2017-10-17 45 1 4 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 17 October 2017

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

BILLS 1 BILLS Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill 2017 1

Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill 2017

Second Reading 1 12:01 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill 2017. Dumping occurs when goods exported to Australia are priced lower than their normal value, which can undercut the local market and manufacturers. It can include foreign subsidisation by a government in the form of financial aid, income or price support for goods exported to Australia. Dumping itself is not a prohibited practice under the World Trade Organization agreements, but antidumping duties can be imposed when dumping could cause or threatens to cause material injury to an Australian industry. Australia's antidumping system is an important part of Australia's trade and industry policy, which is consistent with the WTO trade rules and Australia's international trade agreement obligations. Given the potential impact on local workers and manufacturers, Labor, when in government, established the Anti-Dumping Commission in July 2013. The commission is responsible for administering the system and advising the minister for industry whether duty should be imposed on goods found to have been dumped or subsidised. Measures imposed by the commission guard our local industries against unfair and uncompetitive trade practices, such as injurious dumping and subsidisation. The bill before the chamber amends the Customs Act to address loopholes in Australia's antidumping system that allow foreign exporters to exploit the duty rate review process and then recommence injurious dumping for up to 18 months without any remedial duties in place. At a time when Australia's manufacturers are struggling with high energy costs because of the lack of leadership and poor policy direction from this government, we need to make sure that Australia's manufacturers are not faced with another challenge by being undercut by dumped foreign goods. Given this, Labor will support this bill before the chamber today. Antidumping measures allow local businesses to be more competitive. In my electorate of Blair, I am acutely aware of the potential impacts of dumping on local businesses, including Capral Aluminium and their plant at Bundamba and G.James Glass & Aluminium in Ipswich. I've spoken about both companies in this place on numerous occasions when antidumping legislation has been before the chamber and how significant they are to my local economy. Both companies mean that local mums and dads can have meaningful work and make a living as they raise their families in the Ipswich and Somerset regions. Capral Aluminium is Australia's largest manufacturing distributor of aluminium profiles and employs over 900 workers in Australia, including 300 at their Bremer Park facility in my electorate of Blair in South East Queensland. When I last spoke about Capral in this place, in 2012, I spoke about how their plant was operating at only 50 per cent capacity. Since then Capral said, in May 2016, that the 'recent success of the anti-dumping campaign has resulted in a significant increase in volume' and their 2016 annual report revealed production volume had risen 9.7 per cent across the company. I'm proud that changes introduced by Labor in office have led to an increase in jobs for Capral. Capral continue to demonstrate a commitment to training in my local community. In 2016, they trained 60 new production and warehouse workers to a certificate III in competitive systems training at the Bremer Park facility. They are not alone in being a prominent business based in my electorate in Ipswich. G. James Glass & Aluminium is one of Australia's leading manufacturers of aluminium windows and aluminium doors. They are celebrating their 100th year of operation in 2017. It is vital to support Australian business and make sure that the anti-dumping regulatory environment continuously adapts to keep up with the strategies and behaviours of exporters to prevent injury to Australian industry and companies like Capral and G. James Glass & Aluminium. Labor's commitment to Australian jobs and manufacturing was bolstered by the recent announcement of the Australian Manufacturing Future Fund. A future Shorten Labor government will invest $1 billion in Australia's advanced manufacturing to support Australian industries, grow Australian businesses and create Australian jobs. This is because Labor always support innovative Australian manufacturing firms who want to grow their businesses and create jobs. We understand that local businesses need assistance to modernise and move into high-value production to make them globally competitive. While it's true under this government businesses have closed and jobs have been sent overseas, Labor will invest in Australian businesses and create Australian jobs. The legislation before the chamber responds to concerns that foreign exporters are gaming the system and recommencing injurious dumping after their 12-month review. There have been claims that foreign exporters are doing this by suspending exports or exporting low, subcommercial volumes at high prices in the period immediately following the imposition of anti-dumping duties. A foreign exporter can request a review of measures after a period of 12 months if they believe that the variable factors, including export price and normal value, have changed. If a company has gamed the system by purposefully exporting low volumes at high prices or ceased exporting entirely then it's difficult for the Anti-Dumping Commission to determine an appropriate, reliable export price. As a result, this often means the duty is revised to a lower rate or no rate at all. The gaming allows foreign exporters to dump sizable amounts of cheap, overseas products, such as aluminium extrusions and aluminium products, into the local market for a further 18 months with no remedial measures in place. The amendments within this bill will help the Australian regulatory system. Given this apparent gaming in the market and the risk and severity of the impact it can have on local manufacturers and local jobs, administrative improvements to the review processes are required. We commend the government for this. This bill incorporates new methodologies for the review of measures to assist the Anti-Dumping Commission in determining an export price where no goods have been exported or goods have been exported at low volumes. The new methodologies are set out in the bill. The specific methods will enable the minister to consider alternative information to determine the export price. This will reduce the capacity of exporters to subvert Australia's anti-dumping regime. Specific methods in the bill will apply as follows for: all reviews of measures for which an application or request is made following the date of commencement of the legislation; reviews for which an application has been lodged or requested by the minister prior to the commencement of the legislation; and reviews that have commenced prior to the commencement of the legislation but for which a decision hasn't quite yet been made. The purpose of this retrospective application is to avoid applying a disproportionately low duty to reviews already underway, reducing the further exposure of Australian industry to injurious dumping from exporters. I note the bill's explanatory memorandum states that due to the variable frequency of antidumping reviews the revenue impact is difficult to quantify. Regardless, however, of the financial impact, Australian jobs are really critical and Australian businesses are important. In government, Labor made significant changes to strengthen the antidumping system. That is why we took a commitment to the last federal election to ensure Australia's antidumping system had the right powers and penalties in place. We promised to ensure Australia's antidumping system was operating effectively and committed to work with the Anti-Dumping Commission to accelerate enhancements to the system. The Turnbull government's bill is consistent with Labor's policy at the last election and we thank them for that. We thank them for catching up to Labor's lead in relation to this area. I take the opportunity to thank the assistant minister for following Labor's lead on banning importations across a whole range of areas and impacts. The government could, however, follow Labor's lead in relation to the importation of highly flammable polyethylene cladding, to protect Australians from dangerous fires in their homes and workplaces. The bill before the House was referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for an inquiry that reported on 6 October 2017. As the shadow minister for immigration and border protection, I am more than aware of the Turnbull government's consistent failure to consult with stakeholders about legislative changes which may affect them. We believe in genuine consultation in this area. I note all Australian industry representatives made submissions to the Senate inquiry and they all supported the proposed introduction of measures to strengthen Australia's antidumping scheme. BlueScope Steel stated in their submission: It became obvious that a new strategy had been employed by a large number of these exporters to exploit a 'gap' within the existing review of measures process. This strategy was simply to withdraw from exporting to Australia for 12 months and then request a review of their imposed measures. The outcome of such a strategy was to effectively guarantee a new interim anti-dumping duty of 0 %. As a consequence, BlueScope has witnessed an immediate recommencement of exports from those countries, increasing within three months of the minister's decision by over 300 per cent, in conjunction with a price drop of around 15 per cent. This was a huge undercut to local manufacturers, the local economy and local jobs. The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, AMWU, concluded: This legislation improves Australia's anti-dumping system by ensuring a more transparent and efficient review mechanism to avoid circumvention. The CFMEU supported that as well. The AMWU indicated it remains 'open to further changes to the antidumping system to ensure injurious dumping is stamped out'. Given the feedback by industry and by trade unions, it is important that we support this legislation. Indeed, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee recommended the bill be passed. I commend the work of Senator Kim Carr, the shadow minister for innovation, industry, science and research, for the extensive consultation in relation to the legislation before the chamber. We have consulted with a whole range of organisations about this matter. I urge the Turnbull government to follow our lead and consult widely and wisely in relation to this, as we have done. It is clear that this bill would help close the gap in the antidumping system that has been gamed by foreign exporters. In these circumstances, we support the legislation. While antidumping measures might not be the everyday topic of conversation over a water cooler or at a barbecue, it is extremely important to the livelihood of Australia's local manufacturers and the livelihood of their workers. On this side of the chamber, we will always fight for workers. A Shorten Labor government will put middle- and working-class Australians first. We support the legislation and thank the government for following our lead. 12:14 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax ( I would like to thank the opposition for standing with the government on this measure. It is often said that failures are orphans and successes have many fathers, and it is no surprise that we have here a terrific measure being introduced by the government for which the opposition wish to take credit. That's okay, Mr Speaker. At the end of the day, the opposition do look to the Turnbull government to get things done and we are paving the way in all areas, not least of which is this area of international trade. We are ensuring that those companies that are exposed to trade here in Australia, because either they trade internationally or their competitors or substitutes for their goods or services also come from international markets, are looked after. That's what the Turnbull government do, and we're delighted that the opposition recognise the good work that we're doing and so much wish to be part of it. They seek to take the credit, and good on them for attempting to do so. There are few more contentious issues to be had around the topic of international trade than the issue of dumping and the measures governments right around the world have exercised for a century or more to combat it. The simplest definition of dumping is the sale by an exporter of a product in another country for less than it is sold at home. In other words, a company sells a product for a certain price at home and then exports it to another market and undercuts the domestic price significantly, thereby 'dumping' it into the other market. This has been a highly contentious element of international trade for many hundreds of years because it has the clear potential to do significant damage to businesses, industries and potentially entire economies. Dumping has become increasingly important over the past few decades as the volume of international trade has increased at exponential rates. Over the past 20 years or so, measures to control dumping have expanded and come into more widespread use right around the world. The motivation of governments to take action to control dumping is quite straightforward: it's a defence mechanism. The motive of the exporter, or the dumper, might well be predatory. An offending exporter may seek to price other exporters out of a particular market in a recipient country. It may want to have that market to itself or it may want to kill off a local industry in the market so it can supplant it, beat off potential competitors and establish a monopoly or at least a dominant position in that market. Alternatively, the exporter may simply have overcapacity in its home market and, rather than slow down production, may wish to export the excess of its inventory so that it can keep its production line rolling on. Of course, potentially this will end up having a devastating effect on the like industry and competitors in the recipient market. Whatever the motivation—predatory or even strategically benign—the impacts in the importing recipient country can be significant and generally negative for local businesses and jobs. To compete with dumped products, a local business may well, at the very least, have to drop its own prices to maintain market share and production, possibly to levels below even the cost of production. That is obviously a dead end for any business and potentially fatal for an enterprise if such an imbalance persists. At the other end of the spectrum, however, you could argue that consumers in a recipient country might be better off, at least in the short term, whether the dumped product is finished retail or maybe an input into a manufacturing supply chain. If it is a finished product then it is cheaper than the locally produced product, and maybe that's a straightforward benefit to the consumer. If the dumped product is a cheap or at least less expensive input into a manufacturing supply chain, that might help the manufacturer boost his or her profits and use those profits to reinvest. Some free market fundamentalists, who don't understand the true meaning of free trade, will describe antidumping measures as protectionist because they will concentrate on those last couple of points. They will start to argue, 'You know what, even if it is dumping, it ends up being cheaper product for the recipient marketplace.' However, what these fundamentalists clearly do not understand is that unfair free trade is in fact an oxymoron. Rational national governments with an eye to history and a firsthand knowledge of the dangers of dumping, both potential and real, differ from these fundamentalists. This government, the Turnbull government, is indeed a rational government, as all Australian governments have been on this issue, at least since Federation. Measures to control dumping have been in place in Australia from the beginning, from Federation, 1901. Ever since, they have been updated and revised regularly by governments—I have to say, in the spirit of the previous speaker—of both persuasions, with the measures in this bill, the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill being the latest but inevitably not the last iteration of a very important defensive measure. For more than a century, these measures have never been abandoned or even sidelined. Through war, depression, boom and bust, this basic defence of the Australian economy has been maintained. Very significantly, when Australia was a signatory to the first real international attempt to promote free trade, via the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, in 1948, which was aimed largely at reducing tariffs so we could expand trade globally, the ability of the original 23 member states to undertake remedial action against dumpers was very actively pushed for and accepted. Tariffs came down, free trade was significantly expanded, but anti-dumping measures remained in place. In the various iterations of GATT, right up to the Uruguay Round of 1994, which led to the establishment of the WTO, the World Trade Organization, in the following year as the successor to the GATT, that right was deliberately retained and is still there, accessible to all of the now 159 member states of the WTO. In the context of defending ever freer, ever fairer global trade, they're using it. This is not some passive measure that is never used. In 2015-16 alone, 45 WTO members initiated 267 anti-dumping investigations: India, 66; the US, 51; Pakistan, 21. Australia initiated 18, mostly in the steel and aluminium sectors, with the vast majority involving Asian exporters. There is a critical juxtaposition here. GATT, now the WTO, is all about liberalising trade. The anti-dumping provisions contained in this bill, principally via special duties on dumped goods, are in keeping with that aim, despite the claims of the fundamentalists, by ensuring that tree trade is not distorted or undermined by dumping practices, that indeed it's given the opportunity to be fair, that there's a fair playing field. We need to ensure that this government, and indeed future governments, remain vigilant in that task. Becoming increasingly wise to the manoeuvres used by dumpers to achieve this has led the Australian government to enhance and be ever more specific about the measures needed to keep our playing field level. For example, one tactic now covered by this bill is that an exporter of a product that is subject to an anti-dumping duty will have another exporter, a different company, whose similar dumped product has a lower duty set against it, do the exporting for them. Another tactic is called country-hopping, where the exports will be diverted through a country that does not have anti-dumping penalties in place, and again, the government is on top of that one. A third trick is to slightly modify your product beyond the specifications of a product that has attracted the anti-dumping duty, even though it is effectively one and the same, and that avenue of circumvention has now too been blocked. We're also addressing other behaviours that seek to disguise dumping practices, including the assembly of products in third countries. You see, the fundamentalist free traders will no doubt attack this measure, in the same way that they have attacked any form of constraint on dumping over a very long period of time, but they won't win with this government. They won't win with this argument. Free trade, to be worthy of that description, has to be fair. It is essential that the G20, which has recently endorsed this view, maintains the strength of its opposition to dumping, as has the WTO. In the communique following the most recent meeting of the G20 in Hamburg, in July, it was noted that the group would: … continue to fight protectionism including all unfair trade practices and recognise the role of legitimate trade defence instruments in this regard. That was said by the G20 against the backdrop of a deep and abiding commitment to, certainly, free trade but indeed also to fair trade. Australia has long maintained exactly that approach. In our most recent free trade agreements we've ensured that that principle has been enshrined. In all these arguments we have had, we stick to that fundamental principle that free trade has to be fair trade. As a practitioner myself of international trade, across everything from agriculture through to high technology, I have seen dumping measures, and in fact I've been on the receiving end of them, both in the Australian market and in international markets. We need to remember that as a country, not unlike as a company, you prosper by leveraging your core strengths, by leveraging what you are good at. If one market happens to have a competitive advantage over another, then so be it. That is the way the free market economy operates. But dumping actually does not recognise any core competency of one marketplace over another, of one player over another. It is a clear market distortion and manipulation and it is for that reason that we, together with the opposition, need to hold firm on anti-dumping measures. For this reason I commend the bill to the House. 