experience that they're looking for. And they certainly don't know what it's like to be living solely on the pension, to not have other forms of income to rely on to get by. That's inherent in the approach that they're taking to energy policy in this country. They are not doing anything about climate change or providing certainty for investment in the energy sector, and therefore prices are skyrocketing and pensioners can't afford to put heaters on during winter to keep themselves warm. They don't understand what it's like to be in a low-income or middle-income family in this country. They are out of touch, and it is demonstrated by this bill that we are here debating today. This bill perfectly demonstrates the heartless and ideologically driven approach of this coalition government to some of the most vulnerable members of our society and the fact that, in order to appear tough, they're willing to enact laws that are based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that have not been recommended by independent bodies and that have been shown time and time again to do more harm than good. I am speaking, of course, of the compulsory drug trials for unemployed Australians that they're seeking to introduce through this bill. This bill includes several 2017 budget measures across the Social Services, Employment and Human Services portfolios. Schedules 1 to 8 implement the social security part of the 2017 budget entitled 'Working Age Payments Reforms'. These schedules will consolidate seven working-age payments and allowances into a new jobseeker payment. These payments are the Newstart allowance, sickness allowance, widow B pension, wife pension, widow allowance, partner allowance and bereavement allowance. The wife pension is a non-activity-tested income support payment paid at the age pension rate to female partners of age pensioners or disability support pensioners who are not eligible in their own right for a pension. To qualify for a wife pension, a person must have lodged their claim prior to 1 July 1995, which is when the payment was cut off to new entrants. As at 2020, it is estimated that there would be around 7½ thousand wife pension recipients. Of these, 2,250 will transfer onto the age pension and 2,400 onto the carer pension. Two thousand nine hundred women will transfer onto the jobseeker payment and just 200 women, who reside overseas, will be left with nothing as a result of this change. It seems reasonable that this group should be grandfathered, to avoid them facing a financial crisis, and unreasonable that they should be attacked in the manner that is contained in this bill. Schedule 9 of the bill removes the ability of certain special benefit recipients of Newstart allowance, aged 55 to 59, to be taken to have satisfied the activity test by engaging in voluntary work for at least 30 hours per fortnight. The changes will allow relevant recipients to be taken to have satisfied the activity test if they are engaged for at least 30 hours per fortnight in a combination of approved unpaid voluntary work and suitable paid work—at least 15 hours must be in suitable paid work. Unfortunately, ageism is a considerable hurdle for those in their 50s, 60s and beyond who are trying to secure a job. That this is the case was backed up by overwhelming evidence provided by experts in the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into this bill. We've all encountered this as members of parliament. It happens on a regular basis. We've all had people in their 50s and 60s who have been made redundant, predominantly in the manufacturing sector, in blue-collar occupations, coming in to see us, saying, 'I want to work, but no-one will take me on. They won't take me on because of my age and because my skill set is seen as outdated.' Changes such as this just make it harder for those people to get by—to make ends meet—and ultimately to get back into the workforce. This change to the legislation means that those aged in their late 50s must secure at least 15 hours of paid work to qualify for their support payments. It is a difficult task made all the more difficult by the fact that, say, for the carer transition assistance payment, which is not due to start until 2020, the government didn't see it necessary to provide any form of additional support to help people overcome this barrier. So it is imposing this new restriction but is providing no additional support, no extra assistance, at all for jobseekers in this age bracket to overcome this barrier that they face daily. According to the Department of Employment, once a person aged between 55 and 59 is out of work, the length of time they spend looking for work before they secure it is 73 weeks, on average. This compares to the overall average of between 40 and 50 weeks. Labor feels that this is an unfair change that will lead to significant hardship for that cohort of workers and welfare recipients, and that is why we oppose it. The bill also sets up a drug trial for jobseekers. This is the government's much-vaunted drug-testing regime for potential jobseekers. This element of the bill is particularly heinous, given the cruel intent and the fact that there is no evidence to back it up. In fact, in every jurisdiction where drug testing has been tried it has failed resoundingly and ended up costing the government a lot of money. Schedule 12 of the bill will, from 1 January 2018, or the date of commencement, establish a two-year trial of drug testing for 5,000 recipients of Newstart allowance and youth allowance in three locations. Testing will be undertaken by a contracted third party. Now, that is the key in all of this. A big multinational corporation that's involved in this sort of work is rubbing its hands together saying, 'You beauty! Another big juicy contract from the government coming up.' It will do drug testing of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. You can bet your life that the outcome will be that this will cost the government a hell of a lot of money but won't produce any results at all, because we all know just how difficult it is—and about the lack of resources, particularly in the state of New South Wales because of cuts by the New South Wales Liberal government—to get people into drug treatment programs that are suitable for their circumstances. There's no indication from the government in the budget papers or in the explanatory memorandum to this bill of the cost of this program, which in itself is criminal. How can you bring into this parliament a bill with a big outlay, a big contract to a third-party provider that's likely to be a multinational corporation, and not say to the parliament how much it's going to cost? It's unbelievable, in this era of so-called fiscal rectitude, that you could do that and not say how much it's going to cost. But worst of all is that this drug trial will achieve nothing, except to punish the most vulnerable jobseekers in our nation. The President of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, Dr Alex Wodak, has written on this. He said on 22 August: Remember that people who use drugs are somebody’s son or daughter, brother or sister, mum or dad, or boyfriend or girlfriend. Many, through no fault of their own, had a shocking childhood or terrible education and never enjoyed a decent job. He went on to say: Addiction medicine specialists, GPs, nurses, and healthcare workers of all stripes will tell you that people struggling with alcohol or drug dependence almost always keep consuming their favourite poison even after they have lost everything – their health, partner, kids, job, property and their freedom (after appearing before a court). The scientific definitions of addiction regard “continuing use despite severe adverse consequences” as a central characteristic of this condition. So ripping income support away from these people is not going to help them recover. That's the view of Dr Alex Wodak, an expert who's spent his life working in this field. It's a view that's supported by the Australian Medical Association and by so many other organisations that work in this field. The evidence is that it simply will not work. But it goes back to what I was saying earlier: it's because those on that side of the parliament don't understand what it's like to be in this circumstance of having a drug addiction and not being able to break the cycle whereby kids grow up in poverty. That is inherent in this bill and inherent in the fact that they want to be seen to be tough and to punish these people as their means of looking like they're cracking down on welfare cheats and bringing fiscal rectitude to the budget. That's the wrong approach, and it's an approach that will end up costing this country a lot more money and not producing the outcomes we seek to achieve. So, all in all, I and my Labor colleagues are opposed to this reform and to the other elements of this bill that go against that notion of a fair go in Australia and of helping the most vulnerable get back on their feet so they can enjoy a decent life and participate in our society. I urge others to vote down this legislation. 12:02 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I'm pleased to be following the member for Kingsford Smith in this debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, and I echo the comments and concerns that he and many colleagues on this side have raised in relation to this bill. From the outset, I want to say that there are so many elements of this bill that not only are unfair and cruel but simply will not work. I join all my colleagues from this side who have quite rightly condemned the government for the very harsh measures contained within this bill. And of course this all comes on top of the government's other very harsh and cruel measures, such as their cuts to health care, education and pensions. They're making all those cuts at the same time that they're giving those big tax cuts to big business and multimillionaires. The impact of the government's harsh cuts are felt very strongly in our regional and rural areas. In some ways those cuts are so much harsher in areas like mine, where we have cuts from the Liberal and National governments at both the state and the federal level. As I've said many times in this place before, in those country areas, in rural and regional areas, the National Party is to blame; I often say that the National Party choices hurt. In terms of this bill and the National Party's support for it, those National Party choices are really going to hurt those people who are living in regional and rural Australia, particularly through the really nasty and mean measures in this bill—specifically, the Turnbull government's proposed drug-testing trial of social security recipients. The experts have made it clear that the drug-testing trial will not work, but the government has refused to listen to what those experts have said. Now to some of the detail of the bill. The bill comprises 18 specific schedules encompassing the multiple portfolios of Social Services, Employment and Human Services, with their designs, of course, arising from the 2017 budget. The fact is that most of the schedules and most of this bill, just like the government that's putting it forward, are very much cruel and out of touch. Schedules 1 to 8 implement the working-age payment reforms. This change will seek to consolidate seven working-age assistance payments into one standard payment; the new payment being known as 'JobSeeker Payment'. That new payment will include those in receipt of Newstart allowance, sickness allowance, widow B pension, wife pension, widow allowance, partner allowance and bereavement allowance. We on this side strongly oppose schedule 4 of this bill, which relates to the bereavement allowance. The schedule as it currently stands will replace the bereavement allowance with the lower payment rate of the jobseeker allowance. Essentially, this is a cut to those who, indeed, need it most. It will also come with harsher means testing. Labor cannot and will not support a cut such as this to people grieving after the loss of a loved one. It is in fact quite a heartless move designed for the savings that it will bring. The recent Senate inquiry heard details that the Turnbull government's cuts to the bereavement allowance for low-income households will leave some as much as $1,300 worse off. Of course, as we know, the bereavement allowance is a short-term payment for people whose partner has died and is paid for a maximum of 14 weeks. Make no mistake, this very cruel cut to vulnerable Australians receiving short-term income support following the loss of a loved one will really hurt them very harshly. There really is no policy justification for such a harsh cut. There really is none at all, other than the savings that they will get. It beggars belief that this government can be so mean and nasty. Indeed, Charmaine Crowe from ACOSS said: Someone in that circumstance … it's very difficult to cover the cost of a funeral and other associated expenses. So cutting the bereavement allowance will just place those people into further hardship and make even more difficult the period of time after bereavement. All of the measures the government keeps taking continue to make it harder for those who are vulnerable, disadvantaged and marginalised. Every day, every year and at every budget we see harsher and harsher measures from the government. Rest assured, we will keep fighting for those who are being disadvantaged and further marginalised by the government. I particularly want to highlight schedules 12 and 13 of the bill because I believe these are perhaps some of the worst examples of some of the harshest actions we've seen from this government. These elements of the bill seek to establish a drug-testing trial and remove exemptions for drug and alcohol dependency as a mitigating circumstance for non-compliance with the activity test for payments. From 1 January 2018, the schedule will establish a two-year trial of drug testing for 5,000 recipients of Newstart allowance and youth allowance in three locations. We see that the government's target with this is our younger people and those looking for work—again, often the most disadvantaged, the most vulnerable and the most in need of our help. If we're talking about regional and rural Australia, they are even more disadvantaged, even more marginalised and in need of assistance from government, and those are the people they are targeting. It also really demonstrates the government's very deliberate ignorance when it comes to looking at surrounding drug, alcohol and substance abuse issues and factors. The legislation also fails the people who are very much aware they have a problem but can't solve it on their own and need assistance from services that the government funds and provides. The fact is that they need our help, not punishment and further marginalisation. This is a very serious and complex health issue, and it needs to be addressed in such a serious manner, not by demonising those people or cutting the funding. It's not that simple; it's not that easy. It is actually very complex. I come to this debate in this place to speak about it from the perspective of a former police officer. I know that just cutting off government benefits doesn't stop the drug use, doesn't stop it happening and it doesn't fix the problem. It is complex and it does require all of the services and agencies to work together from all perspectives—yes, from the health perspective; yes, involving law enforcement as well—not just one action such as cutting the payments. That's not going to fix it. It will, in fact, make it a lot worse, because demonising addiction doesn't fix anything. People will tell you that across a whole range of agencies. It doesn't fix the problem. In fact, it actually causes more problems. It even makes it worse—it doesn't even fix it; it creates more problems—because one of the major effects of this legislation will, no doubt, be an increase in crime. There is no doubt about that. That's a real concern that many locals have raised with me. They know that will be the result of this particular legislation. Many addiction medical specialists have raised serious concerns about the legislation as well. We're waiting for the government to confirm exactly what sorts of tests they're going to be using for that. We know there are often some false positives in those tests. For example, if a person is taking antidepressants, they could test positive for amphetamines. There are a lot of issues around the actual testing regime. We haven't seen too much detail about that. As I have said, this is primarily an attack on the most vulnerable in our community when it should be considered primarily a health issue. This isn't just what I or Labor believe. In fact, an open letter from 109 addiction specialists, 330 doctors and 208 registered nurses was sent to the Prime Minister calling on him to drop the drug-testing trial. That whole range of specialists were very clearly calling on him to do that. Indeed, very importantly, many service providers on the ground are also saying that this trial will not work. I would like to speak briefly about my electorate. I was recently contacted by Mr John Lee, the founder and president of the homeless outreach provider You Have A Friend. He emailed me specifically about this legislation. I would like to take this opportunity to commend John Lee and to tell the parliament what a remarkable difference John has made and continues to make in our community. He has a deep commitment to helping those people who are homeless and who have been through difficult times. The organisation he founded, You Have A Friend, supports more than 300 people in my electorate who are homeless, facing homelessness or marginalised. They are helped with food, housing, transport and general support. The organisation relies purely on donations or funds raised from their op shop to finance the organisation. There is a lot of community support for John and for You Have A Friend as an organisation. John is a man I greatly admire and respect, so when he contacted me about his concerns about the legislation I took those concerns very seriously. I would like to read from the email that John sent to me. He said: Dear Justine, I am alarmed and shocked at the latest proposal by our Federal Government. That is mandatory testing of drug and alcoholic persons and cutting their social benefits if they fail such tests. …   …   … If those on social benefits fail the test, their social benefits will be immediately cancelled! Besides that, those incapacitated by sickness or an accident caused by alcohol or other drug issues will also have their support cancelled! I find this absurd and totally inhumane. He goes on to say: Justine, in the 15 years I have worked with the homeless, I can cite many occasions of mothers and people coming off drugs or alcohol. Without benefits during that very trying time, I know many would not have survived. Besides that, it appears the government wants to force those persons who are "caught" to undertake mandatory rehabilitation. I wonder if the government realises that there would not be enough facilities to cater for all those they establish are taking drugs. He goes further to say: The consequences are massive. Increase in crime or simply left to die in the parks! Once addicted, I know it can be a very serious problem for many. This addiction not only affects the lower end of the social scale, but also many from all walks of life. Let's face it, without condoning the disease, what do many homeless and marginalised have left after our government refuses to help them with housing, or adequate social funding … He finishes by saying: Justine, I am requesting that you and as many of your colleagues please vote against this inhumane Bill. I can say to John that I and my Labor colleagues will do that, because we believe it is inhumane and we believe it is very cruel. Can there be a clearer message to the Turnbull Liberal-National government that this bill and the presumptions they base it on are just plain wrong? The recent Senate inquiry heard overwhelming evidence from medical professionals, addiction specialists and community organisations against the Turnbull government's proposed drug-testing trial of social security recipients. Again, experts made it clear that the trial just will not work. Also, the experts warned that the trial will increase crime in the community. The Senate inquiry also heard the trial could adversely impact the medical treatment and rehabilitation of people suffering from drug and alcohol addiction. As I've said, no-one doubts that we face significant problems—we absolutely do. I saw that when I was a police officer. I speak to police now and I hear that. I hear it from people right across the community. We have serious and significant problems. We have to work together in a complex manner to solve that. We know that drug addiction, particularly in some of those regional areas, is very serious, but there is no evidence to say that this trial will work. We should be focusing on methods that do work and working together to get better results. Indeed, those opposite don't have any evidence to say that it will work. Let's again look at what some of the experts say. Matt Noffs, from the Ted Noffs Foundation, said: This bill is not only going to fail, it will increase crime in the community and that should be a major concern for all Australians. Dr Marianne Jauncey from the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs says: At a time when we desperately need money for frontline services, it's being spent in a way all the available evidence tells us won't work … She goes on to say: Doctors don't necessarily speak with a united voice—we're a very varied group of specialists and people with different backgrounds across the country, so when you do hear doctors speaking with a united voice I think people should listen. Also, Dr Adrian Reynolds from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians says: Existing evidence shows drug testing welfare recipients is not an effective way of identifying those who use drugs and it will not bring about behaviour change. It is an expensive, unreliable and potentially harmful testing regime to find this group of people. Listening to all that evidence from the experts, I call on the government to listen to them. Listen to the service providers. Listen to those within the medical fields as well. Listen to the people on the front line, like those I've quoted—John Lee, someone who's worked with the homeless and the marginalised for 15 years. I call on the government to drop this cruel and out-of-touch legislation. There are many other elements of this bill that are equally harsh. We look to the part of the bill that seeks to remove the ability to fulfil the required activity test with the 30 hours of volunteer work for 55- to 59-year-old recipients of Newstart and some special benefits. Elements of that are indeed quite cruel in taking away the capacity for volunteering. These measures will actually be quite harsh because they will do little to improve the job prospects of older Australians, who are already disadvantaged. It will actually take people out of volunteering when they can't volunteer as much to qualify, and that's going to have a very detrimental effect upon society generally when we look at the large number of people in that age group who do volunteer. In a sense, by forcing them out to meet other activity tests, it's going to have a flow-on effect on the great work that volunteers do within our community. Again, it is overly harsh, overly punitive and overly cruel to a group that does often have difficulty sourcing employment—the people who engage in volunteering. There is a whole range of issues right throughout this bill that I think will have a very detrimental effect on those people throughout our community. As I've said, we oppose many of those elements and we on this side will continue to fight for those people in our community who need our assistance most—the people who are going to be most impacted by this government's cuts. We'll fight the harsh measurements that the government continues to pursue. I, and the people in regional areas too, will always stand up and fight the National Party who, time and time again, walk away from people in country Australia—walk away from people in the regions—by continuing to come into this House and vote for harsh measures, whether it's cuts to education, health, pensions or family payments. Here they are now, attacking the most vulnerable, disadvantaged and marginalised, and people in rural and regional Australia will remember what the National Party have done to them. 12:17 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 and in support of the amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga. Many people on this side of the House have spoken about the harsh schedules in this bill. I'm going to speak from my firsthand experience over the last 20 years of working with people with substance dependency. Dependency doesn't discriminate between those who are working and those who are looking for work. The government's attempt to conflate drug misuse with unemployment is not just wrong; it's harmful. While I was training as a pharmacist, I worked in a community pharmacy—one of the first in New South Wales to provide an opioid treatment program. This program, underpinned by the principles of harm minimisation, has led to many people being able to rebuild their lives and relationships and gain employment. It has been provided by community pharmacies since the late 1970s. I met teachers, chefs and executives who were all turning their lives around with the support of GPs, pharmacists and addiction specialists. More recently, I worked as a mental health pharmacist, providing clinical support to an OTP clinic and a withdrawal management unit in Wyong Hospital. This in-patient unit provides withdrawal management from an evidence based, clinically-proven harm minimisation approach. It works. The problem is there are just 15 beds at Wyong Hospital for the entire Central Coast. This unit is also part of the statewide referral process, receiving clients from all across New South Wales, particularly from regional areas such as western New South Wales and the Tamworth region, where there are no local services. If the government is genuine in its claimed intention to help those burdened by dependence, a good first step would be properly funding units like this and not attacking welfare recipients. The current services are overstretched and there are long waiting lists. Clients wait anxiously by their phone for a text message, hoping that they can enter as soon as there is an available bed. If there is to be any likelihood of success, the government must work with the states to ensure there are sufficient places for people entering treatment, and the necessary mental health and social services available. This legislation implements a range of complex measures, many lacking detail and many lacking an evidence base. As previous speakers on this side of the House have indicated, there are measures that Labor could potentially support if they are separated from other measures in this bill. However, there are several measures that Labor will not support, including establishing a drug-testing trial for certain social security recipients, removing exemptions for drug or alcohol dependence, changes to reasonable excuses, axing the bereavement benefit, postponing the start date for some participation payments and removing the intent-to-claim provisions so that payments are delayed until claimants are able to complete the documentation requirements. The most disturbing aspects of this legislation are the proposed drug-testing trial for social security recipients and compliance changes relating to drug and alcohol dependence. As I mentioned, I've worked as a pharmacist in a withdrawal management unit for alcohol and all other drugs as part of a dedicated team working from an evidence based harm-minimisation approach. Consistent with my experience is the widespread opposition to these measures among health and welfare groups. Concerns have been raised by, amongst others, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine, the Australian Council of Social Service and UnitingCare. These measures fail to meet even the most basic standards for evidence based policy. To quote from the submission to the Senate inquiry by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre: There is no evidence that any of these measures will directly achieve outcomes associated with reductions in alcohol or other drug use or harms, and indeed have the potential to create greater levels of harm, including increased stigma, marginalisation and poverty. Drug testing of income support recipients has been tried in several countries and there is no evidence that it is effective. For example, the New Zealand government instituted a drug-testing program among welfare recipients, In 2015, only 22 of 8,000 participants tested returned a positive test result for illicit drug use. This measure was introduced without any consultation with those with expertise in the area of drug rehabilitation and treatment. Kevin from Tumbi Umbi in my electorate put it very plainly: I am amazed that the government is considering withholding welfare payments from drug and alcohol dependent people without consulting with addiction medicine specialists over the policies. They have not been given the chance to share their concerns and expertise. Further, a wealth of scientific evidence in clinical experience has proven that people suffering from severe alcohol and drug problems cannot be punished into recovery. Pushing people into poverty will only undermine their chance of recovery. Addiction medicine specialists are concerned about the technical aspects of the trial also. While details of the costs of this measure have not been made available, the cost of conducting reliable tests is significant. According to the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, 'gold standard' urine tests cost between $550 and $950 to administer. Lower cost tests present a risk of false positives. The government has provided no details to suggest that additional resources will be made available to rehabilitation services to deal with any increased demand as a result of this trial. Comments from the treatment sector are consistent with my experience locally on the Central Coast. There are long waiting lists for treatment locally and around the country, particularly in regional and remote areas. These trials will put increased pressure on the system and, where treatment is unavailable, jobseekers who are identified as having a dependency will have difficulty accessing the treatment prescribed. A constituent of mine, Amber, made a telling comment about where public funding could be better directed, and that is to treatment services, not punitive drug testing. This is what Amber wrote to me: If this government genuinely wants to help people struggling with drug and alcohol problems, Parliament should redirect public funding away from harmful, extensive drug testing trials and expand referral pathways to treatment services. Another constituent, Gerry, wrote: 'People unfortunate enough to be in the grip of addiction will not be helped by further reinforcement of their problem. Rather than insinuate that they are not to be trusted by requiring them to be tested, the better approach would be to encourage them to engage in alternative activities or programs which have the potential to entice them into more hopeful life-changing behaviour.' Gerry lives opposite the Salvation Army's rehabilitation centre, and its success in transforming lives damaged by drugs and alcohol reflects a more understanding approach than that proposed by the government. Furthermore, health professionals warn that treatment is not successful unless someone is ready to seek treatment. Forcing people to turn up will not address their dependency and will only put pressure on already overstretched services. I would like to share another comment I received from a constituent, a social worker with over three decades of experience. She wrote to me: 'As a social worker with 37 years of practice experience—17 years in the government income support and employment services field—I am horrified to hear about the progress of this punitive and dangerous policy.' This is from a social worker. 'This policy, if it goes ahead, will create extreme poverty for a group of people who are struggling with significant physical and mental health concerns. Based on my practice experience, I know that most of these people have been confronted with traumatic life experiences, creating a complex range of social and emotional responses that place them in a dangerous situation if they are unable to access income support. This is also likely to make people in this situation more likely to become isolated and even to attempt suicide. There is also a risk that people in this situation and who are denied income support will respond in drastic ways which may impact on the safety of family members and members of the public.' This is consistent with my experience working with alcohol and other drug dependency for over 20 years. I first started as a trainee pharmacist in the mid-nineties and have continued as a mental health pharmacist at Wyong Hospital for the last 10 years. As a clinician, a mental health worker and a local member of parliament, I am deeply concerned by these punitive and risky measures. I will now move on to the removal of exemptions for drug and alcohol abuse. Currently, income support recipients with participation requirements can be granted temporary exemptions from these requirements where they are incapacitated due to sickness or injury or where there are special circumstances such as a personal crisis. Schedule 13 would prevent temporary exemptions being granted where the reason is wholly or predominantly attributable to drug or alcohol dependency or misuse. This includes any sickness or injury or special circumstance such as eviction associated with drug or alcohol misuse. Health and welfare groups have also raised concerns about this change, including ACOSS, St Vincent's Health and UnitingCare. Experts say that the changes fail to recognise the complex nature of substance misuse, substance dependency as a health condition and doctors' medical opinions in advising that a jobseeker cannot meet their requirements for a temporary period. This would relate to not just acute episodes of substance misuse but also secondary health problems associated with drug and alcohol use, of which there are many. UnitingCare's submission to the Senate inquiry states: It is our view that the welfare system should provide a basic safety net for people most in need and that presence of chronic and significant health conditions should not lead to punitive responses. We subsequently oppose the measure on the basis of its propensity to undermine the effectiveness of treatment strategies that an individual may be seeking or undertaking … Currently job seekers can be penalised for a range of very common participation failures, including not turning up for an appointment with Centrelink. These penalties are not applied where the person has a reasonable excuse. Schedule 14 provides that a jobseeker who cites drug or alcohol dependence as an excuse for a participation failure will be offered treatment. If they take up treatment, it will count towards their participation requirements. If they refuse treatment and their substance-use disorder causes them to not comply with jobseeker requirements a second time, their payments will be suspended. As a pharmacist, a mental health worker and local MP, I join with other health professionals who have raised concerns that the changes in schedules 13 and 14 fail to recognise that substance-use disorder is a health condition. In its submission to the Senate inquiry, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians commented: The proposed removal of exemptions is fundamentally stigmatising and vilifying of individuals suffering addiction; which in itself is a known barrier to seeking treatment and overcoming addiction. …   …   … Furthermore, the RACP is seriously concerned that Schedule 14 provides for the application of financial penalties in cases where income support recipients do not participate in treatment. Again, this approach places vulnerable people at increased risk of poverty, homelessness and significant social and financial disadvantage. I worked in mental health at Wyong Hospital for the 10 years before I was elected. I saw people burdened by dependence. Those same people didn't have access locally to the resources they needed to be able to seek treatment, to gain support and to be able to turn their lives around. These changes will only put these really vulnerable people more at risk. We discharged people to couches, to cars and to caves. We have to wrap around the mental health and social services support if we are to have any likelihood of success. In summary, these changes will not help people to overcome addiction. This is not how dependency works. Instead they will be pushed into crisis, poverty, homelessness and potentially crime. It will place further burdens on the families of those experiencing drug dependency and on already overstretched welfare services. I would like to conclude my remarks on these measures by quoting from Margaret and Ron in my electorate. Margaret said: My husband and I know, from past experience, just how demoralising it is when you can't find a job and you have to ask for help. To add extra to the burden with drug testing is cruel and humiliating. We are thankful we are no longer in this position and feel for those that are Finally, Ron said: This is the most obscene suggestion I have heard in 80 years. These measures are cruel, as are measures in other schedules. The abolition of the bereavement allowance, hurting Australians at their most vulnerable, would only result in savings of $1 million over the forward estimates. The death of a partner is one of the most difficult times in anyone's life. Grief compounded by financial stress is cruel. Cutting the support for bereaved persons at this time is a harsh and mean-spirited measure and must be opposed. To sum up, there are measures in this bill that Labor could potentially support if they were separated from other measures; however, there are several measures that Labor will not support and that I cannot support as a pharmacist, as a mental health worker and as a local MP. We are open to working with the government on these complex social problems if they are committed to genuine attempts to help people burdened by addiction, but we will not support blatant attacks on the most vulnerable in our community with no basis of evidence. 12:33 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne We have an employment crisis for young people in this country. To look back over the last few years, it is always the case—in fact, it's been the case since they've been keeping statistics—that youth unemployment is higher than general unemployment, and you would expect that. You would expect, because of where young people are at in their lives, that they may find it harder to get a job or may not be looking quite as actively as others. They may not be experienced and educated and so on. So youth unemployment, if you look back over the graphs, always sits higher than general unemployment. What we also find, though, is that, whenever there's an economic downturn or a recession, it hits the young proportionately harder than it does for everyone else, and the two lines on the graph diverge. Unemployment goes up generally for everyone when we reach tough economic times, but it goes up more for young people. So young people find themselves in a proportionately worse position. What you also find, as you look back over the last 50-odd years of economic history in Australia, is that, given a couple of years, the lines come back into sync again. Youth unemployment comes back to about the same level compared with general unemployment, as more and more people find jobs and the economy picks up and recovers. But, when you look at what's happened in Australia since the GFC, something very different has happened. Unemployment for young people spiked after the GFC but, unlike every other time in recorded economic history in Australia, youth unemployment has not come back into line with general unemployment. In other words, not only did young people get especially hit hard when the GFC happened and found themselves experiencing rates of unemployment around 12 per cent but also, a year after the GFC, that has not come back into line; it has continued to grow. Youth unemployment was around 11 per cent or 12 per cent immediately after the GFC and it is now higher—it's now around 13 per cent. But, meanwhile, general unemployment has flattened out. So young people in Australia have found it very, very hard to get a job since the GFC. When you consider that the way they count the unemployment statistics means that, if you are working an hour a week, you are counted as employed, and, when you dig a bit deeper, the picture becomes even worse. When you start asking about underemployment and you start asking young people who have a job, 'Would you actually like to work more?' you find that the figures become even more alarming—and, again, it's got worse since the GFC. So we now find ourselves in a situation in Australia where underemployment for young people is around 20 per cent. So 20 per cent of people who are lucky enough to have jobs are saying, 'I'd actually like a bit more work and a bit more money.' Back in 1978 that figure for young people was about four per cent, and it's now 20 per cent. So 20 per cent of young people are finding themselves underemployed. So, when you add together the unemployment rate and the underemployment rate for young people, we get a rate of something like 30 per cent. So, close to a third of young people in this country are saying, 'I want a job but can't find one' or 'I've only got a couple of hours work a week and I'd like more.' That's not surprising when you consider how expensive housing is now and how difficult it is for young people to find a place where they can live—and that's just renting in many cases. For most people, buying or owning a house is now just a dream. When you consider how expensive housing is, when you consider that, under this government, wholesale power prices have doubled in the last four years—and young people need electricity as well—and when you consider that young people, if they are lucky enough, go on to TAFE or university, it is not surprising that often young people are finding themselves in huge debt. We've got a situation in this country where it is felt that we are turning our backs on young people. They are screaming out for more work and better pay and they are not getting it. It is at record numbers. As I say, there's a 30 per cent underutilisation rate. It has not been that high for a very, very long time in Australian history. So what does this government do? The government could turn around say, 'We're selling our young people out. We are not creating the jobs that they need, we're not giving them the incomes they deserve and we're leaving the ones without jobs on unemployment benefits that are below the poverty line.' In fact, as many have said, they are a disincentive to get work. You end up living in poverty and you spend all of your time just trying to make ends meet and you can't afford the extra money to do that bit of extra training or to get a haircut or to buy some new clothes to go to a job interview. Everyone is saying that—not just the Greens. The Business Council of Australia is also saying that. The government could say: 'We've got a bit of a problem, with 30 per cent underutilisation of young people. Clearly, the jobs aren't out there for them. Clearly, people want more work and more jobs and are not getting them. So let's put our shoulders to the wheel and work out how to create more jobs.' But, no; instead, this government turns around and says, 'We are going to blame young people for not finding jobs'—jobs that weren't there in the first place. If you had unemployment or underemployment rates of two or three per cent, then, maybe, the government could stand up with a straight face and say, 'If you can't find yourself in work, then we're going to treat you in a certain way.' I wouldn't agree with that, but the government might have some logic in its argument. But, when 30 per cent of young people are saying, 'We'd like some work, or more work, but we can't find it,' what does the government do? The government turns around and says, 'We are going to treat young people and anyone else who's fallen on hard times, and can't get a job, as potential drug addicts, and we are going to randomly drug test you. If you fail that random drug test, woe betide you, because you may find yourself without income.' Instead of having a bit of a self-reflective look at the fact that it is presiding over a 30 per cent underutilisation rate amongst young people and saying, 'Maybe this is our fault as the government and we might want to turn it around and do something to fix it,' the government turns around and says, 'We are going to blame young people and everyone who is doing it tough.' Because it's performing so poorly in the polls and doesn't have the guts to do the hard work to create meaningful work for people in this country or to lift people out of poverty by lifting the level of unemployment benefits, it does the usual tabloid thing. It picks up the playbook of every conservative government and says, 'We're going to blame the unemployed, stigmatise them and treat them all as potential drug addicts.' What does it do then? It does compulsory drug testing. If the government understood the first thing about people who are addicted to drugs, it would know that when addiction has got a hold of you, especially on some of the really tough drugs, you do anything to feed your addiction. You steal from your friends and your family, and you burn bridges there. You steal from your employer sometimes. And then, when that all runs out, you break into other people's houses to nick their stuff and sell it in order to feed your addiction. Once you've run through all of your friends and your family and you've potentially got yourself a criminal record, maybe you end up in prison or, if you've managed to avoid the law, maybe you find yourself out on the streets with no meaningful source of income at all. That is what addiction does to people. It makes them behave in a way where the only thing that matters is getting the next hit. If you really care about getting people off drugs, the crucial thing is to try and grab people when they are in that situation and get them into treatment, because we know treatment works. But what the government is doing is saying that, if it happens to find you in that situation, then it's going to make life even worse for you and, potentially, take away the only source of income that you've got. It's not going to turn around and give you additional treatment—there's no extra money coming from this government to fund additional treatment services or to take steps to ensure these people find their way into treatment. No; this government says, 'We're going to put you even further into desperation.' If someone is addicted to a drug, to the point where they're prepared to burn their family and friends, where they're prepared to commit criminal acts, what do you think they're going to do when this government takes away their money? This is a government that is forcing people into crime. When the crime statistics go up, when there are more break-and-enters as a result of people no longer having an income, blame this government. Blame the Liberal and National parties, because they will have put people in the situation where they know that they'll do anything because they're in the grip of a drug, and the government says, 'We don't care. We're going to make your life even tougher.' Of course, because this is only an electoral ploy—it's about saving money and about trying to win votes; the government is going for the double whammy here—the government isn't interested in looking at the real problem with drugs in this country or how one might solve it. If the government was, it would have listened to everyone—everyone from medical health professionals through to people who work with people who are on drugs—who fronted up to hearings into this bill and made the point that the best thing you can do is fund a proper drug treatment sector and get people into treatment and into health. If the government were interested in doing more than simply playing the politics of it, they would have listened to the CEO of the Ted Noffs Foundation who said: 'If we're going to do drug testing, is it going to apply universally to everyone?' He made the point that in some places ice use has plummeted, but the drug that has gone up in some places is cocaine. He said to the committee: 'Who uses more cocaine than anyone else? Canberrans.' Clearly, this government is not interested in tackling addiction or excessive drug use because, if it was, it would be applying it across the board. It would be applying it across the board and saying, 'Hang on, maybe drug use is getting out of control in the kinds of drugs that might not find their way onto the front page of a tabloid and might not be good conservative fodder because they are actually drugs that rich people use.' No, the government is not interested in that. The government is only interested in trying to boost its standing in the polls by taking the stick to people who are doing it tough. I will come back to what I said at the start. We have an unemployment and underemployment crisis in this country amongst our young people. If you go to some regional areas, that 30 per cent underutilisation rate that I was talking about before is up above 50 per cent. Go to some of the public housing estates in my electorate. At one, the woman who runs the community centre told me that, in the last survey she did, there was nigh on 82 per cent unemployment and underemployment. People just can't find work. When you understand that is the kind of society that we are creating—that the Liberals are presiding over a society where the gap between the haves and the have-nots is growing and where we have an extraordinarily large class of young people now who, since the GFC, have never been able to find a decent job—then we're at a fork in the road in Australia. We could have the courage, as the government and as the parliament, to say, 'We've got to act in the public interest. There's a looming crisis here, and it's our job to make sure that, in the 21st century, no-one is left behind.' And that means lifting the level of welfare so that people aren't below the poverty line and making sure that there are decent, meaningful jobs. That's the Greens' proposal—to actually offer people a bit of choice, a bit of hope and a bit of meaning in their lives and to say, 'If you fall on hard times, the government is there to help you get back on your feet. And if you or your son or daughter find yourself in trouble with drugs, we will help you get the treatment that you need.' But, instead, this government only knows one thing—and that's the big stick. When, as I said, the crime figures go up, blame Malcolm Turnbull, blame the minister, because they are pushing people towards crime. 