12:27 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid I would like to thank the member for Fairfax for his contribution. I note that, as he said right at the outset, success has many parents. Of course, I would like to thank the member for Blair for his support; however, I'm not going to quite let go through to the keeper some of the comments that were made, especially in regard to us—or me in particular as the minister responsible—following Senator Carr's lead. I would like to thank the industry for coming to me some three or four months ago to highlight that we had a deficiency in our system. I also would like to thank my senior colleagues, especially the Attorney-General and his department for working so closely with us to draft so quickly a remedy to this problem. The problem, put simply, was that the system as it sat had functioned fine, but no system lives in a vacuum and people operating under the confines of that system, especially when there is dumping involved, and financial gain off the back of that and obviously financial detriment to industry domestically, are forever looking for loopholes—loophole-mining—and they found one. They found that, if they stayed out of the market for a period of time, instead of the duty assessed and attached to it they would revert back to a price that was far more beneficial to them, and, as a result, place Australian industry, and ultimately Australian jobs, at risk. This was brought to my attention strongly by major industrial employers in this country. So, with the help of the Attorney-General, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, and his office, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister's office, we worked very quickly and collaboratively to come up with some legislative changes that will fix this loophole. I would like to thank the shadow minister for his help and any help he may have had in working with the Senate Economics Committee, on their side of the fence, on the fair dinkum front, and for following our lead to ensure that these changes were implemented as quickly as was physically possible. Because the shadow minister opened this door, I will as well make reference to his thoughts that he wished I would follow my opponent in the Senate on building cladding. I am not a fan of unconstitutional laws. There is a problem, of course, when you rush something out and you don't do your homework and don't think about how our system of governance actually works. If you are to ban cladding and put in place legislative changes that penalise people, then as a federal government, because of our Constitution, you can only do that to federal instruments—that is, companies. If we want to go down the building regulation side, sadly—and I wish it wasn't this way—property rights in this country lie with states. Sole traders or partnerships that are working, as they do, predominantly and largely in the building sector are subject to state laws, not Commonwealth laws. That said, the problem is complex and we are working through it in a measured fashion. I will have a lot more to say on it—and my state and territory counterparts, who are in charge of compliance and enforcement in the building space. And, again, my shadow minister in the other place had trouble understanding how the National Construction Code actually works. The National Construction Code came about in 1944 when the states and territories agreed with the federal government to jointly administer our construction codes. My shadow minister is of the understanding that we administer the National Construction Code. We do not. We do it in conjunction with our state and territory counterparts. He has had some very derogatory things to say about the code itself, which is sad, because all that does is shake confidence. In the overwhelming majority of examples, our state and territory counterparts are doing the right thing and enforcing the law the way that it is written. I will say, also, while I have the opportunity—and the member for Fairfax used this exact term, and I said it across the desk to my shadow minister—that we on this side have obviously been, for almost five years, very keen on free trade. However, as the minister responsible for this portfolio, I know it is extremely important that free trade should be fair trade. Why? Because if it's not, Australian jobs will be put at risk. I do want to quickly say that at the moment, sadly, manufacturing in this great country is getting a dud rap. There is so much happening, and not just the transitioning from traditional blue-collar jobs to more advanced manufacturing. You have heard a lot said about manufacturing employment over the last week, and you'll hear a lot more in the next week, no doubt, as events unfold in South Australia and Victoria. In the last 12 months there has been a net increase of 15,100 jobs in the manufacturing sector in this country; 6,300 of those have come in Victoria and 3,700 in South Australia, with the rest spread around the country. There are many, many good transition stories. I was at the University of South Australia recently with SMR Automotive, who were traditionally a component supplier to Holden. They are now, with a collaboration that's occurred through a Cooperative Research Centre project—a CRC-P—working with the University of South Australia. They've come up with a new plastic adhesive. The traditional rear-view mirror and side door mirror on the car is now made with their groundbreaking plastic technology. This is a world first—patented and implemented here. They've just signed in excess of $75 million worth of global deals. In South Australia and Victoria the transition that is occurring in the motor industry is from being builders of entire cars to becoming part of a global supply chain. SMR is the classic example of that, and it is but one. I have travelled around Victoria, including Deakin University—the carbon hub there, and the carbon revolution that is happening there. One of the companies in the seat of the member for Corangamite had a 25-person team in Germany in R&D. They have moved those 25 people back here to Australia to do their research and development. I thank the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for its recent consideration of the bill, particularly its recommendation that this bill be passed by the Senate. The government will respond to the report they issued during that debate because an effective antidumping system is an essential part of this government's commitment to free and fair trade. The antidumping system is complex. This requires us in government to maintain constant vigilance to ensure it keeps up with the changing nature of international trade as well as the ability to act rapidly when significant issues arise, and this was quite clearly one of those. The government continually monitors the efficiency and effectiveness of the antidumping system and consults closely with Australian industry in evaluating the need for further improvements. I thank the chamber for considering this bill. It will assist in maintaining the integrity of our antidumping system and provide relief and certainty for Australian industry being injured by dumped or subsidised goods and, most importantly, look after, ultimately, Australian jobs. I commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 6 12:35 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017, Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 6

Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017

Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017

Second Reading 6 12:36 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I rise to speak on this legislation before the chamber. The Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement was first signed in 2003, described as the pillar of the economic relationship between the countries. The amendments to the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement were signed between our two countries on 13 October 2016. These two bills before the House today deal with the tariff and customs changes to implement the most recent amendments to the agreement. They amend the Customs Act. The legislation introduces new rules of origin for goods imported from Singapore, introduces a new procedure to claim preferential tariff treatment for goods that originate in Singapore and extends record-keeping obligations to also apply to Australian-originating goods that are exported to Singapore. It amends the Customs Tariff Act to provide for excise equivalent rates of duty on certain alcohol, tobacco, fuel and petroleum products. Labor will support the legislation before the House today. Australia has an enduring relationship with Singapore and this is one of the fundamental reasons for Labor agreeing to support these amendments. The importance of this relationship is recognised by the fact that Australia and Singapore's two-way trade was valued at $22.7 billion in 2016 alone, with Australian exports to Singapore, including merchandise and services, valued at $10.3 billion in the same year. The relationship between our countries began in the mid-1960s following Singapore becoming an independent nation. In fact, Australia was the first country to recognise Singapore, establishing our ties as allies and friends. Our shared values run deep. Singapore is a market economy with shared ties across trade, defence, science, innovation, education and the arts. Singapore is one of the leading countries for Australian expats who live and work overseas, while the Singaporean community in Australia stands at more than 50,000 people. Like many members in this House, I have had the privilege to travel as a federal member of parliament to Singapore and to meet with business leaders and fellow politicians and leaders as part of enhancing and building our relationship. It is an enduring relationship and always warmly welcomed. Our two countries share strong military ties, committed to safety and security throughout the Asia-Pacific region since the Five Power Defence Arrangements of 1971. Members of the Republic of Singapore Air Force visited RAAF Base Amberley, in my own electorate of Blair, in August 2016 to conduct training flights following their commitment to Exercise Pitch Black in northern Australia. Against any challenges Australia may face in the Asia-Pacific region, we have confidence in the shared values and friendship of the Singaporean people. The amendments to the Customs Act introduce new rules of origin for goods that are imported into Australia from Singapore. These amendments give effect to a new chapter of the amended Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement by inserting a new division into Part VIII of the Customs Act. The new division is headed 'Singaporean originating goods' and sets out new rules for determining whether goods are Singaporean-originating goods. This allows goods that are imported into Australia to be eligible for a preferential rate of customs duty under the Customs Tariff Act. It's important to allow the amended agreement to have its intended purpose of preferential entry of certain goods from Singapore into Australia. These new rules will operate as an alternative for a transition period of three years. This will allow importers from both Singapore and Australia to understand and adapt to the new requirements before the previous ones are repealed. The legislation extends record-keeping obligations that apply to goods exported to Singapore that are claimed to be produce and manufacture of Australia. New record-keeping obligations are found throughout Division 4A of Part VI of the Customs Act and will now apply to Australian-originating goods exported into Singapore. I can recall, on a trip to Singapore, going to the dairy section in one particular supermarket and thinking that I was in the Yamanto Shopping Village in my electorate of Blair! There were so many Australian goods in the dairy section. The legislation also inserts a new Schedule 4A to provide for excise-equivalent rates of duty on certain alcohol, tobacco, fuel and petroleum products. They complement other major changes that have been made and also provide, as I just previously outlined, duty-free access for most eligible goods under the new division of Part VIII. The bill amends certain concessional items to maintain custom duty rates. As for goods that are determined to be Singaporean-originating goods, they're not classified under Schedule 4A. They will have an applicable rate of custom duty of 'free'. This is consistent with similar goods covered under other free trade agreements, and this will ensure that Australian importers and in turn Australian businesses and members of the public are not paying a customs duty they don't have to pay. Trade with Singapore is fundamental in encouraging economic activity and opportunity for Australia. It's essential for creating jobs in Australia. Australian workers in education, law, e-commerce, telecommunications and professional services stand to benefit from the amended agreement as it would include recognition of a number of Australian qualifications. The amended Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement was examined by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which unanimously supported the entry of the agreement into force. The Labor members of that particular committee did raise concerns in relation to the amended agreement. The Liberal's trade deals with China, Japan and South Korea have all included loopholes that waive local labour market testing for contractual service suppliers. On this side of the chamber, we think that's unwelcome. Labour market testing requires employers wanting to bring in overseas workers to test the local labour market first. This is to make sure that there are no suitably qualified and experienced local workers ready to fill those positions prior to bringing in overseas workers. It's about putting local workers first. The Liberal and National parties have never supported labour market testing. In my time—nearly 10 years in this place—they've continuously voted against it. The Turnbull government has gone ahead and removed labour market testing for contractual service suppliers under the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. It's not good enough at a time when unemployment is above 10 per cent in parts of Australia and youth unemployment is over 20 per cent, particularly in my home state of Queensland. It's not good enough when mums and dads across Australia are doing everything they can to ensure that they provide for their families despite record low wages growth, rising energy prices and—we think, on this side of the chamber—tax cuts for millionaires and multinationals, all under the Turnbull government. I was recently in Rockhampton as part of Labor's commitment to regional Australia. In March this year, Rockhampton, in my home state of Queensland, had an unemployment rate of 8.27 per cent compared with the national average of 5.9 per cent. The Rockhampton locals I spoke with just a week or so ago condemned the Liberal and National parties for abandoning local workers and selling them out under the recent free trade agreements. The Turnbull government should make sure local workers get the first shot at a local job. Instead it's gone ahead and created another loophole to undermine our skilled migration program and sell out local workers. This removal of labour market testing also directly contradicts the government's own announcement of mandatory labour market testing for all temporary skill shortage visa applicants. Labor's policy on temporary work visas includes a commitment that Labor will not sign away labour market testing requirements in any trade deal it does in government. Free trade agreements should not be used to weaken or undermine Australia's skilled migration system. Labor does not support the inclusion or retention of investor-state dispute settlement provisions—ISDS—in free trade agreements. It's important to remember ISDS provisions were used in the past against governments seeking to legislate in the national interest. The legal action the tobacco giant Philip Morris took against Australia's revolutionary plain packaging laws was under ISDS provisions. Fortunately, the amended version of the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement does make some positive steps. There are new explicit exemptions for governments to regulate to ensure the protection of public welfare, including areas of health and the environment. This means ISDS provisions will not apply to tobacco control measures, Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Indigenous traditional cultural expressions, as well as Australia's foreign investment policy, including decisions made by the Foreign Investment Review Board. At the last election, Labor committed that in government it would seek to remove ISDS provisions in existing free trade agreements and would not sign agreements that included ISDS provisions. The Labor members of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties also critiqued a lack of transparency in the negotiation of the amended agreement and the absence of independent economic analysis. This is concerning because independent economic modelling has been recommended by numerous JSCOT inquiries as well as Senate inquiries, including JSCOT's inquiry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Increased transparency and independent economic analysis would provide the public with greater certainty and confidence that Australia's trade deals are of high quality and will help create Australian jobs and increase exports. If the Turnbull government were truly committed to putting Australian jobs first, it would be committed to transparency and independent economic modelling when committing to free trade agreements. Labor has consistently demonstrated its bipartisan commitment to our country's relationship with Singapore, and it will continue to do so by supporting the legislation before the chamber. We do have legitimate concerns about the Turnbull government waiving labour market testing for contractual service suppliers under the amended agreement. The Turnbull government's commitment to Australian jobs and increased exports is also questionable because of its failure to negotiate transparent and proper scrutiny as well as provide independent economic modelling. Unlike the Turnbull government, Labor is focused on supporting Australian jobs. We won't sign away labour market testing requirements in any trade deal that we do in government. We will always continue to support our engagement with other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, such as Singapore, to ensure the framework relating to tariffs is clear and functional. Classifications and tariffs have real financial impacts for Australian businesses, consumers and Australian jobs. Labor will do everything in its power to support the Australian economy rather than detract from it. For these reasons, we will support the legislation before the chamber. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 8 12:48 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins by leave—I move: That the Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 and Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. Question agreed to. Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017, Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017, Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2017, Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017, Industrial Chemicals Charges (Excise) Bill 2017, Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017 8

Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017

Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017

Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2017

Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017

Industrial Chemicals Charges (Excise) Bill 2017

Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017

Second Reading 8 12:49 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin The Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017 and associated bills establish the legislative framework for the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme, which will replace the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme, otherwise known as NICNAS. NICNAS, which regulates the introduction—whether by importation or manufacture—of industrial chemicals, is one of four national regulators of chemicals. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA, oversees pesticides, agricultural products, veterinary medicine, food for animals and pool sanitisers. The Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA, is responsible for medicines and medical devices. Chemicals used in food for people are regulated by Food Standards Australia New Zealand, FSANZ. Where a chemical has multiple uses, each regulatory scheme must be followed. These bills deal only with the regulation of industrial chemicals. I turn to the detail of these bills. The Industrial Chemicals Bill and the Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill define an industrial chemical for the purpose of the legislation, require introducers of industrial chemicals to be registered and establish a streamlined system of risk based categorisation largely based on self-categorisation of industrial chemical introductions, which consists of six authorisation pathways. Those pathways provide that an industrial chemical may be introduced if it is (1) a listed introduction and the terms of the listing, as detailed on the inventory, are met; (2) an exempted introduction and the requirements in the rules relating to exempted introductions are met; (3) a reported introduction and the requirements in the rules relating to reported introductions are met. This will be on the basis of risk assessment and evaluation undertaken by or in association with a trusted international body. The pathways further provide for (4) an assessed introduction and the introducer complies with the terms of the assessment certificate; (5) a commercial evaluation introduction and the introducer complies with the terms of the commercial evaluation authorisation; and (6) an exceptional circumstances introduction and the introducer complies with the terms of the exceptional circumstances authorisation. The bills also establish the Australian Inventory of Industrial Chemicals; describe the information and reporting obligations of introducers, holders of certificates and authorisations, and persons covered by certificates; enable people to apply for the protection of confidential business information; establish the Australian Industrial Chemical Introduction Scheme and an executive director as an independent statutory officeholder, and describe the role and functions of the executive director; provide AICIS with access to more contemporary tools to enable it to monitor compliance and take action in the event of noncompliance; provide a framework for the executive director to initiate evaluations of industrial chemicals or matters relating to industrial chemicals; implement Australia's obligations under certain international agreements, including provisions enabling bans or restrictions on industrial chemicals subject to certain international agreements; establish the power for the minister to make rules which will contain the operational detail of the act, as well as general provisions for applications and for review rights; and lastly, provide the legal framework for the transition to the new scheme. The Industrial Chemicals Bill will disallow the use of new animal test data to support the introduction of chemicals used exclusively as cosmetic ingredients. I turn to the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill, which amends the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act to, firstly, make changes to the definition of new synthetic polymer to more closely align with international approaches; secondly, make changes to the notification requirements for new chemicals such that polymers of low concern would be exempt from notification; thirdly, remove the requirement for introducers to provide annual reports to NICNAS for permits and self-assessment certificates; fourthly, remove the requirement for introducers to provide a final statement of the value of the relevant industrial chemicals actually introduced in a registration year; and, lastly, make consequential changes to the IC(NA) Act relating to these changes. Just briefly, in turning to the Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017, the Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017 and the Industrial Chemicals Charges (Excise) Bill 2017, collectively these three bills enable the Commonwealth to collect an annual charge on the introduction of chemicals into Australia by import or manufacture in accordance with the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017, which itself provides that: an introducer must be registered on the Register of Industrial Chemical Introducers … for a registration year before introducing an industrial chemical during that year (with penalties for failure to meet this requirement) a registration charge may be payable for each registration year. The Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017 imposes the charge and enables regulations to describe the methods for working out the annual registration charge applicable to each introducer of industrial chemicals. Presently, the costs of administering NICNAS are recovered through fees and charges on manufacturers and importers of industrial chemicals, mainly from registrations and assessments. The cost recovery principle will be retained in the new scheme. I understand it is proposed that rules made under these bills will base the registration charge on the value of industrial chemicals introduced by the entity in the registration year. The new scheme implements a more risk based approach to regulation of industrial chemicals. Significantly, this will mean that there will be less emphasis on pre-introduction assessment of lower risk chemicals and a greater focus on post-introduction evaluation and monitoring. That approach, according to the government statement, will see the number of new industrial chemicals that are subject to pre-introduction assessments drop by more than 70 per cent from about three per cent currently to 0.3 per cent in the future. Furthermore, it will be industry which self-assesses low-risk chemicals, albeit against objective criteria. The government expects business will save around $23 million per year through these changes, and approval of many industrial chemicals will be fast-tracked, thereby making Australian business more competitive with their overseas competitors. Remaining competitive is important, as more than 60,000 people are employed in the chemical industry, and it contributes around $11.6 billion annually to our GDP. These reforms are, however, extremely complex, and much of the technical detail will be enacted through regulations which are presumably yet to be drafted. The government is saying that this approach will enable the regulator to focus on higher risk chemicals and that it will encourage businesses to use lower risk chemicals which may fit in under the exempted introduction, where the regulator will not be notified. It seems the government was rushing this legislation by introducing it whilst consultation was still ongoing and whilst submissions on Consultation paper 5, which sought feedback on matters to be included in the delegated legislation, was still open. Furthermore, the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee was being pushed to finalise its inquiry by 13 June this year, making it nearly impossible to carry out its work. Labor senators insisted on an extension of time for reporting and public hearings, and that extension was granted, with the Senate report being handed down on 8 August. Were it not for the Labor senators, the whole matter would have been rushed, and people who quite properly wanted to make submissions to the committee would not have been able to. I acknowledge that there has been a considerable consultation process associated with this legislation, but I also note the comment by NICNAS: … there are some aspects of the reforms that are contentious and for which there is an absence of agreement across stakeholder groups. That comment makes it clear that there was not universal support for the measures in this bill. Indeed, in introducing this legislation, the assistant minister acknowledged that stakeholders did not all share the same views. A wide range of stakeholders, including unions, health groups and environmental groups, have flagged significant concerns with these bills. They are concerned that the focus of these reforms is to reduce red tape and that, in pursuing a reduction in red tape, health and environmental outcomes will be compromised. I just turn for a moment to the exempted introductions, because this is a matter where considerable concern was expressed. In addition to concerns about the reduction in the chemicals that would be subject to premarket assessments, there were also concerns that the introduction of some new chemicals would not require notification other than a statement by the introducer that chemicals had been introduced under this category—that is, the exempted category—thereby reducing transparency in the regulatory system, and that there would be an increased reliance on self-assessment by the introducer. In a submission on the reforms, the Public Health Association of Australia states: It is unacceptable that new chemicals can be introduced into Australia on the basis of self-assessment by importers or manufacturers without any prior notification to AICIS and no listing of such chemicals on a Government or public record. That statement is absolutely clear. It makes the point very strongly and very clearly that it should not be part of our standards that a chemical can be introduced into this country without any notification to AICIS of the specific nature of that chemical and with no government record kept. The government's claim would presumably be that the increased risk will be balanced out by the greater focus on postintroduction monitoring and evaluation. If we're going to have postintroduction monitoring then we need to ensure that there are the resources to do it; yet, as the Public Health Association of Australia again notes, there are no additional resources set aside specifically for postentry audits. It is one thing to say that they will be carried out but it's another to actually do that when there's no provision within this legislation to provide the resources to enable that process to proceed. Whilst the bill provides that industrial chemicals can be assessed on the initiative of the executive director, the details are not in the bill and, as I understand it, nor will they be in the delegated legislation. It is impossible to know how the executive-director-initiated assessments will compare with the process they replace, how many assessments will be carried out and whether those assessments will be just as rigorous as those carried out presently. At this point the government are once again asking us to trust them on the details. The lack of notification to the regulator of the introduction of new chemicals under the exempt pathway has other potential problems. Regarding nanomaterials and polymers, the PHAA submission states: There are many new classes of chemicals, including nanomaterials and polymers, which deserve special regulatory consideration for health risks to humans, animals and the environment, and should not be categorised as Exempted Chemicals. Nanomaterials are designed to penetrate the skin and even deliver active biomolecules to intracellular sites, and none of these chemicals should be categorised as Exempted Chemicals. Many polymers should not be categorised as Exempted Chemicals. There are risks that some low molecular weight polymers have the potential for absorption into the body, and many polymers that contain perfluorinated carbon chains could breakdown to perfluorinated chemicals which could persist in the environment, may bioaccumulate, or may be toxic. The PHAA believes that the introduction volumes up to 100kg for nanomaterials used in R&D for classification as Exempted Chemicals needs to be reduced. It is not appropriate for such large quantities of these materials, to be introduced, even for R&D, without the knowledge of the AICIS Regulator, given the limited understanding of the risks they may pose to people and the environment. Again, that statement makes it absolutely clear that there are concerns relating to aspects of this legislation. During a public hearing of the Senate committee's inquiry the Cancer Council Australia said: The second broad principle that we would like to support—again, it has been raised—is report everything. The simple notion of establishing the exempted category raises concerns for many of us. Again, the folks at NICNAS tell me there is a very high bar for the industry to get over to have a chemical meet the requirements of an exempted chemical and that means they are required to have a whole lot of data about the safety of use of that chemical before it can meet that criteria. Our simple question is: if there is such a high bar to get over to become exempted, why would it be that much harder to simply report the name of the chemical, its number and the quantity in use? It is a very reasonable question to ask. If the bar has been set so high and introducers have to comply with so many other requirements, how much more difficult is it for them to provide the final report which says what the chemical is, what its particular chemical number is and what the quantity used is? I believe the public, quite rightly, would say, 'We have the right to know.' Yet this legislation does not give them information, nor does it provide information for the government itself, and that is even more concerning. These comments come from both the Public Health Association of Australia and the Cancer Council of Australia, organisations that are quite reputable within the broader community. I believe they accurately reflect public sentiment and expectations relating to the regulation of industrial chemicals. My understanding is that the introducers will still need to keep records of the exempted chemicals they introduce and make annual declarations stating that they have introduced chemicals in the exempt category, but they don't have to specify the type of chemical, the date it was introduced or the quantities. Given that they have to maintain their own records in respect to those matters it does not seem to me to be an unreasonable request to have that material provided to government, perhaps as part of their annual reporting statement. The government, then, would have records that could be relied on in the future, should the need arise, if questions were asked about what chemicals were introduced and when. If the regulator doesn't know what chemicals are being introduced it will make it even more difficult for action to be taken to mitigate risks, should they come to light. It could also be many years before some of those exempted chemicals are found to be more dangerous than thought when they were introduced, bearing in mind that—it is my understanding—it is self-classification by the introducers, as to which classification they bring the chemicals in under. So if an introducer believes that a chemical is of very low risk and it meets certain criteria, it is their judgement as to whether it should be exempt. I stand to be corrected on that, and the minister in his right of reply can tell us differently if that is the case, but that is my understanding. We are relying, entirely, on the assessment process of the introducer of the chemical. I now turn to the inventory multi-tiered assessment and prioritisation, the IMAP, and the priority existing chemical process, which have been assessing 30,000 industrial chemicals that have never been assessed, and I understand that that process may be replaced. That was a process introduced under Labor to try to fix the backlog of chemicals brought into this country over the decades that were never formally assessed. It has been working well and progress has been made, and those unassessed chemicals are slowly being worked through. The process exists to assess chemicals already listed on the inventory—so these chemicals are already in use—and is used to assess those chemicals for which there are reasonable grounds for believing they pose a risk to health or the environment but they have never undergone any assessment. The Senate inquiry heard widespread praise for the IMAP framework. I know there have been assurances given to the inquiry that IMAP or a similar process will continue, but the reality is that there is no legislative guarantee within this legislation that that will be the case. We do not have it within the legislation. And I will come back to that in a moment because I have taken this matter up with the minister and we've had discussions with him about it. There is another matter of concern to us, and that is the reliance on risk managers and the reports that they provide. NICNAS is conducting its assessment of chemicals and does a lot of good work in that space. However, the lack of uptake of the work by other regulators is of concern. For example, it has been suggested that had risk managers acted on NICNAS recommendations significant operational problems with the exposure of firefighting foams would have been avoided. This has become a serious public health issue, and it doesn't apply to just RAAF Base Amberley. I understand there are concerns arising in many other parts of Australia with respect to firefighting foams that have been used over the years. Whilst it is beyond the scope of the bill to ensure the uptake of recommendations with respect to assessments that have been carried out by regulators in the past, there is now an opportunity to at least track and report on the actions taken by risk managers. When a problem arises, we need to know what action was taken in response to that problem. This bill does not make it clear that anything will occur as a result of those matters being raised. The IMAP process and reliance on risk managers are two matters we have serious concerns about. I raised these matters with the minister, who has assured both the Senate committee and me, through a letter sent to the Hon. Catherine King, the shadow minister for health and Medicare, that those processes will continue—that is, in respect of IMAP process—and that there will be a reporting process in place to assure us that any action arising from a post-market assessment will be followed up. I want to quote directly from the minister's letter to Catherine King: 'The Australian government is committed to continuing the work of the regulator to evaluate unassessed chemicals on the national inventory. This process commenced through the Inventory Multi-tiered Assessment and Prioritisation, IMAP, framework and will be continued under a new flexible and responsive evaluation framework.' I thank the minister for that assurance in the letter. It is because of that assurance that we will, at this stage, not be taking the matter any further and we will be accepting the minister's assurance with respect to that matter. With respect to the other matter I referred to, again I quote the minister's response: 'The Australian government is also committed to ensuring that the regulator tracks and reports on the status of actions taken by risk managers to increase transparency in relation to any risk management recommendations made by the regulator to address identified risks. This will be implemented in a way that allows the timely publication of information which will be of benefit to industry and community groups.' Again, I thank the minister for that response. We will rely on that letter in order to overcome the concerns that we had with those two aspects. Lastly, I turn to the question of animal testing and the new arrangements with respect to that. Consumers use a wide variety of cosmetics, with estimates that consumers use seven or more different cosmetics each day. Retail sales of cosmetics and toiletries in Australia were some $3.7 billion in 2015-16. Although most of these products are imported, in the same year 18,000 people were employed in the Australian cosmetics, perfume and toiletries manufacturing industry. The industry was worth $945 million, with exports contributing $535 million towards that figure. Imported and manufactured cosmetic ingredients are regulated as industrial chemicals. Animal testing has historically been seen to be the most reliable way to check for possible human health effects. Progress has been made and in many cases animal testing is now more expensive and more time consuming, whilst increasingly facing ethical and scientific questions. Whilst animal testing for cosmetic purposes no longer occurs in Australia, between 100,000 and 200,000 animals are estimated to suffer a cruel fate through cosmetic testing. Animal welfare groups have identified loopholes in this legislation, which I believe falls well short of Labor's Ethical Cosmetics Bill, which we pursued over a year ago. Firstly, they are concerned that the ban applies only to ingredients that are solely for use in cosmetics products, and therefore multipurpose ingredients could still be tested on animals. Secondly, they are concerned that regulations will permit chemicals tested on animals for another purpose to be re-purposed for cosmetic use after the cosmetic testing ban commenced. In their submission, Be Cruelty-Free Australia, a partnership between Humane Research Australia and Humane Society International (Global and Australia) stated: As currently worded, Sections 103 and 168 fall short of international best practice. The EU-28, Norway, Switzerland, India, Israel, Taiwan and Guatemala have all banned new animal testing for both finished cosmetic products as well as all cosmetic ingredients, regardless of whether or not the ingredient is intended exclusively for use in cosmetics, and this same model is being heeded in similar legislation under discussion in the United States, Canada, Brazil and other major markets. According to Be Cruelty-Free, only a small proportion of chemicals are used solely in cosmetics; most have multiple end uses. I also point out that the ban on the use of animal-testing data can help create new industries in toxicity testing techniques that do not involve animals. I note that in the submission from Accord, the national industry association representing manufacturers and marketers of various products, they have raised concerns that section 103 and section 168, which deals with animal testing, could be in breach of Australian, World Trade Organization and bilateral free trade agreements. In one of its publications, Accord goes on to say that animal testing 'is not a high-profile issue for consumers' and that the industry should be allowed to develop an industry code of conduct for animal testing of cosmetic products. The RSPCA and Be Cruelty-Free dispute that assertion that animal testing is not a high-profile issue to consumers. Indeed, in the committee inquiry, the RSPCA said about the comment that animal testing is not a high-profile issue for consumers: That is completely contrary to all of the signals that the RSPCA has received from the broader Australian public on this issue. It's certainly of high concern to people. The Department of Health's submission to the inquiry noted that 4,269 chemicals were introduced solely for cosmetic use in 2014-15, with only three of those using animal-testing data derived since the ban in the EU. For multiple uses, there were 2,839 chemicals introduced, with only 11 using animal-testing data. The department's submission states: This will apply a ban on the use of animal testing data for more than 99% of the cosmetics introduced into Australia. The remaining less than 1% are circumstances where these chemicals are also used in other industries and this information is critical to ensure we protect consumers, the public and the environment. This would mean that, on the department's own figures, applying a more comprehensive ban as provided in the amendment that we will be moving would not be onerous for either the industry or the regulator. Finally, even stakeholders from industry who are broadly supportive of the bill believe that further consultation will be needed, especially with respect to the regulations. Many highlighted technical concerns which presumably still need to be resolved. Let me summarise Labor's concerns with these bills. First is the lack of notification of the introduction of chemicals through the exempted introduction category. Second is the replacement of the IMAP framework. Third, the broad shift from pre-market to post-market evaluation is of concern, and whether the AICIS will have the resources to carry out the post-introduction assessments if it is to rely only on registration fees. Fourth, the bill and the explanatory memorandum contain no detail on the risk categorisation mix. Fifth, the explanatory memorandum refers to critical chemical volumes but contains little detail or guidance on the characteristics of chemicals and volumes, other than high and low risk. Sixth, there is little in the explanatory memorandum to indicate how enforcement will or can be used. Last, the ban on the use of animal-testing data for cosmetics implemented in this legislation falls short of community expectations and contains loopholes. Labor will not be opposing this bill in the House. However, on account of the serious concerns raised by stakeholders, and evidence heard during the Senate inquiry, we will be moving amendments. Those amendments will address the most serious concerns about the legislation—that is, the introduction of some chemicals through the exempted introduction category without interaction with the regulator, and the loophole in the ban on the use of new animal-testing data. Labor will also closely scrutinise the regulations, and we reserve our right to disallow any regulations which we believe do not adequately protect human health and the environment. With those comments, I move the amendments circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill and related bills a second reading, the House calls on the government to: (1) remove the loophole in the ban on use of animal test data for cosmetics implemented in this legislation; and (2) require an annual post introduction report to be given to the regulator listing basic information about industrial chemicals introduced through the 'exempted introductions' category". Thank you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the amendment seconded? Ms Chesters 249710 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Makin has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. 13:20 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe As Abraham Lincoln once said: I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being. What we no longer want to see are those terrible videos of mice and rabbits having chemicals dropped into their eyes, or rashes all over their skin, just so we can show that it's safe to use a mascara or lipstick. Carolyn Sugden, a local woman in my electorate of La Trobe who refers to herself as 'the crazy bunny lady', contacted me a number of years ago to discuss the importance of banning cosmetic testing on animals. My sincere thanks to Carolyn and all those local residents who have been advocating strongly on this issue for so many years. A commitment we announced at the last federal election was actually Carolyn's rabbit runaway orphanage. Our commitment was to ban cosmetic testing on animals in line with EU regulations. We committed to having a bill introduced in July of this year, a commitment which we have met. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Assistant Minister David Gillespie, and Bruce Poon, Najree Walsh and Leah Folloni from the Animal Justice Party, who have worked closely on this issue over the last 12 months. The Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017 and associated bills highlight the need to prohibit new animal testing for cosmetics products or their ingredients and the manufacture and sale of cosmetics newly tested on animals, or containing newly animal-tested ingredients. This is a package of six extensive bills to reform industrial chemicals regulation. It includes a ban on the use of data derived from animal tests from 1 July 2018 to support the introduction of a cosmetic ingredient, increased international harmonisation and greater use of international assessments from compatible regulators, and a continuation of Australia's obligations under certain international agreements. This ban will apply on the use of animal testing for more than 99 per cent of cosmetic ingredients introduced into Australia. The remaining less than one per cent is in circumstances where these chemicals are also used in other industries. This information is critical to ensure the protection of consumers, the public and workers, and the environment. Can I say to the House that NICNAS would not support this legislation unless it had that safeguard in there. Either we have this safeguard, or we don't have legislation. Testing the ingredients of cosmetics like mascara and shampoo on living creatures is unnecessary cruelty. I'm happy to say that Australia is now joining the EU in its approach to this issue. I'm proud to say that Australia is now the world leader in this space. Comparatively to the EU, we are now banning the sale and import of cosmetics and ingredients developed specifically for use in cosmetics, just as they have. However, we will be doing the same in a much shorter period of time—one year versus 10 years, as it is in the EU. While I understand that no cosmetics products are currently tested on animals in Australia, it is important to remember that without a legal ban there is nothing to prevent this happening in the future, particularly when it comes to developing products in Australia for use in countries such as China, which requires cosmetic testing on animals if it's sold in a chemist or a shopping centre. A ban in Australia is good for animals, consumers and science, and it's what the overwhelming majority of Australian citizens want. 'Not tested on animals' is one of the top three features that Australian female consumers look for when buying cosmetics, ranking higher than anti-ageing benefits and sun protection factors. It is important to understand that when we are talking about cosmetics, it's not just mascara and lipstick. Cosmetics are used as everyday products. In oral hygiene, there is mouthwash and toothpaste. For soaps and deodorants, there are antiperspirants, bath gels, body washes, antibacterial handwash, shampoos and conditioners. In make-up and beauty, think of nail polish, mascara, hair dyes and perfumes—so it's very broad. For skincare, it includes skin cleansing, acne washers, secondary sun protection products with an SPF of 15 or below, lip care creams, anti-ageing creams, moisturisers, shaving creams and, surprisingly for many, some baby care and hygiene products. Unfortunately, it has come to our attention that some false and misleading information has been spread in the community regarding this legislation, and sadly the Labor Party has completely gobbled this up. A media release was issued by the Humane Society International on 12 May 2016 which was factually incorrect and misleading and lumped Australia into the same category as countries like New Zealand, who have a ban only on testing animals within the country. When Senator Anne Ruston and I first saw this media release, we stopped the legislation going into the coalition party room, because I was shocked to read that it wouldn't cover most of the products, but it soon became apparent that, sadly, the intention was to mislead the public and also the Labor Party and other political parties. Australia's ban doesn't allow any data to prove the health and humane safety of any ingredients that are used solely for cosmetics inside or outside Australia. It is allowed in only as a last resort if absolutely necessary for multipurpose chemicals. For example, you may have data which could be determined in previous years in a product which may have been in Australia for a number of years. In Germany, for example, scientists may be concerned that it could have carcinogenic effects on customers, so the data could potentially be used in Australia as a very last resort to ensure Australian safety. Personally I would prefer to have the 100 per cent ban, but there's no way this could actually be in place unless we had that safeguard. Let's be clear: the media release issued by HIS paints a picture where there is a giant loophole rather than a tightly worded safety mechanism in place. We now know that, when we actually look at 2014-15 NICNAS figures, 4,269 new chemicals were introduced for cosmetic use in Australia, and out of that, even prior to this legislation, only three products had been tested on animals. This in the future will be completely banned. When it comes to chemicals with multiple uses, there were 2,889 chemicals, of which 11 actually had dual uses. So in total, of 7,158 new chemicals introduced in 2014-15, 15 chemicals were used with animal data. I also make this very strong point: Australian customers do not want to see products tested on animals. If it were a selling point, companies would be proudly trying to sell products tested on animals. It's simply going out of date. This legislation is very symbolic, though, to send a clear message to the world that Australia is doing their bit. The other reason we've had Labor ridiculously opposing this bill is that they've been misled, as I said, by HIS again in saying that our legislation does not meet the same standards as the EU ban, and this has been floating around. However, we now have confirmation in writing from Geert Dancet, the executive director of the European Chemicals Agency, that the functions of the EU regulations match the functions of our legislation before the House today. Sadly, we're potentially having Labor and the Greens lining up with Senator David Leyonhjelm, who we all know is absolutely supportive of chemical testing on animals. How bizarre would that be? I strongly argue for the ban and passionately believe we don't want to see products tested on animals. The situation at the moment is that either we get something that will exclude 99.9 per cent of all cosmetic ingredients tested on animals—this is advice from the Department of Health—or we reject the bill and we don't get any protection against cosmetic testing on animals. I acknowledge and thank the shadow assistant minister for saying that Labor would not be opposing amendments being put forward. The truly sad aspect of this is that if this bill were opposed, that would mean in the future, in Australia, people and companies would be able to test ingredients on animals and also to allow chemicals which have been tested on animals to come into Australia. We definitely don't want that. Australia and the Turnbull government are taking a very firm approach on this. If you compare it with the EU, their implementation will take place over 10 years; ours will take place over a period of 12 months. Australia will be taking a huge lead and will be used as a benchmark. Earlier I referred to New Zealand. New Zealand has a ban in place locally, but it will still allow other products from right around the world to be imported. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will be given an opportunity to conclude his contribution at that time. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Citizenship 15 13:30 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra In his message to new citizens, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection writes: People of all backgrounds and religions strengthen our country and only together, united will our future be as strong as our present and past. So why is the government making it so difficult for people to become Australian citizens? Two weeks ago, I received an email from the Community Services Directorate of the ACT government telling me that one of the two upcoming citizenship ceremonies on 12 October had been cancelled. The email read, 'Due to a decline in the number of citizenship candidates, the afternoon ceremony at 1.30 pm has been cancelled.' The number of people seeking Australian citizenship in the ACT hasn't declined; it hasn't stalled. It's the process that has stalled—the process. Each week my office gets phone calls and emails from people wanting updates on their citizenship applications—applications that are sitting idle in the department, waiting to be processed. This is the system that the Turnbull government has put in place. It's told citizenship aspirants they don't need to bother to apply, that applications received after 20 April will not be processed. This is absolutely outrageous. Citizenship shouldn't be about politics. It should be about who we are as a modern nation, and these attacks by the government are a direct attack on Australia as a multicultural nation. (Time expired) Illicit Drugs 15 13:31 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman I refer to Spilt Milk, the music festival in the ACT that has announced it won't be pill testing in November because they neglected to get the appropriate permissions from the National Capital Authority. I know the ACT government is very excited about pill testing, but I've got a message to Australia: I don't think that my kids should go to music festivals and be offered drugs called 'safe' in music festivals. Spilt Milk says, in the fine print, 'no illicit substances', but then they are also going to be testing drugs inside. It's either drug-free or it's not drug-free. I don't want my children offered drugs in a musical festival and be told that they're safe. As a medical specialist, there is no such thing as safe MDMA; 100 per cent pure MDMA kills kids every year. In the UK alone, in the last four years, there has been an increase in deaths by 50 per cent, a doubling of deaths due to new psychoactive substances. If you're going to test drugs, test them somewhere outside the music festival. Once you're inside, it deserves to be a public event run by private operators that is drug free. It is not at the moment. This is not a place to take a small sample from a pill, say, 'I've tested it; it's safe—I didn't test all the tablet' and the drug that's dangerous and kills you is on the other side of the tablet. There is no such thing as a safe tablet if I take 10 of them. Lastly, if a drug is not safe, it's handed back to the owner, who on-sells it inside the festival to someone else. There's no place in this country for pill testing. Solomon Electorate: MV Rushcutter 16 13:33 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I rise to give the House an update on the future of the Harbour Defence Motor Launch 1321, the MV Rushcutter, which sank in Darwin Harbour in 2016. Some members of this House may remember me talking about it. We've successfully got it up from the bottom of Darwin Harbour and to the beach. This ship served our country in World War II in very dangerous times north of Australia. The least we can do is restore her and put her on display in the capital of the north, in Darwin. She was made of Huon pine in Tasmania. We want to restore those beautiful lengths, those beams. It's a magnificent boat. With the support of the NT government, for which we are all very grateful, a local business, NT Welding, will build a steel cradle. We are going to float the Rushcutter from the beach into this steel cradle and we'll take her to a hardstand at Frances Bay, where the restoration will begin. Stories have been flooding in from families of soldiers and sailors who served with the 1321 during the Second World War and subsequently when she was renamed the MV Rushcutter and served in Sydney Harbour. She even went down to Melbourne and worked on the yachting regatta in the Melbourne Olympics. She's got a fantastic history. She served our nation well. I'm very grateful to the NT government for their support. Trade Unions 16 13:35 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I rise today to speak about the vile and, frankly, shocking behaviour of people who should know better. Over recent months, industrial action by the CFMEU has created an unenviable position for workers, many of whom live in my electorate of Capricornia and are trying to work and support their families at the Oakey Creek coalmine near Tieri in the electorate of the member for Flynn. For roughly 100 days, CFMEU workers have been locked out of their workplace until an agreement can be reached in their EBA negotiations. Some of these locked-out workers have been caught hurling verbal abuse more vile than I have ever encountered in all my years. There have been threats to inflict damage to other workers' homes and properties, threats to run them off the road and, in the worst cases, even threats to their children. My office has been inundated by people with complaints about this, and it is just not right. This behaviour is un-Australian and does their cause no favours. But what has been worse through this has been the utter ignorance of those opposite and their Queensland Labor state colleagues. Comments from the member for Bendigo yesterday and the Leader of the Opposition and local state members last week showed who the Labor Party is working for. The CFMEU owns those opposite. I encourage the decent, law-fearing members opposite to stand with me and those on this side in condemning— (Time expired) Bullock, Mr Ben 16 13:36 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Fans of the cooking show MasterChef may have heard of Ben Bullock, a Perth based lawyer who made the top 24 this year. What viewers may not know is that Ben, at just 28 years of age, has established a successful career as a solicitor at Philipoff Legal and is also the head chef of the Paddock and Farm restaurant in Bedford. With such an impressive CV, it may be hard to believe Ben has struggled with depression for a number of years. It is clear the black dog does not discriminate when choosing its victims and that career success provides no immunity. Ben says that despite having access to employee assistance programs and strong family support he felt too embarrassed to access services or to tell anyone he had been battling depression, choosing instead to medicate with drugs and alcohol. Now Ben is using his experience with mental health issues to drive awareness of suicide prevention by doing something incredible. Ben is riding 30,000 kilometres across 30 countries from Perth in Australia to Perth in Scotland to raise money for beyondblue. This trip will take Ben and his Hunter motorbike approximately six to nine months to complete, a huge physical and emotional feat. Ben hopes this trip will serve as a conversation starter, giving other young men like him the opportunity to chat about how they are feeling with the people close to them and to get the support that they need. I'm happy to continue that conversation in this place, and I encourage others to continue it in their workplaces and in their homes too. Berowra Electorate: Real Entrepreneur Mums 16 13:38 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra With over 15,000 small businesses, Berowra is a great hub for determined entrepreneurs. One of the things I have really found since I have become the member for Berowra is the number of mums with kids who, having been in the workforce, have decided to start their own small businesses because they want to take responsibility for their families and also because of the flexibility it provides. In this vein, I met with the Hornsby Real Entrepreneur Mums community recently. Real Entrepreneur Mums fosters a supportive network of highly motivated women who drive and inspire one another as they grow their business. They are women who understand the twin challenges of running a business and running a family. Real Entrepreneur Mums was founded in 2014 by Sophie Musumeci and Alison Valenti. The Hornsby community is led by Olivia Wilson and Ushma Dhanak. The group comes together twice a month to discuss business highlights, create referral opportunities and showcase their individual businesses, often providing hands-on experience to develop genuine understanding. Real Entrepreneur Mums comprises Pia Scott of Georgi Girl Designs, Olivia Wilson from Steps Financial, Geraldene Dobson from Hemisphere Accounting, Ushma Dhanak from Collaborate HR, Rachael Attard from Storybook Photography By Rachael, Aimee Brice from Arbonne and Prue Ram from My Decorator. It was a great visit that I had with the mums, and I wish the inspiring Hornsby community of Real Entrepreneur Mums every success as they continue to grow the local economy through their efforts in small business. Bushfires 17 13:39 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie On this date at this time four years ago the first of 200 houses that burnt down in the Blue Mountains bushfires were alight. Mine was just one of them. As we mark this anniversary, I want to say on behalf of all the people who found themselves unexpectedly homeless that Thursday that we have remained hugely indebted to the generosity that the rest of the Blue Mountains and the wider community has shown us. I think we all have an idea of what the people in California who have suffered terrible losses are going through right now, and we send them our thoughts. Of course, we were spared deaths. While most people have forgotten the Winmalee and Mount Victoria fires, the recovery process goes on. The situation that unintentionally left many people massively underinsured remains. Insurers still haven't made a commitment to inform home owners of new changes to bushfire building standards, which can massively increase the cost of rebuilding. In New South Wales, the most recent decision to mandate steel shutters, instead of aluminium, for the highest risk areas will add possibly $20,000 or $30,000 to rebuilding costs. We should be demanding that insurers do their bit to notify every single policyholder in every bushfire-prone area of the changes, as they happen, and what the financial implications are; otherwise, at some time in a dry spring or summer, we will see history repeat itself. Farrer Electorate: SunRice 17 13:41 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I rise to invite all in the building to a special evening of food and festivity in the House tomorrow night. Many of you will have eaten some of this particular product. This week it is time to acknowledge a locally owned global food business exporting a great Aussie-made icon to the world. That food is, of course, rice—more specifically, SunRice. The SunRice history dates back to 1950 and the establishment of a single rice mill at Leeton in my electorate in the Riverina in New South Wales. Today the company supplies almost 50 countries from operations across Australia, the USA, the Middle East, the Pacific and Papua New Guinea. SunRice exports 80 per cent of its Australian rice crop in an average year, generating revenues of almost half a billion dollars. With government support, they have an opportunity to grow the market in South-East Asia, China and Europe. Australia's rice industry is the main source of income for over 5,000 people, 700 direct employees and around a thousand rice growers across regional Australia. Our rice growers are the most efficient in the world, using less water and achieving higher yields than global competitors. Our economy can thank companies like this, with Australian agriculture being the largest contributor to national GDP growth. I hope you can join me—as the member with just about all of the rice in Australia grown in my electorate—as well as SunRice's chairman, Laurie Arthur, and the CEO, Rob Gordon, to celebrate SunRice's success as an Australian-owned global food business exporting Australian rice to the world. Australian Masters Games 17 13:42 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon This weekend, the 16th Australian Masters Games will commence across the north, north-west and west coast of Tasmania. The games will commence with an opening ceremony in my home town of Devonport and close off with a celebration party at Burnie's West Park with renowned Australian music icons the Hoodoo Gurus performing. The Australian Masters Games will be the biggest sporting event held in my region in recent times. It involves over 40 sports ranging from dragon boat racing, to gymnastics, football and trail racing in the west coast wilderness. There will be over 6,000 participants in this year's Masters Games—1,100 from the north-west coast of Tasmania, 1,000 from the rest of Tasmania, 3,000 interstate competitors and 138 international competitors. It is supported by over 1,000 local volunteers, which shows how much our local community has gotten behind the games. Personally I'm looking forward to my volunteer shift this Saturday week at the cycling road race, although I won't be competing in that race! I congratulate all involved in bringing this event to our region and for making the Australian Masters Games a reality. I wish all competitors every success with their participation, within the spirit of the games. Finally, I welcome interstate and overseas visitors to Tasmania and to my region. Welcome. Queensland Hotels Association Awards 18 13:44 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa Apart from State of Origin, one of the most hotly contested awards in Queensland is Queensland's best publican. The one to take home the silverware this year was not a hipster sipper from Brisbane but John Klein from Goondiwindi. It is hard to imagine that not that long ago Goondiwindi's iconic and historic Victoria Hotel would have been flattened if not for the vision and passion of Michelle and John Klein. In fact, before the couple took over the pub, the council said if it wasn't bought it would be bulldozed, and a tavern with an arcade and shops was going to be built. What a great loss to pub history if that had happened. This month, not only did 'Kleiny' win the individual award of hotelier of the year, but his Victoria Hotel won best traditional hotel bar and best pub style accommodation. This is the second year in a row the hotel has won both awards. Rural pubs are the core of so many communities, where stories are told and friendships are forged. They often become living museums as their owners become curators of the region's history, with relics all saved within the walls of the beloved country pub. Congratulations to Michelle and John, and all their staff at the Victoria Hotel. How did 'Kleiny' celebrate the victory? He gave his staff a bonus because they deserve it. What a champion! Rotary Police Awards 18 13:45 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith A couple of weeks ago, I was honoured to attend the Rotary Club of Maroubra 2017 Rotary Police Awards for the Botany Bay Local Area Command. I joined rotarians, the NSW Police Assistant Commissioner, Mark Walton, Rotary District Governor, Stephen Britten, representatives from Bayside council, the Lions Club of Maroubra and local businesses to acknowledge and commend the bravery and dedication of our local police. The night featured 20 finalists in various categories who were recognised and presented with certificates and trophies, including: Constable Kristoffer Bishop, the proactive crime team; Constable Mallory Downs, Bayside council's probationary constable award; Senior Constable Matthew Wright, crime management unit; Detective Senior Constable Lisa Wood; Leading Senior Constable Andrew Ellison; and Leading Senior Constable Rachel Warn. The community police officer of the year went to Constable Matthew Cash and the senior police officer of the year went to Senior Constable Matthew Wright. Congratulations to all the finalists and winners. On behalf of our community, thank you to our local police whose dedication and service keeps us safe. They risk their lives for us day in, day out. We do appreciate it. Thank you to all of our rotarians and volunteers who put on this wonderful awards night. Anzac Day Schools' Award 18 13:46 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom Last Friday I visited St Ursula's College in Toowoomba to congratulate them for winning the Queensland secondary schools' category of the 2017 Anzac Day Schools' Award, which is a national competition encouraging the study of our wartime history and the commemoration of our service women and men. This was particularly apt, considering this year, 2017, is the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Milne Bay, a significant battle during World War II, with local significance given the number of veterans involved with our Darling Downs community who left all those years ago. I was at St Ursula's for their commemoration of Anzac Day, when they hosted former prisoner of war Norman Alderton, who shared his unique perspective of being captured by the Japanese in World War II. Such experiences and the memory of those we've lost are kept alive by instilling respect for our wartime history for future generations, as is the case at St Ursula's College in Toowoomba. I say thank you most sincerely to Wendy Collins; to the principal, Mrs Anne Marie Pawsey; and, particularly, to the students I met with on the day, last Friday, Olivia Golightly and Charlotte Corfield, who, as part of the Rising Daughters Service group at St Ursula's College, also volunteer at the Harlaxton RSL, cooking meals, meeting with diggers and generally expressing their thanks on behalf of our whole community. Whitlam Electorate: Student Roundtable 18 13:48 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam In my first year in this place, I conducted a roundtable of student leaders in my electorate. It was so successful that I have done one every year. This year, a few weeks ago, I conducted my seventh annual Whitlam student roundtable. It was an ended by over 65 students from across the electorate, including: Albion Park High School; Illawarra Christian School; St Paul's International College; Illawarra Sports High; Dapto High; Kanahooka High School; Lake Illawarra High School; Corpus Christie; St Joseph's; and Oxley College. The main issues discussed were climate change and the desire that we take real action now to avoid their generation having to take extreme action to turn things around. They were very concerned about affordable housing—whether they were aspiring to rent or own a house, they want to ensure that they'll have access to the same benefits that their parents do. There was a lot of discussion about same-sex marriage and the postal vote. It would be fair to say there wasn't a lot of support in the room for the postal vote, but there was a lot of support in the room for us to change the law. They didn't see what all the fuss was about. Transport in the Illawarra and the Southern Highlands and the access to entertainment were consistent themes, as were employment opportunities with decent wages within the regions. If I could summarise the sentiment, there was enormous hope for their future, and they want their elected representatives to focus on the things that will help them realise that hope. Defence Personnel 19 13:50 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney I recently had the great privilege to spend time with our Australian Defence Forces in the Middle East as part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. We were embedded to live and work with Australia's personnel, to experience the challenging aspects of their lives and to understand Defence Force capabilities. I am proud of our Australian troops, and I always have their sacrifice at the front of my mind. It is important for everyone back home to actively show support for our ADF men and women who are deployed overseas. There are ways you can do that. You can send an email at defence.gov.au to support the troops. These messages are circulated widely to Australian personnel. You may also wish to send care parcels or a donation to the RSL Australian Forces Overseas Fund to help the RSL prepare these care packages. The packs contain various non-perishable items, a letter of appreciation on behalf of all Australians, and RSL membership contact details. Defence will pay for the postage of your package from 6 November to 8 December. This is in addition to the free postal arrangements for family and friends all year round. A donation to Soldier On, the RSL or Legacy can make a lasting contribution to defence personnel in their rehabilitation. We thank the men and women of the ADF for their contribution to our nation. We also thank families for their support. Christmas can be a particularly tough time to be away from home, but some messages of Aussie cheer and some care packages make it that little bit easier. (Time expired) Lalor Electorate: Victorian School of Languages 19 13:51 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise to speak today about the importance of the mother language in a community like mine. In the electorate of Lalor, people come from over 104 countries and there are over 50 languages spoken in schools and homes. Some of these languages are official national languages. Others are important regionally or culturally to communities that have made their way to Australia and live in my community. I want to pay tribute today to the hard work that's done by the Victorian School of Languages and the department of education in setting up Saturday classes to accommodate the teaching of those languages to keep mother languages alive in our community. It's important because, although we have a national profile around literacy and numeracy, and we understand how important it is for our literacy levels to be high, it is equally important that, in this global society, we have as many bilingual and multilingual children as we can. I'm very proud to say that when I was sitting in the principal's chair on the first occasion, I was involved with the Victorian School of Languages and the local Karen community in introducing the Karen language to the Victorian School of Languages in our school. This year, we will be celebrating the first year 12 class of Karen children graduating and will be launching new textbooks to assist with teaching. I look forward to many more of our community languages being taught in the Victorian School of Languages in my electorate. Energy 19 13:53 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Let's compare the Liberal-National coalition on this side of the House to the Labor-Green alliance on the other. We are pragmatic; they