12:48 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin The mark of a good society is how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. On this marker, this government shows it has a very, very poor vision of how our society should function. This is a bill which contains provisions that stigmatise and demonise vulnerable Australians and does nothing to help them. So, along with all of my Labor colleagues, I rise to support the amendment moved by the shadow minister, the member for Jagajaga, to this legislation, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. I acknowledge the contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Melbourne. I disagree with him on many matters, but that was a thoughtful contribution to this debate—one of many thoughtful contributions I've been in the chamber to hear. I note that the minister is here, too. I hope that he has been listening. I hope that he has been paying attention to the contributions, to the empathy that has been evidenced in Labor contributions and to the evidence which has been referred to in those contributions, and is reconsidering some of the provisions in this bill. In question time yesterday, the Treasurer boasted of the economics of opportunity triumphing over the politics of envy. This was a hollow boast from a government of hollow men and women—a government which initially told us about 'lifters and leaners', a government whose former Treasurer spoke of an 'age of entitlement' which had to be ended and a government whose former minister for social security spoke of a 'big society'. These are all wraparounds which have been abandoned, but however this vision has been described by the government—whether led by the member for Warringah or, for the moment, the member for Wentworth—there has been a consistency of vision demonstrated by the Liberal-National coalition. There is a blind faith in the ideology of trickle down, combined with a commitment to shrinking the state and, with it, all of those things which tie us together as Australians. I was very pleased to have been here for the contribution of the member for Dobell, who demonstrated a very different sense of our collective responsibilities based on her own experience, based on listening to constituents and based on engaging with experts rather than blind faith in ideology. With it, I note that government members—Liberal Party members in particular—often speak of personal responsibility as they seek to divide Australians doing it tough between those who are deserving and those who are undeserving. That is a concept that is really at the heart of some of the worst provisions in this bill. But, in speaking of responsibility, they are failing to take responsibility to do the job that they are required to do, which is to look after the wellbeing of Australians. What an offensive joke it is that government members speak so often of the importance of citizenship when they, in fact, undermine it in our social compact at every turn. Instead of reaching out to people who are doing it tough, time after time they seek to push down those amongst us who are vulnerable. Through doing this, they diminish all of us. We see in this bill some provisions which really represent cruelty for its own sake. At its core—as, indeed, the member for Melbourne observed—this is a piece of legislation that is, in large part, designed for tabloid consumption, not for any policy impact whatsoever. It comes in circumstances where we face significant challenges when it comes to social welfare, the provision of social services and, particularly, the challenge of enabling more people to find their way into productive employment. Our social compact is fraying in Australia at the moment, and some of the measures in this bill would exacerbate this when we need to restore its strength. Our Prime Minister speaks of this bill as an act of love, but this is legislation that is bereft of empathy, much less love. As we consider the circumstances of the people who would be affected by the bill, on the Labor side, we think about the circumstances Australia is in more generally. There is record inequality. We note the sad, depressing picture that the National Accounts data, which was just released, paints of the economic circumstances for most Australians. Under this government's stewardship, we have a government which is simply not delivering for working people and is leaving too many people out of work. Unemployment is too high. Underemployment is too high. Youth unemployment, as many speakers on this side have touched upon, is at unacceptable levels, particularly in areas of regional Australia and bits of suburban Australia, including elements of my electorate. These wider circumstances are, of course, compounded by so many decisions of this government: maintaining the inadequate level of Newstart; proposals which have been put and put again to deny young people any income support; and the ludicrous PaTH program, which other members have spoken upon in this context. We do see in this government a series of attacks on young people through these measures—through school funding cuts and continued policy uncertainty, and also through commitments to deep cuts when it comes to higher education. I did say 'attacks on young people', but, of course, there are provisions in this bill which attack and stigmatise older Australians too. When we think about our social services, we should remember the misleading picture this government continually paints when it talks about the cost of welfare. They conflate the age pension with the sorts of social supports this bill is concerned with. In The Age today, Peter Martin began an interesting article by saying, 'Drug testing is just the start,' referring to the government's retreat from evidence when it comes to social supports. If only that were so. As I've just said, the provisions in this bill—those which we object to—carry on a tradition of this government attacking the vulnerable and not seeking to offer meaningful assistance. The minister, in his second reading speech, talks up this bill as strengthening welfare conditionality. For government members, this punitive approach to welfare seems to be a self-evident good. But there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. I note research from the Social Europe organisation, which, across 18 EU nations, has formed a very different view of some of these harsh, conditionality based approaches to welfare provision. It has suggested that, if we are interested in helping young people, particularly from vulnerable cohorts, into work, there are many, many more effective approaches, such as investing in skills, investing in people—as Labor would do—and, in particular, looking at active labour-market approaches. But, of course, this government prefers the ideology of victim blaming to evidence. So, again, we hear discussion of system integrity in place of addressing the real issues at hand. It's just dissembling. In this bill, the government compounds this failing by dressing up a grab bag of measures as somehow constituting meaningful reform. This is a complex bill with many and varied provisions and, as such, it has, quite appropriately, been the subject of consideration by a Senate inquiry. But this constitutes a major failure of process on the part of the government and the minister, because we have not had the opportunity to consider the findings and the significant evidence presented to that Senate review process. The government is much more concerned with using this as a political distraction from its wider failings and its wider political challenges. The Senate inquiry report has only just been submitted. I certainly have not had a proper opportunity to consider it. This concern can't simply be passed over because it compounds a wider failings on the part of the minister and the government—a failure to consult adequately in preparing the legislation we're now debating and a profound failure, and probably a related one, to found key provisions of this legislation in evidence. The inquiry, which has just reported, contains some very, very troubling revelations. I refer, in particular, to the revelation to the effect that the department does not know the present waiting list for treatment in the trial areas for the drug trials flagged in Queensland, WA and Sydney. This is just extraordinary when these provisions are at the core of the rationale for this legislation. It shows, again, why this bill should be rejected if the amendments moved by the member for Jagajaga are not passed. I say that because it is the case that there are uncontroversial measures contained in this legislation— elements of this bill—which are worthy of support. But many are not, and I refer to schedules 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 17. I also note that, as the shadow minister has flagged, provisions contained in schedules 3, 9 and 15 will also be opposed if the entirely reasonable concerns that have been advanced by the opposition are not addressed. I won't go into great detail across the range of these provisions, because I do want to make some remarks on the drug-testing trials, which are at the core of what is so fundamentally wrong with the bill before us. But I do want to echo the comments of my friend the member for Kingsford Smith and also those of the member for Canberra who spoke so effectively about the punitive measures contained in this bill and their impact on cohorts of older Australians—cruel provisions absent any justification, and the government doesn't even appear to be particularly inclined to present that justification. Certainly, it has not done so in the very few contributions to this debate made by government members. Turning to the drug-testing trials, the proposal here demonstrates so many of the differences between this government's approach and Labor's. We join the experts—who we have been listening to, unlike the minister—in calling on the Prime Minister to come over the top of this minister and stop these trials. The government has proposed trials for Newstart and youth allowance recipients in three locations: Logan in Queensland; Canterbury-Bankstown in Sydney; and Mandurah in WA. They have done so without consulting affected communities or listening to the experts. The member for Rankin spoke to the impact on the Logan community, particularly. The effect on communities is something which ought to have been considered and, of course, the wider issue, which all Labor speakers have gone to, is the absence of evidence. The member for Jagajaga went through some of the organisations opposed to this tabloid exercise in nastiness on the part of the government, and the member for Grey in his contribution on this debate spoke of this being a long list of naysayers. Well, what a curious thing to say. Of course, all of us in this place bring to this debate, and all debates, a sense of how we see the world, how we see the role of the state and how we relate to one another. However, surely evidence comes in somewhere along the line and surely we should be listening to the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, St Vincent's Health, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, the Pennington Institute, the Kirby Institute, UnitingCare Australia, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association, ACOSS, Homelessness Australia, St Vincent de Paul, the Wayside Chapel, Anglicare, Catholic Social Services Australia, the National Social Security Rights Network, Odyssey House, Jobs Australia, Community Mental Health Australia, the Public Health Association of Australia and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services. We should pay some regard to the evidence that has been presented by those who know best. Here we have a proposal, absent community consultation, absent support in affected communities and absent any evidence base other than the desperation of the government to whip up tabloid insecurities by stigmatising vulnerable Australians. We should not demonise people wrestling with drug addiction. Instead, we should take the time to consider how they have fallen into addiction and how we might help them. On this side of the House, we remember and recognise always that addiction is a health issue; it is not a choice, as St Vincent's Health have made clear. The stakes here are so high not only for individuals who are affected, who are battling with demons, but for all of us. The advice of the Ted Noffs Foundation is something that I urge the minister, as he leaves the table, to have some regard to. Another observation I would make very briefly is to have regard to the experience elsewhere, which has been a complete disaster. The detection rate in New Zealand, I note, was lower than that of the general population estimated to be using illicit drugs. It was a total waste of money there and it will be a total waste of money here. I oppose this proposal and the many other objectionable elements in this cruel, heartless and purposeless bill. 13:03 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I too rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. As outlined by previous members, but especially the member for Jagajaga, the shadow minister for families and social services, Labor supports some of the measures in the bill but, if it stays in the current form, we will move to protect those in the community who need a helping hand to get back on their feet—the most vulnerable in our community. I'm extremely concerned about some of the changes that are outlined in this bill, and one of the first things I want to draw your attention, and the attention of other members in this House, to is the bereavement allowance amendments that are in this bill. The proposed changes in the bereavement allowance will impact people who have just lost a loved one—a spouse, a husband, their life-long partner, their wife. We know the traumatic experience that they go through; yet we see changes that are proposed by this government that will make people $1,300 worse off after the loss of a partner. For a lot of people $1,300 is a lot of money—it certainly is for some of the constituents I see in my electorate. How does someone even come up with such a cruel budget saving measure like this? We saw lots of cruel budget measures in 2014, 2015 and 2016, but this is one that is very cruel because it affects people at their lowest point, when they're absolutely mourning the loss of a family member. Unfortunately, as I said, time and time again, we see this form. The government are absolutely ideologically obsessed. This bill is about obsession with ideology: 'Let's have a go at the unemployed. Let's have a go at dole bludgers. Let's have a go at the most vulnerable people.' The government are not doing their job. What is their job? Their job is to create employment, but that is not what they are not doing. This is another diversion tactic we see constantly with the government. It diverts away from the real issue—the issue that should be absolutely No. 1 on their list—which is to create jobs. When you create jobs, you get people into work. When you look at the number of unemployed in our country and the number of job advertisements out there at the moment, it doesn't fit. You can't put a triangle into a square and you can't put a circle into a triangle; it just does not fit. You have to create jobs to get people off the unemployment line. Currently, the government, through their ideological obsession, are diverting away from those issues of how to create jobs, how to get people into work and how to get them off welfare benefits—issues they are absolutely not dealing with. As already outlined by many of my colleagues in this place, we get to the point of the drug testing for jobseekers, which is in schedule 12, and the compliance changes in this bill that relate to drug and alcohol dependence. Again we see the government, ideologically, continuing to push for this despite warnings from experts. We heard the warnings earlier from the member for Bruce, who spoke about a range of experts that have condemned this move. We hear warnings that this change will not help people overcome their substance abuse or addiction. Someone that is addicted to a particular substance needs medical help and medical attention, not punishment. We need to give these people the opportunity to go to a rehab centre, to see a doctor, to do all that they can through the medical science that exists to get them off that addiction. I haven't seen any proposal in this bill or in the last budget of extra money to assist people who require the medical attention that is required to get them off the addiction to a particular substance. The experts tell us that this will push people into poverty and into crime. If you are addicted to heroin, for example, the addiction is very, very harsh. Those that have any understanding of it will know that it is one of the hardest additions to break. Someone with a heroin addiction will do anything possible to get their next dose and their next hit. It is an illness that exists within that person. What we should be doing is helping those people through assisting them with rehab centres, et cetera, not punishing them and then putting them into a position where perhaps they have to commit a crime to get their next hit. This is what this bill will do. That is what the experts are saying as well. They are warning that these changes will not help one person overcome addiction. The experts tell us this. What does the government really want here? What is it asking for? Look at other countries around the world that have implemented such programs and then just chucked them out because they haven't been working. What is the government really doing? Again, it's playing up to the tabloid front page dole-bludger stories that we see regularly and those stories that appear on the 6.30 programs after the news. What this government really wants to do here is divert away from the real issues of health, education and, really importantly, creating jobs so that we can put people into dignified paid work. The government doesn't want to help these jobseekers; it wants to scare people away from asking for help finding a job. Where will these people go? The government will turn away people trying to escape a judgemental 'big brother' testing service. And who's going to conduct these testing services? We haven't seen the details. Will people turn up with a little cup every time they go to Centrelink? Will they sit there and have their blood taken? How will this be conducted, and who will conduct it, more importantly? As if this isn't bad enough, the government can't tell us what it will cost. What are the costs for this? What are the cost-saving measures? Will there be cost-saving measures? I doubt very much that there will be any. New Zealand, just next door to us, spent millions of dollars, and, out of 8,000-odd people who were tested over that period, fewer than 25 people were found to have any drugs in their system—a minute number. And the costs were extraordinarily high, so there was no cost-savings measure in it. We hear that the government wants to outsource the drug-testing to a private provider, and we have absolutely no detail of how that private provider will operate, who they are or what they're doing. It's just a thought bubble—that it's going out to a private provider. We've heard the argument from the government: 'Just let us trial this service. Let's see how it goes.' Well, it's been trialled, as I said, just across the ditch in New Zealand. The New Zealand government tried a similar plan back in 2013. In 2015 only 22 of the 8,001 participants returned a positive result—a minute number, a rate much lower than for the general population in New Zealand. There were similar results in the US when they tried it. So why is the government doing this? It is copying an experiment that failed in New Zealand and in the US. It is intrusive and unfairly targeted. It is an unfairly targeted experiment, with the Australian taxpayers picking up the bill and welfare recipients as the guinea pigs. What are the welfare experts in the community saying—the people who are in the know, the people who deal with these welfare recipients regularly, the people who have done the research, the people who have evidence in front of them? St Vincent's Health, the Australasian College of Physicians, ACOSS and UnitingCare have all raised concerns, on top of the community-wide opposition. I've been inundated with emails, phone calls and letters to my office from people opposed to this. We've seen the failed experience from overseas, but we haven't explored the financial cost. According to the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the gold-standard urine test costs between $550 and $950 to administer. That's per test—per person, in other words. Actually there could be multiple tests for one person—it might not be just that one test—so it could cost close to $2,000 per person, not to mention issues around false positives and additional conflicts between Centrelink staff and clients, putting public servants, security officers and social workers at great risk of interruption to their work, violence and a whole range of other things. Why are we talking about this issue in this place when there are so many other things that we should be doing? We should be looking at bettering employment opportunities; looking at the employment agencies, how they operate and how they provide people with work; and looking at giving people the opportunity to get more education in order to get work. These are the things we should be debating in this place, not looking at the most vulnerable people in our electorates, in the country, and giving them a kick up the backside. This is wrong. It is not right. These are vulnerable people. They are people who, for whatever reason, are not working. The majority of people I meet who are unemployed want a job. There is no doubt. I have mums and dads come to my office regularly with their 17-, 18-, 19- and 20-year-old sons and daughters, and I can see when I talk to these kids that they want to work. There are very few people who think: 'This is great; I'm on the dole, and this is the life for me.' When you can't afford to pay your rent, pay your electricity bills or put petrol in your car, why would anyone want to be on the dole? We're dealing with the most vulnerable people, who have ended up where they are because of their circumstances. We should be assisting them, not making their lives harder and treating them like lepers. Again, I'll make this point, and I make it regularly in this place: when a government has nothing to offer, they offer distractions through policies like this. Whether it be on refugees, the unemployed or the 'big, bad unions', this is another distraction by the government because they're not offering the Australian people anything at this point. The government want the focus off them and onto these people, and off their current problems in the hope that perhaps their current problems will disappear. Just think about this for one minute: the government have made a calculated decision to attack some of the most vulnerable people in the community. They've actually made a calculated decision: 'Let's attack the unemployed.' Give us a break! I warn the government: you're not fooling anyone on this particular point. I've got a couple of emails that were sent to me by constituents from the seat of Hindmarsh. Mal at Semaphore Park wrote: I believe this process is a pathetic strategy to blame unemployed people generally for being unemployed and as people unworthy of help and inclusion into our society. Any reforms affecting addicts should be research based and proven. These people deserve help and compassion, not poverty and desperation. Joan from Novar Gardens wrote: Scientific evidence and clinical experience shows that people suffering from severe alcohol and drug problems cannot be punished into recovery. One can't keep tipping people over the edge into poverty. They need every support mechanism from professionals and the community to recover. Paul from Torrensville, in my electorate, said: I urge you and colleagues to oppose the Turnbull government's plan to strip income support from those with addictions using mandatory drug testing. This proposal lacks evidence and is characterised (once again) by a failure to consult with professionals with experience and expertise in this area. Finally, surely, we have understood by now that the difficult issue of addictions requires evidence-based strategies driven by compassion— something that's lacking in this government— and creative thinking. Please think carefully about this proposal from the government and strive to remove it from our country's thinking and behaviour. I stand with those constituents. All of us on this side stand with those constituents. Let's be clear on this issue: with drug addiction, including prescription opiate abuse becoming a real issue here in this country at the moment, we need to take this seriously. But the blatant attacks on the most vulnerable in our community with no basis in evidence and an apparent open chequebook for drug tests show that this government has lost its way yet again. This is a government that is out of ideas, out of imagination and out of touch. Soon, if they keep attacking the most vulnerable in our communities, it will be out of office. What we need to be doing is looking at ways to ensure that we create jobs. Have a look at the number of unemployed in this country and then go to the statistics that show how many job advertisements there are, whether they be on SEEK.com or in the local papers. It does not fit. The equation doesn't equal—you just can't get a solution out of it. If you want to really combat this area, if you really want to do something about unemployment, instead of attacking those most vulnerable people who have ended up on the dole queue, why don't you look at doing something decent? Create jobs, ensure that our education system is up to scratch so people can get the education that's required to get jobs and bring those numbers down. That's the way to do it. That's the way a true government would do it. 13:18 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Addiction is incredibly complex and, indeed, addressing the issues that surround poverty is equally so. From the outset, I would like to say that I spent considerable hours examining the proposals in each section and I've also engaged extensively with stakeholders, including Volunteering Australia, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, St Vincent's Health Australia, Catholic Social Services Australia and ACOSS, among a few. It's been a great privilege, on behalf of the NXT team, to have responsibility for this portfolio area. I am very grateful for the time stakeholders have given to me. They are busy professionals undertaking critically important work in our community. They've done this so that I can more properly examine this bill and have a deeper understanding of the challenges many Australians face with addiction. I've also followed the Senate inquiry process closely: the submissions made by stakeholders and the compelling testimony given by specialists in the field. Despite working in the NGO sector for some years, the information brought to the fore through the process of examination of this bill has been incredibly insightful. Every decision NXT makes in this place is influenced by the evidence before us, and for me in this instance it has been critical to listen to and, on many occasions, to go back to the specialists who work with Australians suffering addiction—those who have specialist advocacy roles in the welfare sector—and meet with local government officials where trial sites have been identified. I would like to thank the Logan City Council mayor, Luke Smith, and his team for taking the time to meet with me and to explain the work they are undertaking within their council and within their community for those suffering with addiction. Beyond the evidence, we must determine what exactly it is that we want to achieve from welfare reform. I believe that as a society we want to do all we can to ensure that every person who is receiving a jobseeker payment is indeed job ready, and we owe this to the taxpayers of Australia. Importantly, we also owe this to the recipients of Newstart and youth allowance. It is unacceptable for government to accept that some recipients are suffering from addiction and not to do all we can to assist those people to access rehabilitation and support to beat that addiction and to strive for a life of happiness and prosperity. There are parts to this bill that I do support, and I think it's best to unpack the sections of this bill to better examine and explain to the parliament where that support lies and where I have concerns with this bill. I can see logic in the government's decision to simplify the categories for payments. I know that constituents in my electorate find reading through the rather thick Centrelink booklet quite complex. Schedules 1 to 8 collectively are a net cost to government of just over $15 million. However, there will be a significant administration reduction to government, and this will also make the Centrelink system much easier for recipients to navigate. Specifically, schedule 4, the bereavement payment, will provide the Centrelink recipients with a triple upfront payment to assist with unexpected expenses that occur when you lose a partner. However, there does need to be further supports available in the rare occurrence that a person is expecting a child at the time that their partner passes away. I believe that such an example was raised during the Senate inquiry process. I would urge the government to consider amendments so that we can provide necessary support during such tragic circumstances. Next is schedule 9, the requirement for Newstart recipients aged 55 to 59 to complete at least 15 hours of job activity or employment, with a balance of up to 15 hours in their mutual obligations in volunteering. Volunteering Australia has raised concerns that this proposal would diminish their volunteering workforce. This proposed measure will move people away from volunteering positions and will possibly have a detrimental impact on the volunteering sector, affecting service provision, workforce capacity and the long-term financial viability of volunteering support services and volunteering organisations, which provide essential services to the community. A further concern is that this proposal does not recognise age discrimination as a very real issue in the workforce—and such discrimination is experienced in some industries long before age 55. I'm troubled that some Newstart recipients in this age group, particularly those with lower levels of English and lower levels of skills, could be spending years—absolutely years—applying week after week with no interviews and no offer of employment, and that would be crushing. So I would encourage the government to consider amendments to this schedule, possibly in the Senate—preferably in the Senate. Over a set period of time, perhaps after 12 months, they could set it so that a person would no longer need to do 15 hours in each and could possibly just resume 15 hours a fortnight of volunteering. Volunteering is an effective way to engage with society, and often it does lead to employment outcomes. I think that we need to recognise the valuable contribution that volunteering makes: $290 billion to our national economic and social wellbeing—particularly in regional areas, where volunteering rates are much higher than the national average. The Rapid Connect process outlined in schedule 10 has merit. However, we need to ensure that there is immediate financial assistance available to new applicants who have no means either to make that appointment with the jobactive provider on the phone or indeed even to get to that appointment. I believe that this particular schedule will have a greater impact on and result in greater hardship in regional and remote areas where there is no public transport and where jobactive providers are often some distance from home. I believe that schedule 11 raises the greatest concerns for those living in regional and remote areas and older residents who may not be computer savvy, have an internet connection and have their documents, such as bank statements, electronically stored or have public transport access so that they can get to the services to get that documentation. To take my electorate of Mayo, for example, in the last 25 years I've seen our bank branches close. We have limited public transport across our region and a lot of distance between our jobactive providers. This makes it much harder for a person in my electorate to reach such expectations. When we make decisions in this place, they have a blanket effect across the nation and we must remember that the experiences of those of us who do not live in capital cities is very different. I would encourage the government to consider this schedule, in particular, through a regional lens. I support schedules 16 and 18. However, I have deep concerns with schedule 17, which restricts the fundamental common privilege against self-incrimination. This schedule contravenes what are considered important values and long-established principles of common law. Schedule 12 of this bill is a schedule that has concerned the sector the most and has been the focus of much media attention. This schedule provides for a random drug-testing trial of 5,000 new youth allowance and/or Newstart recipients in three regions of Australia—Mandurah in Western Australia, Western Sydney and in the local government area of Logan in South-East Queensland. According to testimony given on the trial, it is expected that 120 recipients will fail two drug tests and then those recipients will be placed on income management as a first measure—and I acknowledge that the minister believes that number could be between 200 and 300 recipients. We have no details on the cost of such a trial and, explicitly, the government has said that the cost of the trial is not for publication. There are no details in the legislation of what sort of drug testing would be applied and the efficacy of such. There are wildly different levels of accuracy among drug detection tests and wide-ranging costs to conduct such tests. Tests include saliva, hair, urine and blood—all with differing degrees of invasiveness. So let's unpack that schedule. Firstly, we are talking about spending possibly millions of dollars on drug testing, and we don't know how much of taxpayers' money has been put aside for this, to capture somewhere between 2.4 per cent and six per cent of the trial group. The connotation of this schedule is that we would be demonising communities that we already know are communities with pockets of disadvantage for the purpose of capturing a couple of hundred people at most. This appears to me to be a scatter-gun logic approach that is without evidence and I believe devoid of logic. Why would we spend thousands on such a trial when we know, according to the department's own records and from the minister's own speech, that just over 4,000 people each year self-report that they have an issue with addiction, drug or alcohol and are unable to fulfil their job activity requirements because of this addiction? At the moment we accept that certificate from an medical professional or an allied health professional, but we do nothing about the addiction—nothing from a social welfare perspective to meaningfully assist that person to address that addiction. The evidence currently before us suggests redirecting the funds allocated for the drug trial to target people who self-identify and that that support should be flexible, evidence based and tailored to the individual. Importantly, that support should be under the guidance of specialists, so that the person can receive assistance and support by way of counselling through to intensive behavioural therapy and, in some instances, in-patient treatment. It cannot be accepted that we leave people without a direct pathway to support, and the best approach to ensure this is, in reality, to provide workplace strengthening in the medical and social services sector, greater specialist training supports and increased funding for telehealth, so that specialists can reach out to professionals working with patients suffering addiction in rural Australia. Some of the workplace strengthening will require federal government support and some state government support, and the best way for this to occur is through a sector-led working group to work closely with governments, both state and federal, to create a national addiction strategy. One of the most concerning findings raised during the Senate inquiry process was the estimation of unmet demand. We know that approximately 200,000 Australians each year seek treatment for addiction. Estimations of unmet demand sit somewhere between 200,000 and 500,000. This is a guestimate, and a rough one at that, and is just unacceptable on so many levels. In the Senate inquiry, Professor Alison Ritter, Director of the Drug Policy Modelling Program for the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, gave evidence that there had been modelling done to establish state-by-state estimates of unmet demand, but that modelling, despite requests, has not been done publicly. Debate interrupted. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 9663 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Workplace Relations 9663 13:30 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons At 3.20 pm today, thousands of early childhood educators, the vast majority of them women, will walk off the job in their fight for equal pay. The time is significant because it's the time of day when women, effectively, start working for free, when you take into account the wage gap with men and the historically low wages earned across early childhood education. Tasmanian educators will meet on the lawns of Parliament House in Hobart and at City Park in Launceston at 4 pm. Educators of our young children earn as little as $21 an hour and the Big Steps campaign being run by the United Voice union is pushing for a 35 per cent increase, and it is well deserved. It is long past time that early childhood educators were recognised for their skills and qualifications. Some educators hold certificates earned after 18 weeks, but, more and more, they are university graduates with four-year degrees. The strength of this campaign is demonstrated by the fact that 95 per cent of educators across the country voted for national sector-wide walk-offs in response to this government's inaction. Ten thousand families across Australia are making alternative arrangements this afternoon. This action has been done in collaboration with parents to minimise inconvenience. We know that there will be inconvenience, but, whether it is recognising the rights of women to vote or winning the eight-hour day, no victory has been achieved without inconvenience and sacrifice. I commend the work of the United Voice union. (Time expired) World War II Commemorations 9663 13:31 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I rise this afternoon to say a few words about the commemoration of what has become known as 'The Battle for Australia'. This is an anniversary that we commemorated this week throughout the nation. More than 500,000 Australian service personal and civilians helped to defend the home front in the dark days of 1942 and 1943. This year we mark the 75th anniversary of the fall of Singapore, the 75th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin and, of course, the anniversary of the battles of the Coral Sea and Milne Bay. Later in the year, in November, we will mark the 75th anniversary of the Kokoda Track campaign. We should never forget in this country when war was on our doorstep—the bombing of Darwin, the enemy submarines that came into Sydney Harbour and caused damage and, of course, the great Battle of the Coral Sea in which our forces and allied forces stood between freedom in this country and an enemy that sought to threaten that freedom. At a time of heightened tension in the world, it's appropriate to recall the sacrifices of a previous generation of Australians. Lest we forget. Marriage 9663 13:33 Mr HART 263070 Bass There are a number of issues that should be at the forefront of every person in this place. For me, as the representative of the community I have lived in my whole life, the electorate of Bass, those things include quality, well-paid jobs, a high-quality tertiary health system and an education system that drives economic growth. But those on the other side are so rife with disunity and so shambolic that they are simply unable to show leadership on any issue. Taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill for a $122 million survey, subject to a decision to be handed down today. The feedback that I have received is that people want this matter resolved. But, regardless of the result, this survey will not bind a single person in this House to vote. It is a matter that could be resolved today with a vote in the parliament. Instead, I see division, despite the requests for a respectful debate. Our LGBTI communities and their families are left to contend with hatred and division levelled against them. Material that I have seen in my emails saddens and disgusts me. Others of faith are faced with accusations of homophobia. I strongly believe that our LGBTI community deserves my support. I stand in their corner and I will continue to doorknock my community to win the 'yes' vote. Every family deserves the stability and recognition that marriage confers. That is why I will continue to argue and doorknock. I will be voting 'yes'. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Before I call the member for Dawson, I would like to recognise in the students' gallery, students from Dubbo Christian School and Wellington Public School from the electorate of Parkes. Dawson Electorate: Water 9664 13:35 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson Townsville residents are feeling the pinch again this dry season with water restrictions and also the cost of pumping water from Burdekin Falls Dam because the Ross River Dam can't meet demand. The dam is conveniently located for flow into the city but its capacity is small. The Burdekin Falls Dam is a monster by comparison, fed by 71 rivers and 52 sub-catchments. The Liberal-National government is rolling out two major funding programs that can help with water infrastructure. The first is the $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility and the second is the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund. The government has already committed $2 million for a feasibility study into Hell's Gate Dam, almost $2 million to upgrade the Burdekin-Haughton channel and $400,000 to start raising the wall of the Burdekin Falls Dam. The government has also formed a Townsville water security task force as part of the Townsville City Deal. That task force released a report in June, recommending a $200 million increased capacity duplicate pipeline from the Haughton pump station to Ross River Dam. This solution would provide more security and could be constructed within two years. I met with key stakeholders in Townsville, and I know there is a lot of support for this solution. I acknowledge the hard work of council mayor, Jenny Hill, the head of the task force, Brad Webb, and Water for Townsville Action Group—especially the time and effort put in by Dr Linda Ashton and Allan Lane. I will continue to represent their views in this parliament within this government and push for the funding required to deliver a secure supply of water for Townsville. Bangladesh: Floods 9664 13:36 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Most Australians are probably aware that our national cricket team is currently battling it out with Bangladesh on the sub-continent. But what they might not be aware is that Bangladesh is dealing with the effects of the worst flooding in 20 years. Just a week ago, a third of Bangladesh was ravaged by monsoon rain that has affected upwards of eight million people across 32 districts. More than 720,000 homes have been damaged or destroyed, mainly in the northern and central parts of the country. Millions of people have been left without food, shelter or clean water for days. Amidst the chaos, 135 people have died. It has been described as the worst floods since 1998, which killed more than 1,000 people. Australia and Bangladesh are two nations which share a special bond. It was the Whitlam government in 1972 that became the first nation to recognise an independent Bangladesh. I am honoured to have a very strong and vibrant Bangladeshi community in the electorate of Kingsford Smith. The Bangladeshis are great people who make a strong contribution to our community and our nation. In wider Australia, there are 53,000 Bangladeshis. To all Australians of Bangladeshi descent and all of those on the subcontinent, I and the Labor Party extend our best wishes during this difficult time. Banks Electorate: Penshurst West Public School 9665 13:38 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks On 19 August I attended the Penshurst West Public School's 60th anniversary fete. This was such a big fete that it had been 10 years in the making. The school held a big event for its 50th anniversary and another big one for its 60th. It was a great day. It was a huge event with literally thousands of attendees and a lot of fantastic rides, community stalls and raffles. They even had camel rides at the fete. It was a particularly well-organised and well-run event. It was great to be able to help out with drawing the raffle in the afternoon. I think there were about 70 or 80 prizes, all donated by local members of the community and local businesses. Penshurst West has 280 students from kindergarten right through to year 6. It was opened back in 1957 and serves, in particular, the Penshurst community and the Mortdale community, where most of the students are drawn from. I would like to thank Karla Franklin, who was the main coordinator of the event, and the P&C. This was a very big and complicated event to put on. Karla's organisational skills really came to the fore, and the support of the committee was really important. I would like to thank the principal, Ross Angus, for all of his work in making the day come together and for everything that he does in our community. Parramatta Electorate: Wisteria Festival 9665 13:39 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta This Saturday and Sunday and the following Saturday and Sunday, people in my community will be able to enjoy the annual Wisteria Festival in the Wisteria Gardens of the Cumberland Hospital. They are gardens with an extraordinary history. They were built back in 1907 to surround Wisteria House, or Glengarriff House as it is sometimes called, built for Dr Williamson, who was the medical superintendent of the hospital. For many years it was only open for two weeks of the year. It was opened to the public in 1929 for a small fee, which raised money for the hospital. For many years, the fete has been running for two weekends every year. The gardens are now open permanently, by the way. Now you can walk through them at any time. They link down to Governor Phillip Walk, one of two Governor Phillip walks in Sydney. So make sure it's the Parramatta River Walk, which traces the walk that Governor Phillip did along the Parramatta River to his campsite where Darling Mills Creek and Toongabbie Creek meet to form the Parramatta River. It's a really interesting site. There is also an art exhibition. The Parramatta Art Society has their Wisteria Festival arts exhibit at the park hall running through the whole 10 days, so it's worth getting there as well. You will sometimes see it spelt with an 'a' rather than an 'e', as if it were 'Wistaria', but it's actually 'Wisteria'. That was the original spelling of the word. If that's what you see, it's talking about that wonderful garden. Go and have a look. (Time expired) Dunkley Electorate: Frankston and District Junior Football League 9666 13:41 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley On the weekend, I was honoured to be invited to present the premiership medals and trophy to the Frankston and District Junior Football League's under-15 girls' grand finalists, the Mount Eliza Reds and Mount Eliza Blues. It was a miserable day, at least weatherwise, but a fantastic day for those on the sidelines to watch the two teams come together after the final siren and sing the club's song with so much gusto and pride. There was great sportsmanship on both sides. Congratulations to the Mount Eliza Blues on their win, bringing home the silverware as well as the best and fairest for the day. Thanks to the Langwarrin Junior Football Club for hosting multiple grand final matches across the day. The club's facilities are fantastic and the dedication of the parents and volunteers was much appreciated. It was also great to see the new electronic scoreboard up and running at Lloyd Park to which the federal government contributed about $15,000. The footy club and the cricket club share the scoreboard and clubrooms. It is wonderful to see our local clubs develop to the prominence of hosting grand finals for the region. I also look forward to seeing the $10,500 I committed during the election campaign to go towards women's amenities at the facility come to fruition as well. Australian Football League 9666 13:42 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Today marks the beginning of the AFL final series, with the Adelaide Crows taking on the Greater Western Sydney Giants tonight at Adelaide Oval. This September, the mighty Crows will be supported by thousands of loyal fans hoping to see their team reclaim their rightful spot at the top of the AFL tree following on from a tremendous year, as it also was for our Adelaide Crows women's team earlier this year. September is a special time for sports fans. It's a time for children to watch their heroes play. Perhaps this year, we will be celebrating the explosive kicking of Tex Walker or the courage of Rory Laird. I will be cheering on my favourite player, Eddie Betts. It is a time we come together to cheer, but also a time when battlelines can be drawn between families when they go head to head. September is a great time in my electorate for sport. I would like to give my congratulations to all of our teams across my electorate. Best of luck to the clubs competing in the finals across the Hills Football League, the Great Southern Football League SA and the Kangaroo Island Football League, which has five clubs despite the island having a population of only 4,400. So September is a time to rejoice. It is the time of Australia's own game: AFL. I know many Crows supporters, including myself, will be watching tonight, because together we fly as one. National Rugby League 9666 13:44 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray From one football code to another: this weekend, there will be another sport played in Melbourne that will involve a record-breaking feat. As AFL finals move interstate on Saturday, the NRL finals will be played in the nation's sporting capital of Melbourne. It is the Melbourne Storm versus Parramatta Eels, where the Storm captain, Cameron Smith, will break the all-time record for the most NRL games ever played. Cameron will pass Darren Lockyer when he runs out for the Storm for his 356th game. This record-breaking achievement is not only a staggering individual feat that Cam has achieved in his professional career; he's also the leading pointscorer. He's the third highest pointscorer in the history of the NRL. He's played the most Origin games for Queensland. He's the captain of Melbourne Storm, he's the captain of Queensland and he's the captain of Australia. Along with Craig Bellamy, he was instrumental in keeping the team together after their salary-cap issues many years ago. He won the 2006 Dally M Medal and in 2007 was awarded the Golden Boot Award for the world's best player. He also captained Australia to victory in the 2013 World Cup. He's achievements off the field are just as impressive. He has been an ambassador and a supporter of a number of charities, as he endeavours to help out those people who are less fortunate than himself. I would like to congratulate Cam, Craig Bellamy and the whole on-field team, and Bart Campbell and the off-field team, and wish the Storm all the best as they take on Parramatta this Saturday night at AAMI Park—and then move on to whoever's game enough to come down and challenge them. Robinson, Ms Marlene 9667 13:44 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth I am delighted to rise to pay tribute to a wonderful woman, a Freeman of the City of Bayswater, a local government in the heart of my electorate, who celebrated her birthday yesterday, the wonderful enigmatic Marlene Robinson. Marlene served as a councillor in the City of Bayswater for 21 consecutive years, representing West Ward, which includes Bayswater, Bedford and a part of Morley. During that time, she was instrumental in enormous positive change, and to detail all of her achievements I would need at least 20 minutes not 90 seconds . She established the city's youth advisory committee, built the area's first skate park, fought incredibly hard for Environment House and the establishment of that wonderful place, and fought incredibly hard for seniors' access and inclusion as well as access and inclusion for the disabled. Marlene was eventually diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, which progressively worsened her mobility. Whilst it may have slowed her down physically, it never, ever got in the way of her ambition to make her local community a better place to live. Marlene's MS eventually played a role in her leaving the council because she could no longer do the marathon doorknocking that she used to do. But, prior to that, she would doorknock religiously and put us all to shame. You cannot keep a wonderful woman like Marlene down. She continues to work in the local community. Her two decades of experience on the council mean her wisdom is sought everywhere. I have no hesitation in thanking Marlene for her service. Above all, happy birthday, Marlene. Leichhardt Electorate: Cairns Rifle Club 9667 13:44 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I would like to congratulate members of the Cairns Rifle Club for their outstanding gold medal wins at the world championships in Canada last month. Marty Lobert, Peter Carter and Steven Lazarus were all part of the winning Australian F-class rifle team. This is back-to-back gold for these men, and this has never been done before by any country in the team event. Australia won gold at the same event in the world championships at Raton in New Mexico four years ago. Thirteen countries competed this year, including America, Germany, UK and Ukraine. Each team is made up of 17 people firing 720-scoring shots over two days. The rifles used by the Cairns representatives were seven-millimetre SAUMs, short-action ultramagnums, that weigh around 10 kilos each. Rod Davies from the Cairns Rifle Club won gold for the individual event. These men are incredible. They practice most weekends at Wangetti Beach rifle range north of Cairns. They travel around the globe carrying a multitude of gear and reloading on site, which is very taxing and costly for them. They are self-funded; they don't receive any government support, unlike so many other sports. Still, they are world champions. Congratulations, Marty, Peter, Steven and Rod. Cairns is very much punching above its weight in this sport because of you. I just want to say thank you very much indeed and well done for what you have achieved. We are very, very proud of your achievements. Herbert Electorate: Palm Island Spring Festival 9668 13:44 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I stand in this place today to send my sincere congratulations to Mayor Councillor Alf Lacey, councillors and the broader community on Palm Island. On 31 August and 1 September, beautiful Palm Island hosted their annual Spring Festival, which was held on the pristine foreshore of the esplanade, where visitors looked out over crystal clear, vibrant blue water. Well over 1,000 people attended the Spring Festival this year. Visitors were entertained by local guides, who conducted interactive guided history walks that re-enacted the stories about life on Palm Island in the days when the islanders were under the act. Local dancers, including very young children from the schools, performed traditional dances led by teenagers and elders, as did local people from the Cook Islands. The performances were professional and told ancient traditional cultural stories. It was great to see the young people dancing proudly with their elders. Local artists provided visitors with an introduction to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander painting, and participants left the workshop with a piece of their very own original art. The local art on sale at the festival was stunning and original. Many people would have left the island with an original piece of artwork that they will proudly hang in their homes or wear. Palm Island truly is the jewel in the crown of North Queensland and the opportunities for economic development via tourism are enormous. Palm Islanders are our first-nation people and they deserve action from this government to kickstart what could be and will be a thriving tourism economy. Tindle, Dr Danielle 9668 13:50 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane Danielle Tindle was a courageous, inspirational and extraordinary young woman who passed away suddenly last Friday. For the last 13 years of her life, Danielle devoted herself to improving the survival rates and quality of life for young cancer sufferers. She herself came back from the brink of death, surviving Hodgkin's lymphoma in her early years, and, by extraordinary chance, it was her own father's groundbreaking stem-cell research which contributed to saving his daughter's life. But then, midway through completing her PhD, she was diagnosed with a rare neuroendocrine carcinoma. Despite her setback, she continued her strong advocacy for young cancer survivors right around the globe. She was a strong voice in the press, on TV, in keynote addresses, as the chair of committees and, indeed, around the world at conferences for the unique challenges of young cancer sufferers. She advised cancer charities in Australia, in the USA and in the UK. Her connection with Rare Cancers Australia helped highlight the significant costs of access for those suffering rare cancers to lifesaving and new treatments. For her advocacy for adolescent and young adult cancer sufferers, Danielle was awarded her PhD in 2015 and she was then, in 2018, a finalist in the Queensland Australian of the Year awards. Danielle passed away last week, aged 37. She leaves behind a proud worldwide legacy. Her voice will continue to be heard and never forgotten. Rest in peace. Macquarie Electorate: Hawkesbury White Ribbon Cup 9669 13:51 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie We need young men to take a stand against violence against women, and local high schools in the Hawkesbury have been stepping up. The Hawkesbury White Ribbon Cup was held at Windsor High School last Thursday to support White Ribbon and send the message that violence against women is never okay. It's the second year for the soccer gala and this time it brought together all six high schools in the Hawkesbury, which is a feat in itself—Windsor, Richmond, Hawkesbury, Colo, Bede Polding and Arndell Anglican College. It was fantastic to spend a couple of hours out in the sunshine talking to the students, some of them about to do their HSC and seemingly enjoying a break from study, and, of course, to watch some wonderful soccer, where Arndell proved to be a force to be reckoned with but Colo took out the top spot. I'd like to congratulate Windsor High School on their fantastic organisation of the day and to especially mention the chefs, who were churning out the delicious pancakes and maple syrup and sausages to feed the teams and fans. Thank you to all the teachers and young men and women who supported the event to ensure its success. Windsor High's deputy principal, Steve Smith, made a really great point: if you're going to create change, it really needs to start in our schools. This is a terrific initiative that not only builds awareness around an important issue but also builds bonds between our schools. I couldn't be prouder to represent a community that is working so hard to create change. North Sydney Electorate: Lane Cove Fun Run 9669 13:53 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney This Sunday, the Lane Cove Fun Run is being held in my electorate. The fun run is an initiative of the Lane Cove Public School P&C. It is the second year the event is being held, following on from a successful inaugural run last year. This is a true grassroots community event and brings together people from all walks of life to celebrate our local area and support one of our great local schools. With a backdrop of stunning Sydney Harbour, the run takes in two, five or 10 kilometres along the Lane Cove and Longueville foreshores, making it one of the most scenic runs of its type. Importantly, the fun run raises money for some very worthy causes. Proceeds raised from the event contribute to the provision of extra teaching and learning support for staff at Lane Cove Public School. Additionally, children from all schools are encouraged to join in the spirit to win valuable sporting goods for their own schools. This year, the Lane Cove P&C is also donating a proportion of the proceeds to support two local women's and children's refuges to support victims of domestic violence. The strength of the Lane Cove community is further demonstrated by the wide range of local businesses supporting this initiative. I'd like to thank Carla FitzSimons and her team of dedicated volunteers for putting so much energy and passion into our local community and for making these opportunities available. It's a great opportunity to think about fitness, enjoy our community spirit and support some truly deserving causes. I look forward to attending, although, I confess, as a person firing a starting pistol and not in my running gear, which remains permanently lost! Congratulations to all involved. Broadband 9670 13:54 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam The Prime Minister has been very keen over the last few weeks to lecture business and state governments about not managing their electricity networks and what they need to do to upgrade their systems. If only he took some of that advice himself, because there is a network that is 100 per cent owned by the Commonwealth government and it is a network that he has complete control over. He owns it, he regulates it and his fingerprints are all over it. He's done a lot to stuff it up. I am of course talking about the National Broadband Network. If only he were as keen to fix the problems with the NBN as he is to lecture state governments and businesses about another network, this country would be a better place! He won't talk about it. There are not many things that you can't engage the Prime Minister on that he won't talk about for hours and hours and hours and fill us with his knowledge on, but not the NBN. Labor has been arguing for years about the importance of a fibre network, and we've been told, 'Don't worry about it; we will have a plan to upgrade it.' Today, we learned that not only is there no plan to upgrade the copper parts of the network to fibre but nor is there any money set aside for it. This of course means more faults, poorer service and more of the NBN ping-pong that all of our constituents are suffering from. Of course it is the regions that are going to suffer the most, because they're the ones with the most copper in the ground and they're the ones that these National Party MPs and Liberal Party MPs are doing nothing to represent. Parliamentary Friends of Endometriosis Awareness 9670 13:56 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby One in 10 Australian women suffers from the crippling condition endometriosis. Despite this, very few women know how to recognise the symptoms. Medical diagnosis and treatment takes, on average, eight years. There remains a lack of interest from most healthcare professionals and the cost to our medical system is $6 billion a year. This figure does not include the huge personal and financial costs to women and their families. For these reasons my colleague the member from Canberra and I have formed the Parliamentary Friends of Endometriosis Awareness to end the silence on endo. We are attending the EndoActive Conference this weekend to hear directly from the small and passionate group of healthcare professionals addressing this problem, including Dr Susan Evans, who first drew my attention to this devastating disease. The EndoActive Conference is convened by the incredible Lesley and Syl Freedman, who have dedicated themselves to raising awareness of endo. We know what needs to be done: we need better education of young women; we need better education of healthcare professionals, from GPs to specialists; and we need far more research as to why endometriosis causes the cells that line the uterus to grow as lesions in other parts of the body and within the pelvis, causing inflammation, severe pain and scar tissue. Early intervention is crucial. Without early intervention women may suffer a lifetime of pain, lose education, employment and economic opportunities, and they may never be able to start a family. Child Care 9671 13:58 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo At 3.20 pm today, roughly 3,000 early childhood educators will walk off the job in pursuit of equal pay. These are women with skills and qualifications that this government continues to ignore. They have degrees and they have diplomas, and yet they are paid as little as $21 an hour. This government continues to ignore their campaign and their ask for equal pay. In fact, on the anniversary of this miserable mob coming to power let's reflect on what they have done to women working in early childhood education. One of the first things that they did on coming to power was to scrap the Early Years Quality Fund, a way in which businesses and women could access funding to increase their pay. They also tried to abolish the National Quality Framework, another way which recognised the skill of women working in early childhood education. Today at 3.20 pm, 10,000 families will be affected and have to find alternative care arrangements for their children. It didn't need to be this way: if only this government had just listened to women working in early childhood education and partnered with the sector to fund professional wages. It is time for equal pay for our early childhood educators. It is time for big steps, and it is time that this government backed the women working in the early childhood education sector. Medical Workforce 9671 13:59 Mr GEE 261393 Calare As this House now well knows, there is a chronic shortage of doctors in country Australia. The Murray Darling Medical School aims to fix this problem by training doctors in the bush for practice in the bush. Planning for the new medical school continues at a rapid pace, and country students in particular are very excited about the prospect of a country medical school designed to train them for careers in rural and regional Australia. A number of Charles Sturt University students have already commenced allied health courses as a prelude to enrolment in the Murray Darling Medical School. I've invited some of those students to visit parliament in the near future. Charles Sturt University has a strong track record of delivering graduates who meet the workforce needs of country Australia. The Good Universities Guide 2018 found that CSU has a higher proportion of graduates finding full-time work than any other Australian university. Country communities are tired of the inequity between the cities and the bush. We do not seek a second-best option or a rebadging or rebranding exercise. We seek the Murray Darling Medical School. Every criticism of this new school has been answered, and every challenge placed before this new school has been met. Make no mistake about it: the time for the Murray Darling Medical School has come, and the communities of the west will not be backing down. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 9671 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Deputy Prime Minister 9671 14:01 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Both sides of parliament support gas export controls. Despite the Deputy Prime Minister, as minister for resources, having the power to— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Members on my right! The member for Goldstein! Members will cease interjecting. Mr Dutton interjecting— Mr Hunt interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection! The Minister for Health is warned. The Leader of the Opposition will begin his question again. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Thanks, Mr Speaker. My question is still to the Prime Minister. Both sides of parliament support gas export controls, but, despite the Deputy Prime Minister, as minister for resources, having the power to do so, the government has refused to make the necessary ministerial determination. Is the government refusing to act because of the serious legal risk that the Deputy Prime Minister's ministerial actions might be challenged in the courts? Why are doubts about his deputy standing in the way of lower power prices for all Australians? Opposition members interjecting— 14:02 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth There are cheers from the opposition benches, cheering on the member for Port Adelaide's confession. I think it's very important to encourage people to fess up. He confessed. Normally confession is a private sacrament. Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 But on this occasion the honourable member did the right thing, and he owned up. Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith has been warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 Mr Speaker, really! This wins the prize for gall from the Leader of the Opposition. This is the man who was a minister in a government that was warned that allowing unrestricted exports from the east coast would result—they were warned more than four years ago. They were warned, and they took no notice. This opposition, in government, failed the Australian people. What they did was let the Australian people down, and then the member for Port Adelaide did not tell the truth about it. I'm afraid he didn't. He was asked by Barrie Cassidy back in April whether he got plenty of advice back when they were in government, in 2012, that the surge in exports would lead to these problems, and what the member— Honourable members interjecting— Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. The question asks why the Deputy Prime Minister has not used a power that's available to him. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I will address his point of order in a second, but he has given me the opportunity to warn members about the obvious level of noise in the chamber. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I will simply eject members. The level of noise is far too high. The member for Griffith has already been warned. Those who have been regularly warned should be on stand-by to leave the chamber if they are going to disrupt it. On the point of order: the Manager of Opposition Business is right that that was an aspect of the question, but the preamble related to energy policy. I refer him to my earlier rulings. The Prime Minister is in order. Mr TURNBULL 885 Thanks, Mr Speaker. I can only say to the Manager of Opposition Business, who is chairman of the opposition tactics committee, that the time to save the Leader of the Opposition from that catastrophic question was before he put it into the pack. It's too late now. Getting back to the confession from the member for Port Adelaide— Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 He said, 'We didn't get any advice.' But, of course, they did: from AEMO and from the energy white paper. Then, of course, he finally fessed up under interrogation from David Speers. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 This is what we've done. We've foreshadowed the controls that we are going to put on gas exports, and we have seen wholesale prices already decline. Short-term prices, on average, across the country were $8.61 a gigajoule in July, compared to just under $12 a year ago. Prices have fallen in all east coast markets. Honourable members will have seen additional gas is coming onto the market. Our policy is working. When all of the material is together, the minister will make the appropriate declaration—fully informed when he does. Energy 9673 14:06 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on what the government is doing to put downward pressure on energy prices and ensure reliability, including in my electorate of Chisholm? Is the Prime Minister aware of any threats to the government's approach? 14:07 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Honourable members know that the government is focused on the issues that matter to Australians: jobs and the economy, national security and energy security. Everything we're doing is aimed at putting downward pressure on energy prices and ensuring that families and businesses can get affordable and reliable electricity and energy. We have already secured a better deal for thousands of Australian families from their energy retailers. I heard the Leader of the Opposition mocking that today. Can you believe that? A $400, $500, $600 a year saving—that's a laughing matter for him. It's a trivial sum of money, apparently. It's a big deal for thousands of Australian families. Since our meetings with the energy retailers and since we gave this issue profile, there have been over 300,000 visits to the Energy Made Easy website. As honourable members would be very well aware, there are thousands of examples of Australians getting reductions in their energy bill because they were paying too much. So that's right there in the here and now. Gas prices: I've just spoken about the mess the Labor Party left us in and took a long time to tell the truth about. With what we have done we've already seen wholesale gas prices come down. Mr Hammond interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Perth will leave under standing order 94(a). The member for Perth then left the chamber. Mr TURNBULL 885 In terms of a medium-term measure, one of the important things the Labor Party could do if they were fair dinkum about energy prices is support our reform to abolish limited merits review. That's already come through the House. My recollection is that they didn't oppose it. Instead of passing that rapidly through the Senate so that the big energy companies the Leader of the Opposition was so strong in his criticism of this morning—he was a lion on AM this morning about the energy companies but a pussycat when he was in government a few years ago— Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McEwen is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 He could do long-suffering consumers a favour. He could ensure that that bill goes through the Senate, and then the owners of the networks will not be able to game the system by taking appeals from the Energy Regulator, because we know the consequence of those appeals has invariably been to impose billions of dollars of extra costs on consumers. So Labor have to decide whether they are going to support us as we support the Australian public for more affordable and more reliable electricity or continue on their ideological and idiotic approach to energy—something that Australians are still paying too high a price for. (Time expired) Energy 9674 14:10 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide My question is to the Prime Minister. Power prices have never been higher than they have been under this government. The Prime Minister used to acknowledge that the fastest way to bring down power prices was to act on gas. Is the reason the government has refused to make the necessary ministerial determination to put gas export controls in place because there are serious legal doubts about any ministerial actions from the Deputy Prime Minister? Are doubts about his deputy standing in the way of lower power prices for Australians? Mr Frydenberg interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for the Environment and Energy will cease interjecting. 14:11 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth It's good to see the member for Port Adelaide front up again and offer his apologies for his shameful conduct and his party's shameful conduct in government. Opposition members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 They can wave around their agendas as much as they like— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I've warned the member for Sydney several times. She can leave under 94(a). The member for Sydney needs to leave immediately. The member for Sydney then left the chamber . The SPEAKER 00APG The level of noise is far too high. I will lower the volume in this manner if it continues. I'm not going to have members, no matter how senior, be warned and continually ignore me. If anyone has any doubt they've been warned, they can approach the Clerk's table. Mr TURNBULL 885 The coalition, under the leadership of the member for Warringah, was elected four years ago and, during that time, we have seen the carbon tax abolished; we have seen action on energy prices; we've seen action on schools; we've seen action on industrial reforms; and we've seen action on national security. The failures we saw under Labor government resulted in a 100 per cent increase in energy prices. Most recklessly of all, what we saw under Labor was a rush into renewables without any backup or any storage. The Leader of the Opposition today said, criticised, that the coalition has an ideological objection to renewables. The objection we have is to Labor's stupidity, Labor incompetence, Labor complacency and the stupidity of a party that—despite warnings from the regulators, from the Energy Market Operator, that allowing unrestricted export of gas from the east coast would result in tighter supply and higher prices—did nothing to protect the Australian domestic market. It did nothing at all, and now we are having to take unprecedented measures to restrict exports to defend Australian consumers and businesses that were abandoned by Labor. But it gets worse: Labor failed to recognise that the wind doesn't blow all the time and the sun doesn't shine all the time—you'd think they might have picked that up!—so had more renewables replacing dispatchable base-load coal-fired power. And what's been the result? There's been a shortage of dispatchable power. So, once again, that failure of policy under the Labor Party, enhanced and amplified by Labor state governments, is being cleaned up by the coalition. We are the ones taking the tough decisions to ensure that Australians have affordable and reliable energy. Across the House is the party of blackouts. That is the party of unaffordable electricity. That is the party that puts manufacturing workers out of jobs. (Time expired) Economy 9675 14:15 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on what yesterday's national accounts tell us about the better days ahead for rural and regional Australia, including for my electorate of Parkes? Ms Husar interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lindsay will leave under 94(a). The member for Lindsay then left the chamber . Mr COULTON HWN Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches that would jeopardise the prosperity of regional communities? 14:15 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Parkes and all the rural and regional members on this side of the House, of which there are many. They will all be very pleased to know that, in the national accounts yesterday, agricultural growth in production over the last year was 22.6 per cent up and the value of agricultural exports was up 18.6 per cent. In today's trade balance figures, the value of rural exports was up, 24 per cent higher than last year. On this side of the House, we know we need to continue to invest in rural and regional Australia to drive that growth across the rural and regional towns right around the country. That's why I was with the member for Parkes a fortnight ago in North Bourke where, as part of the $200 million Building Better Regions Fund program, we have a $10 million investment in the small animal abattoir, which has leveraged $60 million in investment in what is the biggest investment in Bourke in two decades or a generation. That type of investment will drive 200 jobs in North Bourke from March of next year. That is real investment going into real rural and regional Australia, as is the entire Building Better Regions Fund program right across rural Australia. But it's not just that, because the accelerated appreciation we have put in place for fencing, dams, tanks, silos and all of these important investments for rural equipment right across agricultural Australia is driving that growth, as are the small- and medium-sized tax cuts for businesses, which the Labor Party would reverse if the Leader of the Opposition ever got the chance to slither into the Lodge. He would reverse those tax cuts and punish agricultural producers and small businesses all around the country. There is no alternative economic plan for rural and regional Australia from the Labor Party. What we have is the 'no-coal coalition' of the members for Hunter, Paterson, Shortland and Newcastle. They think turning off coal-fired power stations in the Hunter Valley is going to be a good plan for rural and regional communities in the Hunter Valley. This is the same member for Paterson who walked into this place with a miner's lamp in his maiden speech, and now he wants to snuff that lamp out, as he wants to snuff out— Ms Rishworth HWA It was a woman! Mr MORRISON E3L I apologise. There's more than one mining champion on that side of the House, so why do you want to snuff them out? And why do you want to shut down coal-fired power stations, which have put your constituents in jobs? They want to snuff out coal and they want to snuff out jobs in the Hunter. Marriage 9676 14:18 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Before I go to my question, on indulgence, I just wonder—there's been a pretty important High Court decision— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question or resume his seat. He's not a reporter for the High Court. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right! I've already cautioned the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. He is warned as well. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I note the High Court's decision moments ago in relation to the Prime Minister's $122 million postal survey on marriage equality. Will the Prime Minister work with the community to show his active support for marriage equality, and will the Prime Minister now accept my invitation to write a joint letter to every Australian to support voting 'yes' in the survey? Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right! 14:19 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The Leader of the Opposition must be relieved that the promise he gave to the Australian Christian Lobby in 2013 is now being delivered by the coalition. He went there to the Australian Christian Lobby and he said, 'I think every Australian should have their say.' He did. I assume that was his heartfelt conviction, or was he simply telling people what they wanted to hear? You know, Mr Speaker, I fear it may have been the case that he was just being his old disingenuous self, telling people what they want to hear. And here he is now—having done everything he could in this parliament to stop Australians having their say, much to his disappointment now every Australian will have their say. And that is as it should be, and we encourage every Australian to vote in this survey, to have their say. As I've said in this House and in many other places, Lucy and I will be voting yes, and I will be encouraging others to vote yes, but, above all, I encourage every Australian to have their say, because, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I respect every Australian's view on this matter, and I thoroughly reject the way in which he has sought to vilify and demonise people who have a different view to him. This is a great example where every Australian can have a say and we can, as the Commonwealth of Australia, embrace this important social change, consider it and make a decision. Mr Rob Mitchell M3E You are full of crap! The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for McEwen will withdraw that remark. Mr Rob Mitchell M3E I withdraw. The SPEAKER 00APG And he will now withdraw from the chamber. Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Member for McEwen, you'd better be very careful what you say. You know the rules very well. The member for McEwen then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister has concluded his answer. Immigration Detention 9677 14:21 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and it concerns the fate of over 700 men in the Manus Island camp, most of whom have been found to be refugees. Two weeks ago the PNG Attorney-General said his country would not allow you to simply close the detention centre on 31 October and leave the men behind for PNG to look after. It's been revealed in the Senate that last Friday you flew to PNG to meet with Prime Minister O'Neill to discuss the crisis. Have you struck a deal with PNG? If so, what's in the deal? And in what country will the men be resettled? Or is your plan just to leave these men in limbo, create a powder-keg situation and then use force and violence against them? 14:22 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member very much for his question. He asks: what is our plan? Our plan is to clean up the mess created by the Greens and Labor. That is our plan. This government did not put people on Manus and Nauru, but our job is to get them off, and get them off we will. We've struck a deal, as you're aware, Mr Speaker, with the United States, and I acknowledge the work of the Prime Minister and then President Obama, as well as President Trump now, so that we can move people—as a priority, the women and children—off Nauru and, in a secondary way, move the people off Manus. We've announced that we want to close Manus by 31 October. We are on track to do that, but we'll continue to work with the PNG government, because ultimately the PNG government, under the arrangement signed by Mr Rudd, the then Prime Minister, and Prime Minister O'Neill, the arrangement was that those people would stay on Manus and those people who had been determined to be refugees—the deal struck by Labor and the Greens and the PNG government is that those people would stay in PNG. I just remind the member of that aspect of his question. The fact is: we will do whatever we can, not only to get people off but, most importantly, to make sure that we don't have new boat arrivals. Since the commencement of Operation Sovereign Borders, we have turned back 31 boats. Had those 31 boats got through, we would be dealing with the same mess that Labor presided over when they were in government—that is, 50,000 people arriving on 800 boats. And, to the great detriment of the reputation of the member who asked this question, I might say, 1,200 people drowned at sea on his watch, so I will not take some sanctimonious positioning from the Greens in relation to this issue, and we won't take a lecture from the Labor Party either. In government, those opposite put 8,000 children into detention. We on this side have removed 8,000 children and closed 17 detention centres. But let me make this prediction, because the Leader of the Opposition has still not learnt the lesson: it is still obvious to all Australians that, if Labor were elected tomorrow, they would undo the policies of this government, people would be back on boats, kids would be back in detention, and people would be drowning at sea. So not only are we cleaning up Labor's mess but we are making sure that we stare down the people smugglers. When the Labor Party and the Greens were in government, they had not a clue how to deal with the problem. We will not fall for those same mistakes and we will remain resolute because what it allows us to do is to have a very compassionate intake of those people who are genuine refugees under the refugee and humanitarian program, including the 12,000 Syrian and Iraqis that we took in over the last couple of years, which would not have been possible, the Australian public would not have supported that decision, had the boats still been arriving. Energy 9678 14:25 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to make our energy system more reliable and affordable for hardworking Australian households and businesses? Is the minister aware of any challenges to securing energy reliability and affordability? 14:26 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Corangamite for her question and I know of her deep concern for businesses in her electorate like AKD Softwoods, who have seen their gas and electricity prices increase dramatically. They employ around 300 people in Colac in her electorate. She, like all those on this side of the House, is committed to: putting downward pressure on electricity prices; stabilising our system; cleaning up the Labor Party's mess by ensuring that more gas is available to the domestic market; abolishing the limited merits review, which the Labor Party are now sending to committee so they can consult their union mates; and getting major concessions from the retailers which will ensure lower power bills for Australians. I'm asked if there are any challenges to this approach. We know that the Leader of the Opposition wasn't the people's choice, and he is no longer the workers' choice because he is selling out the blue-collar workers by his commitment to close coal-fired power stations. It is in his election platform and, despite putting on the high-vis vest and going out and saying 'coal has a future in Australia', he has supported motions in this parliament that say coal has no future in Australia. With comments like that from the Leader of the Opposition, you can understand why the member for Port Adelaide is all at sea. Last week he was interviewed on ABC Breakfast in Melbourne and was asked six times, 'Do you support keeping open coal-fired power stations or do you support closing them?' Rafael Epstein said, 'What do you want to do?' The member for Port Adelaide said, 'They will close really by virtue of the age.' So Epstein asked him again, 'Do you encourage them to be opened or closed?' He said, 'I'm sure that's not necessarily the right analysis.' So Epstein tried again, 'Do you want to open or close the coal-fired power stations?' The member for Port Adelaide: 'We've got to get that number down.' He tried again. 