are ideological. We back the Australian people; they back themselves. We believe in lower taxes; they believe in higher taxes. We are for small government; they are for big government. These contrasting values are now becoming clearly defined and reflected in our energy debate. Take renewables, for instance. While both sides agree that renewables play an important role in Australia's energy mix, we on this side of the House have faith in renewables, which now provide cheaper energy than non-renewables. Thus, we believe the renewable sector is ready to stand on its own two feet in the marketplace. They, however, do not have faith in renewables, which is why they want to provide an extra $66 billion to subsidise them. That equates to over $8,500 per Australian household. That's the extent to which those opposite wish to tax the Australian people. Labor equals big government, equals big taxes, and equals far bigger electricity prices. Energy 20 13:54 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand Today we saw the final capitulation of the Prime Minister to the member for Warringah. The man who famously said that he would not lead a party that was not as committed to effective action on climate change as he was has today dumped the clean energy target recommended by his own chief scientist in response to a review set up by his own government. This was a policy that he said would 'certainly work', a policy his energy minister said would reduce electricity bills, a policy supported by Australian business groups, Australian energy companies, energy regulators and environment groups and a policy supported by the Australian Labor Party, who has been trying to work with the government to cement a bipartisan approach to Australia's energy crisis. But it wasn't supported by the member for Warringah, and so it wasn't supported by the troglodytes in the coalition party room. The cave dwellers with their pet rocks knocked it on the head. And what are we left with? The talented Mr Turnbull destroyed Prime Minister Abbott only to become him. Will the Prime Minister— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gellibrand will refer to members by their correct titles. I've warned him on two or three occasions. Mr WATTS 193430 Thank you, Mr Speaker. I ask: will the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Turnbull, bring the coalition's pet rock, their ceremonial lump of coal, to question time himself today. Will the member for Warringah allow it? I suppose that the member for Warringah has let Prime Minister Turnbull keep the solar panels on the roof of his harbour-side mansion so there does seem to be some give in the leash around the Prime Minister's neck at the moment. (Time expired) Trade Unions 20 13:56 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay I rise to condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those CFMEU members at the Glencore Oaky North mine. Why does the Leader of the Opposition and the Queensland Premier refuse to disassociate Labor from the CFMEU? The CFMEU has donated millions of dollars to Labor, and Labor is at the beck and call of its thugs. The CFMEU members have been charged at the site and many more are being investigated for intimidating workers, including making disgusting threats to rape children, rip out their spines and hit them with crowbars. Shocking footage also shows CFMEU members abusing workers, telling them to crash their cars. As a former traffic accident investigator, I can't tell you how disturbing these horrible threats are. Road trauma, injury and death bring untold misery to victims, families, emergency services and those who witness them. I call on the ALP to stop taking the tainted money of the CFMEU out of respect for victims of child abuse and road trauma. Wilkinson, Ms Lisa, AM 20 13:57 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Last night I congratulated Lisa Wilkinson on the remarkable success she has achieved at Today. It's fitting that, after a decade of breaking news, grilling politicians and asking Australians to look at the world in a different way, her final act at Today was to put the national spotlight on the gender pay gap—a measure of inequality that shamefully has barely moved in 30 years. Compared to their male colleagues, Australian women effectively work the first two months of every year for free. And, of course, we know that gender inequality doesn't stop at wages. Too many Australian women at work are denied opportunities for leadership roles because of their gender and are patronised and passed over for promotions in favour of less qualified men. We know that, far too often, inequality in pay and opportunity is matched by discrimination or sexual harassment. The #MeToo movement gathering force online demonstrates how many women around the world have confronted this scourge in their careers. All of these issues deserve more attention from our parliament, but on this occasion I simply say to Lisa: good on you! Good on you for following your principles. There are millions of Australian women who would have taken a small measure of comfort from your actions. I hope this morning, for the first time in 10 years, you enjoyed a well-deserved sleep in. Central Queensland University 20 13:59 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn Last week I had the pleasure of attending a sod turning event at the CQUniversity campus of engineering. Also with me was Professor Scott Bowman, the vice-chancellor of the university; representatives from the Gladstone port authority; and representatives from ConocoPhillips, who also shared in some funding. In total it was $12.5 million for the project, with $10 million from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. The project will create 100 jobs in construction and, of course, many, many more when the project is finished in February 2019. The campus will combine with the Derby Street old TAFE village, and together they will provide very adequate training services in Gladstone now and into the future. The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 21 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. When can the Prime Minister guarantee Australians that the cost of their power bills will go down? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— Mr Frydenberg interjecting — The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Goldstein is warned. The Minister for the Environment and Energy will cease interjecting and denying the Prime Minister the call. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:01 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth If the Leader of the Opposition is to be taken at his word, his renewable energy objective would result in a $66 billion subsidy that would be imposed on Australian families—a subsidy that is completely unnecessary and which is effectively industry policy, pouring billions of dollars in additional costs onto Australian families. That's his policy. What we're doing is committed to ensuring that our energy policy delivers affordable and reliable power and that we meet our international commitments. We're taking up the recommendations of the Energy Security Board, the members of which were applauded by the member for Port Adelaide when they were appointed. He welcomed them—leading experts in the field— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I again say to the Minister for the Environment and Energy that he's being far too loud. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW It's on direct relevance. You don't get a more specific direct question than this one. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. It was a short question. It didn't have a preamble, I concede that. I'm listening very closely to the Prime Minister. The requirement is that the Prime Minister be relevant to the question. I believe he's being relevant. It's not for him to answer it to the satisfaction of the questioner. He's on the policy topic. I will call the Prime Minister. Mr TURNBULL 885 The Leader of the Opposition will have to reflect on the expert advice of the Energy Security Board. This is someone who has called for bipartisanship in energy policy. That's what he's called for. What we have is a recommendation from an expert board appointed by COAG—appointed by more Labor governments than coalition governments. This is what they've said in their formal advice: 'It's expected that following the guarantee could lead to a reduction in residential bills in the order of $110 to $115 per annum over the 2020 to 2030 period. Wholesale prices are expected to decline by 20 to 25 per cent per annum over the same period. Compared to the clean energy target, as specified in the Finkel review, this guarantee could be expected to lead to wholesale prices that are on average eight to 10 per cent lower under that period.' We have arranged for the opposition to have a briefing from the Energy Security Board. We look forward to them becoming fully briefed and we encourage them to get on board and adopt this expert recommendation that, for the first time, will level the playing field, end the subsidies, end the taxes and ensure that we have a genuinely technology-agnostic energy market that enables us to have energy that is affordable, reliable and responsible. That's what Labor should support. It should stop the nonsense about its claimed bipartisanship and get real and get on board with the plan that guarantees Australia's energy future. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs will cease interjecting. The member for Griffith is now warned! Energy 21 14:05 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe My question is also to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House how the government's National Energy Guarantee will ease the pressure on power bills, guarantee reliability and reduce emissions for hardworking Australian families and businesses, including in my electorate of La Trobe? What would be the impact of alternative approaches? 14:05 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. We all know very well what the impact of Labor's policies have been. What we have seen is unaffordable power and unreliable power. We've just come from a press conference where the Energy Market Operator's Audrey Zibelman has described how she has to intervene again and again in the South Australian market to keep the lights on because of the instability in that market created by the force-feeding of masses of intermittent renewables like wind without any regard for stability or backup or storage. What we've seen with the Labor Party's approach to energy has been a triumph of ideology over good sense. What we need now is the engineering and the economics. They are what guide our energy policy, and we have seen the work of engineers and economists on the Energy Security Board with their recommendation. The National Energy Guarantee recommended by the Energy Security Board—established by COAG as one of the recommendations of the Finkel review—ensures that Australians will be able to afford to pay their electricity bill and that the lights will stay on. That is vitally important. And, by combining climate and energy policy, you have a mechanism that ensures we deliver our commitment to cut our emissions in accord with the Paris Agreement and, at the same time, deliver the reliability that we need. What that will do is bring more investment into the system, and investment of every kind—investment in coal, in gas, in renewables, in storage. It is a genuinely level playing field. The subsidies have got to come to an end. The clean energy sector, the renewables sector, say that they are competitive, and so they are. So they are. And now they have the opportunity to compete. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat for a second. The members for Fenner, Barton, Whitlam and Hotham will not hold up signs during question time. Otherwise, they will be holding them up back in their offices. They are warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 As Dr Kerry Schott, the chair of the Energy Security Board, said, this 'will place downward pressure on wholesale prices'. A 20 to 25 per cent reduction in wholesale prices— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce is warned! Mr TURNBULL 885 is forecast by the Energy Security Board, and that flows through— Ms Burney interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Barton will leave under 94(a). Mr TURNBULL 885 into everybody's power bill. And that of course is part of— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I've asked the member for Barton to leave under 94(a). An opposition member interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG That's why I asked the Prime Minister to resume his seat—so she's in no doubt. I've now asked her three times to leave under 94(a). The member for Barton then left the chamber. Mr TURNBULL 885 What this National Energy Guarantee does is work with all of our other measures: on retail bills, on gas, on the abolition of the limited merits review. Every lever that can be pulled to reduce energy prices— (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 22 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:09 The SPEAKER 00APG I advise the House that we have joining us in the gallery this afternoon the Brazilian Ambassador to Australia. On behalf of all members, I extend a very warm welcome to you. Also, former member for Maranoa Mr Ian Cameron is with us today. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you both. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 22 14:09 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Can the minister confirm that the government does not have any detailed modelling of the impacts of what is now government policy? Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. 14:10 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I can confirm for the House that the Energy Security Board, which is made up of the Australian Energy Regulator, the Australian Energy Market Operator and the Australian Energy Commission, has written to the government and outlined that on the basis of its analysis prices will fall for an average household by $100 to $115 per annum between 2020 and 2030. I'm asked this by the member of Port Adelaide. We think he's a fan of the clean energy target, but we know that the clean energy target's reduction in power bills would not be as good as the advice from the Energy Security Board, this new appointment. The Energy Security Board is a very important board. Guess who said when these positions were appointed that they were 'excellent appointments'? Who said that? It was the member for Port Adelaide. Who said that a clean energy target was the second best option? Who said that? It was the member for Port Adelaide. But this is the piece de resistance. Who said that the government is not listening to the energy expert? It was the member for Port Adelaide. Who else said about renewables that they will be able to stand on their own two feet and compete in the market without subsidy from government? That was again the member for Port Adelaide. So the question to the Leader of the Opposition, who turns his back because he doesn't like to hear the truth, is: why have the Labor Party signed up to a $66 billion subsidy if they believe that renewables are the most cost-effective supply of new generation? Why have the Labor Party signed up to $66 billion if they believe that the clean energy target is the second best option? Hypocrisy by name, hypocrisy by nature—this is the modern Labor Party. Energy 23 14:13 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer advise the House on the benefits of the government's National Energy Guarantee and how this will relieve the cost pressures on hardworking Australian families and businesses by delivering affordable and reliable energy? How does this compare with alternative approaches? 14:13 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Banks for his question. The National Energy Guarantee is the unanimous recommendation of the independent Energy Security Board, set up by COAG on the recommendation of the Finkel report. It will give Australians what they are asking for—reliable energy at a lower cost that meets our environmental obligations. It is estimated by the independent board to deliver savings of up to $115 per household per year. This is a game changer. This takes us into a new era for energy, a post-subsidy era, where Australian families, households and businesses will no longer be forced to pay for these ideologically driven subsidies. They will no longer need to pay for them as a result of the policies of this government. We are removing these costs from the system. By contrast, the electricity bill you would get from the Labor Party would be $66 billion in higher subsidies, driven not by economics or engineering but just by the sheer ideology of the Labor Party. They are not subsidies that need to be paid to meet our environmental obligations; they are subsidies that will be imposed by the Labor Party, by this Leader of the Opposition, on families, on businesses, on households, to the tune of thousands of dollars for each one of those families over that period. They do this, they nail their colours to the mast of the Clean Energy Target, on the basis that it would deliver certainty and it would deliver on our environmental obligations, but what they do know is that a CET will not deliver on reliability, on affordability. ACCC chairman Rod Sims said: 'Clearly, if you want to solve for affordability, it is not the Clean Energy Target that is going to do it.' He said: The Clean Energy Target involves a subsidy which has to be paid for, which is smeared across all users … Labor have given up on reliability and they've given up on affordability, all in the name of putting subsidies before the idol of their own ideology. But on top of that, they say that the CET will deliver certainty. I'm pleased to quote the chief executive of the Business Council of Australia, who said today: 'The National Energy Guarantee will provide more in certainty than the Clean Energy Target. The government plan has great potential to produce affordable, reliable power, reduce emissions and boost market confidence, and we are looking forward to the further work.' This government has a plan for reliable, affordable energy that delivers on our environmental obligations. The Labor Party has a plan for an electricity bill of $66 billion on families, households and business. Energy 23 14:16 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, what did the regulatory impact statement, which must have been considered as part of the decision announced today, find would be the impact on the economy of the Prime Minister's latest policy compared to a clean energy target? 14:16 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Regulatory impact statements, as the shadow minister and former minister in the previous government would know, are done as part of legislation, and that is pulled together to go forward through the process with COAG. What we have done today is adopt the recommendations of the independent Energy Security Board, the members of which were heralded and championed and cheered on by those opposite when they were appointed. When they come out with a recommendation that they don't like, they turn on them as they turn on each other and as they will undoubtedly turn on this Leader of the Opposition. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 24 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:17 The SPEAKER 00APG I'd also like to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Ken Jasper AM, the former state member for Murray Valley. On behalf of the House, I extend a warm welcome. Also, having just joined us in the gallery this afternoon, we have a visiting parliamentary delegation from Vietnam, led by Madam Mai. On behalf of the House, I also extend a very warm welcome to all of you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 24 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Veterans 24 14:18 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the TPI Federation has written to you repeatedly, seeking a resolution to the dreadful situation where about 28,000 totally and permanently incapacitated veterans have seen their economic loss compensation fall to just 65 per cent of the minimum wage. Prime Minister, given the gravity of this issue, and the Parliamentary Budget Office's validation of the independent analysis supporting the claim by the TPI Federation, will you now take personal responsibility and intervene to facilitate an immediate increase of $176 a week in the economic loss compensation payments to Australia's TPI veterans? 14:19 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. My grandfather was a member of the TPI Federation, and I know well the work of the federation and respect the advocacy they provide, particularly that of TPI Federation President Pat McCabe. All Australians are immensely proud of our men and women in uniform. We thank them for their service and we owe them a debt we can never repay. Ensuring our veterans have adequate support and compensation is a vitally important role of government and one to which I am personally deeply committed. In gratitude for their service, the government provides $12 billion annually in pensions and services to veterans and their families. We best honour the diggers of 1917 by providing the best support in every respect to the servicemen and servicewomen, and the veterans and their families, of 2017. The honourable member has raised the subject of the TPI pension in relation to the minimum wage. I can advise the honourable member that the TPI pension is currently $1,373.80 per fortnight. I'm further advised that more than 80 per cent of TPI pension recipients also receive income support payments, known as the service pension, of up to $894.40 per fortnight. It's important to recognise that the TPI pension is part of a package of benefits available to veterans, which can also include additional income support payments and medical coverage for all health conditions through the gold card. In recognition of this important issue, I've asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to work with his department and the TPI Federation to analyse the basis of the federation's research and the data used in it. I want to thank the honourable member for raising these important issues and the TPI Federation for its ongoing role in representing the interests of Australia's veterans. My government will always do the right thing by our veterans. I recognise there are various components to these entitlements and this compensation, but I'm less interested in the definitional distinctions, which as a former serving officer the honourable member would no doubt have a keen insight into, than I am in making sure our veterans have the support they need. I'm also interested in making sure they have financial support that is appropriate and commensurate with their service, that if they need medical support and treatment it is provided, and that if they need psychological support for mental illness it is provided too. I can assure the honourable member and all our veterans that my government is committed to them, just as they were committed to our nation in their days in uniform. Energy 24 14:22 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Hardworking families, retirees and small businesses in Gilmore are worried about energy costs. Will the minister update the House on the government's National Energy Guarantee and how it will deliver an affordable and reliable supply of energy across our nation? 14:22 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Gilmore for her question and note her deep concern about rising power prices and the impact they are having on families across her electorate. This is why today's announcement about a National Energy Guarantee is a major breakthrough. It will provide reliable, affordable power as we transition to a lower emissions future. It is credible, it is workable, it is pro-market and it will lower electricity prices. Importantly, it means no more subsidies, no taxes and no trading schemes. It will deliver, on the basis of the advice of the Energy Security Board, a board of experts, savings of up to $115 per annum. It builds on the work that the coalition is already undertaking to reduce the power prices that are a result of increased network costs—and yesterday's decision by the Senate to pass our legislation to abolish limited merits review was important there; the work we've been doing with the retailers to save millions of Australian families hundreds of dollars a year; and the work we have done with the gas suppliers to ensure that Australians get access to gas first, before it is shipped overseas—and we have seen a significant fall in the spot price. But the Labor Party believe in more subsidies—$66 billion worth of additional subsidies. They did nothing when they were in government to cut the network costs, they did nothing when they were in government to cut the retailer costs and they did nothing when they were in government to heed the warnings about increasing gas exports. No wonder the power bills increased by more than 100 per cent when Labor were in office. We know that when it comes to the Leader of the Opposition you don't listen to what he says but watch what he does. He said he was in favour of a better deal for education, but he voted against our Gonski reforms. He said he was in favour of lowering company taxes, but he voted against our reforms. He said he was in favour of better childcare benefits, but he tried to stop our reforms. Now he says he is in favour of greater investment certainty in the energy sector. This is a test of his ticker. This is a test of the Leader of the Opposition's ticker. Will he stand up for Australian families? Will he follow the advice of the experts? Will he adopt a bipartisan approach to ensure that power bills for millions of Australian families are lower, and that we get the investment certainty in the energy sector that this country desperately needs? (Time expired) Energy 25 14:25 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his previous answer. Is the Treasurer aware that the Office of Best Practice Regulation states: All Cabinet submissions require a Regulation Impact Statement. RISs are also required for all decisions made by the Australian Government and its agencies that are likely to have a regulatory impact on businesses, community organisations or individuals … Treasurer, do you stand by your previous answer? Why is there no regulatory impact statement for the government to release? Mr Frydenberg interjecting— Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right! The Minister for the Environment and Energy will cease interjecting, as will the Leader of the House. 14:26 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I can advise the House that the cabinet submission is prepared consistent with the cabinet policy handbook and the requirements of the process. I could ask the shadow Treasurer, though: when he introduced 'cash for clunkers', what was the regulatory impact statement on that? What was the impact statement on being the worst immigration minister in the history of the Australian Federation? That was 50,000 people, half of whom turned up on his own watch, and $11.6 billion in blowouts of expenditure that were created on his watch. Did he put that in the cabinet submission when he went in there and asked about his failed policies that we should approve this because we are going to blow out the cost by $11.6 billion and see thousands of people die at sea? Here is another failed immigration minister. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. If there is no Regulation Impact Statement, the Treasurer should say so and sit down. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business can't compel the Treasurer to answer in a way other than his being relevant to the question. Mr Pyne interjecting — The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting! The Treasurer was asked a question about regulatory impact statements and he is talking about regulatory impact statements, as I hear him, and he is in order. Mr MORRISON E3L I remind the House that this is the government that has responded to the independent Energy Security Board, which has come forward with a recommendation on the way to deliver cheaper electricity prices—more reliable and affordable electricity prices—and the way to do it without burdening the public with unnecessary subsidies that are required only because of the ideological vanity of the Leader of the Opposition and the ideologues who sit opposite, who each day want to worship at the altar of this ideology that is putting subsidies in the hands of companies, paid for by householders who don't have to do it. There is a simple question for the Leader of the Opposition: will he abandon the failed policy approach that they have stuck to for so many years, join with the government and say to the COAG council that this is the way to ensure we get reliable, affordable electricity for households and businesses which also meets our environmental targets? That is what this plan delivers. It initially came out of the Finkel report, which said we should set up the Energy Security Board. The Energy Security Board, which was set up by COAG as a result of that recommendation of the Finkel report, has looked at all of those recommendations, and it has come forward with this as the answer for how you deal with these issues. So I know the Leader of the Opposition, who wants to impose a $66 billion electricity bill on the Australian public, will not move away from his pride and will not stand down, but he should—in the interests of families and of businesses who need the certainty that he has lectured this government about for so long. He should listen to the Australian people on this and he should put aside this ideological vanity and decide to commit to lower prices, because this plan will deliver lower prices— (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 26 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:30 The SPEAKER 00APG I would like to advise the House that we have in the southern gallery this afternoon 23 members of The War Widows Guild of Australia. On behalf of the House, a warm welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 26 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 26 14:3 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay 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 update the House on the importance of delivering an affordable and reliable energy supply to regional Australia? What action is the government taking to put downward pressure on energy prices for hardworking farming families? 14:30 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for his question and note that he would be very interested in how we are making sure that people in the weatherboard and iron at Gympie are getting affordable and reliable power and how the coalition is working towards that, and how the people in Maryborough are getting affordable and reliable power so they can stay in a job—and the people in Kandanga, and the people in Kilkivan—because we on this side believe that the people working at Downer Rail are not politically incorrect, that people who have blue-collar jobs are not politically incorrect. We believe that they still deserve a job. Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith has been warned. Mr JOYCE E5D We understand, quite clearly, that you are going to have either cheap power, cheap wages or no jobs, so we are going to make sure that people maintain their jobs in the manufacturing industry. We know that so far the Labor Party have come up with one thing—their biggest attack point so far is to say, 'Where's your regulatory impact statement?' That is it. Can't you imagine them at the manic monkey cafe, where dewdrop is talking to moonbeam and saying that the coalition does not have a regulatory impact statement? That is about the extent of their concerns for blue-collar workers' jobs. We have 66 billion reasons to make sure that those people who are doing it tough do not get the Labor Party bill, because the Labor Party bill makes people poorer. There is no doubt about it. A Labor Party bill will make you poorer. If you are doing it tough in the Hunter Valley, a Labor Party bill will make you poorer. If you're doing it tough in Shortland, a Labor Party bill will make you poorer. Without a shadow of a doubt, the Labor Party is now run by those with the philosophical ilk of a manic monkey cafe—basketweaver No. 1 and all their friends—running a power policy that is going to drive blue-collar workers out of a job. And you can see it. Queensland now has the new mantle of the dearest power prices. They've taken over from South Australian Labor. So Queensland Labor now beats South Australian Labor as the most effective Labor policy to put you out of a job. We have brought forward a policy today which shows that we are not scared of coal-fired power. We are going to make sure that coal-fired power remains in the mix. We are going to make sure that there is a capacity of baseload power to keep people in a job. We stand behind blue-collar workers and their jobs—something the Labor Party has absolutely given up on. They are bereft of the soul they once had under Curtin and Chifley. They no longer believe in the people they were put here to represent. They turn their back on the working-class people every day. Every day, they turn their back on the working-class people and they look towards the basketweavers. They turn their back, they face the basketweavers and they take their dollar. Energy 26 14:34 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. So far today the Prime Minister has refused to guarantee that prices will fall. Does that mean that the so-called National Energy Guarantee has no guarantee, no modelling and no regulatory impact statement? What is the point of a National Energy Guarantee if the Prime Minister cannot guarantee that power prices will go down? 14:34 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I have never seen anyone so bereft of a feather to fly with than the Leader of the Opposition! He doesn't have a policy. He has nothing—just a bunch of whines and complaints. He has no plan for Australia's energy future at all, other than, if you assume that all of us intend the necessary consequence of our actions, then this is what he intends: he intends more blackouts; he intends higher prices; he intends less reliability, because that is what his policies have all delivered in the past—we don't need to theorise. We have just heard from the Energy Market Commission chairman, John Pierce—a former treasury secretary in New South Wales—that this will be a much simpler system to implement for retailers than a clean energy target, because it operates within the existing market mechanism. So, the regulator has given it a big regulatory tick. We have just heard from Audrey Zibelman, the Australian Energy Market Operator, about how often she has to intervene in the South Australian market to force gas-fired power generators to come on stream, at the highest possible cost, at peak prices, in order to keep the lights on in Adelaide and South Australia. That is why she is advocating this reliability guarantee, which will ensure that the market will be stable and that prices will be lower. Honourable members have asked what impact this is going to have on prices in the near term. Well, let me quote John Pierce again. John Pierce made the point that energy companies don't set their prices based on the spot price today— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lalor. Mr TURNBULL 885 It is based on the forward prices for electricity. Because there has been so much uncertainty surrounding the investment climate, because the only new energy that has been coming into the market has been intermittent renewables—wind and solar—forward prices have been higher. What John Pierce has said is that once COAG commits to this, once the mechanism is agreed to, you will see more investment, greater certainty, and forward prices coming down. That's why he is forecasting a 20 to 25 per cent reduction in wholesale prices over the period. We have the smartest minds in the industry, the regulators and the operators, who are telling us—we are not making that claim, we are relying on the smartest minds— (Time expired) Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McEwen will cease interjecting, as will the member for McMahon. The member for Forrest has the call. Energy 27 14:37 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House how the government will meet Australia's international commitment on carbon emissions while ensuring reliable and affordable energy for all Australians? 14:38 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I thank the member for Forrest for her question. The Turnbull government's priority is to ensure that all Australians and Australian businesses are provided with affordable and reliable electricity. We're also committed to meeting our international obligations when it comes to reducing emissions. Australia has a very strong record in setting and meeting and beating our international emissions targets. In fact, we have already exceeded our first Kyoto target by some 128 million tonnes and we will exceed our second Kyoto target by 2020. Our Paris agreement target is to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent on 2005 levels, by 2030. I am confident that we will do that, because our National Energy Guarantee, which was announced today and was recommended by the Energy Security Board set up by COAG, will ensure that Australian households and Australian businesses are able to be delivered with affordable and reliable electricity. The guarantee is in two parts. The first supports the reliability of electricity—that is, keeping the power on so that we don't see the blackouts as experienced by South Australia recently. The second part is about reducing emissions. This is the integration of climate and energy policy that has been lacking for so many years. It will also ensure that there's appropriate investment in our electricity grid. Australia has abundant sources of energy, and this National Energy Guarantee will ensure that we see investment in a range of electricity generation ideas and that we reduce our emissions at the same time. Labor's reckless plan to reduce emissions way beyond our international obligations not only will drive up electricity bills but also will threaten jobs, threaten household budgets and threaten future economic growth. The choice is clear: Labor will deliver higher electricity bills; the coalition will deliver affordable and reliable electricity. Energy 28 14:41 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that so far he has supported an emissions trading scheme and opposed it, supported an emissions intensity scheme and opposed it, ridiculed direct action and endorsed it, derided so-called clean coal and embraced it, and supported a clean energy target and today abandoned it? When the member for Warringah is calling the shots, how can any Australians believe anything this out-of-touch Prime Minister says about lowering power bills? 14:41 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth What a pathetic question from the Leader of the Opposition! This is the Energy Security Board: Kerry Schott AO, chair; and Clare Savage, deputy chair. Both are warmly welcomed by the member for Port Adelaide— Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Isaacs! Mr TURNBULL 885 John Pierce, chair of the Australian Energy Market Commission; Audrey Zibelman, CEO of the Australian Energy Market Operator; and Paula Conboy, Chair of the Australian Energy Regulator. Apparently they've all been caught up in some sort of political conspiracy. Really, it's about time the Leader of the Opposition recognised his pathetic political games have failed; his slogans have failed; his embracing of one three-letter acronym after another without understanding what any of them mean has failed. What Australians want to see is action. They want to see leadership. They want to see policy. They want to see real expertise. That is what we have received from the Energy Security Board. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Sydney. Mr TURNBULL 885 We rely on that expertise to assure us that this will result in affordable, reliable energy. It will keep the lights on in a way Labor failed to do. It will ensure that prices are brought down in the way Labor failed to do. It will ensure that wholesale generation sees more supply, that the playing field is levelled, that the subsidies end and that the market is allowed to operate to deliver the most reliable and affordable power for Australians—affordable, reliable and responsible energy. That's our plan. That's where we're taking the advice from the Energy Security Board. So, the opposition can play as much politics as they like, but they run head-on into the reality that those leading regulators and operators, those experts in the field, are going to COAG with their recommendation. Labor should stop the politics, get on to the policy and back this plan. Energy 28 14:44 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister update the House on why an affordable and reliable energy supply is crucial to delivering the government's national defence industry project? How would an unreliable energy supply risk the economic prosperity of this project and the creation of thousands of jobs? 14:44 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I've been to a lot of footy games over the years at the Parade to watch the Redlegs play football. I was just thinking during question time about the people I sit with in the box. I sit there with Rita and Mike, with Ray and Beryl, and with Mario and Vincenza. I have to say that, in all the years I have been going to the Redlegs footy games, they have never stopped me and said, 'Before I consider the government's policy, I have to see your regulatory impact statement.' I have been in parliament for 24 years. I've been to a lot of supermarkets. I've done a lot of doorknocking. I've been to a lot of events. I've been to a lot of footy games. I've been to a lot of RSL functions. I can tell you that I've been to a lot of War Widows' Guild events. No-one has ever said to me, 'I'm sorry, but, before I consider the government's policy, you have to show me your regulatory impact statement.' That's what we've been reduced to in this House today because that's all the Labor Party has left, delving around in cabinet processes, when the only issue that matters here today is affordable and reliable electricity prices. The Turnbull government have taken the bull by the horns and are delivering reliable power, reducing our emissions and delivering affordable power. Labor have been found totally flat-footed by this Leader of the Opposition, who has led them into a political cul-de-sac where they've never done the hard work on policy. Since they lost the last election, they've not done any work to actually get to the bottom of real issues of government substance. All they do every day is think, 'How do we win the 24-hour news cycle and get on the television news tonight?' They have been found completely wanting, because the Turnbull government, backed by the Energy Security Board, have come up with a solution to the only issue that the members of the public are talking to us about—how to overcome the mess left to us by Labor because of their ideological obsession with renewable energy which they still continue to this day, with a desire to spend $66 billion of taxpayers' money on subsidies for wind and solar, which we now know are competitive with coal and gas. Because of ideology, they intend to waste $66 billion when, instead, they could get on board with the energy guarantee that will bring down prices and provide reliability and that will reduce our emissions and ensure that we are meeting our international targets. It's time to get on board, Labor, and support lower prices. Energy 29 14:47 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide My question is to the Prime Minister. In just the last 12 months, the Prime Minister was for an emissions intensity scheme until the member for Warringah came out against it. He supported a clean energy target until the member for Warringah came out against that. Given reports that the member for Warringah spoke against the Prime Minister's latest energy policy in the party room today, when will the Prime Minister announce that he is against this one too? 14:48 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong The last time I looked, Labor was for a clean energy target and, before that, an emissions intensity scheme and, before that, a CPRS and, before that, an ETS and, before that, a $15 billion dreaded carbon tax. When we on this side of the House abolished that we saw the greatest single drop in electricity prices ever recorded. Do you remember that great democratic forum—like Plato, Socrates and Aristotle—of the citizens assembly? Do you remember that one? Do you remember cash for clunkers? Do you remember the pink batts? Do you remember spending billions of dollars to keep coal-fired stations open and then spending billions of dollars to close them? What was the result of all that mess? It was a 100 per cent increase in power prices under the Labor Party. Then they had the hide to come into this place during the last sitting fortnight and tell mistruths about people's power bills to scare mums and dads—the Michaels and Michelles in Maribyrnong and the Beths and Barries in Balmain. This is the Labor Party scaring them about false numbers and going against the best advice of our experts. Today we have announced that the Turnbull government will support a unanimous recommendation from the Energy Security Board. The Grattan Institute, a non-partisan institute, has said today the following: 'The ESB has given the Turnbull government the last piece in the complex jigsaw puzzle of a credible energy and climate change policy for Australia.' That is what the Grattan Institute has said today. The head of AGL has said: 'The government announcement is an important step. We are keen to work together to make it work with bipartisan support. It will provide investment certainty.' The head of the BCA, as quoted by the Treasurer, has come out and supported this. It has industry support, it has business support and it is the recommendation of the experts. Only the Labor Party, who is again playing politics with energy, will prevent this being the first serious attempt in a decade to get a bipartisan approach to energy policy, to get a more reliable and more affordable energy system. Business: Energy 29 14:51 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister update the House on the work the government is doing for our small business sector to ensure they have access to affordable and reliable energy? How does our National Energy Guarantee help hardworking small businesses in Brisbane and around the country to grow and create jobs? 14:51 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for Brisbane. He is a very hardworking member and he advocates and supports the more than 30,000 small and medium-sized businesses in his electorate so very well. Like the member for Brisbane, we know on this side of the House that small and medium-sized businesses are absolutely critical to our economy. Ninety-seven per cent of all businesses in this country are, in fact, small and medium-sized enterprises. It is critical that we get the framework right for them. Already we have cut taxes for those small and medium-sized enterprises because we know of their importance in creating jobs. But we also know that small businesses are impacted by other costs. We know that they are impacted by high energy prices. More of them are telling us about the inability to access affordable and reliable energy supply. In fact, the member for Brisbane has been talking to so many of the small businesses in his electorate. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney is on her fifth warning. Ms O'DWYER LKU He said to the Green Beacon Brewing Co., who employ more than 30 people in their microbrewery and restaurant, that he understands that they are very concerned about rising energy costs in their brewing and their hospitality businesses. We must ensure, on this side of the House, that we keep the lights on and that they have access to an affordable energy supply, and we are going to do that through the National Energy Guarantee. Under our National Energy Guarantee, we will have a reliability guarantee to make sure that we have the right amount of energy available as needed in each state, encouraging investment in new and existing supply. It will work in tandem with our emissions guarantee and it will ensure that we are able to keep pace with our international commitments. Under our National Energy Guarantee, we will see affordable and reliable energy for small and medium-sized businesses without subsidies, without taxes, without an emissions trading scheme and certainly without any new carbon taxes. We want to make sure that electricity bills will be lower than forecast, lower than they would have been under a clean energy target. This, of course, is very good news for small businesses. It builds on our existing energy policy, including making sure that we can deliver more gas for Australians before it's shipped offshore, building Snowy 2.0 to stabilise the system and stopping network companies gaming the system. We have already seen disastrous consequences of getting energy policy wrong. We have seen that in South Australia and we have seen the Queensland government following suit. On this side of the House, we will stand with small and medium-sized businesses and we will make sure they get access to affordable and reliable energy. Energy 30 14:54 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide I might try again with a question to the Prime Minister. Under the Prime Minister's latest energy policy, what has the government assumed will be the level of coal-fired power generation in 2030 as a share of the national market? 