'Do you want to encourage them to stay open or to close?' He couldn't answer it. So then Rafael Epstein said, 'That's an observation, not a judgement. I'm asking for a judgement. Do you want these to close?' Ms Rishworth HWA It's sort of like Monopoly; you go and buy the coal-fired power stations. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Kingston is warned. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL He said, 'We need to replace coal-fired power with energy and clean energy.' There you have it. The member for Port Adelaide, who last week couldn't answer the question six times and last night when interviewed on RN Drive couldn't answer the question nine times, doesn't know whether the Labor Party's policy is to keep coal-fired power stations open or closed. With the advice from the Australian Energy Market Operator being that keeping coal-fired power stations is in the interests of Australian consumers, will keep prices lower and will keep the system more stable, the Labor Party should change their policy. Marriage 9679 14:29 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. I will have another go at the last question: Will the Prime Minister now accept my invitation to write a joint letter to all Australians recommending voting yes to marriage equality? 14:29 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I'm interested in the assumption that the Leader of the Opposition makes that joining his signature to mine would actually increase the case for the yes vote. The Leader of the Opposition can make his case and I'll make mine. Exports 9679 14:30 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest My question is for the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister update the House on the importance of reliable and affordable energy to drive growth in key export industries? Is the minister aware of any threats to export growth and the jobs that it creates? 14:30 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I thank the member for Forrest for her question. Like me, the member for Forrest is very invested in making sure we continue to open up export markets for Australian businesses. I was pleased recently to have the opportunity to go with the member for Forrest to her electorate to speak with a number of small exporters who are based in the electorate. All are contributing to Australia's multibillion dollar export track record. We were in Busselton and Bunbury and I had the opportunity to speak to a number of these exporters, including representatives from Churchview Estate wines in the Margaret River region. All of these exporters are benefitting from the coalition's strong agenda in opening up export market access. We've seen, particularly as a result of the trifecta of agreements that we have with Japan, Korea and China, that wine exports are up. In Korea, wine exports are up some 70 per cent. Wine exports into China under the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement—which, you will remember, Labor were opposed to until one minute to midnight—are up some 38 per cent. What is crystal clear, though—and this is the message from industry—is that, in order to be able to remain competitive and keep exporting, these exporters must have a reliable and stable supply of energy. The coalition is absolutely committed to that. That's why we have put in place important decisions like the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, the ADGSM— Mr Keogh interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Burt is warned. Mr CIOBO 00AN0 to make sure we fix Labor's mess on gas exports. Mr Keogh interjecting— Mr CIOBO 00AN0 We're also putting in place a reliable supply of electricity— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Burt will leave under 94(a). The member for Burt then left the chamber. Mr CIOBO 00AN0 and the Winemakers' Federation has reinforced us. They have said: Recent increases to price are severely impacting on wine and grape businesses viability and our ability to compete on a global market. That's what the wine industry has said. If we want to keep exporting premium wines, or even if we want to export cleanskins, reliable energy is crucial. Speaking of cleanskins, I came across a pretty interesting article about cleanskins recently in The Sydney Morning Herald. It was titled 'Cleanskin who can renew Labor', and I thought, 'This is going to be a fascinating article.' It turns out that the cleanskin who can renew Labor is the member for Blaxland. I'm a big fan of the member for Blaxland, although I'm not as big a fan as the member for Lindsay. I thought, 'Well, perhaps he's got a shot at the title.' In this article, the member for Blaxland says: I'm not interested in being prime minister. Really, the dream job for me is to one day be education minister … The member for Sydney is not here, so maybe there's a chance for him to be shadow education minister. But I want to give the member for Blaxland one piece of advice: if he wants the top job, he'll have to be very careful, because we've seen that the member for Grayndler is willing to shoulder people out the way to get up there. I suggest he just bides his time. Deputy Prime Minister 9681 14:33 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning on Sky News the Deputy Prime Minister refused to say whether the government had sought advice on the legality of his ministerial decisions. Has the government sought any advice on the risk of legal challenge if the Deputy Prime Minister, acting as the minister for resources, makes the necessary ministerial determination— Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. Mr CLARE HWL to put gas export controls in place? 14:34 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I can assure the honourable member that the government is absolutely satisfied that all ministers are exercising their authority within their departments in accordance with their responsibilities and that the minister will make the determination under the domestic gas mechanism at the appropriate time. There is a— Opposition members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 Honourable members may want to listen. As they would know, if they've studied the mechanism, there is an elaborate process of fact finding and consultation that leads up to the making of the decision. But it is also important to recognise that the foreshadowed policy has already had a very beneficial result on gas prices. We've seen large amounts of additional gas being made available into the market, including that announced today by Santos—another 30 petajoules of gas to be supplied into east coast domestic market—and, as I said earlier, we've seen wholesale spot prices easing substantially since the announcement of the policy was made earlier in the year. So we are taking action that is having the desired effect of making more gas available and bringing down the price of gas, a price that had become very high—unaffordably high—because of the complacency and neglect of the honourable member's party when they were in government. Energy 9681 14:35 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to media reports that show South Australia and the great state of Victoria are facing summer blackouts and major power outages. Why is energy reliability and affordability essential to healthcare services across Australia, and is the minister aware of risks to delivering these vital and important services? 14:36 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders You know, Labor are electricity vandals and Labor are hospital vandals. I look by comparison at the member for Goldstein, who spent many years advocating for lower electricity prices and helping to design policies such as the abolition of the carbon tax which have delivered lower electricity prices. The member for Goldstein has done such a tremendous job in supporting new health services in his area, such as the new Holmesglen 160-bed hospital. But one of the things he remarked on to me at the opening of the new Holmesglen hospital is that hospitals like this cannot run unless they can afford the electricity with which to provide vital services. We know that in South Australia, South Australian Labor deliberately drove the Northern Power Station out of operation. They didn't just drive it out of operation; they made sure that it was physically blown up. And do you know what? In so doing they destroyed the resilience of the South Australian system to the inevitable challenges that come. And so what occurred? What did we see in terms of the impact of this South Australian system on health services in South Australia? Let me quote from the ABC's headline, and I want you to listen to this: 'Embryos destroyed at Flinders Medical Centre after generator fails in blackout'. Ms Rishworth interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Health will resume his seat. I've warned the member for Kingston. She's interjecting completely uncontrollably. She will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Kingston then left the chamber. Mr HUNT 00AMV Not only did we have that catastrophic outcome—a human outcome, an electricity outcome and an outcome for families—but now you would think that in Victoria they would have learnt the lessons. But instead Victorian Labor deliberately drove 1,600 megawatts of electricity base load out of the system, and right now Victorian hospitals are paying the price. The member for Bendigo likes to chat from time to time. This is from an article from the Bendigo Advertiser of 25 August, headed 'Central Victorian hospitals balking at rising power costs': Castlemaine Health has raised its concerns about the rising cost of energy with the state government, which has been criticised … for failing to account for soaring power prices. What we are seeing is that Victoria's hospitals are now facing the same risk as South Australia's hospitals—all of that at a time when the Leader of the Opposition, at the federal level, is proposing to double down and introduce a massive new electricity price hike. So they want to increase prices. We've taken steps to reduce them. The Prime Minister has a national energy plan to reduce pressure on gas, reduce pressure on retail and ensure that we have storage through Snowy 2.0. We want to keep the lights on; they are risking our hospitals. (Time expired) Deputy Prime Minister 9682 14:39 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. Every single day the Prime Minister has to make important decisions on issues critical to the future of our nation. Does the Prime Minister honestly consider there is no issue with the Deputy Prime Minister— Mr Fletcher interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Urban Infrastructure will leave under 94(a). The member for Isaacs will begin his question again. The member for Bradfield then left the chamber. Mr DREYFUS HWG My question is to the Prime Minister. Every single day the Prime Minister has to make important decisions on issues critical to the future of our nation. Does the Prime Minister honestly consider there is no issue with leaving the Deputy Prime Minister in charge of the country when there are doubts over his qualifications to even be a member of this parliament? And why will the Prime Minister not answer whether the government has sought advice about the legality under section 64 of the Deputy Prime Minister's decisions? Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House is warned! 14:40 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth In accordance with longstanding practice, the Deputy Prime Minister will be Acting Prime Minister while I'm overseas, when I'm in Samoa tomorrow. But also in accordance with longstanding practice, as the honourable member knows, as Prime Minister I will continue to make all of those decisions that he referred to whether I am overseas or, indeed, at home. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! The member for Grayndler! Energy 9683 14:41 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, representing the Minister for Regional Development. Will the minister update the House on the importance of affordable and reliable energy in regional Australia? What impact would higher electricity prices have on jobs and hardworking families in regional Australia, including those in my electorate of Durack? 14:41 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I do thank the member for Durack for her question. She is a member who is very much in touch with the real issues in her community. The member for Durack represents a vast electorate, and she is focused on issues that really matter to regional Australians. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit sections of her electorate. It was terrific to see work happening on the ground delivering important infrastructure investment in roads, in rail and in community-development projects. There's a long list of achievements for the member of Durack in recent times. She has the Great Northern Highway upgrades, totalling more than $200 million. There's the Northern Australia Road Program, where $130 million worth of work is underway; the Roads to Recovery Program; and the heavy vehicle safety program, all delivering in her electorate. And it's the Turnbull-Joyce government that's delivering for the people of Durack. And as the member indicates, affordable, reliable energy is critical for her community. It's critical for businesses and it's critical for households in the community of Durack. It seeks to underpin local jobs and growth in regional Western Australia, and it also helps to take the pressure off the household cost of living. So I congratulate the member for Durack for the work she's doing on behalf of her electorate both in Western Australia and here in the federal government. The Turnbull-Joyce government is delivering on all these fronts right throughout regional WA. Those opposite have been wasting parliament's time in recent weeks asking questions about citizenship, and that just demonstrates how completely out of touch they are with the issues that are impacting on people throughout Australia. Out in the real world, people are coming to us as we move around regional Australia and asking us about jobs. They're asking about energy security. They're talking about national security. They're asking about cost-of-living pressures. The question they're asking most of all is: who should they trust to keep delivering for all Australians? I know one thing: I know who they can't trust, and that's this Leader of the Opposition or the Labor Party. Why would they trust them? Labor has sold out—they will go quiet now, Mr Speaker, because they know this is true—they've sold out blue-collar workers for Green votes. They cheered when the Hazelwood Power Station closed because that was their policy contract, to close it. They cheered when it closed. Do you really want to know how much they care about words, Mr Speaker? The Leader of the Opposition actually donated $100,000 of Australia Workers' Union money to GetUp!. Did the workers know that, when they paid their union fees, the fees would end up with GetUp!? Did they know what GetUp! would do with that money? GetUp! says, 'Let's close Australia's dirtiest coal-fired power station.' GetUp! gets money from the AWU to run campaigns against blue-collar workers. That's how the modern Labor Party works. It sells out blue-collar workers for Green votes in the city. GetUp! wanted Hazelwood to close, and the Labor Party delivered it. The Leader of the Opposition is very shifty. He can't be trusted on jobs or energy security— (Time expired) Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister can resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business can pause for a second. The members for Lyons and Moreton—both regular customers—will not interject for the rest of question time; otherwise, they can go back and shout at their televisions rather than everyone here. Deputy Prime Minister 9684 14:45 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, owing to doubts over his Deputy Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister will be acting in name only while Prime Minister? Is there any precedent for this happening? 14:45 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The arrangements are the same as they have been for many, many years. Agriculture 9684 14:45 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline how the government is securing the future of agriculture production in Australia and my electorate of Page? Is he aware of any threats to the ongoing viability of hardworking Australian businesses and families in agriculture? 14:46 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for his question and note how important the beef industry is. The member for Page will be happy to know that the most recent GDP figures show that the fastest growing sector, the sector that contributed most to GDP growth, was agriculture. Agriculture has been, under this government, one of the great success stories. In the time of our government we have increased the gross output of agriculture by around 30 per cent. This has been by reason of effective policy—policies such as Farm Management Deposits up to $800,000; the 100 per cent write-off for water reticulation; the 100 per cent write-off for fencing; the write-off over three years for grain storage; the WET rebates; the beef roads; the biosecurity legislation; the country-of-origin-labelling legislation; the sugar code; the regional investment corporation; decentralisation; the building of dog fences; and the inland rail. All of this goes to show a government that believes in agriculture. We don't know whether the Labor opposition have a policy on agriculture. They don't believe in agriculture. They have no reason to stand behind one of the pillars of our economy. They've shown no interest in agriculture. In fact, generally the shadow minister for agriculture never even asks a question unless it's on anything but agriculture. You ask if there is a threat. There are a lot of threats, but the biggest threat to agriculture is power prices. It is definitely power prices. It's rather sad when we find that the member for Maribyrnong is turning his back on the Australian people, on coal workers, on those in hi-vis suits. He doesn't believe in workers anymore. He's turned his back on those who actually labour. The Leader of the Labor Party no longer believes in labourers. You can see he turns his back on them, because he doesn't believe in them. Someone else who doesn't believe in labourers—and it is sad to see—is Sally McManus the leader of the ACTU, who said today when asked about Liddell: 'It's just a matter of time and this plant will close.' What Sally McManus meant to say was: it's just a matter of time and these labourers will lose their jobs. That is where the Labor Party has gone. It has given up on labourers, given up on workers. The Labor Party has turned its back on workers and turned towards Balmain, turned towards Annandale and turned towards Woolloomooloo. It's turned its back on the people who once were the proud bones of the Australian Labor Party. At some point we're going to get the member for Maribyrnong come to the dispatch box and say he believes in those coalminers' jobs, because they are watching this and they are giving up on you. They are giving up on the Labor Party because they know the Labor Party has given up on them. MOTIONS 9685 MOTIONS Deputy Prime Minister 9685 14:49 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion immediately— The House: (1) notes:    (a) this House has unanimously asked the High Court to determine if the Deputy Prime Minister was ever validly elected to Parliament;    (b) the Government refuses to release the Solicitor-General’s advice on which the entire legitimacy of this Government rests;    (c) the Government refuses to even state whether it has sought advice on the risk to a legal challenge to the Deputy Prime Minister’s ministerial decisions;    (d) significant ministerial decisions of the Deputy Prime Minister are being delayed, including decisions which would bring power prices down for Australians; and    (e) despite the current doubts over the legality of the Deputy Prime Minister’s ministerial actions, tomorrow the Prime Minister will risk the entire legitimacy of the Government by leaving the Deputy Prime Minister in charge of the nation; and (2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to:    (a) direct his Deputy Prime Minister to immediately stand aside; and    (b) stop abusing the trust of the Australian people by being so reckless with the leadership of the nation. Was there ever an occasion where the Prime Minister said— 14:50 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to. Is the motion seconded?

The House divided. [14:55]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 72 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 Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B 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 63 NOES Albanese, AN 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 Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 14:57 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter I second the motion. Today, the Prime Minister expressed no confidence— 14:57 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.

The House divided. [14:59]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 72 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 Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B 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 63 NOES Albanese, AN 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 Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The House divided. [15:01]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 62 AYES Albanese, AN 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 Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Katter, RC Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilson, JH Zappia, A 72 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 Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B 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.

 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 9691 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Trade Unions 9691 15:07 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Employment. I refer the minister to reports this week that trade unions now hold over $1 billion of assets despite falling union membership. How has this increase in funding resulted in improved services to members of these registered organisations? 15:08 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Boothby for her question. Once again Simon Benson at The Australian newspaper has written a story today about the practice of some unions to negotiate terms in enterprise agreements that identify a compulsory income protection, redundancy, training or similar fund that then pays kickbacks to the union. This is how unions have managed to grow substantially in terms of their assets over the years despite their membership dwindling. Members will know that their membership has now fallen to 10 per cent in the private sector, yet their funds keep increasing. One example of this type of arrangement is a deal between the AWU Victoria and income protection fund RUS Holdings. Evidence to the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption shows that significant payments from various companies to the Victorian branch of the AWU between 2003 and 2007 went ahead. The Leader of the Opposition ran the union at this time. He was Victorian secretary until August 2006 and national secretary until November 2007. There were 20 separate payments resulting in $566,000 paid by IUS Holdings to the AWU Victorian branch in that period, and yet there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of what those payments were for, and they were not disclosed to the workers. Coincidentally, over the same period that this $566,000, in 20 secret payments, was being paid, AWU Victoria signed 28 enterprise agreements that insisted that IUS Holdings be the income protection insurance provider for those workers paid by the businesses into the IUS Holdings fund. So, in return for those kickbacks that the union was paid while the Leader of the Opposition was the secretary, it was insisted that IUS be the income protection provider in 28 enterprise agreements—a very clear case of a conflict of interest and a very clear case of corrupting benefits payments being made to AWU Victoria during that period by IUS Holdings. The Leader of the Opposition has never explained what these payments are for. He really needs to take the opportunity to do so. He needs to explain the purpose of the payments and to what purpose the payments were put within the union. Deputy Prime Minister 9692 15:11 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that John Anderson had the authority as Acting Prime Minister to convene cabinet to consider ANZUS being invoked in 2001 and that the statement today from the Prime Minister is the first time Australia will have an Acting PM in name only? If the Prime Minister doesn't trust him to do the job, why won't he stand the deputy aside? 15:11 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The invocation of the ANZUS treaty after 9/11 was made by Prime Minister John Howard in the United States of America. Prime Ministers discharge the duties of their office wherever they are in the world. That's been the practice of Liberal Prime Ministers and Labor Prime Ministers for many years. Honourable members opposite know that. They know that's the practice. They know that's the practice of my government and, indeed, that it was the practice of the governments in which many of those opposite were ministers. Migration 9692 15:12 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright 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 visa holders, including criminal gangs? 15:12 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the member for Wright very much for his question. Like everybody on this side of the House, he's working very hard in his electorate to keep his community safe, and he should be commended for that. It's certainly the case that this government has cancelled a record number of— Mr Albanese interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI It's a very interesting interjection from the member for Grayndler, questioning the Labor Party's track record when they were in government— Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs has been warned. Mr DUTTON 00AKI because, as it turns out, under this government, we have increased the number of visa cancellations by 1,200 per cent for noncitizens who have committed serious crimes against Australian citizens. Under the Labor government many of those people who had committed serious crimes went on to become Australian citizens. So the difference in approach here, not only in relation to the cancellation of these visas but also on border protection matters, could be no more stark than in the example that I have provided. We have cancelled 150 visas of outlaw motorcycle gang members in total. Opposition members interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI Members of the CFMEU opposite are interjecting. They aren't in favour of the cancellation of visas of outlaw motorcycle gang members. That's quite a startling revelation from the member interjecting. Do you know why the CFMEU don't like the bikies being cancelled? Because they're the muscle on the building sites that are breaking the arms of the carpenters and the plumbers who refuse to sign their members up to the CFMEU. So what a surprise that members opposite would be against this! It goes to show just how much control the CFMEU and other militant unions have over this Leader of the Opposition. They have enormous power. Not Bob Hawke, not Kevin Rudd and not Julia Gillard—never in any circumstance could people point to the level of influence that is exerted over this Leader of the Opposition. And yet this man wants to be Prime Minister of this country. We know— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW On direct relevance. The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will come back to the dispatch box. In the time left he will confine himself to the substance of the question. Mr DUTTON 00AKI Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm asked about the cancellation of dangerous visa holders, including criminal gang members. As I say, there are 150 bikies whose visas we've cancelled—those involved in outlaw motorcycle gangs. They are the biggest distributors of ice and amphetamine in our country. To families in rural communities and cities around the country who are worried about the scourge of drugs on the streets, blame the outlaw motorcycle gang members. What do they do in their part-time work? They are involved in extortion and work on building sites, where they work for the CFMEU. The CFMEU is directly in control of this Leader of the Opposition, who wants to be Prime Minister of this country. It couldn't be any more direct. The fact is that this Leader of the Opposition, unlike any of his predecessors— Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will pause a second. The member for Lyons will withdraw. Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 I withdraw. The SPEAKER 00APG And he can now do as I predicted earlier and leave the chamber. The minister has the call. The member for Lyons then left the chamber. Mr DUTTON 00AKI In closing, there is a perfect exhibit—as he walks out of the chamber—of somebody who is completely controlled by the union movement, as is his— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW A point of order on imputing a motive to a member of parliament—I ask that that comment be withdrawn. The SPEAKER 00APG Yes, the minister will withdraw. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I withdraw. Deputy Prime Minister 9693 15:16 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is attending the Pacific Islands Forum in Samoa tomorrow. How can the Prime Minister allow the Deputy Prime Minister to be Acting Prime Minister when we don't even know if he's constitutionally qualified to be a member of this parliament? Why is the Prime Minister abusing the trust of the Australian people by being so reckless with the leadership of the nation? Mr Pasin interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Barker will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call. 15:14 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth That question, too, has a very familiar ring, and I refer the honourable member to my earlier answer. Veterans 9694 15:17 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Will the minister inform the House on action the government is taking to aid defence personnel in their transition to civilian life, particularly with employment? 15:17 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I'd like to thank the member for Banks for his question and acknowledge his ongoing support for our defence personnel and veterans. As the Prime Minister has said, the best way we can honour the service and sacrifice of the diggers of 100 years ago is to make sure that we're looking after the veterans of today. The Turnbull government is continuing to work to improve the transition of our separating ADF personnel and to ensure that they have meaningful opportunities in civilian life. Veterans are some of the most highly skilled members of the workforce and have much to offer the business community. They bring not just their technical skills but also values such as leadership, resilience, agility and the ability to operate in complex environments. The Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Initiative, announced in November 2016, with the support of the opposition—and we thank them for that—helps industry recognise and connect with that talent. This is not charity; this is about encouraging business to make a smart business decision. Yesterday, the chair of the program's industry advisory committee, George Frazis, and the Prime Minister launched the inaugural Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Awards to celebrate Australian businesses and the veterans who are making a significant contribution to their workplace. The awards include nine categories covering businesses of all sizes, employees and businesses employing our ADF spouses—a very important category. We also launched a practical toolkit to support veterans to enter the Australian Public Service. After all, government has a role to play in this program as a significant employer in Australia, as well. The government has already added a 'Defence Force experience desirable' flag to the jobactive website, resulting in more than 1,500 jobs being advertised. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the industry advisory committee for their ongoing work in this area, and I look forward to continuing to work with them. I would also like to thank the opposition for their bipartisanship on this issue. As they have said, this program is a long-term legacy, to be continued by all governments in the future. In particular, I'd like to thank—she's not here—the shadow minister, who has offered to send out the shell press release to all the members on that side as well, so that we can have all members in this place advertise this initiative right round Australia. For those who want to learn more about the program, go to veteransemployment.gov.au. Prime Minister, I commend you for this initiative and the announcement yesterday. It tops off what I think has been an excellent week. The SPEAKER 00APG I just say to the minister: I let him run over time because, as I've said to the House, where it's a sensitive subject we allow it to run over time. If that happens again, I'd appreciate it if he'd just leave the last bit out that doesn't relate to the substance. Mr Turnbull 885 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 9695 DOCUMENTS Presentation 9695 15:21 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt A document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 9695 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:21 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition claims to have been misrepresented? Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I do. I was misrepresented by the Prime Minister in question time. The SPEAKER 00APG He may proceed. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The Prime Minister said that I'd be relieved that the Prime Minister's plebiscite will go ahead. That is a misrepresentation. Let me state my position briefly for the record. I pay tribute to the advocates who put up the arguments to the High Court because they are concerned about the vile and negative attacks that LGBTI Australians will experience. I understand that people will be disappointed, but I say to those people who support 'yes' in the survey: turn our disappointment into determination—determination to win. If the survey must be, then we must win it. I urge all Australians: call your relatives; tell your friends; make sure that everyone you know votes yes for equality. You will see Labor members and supporters on street corners, at shopping centres and at train stations making the case for marriage equality, standing up for the fair go. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will pause— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG In conclusion— The SPEAKER 00APG I won't stop him if he's in conclusion. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG In conclusion, I want to inform all Australians, that, if I support marriage equality, which I do—I'm fair dinkum—I will not be on the sideline saying, 'I'm too busy.' I and Labor will be on the front line— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr Hill interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce can just leave. It's ridiculous. The member for Bruce then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG I'm just going to say to the Leader of the Opposition: as he knows, I extend an indulgence to him, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business. But misrepresentations need to be defined as to where people have been misrepresented. Given the Leader of the Opposition was part-way through, I did not pull him up till the end. I will not allow a repeat of that. I'm giving fair warning. A personal explanation is a chance to correct a misrepresentation, not to make a speech you can make during other times of the parliamentary day. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 9696 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Energy 9696 15:23 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Port Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's complete failure on energy policy. 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— 15:24 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide This week, on the fourth anniversary of this government, under two prime ministers, two reports were received from the Energy Market Operator, both of which have laid bare four years of stunning failure on energy policy—stunning, devastating failure on energy policy, on every possible indicator. In four years, wholesale power prices under this government have doubled, causing power bills to skyrocket for households. Just in the last couple of months in New South Wales, power bills went up by 20 per cent for households, adding to other power bill increases that they've experienced under Prime Minister Abbott and Prime Minister Turnbull. Businesses have been walking through Parliament House this week talking to members of parliament—I'm sure on both sides—about the deep energy crisis that has emerged under this government. And, contrary to what the Prime Minister would like to tell this House, they are seriously hurting on power bills and on gas. They're not experiencing 20 per cent rises; they're talking to us about 70 per cent, 80 per cent, even 100 per cent increases in their power bills as they come to renegotiate new contracts. AEMO has also warned that two-thirds of Australia is at risk of blackout over coming summers without action and a proper policy. Pollution is on the rise. Gas prices are skyrocketing. The Prime Minister tried to tell people a number of times this week that everything's fine in the gas market and that gas prices are coming down, while talking about spot prices in the spot market for gas. Well, only about 10 per cent of the gas market is traded on the spot market. Manufacturers across the economy have been in this building this week still talking about $15 to $20 a gigajoule quotes being received by them, prices which simply make their businesses potentially unviable, jeopardising tens of thousands of workers in manufacturing sectors across the country. And in the renewable energy industry, after jobs tripled under our government for six years, the ABS reported that, under this government and this minister, one in three renewable energy jobs—thousands and thousands of jobs—have been lost while they've soared around the rest of the world. Every Australian now understands, when they open their skyrocketing power bills, when they consider the risk of blackouts across two-thirds of our country, who created this absolute mess—this Prime Minister, Prime Minister Abbott and this minister. And it's no mystery how we got into this deep mess over the last four years. As in so many policy areas, in 2013, the Liberal Party had a great plan to dismantle stuff, to destroy stuff, to wreck policy, and they did that. They completely dismantled Australia's energy policy, but they put nothing in its place. For four long years, this country has had no energy policy to guide investment decisions to ensure that there is new generation plant being built to enter the market in coming years to provide reliable supply. And it's not a mystery. It's not hard to work out what that energy policy framework should be, because the government received the blueprint from the Chief Scientist months ago; it's a clean energy target. The Chief Scientist framed a recommendation for a clean energy target as 'there being an urgent need for a clear and early decision on this matter', a point that was reinforced by the Energy Market Operator only this week in its two reports. And it is urgent because generators that are ageing, which were built in the 1960s and '70s, are closing. This is inevitable. Members opposite might wish it were otherwise, might wish that these generators could just keep generating forever and a day, but it is inevitable. As Matthew Warren, the head of the Energy Council, said in the Australian Financial Review today, 'The problem isn't old power stations closing. It's that we don't have a plan to replace them.' And we haven't had a plan for four years under this government. The Labor Party have said time and again that they're willing to sit down with the government and agree on a bipartisan framework to get that investment flowing, to ensure that when the generators inevitably close because they're too old that they're replaced by generation that provides reliable and affordable supply. We know why there's been no action opposite. We know that for over four years the government have been utterly paralysed on this question because their party room refuses to admit that there is an irreversible, inevitable transition happening in electricity systems across the world, not just here in Australia, and it will happen in Australia whether or not those in the coalition like it. That transition is partly driven by the imperative to reduce carbon pollution, and that's so important in a country that produces twice as much pollution from its electricity sector on average as the United States or the OECD more broadly, but it's also heavily driven by price. The other side might deny this, but it's now utterly clear that renewable energy has won the race to produce the cheapest possible form of new-build electricity generation across the world and in a country with unparalleled renewable energy sources like wind and solar, particularly here in Australia. Of course, that transition must happen under a plan that ensures it happens in an orderly way. The transition must be a just transition for workers and communities that are affected, particularly directly. The nation must ensure that power is still dispatchable, reliable and affordable. AEMO, the Energy Market Operator, is working on a plan in spite of the government—not with the government, but in spite of the government. The South Australian energy plan was roundly endorsed by the Energy Market Operator's report this week, because it understands that the South Australian energy plan is providing the sorts of security mechanisms that the rest of the country needs. It may well be that Snowy Hydro 2.0, after we receive a feasibility plan, plays a part in that transition as well, but it won't play that part until the mid-2020s at the earliest. The coalition is absolutely stuck on the fantasy that there is growth in coal in the future, that we can build new coal-fired power stations. The Prime Minister kicked this off in January, and it has been roundly rejected by all companies in the electricity industry—by the banks, by the lenders, by the experts who recognise that the days of building new coal-fired generation are simply over. We know that the reason the coalition commissioned the AEMO report that was released this week was that they were crossing their fingers, hoping that AEMO would come and say: 'The solution to our challenges is to build new coal-fired power stations.' But of course AEMO didn't say that, because no-one is saying it anywhere in the world. There is no prospect of new unabated coal-fired power stations being built in this country. It's simply too risky. It's not cheap, as the Treasurer at least was courageous enough to say after bringing that lump of coal in here and fondling it in a very creepy fashion. People understand this, if they give it the most casual piece of analysis. We just need a Prime Minister who's willing to be honest about it. We just need a Prime Minister who is willing to go into that coalition party room and have an honest, logical discussion with his colleagues and say that this is not the future. The transition in the electricity sector is inevitable, but there are two pathways. It can be an orderly transition that delivers reliable and affordable power with a proper investment framework agreed by both parties, or we can have a nation bedevilled by blackouts and skyrocketing power prices, which is exactly what the Energy Market Operator warned is the future under this minister and this Prime Minister if they continue to ignore the reality of what is happening in electricity systems across the world. The Labor Party will continue to be honest with the Australian people and with regional communities that this transition is inevitable, that it can be managed in a way that is either positive for Australia or it can be resisted. You can pull the cardigans over your heads and pretend that there's another path, but the only alternative path is the path of unreliability, of blackouts in coming summers and of continuing skyrocketing power prices. If that is the path that this minister and this Prime Minister continue to choose, because they don't have the courage to have logical, rational explanations in their coalition party room, I tell you what: the Australian people will hold them to account. 15:34 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong The member for Port Adelaide is entitled to his own opinions, but he's not entitled to his own facts. In his state of South Australia, they were the only state in the history of the Commonwealth to have a statewide blackout. In his state of South Australia, people were stuck in elevators. Tuna fishermen lost their catch. The member for Grey knows what happened at the Port Pirie smelter. He knows what happened for BHP at Olympic Dam. He knows what happened for Arrium at Whyalla. He knows what happened to the pensioners in Adelaide, and he knows what happened to the small businesses in Stirling and Bridgewater. He knows what happened to Adelaide Brighton, in the member for Port Adelaide's own electorate—that is, they lost their power because of the ideology and idiocy of the Weatherill government, a Labor government that has been in power for nearly 16 years, longer than Caesar ruled Rome. The Labor Party want to blame someone else for their own mistakes. The member for Port Adelaide called the blackout in South Australia, worth upwards of half a billion dollars plus much, much more, 'merely a hiccup', because the member for Port Adelaide doesn't take it seriously. Now Jay Weatherill goes out there and says, 'We're on the right track.' Is it on the right track to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money in his own state to build a new gas-fired generator? Is it good policy for the Labor Party in South Australia to spend $110 million buying diesel generators that use 80,000 litres of diesel an hour? Mr Husic interjecting— Ms Flint interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Chifley and the member for Boothby will be quiet. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Is it good policy for the Labor Party in South Australia, with its 50 per cent renewable energy target, to now be taking more brown coal-fired power than ever over the Heywood interconnector from the Latrobe Valley in Victoria into South Australia? That is what bad policy looks like. That is now the policy that the Labor Party, federally, wants to take nationally after seeing it happen in the state of South Australia. We know that the member for Port Adelaide has stayed silent when his Labor brethren in Victoria and the Northern Territory have refused to develop decades worth of gas reserves and resources—not just unconventional gas but also onshore conventional gas, which we know, if it was developed, would reduce the power prices substantially for Australian households and businesses. The Labor Party, when in government, were warned about the big exports from the east coast to markets in Japan and elsewhere. They were warned about the impact on both prices and supply. Those warnings came not only from the Australian energy market operator but also from their own energy white paper. But, in the face of those warnings, they did nothing. And now, after denying the reality and the evidence, the member for Port Adelaide has admitted that it was Labor policies, Labor ignorance and Labor's foolery that led to higher prices today. Their record on coal is just as bad as their record on gas. In the state of South Australia, they oversaw policies which saw the closure of the coal-fired Northern Power Station. In the state of Victoria, they know that their Labor brethren, who they have refused to criticise, hiked the royalties for coal players in the Latrobe Valley by 300 per cent. Those policies contributed to the hastened closure of Hazelwood Power Station. Together Northern and Hazelwood's closures have led to the problems and the challenges we face. Now, after their time in office that gave us the cash for clunkers, the citizens assembly, the pink batts and the dreaded carbon tax, what do we get from the Labor Party? We now get a commitment to a 50 per cent renewable energy target and a ridiculously reckless 45 per cent emissions reduction target, a target which the Business Council of Australia has called 'reckless and unnecessary'. That's what the Business Council of Australia has called the Labor Party's own 45 per cent emissions reduction target: risky and unnecessary. The Labor Party do not know the true impact that would have on both the cost and the stability of the system. With the Australian Energy Market Operator making it very clear that there will be supply shortfalls going forward, and particularly with the closure of Liddell in 2022, we now need to take corrective action. That is why the Prime Minister has reached out to the owner of Liddell, AGL. They're coming to discussions in Canberra on Monday. Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— Mr FRYDENBERG FKL We hear an interjection from the member for Hunter, 'No Coal Joel'. He should know better, because hundreds of workers in his own electorate rely on coal-fired power. But he's out there waving the white flag even though the federal government wants to help them stay in a job. Not only that, the federal government is concerned about the stability of the system, and sought, from AEMO, this report into the dispatchability of the system. In Queensland, we saw a state Labor government under Premier Palaszczuk, with its own coal-fired generators that control 65 per cent of the market, put in place uncompetitive bidding practices that saw the state of Queensland have the highest wholesale electricity prices in the National Electricity Market for the first five months of this year. The members for Queensland on this side of the House know that policy, overseen by a Labor state government, meant higher prices for the people of Queensland. It was only because the federal government called out those uncompetitive bidding practices that the Labor government saw fit to give a direction to the Stanwell operator in Queensland. We have seen the forward curve come down substantially since then. So, it's their record on coal, their record in office, their record on gas, their record on renewable energy targets, their record in Victoria, their record in Queensland and their record in South Australia that have given us the challenges we face today. Under Prime Minister Turnbull, we have taken drastic action, which includes abolishing the limited merits review process, which, if the Labor Party had done it, would have saved consumers $6½ billion. Now the member for Port Adelaide, who said, 'Thank goodness the coalition is now abolishing the limited merits review,' is delaying the passage of that legislation in the Senate by referring it to committee so that his mates in the union movement can have their say. Well, if he were so concerned about driving power prices down, he would pass that legislation in the Senate. What did the Labor Party do during their six years in office to get a better deal from the retailers for consumers? What did they do to get plain-English contracts? What did they do to get the discounts offered in dollar terms, not in percentages? What did they do to get people who are on standing offers to be offered something that was a better deal? What did they do to get the retailers to notify consumers when they came off a market offer onto a more standing offer? The Labor Party did nothing: nothing on networks, nothing on retailers, nothing on gas and nothing on coal—only higher renewable energy targets, higher emissions reduction targets and higher electricity prices. The Labor Party's condemned by their own actions and their own record. The electricity prices on their watch went up more than 100 per cent. Only the coalition will drive down energy prices and create a more stable energy system. 15:44 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter Unlike those on his own backbench, I listened very carefully to what the minister had to say. I don't know whether they were trying to dissociate themselves from what he was saying, whether they were embarrassed by what he was saying or whether they were just bored and almost asleep, but there was no support there. In fact, for a while I didn't know if the minister was going to make the 10 minutes. He seemed to be running out of material. Why would he be running out of material? That would be because, in four years, his government has done nothing in terms of energy policy. That's why he spent 99 per cent of his speech attacking the party that has been in opposition for four years. We are confronting an energy crisis in this country. Of that there can be no doubt. If we face a hot summer this year, the lights will almost certainly go out. The minister suggested we didn't have a blackout in New South Wales on their watch. That is true. Ms Swanson interjecting— Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 I hear the member for Paterson, who represents the workers of Tomago. We had to close down the smelter in her electorate. That's why we didn't have a blackout in New South Wales. The minister has so mismanaged the energy sector that we had to shut down the Tomago aluminium smelter so the lights in New South Wales wouldn't go out. The member for Paterson's constituents were the victims, as were all the residents of the Hunter Valley. For all the complexities of our energy system, the issues we face are pretty simple. It is economics 101. Demand is outstripping supply in the energy sector. And why is that so? It is because of four years of mismanagement from those who sit opposite. I'm going to slightly correct the member for Port Adelaide. He said that we'd had this problem for four years. I would suggest that it's five years. He's correct: they have been governing for four years. But this investment drought began five years ago when the member for Warringah started promising all and sundry that if he was elected he would unravel the carbon architecture—the carbon price—the former Labor government put in place. It's from that date five years ago that investors in this country started wondering what the rules were going to look like in the future. It's from that date five years ago that investments started drying up in the generation sector. The minister at the table need not lecture me about workers in the Hunter Valley. The next coalminer he meets will be his first—and the chair of Rio Tinto doesn't count, Minister. Catching up with the chairman of Rio Tinto doesn't mean you've met a coalminer. Have you met a coalminer or power station operator? Constituents in my electorate and throughout the Hunter region are copping a double whammy. They will face the same high energy prices as all others in the consumption market. They will be hit with the high prices caused by this minister. But, in addition to that, they are missing out on their opportunity to transition to a new energy economy. There is an opportunity for the Hunter region to remain the powerhouse of New South Wales, a title it has enjoyed for decades. The members representing the region have been saying for many years that our coal-fired power generators are coming to the end of their commercial life. In the case of Liddell, as we know, this will be within five years. We've been saying that we have an opportunity to transition to a new energy economy. How? Gas is obvious. We have the land around the existing power stations. The transmission lines are there. We have the skilled workforce that can easily transition into the gas sector. Beyond gas, we have already established significant solar networks. Wind energy offers enormous opportunities in the Hunter. We have geothermal opportunities. We have the CSIRO in Newcastle, another great Labor initiative. But, for four years now, we've not been making that transition. We can't get investors interested, because they don't know what the rules are—and they don't know what the rules are, because of this mob opposite. No-one would be happier than me if Liddell could be extended, but this minister has no plan to do so. 15:49 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby As we know, and as I have said so many times in this chamber, the only governments who have failed the Australian people on the affordability and reliability of power are Labor governments. This is a fact. The only members who have failed the Australian people and particularly the South Australian people, the people of my home state, are Labor members, both state and federal. We know. I've lived through it. My community in Boothby have lived through it. We've lived through Jay Weatherill's big failed experiment, the experiment the South Australian people apparently had to have. This week we've learned from the member for Port Adelaide that they knew exactly what they were doing on gas prices and the impact that would have on electricity prices in Australia. They oversaw the price per kilojoule of gas going from $3 to a whopping $12, something that our government is fixing. It's fascinating to see the member for Port Adelaide and his and my South Australian colleague the member for Wakefield in here for once. They don't normally turn up when we talk about power, because they're embarrassed to do so, and they should be embarrassed, because what they have done is utterly failed the people of South Australia. I will keep saying this at every opportunity in this place: it was an absolute disgrace when the member for Port Adelaide described the blackout that happened in South Australia last September as a hiccup. It could not have been further from a hiccup. It put people's lives at risk. Flinders Medical Centre in my electorate of Boothby lost all power. The backup generator failed to work—again, another failing of the state Labor government, I'm going to say. It put lives at risk. We had people travelling in peak-hour traffic with no traffic lights. We had single policemen and policewomen standing in every single major intersection in Adelaide directing peak-hour traffic in terrible weather because of the state and federal Labor governments' failings on power. This is far more than a hiccup, and the manner in which the other side has behaved on this issue is absolutely disgraceful. Now we know that Labor in Victoria are going down this path as well. I just say to the people of Victoria and communities in Victoria that this is what you have to look forward to: the most expensive power in the world, which is what we have in South Australia, and the most unreliable power in the world. State Labor are doing things like importing diesel generators to make sure that the lights and power won't go off over summer. The generators are going to burn 80,000 litres of diesel an hour. How's that for clean, green power and a clean, green approach to electricity generation in this nation? Labor are just frantically chasing green votes, and yet they're imposing diesel power on us. It's just an absolute disgrace. But what really concerns me is not just the unreliability and the trauma that people were put through in South Australia; it's the cost. Households—mums and dads trying to raise their kids and give back to the community—are facing the most expensive power in the world in South Australia. Elderly people—pensioners, people who cannot afford these power increases—are facing the highest prices in the world, and what's Labor doing about it? Nothing. We, on the other hand, are doing a lot about this. There are a range of things we're doing—pumped hydro. We have some great projects proposed in South Australia. There is Snowy 2.0, which will increase the generation of the scheme by 50 per cent, adding another 2,000 megawatts of renewable energy to the national market. We're getting a better deal for people from retailers. They're contacting individual customers to let them know how they can save on their power bills, and we're looking at new and better ways to communicate to consumers how they can get the best deal. We're stopping power companies from gaming the system, which is really important, and of course, as I've mentioned, we're also making sure that the Australian people get access to gas before it is exported. Labor did not do that. We also have the ACCC reviewing retail electricity prices. I want to finish by thanking the Minister for the Environment and Energy for visiting my electorate of Boothby last week during our two weeks at home in our electorates. We met with a range of businesses, and the impact of these prices is quite terrifying. I'm very concerned. We heard concerns that jobs are at risk because of these failed Labor government policies. (Time expired) 15:54 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland What a pathetic effort by the member for Boothby. I have news for you: this is a national energy crisis, and you've been the national government for four years. This is a national crisis because we have generators leaving the market without sufficient replacements. We've lost 5,000 megawatts of base-load thermal power over the last decade. Guess how much has occurred under their government? Seventy per cent—twice as much has gone in their time in government in half the time; 3,500 megawatts of coal-fired power has been lost under their watch because they've been in chaos for four years. They don't have a national energy plan. They've given loads of uncertainty for generators, who are unable to make their investments. The truth is that we have a very old power fleet. In New South Wales, the average age is 35 years. In Victoria, it's 44 years. The real question is not: 'Can we survive with it?' It is: 'What replaces it?' Eventually, it has to retire. The members on the other side are obsessed with South Australia. I've got news for them. Not a single wind farm in South Australia would have been built without the bipartisan Renewable Energy Target. That is the only reason they're built. If there's any issue with wind, they own it! But the truth is that we have an ageing power fleet which is causing curtailment all over the place. On the 47 degree day in February in New South Wales, we didn't lose a couple of hundred megawatts like South Australia; we lost 1,000 megawatts of thermal base-load power—old power stations that were unable to perform. What happened? They were forced to curtail Tomago Aluminium smelter in the member for Paterson's great electorate, imperilling the jobs of over a 1,000 direct employees. They had no choice. If they didn't turn off Tomago, they would have had to load-shed 400,000 homes—four times what occurred in South Australia—because old base-load power couldn't deliver. So the debate here is about how we replace it. AEMO has belled the cat. If people had bothered to read the AEMO report released yesterday— Mr Giles 243609 Or had it read to them! Mr CONROY 249127 or had it read to them—thank you, member for Scullin—they would realise it is condemning this government's chaos. Let me read from it: Feedback from market participants and investors is that it is more financially secure to invest in renewable resources and that they are seeking greater market and policy certainty to be able to make investments in new dispatchable generation. That is code that investors can't invest in new dispatchable power because this mob don't have a policy they can invest on. We've had four years of uncertainty. The Energy Council, which is made up of the generators, not hippie-dippies or Greens, have said that their uncertainty is the equivalent of a $50-a-tonne carbon price. If we're serious about solving this energy crisis, we need a clean energy target and bipartisan consensus to drive investment—not for the next two years but for the next four decades. But we won't get it under this government because they are hopelessly divided. They're weak. The Prime Minister's in search of a backbone, and he won't find it. All he'll find is opposition from the member for Hughes, the member for Warringah and Senator Abetz, who are the real masters of that party room. The great tragedy of this is that the workers and communities in my area suffer the most. It's my workers and communities that suffer. I have the poorest town in all of New South Wales in my electorate: Windale. They're being hit with 20 to 30 per cent power rises. They're in the gun right now. It's my power station workers—just like the power station workers in the member for Hunter's electorate—who are being offered all this false hope, but it's all talk because the government have no plan. The easiest thing a politician can do is lie—is to agree with whoever they are talking to—but we owe them our honesty. We need to say that change is coming and we will work with them. We have a plan, just as the members for Hunter and Port Adelaide talked about previously. I will not be lectured to about supporting coal workers from this government. I will not be lectured to by them. My neighbours are coalminers. My mates at footy games are coalminers. The blow-ins on the other side have never met a coalminer. They don't care about solving this crisis. They just care about getting through the next week in this place. (Time expired) 15:59 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I think the Labor Party have lost the plot, I really do. I think they've gone a bit cuckoo over this one—seriously. Think of the MPI topic they have chosen today: The government’s complete failure on energy policy. Honourable members interjecting— Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 I agree! They've gone completely cuckoo. It made me wonder for a moment which government they're talking about. They didn't clarify that. Maybe they're not talking about the federal government. Maybe they're talking about Victorian Labor government, which, of course, is responsible for the closure of Hazelwood and continues to have a moratorium on gas exploration. But I might be wrong. An honourable member: You are wrong! Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 I am wrong, they say. Maybe I'm talking about—I don't know—the South Australian government, another Labor government with a 50 per cent renewable target. The state that has lived in blackouts because of traditional, typical, quintessential Labor policy. Mr Wallace interjecting— Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 There is indeed a connection, Member for Fisher, and I'll get to that shortly. The South Australian government is over-reliant on wind, and clearly never had the thought that, quite possibly, at some point, the wind may not blow. And then what happens? There are blackouts, and the best they can do is plug the extension cord into Victoria and suck as much back as they can. But, again, I could be wrong. They might be talking about a different government. How about the Queensland state Labor government? It is another Labor government that has a 50 per cent renewable target. This is the Palaszczuk Labor government, which continues to price gouge consumers so that it can rip out dividends from the power generating companies, which are government owned, to cover its own fiscal mess. In 2014-15, the Palaszczuk government hit government owned enterprises with a bill of $10 billion. That's how bad the Queensland Labor government is. Do members know how much it hit up Powerlink in that same year? Powerlink, of course, is a power transmitter. In that year, Powerlink earned a net profit of $220 million. Guess how much the Queensland state Labor government took as a dividend? Every single cent of it. And guess what it did then? By ministerial instruction, it directed Powerlink to pay an extra $1.2 billion. This is the problem with our power sector. This is a typical Labor government that, exactly like Victoria and exactly like South Australia, will rip out any money it can to cover its own fiscal mess. That's what's happened in Queensland. Earlier, my friend and colleague the member for Fisher asked, 'Do these governments have something in common?' Yes, they do. They're all cuckoo Labor. That's what it is: they're all Labor governments. If you think the only problems lies with the states, look at the Gillard government. Look at the last federal Labor government, which gave us the pink batts. Honourable members interjecting— Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 'It was four years ago, so let's forget about it,' they say. They are full of excuses. They gave us the pink batts and they gave us the carbon tax. The member for Hunter today wanted to recreate it, but instead of calling it the carbon tax it was—what did he call it?—the carbon architecture, and he blamed the coalition. The abolition of the so-called carbon architecture has apparently driven up power prices. They are completely deluded. In the face of such cuckoo Labor governments, all I can say is: thank God we have at the federal level a coalition government in control, because if we didn't they would bring back the carbon tax. They would make sure they only looked at renewables. They've made it very clear they want to close all the coal-fired power stations—typical Labor. Thank God we have the coalition in government. 16:04 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield It's quite the trifecta, isn't it? Doubled wholesale prices, reliability falling and carbon pollution up. It's quite the trifecta! Only a divided government could produce such a result. While the industry is crying out for certainty, while consumers are crying out for certainty, while they want bipartisanship, while they want rational policy making, what do we get out of this government? We got two prime ministers and now we have the member for Warringah acting, essentially, as an opposition leader within the government, contradicting himself in his approach to the RET. He renewed it when he was in office; he's now opposed to it while in opposition—opposition within the government. And we don't hear those interjecting from across the aisle. Why don't we hear them? Because they know I'm talking the truth. Suddenly, there's silence as they think: 'Oh, that's what's happening. That's the trouble. Oh, yes, Nick's right. We are divided. We do have two prime ministers. We have caused a lack of certainty in power.' It takes an incredible amount of chutzpah when you're running this divided, disorganised rabble, producing uncertainty not just in power area but in just about every industry—in the car industry, in the steel industry. In a whole range of areas across public life, we now find uncertainty, unpredictability and a lack of investment. Why? Because we have a government with a prime minister and an opposition leader in it. When we have those opposite get up and talk like they're living in some sort of Shangri-la at the moment—the speaker before me, so excited about things in South Australia and Queensland and all the rest of it—the truth is: your government got a report called the Finkel report. You ordered it. You asked the Chief Scientist to go out and do it. The report came in. It had 50 recommendations. You then adopted 49 of them, and the one you didn't adopt was the most important—the Clean Energy Target. There's only one reason why you would operate in such a fashion, and that's because you're divided on it, and we all know it. The member for Port Adelaide has offered, I think, very graciously, some measure of bipartisanship in this area in order to fix this crisis—which we all knew was happening. I talked about gas prices in this parliament in 2013. Yes, I did. You might want to go back and look at the Hansard. All of the problems the Prime Minister talks about today, you could have talked about then. I did, and the member for Throsby did. Manufacturing Australia was doing the rounds in this parliament at that time. Guess what? You guys got into government in 2013, so it's your responsibility to do something about it. What did you do? You sat on your hands. You've sat on your hands for four years. And now suddenly the Prime Minister wakes up one morning, gets out of bed and says, 'There's a crisis; I'm acting.' What does that acting involve? It involves bringing in the energy companies. Rather than treat them in a respectful fashion, he brings them in for this pantomime. He invites the cameras in and wags his fingers at these CEOs. You wonder why we've got a crisis when the participants are treated in that way and when the best thing that comes out of it is a letter to consumers. I mean, give me a break! And you're going to come in here and brag about that, and go out to your electorates and brag about that—a letter to consumers. 'Oh, aren't we tough!' No-one's going to believe it. They know you're divided. They know you can't provide certainty. They know you're not looking to the future. They know that you're selling snake oil. Every time you go around the place saying you're going to keep these ageing coal-fired power stations open longer than their natural life, people don't believe you. You can keep barking up this avenue and you can keep running crazily towards an ever-receding goal line, or you can actually plan for the future or you can embrace bipartisanship. Or you can embrace the report that you ordered—the Finkel report. Why don't you do that? Why don't you, just for once, engage in rational policymaking in this area rather than running silly scare campaigns? 16:09 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page This issue goes back, I suppose, to a bigger issue or discussion about global warming. Can I say that from the amount of hot air that's come out of the mouths opposite—there has not been much else—global warming has been done a lot of harm today. We are talking about energy. We talk about renewable energy, and carbon emissions are part of that discussion. Renewable energy targets are part of that discussion. There's been a very healthy debate in this country about both of those. I want to start by saying that as a government we have international obligations set way back, with the Kyoto targets that we set, I think, back in 2005 with carbon reductions emissions. We as a country will meet that international obligation. We also have a Renewable Energy Target that was set by this country a few years ago, for 2020. Both those targets we're going to meet. We're going to meet the international obligations that we've made about carbon emissions reductions, and we've made a new target in Paris as well for 2030. We are committed to those reductions and, as I said, we'll meet the renewable energy targets we would have. Those opposite said we weren't committed to either of those. But there's a really integral issue here when we're talking about energy, and that is that, at the moment, there is an issue with renewable energy. There is a bit of a cost with some forms, but there is certainly an issue with reliability. I'm sure all the Labor MPs get very brave when they go into their inner city leftie forums and say, 'We're going to meet higher new renewable energy targets,' but the thing that they don't answer, the thing that no-one over there has said—they'll talk in their slogans, but none of them have said this—is how they're going to guarantee supply. How are they going to guarantee supply from renewable energy targets given the technology that's available? In Finkel's report they talked about it as well. There is at most a four-hour storage capability within big solar projects. We have also seen this with wind. Dare I say that South Australia is the canary in the coalmine—excuse the pun. South Australia is the canary in the proverbial coalmine, and it died. It died because, with the high Renewable Energy Target they have of 40 per cent or 50 per cent or whatever it is, they proved that right now it is not reliable. It might change tomorrow, and sweet hallelujah! If someone comes up with a brainstorm tonight and solves the storage issues with renewable energy and the cost of renewable energy, the debate will be over. If it's cheap and it's reliable, it will be happening, but right now it is not reliable, and what South Australia did was prove that. Their reliance on renewable energy proved that it is not right now a reliable source of energy. So, as a country, we have to be very careful and very considered about this. This isn't some ideological beating of your chest about renewable energy. This is a very important debate about transitioning to a source of energy that will become in the future, I'm sure, a very important part of our mix but, in that transition, making sure that our energy is cheap, because we compete, and, very importantly, making sure that our energy sources are reliable. On that front, unfortunately, South Australia has been the very unfortunate guinea pig and has shown that is not the case. So we as a government are committed. As I said, we will be meeting our renewable energy targets that we've set by 2020. We will be meeting our global emissions targets that we set back in Kyoto in 2005 as well. While we're meeting those targets, we're not beating our chests and running around all the inner city leftie forums saying we're going to a renewable energy target of 40 or 50 per cent by 2030. That may happen if there are changes in technology. If there are technological advances in battery storage, that may happen before 2030, but right now that technology is not there. To be planning and doing that without that technology, without being able to guarantee that supply, is very dangerous. Again I reiterate that South Australia have proved that. Until the technology to go to that space is there, it's foolhardy. We can go there when the technology's there to make sure that renewable is a reliable source of power. Thank you. 16:14 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson It beggars belief that Australia's energy future is so close to the cliff that here, in this chamber today, the two main planks of this government's solution—the two pages, excuse the pun, Member for Page—could well have been ripped from a 1950's history book. We are arguing against the continuation of a 45-year-old power station as opposed to something that some very ingenious people came up with in the Snowy Mountains over 55 years ago. Is that all you've got? We are on the precipice of a true energy crisis in this country, and you mob—you entitled pack of geniuses—can come up with nothing. You failed to innovate and, more importantly, you cannot legislate. You are not only ineligible, in some cases, but you are also totally ineffectual—and herein lies the rub. That is the problem. In my electorate there are very important Australian industries operating. For them to continue to thrive and survive, they need reliable and continuous energy. In the neighbouring seats of my colleagues, the member for Hunter and the member for Shortland, there are important electricity generators, but they are ageing. We have learnt that the lack of forward planning by this government may necessitate the continuation of Liddell, a coal-fired power station. In some sort of fantasy universe, these guys opposite think that that's a long-term solution. I'm personally, actually, not against the continuation of Liddell, but I know it's not a reality. I know that it is not what we should be putting forward for the people of our regions and for Australia. In this final, desperate measure that is being grasped at by this government, they have failed to plan. You know who you've failed? You've failed the decent people of Australia, who get their electricity bills and think, 'How am I going to pay this?' You've failed the people who go to work every day, the people who farm and need electricity to pump water and the people who are trying to make things. Those are the people you have failed. Now we have no option but to go back to the future to prevent us all from being in the dark—literally! Never forget that energy is the oxygen of our economy and our communities. It's the health, transport and lifeblood of industry. It's incredibly frustrating that I cannot tell the CEO of Tomago Aluminium, Matt Howell, what the country's long-term energy solution is. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that Matt's been trying to give the Prime Minister a few little tips on how to keep the country humming, but the Prime Minister is a bit slow on the uptake. Tomago uses 11 per cent of New South Wales electricity. That's the equivalent of one million households. Basically, it had to be used as a back-up generator last summer. On 11 February, the power company went, 'Just switch it off for a minute, Matt, while we keep the air conditioners going; okay?' That is totally unacceptable. If it loses electricity for more than a few hours, it could be shut down, and that will cause a great deal of pain across our manufacturing sector. There are thousands of employees, directly and indirectly, who rely on it. How is our nation in a situation where we cannot generate enough electricity to maintain essential industry? It is because there is no national policy. Don't stand over there and bang on to us about pink batts to us. What have you been doing for four years? You've been doing seven-eighths of stuff all! I cannot believe that, in the year 2017, the best option that you can come up with is reinvigorating a 60-year-old hydro scheme. Where is the innovation? Where's the forward thinking? Where is the futureproofing? Globally, there is a 21st century investment in renewable jobs around the globe, and we are currently coming last, because you are so caught up in looking at the rear-view mirror—so caught up in your conservative ways—that you can't bear to think ahead. You can't bear to do some planning and some legislating for the people of Australia. We've lost one in three renewable jobs in Australia while globally— Honourable members interjecting— Ms SWANSON 264170 No, hang on a minute! Globally, they're up 45 per cent. Jobs in renewables are up 45 per cent across the globe, and yet we have lost one-third. It's a shameful indictment and indicator of the road that you have led us down. Meanwhile, our power prices go up and people are lashing out. Let me tell you: they will sharpen their pencils at the ballot box next time. So gird your loins, boys, because you're on the way down! 16:19 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I'm not sure if I can still stand after that withering attack, but I'll do my best. I've got to say thanks for the comedy show of the last 30 minutes. It's been just wonderful! We've now had doublespeak worthy of George Orwell: it's not a carbon price, it's not a carbon tax, it's carbon architecture. Coming to you in 2019, people of Australia: carbon architecture—just look forward to it. That'll solve all your problems. Then it was: 'The problem is privatisation. If we hadn't privatised stuff, it would all have been fine.' I must have been dreaming in New South Wales between 2003 and 2011, when prices shot up over 250 per cent when it was government-owned. Who owned it, again? That's right—Eddie Obeid, Bob Carr, Joe Tripodi, Ian Macdonald. The list just keeps going on. We will make sure you wear those names for as long as the Labor Party gets elected to any parliament in Australia. Joe Tripodi, Bob Carr, Ian Macdonald—we don't need anything more! We have just listened to five minutes of 'we need a plan'. When the member asked— Dr Aly interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Cowan! Mr FALINSKI G86 Oh, no, it was enjoyable; please don't stop. We had five minutes of 'no plan, no ideas.' Those on that side remind me of the arsonist who torches energy policy and then comes in here and accuses us of not putting out quickly enough the fire they started. My favourite bit was: 'Oh, no, it's got nothing to do with the moratorium the Labor states have put on gas exploration. No, that's just a coincidence.' Apparently they haven't done it. Opposition members interjecting— Mr FALINSKI G86 So what's Pilliga? Is the Pilliga not a gas field all of a sudden? We could go back to Eddie Obeid and Bob Carr, my favourite friends. What did they do in New South Wales? Everyone got a gas exploration certificate. I think there was a gas exploration certificate over the Harbour Bridge at one stage! When the government identifies that 50 per cent of Australians are potentially paying $1,500 a year more than they need to on electricity prices, when it identifies there's an asymmetric market failure and does something about it, what is the member for Shortland's response? Mockery. The truth is that when anyone comes up with solutions to the problems that you create, all you can do is mock. That's the only answer the Labor Party has. The 280,000 Australians who have gone to the website to check what better deal they can get from their electricity provider and retailer are not laughing. They're clapping, because they're getting a better deal. Every time we give energy policy to the Labor Party—whether it's in New South Wales or whether it's in Queensland, where the Palaszczuk government is using its wholly owned corporations to hold up its awful budgetary position—three things happen: prices go up, reliability goes down and uncertainty runs wild. That is what we have come to expect from the Labor Party. What have we done over here? We have created Snowy Hydro 2.0. They laugh at that, but the fact of the matter is that Snowy Hydro 2.0 will add 2,000 megawatts of renewable energy to the Australian energy grid. That is enough to supply 500,000 homes. We're told that all we're doing is trying to make things that already work, keep working and work better. Apparently for the Labor Party that's something to have a problem with. Trying to make things work better without having to spend a lot more money is something they don't like. We saw that in New South Wales, with the electricity grid. They gold plated it for no good reason whatsoever. When we finally came, in New South Wales, to lease the electricity grid, the ETU was opposing it while its own superannuation fund was investing in privatised electricity assets in China and a privatised water asset in the UK. That's what you expect from the Labor Party. No answers, all complaints and the problems never end. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The time for the discussion is concluded. COMMITTEES 9710 COMMITTEES National Disability Insurance Scheme 9710 Report 9710 16:24 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the committee's report entitled Progress report, September 2017. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ANDREWS HK5 by leave—This is the first progress report of the committee in the 45th Parliament. It covers events from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017. The committee is of the view that the NDIA is under considerable pressure to meet bilateral estimates and ensure that the scheme remains within budget. Nevertheless, the fact that it is still running almost 20 per cent behind estimates for participants is a matter which is of deep concern, particularly in the early-childhood intervention cohort. As the scheme ramps up and substantially increases in complexity and size, the committee is concerned that quality and individualisation of plans may be compromised. In conjunction with the reduction in satisfaction ratings, the litany of issues raised by participants, providers, families and carers with respect to how the planning process is being experienced by those the scheme is supposed to help is evidence of a downwards trend. The committee accepts that some of these process and administration issues will be worked through and remedied in time. However, evidence received during the committee's recent public hearings seems to be indicative of a culture developing in the NDIA that is not placing the participant, and those who support them, at the centre of the scheme. People with disability should not be facing delays in accessing services under the NDIS, yet the time between an access request being granted and a planning meeting being scheduled can be several months long. The committee finds this unacceptable and considers that the delays in access to services can be attributed to early issued faced by the NDIA at the commencement of the rollout, which affected the agency's ability to meet its bilateral estimates. The overall communication ethos underpinning the planning process appears to exclude participants and those who support them at crucial stages. The option for a participant to view and comment on their plan before it's finalised is, in the committee's view, a procedure that could alleviate concerns and stress. It could also serve to avoid potentially resource-intensive reviews of relatively minor adjustments, allowing the NDIA to focus its efforts elsewhere. The committee acknowledges that the agency is currently investigating the ways in which it can improve its participant and provider experience. In light of communication issues raised and the agency's pledge to improve its performance, the committee expects that the pathways review currently being undertaken will be published and made accessible to all those involved in the scheme. Areas identified as requiring improvement should be incorporated into the agency's quarterly reports, and progress against targets should be tracked over time. With regard to the issue of transport, particularly in relation to the provision of transport to and from school, the committee suggests that the NDIA strongly and urgently engage with transport providers, participants, parents and the disability sector on transport market issues to prevent the potential danger that participants of the scheme will be left with reduced transport options. As discussed in previous committee progress reports, it is very difficult for the committee and any other stakeholders to properly assess the effectiveness and progress of the scheme if the same measures of performance are not carried through each quarterly and annual report. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that changes in terminology cover substantial policy shifts, such as the apparent decision not to continue with the 'first plan' approach. There's been no official announcement that the NDIA has changed its policy. The change is only evidenced by the change in terminology in the most recent quarterly report, from 'first plan' to 'initial plan'. If this is indicative of a policy change, all stakeholders deserve to be made aware of it, rather than a simple change of wording from one quarterly report to the next. A further example of terminology being altered, thereby increasing confusion in the sector, is the introduction of the term 'ordinary life' alongside the criteria of 'reasonable' and 'necessary' to assess the provision of supports. While the committee acknowledges that there is documentation available to stakeholders that explains the term, it does not have the same legislative basis as the terms 'reasonable' and 'necessary'. The committee is therefore frustrated that the use of the term 'ordinary life' in decision making has introduced unnecessary confusion for stakeholders. The committee has made five recommendations reflecting the matters which I have mentioned in these brief remarks. The committee withholds further, detailed recommendations in relation to planning until the results of the pathways review are available. I thank the secretariat and all those who have participated in our inquiry to date for their contributions. 