14:55 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong The good news is that under the coalition there will be more coal and gas in the energy mix than under the Labor Party. That is good news for the member for Shortland. That's good news for the member for Hunter. What was his name, Mr Speaker? What was the member for Hunter's name? It's also good news for the member for Newcastle. It's also good news for the member for Herbert. The good news is that we will have more coal and gas under the coalition than we will get under the Labor Party. Under the National Energy Guarantee coal and gas will be 64 to 72 per cent by 2030. Under the Labor Party, what will that be—that is, thermal generation, synchronous generation? It will be only 39 per cent. That's no good for the jobs in the member for Shortland's electorate. But it doesn't matter about jobs anymore; he's forgotten them. It doesn't matter about jobs in the member for Hunter's electorate anymore, because he's forgotten them. Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hunter will cease interjecting loudly into my left ear. The member for Port Adelaide on a point of order. Mr Chester interjecting— Mr Butler HWK My point of order is on direct relevance. I asked specifically about coal-fired power— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport will cease interjecting. The purpose in my calling the member for Port Adelaide is to actually hear his point of order. If I could hear the point of order, that would be helpful. Mr Butler HWK My point of order is on direct relevance. It was a very short question seeking a share of coal-fired power, not coal- and gas-fired power. The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for the Environment and Energy has the call. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Good try, Member for Port Adelaide. Do you know why he doesn't care about coal anymore, Mr Speaker? It's because it has all closed in South Australia! Under this plan, there would have been a much better chance that the Northern power station would still be in operation or, indeed, that something equivalent would be in its place. Do you know what the great irony is? In the member for Port Adelaide's state, South Australia, as a result of the closure of the Northern power station, they have now been taking more coal-fired power from Victoria. The SPEAKER 00APG Would the Minister for the Environment and Energy resume his seat for a second. I have listened to the question very closely, and to the minister's answer. He's got about a minute to go. He's certainly addressed the substance of the question in his remarks so far but he's now moving beyond that into a more general discussion. In the last minute he needs to confine himself to the subject matter of the question. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Port Adelaide gives you a lot to talk about, Mr Speaker! The good news is that under the coalition's plan, based on the analysis from the Energy Security Board, 64 to 72 per cent of the generation mix in the NEM will be coming from coal and gas. As a result of this decision, a coal-fired generator is much more likely to be upgraded to have its life extended. The member for Corio has gone quiet because he knows that in the Latrobe Valley this is good news. This is good news for the people of the Latrobe Valley. The member for Shortland is busy reading Mills & Boon over there because he's no longer interested in jobs. The member for Hunter is starting to think about his numbers in the caucus— The SPEAKER 00APG Manager of Opposition Business, are you asking a question? Mr Burke DYW No, the minister was quoting from a document. As he turned it, I saw it's clearly not marked confidential. I'd ask that he table it. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the document confidential? The minister says the document is confidential. Trade 31 15:00 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. How does the government's trade agenda create jobs for hardworking Australians, and how important is affordable and reliable energy for Australian exporters? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that would threaten Australia's trade competitiveness? 15:00 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I thank the member for Maranoa for his question. Like those on this side of the House, he is another person who is absolutely committed to opening up export markets for Australian businesses and recognises that it's taken the coalition to open up a host of new opportunities abroad which are driving our economy and driving employment opportunities for Australians. I note that under the free trade agreements that the coalition government has put in place, we've seen, for example, John Dee on the southern Darling Downs actually credit the coalition's FTAs as being key drivers of increases in global demand for their product. That has enhanced future production levels, and we've seen in the member's own electorate that John Dee now, as a consequence of opening up markets like China and Japan, is increasing full-time employment by more than 140 employees. Those are ways in which the coalition's policy approach on these free trade agreements is really promoting opportunities for Aussies and for Aussie employment. It stands, frankly, in stark contrast to the Australian Labor Party. Not only does it get the big calls on trade wrong—you'd recall, of course, that the Australian Labor Party up until one minute to midnight was opposed to China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, and condoned one of the most dishonest and disgusting campaigns that we've seen from the trade union movement against it—but we also see an Australian Labor Party that's tone deaf to the needs of our agricultural sector. The Agricultural Industries Electricity Taskforce—this goes to the member's question about threats to our trade competitiveness—said: Electricity costs are crippling the agricultural sector. That's precisely why the coalition is delivering reliable and affordable energy policy that will make a real difference to our competitiveness on the international stage. Frankly, the contrast couldn't be clearer between the coalition and the Labor Party. Australians have a choice. They can choose between the coalition and Labor. They can choose between reliability and a liability. They can choose a coalition approach that's going to deliver cheaper, reliable and affordable energy, or they can choose the $66 billion bill. That's what the Australian Labor Party promises: a $66 billion bill that will put our competitors in a stronger position, because of Labor's policy, their ideological obsession with saying that they will take renewable energy to more than 50 per cent. We see it exemplified in South Australia, where we effectively have seen the collapse of sound energy policy, because they adopted the kinds of policies that $66 billion Bill wants us to pursue at a federal level. The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will withdraw that last remark. He'd managed not to refer to the Leader of the Opposition in his earlier part of the answer. Mr CIOBO 00AN0 I withdraw, because I wasn't referring to the Leader of the Opposition. Labor's policy will result in a $66 billion bill, and that's the choice that Australians have. (Time expired) Energy 31 15:04 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answers about savings of $100 to $115 per household under his latest energy policy. Did the Energy Security Board provide any other lower figures to the government about possible household savings? 15:04 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. The only information I have relating to the savings are contained in the letter from the Energy Security Board—that is now a public document—and that provides the $110 to $115 figure. Mr Shorten interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 The Leader of the Opposition is impugning the integrity of the members of the Energy Security Board. I ask him to withdraw. Mr Shorten interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will not interject. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr TURNBULL 885 Nothing is too low for this Leader of the Opposition. Having called on us to listen to the experts in the industry, and when we do, when we get their advice and we follow it, he now wants to attack the integrity of those very distinguished Australians who form the Energy Security Board and gave us such advice. Let me be very clear about this: reliability and affordability go hand-in-hand. What we have seen in South Australia is that, because electricity is so unreliable, its price has become so volatile. More and more often we are seeing prices spiking well over $200 a megawatt-hour. That means South Australians, including the constituents of the member for Port Adelaide, are paying much, much more for their electricity. They are paying more for electricity and they are not keeping the lights on. So, it is vital to combine reliability and affordability and responsibility in meeting your international emissions reduction commitments. That is what the Energy Security Board has done. They have done that in their recommendations, which the government is adopting and will be taking to COAG. The opposition members who supported and welcomed the appointment of the Energy Security Board should stop this smearing of the integrity of the Energy Security Board members, which we hear from the Leader of the Opposition—smearing away, having a go at their integrity. He should be backing them, as we are, because they have the best understanding of the market. They have recommended a reform which will ensure we have affordable, reliable, energy, and we meet our international emissions reduction commitments. Energy 32 15:07 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Health: I refer the minister to media reports in the Colac Herald in September that indicate South Australia and Victoria are facing summer blackouts and major power outages. Will the minister update the House— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Corangamite will resume her seat. I'm not going to keep saying it—the member for Sydney can leave under 94(a). The member for Sydney then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Corangamite can begin her question again and the clock will start at the 30-second mark. Ms HENDERSON ZN4 My question is to the Minister for Health: I refer the minister to media reports in the Colac Herald in September that indicate South Australia and Victoria are facing summer blackouts and major power outages. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to deliver a reliable and affordable energy supply to all Australians, and how will our vital health services benefit? 15:08 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Corangamite, who believes deeply in the importance of keeping the lights on in our hospitals—hospitals such as Colac Hospital, which provides such fantastic services to the people of Corangamite. Ms Chesters interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bendigo! Mr HUNT 00AMV But, as we heard, there are real threats to the ability of those services to be delivered, because of the lack of a reliable and affordable energy supply in Victoria. We recently saw the headline, 'Energy market operator warns Victorians to prepare for summer blackouts'. The message contained in that article was: 'Australia's energy market operator has warned the state will be in a dire situation in Victoria if it faces an extreme summer'. Why? Because of the recent closure of Hazelwood. That came about as a result of the direct, deliberate, intentional destructive policy of the Victorian Labor government. What does that mean? Ms Chesters interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bendigo is warned! Mr HUNT 00AMV It means that we have a risk to the reliability of our energy supply in our hospitals, such as Colac Hospital, Echuca Hospital, and hospitals right around Victoria. We also have a risk to the affordability of energy right across Victoria's health service. We saw in the Colac Herald the report that Colac Area Health is facing a 78 to 80 per cent increase, or an additional $420,000 to $430,000 cost per annum. These are real costs that could have gone to better maternity services, better diabetes services and better health care for senior Australians in the Corangamite electorate and in every equivalent electorate around Victoria. That's why we're taking action. That's why the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the energy minister have worked on a National Energy Guarantee, which is about dealing with the damage done by Labor policies in their renewables approach, in their approach to cutting down exploration for gas and in their extraordinary actions in blowing up a power station in South Australia and closing down Hazelwood in Victoria. The electricity guarantee is about two very simple things. It's about making sure that there are lower costs for hospitals and for families—up to $115 a year in reduced pressure for families—and more reliable electricity for hospitals and for families, as opposed to the alternative of a $66 billion plan, which comes from Labor's 45 per cent target. That 45 per cent target means that the costs will be borne by hospitals, by families and by pensioners. At the end of the day, if you believe in reliable hospitals and better hospitals, you believe in our approach to downward pressure on prices. (Time expired) Mr Turnbull 885 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 33 DOCUMENTS Presentation 33 15:11 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Parliamentary Service Commissioner, Parliamentary Budget Office 33 Presentation 33 15:12 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the annual report of the Parliamentary Service Commissioner for 2016-17 and, pursuant to section 65 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, I present the annual report of the Parliamentary Budget Office for 2016-17. Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 33 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:12 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the member for Gilmore claim to have been misrepresented? Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Yes. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gilmore may proceed. Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Yesterday in the House the member for Whitlam—whom I cannot locate at this moment—spoke about job losses in HMAS Albatross and said that he had reliable documentation to refute my statement that what he was saying was completely untrue. I have confidential material directly from the base that refutes exactly what the member for Whitlam said, and he should apologise publicly. Mr Stephen Jones interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the member for Gilmore. The member for Whitlam will cease interjecting. Mrs Sudmalis interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gilmore has made her personal explanation. She won't interject. Mrs Sudmalis interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gilmore will cease interjecting! MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 33 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Broadband 33 15:13 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Greenway proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's second-rate copper NBN. 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— 15:14 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway Few things better encapsulate the out-of-touch attitude of this Prime Minister and this government towards ordinary Australians than the issue of broadband and their second-rate copper NBN. You only have to look at the answers in question time yesterday to appreciate the scale of just how far removed this Prime Minister is from the lived reality being experienced by consumers every day, from all age groups, from all walks of life, in every part of the country. Three themes have come out from this government: the preference for spin before the lived experiences of consumers; peddling the fallacy that their NBN, on their watch, is on track and on budget; and continuing the blame game and buck passing—the failure to take responsibility even into their fifth year in government. In stark contrast, those of us on this side of the House have been listening to consumers. When it comes to broadband as an essential utility, this out-of-touch government favours spin above the consumer experience. We know how important it is for consumers, businesses and the economy as a whole to get world-class broadband to every part of the country. Looking at every measure on which this government set itself—faster, sooner and more affordable—they have failed on every single count. The evidence is crystal clear. It was supposed to be delivered by 2016. As at 31 December, 7 million premises were still waiting. They promised they would deliver it for $29 billion, and it's blown out to $50 billion. And it's not faster. All you need to do is have a look at the level of complaints that are coming in at record scale from consumers right around Australia. They talked a big game about how their second-rate version would be cheaper. Yesterday, the Prime Minister tried to assert the same. But we've actually known since 2014—thanks to the minister at the table, the Minister for Urban Infrastructure—that the claims that they made when they were in opposition about the cost of Labor's NBN were just wrong. We only need to look at The Sydney Morning Herald on 18 February 2014, where the minister at the table admitted: … the Coalition's claim that Labor's NBN would cost more than $90 billion … was wrong.    …   …   … When asked if the $90 billion estimate was a "political figure" floated to win votes, Mr Fletcher admitted that figure was also wrong. You don't need to look very far to see the complete disregard this government has and how they've absolutely taken their out-of-touch approach to the next level. Have a look at the Prime Minister only days ago, when he was asked about the NBN on radio. The Prime Minister said: I think we've got this in hand. Neil Mitchell said: But Prime Minister people tell me it is not in hand. Every time we raise it the board is full of people complaining. We have the cost blow out of $20 billion, a roll-out schedule three years behind the promised delivery time and Australia slipping from 30th to 50th in the world in the international broadband rankings. We've had a 150 per cent increase in TIO complaints about NBN faults. There has been—wait for this—a 1,075 per cent blow out to $640 million in the copper remediation bill. Those opposite will like to favour the spin, but those of us on this side know the sheer despair that is being felt by Australians for their inability to access broadband and, when they can access it, it's unreliability—the fact that it simply doesn't perform to task. I have one story—we've all heard it—of students who can't download what they need for their school work or their tertiary education. They park outside the public library just to get the free wi-fi or go to McDonald's to be able to access some broadband. People understand this. It's something for which those opposite give very little credit: the consumers of Australia understand what they should be getting and what they would have been getting under Labor's superior model. People go around the world—I get this all time—and come back and say, 'I was in a remote part of Cambodia, and I had the best internet I have ever had compared to my own home.' The government is completely oblivious to the lived experience of consumers. Those opposite also purport to be the champions of small business. Let's have a look at what the Council of Small Business Australia had to say in July: … its members are frustrated and "shocked" with slow connections and poor service under the National Broadband Network, with the problems causing many businesses to suffer substantial losses. Peter Strong from COSBOA said what the public was told about the NBN was 'not the reality'. He said: When people think NBN, they think fast internet but then they sign up and find they are getting slower speeds than they were before. We were told it would be so fast it would shock us. It has shocked us but not because it’s fast. Mr Strong also said that members had reported problems with dropouts and patchy service. The New South Wales Business Chamber reported that 43 per cent of the 850 businesses it surveyed said they were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the NBN. This is from a government that purports to be the champion of small businesses. This survey from the New South Wales Business Chamber reported it is costing small businesses an average of $9,000 through delays, disruptions and loss of sales. An article in the Newcastle Herald noted that the owner of a Newcastle post office has been without phone and internet for nine days and is out of pocket thousands of dollars and is sick of waiting. The article states: Australia Post Edgeworth owner Paul Roddenby said his connection was fine until a national broadband network (nbn) technician visited on October 5 for work not requested by the shop. "He did something, then he said he’d be back in five minutes, and he never came back. It hasn’t worked since," Mr Roddenby said. Since then, the Australia Post outlet has had no phone, not internet and no answers. Well, you don't have to look very far for the lived experiences and frustrations of the consumers of Australia with this government's inferior copper based network. There are Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman complaints about faults on the NBN jumping by 147.8 per cent. Complaints about slow internet speeds are soaring by 48 per cent, and fibre to the node remains a key source of dissatisfaction. You only have to look at the top 10 postcodes for complaints about the NBN and—what a surprise!