16:29 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga by leave—I want to endorse the remarks of the member for Menzies. I thank him for chairing the NDIS committee and I thank him and other members for the work they have done. I want to add one point. Listening to the people who campaigned so strongly for the National Disability Insurance Scheme now expressing their concerns in the way that the member for Menzies outlined is actually heartbreaking, particularly for people with disability. We should never, ever forget that the driving mission of the NDIS is to improve the lives of people with disability. The task for all of us is to make sure that that driving mission is achieved. I commend the report to the House. ADJOURNMENT 9711 ADJOURNMENT Walsh, Ms Deborah 9711 16:30 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I would like to reflect today on a family that has contributed significantly to the electorate of Brand, to Western Australia and to this nation, Australia. After giving so much and serving this nation for many years, this family faces their greatest challenge. I speak of the family of my predecessor and former member for Brand, Gary Gray; his wife, Deborah Walsh; their three sons, Riley, Darcy and Toby; and the entire extended Walsh and Gray families. We members of parliament do not get to this place alone and we are not able to remain in this place alone, although we usually travel here on our own. Those of us from WA and the NT have a four-hour flight across the continent, after perhaps a one-hour drive to the airport. That, with the two- or three-hour time difference, keeps us away from our families and friends for that much longer. Our families don't get to hear about our challenging work days over a quiet dinner in private with some reflection. Instead, they get to read about our work day in the newspapers or see it on TV or social media. Some nasty things are said about politicians and these rough words wound our families and friends, but they withstand them. They put up with a lot for us to be here. We leave our families and friends to be here, but they are always with us. We depend on them for so many things: encouragement, support, a kind word, a hug and especially love. Some families sacrifice more than others to ensure good people represent Australians in this parliament, and Deb Walsh has served this nation and sacrificed more than most for the important cause of a democratic and prosperous Australia. Deb Walsh is the tower of strength behind Gary Gray and his career serving the Labor Party, the community of Brand, the state of Western Australia, and this parliament and this nation as a minister of state. Deb Walsh is a warrior for our Labor cause in the tradition of her father: the great Peter Walsh, the Doodlakine wheat and sheep farmer who became Australia's stellar finance minister in the Hawke government. Deb; her mother, Rosalie Walsh; and her sisters, Karen Whittock, Shelley Birch and Anne Walsh; loaned us Peter Walsh for some years and enabled him to make such a significant contribution to this country. And Deb and her sons loaned us Gary Gray. Her support, inspiration and fight were behind Gary. It enabled him to serve Labor for 42 years as a member, a long-serving Labor official, a national secretary and a successful MP and minister. Gary and Deb continue to contribute, and this wonderful couple are always welcomed warmly in the electorate they have served. Gary and Deb took part recently in the Rockingham Kwinana Chamber of Commerce regional business awards and just last Saturday they rallied with their family and community on Rockingham foreshore in support of marriage equality—a cause Deb has thrown herself into, having covered the front yard of her house with rainbow flags, encouraging her street to vote yes. My husband, Jamie, earlier this week dropped off to Deb campaign T-shirts that the Grays and Walshes will be wearing to campaign for the yes vote in the upcoming survey. This is a survey that we didn't want to have, but, as this government has put it on this country, we on this side will fight for equality, as we always do—just as Deb Walsh and Gary Gray always have and always will. Personally, Jamie and I have received an enormous amount of encouragement and support from Deb and Gary, and I thank them for it. At the election which brought me here, they and their family ran the polling booth at Hillman Primary School. We won that booth—we won many booths on 2 July last year. Gary, Deb and their sons could reasonably have expected to enjoy many more happy years together, following a busy political life that has kept them separated so often but, sadly, that is not to be. Deb is battling cancer. It is now certain that for Deb Walsh there are fewer days ahead than behind. These days are inevitably tinged with sadness, but Deb faces these days with a determination to make the most of her days with family and friends, soaking up the love they can provide. She's an inspiring woman, a strong woman and an amazing woman that has cared for so many of us. She always welcomed Gary's staff, made us feel at home in their home and made us feel part of their wonderful family. We stand here today with Deb Walsh and Gary Gray. My colleagues the member for Perth, the member for Burt, all of us on the Labor side and, I'm sure, all of us in this House, stand with Deb Walsh and Gary Gray. Our thoughts and prayers are with you, Deb, and with your family. Gary is an old grump, that much is true, but we love him almost as much as we love you, and we will watch out for him always. Thank you, Deb. Economy 9713 16:35 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks This government has a pro-growth, pro-investment, pro-market outlook. We believe that anything is possible in Australia. We put in place policies that will enable Australians to pursue their dreams. But those opposite have an antibusiness, antisuccess, anti-aspiration agenda. They say that things are so unfair that people can't succeed unless they are born into a wealthy family—an absurd statement in a country as great as ours. In a recent speech, the Leader of the Opposition said, 'The wealth of your parents is becoming the defining feature and source of your future.' He said there was a sense that, 'Your success in life is predetermined by your parents' income.' Now, that's a very depressing vision of this nation, and it's a completely inaccurate one. Of course some people start out with more advantages in life than others, but, overwhelmingly in this country, our success is driven by the intensity of our own efforts, and it is not in any way predetermined by who our parents are. On this side of the House, we embrace policies that favour aspiration, investment and hard work, and those policies are working. We abolished capital gains tax for investments in start-up companies to help get more job-creating businesses off of the ground. We've seen a huge increase in investments in start-ups: $568 million raised in the last financial year, up several hundred per cent on a few years earlier. We've extended the instant asset write-off for small businesses, making it easier to buy that coffee machine, truck, set of tools or whatever it is to help your small business grow. We've enacted historic tax cuts for small- and medium-sized businesses, and they've now come into effect for businesses with a turnover between $2 million and $25 million. We've closed and implemented massive free trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China. This year, we've seen Australian agriculture exports grow by 19 per cent in value terms—a huge benefit to regional Australia, and so strongly driven by the benefits flowing from the China free trade agreement closed by this government. We see the economy performing well. We had GDP growth of 0.8 per cent in the last quarter—a strong result. Business investment in machinery and equipment was up more than three per cent in the quarter. Investment across government is up 5.7 per cent as well. The strongest growth in full-time employment in the last 40 years has been seen in the last six months. We've got strong momentum in the economy and we have very high levels of business confidence. You need business confidence to make investment happen, and you need investment to happen to create jobs and income, because you can't get a job in a business that is not growing. These successes are the result of policies that are unashamedly pro-growth, pro-investment and pro-business. But what do we know about those opposite? We know that they want to deny tax cuts for a business with just over $2 million of turnover—it might have a five per cent profit margin, making $100,000 profit, which is about the same as the average family income in Australia. They say that's some sort of evil multinational corporation that must be denied tax relief—an absurd position. They also want to put a new tax on housing by abolishing the century-old principle of negative gearing, which is really just that you can claim costs on investments—that's all it is. They say it should be gotten rid of. It's been around for 100 years. In order to address housing affordability, they want to increase capital gains tax by 50 per cent on everything—50 per cent on a farm or an investment in a factory or a cafe to address issues to do with housing affordability. Of course, a factory based in Broome does not have anything to do with housing affordability in Sydney or Melbourne. But, if you invest in a factory in Broome, you're going to pay 50 per cent more tax under the alternative government. They want people who earn $180,000 a year to pay $1 in every $2 they earn to them if they were in government. That's what they want. It is a bleak and depressing view that they have, as outlined in the opposition leader's statement—that is, that your success in life is predetermined by who your parents are. I don't think there's a person in this place whose life experience would actually reflect that, because in this country our success is largely determined by how hard we work. That is one of the great things about our country. It's something we should embrace. It's something that this government embraces by putting in place pro-investment, pro-growth policies, and we will continue to do that. Those policies are working. The alternative vision of those opposite would be very bad for Australia. Community Development Fund 9714 16:40 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam This week the residents of the Central Coast learned of a scandal concerning Central Coast Group Training Ltd, which has received two grants of $2.7 million each for nearly identical purposes. The first grant was made in 2013 by Labor with good intention, but commitments given at that time were not fulfilled. What is hard to understand against this background is why a second grant of the same amount was made in 2015 for the same business by the coalition government. All up, this business has received $5.4 million for skill centres in Tuggerah and North Wyong. This funding was intended to be a pilot program to generate 120 jobs for young people and to act as an incubator to bring small business and youth training together. Instead, according to the Newcastle Herald, the Tuggerah and North Wyong sites are largely empty. As the journalist, Joanne McCarthy, from that paper points out: The only thing missing is new jobs and apprenticeships for young people. The Central Coast is an area of high-average youth unemployment, at 17.3 per cent, compared to the national average of around 12. 9 per cent. This project was supposed to help, but it hasn't. You have to ask why the coalition were willing to hand over nearly $3 million to a jobs incubator that had not proved its worth—that is, until you look deeper into the business. Central Coast Group Training Ltd is a business owned by two former councillors of the Wyong council. At the time of the second grant, both were on the council, one, Doug Eaton, as mayor, and the former Liberal member for Dobell, Karen McNamara, was also once on the board. The tragedy of this grant is that these millions of dollars of public funding have gone to a worthless project for murky and political reasons when there were many other projects that could have been funded. The Community Development Grants Program can only be described as a National Party slush fund. It's a $1 billion program with few guidelines and no competitive funding processes. The minister's own department has confirmed to a Senate estimates hearing that this program is there to fund coalition election commitments. Funds have largely been committed to projects in coalition seats. This is in direct breach of the Commonwealth grant guidelines for ministers, which say: The ANAO has put an emphasis on the geographic distribution of grant activities as a measure of equitable distribution … The political manipulation of these grants is scandalous. Between 2013 and 2017, they have committed over $135 million from this fund to National or Liberal Party seats in New South Wales alone. By contrast, Labor seats received a little over $1 million. This is a ratio of 135:1 since 2013. In Queensland, it's the same story: $138 million to coalition seats and a little over $1 million to Labor seats. Then you have a look at the bucks for the boys. The Deputy Prime Minister in New England has had the lion's share, with a total of nearly $17 million. The seats of North Sydney and Wentworth combined had a total of $20 million. The object of the Community Development Fund is to fund projects to provide for the long-term viability of local communities. Clearly, it's been about the long-term viability of the government and its senior members more than these communities. Given the obvious rorting of this fund, it is no surprise that there's extraordinary secrecy behind the grants process. I wrote to the Australian National Audit Office in May this year to raise questions about the administration of the program. I wrote again after discovering the Central Coast scandals uncovered by the Newcastle Herald and Joanne McCarthy. I have also written to the minister with an FOI request. In an extraordinary admission, we were told that no documents exist. Some in this place may remember the regional rorts uncovered by the ANAO at the end of the Howard government. It seems that, 10 years later, the Turnbull government is going down exactly the same path. This week the minister responsible for the Community Development Grants Program said her decisions on funding programs are balanced, well thought through and measured, and made on merit. We think not. This is all the more reason why the Prime Minister should ask the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the minister responsible, to step aside. It is no small academic matter. The government has already conceded that the minister is probably not eligible to sit as a senator in the other place. If she's not eligible to sit as a senator, then she's not eligible to sit as a minister. Against the background of maladministration of these funds over many, many years, I again call on the government to do the right thing and ask the minister to step aside. (Time expired) Dunkley Electorate: Illicit Drugs, Alcohol Abuse, Law Enforcement 9715 16:45 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley Dunkley is a unique area of Australia. We have so much diversity both within our community and within our natural environment. It is not difficult to fall in love with an area that I frequently brag has the best of the city, the country and the coast. Any local resident can proudly proclaim that our community is something to be treasured, protected and fought for. Despite this, one of the most consistent issues of concern not only across Australia but also within my local community is the harm related to alcohol and drug use. Prior to my election, I made a firm commitment to work with the Dunkley community to improve treatment, after-care, education, prevention, support and community engagement to tackle the use of ice, alcohol and other drugs. Within 60 days of my election, I wrote to establish the Frankston and peninsula local ice and drug community action task force, which has now been funded from the federally funded local drug action team's funding. This has representatives via the existing RAD-FMP, which is the response to alcohol and drugs across Frankston and the Mornington Peninsula. Utilising this existing network of representatives from Peninsula Health, Victoria Police, local schools and sporting clubs, as well as other community leaders, we have been able to build upon the approaches our community has already taken, adding to these with federal funding. We were the first of the initial 40 local drug action teams Australia-wide to receive funding for projects to prevent and reduce harm and issues that result from the use of alcohol and drugs, about which I have already spoken in this place. A total of 220 local drug action teams are being rolled out nationwide. One of the first grants that our local drug action team achieved and is working on is for a project to work with 95 peninsula sporting groups to prevent local alcohol and drug use. One of the key things that I have focused on with young people in my electorate is ensuring that they are engaged with the community and involved in sport and other activities to help prevent drug, crime and other things. As the youngest member of the House of Representatives, I am particularly passionate about this. I have also followed up on my commitment to provide every household in Dunkley with an information pack about the resources available to individuals, families and communities who may be observing or feeling the impact of alcohol and drugs. We know that there is widespread use of alcohol and drugs, but the full extent is often either hidden or not discussed. That is why the task force and I feel it is so important to get this information out to those who need it. Whether or not they approach those available to help, those in the community know the help is there. This brochure has been well received and, on my own initiative, via my office, I encourage interested members to come to speak to me about this guide whenever they have time. This is an important issue and there must be a concerted effort by all levels of government. The Turnbull government has made it clear that, through these local drug action teams established nationwide under our $300 million funding to tackle ice and drug use, we are committed to providing help and resources through the avenues where they are likely to be most effective. Much help is being provided to us at the local level both from local government and from local networks and organisations. But what we are missing is much of the law and order approach, as Victoria Police are already stretched because crime in Victoria is at an alarmingly high level. Figures released this morning indicate that in Victoria property crime is much higher than it is in any other state or territory. The Insurance Council of Australia has put the cost of rising rates of property crime at $164 million, equal to that of New South Wales and Queensland combined. This is why I continue to fight the state government for additional resources and increased staffing levels for the local police, who are dedicated to fighting ice and drugs, alcohol and organised crime, including detection of drug laboratories. We need further investment from the state government. I know, for example, that the new Liberal candidate for Frankston, Michael Lamb, the senior sergeant in charge of Frankston police, is passionate about working with me to tackle this issue. We must ensure that Victoria Police are not trying to combat all this with one arm tied behind their backs. So I continue to call on the state government to invest additional resources in Victoria Police to make sure they are fully able to address local law and order issues that arise, in particular from the supply and use of alcohol and drugs in our community. Police levels in Victoria must be retained and must continue to be increased to ensure that organised crime can be addressed. This is something that has been repeatedly stressed by many Victorian MPs, and it cannot be ignored by the Andrews Labor state government any longer. Further, I have committed to and continue to fight— (Time expired) Telstra Corporation Ltd 9717 16:49 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin When a company makes more than $5 billion profit a year, one would expect that it could provide its customers with good service, but that's not always the case with Telstra, Australia's largest telecommunications provider. Contacting Telstra can be difficult. It doesn't provide a physical address for customers to visit. The Telstra website offers no email address. There is no contact address for written inquiries and contact with Telstra is usually through a 1300 or similar number, which most likely will redirect a caller to an offshore call centre. It's a company that seems to avoid face-to-face customer contact. It's the ultimate irony that the company which has become a corporate giant on the claim of 'Putting people and business in touch with one another' makes personal contact with itself so difficult. Telstra is the single largest source of complaints to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. Many of the complaints are associated with the NBN rollout and Telstra's unique relationship with NBN Co. Complaints include: using offshore call centres staffed by people with no local knowledge; generic do-it-yourself instruction sheets given to consumers for installation of equipment such as modems—sometimes with incorrect information; the NBN fibre-to-the-node loss of phone service during power outages; the deliberate manner in which services are packaged to make it impossible for customers to make a like-for-like comparison; and the use of Telstra-specific products with no operating manual. Today, telecommunication is not a luxury; it's an essential service for homes and businesses. When a problem arises with a telecommunications service, if users are not tech savvy they need to access real people who are familiar with their location and the telecommunications system they rely on. But for Telstra that has become a thing of the past. It seems that the quickest way to get an answer to a Telstra problem is to visit the Telstra CrowdSupport website, a social forum where customers provide support and solutions for each other. Telstra CrowdSupport may be useful, but it also highlights the level of customer dissatisfaction that such a website has become necessary. The NBN rollout has added to Telstra complaints, in particular the NBN fibre-link bottleneck from the node to the exchange often reducing performance to below existing non-NBN levels. Adding to frustrations, problems are frequently handballed back and forth between Telstra and NBN Co, with both companies now employing spin doctors to mask their poor customer service. My office is regularly contacted about Telstra NBN issues. I quote from a recent email I received about the difficulties a person was having with their new Telstra NBN connection: Some issues arose which I was able to address but it would have been a lot easier if I had access to the user manual for the modem rather than the generic one page setup guide provided in the box with the modem. The Gateway modem provided by Telstra is a Sagemcom Model F@st 5355. This manual is not available on the manufacturer's website so I phoned Sagemcom—they advised me that the Gateway is sold exclusively to Telstra and I must contact Telstra for a User Manual. They gave me the Telstra 1800 number to call. This led to a 47 minute wait for a reply. When I was finally answered by a call centre in Manila the male operator said there was no manual, then when pressed he said he would speak with the technical support people and he put me on hold. The end result was I ended up back on the queue for another 10 minutes before being answered by yet another operator and I had to start the whole process over again. This female operator had no idea how to deal with my query and told me to search the web using Google—which I had already done before ringing Telstra. She then said I should see if the Telstra Shop could provide a manual, which I had tried in the past with no success. I asked to speak with her supervisor and was put on hold where I remained for a further 20 minutes before speaking with yet another operator and having to explain the whole story again. After he consulted with a supervisor he asked for a mobile phone number to call me back within the hour with information. This did not happen. A total of 1 hour 20 minutes on the phone all spent to no avail. More recently, I was contacted by a local business, which has been trying to resolve its Telstra NBN switchover issues for six weeks and the problem is still not fixed, causing major disruptions to the business as it impacts on its internet, EFTPOS, security cameras, alarms and telephones. The buck-passing as to whether the fault lay with Telstra or NBN adds to the frustration and difficulty. Last year, Telstra made $5.85 billion in profit. Its CEOs are paid millions of dollars. Surely, a little of Telstra's profits could be spent to ensure better service is provided to its customers, whose pockets the profits come from. Murray Electorate: Public Transport 9718 16:55 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray I rise to talk about an issue that is still burning for many of the people in the Goulburn Valley, and it is one that I have raised in parliament quite a few times—that is, the train service that is continually ignored by the Victorian Labor government. Shepparton is a dynamic city and a service centre for a whole range of other smaller towns and cities around it, but, for too long, our needs have been swept under the carpet and simply put in the too-hard basket by a Labor government that has been ruling in Victoria for 14 of the last 18 years. And, when you look around the state, you will see that, while 70,000 people live in Shepparton, within another 30-minute radius, there is a population of well over 100,000 people. It's astonishing that the Labor Party in Victoria is a bottomless pit—having just sold the lease to the Port of Melbourne for 50 years, they got an unexpected $9 billion payload—and all it can do is stand in a corner and throw $1.2 billion out the window because it elected not to build a road that is going to cost them $1.2 billion in penalties. This is still very fresh in the minds of the people of the Shepparton and the Goulburn Valley region where they have a Premier and Labor Party that are wasting money. Yet, when it comes to fixing up a train line so there is an adequate service, somehow they don't have the money to do it. Many comparisons have been made between the Shepparton service and those of other major regional cities around Victoria. Bendigo has 20 daily services and is about to increase to, I think, another eight to 10. We understand that Bendigo is about 28 kilometres closer to Melbourne than Shepparton and, at speed, the difference between these two cities is negligible. So this 30-odd kilometres of difference has very little to do with it. We simply have a Labor Party in Victoria that doesn't want to know about one particular part of the state. We have a Premier in Victoria who won't even go to the Campaspe shire. He's so embarrassed about the fact that he hasn't been there during his premiership that the local paper started to run a campaign to try to get him into one of the most visited tourist areas in the state. For some reason, the Premier doesn't want to travel to some of the other parts of the state. But now we have a situation where we have a train service that is actually slower than what it was 25 years ago. The top speed of the train service to Shepparton is 75 kilometres per hour and it takes 3½ hours. You can drive to Melbourne in just under two hours—and we wonder why the patrons are not using the current service. It's because the current service is absolute rubbish. We need the Victorian government to understand that the cities on the north-east line of Wangaratta and Wodonga need assistance with getting a better rail service. The Shepparton line needs a better service. Constituents have rung my office to tell me that, from Mooroopna, they would rather drive to Bendigo to catch the service into Melbourne than drive the six kilometres to Shepparton station. If this is not a sign of ridiculousness, I don't know what is. I implore the Victorian state government to start looking at this part of the state and delivering some decent rail services that are going to compare favourably with other parts of the state, such as the enormous upgrades on the Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo lines. There is going to be further investment in some of these lines that will see the Labor party seats well and truly catered for while other parts of the state, political or not, are simply forgotten about by the Labor Party in Victoria. The SPEAKER 00APG It being 5 pm, the House stands adjourned until 10 am next Monday. House adjourned at 17:00   The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ) took the chair at 10:00.

Thursday, 7 September 2017

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

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 9720 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Charitable Organisations 9720 10:00 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner In 2010, a High Court case determined that the advocacy work done by Australian charities is essential to our system of representative democracy. A sector-wide survey by Pro Bono Australia in 2015 found that nine out of 10 Australians considered recognition of this aspect of charity work to be an important factor in developing the sector. Australians want their charities to convey their views and ideals. Work done by the Community Council for Australia revealed that, in communities where suicide and incarceration were a major issue, those issues were effectively tackled through public awareness by charities. Work through charities such as beyondblue has contributed significantly to Australian public policy development. As David Crosbie of the Community Council for Australia puts it: Communities want their charities to be advocates, to raise their voices, to represent those who do not have the capacity to influence policies. Yet we have, in the Turnbull government, attempts to water down the ability of charities to advocate for better policies and attempts to limit the ability of charities to carry out research. This has been criticised by the Australian Institute of Company Directors, Philanthropy Australia, the Community Council of Australia and the Fundraising Institute of Australia. The proposal to create new reporting requirements for advocacy activities—in other words, more red tape for charities—and the proposal to limit the level of advocacy undertaken by environmental organisations, by requiring them to allocate 25 to 50 per cent of donation revenue to environmental remediation, limit the ability of charities to advocate for better policies in Australia. What would you expect from a government which has attempted to shut down the advocacy work that's being done by our aid organisations and by our legal centres? It must be possible for Australian charities not just to help individuals but also to help create better policies. When we have our charities engaged in the public policy process, we end up with better policies. They're at the coalface. They're seeing the work that needs to be done to build a stronger community, a more just community and a more environmentally sustainable community. Yet the Turnbull government wants to shut our charities out of the advocacy space, to prevent them from having a voice in building a better Australia and to prevent their research activities. Labor will stand shoulder to shoulder with charities—as we have done in fighting for keeping the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission—on this vital issue of advocacy. Australian Bushfires 9720 10:03 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest Bushfire season is not far away. It's time to prepare, act and survive. As this booklet says, it could save the lives of you and your family this bushfire season. The question is asked: 'How can I increase the chance my house will survive a bushfire? What should I do when a bushfire is coming? Is it possible to defend my house from a bushfire?' We know only too well in my electorate. As members of this chamber know, the South West had one of the most devastating bushfires in the region with the Yarloop bushfires in January last year. The heavy rains over the winter mean that, in spite of our wonderful bushland and forests, this has increased the fuel load, and this is especially dangerous when it comes to the bushfire season. We saw the Yarloop fires claim the lives of two local people. There were well over 100 houses destroyed, and the community is still trying to recover. I don't want to see this happen again, so I want to encourage people to act now. Each one of us has a key role to play in making sure our communities and our own properties are prepared. The Department of Fire and Emergency Services has made this vital tool kit, encouraging people to prepare, act and survive. You need to write down a plan and prepare what you and your family need to think about. Where will you go if you need to go to a safer place? Know where you will go and never just wait and see. Does your household include elderly relatives, young children or people with disabilities or illness? Where and when will they be relocated? Who will care for them? Do you need to consider anyone else in your plan—housemates, neighbours and friends that you might need to help? What will you do with your pets and your livestock? Just walk around your property or your home, assess it and prepare for a fire. Look for the things that could burn or where embers could start a fire. Install a stainless steel, open-weave mesh cover across your evaporative air conditioner. If you take these measures, you won't be putting our amazing volunteer and professional firefighters at risk. They do an amazing job at protecting us. Mostly, as I say, they are volunteers in the South West of Western Australia, and they did just an extraordinary job. The whole of the region, all of the volunteer firefighting groups, contributed to that response in Yarloop. But, if we all prepare and act, we can take far more responsibility ourselves. That's why I'm encouraging everybody in the South West and right around this country, in the run-in to summer, to prepare, act and survive and make sure that you do everything you can to reduce the risk for our amazing volunteer fire and emergency services. Grayndler Electorate: WestConnex 9721 10:06 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I rise, yet again, to speak out against the destructive failure of planning of the WestConnex project in my electorate of Grayndler. Last month, the EIS for stage 3 of WestConnex was released. It confirmed that seven new smokestacks are going to be built in the Inner West in order to fumigate the tunnels being built underground. I recently received correspondence about the stacks from one of my constituents in Rozelle. He wrote: Dear Mr Albanese, My wife and I have lived in Rozelle for almost 20 years and we are absolutely not against development. We understand that a 21st Century city needs a smart combination of private and public transport options … It is beyond us to understand how any responsible government, any responsible human being in fact, in a first world country, considers it even conceivable that it is remotely acceptable to first concentrate and then spew unfiltered exhaust fumes onto its citizens. We realise filters will cost up front and surely cost to maintain, but our point of view is this must be built into the cost of the project and delivered as part of the project. To do anything other is outright irresponsible. Four of the stacks are being built in the suburb of Rozelle within a stone's throw of local schools. All seven of them are situated in the middle of densely populated residential areas with more schools nearby. The current NSW Minister for Education, Rob Stokes, recently remarked, at the suggestion that a smokestack be built near a school on Sydney's North Shore, 'There is no way in hell that I'd support any development that would put the lives of pupils, teachers and parents at risk.' The NSW coalition government are saying that there won't be any stacks near any schools in electorates which they hold, but it's fair game near schools in seats held by Labor. We're better than this as a nation in the 21st century. We deserve the same care for our kids and schools, regardless of who the local MP is. And we want the same protections in Rozelle, St Peters and Haberfield that Minister Stokes thinks that schools on the North Shore deserve. I call upon the Minister for WestConnex, Stuart Ayres, and NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian to do the right thing and protect the residents of the state they claim to represent by filtering any stacks from this project. Calare Electorate: Scouting 9722 10:08 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I'd like to draw the House's attention to the fact that this year the 3rd Bathurst (All Saints Cathedral) Scout Group is celebrating its 85th anniversary. The Scout group was established in 1932 by Canon Edward John Davidson, and I'm pleased to report to the House today that the group is still going strong. Scouting in the Bathurst community has earned great respect for its core values and the leadership skills that it brings. The organisation helps our younger people flourish and become an integral part of the community through developing areas of personal growth and, as I've mentioned, leadership as well. Internationally, Scouting is a movement that aims to help build a world where young people are self-fulfilled as individuals and play a constructive role in the wider society. I'd like to make special mention of a number of members of the 3rd Bathurst (All Saints Cathedral) Scout Group: leader in charge Sandie Thomas; chair Rory Hock; treasurer Meegan Meekin; secretary Ann Louise Hardy; committee members Sam Higgins, Keith Worthington, Peter Brady, Leanne Upton and David McInroy; section leaders of the joey mob Jacinta Heaton, Kristal Thomas, Sophia Kersten and Rebecca Robinson-Carroll; section leaders of the cub pack Rochelle Dawes, Paul Hennessy and Tom Christie; section leaders of the scout group Simon Fraser, Steven Fry, Corey Belan, Greg Nichols and Geordie Mulholland; and section leaders of the venturer unit Gary Jonassen and Chris Worthington. It's estimated that some 2,000 young people have been part of this group since its foundation and the group has trained and had some 200 adult leaders since its inception. The group estimates that since 1932 it's completed 100,000 hours of community service for the local area. And today the group averages around 1,000 hours of community service a year. They take part in all manner of community events, including Australia Day, the motorbike festival, Autofeast, the Blayney 2 Bathurst bike race, Anzac Day events, Anzac Day badge selling, the Edgell Jog, McHappy Day and Lions Club hamper packing. I was recently at the cathedral service in Bathurst for the 85th anniversary celebrations. It was a wonderful occasion. It was well supported and attended by members of the broader community. I would like to thank and recognise the 3rd Bathurst (All Saints Cathedral) Scout Group for their work and wish them a happy anniversary. Diabetes 9723 10:12 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell Every day, 280 Australians develop diabetes. That's one person every five minutes. More than 100,000 Australians have developed diabetes in the past year. On the Central Coast alone, there are 33,000 people living with diabetes. As a pharmacist working at Wyong Hospital for almost 10 years, I saw firsthand the complications of diabetes—ulcers, amputations, kidney failure and preventable blindness. The prevalence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes in my community is significantly higher than the national average. This is an epidemic. That's why next Sunday I'll be joining the JDRF One Walk helping to raise awareness and funds for research into diabetes. Now in its fifth year on the Central Coast, local organiser Margaret Sheridan's goal is to hit a fundraising target of $100,000 and I'm asking our local community to dig deep. I met Margaret recently. She's an inspiration. Her tireless efforts working with Robyn Edmonds-King to raise funds to turn type 1 into 'type none' deserve our gratitude and thanks. A special mention must go to Margaret's family. Without their help, this event would not happen each year. Research is important, awareness is important, but there are children in our community who need help now—children like seven-year-old Alexis, who has type 1 diabetes. Alexis's mum, Kerrie, met with me to speak up for children with type 1 diabetes, their families and carers, and to draw attention to the lack of services in our region. Kerrie knows firsthand that we need expanded paediatric endocrinology services on the coast. It's time the New South Wales government stepped up. I welcome the recent appointment of a part-time paediatric endocrinologist and I call on the state government to properly fund diabetes services on the Central Coast. The Central Coast Local Health District's diabetes service is stretched and the demand is increasing. Children like Alexis need early intervention. It saves lives. Charities like Diabetes NSW & ACT have seen the need for help on the Central Coast and acted. Their recent DiaBuddies day at the Australian Reptile Park was a boost to local families, bringing together children with type 1 diabetes and their families, carers and friends in a supportive environment. I look forward to Diabetes NSW & ACT bringing this event to the coast again soon. This is a critical health issue and more research is essential. So too are education and support and boosted local services. If you're free on Sunday, 17 September join me in Davistown. It's dog, pram and wheelchair friendly, and you'll be doing your bit to make type 1 type none. Illicit Drugs 9723 10:15 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I'm proudly the father of three boys, and one thing that keeps me up at night and frightens me about their future is the drug ice. The use of ice in rural and regional areas is twice as high as in metropolitan areas but the effects in those small communities that I represent are exponential because of the size of those communities. We see it. It's more prevalent. It's in our faces. Proudly, our government has committed $300 million to tackle this through the National Ice Taskforce and is also making sure there's a strong influence towards rural and regional Australia. We've embraced the Primary Health Networks to engage with the communities and invest that money wisely at a community level. Over the last four months, I've been undertaking ice forums with our Primary Health Networks to ensure that the community has a say in the delivery of services in our communities to ensure that we get real delivered outcomes. We've been to Chinchilla, Dalby, Kingaroy, Warwick and recently out to St George and Roma. In those places we've heard some harrowing stories of the families that have been impacted by this terrible drug. Only last week in Roma I heard the story of a brave young man named Justin. He is a 21-year-old man who had been clean from ice for 60 days. He stood in front of his community and told us that he still wakes up every morning with the urge to take ice again but it's the will and the strength of his family that is keeping him off it. About to go in front of a magistrate to take his punishment, he proudly stood in front of his own community and said he had done wrong. He was prepared to take that punishment, but he wanted to be part of a community that tackled this problem. Proudly, this government has put in place Local Drug Action Teams that allow locals to educate locals against the impacts of what this terrible drug will do. Justin will be one of those young ambassadors who will stand proudly in front of their community and tell them the frightening effects ice has had on them and their families. We should be proud that we've got small regional communities that will own this. No matter how much money we put in to this—we could put $300 million into it or we could put $600 million into it—unless the community comes together and owns this problem we will not tackle the scourge of ice. We will not do this by throwing money at it alone; the community must own it. We must come together and forge alliances. The standard we walk past is the standard we will accept. Proudly, communities like St George and Roma already have Local Drug Action Teams that are taking a real stand. Football clubs will not allow their players to be on ice. They're drug testing them. We now have businesses that are proudly doing that in the community of St George. We have leadership. We are empowering communities. No matter where it is across this nation, I implore every federal member to become part of this movement with their Primary Health Networks to ensure that we do everything we can to rid ourselves of this scourge. Child Care 9724 10:18 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley Across Australia, almost two million children attend child care. The vast majority of them are aged zero to five and attend childcare centres before they are old enough to begin school. The first five years of a child's life are the most important as they lay the foundations for health, safety, development, learning and happiness for the rest of their life. Today, I stand proudly with the more than 80,000 early educators who will be sending a clear message at 3.20 pm today, as part of the Big Steps campaign, that it's time they were recognised and time their pay was increased. Childcare workers and early educators are not being treated with respect. The facts speak for themselves. They get paid as little as $20 per hour, half the national average wage. Making matters worse is that 97 per cent of educators are female, which only further widens the gender pay gap in Australia. Those 80,000 childcare workers are shaping and looking after the most important people in the community, our children. Many of these graduates, after studying a four-year course, end up with a HECS debt that exceeds $25,000. That means those early educators will be paying off their HECS debt at such a low rate between their late 30s and 40s. Also, across Australia, we know the Australian government spends less than 0.48 per cent of GDP in the sector, significantly less than the OECD average of 0.8 per cent. This means Australia is trailing behind countries like Mexico, Romania and South Korea. Time and time again, studies have shown that the return on the investment for education for zero to five years outperforms any other form of education, measured in both economic and social success. There's no other way to look at it. We are languishing behind other nations across the globe. Today, my message is clear: I stand shoulder to shoulder with the thousands of workers in my electorate and those workers across the nation who are simply asking for a fair go. I say congratulations to United Voice for their outstanding campaign of making this a national issue. I'll continue to add my voice to this important campaign because our children and the early educators deserve much, much better. Fairfax Electorate: Bloomhill Cancer Care 9725 10:21 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Bloomhill Cancer Care has been operating in Buderim on the Sunshine Coast now for 20 years. For 20 years they have been helping to care for and support people who are suffering from cancer. Everybody in this chamber—indeed, everybody in the House—knows people and has been touched by people who have struggled with cancer. Bloomhill, up on the Sunshine Coast, for 20 years has operated as a not-for-profit charity, providing support and care for so many citizens, not just of our region, but of Queensland. However, they've been challenged because it is not easy running an organisation with nearly 50 staff and nearly 500 volunteers. They don't get ongoing government funding. Yet there's an opportunity, and that's why I wanted to stand in the chamber today. The opportunity is this: last week, we had the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, up on the Sunshine Coast with us. We visited Bloomhill. The minister, like anybody who visits Bloomhill, was blown away by the good work they do. To solve their financial issue, to ensure they have ongoing sustainability—right now, they're relying on their op shops and generous philanthropic donations—to go beyond that and to give them true financial sustainability, the Commonwealth has offered something to the state government of Queensland. Last week, the federal health minister confirmed that the remaining 15 medical places to enable a medical school to be established on the Sunshine Coast would be granted. Half of those places would be paid for by the Queensland state government—that's been their offer. Instead, the federal government has said to the Queensland state government: 'Don't give us that $165,000 a year. Don't give us that money. Don't alleviate the Commonwealth. Give that money instead to Bloomhill. It's Bloomhill that needs the financial support.' What I'm calling for today is for the Queensland state government to look beyond metro Brisbane. Look beyond Brisbane and look at the regions and the Sunshine Coast. Here we have an opportunity to fund Bloomhill Cancer Care at a net zero cost to the state government if they only take up the Commonwealth's offer. Let's help Bloomhill because they're helping our citizens and they're helping the state of Queensland. Ballarat Electorate 9725 10:24 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Despite the snow and the chill across my electorate this week, the people of Ballarat continue to refuse to let winter or a very cold spring dampen their spirits. From the Sovereign Hill Winter Wonderlights we had in July to the Ballarat Winter Festival with ice skating in the main street, throughout these colder months we've had a string of community events and celebrations. We've really embraced the winter. Right now, thanks to the hard work of director Fiona Sweet and her team, residents of my electorate are enjoying the 2017 Ballarat International Foto Biennale. Last week's Canberra Times reported on the biennale hosting the first and only ever exhibition in Australia of works by famed photographer David LaChapelle. What I found particularly special about this biennale is the way in which it has embraced the whole community. This year's biennale features 90 exhibitions across 70 venues, from laneways to cafes and from shopfronts to gallery spaces, across all of the CBD of Ballarat and beyond. In Ballarat, going about the biennale is as simple as going about your daily business—proof that ready access to a rich arts and cultural life is not the preserve of Australia's major capital cities. Alongside the arts and culture that we've had this winter, our region's love of footy has also been well catered for. In round 22 of the 2017 AFL season, the Western Bulldogs and Port Adelaide played at our redeveloped Mars Stadium. It was the first match for competition points in the AFL in Victoria to be played outside Melbourne or Geelong for more than six decades. Whilst the Doggies unfortunately went down to Port by 17 points, the day itself was testament to the city coming into its own as the capital for western Victoria. Over 10,000 football fans attended. We hope there are many more such days in the future. Not to be outdone, Ballarat's business sector has also kept itself in focus over the winter months with the Ballarat Business Excellence Awards. After weeks of anticipation and judging, Albins Performance Transmissions was awarded the top honour of Ballarat Business of the Year. It's made a name as a high-performance drive-line manufacturer and global leader in off-road racing transmissions, and more recently it has adapted to supplying military land systems. This is a terrific local manufacturing story. There is a lot happening in Ballarat at the moment. We're seeing our population grow as new people decide to move in from Melbourne and new businesses are opening up. Not only have we embraced winter but we're certainly embracing the challenges of being a growing regional city. It's a very exciting place to be part of at the moment and I congratulate the arts sector, the sports sector, the business sector and the city of Ballarat for the great work they're doing in growing my fantastic hometown of Ballarat. Energy 9726 10:27 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn Today I'd like to speak on the energy crisis facing Australia and my solution to remedy the situation, which can't be allowed to continue. Coal-fired power stations are the most reliable and affordable solution. National policy must ensure no more coal-fired power stations are shut down or mothballed until this mess is sorted out. Alan Finkel is in support of extending the life of existing coal-fired plants. Dr Finkel also supports power station owners investing more money on upgrading the existing plants—some $600 million to $700 million. Upgrade would extend the life of most plants by 10 to 15 years. Investing in upgrades reduces the risk of outages and cost blowouts. The Australian Energy Market Operator support the fact that the market needs more generation. They're quite adamant that, if this country is to go forward, we will need capacity to prevent supply disruption. Coal-fired power stations are paying for the renewable energy subsidies. Antiquated rules that discriminate against coal were introduced in 1998 under John Howard in one of the worst bits of legislation I can recall. Changes to the national energy market rules could eliminate the distortion in the electricity market. Changes to the national energy market would correct this overnight with the stroke of a pen. Closure of coal-fired power stations would result in thousands of job losses, direct and indirect. Construction of HELE power stations would require five years from making the decision to seeing the power station built. We cannot wait that long. Tearing up gas contracts with overseas companies puts our sovereign risk at stake. I can recall that $80 billion was spent in my hometown of Gladstone by local energy providers—Santos and the like—but a lot of money did come from overseas investors and, in return, we must maintain the supply to those countries who supported us in building those gas plants. An opposition member: Breaking free from the pack, are you? Mr O'DOWD 139441 No. Where are the New South Wales and Victorian gas moratoriums? Why aren't they drilling for gas? They want to use gas, but they want the gas to come from Queensland. An opposition member: New South Wales has one as well—a moratorium. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Order! Mr O'DOWD 139441 I did say New South Wales. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT If no member objects, constituency statements will continue for another 30 minutes. Coalmining, National Disability Insurance Scheme 9727 10:30 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter On a more solemn note, this Sunday I will attend the 22nd annual memorial day at the coalmining union's Federation House in Cessnock. There we will join in solemn remembrance of more than 1,500 men and boys who have lost their lives on the northern coalfields. The annual event serves as a reminder of both the dangers of coalmining and the need to maintain hard-won safety standards. All those who have lost their lives on the northern district coalfields have their names etched on a plaque on the Jim Comerford Miners Memorial Wall, and on Sunday we will again lay wreaths and remember them. Thankfully, fatalities in the industry are now quite rare, but we have to remain forever vigilant. That's the way, of course, we also want it to stay. One death in any workplace is one death too many. I thank the CFMEU northern mining district for both its effective representation of our coalminers—I know their families appreciate that very much too—and the enormous energy they put into this annual event. I was there for the first event with then Prime Minister Paul Keating in 1996, and every year the union ensures that the event remains most relevant and is conducted in an appropriately solemn way. I know that the families of those who have given their lives on the coalfields appreciate it very much. I also want to thank the good folk at NDIA Hunter for helping me to host an NDIS forum in my home town of Cessnock last Monday. More than 100 people with disability, family members, carers, service providers and professionals came together to discuss the enormous challenges and, indeed, shortfalls in a scheme which offered those with disability and their families so much. I think we all in this place are proud of any small role we might have played in ensuring that the NDIS became a reality, but I'm sure too that we've all experienced the problems and felt for the families who have been left disappointed. I intend to have more NDIS forums in my electorate. It was a very effective way of allowing people to express their concerns. We were able to have one-on-one meetings with many of those people. I do urge the government to do all it can to get us through these significant teething problems so that the NDIS can be all that it promised to be. Goldstein Electorate: Energy 9728 10:33 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Rising energy costs are hitting households and businesses hard across the Goldstein electorate. In fact, I got my electricity bill only this morning and, like many people, had to go through the process of electricity bill shock. It's an experience most residents of Goldstein, of Victoria and across Australia know. In the past decade there's been a fundamental problem with the way we as a nation have approached energy. We've focused on cutting emissions first, then we've worried about price and then we've worried about reliability. This was particularly bad during the previous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government and particularly, at a state level, under the Andrews government as well. The reality is that, if you want to deliver energy for this nation, you have to worry about and prioritise reliability and then price—because if people can't afford electricity, they're not going to be able to pay for it, and the lights have to be able to stay on—and then worry about emissions cuts, because, when it comes down to it, if people have reliable, affordable energy like I do, they have a very strong interest in making sure we do the right environmental thing. But we have to be able to deliver energy in the first place. In Victoria, this has been particularly bad in the last three years during the Andrews government. We can't expect businesses to maintain employment, hire new staff and increase wages, so we shouldn't be making it harder for them by increasing electricity prices, which are a fundamental input into their business activities. I get a lot of people across the electorate, in particular who have businesses in or around the electorate, who are finding it hard to make ends meet. We are an industrious community. Local business owners, including one who has shared their data with me, have shown me 200 per cent to 300 per cent increases in their energy bills, rising up to about $400,000. That is where, as the local member, I'm proud to stand up and say that this has to be addressed by the federal government, but, equally, at a local level, we have a fantastic candidate advocating for lower electricity prices in Asher Judah in the state seat of Bentleigh. Asher recently visited several small businesses on Centre Road in Bentleigh, just around the corner from the Goldstein electorate office, and among the businesses he met and listened to were The Owl & The Baker—which makes a mean coffee, by the way—Bentleigh Quality Produce and Blue Star Drycleaners. All of these businesses are facing challenges with unsustainable electricity and gas bill increases. Asher understands that this causes an underinvestment in future activity; it taxes, very directly, some of the challenges facing businesses; and it undermines their capacity to compete. When it comes to energy, we know the Andrews government has a shocking record, but that is where Asher Judah and I, working together, are going to continue to show leadership to help small businesses and households in reducing their electricity bills so that they can keep the lights on and keep their families safe, and create job opportunities for people in the Bentleigh community. By taking a stand for the interests of the people of Bentleigh, we are going to deliver the best outcome. Moreton Electorate: Our Lady of Lourdes 9729 10:36 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Last week I had a wonderful opportunity to read to the grade 5 class at Our Lady of Lourdes Primary School at Sunnybank. In light of the fact that I had to read to them, I am going to put my glasses on for this. It was a wonderful experience. I was the mystery reader for the class. It was made completely easy because the book I read to them was a book called Funny Kid for Presidentby Matt Stanton, which is sort of pitched at year 5 level, although I am reading it to my son who is in year 3 and he is loving it as well. I have to tell you that the book, a tale about Max who decides to run for class president, gave me a lot of campaigning tips. With a marginal seat, it was certainly good to have some support from the author, Matt Stanton, but also from the class. The year 5 class asked some of the best questions about politics in the Q&A session that I have ever encountered. That brings me to another topic: next week, with Senator Linda Reynolds, I will be launching the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Books and Writers on Tuesday, 12 September. There will be many literary luminaries there, including guest speakers Tom Keneally and Mem Fox, and Matt Stanton, the author of Funny Kid for President. We will have a few books to give out as well. I would never encourage authors to give away their books—obviously, people should pay the authors where they can—but I am hoping that Matt Stanton will sign the book that I have for my son Leo, and I'm hoping that many people will come along. We know that books are an essential part of a child's life that they can have with them forever. They inform, inspire and comfort, and they are good companions when you're by yourself. They are something worth investing in. Obviously, I declare an interest in writing. I think my books are only on sale in a couple of bookshops in Australia, and one is the shop in Parliament House. Hopefully someone listening will find them there, hidden away in the dustbin shelves! I do encourage people in the Moreton community and all MPs to get involved with the mystery reader program and, where they can, to make contact with their schools. We can be a great inspiration to our students. We can find the right level of books. Obviously, by buying books and so supporting Australian writers, we're doing something for our economy, our manufacturing sector and our artistic sector, and for the small businesses—the newsagents and bookshops—around Australia who can sell these books. I'm a big fan of Australian literature. I'm looking forward to hearing from all of the authors—but particularly from Tom Keneally, whose book Bring Larks and Heroes is one of the first books I read in terms of a political awakening. Banks Electorate 9729 10:39 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks On 31 August, I attended a special assembly at Padstow North Public School for Debbie Da Silva and her daughter Brianna, who have been raising funds for the Cancer Council. Debbie and Brianna both cut off more than 30 centimetres of hair to be donated to the Princess Charlotte Alopecia Program. This is the second time the hair-cutting event has been staged. I remember being at the school back in 2014 for a similar event. Debbie and Brianna's commitment to the cause is really quite exceptional. In 2010, not long after Debbie was diagnosed with breast cancer, she donated her hair rather than lose it through the chemotherapy process. Brianna followed in her footsteps in that fundraising activity at the age of seven and has done so again now at the age of 10. More than $1,300 has been raised by the family so far. I thank the Padstow North Public School community for their support of Debbie and Brianna. In particular, I thank Principal Natalie Armstrong for everything she does in our community. On 26 August, I visited the Elias Abacus & Mental Arithmetic Centre in Penshurst to recognise the outstanding achievements of a number of the students. Elias Abacus aims to teach children mathematics skills, specifically the skills involved in the ancient art of the use of the abacus. Six of the kids from the Elias centre recently went to Taiwan to participate in the 2017 World City Cup Competition in abacus and mental arithmetic. Four of the kids from Penshurst won gold medals on the world stage at the world mental arithmetic championships in Taiwan, and two won silver medals. It is fantastic to see in our local community such high levels of excellence in this ancient discipline. Congratulations to Victor Yu, the founder of Elias Abacus, and to all the team at the centre. On 24 August, I visited Kogarah Community Services for the naming of three community rooms. These rooms, used by the community, previously had generic titles. The centre decided to name them after people who were very important in the history of Kogarah Community Services—Max Turner, the founder; Yvonne Drury, the first community coordinator; and Daria Moorgas, a longstanding volunteer. It was a great ceremony. Thank you to Shelly Ross, the executive officer, and Cathy Nisbet at Kogarah Community Services. It's a very important hub in the Kogarah region. It was a great initiative to name these rooms after important people in its history. Blair Electorate: Western Pride Football Club 9730 10:42 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Last Saturday night I had the wonderful experience of attending the Briggs Road complex in Raceview, where the Western Pride Football Club senior men's team scored its first-ever victory in the National Premier League Queensland grand final to become the premier soccer team in Queensland. The victory was made more special because it was in front of their home crowd in Ipswich. Congratulations to goalscorer Cameron Crestani and to goalscorer Dylan Wenzel-Halls, who scored the winning goal in the 89th minute with a free kick that would have done a Brazilian striker proud. It was a great curling kick! Congratulations also to Max Davison for a brilliant goalkeeping effort that kept us in touch in the first half. I was there, along with the new mayor of Ipswich, Andrew Antoniolli, who jokingly said as one of his campaign promises that he'd bring a grand final victory to Ipswich. I don't think Andrew had much to do with this victory; it was a great club effort. I congratulate the management, staff and all the team for the wonderful effort. The depth of talent and outstanding success is a result of the real and intense dedication and hard work the club has put into community participation in the area. Western Pride FC represents the greater Ipswich and western corridor heartland. Ipswich has had a long history of great soccer achievements and great soccer teams—from church soccer teams such as at Raceview United, Blackstone United Welsh and Silkstone Baptist through to the historic St Helen's and Coalstars. I want to congratulate all the local teams who got together and collaborated to establish the Western Pride team in 2012. It has a real focus on football career development and opportunity for young people. There are many FFA-affiliated clubs in the junior boys' and girls' catchment associated clubs. The Western Pride fields both male and female teams, from under 13s to seniors, and they run a fantastic skills program, providing excellent opportunities for young people to develop their skills. They also have other great programs, such as the Learning With Pride program which is designed to promote reading with students. In my electorate of Blair, we have significant growth in the suburbs of Ripley, Redbank Plains, Springfield, Leichhardt and Deebing Heights, to name just a few. I want to particularly congratulate a true believer, General Manager Pat Boyle, who has been a great advocate. I think it is high time that Football Federation Australia have a look at this. I think they should be supporting Western Pride to join the proposed FFA Hyundai A-League expansion, currently rumoured to take place in 2018-19. Ipswich is growing rapidly, and we deserve a team in the A-League. Rotary International 9731 10:45 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise today to speak on the important and selfless work of Rotary, not only in my community of Ryan but also in communities throughout the world. Rotarians—ordinary Australians like you and me—continue in their ever-persistent determination to support vulnerable and disadvantaged people. Whether it has been through sending medical and surgical specialists to the Asia-Pacific region to provide free surgical treatment or assisting with local homelessness initiatives, Rotarians have not only been present for major events in history; they have been a part of them. I take this opportunity to highlight just some of the good works Rotary clubs near and far have achieved. Consider polio: a disease which saw devastating effects in children well into the last century, which will soon be eradicated by effective immunisation regimes. Rotary began their fight against polio in 1979, with a project to immunise six million children in the Philippines. As of 2016 there were reported only 37 cases of polio worldwide. Rotary has helped to reduce polio by 99 per cent. This means that the target of the complete eradication of polio by 2018 is actually within sight. Education is the key to success and to providing opportunity for children living in impoverished countries. One of Rotary International's areas of focus is supporting education. The Teacher in a Box server initiative turns any wi-fi-enabled device into a browser. By turning a wi-fi-enabled device into a server, people living in developing countries can now access quality teaching software—all of this without the need to actually access the internet. The Teacher in a Box service supports individual learning as well as classroom teaching. This will have a massive impact in places where there are limited teaching resources and teachers with limited training or education themselves. During a recent meeting I attended at the Rotary Club of Kenmore, I heard about their SolarBuddy program. Eighteen per cent of the world's population do not have access to electricity. In developing countries, school-aged children rely on kerosene lamps to provide their only light. However, the fumes emitted by kerosene lamps are harmful to children's health. The SolarBuddy program connects school communities with other children and families throughout the world who live with no electricity based lighting. This program teaches students how light can change lives, and teaches them the properties of solar based energy generation. Each light, assembled by students, costs $20. Once lights are assembled, students write a personal letter to their buddy, who will receive their light. After 13 months in Australia, the program has distributed more than 17,000 lights around the world. By the end of this year, it is estimated that 6,000 lights will be sent to Papua New Guinea alone. Rotary continues to achieve so many positive outcomes. I'm confident that members of this House will encourage their communities to also join with this great organisation. Petition: Climate Change 9732 10:48 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I'm very proud to present to parliament a major petition from communities of faith supporting action on climate change and a just transition to renewable energy. Grassroots communities of faith around the country, including Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs and Jews have come together to recognise that climate change is disproportionately affecting poor and marginalised communities around the world and that Australia has a special responsibility to act. The petition calls for stronger action to reduce our emissions, transition away from fossil fuels, move towards renewable energy and support our poorest and most vulnerable neighbours as they face the increasing impacts of climate change. Twenty-five thousand people of faith around the country have signed, all on pen and paper, including 192 of my constituents in Melbourne. I would like to thank my constituents Yen Daly, Tom Allen, Jo Knight and Sister Elizabeth Young of the Sisters of Mercy who met with me in Melbourne to present the petition to me. Yesterday I stood outside this place with faith leaders of Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Jewish and Christian communities who raised their voices for climate action. Present there were Ms Diana Abdel-Rahman OAM, Lama Choedak Rinpoche, Dr Shailesh Diwedi, Sister Lorraine Gatehouse, Reverend Pamela Phillips, Mr Amardeep Singh, Mr David Shorthouse and Ms Maria Tiimon Chi-Fang. What these leaders and these communities are saying is loud and clear: climate change is a justice issue, and people of faith are responding. I'm not a person of religious faith, but all of us here must recognise deeply the values that have been expressed in this petition and in the actions of faith communities around the country: that we need to care for each other and that we should not abandon our sisters, brothers and neighbours to a crueller world and the suffering that will be an inevitable result of climate change if we don't act. The choices before us are stark: we can either work together to care for one another and protect a safe climate or abandon our neighbours, put up walls and make a crueller world. Because climate change is a question of justice, it can't be solved without justice at the forefront of our response. We won't stop climate change if we don't bring everyone along with us and support the most vulnerable communities, and there will be no justice for the vulnerable if we do not stop climate change. This week the world saw a glimpse of what could be our future if we don't take action. We saw it in Houston, where Hurricane Harvey left so many devastated or stranded. We saw it in Bangladesh, where extreme rainfall has led to the worst flooding in decades and the deaths of thousands of people. My constituents and the faith leaders that I met yesterday cannot sit by quietly and allow this to happen, and I commend those faith leaders for their action. These are the values that reflect the faith of so many Australians and people around the world. I'm proud to share their message in parliament, and I support their call for a rapid and just transition to renewable energy and urgent climate action. Crawford, Mr Bob, King, Mr John, Page Electorate: Empire Vale Public School, Lane, Mr Bob 9733 10:51 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page The men and women who make up our emergency services are very special people. They're often called upon to put their own lives and wellbeing at risk to look after members of our community during times of emergency. I'd like to acknowledge two such people today, firefighters from Kyogle who have just retired after a combined 90 years of attending fires, road accidents and many other critical incidents. Bob Crawford was 21 years old when he took over from his father, Tib Crawford, as the captain of the Kyogle fire brigade. He was the youngest person ever to achieve this rank. Fifty-one years on, he is finally hanging up his helmet. As captain of the 15-member Kyogle brigade, Bob has attended many incidents and said he won't miss the 2 am call-out in the morning. In 2012 Bob was awarded the prestigious Australian Fire Service Medal by then Governor Marie Bashir as part of the Queen's Birthday honours list. I would also like to acknowledge fellow Kyogle firey 74-year-old John King, who is retiring after 39 years. I would like to thank both men for the service they have given to our community and thank also Bob's wife, Anne, and their children, and John's wife, Margaret, and their family. The families of both men have supported them in their role. Artwork by seven Empire Vale Public School students will be showcased in Japan as part of an international art exchange program. The students—Lillian Tansley, Molly Walsh, Tayla Unger, Hien Ho, Erin Green, Sally Crethar and Fletcher Tainsh—created artworks which included paintings, drawings, collages and digital media productions. Once they were submitted to the New South Wales Department of Education, along with other artworks from students across the state, they were chosen to be displayed in Nagoya, Japan, as part of an international exhibit. To prepare the students, art teacher Karen Rantissi encouraged the students to become involved in the Northern Rivers Community Gallery's 1000 Words creative writing art program. I would like to congratulate the great work of the students and the teachers in achieving this outstanding result. You're lucky if you can spend five decades doing something you love, and that is exactly what 72-year-old Bob Lane from Casino has done. Bob has been calling the greyhounds continuously since 1967. Tomorrow this achievement will be recognised with the Casino Greyhound Racing Club naming the 8th race in his honour—the Westlawn Finance Bob Lane 50 Years of Race Calling sprint. Bob was a member of the Casino greyhound community for 20 years and has had some luck in breeding racing greyhounds. I congratulate Bob on his achievement and thank him for his dedicated commitment to the greyhound industry in Casino and the surrounding areas. I'm sure Wendy and his whole family are looking forward to him spending more time at home. Child Care 9734 10:54 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman It really is an honour and a privilege to stand here, as the member for Longman, and be given some time this morning to acknowledge, applaud and put on the public record the unprecedented move that early childhood educators will take this afternoon. It was just over a fortnight ago that I visited Goodstart Early Learning at Beachmere to bring in the 2017 Book Week by reading to the children at the centre. It's always a pleasure to visit an early childhood service, to engage with the children in their learning in each of the rooms they are in and to speak to the amazing staff. But whenever I visit one of these services, I just cannot get out of my mind how criminally undervalued these educators are. They are undervalued. They are criminally underappreciated and criminally underpaid. These educators, like those at Beachmere, like those at Narangba or Caboolture or over on Bribie, deserve more. These educators who work in early childhood education deserve more. They deserve to be paid a professional wage for the work they do. They deserve working conditions that are fair and reasonable. Australia's early childhood educators deserve much, much more. I spent many years, prior to my election, being involved with the early childhood education sector. Over those years I have seen just how influential educators are in moulding and shaping the development of our children. They are effectively giving our children a head start in developing skills—social, emotional, cognitive skills—be it in the classroom or in the playground, that will set those children up for the rest of their lives. Early childhood education isn't just a good start in life; it's a great start in life. So the fact that these educators are earning less because of the work they do—it has traditionally been seen as women's work—is disgusting. It is disgusting that here, in 2017, many people in our society still see these jobs through a sexist lens that is based on outdated gender roles. It is unacceptable that the caring and compassionate work they do is so undervalued. Today thousands of educators from more than 100 centres right across the country are walking off the job at 3.20. It's a demonstration of their frustration at being ignored. Early childhood educators are professionals who are having to take second jobs, working for around $21 an hour. They are not being recognised and rewarded for the work that they do. I have stood side by side with these educators, with these professionals, for years and years. They are angry, and rightly so. They are angry. They are furious. They should be congratulated for standing together, and together they will succeed. They will succeed, because those of us on this side of the House absolutely know that with a united voice you will win. Groom Electorate 9734 10:57 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom I rise to share recent highlights of the dynamic communities of Toowoomba and the Darling Downs that make up the Groom electorate. Last Sunday, many of us gathered to enjoy a day out at the Toowoomba Rugby League grand final in the John 'Cracker' McDonald room at the Clive Berghofer Stadium at the Toowoomba sports ground. The Dalby Diehards claimed their first ever Toowoomba Rugby League A grade premiership, with a significant 48-4 win over the Pittsworth Danes. The day before, in the very same place, the Darling Downs Rugby Union grand final was played for the Risdon Cup. On that day, the Dalby Wheatmen produced a surprise result by defeating the Goondiwindi Emus 19-12, and we would need to check on the member for Maranoa's allegiance in relation to those two teams! This weekend coming we will see our AFL grand final between University and Goondiwindi. While Pittsworth went down in the league final, they enjoyed a magnificent weekend of action with the 20th annual Pittsworth Sprints. We saw more than 200 cars of all sizes, types and conditions compete in this cordoned-off event in the Pittsworth industrial estate. I had the very great honour of waving off the first competitors. It was fantastic fun with fantastic crowds at a well-managed, safety-conscious event run by tremendous volunteers from throughout the Pittsworth community. The Scoot Mason Annual Tractor Pull—more like drag tractors than anything else, I suspect—was held at Biddeston, much to the enjoyment of people who enjoy those sorts of activities. The 40th annual general meeting for the Darling Downs auxiliary of the Royal Flying Doctor Service and numerous other events in our community made for a very busy weekend indeed. Of course, as we all know, it was Father's Day on Sunday as well. Next week will see the commencement of the 68th annual Carnival of Flowers in Toowoomba, which has grown in significance over the decades to become a premier community celebration and tourist attraction for international and national visitors, and it has won numerous state and national awards during those years. I look forward to reporting on its success in the near future. As an unashamed parochial Toowoomba-ite, I can assure all present that this Carnival of Flowers is far better than Canberra's Floriade, which is only 30 years old. This event was started 68 years ago by the Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce—small business stepping up to arrange celebrations in our community, small business that remains the heart of regional communities such as ours. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY In according with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. COMMITTEES 9735 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Committee 9735 Report 9735 11:01 Mr HART 263070 Bass I speak in connection with the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, Report 463: Commonwealth financial statements—inquiry based on Auditor-General's Report 33 (2016-17). The work of this committee, as people know, is to scrutinise the governance, performance and accountability of Commonwealth entities and companies. It reviews whether public money is expended in an appropriate manner. Public money ought to be used in an efficient, effective, economical and ethical manner. The function of the committee accordingly is to promote and support effective public administration. The committee obtains its power from its own legislation, the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951. It has, as a consequence, a close relationship with the Auditor-General for the Commonwealth, and in particular it examines the reports prepared by the Auditor-General and determines, as the case may be, to conduct inquiries based upon the reports prepared by the Auditor-General. In the conduct of its inquiries, the committee will consider the public interest, the significance of the programs or issues raised in the report, and any response raised by the agencies that are the subject of the report. The subject matter of this report is based upon the Auditor-General's Report 33, which, in turn, is the audit of the Commonwealth financial statements. As I indicated in my outline, the work of this committee is to support efficient and effective public administration. The Auditor-General's financial statements audits play a very important role in providing accountability both to the parliament and to the Australian public with respect to the expenditure of public money. Every Australian receives independent assurance that the information within the financial statements is accurate. That assurance extends to the financial management of Commonwealth entities. The work of the committee, particularly having regard to the important role of the committee in the maintenance of standards of effective and efficient public administration, has a long history of bipartisanship. The Commonwealth financial statements report affects 246 Commonwealth entities. This resulted in 245 findings being reported to the entities as a result of the audits undertaken. There were 32 findings categorised as 'moderate' and 209 'minor' findings. The National Disability Insurance Agency and the Department of Education and Training both had 'significant' audit findings, and the Department of Defence and the Australian Taxation Office both had multiple 'moderate' audit findings. The work of the committee in some respects is to amplify and support the work undertaken by the Australian National Audit Office in the reports issued by the Auditor-General. Thus any issues identified by the Auditor-General may be highlighted or further explored—teased out, as it were—in order to ensure that appropriate remedial action can be facilitated. Given that the statements relate to 246 entities, there are additional important opportunities for the sharing of information, modification of behaviour and, where appropriate, legislative reform. I wish to speak today about a number of general issues of principle which have arisen in the context of the report, as well as a number of specific issues which relate to the findings as to particular Commonwealth entities. The first issue has been explored as a result of the inquiry undertaken by the committee, which the committee considered is a matter of vital public importance in the area of transparency. That is the issue of remuneration of executives within Commonwealth entities. In my view, the committee's attention to this issue highlights the complementary but independent role of the committee and its function to amplify the material within the Auditor-General's report. In this particular instance, the previous practice required all Commonwealth entities to disclose details of senior executive remuneration. The practice was discontinued as a result of aligning the new Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 financial reporting rule with international and Australian accounting standards. The committee noted and acknowledged that the requirement is to comply with Australian accounting standards, as set by an independent body, but nevertheless considered that the accountability requirements of the parliament and the Australian public demanded that additional requirements and/or disclosures would be appropriate based upon the practice adopted and/or required by the Australian Securities Exchange. The committee further recommended that, consistent with previous practice, there should be a formal requirement for more transparent disclosure of senior executive remuneration, including by salary bands, with this requirement reflected in relevant legislation and guidance and published in entity annual reports rather than on entity websites. In its report—in particular, paragraph 2.21—the committee expressed some concerns about the mechanisms used to reinstate the previous practice of disclosing senior executive remuneration. The Minister for Finance wrote to the chairs of government business enterprises and the Future Fund Management Agency in February 2017 requesting that senior executive remuneration be disclosed in a manner consistent with that for listed companies. The committee notes that, as a result, the government business enterprise guidelines will be updated. Entities have been requested, both through secretary correspondence and guidance, to reinstate the previous practice. However, it is of concern to the committee that this is optional by request rather than a formal requirement in accordance with previous practice. The proposal was that this information was to be published on entity websites and updated annually but not published in entity annual reports, consistent with previous practice. There may have been issues with consistency across entities in terms of website publication of relevant information as well as transparency and accessibility issues. The committee has not received details of how the PGPA rules and resource management guides will be amended to reflect the change. A fragmented response, which appears to have been characterised by resistance within the Australian Public Service, is in my view inappropriate. The public interest, which is sought to be maintained and promoted by the committee, should not be subverted by a misplaced sense that, in the pursuit of simplification of reporting requirements, the reporting of executive remuneration is somehow too onerous. In the strongest terms, the committee considers that, in the interest of maximum transparency and accountability, disclosure of senior executive remuneration should be a formal requirement. There is no warrant for it to be optional by request. This requirement should be the subject of legislation and guidance to ensure that it should not be relaxed without proper consideration. Continuing the theme of public accountability, the committee considered that the parliament and the Australian public should be entitled to receive information about contracts, contractors and consultancies entered into by Commonwealth entities. This will be a matter for consideration as part of the independent review into the PGPA Act. In the committee's view, there are other matters for consideration in this review—in particular, the bringing forward of the delivery and publication of Commonwealth entity reports, the annual reports and the enhancement of the effectiveness of audit committees. As previously indicated, particular entities were the subject of significant audit findings. Following review of the evidence, including submissions and responses by those entities, it follows that particular attention would be given to monitoring any remedial action required by those entities. Recommendations 1 and 2 within the report relate to the significant findings made with respect to the financial statements of the NDIA and the Department of Education and Training and the moderate audit findings made with respect to the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Defence. The committee has recommended that these entities promptly report back to the committee on progress in responding to the findings should the ANAO audit to the present period result in any further significant audit findings and, in the case of the Department of Defence and the ATO, any significant or moderate audit findings. There is a similar recommendation with respect to the Northern Land Council regarding legislative breaches identified in the audit report. The committee wishes to receive positive confirmation from the entity on progress and response, including action taken by the audit committee of the entity. In summary, this committee plays a very important public role in ensuring that the Australian parliament and the general Australian public receive positive assurance with respect to the performance and expenditure of public moneys by Commonwealth entities. The committee was very concerned to note that the intention of transparency with respect to the reporting of financial remuneration of senior executives had been subverted. The committee was concerned that in its dealings with the Department of Finance there was a sense that this would not be the subject of formal compliance; it would not be the subject of reporting in annual reports. The committee has expressed its strongest views, in strongest terms, that this should be a formal requirement, not something that is optional. Every Australian, and indeed every member of this parliament, has the right to see in a transparent and open manner the reporting of executive remuneration. 11:11 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom As I rise to speak on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit report 463, Commonwealth financial statements: inquiry based on Auditor-General's report 33 (2016-17), I reflect that it has been a tremendous honour to be a member of the committee since being elected to this parliament just last year. This very important joint public administration committee scrutinises the governance, performance and accountability of Commonwealth agencies and has the power to inquire into all expenditure of Commonwealth money. Its work is therefore vital for the sound operation of Commonwealth agencies and for the necessary confidence that all Australians should have in our system of government. As the report stresses, the Auditor-General's financial statement audits play a critical role in ensuring accountability to the parliament and to the Australian public for the expenditure of public funds. The audits provide independent assurance that this information is accurate and that the financial management of Commonwealth entities is effective. This Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit report No. 463, Commonwealth financial statements, sets out the findings of the committee's inquiry based on audit report 33, for the period ended 30 June 2016. The 2015-16 consolidated financial statements were prepared in accordance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and the requirements of Australian accounting standards, and an unmodified auditor's report for the statements was issued on 28 November 2016. The Auditor-General issued auditors reports on the 2015-16 financial statements of 246 Commonwealth entities up until 9 December 2016, and all auditors reports were unmodified. Some 245 findings were reported to entities as a result of the audits, comprising four significant, 32 moderate and 209 minor findings. As has been said, the National Disability Insurance Agency and the Department of Education and Training both had significant audit findings, and the Department of Defence and the Australian Taxation Office both had multiple moderate audit findings. In the interests of being diligent, and based on a desire to maintain a focus on issues associated with significant audit findings when they are handed down, the committee recommended that, if next year's financial statement audits for these entities resulted in any significant or moderate findings, they should report back to the committee on progress in responding to those findings. I am sure that this committee will remain very diligent in following up on those issues if required for further future reporting purposes. Noting the two significant legislative breaches reported in the Northern Land Council during 2015-16, the committee also recommended that the council report back on the progress in responding to these breaches and any such breaches that might be reported next financial year. In terms of some of the key recommendations in our committee's report, during the course of the committee's inquiry the Department of Finance took a number of steps to reinstate the previous practice for all Commonwealth entities to disclose details of senior executive remuneration. This had been continued as a result of aligning the new PGPA financial reporting rule with international and Australian accounting standards. The committee therefore recommends that, consistent with previous practice, disclosure of senior executive remuneration should again become a formal requirement, with publication in entity annual reports rather than just on entity websites. Some of the detail of this particular recommendation includes the Department of Finance reporting back to our committee on options, firstly, to further strengthen remuneration disclosure requirements, giving particular consideration to the requirement for Australian Stock Exchange listed entities and/or the practice of the Australian Stock Exchange and, among other issues and recommendations, on what formal guidance and/or legislative instruments have been, or may need to be, updated to reflect such changes that this committee is very keen to see. The committee further recommended that Finance develop benchmarks to enable entities to assess their own financial stability against agreed parameters over time. The committee also recommended Finance note that more transparent reporting on contracts and consultancy, early delivery of annual reports and improved entity audit committees be considered as part of the independent review of the PGPA Act. As I said earlier, the Attorney-General's financial statement audits play a critical role in ensuring accountability to the parliament and to the Australian public for the expenditure of public funds. In conclusion, as a proud member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in this parliament, I, together with my colleagues, commend the Auditor-General and his office for their work each year in auditing the consolidated financial statements and Commonwealth entity financial statements. 11:18 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I seek leave to make a short statement of maybe 10 minutes—we'll see how quickly someone else gets here—given I tabled the report. Leave granted. Mr HILL 86256 This is in one sense a dry report. It's not going to win any prizes for scintillating, stimulating reading—indeed, if one couldn't find a cup of chamomile tea or something stronger and had trouble sleeping, there'd be parts of this kind of report that could assist! But I think it is important that at least a short debate does occur in the Federation Chamber and that the parliament does pay some level of attention to this kind of work. It's a bit old fashioned, I know. I'm a conservative in that regard. Who knew? The work of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is an important part of the work of the parliament. The committee has been in existence in one form or another since about 1911 or 1913, soon after Federation. It's one of the few committees of the parliament that exist by virtue of statute. It has significant powers and can initiate its own inquiries. It also has some clear statutory responsibilities, including to formally consider each and all of the Auditor-General's reports. As part of the Auditor-General's annual work program, he conducts a formal report into the Commonwealth's financial statements. In effect, that's an assurance audit looking over all 246 entities. Importantly, and quite rewardingly, actually, for those of us on the committee—as you heard from the previous speaker, who's a member of the committee—this is generally conducted in a bipartisan fashion. Sure, we'll have our roles and we'll probe and prod and so on, and have a bit of fun along the way, but there's a very strong tradition for over 100 years of having just about all of the reports from this committee signed off and agreed by all members. Part of the fun of being an opposition member on that committee is that you get a bit of latitude to craft the words and negotiate them as long as you've got the evidence. There were, as has been said, 245 findings by the Auditor-General conveyed back to agencies. Four were significant, 32 were moderate and 209 were minor findings. As you would expect, in its public hearings deliberations and the report the committee has paid particular attention to the significant and moderate findings. I'll turn my comments to two or three of those. Firstly, to pick up on the remarks of the member for Bass and the previous speaker around the topic of senior executive salary disclosure: we spent quite some time on that matter during the public hearing. Somewhat surprisingly, actually, it turned out to be a little harder than it really should have been and occupied a fair part of the report. Put quite simply, under the previous Labor government, there's a thing called the financial reporting rule. It's, again, very dry. The finance minister is the custodian of this rule—this regulation; this requirement—imposed on all agencies and entities. Senator Penny Wong, when she was the Minister for Finance and Deregulation in the Labor government, signed the most recent version. It had a pretty simple requirement for transparency: that all entities and agencies, corporate and non-corporate—departments are non-corporate but there are corporatised entities with boards and so on—had to disclose their senior executive remuneration in their public documents by band. If you look at departments you can see, as with ASX listed companies, how many people are paid at this, that and the other level. We, or at least the Labor members, have felt consistently that that level of transparency has a range of benefits and is important to public confidence, maintaining scrutiny on decisions of boards and so on. Unfortunately, this requirement was watered down in subsequent instruments signed by the current Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. It had been suggested to us throughout, in a bit of tricky wording, I guess, by various presenters to the committee and submissions that this was only a result of aligning the requirements in the financial reporting rule with externally imposed accounting standards and the Australian Accounting Standards Board. That all kind of makes sense. It was a noble endeavour to simplify and streamline and align the requirements with accounting standards—that's fine. But it missed a couple of things, and I took time to go back to the explanatory memorandum—again, a non-fascinating document but an important one—that accompanied the tabling of the revised financial reporting rule. It was very clear in that explanatory memorandum. It wasn't just, 'Oh, well, we'll align it with the accounting standards—oh, we made a mistake; look, they kind of bundled them up', but that the impact of this change would remove that level of transparency by band. So, instead of being able to see who was paid $300,000, who was paid half a million and who was paid $2 million in that top echelon, how much we spend on executives was just aggregated into one big lump. It was also suggested, 'Oh, well, we've kind of got to go with the standards,' which is a nonsense. The parliament and the government have every right to impose whatever transparency and accountability requirements we want on the public sector. Of course it's good, by default, to align them with externally imposed standards. That makes sense; it's easy. Staff understand that they can look them up and be trained, but there are particular needs for the public sector. Public confidence is important. Transparency is important. It has a higher value in the public sector—dare I say, quite rightly—than in the private sector. We feel that it was a mistake to do this. It became a matter of some public controversy due to the Senate estimates circus around the Australia Post CEO's salary, and then there were a series of fishing expeditions—which would not have had to have happened had the previous Labor government's rule around transparency been in place—to figure out by band what other agencies were paying. During the inquiry, we thought, 'This is pretty straightforward. Let's ask the finance department for the impact of this and how many agencies it applies to.' We got one of those Sir Humphrey-style gobbledegook series of responses which made no sense. Eventually we got enough, I guess, to make a clear recommendation—which I'm pleased the committee signed up to unanimously in a bipartisan fashion—that, in effect, the government should just change the rule back by a regulation to what the previous Labor government had and restore transparency in senior executive salary disclosure. Along the way, as has been pointed out, and we did dot-point this in the report, there was a series of coincidences—I think some of them were Deirdre Chambers-style coincidences—where the finance minister wrote to some GBEs and said they had to disclose their salaries. Then when we raised it in the public hearings and wrote to the Department of Finance, somewhat magically—I think it was about two days later—the secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet wrote to a much wider range of agencies and said: 'Please? Would you mind? It would be kind of really good if you popped this back on the website.' So we're inching in that direction, but the simple fix is just to put in place a regulatory rule which requires full disclosure and transparency to be done with it—importantly, in the annual reports and not buried on some page on the website. So Labor, I'm pleased to say, has signed up to this. Our shadow finance minister has signed up to this, actually, in response to a bill that Senator Hanson has put forward in the Senate. It's a bit of a stunt, really, to require the Remuneration Tribunal to be able to set salary— Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 Who knows! Mr HILL 86256 I know! Who would have thought? Who would have thought to require the Remuneration Tribunal to mandate the salary of Australia Post, I think, and another entity. It's politically tempting; it would be a bit of fun but it's not the right thing to do from a proper governance point of view. Transparency generally will do the trick. You're going to moderate these excessive salaries in the public sector if there is transparency, and we do believe, from the point of view of good corporate governance, that boards appointed to run organisations should have a say and influence over the salaries, terms and conditions of their senior executives. Who knew? I have a couple of brief comments in relation to the other significant issues. The NDIA is a new entity, obviously, and will be of some interest in coming years to the Auditor-General—quite rightly. There were a couple of significant findings. The ANAO found there was no documented compliance activities for payments made to self-managed participants. This is a critical part of putting choice in the hands of recipients in the NDIA's service design. The participants can choose to self-manage their plans if they want, and so it's critical that the lack of an audit framework and so on doesn't become an excuse by the NDIA, as has been alleged in some quarters of the sector, to move away from that part of the care if that's what people want. And so we turned some attention to that, and the NDIA will do some more work on that finding to make sure they have a robust framework in place and don't use it as an excuse to ditch an important part of the scheme. We also paid some attention to a slightly concerning finding about the Australian tax office, that there were weaknesses or flaws in their estimation allocation process for revenue and expenses. Of course, that sounds dry and boring, but it's a critical part of government that the revenue and estimating processes, running to hundreds of billions of dollars, are going to be right for the budgeting process. In closing, I thank members of the committee and the Auditor-General and his staff. I would point out, of course, that this audit report and the work underneath it reflects on the financial performance of the Commonwealth. Quite rightly, that's a heavily audited area; we know where every dollar goes. But a new frontier of work for the committee is working with the Auditor-General in complement to look at how we can do assurance audits for the parliament on the non-financial performance—the outcomes and the indicators—and start to move towards a system where we have the same level of rigour, integrity and confidence that parliamentarians and the public can have about the financial performance. I commend the report. Thank you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The debate is now adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order for the next sitting. ADJOURNMENT 9742 ADJOURNMENT National Broadband Network 9742 11:28 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I was in two minds this morning about whether to deliver a speech in support of Australian shipping and the importance of Australian shipping to our domestic maritime fleet, to national security and to fuel security, or a speech outlining my position on plans to drug test people receiving income support payments. That might be a thorny issue for those opposite because, if we're going to drug test people who are intoxicated, we know where we should be looking first. It might be a corridor around the corner! As it turns out, my speech is on neither of those because this morning I received an email addressed to me and my Tasmanian colleagues entitled 'I need your help'. With the indulgence of the House—I've spoken to the email's author and I have her blessing—I will simply read the email. It tells its own story: I need your help. I have recently completed construction on my dream home in Midway Point. I specifically selected Midway Point because of its pilot site for NBN's FTTP service, as well as the views, services and lifestyle. I am a registered voter in Lyons. First off, this is not about my frustration in not getting connected. It is about the repeated horror of this process. In THIRTY YEARS of Public and Private Project Management and Process and Business Analysis I have never seen a process so broken. This process should have 2 objectives: 1) connect the customer's service 2) communicate to all customers, providers and team members where the process is and the next steps. This process has so far accomplished neither. For my specific experience, I have been trying to get my NBN connected through iiNet for the past 3 months. Highlights: NBN did not turn up for an appointment made on my behalf, then rescheduled for 3 weeks later (the next available date) NBN did finally turn up on 3 August and did work, which the technicians told me would allow me to get the internal connection. NBN/ iiNet cannot verify that the technicians fixed the problem Still no appointment to install internally I have reason to believe that the information about my NBN work order has not been updated to reflect the work completed on 3 August. I am stuck in an infinite loop between iiNet and NBN's portal information. It has been impossible to find a customer service person in iiNet or NBN who can answer my questions. Can someone please tell me why my order is not being processed, and what I have to do to get it? I have no phone or internet service at my house currently, making me worse off than I was before. I IMPLORE YOU as our elected officials who have enslaved us to this process to see that the process is fixed. Over the next 18 months, many I know will undertake this process, and they are, like me VOTERS. Thank you for your attention and support. Julie Zimmerman, Midway Point. Julie is not alone. An honourable member: She has a good local member! Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 She has an excellent local member! She turfed out the last one. I'm a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the NBN. We heard much evidence across all states and regions over the past year about ongoing frustrations with the NBN. A report will be delivered to the parliament soon about all of that. This all gets laid at the feet of—we know who—the member for Wentworth, the Prime Minister. It can all be laid at his feet. As communications minister under the former Prime Minister, it was the member for Wentworth who took a pickaxe to Labor's vision of a super-fast, fibre-based NBN, and in so doing he condemned Australia to a second-rate broadband service. For the pro-business party, you blokes have set this country back decades. Mr Falinski interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The member for Mackellar will cease interjecting. Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 We were 11th in the world for the broadband and now we're 50th. We're behind Kenya. Government members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The Federation Chamber has the same respect as the chamber downstairs. Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Thank you. What a rabble on the other side. We are now 50th internationally for broadband, compared to Kenya, which is 43rd. Kenya is ahead of Australia, thanks to the mess this government's made of NBN policy and NBN planning. We know who to lay the blame with for this. Julie is an expert in this area. This is her work. She knows all about processes and what should happen, and she says she's never seen a process that is worse. These are words that the government should take heed of. They should stop blaming people like her for the problems that they themselves have created. Leichhardt Electorate: Shipping 9744 11:33 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I rise today to boast, if you like, about outstanding achievements in my beautiful city of Cairns. Cairns is set to become Australia's major hub for maintenance and sustainment work on the Australian Navy and industry ships after the government delivered on its $24 million election promise. Just over a week ago, I announced that Norship Marine, BSE Cairns Slipways and Tropical Reef Shipyard will receive around $8 million each under the Community Development Grants Program. The funding will be used to upgrade the Cairns Marine Precinct, improving its capability and capacity to secure government contracts and maritime maintenance and refits well into the future. Upgrade work will include the construction of more than 170 metres of new wharf areas; electrical, fire and security system upgrades; hardstand resurfacing; 135 metres of extensions to existing slipway rail; and new workshops. This will sustain immediate construction jobs in our city and create new jobs for generations to come. Norship is already looking to employ and train more workers and apprentices to facilitate its long-term growth. BSE is expecting its defence, commercial and tourism fleet operations will grow due to the increased level of service it will be able to provide to its customers Tropical Reef is confident that, once operational, the upgrades will increase its capability by 30 per cent and create 20 new positions, which will increase to 50 on realisation of the benefits created by this significant investment. At present Tropical Reef is the only shipyard in Cairns capable of docking ships up to 100 metres and weighing up to 3,000 tonnes. This funding will begin immediately for the marine precinct and it's just the beginning, I tell you. I'm now focusing on developing a business plan to build a common user facility within that precinct, with a 3,000-tonne synchrolift capable of lifting out up to six vessels at any time and placing them on hardstand. This is targeted primarily at the new offshore patrol boats that are currently being constructed in Western Australia. This will see Cairns develop as the largest sustainment and maintenance hub in northern Australia, and it puts us in a strong position to be able to compete for even more maintenance work throughout the entire South-East Asian region. Engineering consultants were in Cairns on the day of our announcement to begin scoping out for the best location and costings for building this new shared facility, and we're also looking at having the synchrolift itself manufactured in Cairns. The Cairns marine precinct is critical both for the future growth of our economy and, of course, for jobs. While it puts us in a very strong position for future defence contracts, it also will build capacity within the precinct to tender for additional work across a broad spectrum of marine industries, from superyachts to white boats to fishing to tourism—and we have here Mr John Heuvel, who is a great marine tourism operator in our region. Welcome to Canberra, Mr Heuvel. I'm glad you are here to see the benefit of what we're creating here. There are also coastal trading vessels and even vessels from the US Pacific Fleet—smaller vessels—currently being maintained in Cairns. An economic report conducted by the defence department has found that the economic multiplier of the Cairns Defence Precinct is 2.25—that is, for every dollar spent, another $1.25 of overall economic value is indirectly generated. For every two full-time equivalent defence positions in our region, approximately one extra full-time equivalent is created somewhere else in the economy. So, it's very good news for us, and this is on top of $420 million that the government has committed for HMAS Cairns over the next 20 years, and we're looking to accelerate that. We have a commitment for three of the new offshore patrol boats to be based in Cairns. We're certainly working hard to increase that number, hopefully up to six, which is going to make a huge difference for our area. We already have $400 million worth of maintenance over the next 30 years on the up to 21 Pacific patrol boats. That will be done in our precinct. So I think that this is really good news for our area. It diversifies our economy and creates great opportunities into the future to be able to compete not only nationally but internationally as well. We can certainly give the shipyards in Singapore and others a run for their money. Indi Electorate: Indigenous Affairs 9745 11:39 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi I'm really proud to stand here today to acknowledge the great work that's happening in my electorate of Indi by my— Mr Entsch 7K6 It is stunning. Ms McGOWAN 123674 Thank you. I'm proud to stand here to represent the great work of my Indigenous communities in Indi. I want to begin by acknowledging the leadership right across the electorate. People are stepping up and doing great work in a leadership capacity. Particularly to Darren Moffitt and Chris Thorne and to our aunties and uncles, who are so willing and generous in sharing their culture and experiences with our communities, thank you. I would also like to recognise their commitment in engaging purposefully and genuinely with those working on the ground with their communities to come up with very practical local solutions and benefits for all of us. I would also like to acknowledge Judy Ahmat and Tahlia Biggs who volunteered at my office in Canberra and are now sharing their skills with the community. My door is always open, and I look forward to welcoming more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as volunteers in my office. Indi is blessed to have three very strong Indigenous networks: the Albury Wodonga network; the Dirrawarra; and in Mansfield and Murrindindi, the Gadhaba network. These networks bring community together, they bring government together and they bring local government together. They also plan how we might focus our energies and efforts. They are having a huge impact. I want to acknowledge and thank the communities for doing that work. One of the projects that the Dirrawarra group is doing in Wangaratta is having an awards night called the Proud and Deadly Awards. I am sad I can't be there on Thursday, 14 September, to celebrate with everybody. But I want to take the chance in parliament today to say how proud I am, particularly of our young people, to thank you for the work you're doing and for being brave and courageous, and to say that I am really pleased that you can have the acknowledgement that you deserve. Next week, this will be our fifth Proud And Deadly Awards. It is great having the event at Wangaratta High School, which has been supporting the event since 2013. In acknowledging the work of the network, there is a whole lot of other people who have a role to play. To all the people on the network: thank you. I would like to do a call-out to the Kelsos from the Department of Education and Training. I know your work in visiting the schools right across the electorate is doing a lot of good, so thank you. I would like to talk about Murrindindi in the south of my electorate, one of the jewels in the crown. During NAIDOC Week, the Murrindindi Shire Council and the Taungurung clan's Aboriginal corporation recognised and celebrated with a local Indigenous language kit. What a fantastic thing to do. The kit was produced to enhance and complement the development of Aboriginal culturally inclusive practice in early-years services. It is designed for younger people but is useful for parents as well. It is fantastic to see the traditional languages of our first peoples being protected and resurrected and growing. It isn't actually only happening in Murrindindi but also at Bright, which is in the Alpine Shire. The Bright P-12 College has four students in Year 12 studying Dhudhuroa language. It is just fantastic to see the support. I would like to acknowledge Sue Joyce and Bec Crawley for the work they are doing, and the relationship they have developed with the Wadeye community in the Northern Territory. It was fantastic to come to the school for Sorry Day and be part of the school assembly, to hear the songs in language and to be welcomed to country in language. I'm looking forward to you coming to parliament so that we can showcase to my colleagues here what fantastic work is happening in our schools and our communities. So thank you for that. I would also like to mention another example of my local community coming to Canberra. In the last couple of weeks, Chris Thorne, who is an Aboriginal community support worker, came with the executive officer, Jenny Ashby, from the Central Hume PCP. They met with the Hon. Ken Wyatt at Parliament House. The minister gave them time, and was clearly really interested in the work that's happening on the ground in Aboriginal health but also in mainstreaming many of the lessons that our Aboriginal people are learning into mainstream health. It is fantastic to see the minister giving us that recognition. I want to say to my community how proud I am that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures are strong in Indi. I'm really pleased to be your representative here. I call out to the young people: stand proud, not only of your heritage, of your culture, but of the future. We are really going to make a difference to Australia because our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people care and they get involved. Veterans 9747 11:44 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane Last month the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Dan Tehan, gave the first annual ministerial statement on Australian veterans and their families. I wanted to add my voice to that statement, because it was a significant milestone. Ministerial statements are opportunities for governments to measure their efforts, their achievements, their setbacks and their progress in policy. They provide a yardstick for government performance. We see these statements used selectively by governments, often very deliberately in some of the most complex or evolving areas of government administration. This is because measuring our performance, reviewing what we're doing, boosting what's successful, jettisoning what's not and being willing to try new things and experiment are actions that don't always come naturally or automatically to governments and their agencies. But, in my view, there should be more of them. Ministerial statements can be seen as government admitting that there is no simple solution to some of the big complex challenges in our society, while, at the same time, committing to focus more of our efforts and committing to the process of continual improvement. I think, therefore, it was quite fitting that the minister initiated this measure for veterans and their families. It was a serious and solemn moment in our parliament, and a constructive one. As the Prime Minister has recently said: in these centenary years of Anzac, we best honour the diggers of the First World War by supporting the service men and women, veterans and families of today. It's important for more Australians to understand the unique nature of service. There are almost 60,000 Australians serving in our Defence Force right now. Some will serve overseas and others will serve in barracks and bases such as the barracks at Enoggera in my electorate of Brisbane. Veterans have sacrificed something that can't be quantified. Time, service and courage—they are all markers of the work in protecting our nation. Veterans face unique challenges: re-entering civilian life, possibly carrying the physical or mental scars of service, and moving from what is a relatively structured ecosystem to the frequently unstructured aspects of everyday life and business. On average, our ADF personnel will serve for about 8½ years, and each year, more than 5,000 of them will leave service. Some of those will have no choice in leaving service; through medical or administrative discharge, their time in defence will come to an end. A key focus of this government now is on how these men and women transition out of service. Over the last 12 months, about 1,400 members of the Defence Force separated for reasons not of their choosing. That's about twice what the numbers were 10 years ago. How we support these men and women is a reflection of how we care for our most deserving, and, sometimes, our most vulnerable. Currently, the Department of Veterans' Affairs supports almost 300,000 Australians, and just over half of those are veterans and current serving members of the ADF. Almost half of them are women. Around 80,000 of them are widows or widowers, just like my grandmother, and around 2½ thousand of them are the children of veterans. Today, about 200,000 of those DVA clients are over the age of 65, while only 23,000—about 10 per cent of that number—are under the age of 40. That's just a snapshot of our veterans in Australia. This year DVA will deliver about $11 billion in payments and services, and that comprises pensions, compensation, health care—you name it. I also want to touch on one area where we must do much better. One suicide is one too many. As we've seen, our veterans and members of the ADF are, sadly, not immune. So this government is determined to address suicide in our community—specifically, suicide in our defence community—and everyone has a role to play. I want to mention, very briefly, the work the government commissioned with the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare to provide the first accurate, robust data ever on the prevalence of suicide in our defence community. That research is providing us with a much better understanding of how to help. We also asked the National Mental Health Commission to review the suicide services offered by Defence and Veterans' Affairs, and these findings are informing us in terms of what we do now. They helped inform the announcements that we made in the budget a few months ago, which included, obviously, more funding and more targeted funding, but also some very interesting trials which I look forward to seeing the results of. Australia should be proud of how it serves and cares for its veterans and their families; yet we can and we must do more. The minister's statement is neither the start, nor the end. It's a commitment to this journey, and a frank and honest assessment of where we can and where we will do much better. We owe that much to the many men and women who have served our country. Lindsay Electorate: Infrastructure 9748 11:49 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay Your postcode should not matter when it comes to basic services like health care, education or a decent job. But the people of Western Sydney have to face this issue in all of those basic service provisions. If you have to spend an extra 15 hours per week travelling to your job, which is located miles from your home— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Is the member seeking the call? Continue. Ms HUSAR 263328 You have to spend an extra 15 hours per week travelling to your job, which is located miles from your home. Your schools have had their funding cut by $23 million, and your residents are now paying for a toll on an already-built road. The university that supports students in the lowest socio-economic postcodes has had its funding slashed, and your apprenticeship rates have dropped by 37 per cent. And now you're facing the prospect of a 24/7 airport in your community. It's of no surprise to anybody with any common sense to know that this will absolutely affect the health of your community. I have been in this place now for 12 months, and I have come to realise that common sense is actually not that common. Western Sydney has all of these issues. We have the highest death rate from cardiovascular disease and diabetes related diseases. Potentially avoidable deaths for women in Western Sydney are the highest, and they are the second highest for men. When you couple preventable disease with a stretched and underfunded health system, you have a crisis. We have a health crisis in Western Sydney on our hands right now. Nepean Hospital is the hospital most under pressure in the state. Presentations in this flu season have risen by 266 per cent. Last week I saw with my own eyes the pressure, with two of my own three children needing to use the emergency department. In the last month, I've visited there as a friend and now as a mother and have seen how difficult and stressful accessing services through the Nepean Hospital emergency department really is. And the horror stories every week from constituents about the hospital, which continually line my inbox, are absolutely disturbing. I feel incredibly sorry for the hardworking staff, the nurses and the doctors, who are working under incredible amounts of pressure, but you cannot do more with less. This is a constant ask from the staff at that hospital. So it is galling—it is absolutely galling—to read former Premier Baird, the man who successfully privatised himself and most of the public assets, still being proudly quoted on the department's website as a former minister stating: The population of Western Sydney is due to rise significantly— well, he got that right— in the next 20 years and our major investment will ensure we meet the healthcare needs of the region. The New South Wales Department of Health has the bold announcement: There is a hospital building boom … across NSW … Well, I have news for those opposite: you are not meeting the healthcare needs of the region now, and I see no plan to meet future demand. I checked in detail, and we do have a boom all right—in car park development for hospitals in Western Sydney. Let me make it very, very clear: we don't need another car park; we need beds and clinical funding urgently—and I stress clinical funding. Current funding goes nowhere near addressing our current needs, and there is no consideration for future capacity requirements whatsoever. When you consider that the majority of the population will live west of Parramatta in the next generation, I absolutely despair. Just look at the expenditure for east of Parramatta—and I note that the member opposite is from that area and is looking at me and rolling his eyes considerably because he doesn't believe in funding health care in Western Sydney. There is $720 million for the Prince of Wales Hospital, $200 million for Hornsby hospital, and a $2.1 billion sop to the Northern Beaches with a new hospital that was only meant to cost a billion dollars. For the best economic managers in the country, they absolutely certainly take the—out of us. Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Order! Ms HUSAR 263328 Ten kilometres away, Royal North Shore Hospital has received $1.127 billion. Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY That goes for both sides. Ms HUSAR 263328 It's okay; there's a woman speaking! It's fine; keep interjecting! For those opposite—and I will remind the member that he does live in that very blessed area in the Northern Beaches that has absolutely adequate healthcare cover—the Nepean Hospital car park is 26 kilometres from the Blacktown Hospital car park and 31 kilometres from the Westmead Hospital. Mr Falinski interjecting— Ms HUSAR 263328 There is $2.5 billion for east of Parramatta and a great car park development application for Nepean, which is great! There's nothing for the Blue Mountains and all of the urban development occurring in the region. The member opposite has just told me that I've misrepresented him in some way. Mr Falinski G86 You have! Ms HUSAR 263328 The population is not growing in your suburb. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I just remind the members that, for all statements, there are no interjections, and statements are to be made through the chair. And I mean that—to both sides. An honourable member interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY To both sides! Ms HUSAR 263328 If you drive west from Blacktown to Katoomba, we have approximately 1,120 beds. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The member for Lindsay will resume her seat. The— Mr Falinski interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I'll ask the member for Mackellar to resume his seat. The member for Mackellar will have an opportunity. There are plenty of opportunities to get up and rectify anything that he thinks has been said wrongly. The member for Lindsay has the call. Ms HUSAR 263328 Thanks, Deputy Speaker. If you drive west from Blacktown to Katoomba, we have approximately 1,120 beds. Meanwhile, on the North Shore and the Northern Beaches, they have well over 1,700 beds. It's extraordinary that the health needs of Western Sydney are so blatantly disregarded by this government. All we have are wonderful solutions from the Liberals: let's privatise more state assets and invest in sports stadiums— (Time expired) Mackellar Electorate: Pub2Pub Charity Fun Run and Walk 9750 11:54 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar In any free society, freedom of association is critical. But, as with any freedom, there are countervailing costs: an obligation to ensure that the freedoms enjoyed by many are enjoyed by all. My community has always believed in freedom. On 27 August at 8 am, while many were still celebrating Warringah rugby's first ever Shute Shield, nearly 4,000 people celebrated their freedom by running in the 25th Pub2Pub Charity Fun Run and Walk from Dee Why to Newport, on the northern beaches of Sydney. I must confess that I have considered reporting the organisers of this event to the ACCC for misleading and deceptive advertising as the run no longer starts at a pub; nor does it end at a pub. However, it must be said that, despite clear directions, an unusually large number of runners still somehow seem to find their way to the Newport Arms. Perhaps over time they will familiarise themselves with the route. The history of the Pub2Pub is a great one. Twenty-five years ago to the day, the Bayfields decided to have a run that started at the Dee Why pub and finished at the Newport pub. True to form when it comes to the Bayfields, it was initially a bit of fun between a few mates to raise a couple of bucks for some local charities. What once involved a few, now involves nearly 4,000 runners and raises close to $400,000, because at the heart of our community is the idea that 'of those to whom much is given, much is expected'. It was great to see Mark Bayfield and his wife at the start and, I stress, at the end of this fun run. I'm not suggesting he got there other than on his own two feet, but, when you consider that he had just enjoyed watching his beloved Rats win their first ever Shute Shield premiership, he is the true champion here. We can all learn from this superhuman effort. The fun run comes together because of the efforts of a whole range of volunteers, mostly sourced from local voluntary organisations. To Brookvale Rotary's President Brian Dunphy, Treasurer John Emmett, Tony Eldridge-Smith and Dick Heintz who organised everything that involved starting: thank you. And congratulations to Yvonne Meillor, who won first prize in the Rotary raffle—a two-week holiday for seven people in Bali. She made a lot of new friends that day! The Upper Northern Beaches Rotary Club started the six-kilometre run, and did so with a whole range of side entertainment, including calisthenics before the start. I have never really understood why people want to do exercise before going for a run. However, if I were to do so, I would want to be led by two giant blue men standing on top of a truck! It just seems to add an appropriate level of seriousness to the whole exercise. Kailas Chidambaram, his son Patrick and his grandson showed me how to properly start a race. Thank you. To Simon Masman and Michael Baxter and a number of other people—there are too many to mention—thank you. Of course, overseeing all this organised chaos is Phil Jackson. Phil has been the event manager and organiser for a while now and, as he said, maybe it just seems longer than it really is. You can see why this event keeps getting better and better, with competitors like Malcolm Little and Bill Eccles, who have run virtually every race in the 25 years. When I asked them how they felt at the end of the race, they said, 'Well, I feel like a beer.' Outshining both of their efforts was Nixon Nelson, who, at just two years of age, led his mother Reegan—a three-time winner—throughout the race. Now of course Reegan is going to claim that this was because she was pushing the pram in which Nixon was sitting; however, such excuses are beneath a true champion. To Jack Colvreavy and Jenny Wickham, congratulations on your win. And let us not forget the sponsors who are giving so much to charities such as Sunnyfield, Manly's Bear Cottage, Children's Cancer Institute, Life Education and NBI. There are Anthony and Dave Johnston of URM, who are such a great part of our community, 4 Pines Brewing Company, the Newport, Anytime Fitness, and of course the Manly Daily, whose editor, Nick Calacouras, unfortunately wasn't with us at the end. And sitting behind them are the Scouts, lifesavers, the RFS, the SES, Who Dares, the police and the RMS. It never ceases to amaze me how many people come together to make things happen without being told to do so by the government, and it just goes to show that a free society works, and works better than anything than a government can imagine. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:00   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 9752 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Health Funding (Question No. 736) 9752 736 Mr Zappia HWB asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 25 May 2017: What proportion of the $75.6 billion in health funding in 2017-18 is expected to be spent in regional, rural and remote Australia? Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In 2017-18, $64.8 billion1 has been allocated to the Department of Health for administered resourcing. The proportion of funding delivered per remoteness area is not reported for all programs, but an estimate that is proportionate with the population2 would account for $21.4 billion being directed into regional, rural and remote Australia. It is not possible to accurately report the rural proportion of many programs. However, location-based reporting is provided against some health programs including: The Medical Benefits Schedule – of a projected total of $22.9 billion3 in 2017-18 around $6.4 billion will support rural, regional locations. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule – of the 2017-18 projected expenditure of $10.9 billion, around $3.6 billion will be spent in rural, regional and remote locations. In addition, some health programs are unique for regional, and/or rural, and/or remote Australia. In 2017-18, around $1 billion will be specifically targeted to these areas. Furthermore, a number of national programs have an additional rural loading component, to provide eligibility for higher payments. These include: Practice Nurse Incentive Program Specialist Training Program Home Medicines Review Program Primary Health Network Program Practice Incentives Program Multi-Purpose Services Program Medicare Bulk Billing Incentives 1 Portfolio Budget Statements 2017-18 Health Portfolio, p25 2 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Regional Population Growth Australia 2015-16 at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3218.0 3 Portfolio Budget Statements 2017-18 Health Portfolio, p24 Cystic Fibrosis (Question No. 757) 9752 757 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 21 June 2017: What plans exist to include the pharmaceutical drug known as Orkambi, used to treat cystic fibrosis in patients aged six years and over, on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme? Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Government cannot list a new medicine on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) unless the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) has made a recommendation to list. The PBAC is an independent, statutory body comprising doctors, other health professionals and consumer representatives. Under legislation made by this Parliament, the National Health Act 1953, when considering a medicine proposed for PBS listing, the PBAC is required to have regard to the medicine's safety, clinical effectiveness and value for money. PBAC recommendations to list medicines on the PBS are made in response to submissions from 'sponsors', usually pharmaceutical companies. At its March 2016 and November 2016 meetings, the PBAC considered applications made by the product's sponsor, Vertex Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd, to list Orkambi for the treatment of cystic fibrosis patients aged 12 years and over who have a certain type of mutation in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene. The PBAC did not recommend the PBS listing of Orkambi on either occasion. The PBAC acknowledged some short term clinical benefits of Orkambi. However, based on the evidence presented by the sponsor, the PBAC considered that the clinical effects of this therapy, in terms of improvements in long-term lung function and survival, were not clear, and the price requested by the sponsor did not represent value for money for the clinical benefit offered. At its July 2017 meeting, the PBAC reconsidered Orkambi for listing on the PBS for the treatment of cystic fibrosis in the same patient population. The outcomes of this meeting were published on the PBS website at www.pbs.gov.au on 18 August 2017. Due to the legislative independence of the PBAC, the Australian Government cannot pre-empt or interfere with its consideration and advisory processes.