—seven of them are in fibre-to-the-node areas. Even NBN's own survey data shows that consumers rate the copper NBN below every other technology, at only 41 per cent advocacy. We've even had the NBN CEO forced to concede that this government's 30-year business case doesn't set aside any funding to upgrade the copper network. This means the current business case assumes Australians are going to be stuck on copper until 2040! On top of this, we've seen nearly a tenfold increase in Australians seeking to pay—themselves—to switch their NBN connection from copper to fibre. And we had the Prime Minister, before the 2013 election, promise that individuals would have the option of paying somewhere between $2,250 and $3,000 to switch from copper to fibre. But NBN revealed the average quoted cost today has been $15,800 greater than what the Prime Minister promised. You don't need to take it from me. In fact, even the government's own MPs are criticising it. The member for Mallee bemoans the rollout of faceless NBN. The Guardiansaid: … the Mallee MP said he had seen problems with the rollout first-hand as his constituents struggled to make their services work, and he had been forced to dedicate one of his electoral officers to dealing with the complaints. So there is a dose of reality from at least one member on that side of the chamber. When it comes to copper or coal and you hear this Prime Minister talk about engineering and economics, you know it's a farce. You know he has failed. You know that this copper NBN is letting down Australians. (Time expired) 15:24 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield It takes a certain kind of doctrinaire, political commissar-like insistence to roll out this tedious line that we hear from Labor communications spokespersons in the face of the quantitative evidence that the rollout is continuing and the rollout is going well. We had an MPI on 17 September 2015 brought by the Labor opposition. There were 1,291,000 premises able to connect at that time. They came back and had another go on 21 October 2015—1,374,000 premises able to connect; 10 February 2016, 1,719,000 premises able to connect. But wilfully turning their minds from the evidence, they came back and had another go on 3 May 2016, when there were 2,428,000 premises able to connect. Then, of course, the member for Blaxland was pleased to be relieved of the terrible job of being Labor's shadow communications spokesman, trying to find gloom as the broadband light increasingly shone over the nation. That job fell to the member for Greenway. On 11 October 2016, she rolled out her first matter of public importance debate on the NBN. By that time, the number of premises able to pass had continued to relentlessly increase to 3,207,700. She had another go on 22 November 2016—again, wilfully turning her mind from the clear evidence that the rollout was continuing relentlessly and that more and more premises around the country were able to connect. By that point: 3,231,397 premises. Evidently feeling a bit depressed by the evidence that the NBN rollout is continuing remorselessly, she hasn't been back to the well until today. It's almost a year since the last time she had a go, but the numbers have continued to inexorably increase. The number of premises now able to connect is 6,188,166. In fact, some 35,000 premises a week are being connected to the NBN. This is a very large-scale rollout. It is a project which is complex, which covers the nation and which is being delivered notwithstanding the hopeless, chaotic mess that we inherited from the Labor Party when we came to government in 2013. If you are a Labor shadow minister for communications, it seems that you come up with your own version of the prayer of St Francis of Assisi—where there is light, let me find darkness; where there is hope, let me counsel despair; where there is sustained and impressive progress on a very large-scale rollout, let me assert chaos continually and in the absence of evidence. Let's have a look, in detail, at some of the extraordinarily misleading statements consistently made by the Labor Party and the shadow minister. We saw a shining example yesterday. The shadow minister asked a question about a survey by the reputable internet survey company Akamai which she asserted shows that Australia is behind Kenya. What was her dazzling piece of logic for making this argument? She said that the almost two per cent of people in Kenya who are able to connect to a broadband network should be compared to the result in Australia of a network which is designed to ubiquitously serve the entire population. What an entirely misleading characterisation of that survey but, sadly, entirely consistent with the rhetorical approach we see from the Labor Party, because what they know is that their record on this project is an embarrassing catalogue of ineptitude. They had six years on the NBN, and they wasted nearly two years on a plan which they couldn't deliver. They had to ignominiously and embarrassingly walk away from it. They came up with a new plan in April 2009, which supposedly was going to be done in conjunction with the private sector. But that didn't happen. A year later we discovered that the private sector wasn't interested in participating. What was the hopeless, pathetic, incompetent record that they left when they scuttled out of government? Barely 50,000 premises around the country were able to connect—barely 50,000 premises after six years of government and spending $6 billion. I remind the House, as I have just pointed out, that we are connecting 35,000 a week. That's 35,000 a week against 50,000 in six years. I'd call one record pretty good. I'd call another a catalogue of rank incompetence and ineptitude. Yet, bizarrely, the shadow minister keeps turning up and wanting to debate this issue yet again, for reasons that are mystifying. Let's look at the facts about Dobell. We had some questions from the member for Dobell yesterday. She asked about the Rudolf Steiner school in Fountaindale. I can inform the House that the facts are that there needs to be a fixed-line lead-in so that that school can be connected. NBN has scheduled a crew to complete that work next month. Let me respond to the question she asked about constituents in Wyreema Road in Warnervale. The infrastructure has been installed in that street, the work is underway to integrate into the NBN core network, and NBN is aiming to make services available to all premises in Wyreema Road by December of this year. These are the facts. But let me point out another fact about the electorate of Dobell. Do you know how many premises were connected to the fibre network, the fixed network, in Dobell when this incompetent rabble left office? Zero. After four years, your electorate had zero premises connected to the fixed network. Do you know how many premises are able to connect in the electorate of Dobell today? That number is 86,500. Of those who are able to connect, there are 57,898 premises connected. I say to the member for Dobell: yes, you have identified a couple of instances where people are not connected, and I have just been able to demonstrate when they are going to be connected, but I also say to you that there are 57,898 connected. Let's do a little comparison. One government delivers zero. One government delivers 57,898. I'd suggest that those from the party that formed the first government are really on a hiding to nothing when they pursue this issue. Mr Hill 86256 Yes, he's right. He's speaking the truth—he is self-aware! The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The member for Bruce will quieten down. Mr FLETCHER L6B What is Labor's plan to deliver the NBN? That's a very good question. The shadow minister is very good at complaining. She does a very poor job of telling Australians what her plan is. But let's have a look at the plan that was put forward by the Labor Party for the 2016 election, because I think that's the best evidence we have of the continued narrative of rank incompetence from these people, who have a dismal track record on broadband and no proven capacity to deliver. The promise of the previous shadow minister, the member for Blaxland, at the 2016 election was that they were going to connect two million more premises to fibre than the coalition was promising, and it was going to cost not one dollar more. It's an economic miracle! That is the kind of thing that Swannie's economic brain might have come up with. What did The Australian Financial Review have to say about this ripper plan? It said: A lack of considered detail bedevilled the NBN under Labor. The fact the party doesn't want to give any details about its new plan—or more accurately, a reinstatement of the old NBN—and not talk about the cost, makes this policy look like the last: an expensive joke. It was a pretty accurate assessment, because when it comes to delivering a broadband network, this mob on the opposite side of the House have form, and their form is hopeless, rank, embarrassing, chaotic incompetence. That's your track record. We've seen nothing from the shadow minister and we've seen nothing from the opposition that suggests they are going to be anything else. We are getting on and delivering the National Broadband Network. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Before I call the member for Whitlam, I will remind the member for Bruce that he is on my list as being warned during question time, so that carries over. I call the member for Whitlam. 15:34 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam Mr Deputy Speaker, it takes a certain kind of genius, doesn't it, to spend $50 billion on an infrastructure project which is supposed to improve communications in this country, only to see speeds go down and prices go up? This is the stuff that those guys over there say is all going very, very well: $50 billion to see speeds go down and prices go up. That's the experience of Australians right around the country. In fact, from Longman to Logan, from Rankin to Capricornia, right around the country, people are saying the very same thing: 'Do not let these guys near the NBN. They have stuffed up everything they've touched.' The minister was given 10 minutes to explain how they are going to fix this mess. And what was their killer point? What was their killer point? Labor didn't finish the NBN project on the same day that it started it! We didn't finish it on the same day that we started it. That's their killer point. If that is all they've got to defend themselves, Australia is in a world of pain and trouble. We have got a project that is failing from beginning to end, with connections failing and bad technology. The CEO of the NBN has himself conceded that they stuff it up one in 10 times. One in 10 times, they are stuffing it up. Can you imagine running a hamburger store where one in 10 customers come back with food poisoning? You'd be run out of business pretty quickly. But they think, and this government thinks, that, if you stuff it up one in 10 times, things are going all right. If you want to see the blood drain from government members' faces as quick as anything, just look at them when the Prime Minister says, 'We've got it; it's all going okay,' because they know themselves it's not going okay. They know that there are big problems. Businesses are losing thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars. I see the member for Capricornia in the chamber today, and I'm glad she is. Perhaps she'll have something to say to defend the small businesses in her electorate which are losing thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars because of the failed NBN project in Central Queensland. And it doesn't stop there in Rockhampton and right throughout Central Queensland. Up and down the coast, small businesses and premises are saying the very same thing. They need a champion in seats like that who say they are going to do something about the NBN project, instead of these apologists over there who simply haven't got the answer. Tomorrow the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman is going to release a report, and it is not going to be good news for you mob over there. It is not going to be good news for that mob over there, because, in the last report we saw, there was a 53.6 per cent increase in the complaints about broadband. I guarantee you the jump tomorrow is going to be even greater than that. Those members opposite might think that's okay. But I just want to leave you with one fact: the telecommunications industry receives over 112,000 complaints a year. That is four times—four times—the number of complaints that the finance and banking industry receives, and you all know what the feeling out there in the electorate is about a royal commission into the banking and finance industry. Why do you think that 'business as usual' is going to be okay? The mob are coming after you. You're doing nothing about it, and they're coming after you. We've got the ideas for reform. We know what we've got to do. This mob over here have got to improve the rollout and ensure the Australian people are getting the best technology available. We need a tough cop on the beat to ensure that people aren't involved in the NBN ping-pong that you guys are involved in—apologising and blaming but not taking responsibility for anything. We need a tough cop on the beat and we need a set of laws that provide people with the guarantees and the regulations for a decent broadband service, not the outdated system that we have in place at the moment. So I challenge all those members opposite: do the right thing, get behind your own constituencies and demand a decent broadband service for rural and regional Australia and right around the country, instead of apologising for the rank failure that your NBN project has been. We shouldn't be spending $50 billion on this project to see services go backwards. 15:39 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance regarding the National Broadband Network. Who could forget that famous flight when Senator Conroy and Kevin 747 jetted off into the sunset on the prime ministerial jet, and I guess champagne was flowing, and canapes were being served, and the NBN was being hastily conceived on the back of a beer coaster! The NBN was planned by Senator Conroy and Kevin 747 on the back of a beer coaster! They didn't know how much it would cost. They didn't really know why they were doing it. They didn't know what the outcome would be. All they wanted was a headline, and a very expensive headline it would be. We had the promise of this mystical network that was going to be unaffordable to Australian telecommunications consumers. We had promise after promise by Labor and a total lack of delivery. Who could forget the trial in Hobart? The towns of Smithton, Midway Point and Scottsdale were going to become economic powerhouses under the supercharging of Kevin's NBN, but it didn't happen. Smithton, Midway Point and Scottsdale are nice little towns, nice places, but still not supercharged by the NBN. The NBN under Labor certainly set a record. It set a record by missing every target that it ever set for itself. It missed every single target. We had a situation where the massive cost of this was going to push up the price of broadband out of the reach of Australian consumers. This government takes a much more realistic approach. We are about delivering a mix of technologies that are appropriate. We are about delivering an appropriate investment that's going to meet this nation's telecommunications needs and going to deliver the high-speed broadband that is required, but in the context of budget responsibility. Labor doesn't have any notion of budget responsibility. If Labor's plans were implemented, the cost to consumers would increase by $43 every month. When you look at the break-up of the customers to the NBN, it's very interesting. Where are most people connecting? Are they taking the high-flying packages? Are they having a cost-doesn't-matter approach to hooking up to the NBN? I can say that they are not. Some 28.5 per cent of consumers are on a package that is 12 megabits or less; 55.6 per cent of consumers are on a package that's 25 megabits; 4 per cent—only 4 per cent—are taking a 50 megabit package; and less than 0.01 per cent are adopting a package over 100 megabits. So, we have a situation where 84 per cent of consumers are taking up plans that are 25 megabits or less. Under the government's NBN rollout, we are seeing massive improvements in the telecommunications experience for people in regional and rural areas. Those on the fixed wireless network are very happy with the quality of the service that they are achieving. Under the Sky Muster program, we are increasing data limits. We are making it more flexible for those people outside the reach of the fixed line and the wireless footprint. It is all about making an investment that is appropriate. In this House today, we have had a lot of discussion on power prices. One of the key factors that has driven up power prices is an inappropriate investment in the poles and wires, making power unaffordable to so many households. In exactly the same way, an inappropriate investment in the NBN would have made broadband services unaffordable to Australian households as well. This government is about an appropriate investment, an investment that is absolutely sound from a financial point of view and an investment that will deliver the sort of flexibility that is needed to achieve Australia's broadband needs. We are approaching this in a sensible, well-managed way. Labor missed every target it set for itself. Their rollout was an absolute disaster. (Time expired) Mr Stephen Jones interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN I think the member for Whitlam has had his turn. 15:44 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell How many complaints would an electorate office expect to receive about the NBN in one year? One hundred? Dr Aly 13050 More. Ms McBRIDE 248353 Two hundred? Dr Aly 13050 More. Ms McBRIDE 248353 Three hundred? Dr Aly 13050 More. Ms McBRIDE 248353 Four hundred? Dr Aly 13050 More. Ms McBRIDE 248353 Higher: my office has dealt with upwards of 450, and counting, in the last 12 months about the NBN. These complaints commonly fall into four categories: poor experience getting connected, slow internet speeds, being stuck between the retail service provider and NBN—the NBN ping-pong—and technology not meeting consumer expectations. I've heard from businesses that estimate losses of tens of thousands of dollars, from families whose children can't finish their homework, from elderly people isolated and at risk without landlines. I've heard from people frustrated by this blame-shifting between the NBN and their provider. I couldn't put it better than Neil Keele. This is what he said to me, plain and simple: It's total crap. The Central Coast is one of the first regions for the full-scale rollout, and there are now five technologies in the mix. We are a guinea pig for the NBN, and there are serious problems with the fibre-to-the-node technology and with the government's handling of the rollout. But I have breaking news. After writing to the minister for 12 months, I have my official response here. Ms Madeleine King 102376 You're lucky! Ms McBRIDE 248353 I know, I'm very grateful! Wait for this: That nbn has made terrific progress in serving your community is undeniable. I don't know how 'terrific progress' stacks up against the TIO 2016 annual report, where four of the top 10 postcodes for complaints about the NBN across the country were from the Central Coast. That is now code for 'terrific progress'. I am going to make a bold prediction today. The next report, which we know is due out tomorrow, will be another damning indictment of the rollout—I know this because I hear it every day—but I'm keen to hear it described as 'terrific progress' and 'undeniable'. In the past month alone, I have heard from Michelle in Fountaindale, whose NBN service was disconnected following a storm in February which brought down the overhead lines. She was without a phone line or internet for eight months, but when the NBN came to fix it, they could offer only a temporary solution. With a bit of indulgence, I have here a picture of the 'TEMP NBN'. Thank you for your indulgence. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN I warn the member for Dobell. Her indulgence is wearing thin. Ms McBRIDE 248353 You would have quickly seen the cable ties where it was connected to the fence. What about Geoffrey from Tacoma, who was switched to an NBN service earlier this year that never worked? Let's hear the NBN's response: This address was indeed connected to the nbn network in January 2017 but there were numerous service issues and so following a detailed investigation by nbn; it was deemed that the address is not feasible for nbn service. Accordingly, the address was rolled back in our system as not available for nbn service as on 30 May 2017. I don't know if that's code for terrific or if that's just damn fabulous, but NBN have now taken him off the network, and he has a node in front of his house. Should I go to Henry or should I go to Ken? What about the Steiner School? The shadow minister has been with me to the Steiner School; they presented at the joint standing committee; and we have had commitment after commitment that this school will be connected, but right now, what's ready for service? I was delighted to hear today that the cemetery behind the school is, and the school can still not connect. I am sure that the residents of Wyreema Road in Warnervale will be thrilled with the minister's response: Regarding your constituents in Warnervale, I presume that you were referring to residents in Wyreema Road, for whom you made a representation last year. I can advise that infrastructure has been installed in their street, and work to integrate this into nbn's core network is underway. (Time expired) 15:49 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman We were enjoying that contribution, too, I can assure you. I could have enjoyed listening to Ken and Derek. Being a roving complaints bureau, as the opposition is becoming as they travel around the country, scurrying around looking for unhappy people, is one way of surviving through the long and dreary years of opposition—wandering around seat-by-seat conducting NBN crisis meetings, where you put on some scones and wait for people to filter in, popping their ALP membership card above their head and sitting in the front row, given a complaint to read out, and then away they go. We had one of these in my electorate of Bowman, where not a single genuine complaint was elucidated for NBN Co. I'm not saying there are no genuine complaints. The TIO data is absolutely correct. We need to break up the complaints according to the amount of Australia that's connected. If you are going to double the footprint of NBN, then, self-evidently, you are going to double your complaints. If you have twice as many people connected to NBN, self-evidently there will be twice as many complaints. In fact, complaints per population are falling—a very inconvenient truth for the opposition. The other great concern of our good friends on the other side is that they promised the gold-plated monorail to every home—the super-fast government-run broadband, where everyone got the same colour curtains, and the same length, and it was all going to happen the day after they planned it. They got to the end of their six-year tenure and, of course, just 200,000 houses were NBN-ready. That sounds like a pretty significant number. Fifty thousand had been connected after six years and multiple failed starts. Fifty thousand sounds like a great number. There we were with 50,000 divided by 150 electorates. That's only 300 households per federal electorate. It's worth repeating: the 50,000 who were connected represent only around 300 households per electorate—that's two streets. Ms Rowland 159771 No complaints in Bowman! Mr LAMING E0H I will take that interjection from the other side. No, after six years nothing had been done in my electorate of Bowman—zero. With an average of two streets connected after six years, you need to pick this up and ask yourself, in the counter-factual, had Labor continued with their plan how many of the complaints you hear today about our NBN would you have heard for Labor's NBN, where only 10,000 dwellings a year were being connected? They might have upped it to 50,000, but the reality is that it's not 300,000. You need to remember that every complaint you have about the coalition's NBN represents a complaint you'd have had with Labor's NBN, where they basically would drip-feed the nation with fibre to the home and virtually no competition in retail provision. That is quite an important statistic. If they haven't studied economics—and that's everyone on the other side, except one guy who went to ANU and did it through the sociology department—what they won't understand is that with competition between 140 providers you are going to get a drop in price and an increase in data availability. And that drop in price is around $40 a month. Those packages you see from Telstra and Optus are $40 a month cheaper than if you had government provided fibre to the home and no competition in the price at which it is provided. Take my electorate of Bowman: sure, we'd love a faster rollout, but there are only two potential pathways here. There is the technology mix being used by Scandinavia and by most of the developed world, outside of city states like Singapore, Hong Kong or Seoul, where population density is around 17,000 humans per square kilometre and different forms of economics do stack up. But that's not the case in Australian cities, where Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra and Adelaide have around 1,200 to 2,000 residents per square kilometre. There simply are not enough people paying internet bills to justify fibre to the premises. In Brisbane, where there are 1,200 humans per square kilometre, or in my mainland electorate of Redlands, where there are only 700 humans per square kilometre, there is simply a lot of money paid in rod and roping and not enough customers to pay for the service. That's why the simple premise of the coalition's approach is that we will roll out fibre when it is economically justifiable to do so. That lies at the heart of Labor's approach. They were going to roll out fibre, but six to eight years more slowly. They were going to roll out fibre at $20 to $30 billion more than the country had to spend on it. They can go all around the country collecting complaints, but they cannot escape that brutal reality. 15:54 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie It was going to be a game changer, but now all we have is something that is hurting small businesses, hurting the economy, increasing inequality and continually falling short. We were promised big things, very big things, but it has been the fizzer of all fizzers—and, no, I'm not talking about the Prime Minister; I'm talking about the NBN. The government's turning a blind eye to this mess, and my community for one is totally over it. My office, like the member for Dobell's, has had hundreds of emails and mobile phone calls because businesses and individuals have no internet and no landline, all because of the NBN rollout. If they live in one of the many areas in the electorate of Macquarie which have a poor mobile phone signal, they're calling from the top of their street, on tippy-toes, hoping to get a bit of signal. The most insulting part of all is the insistence by this Prime Minister that nothing is wrong—the delusion that all is well and that the only shortfall is that NBN Co needs to improve its PR and retailers need to lift their game. He maintains copper is king. In fact, we know copper is second-rate. I can't believe the Prime Minister doesn't know the mess he's created. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman clearly knows—it's been a job-creator for them. This is the PM for innovation, but he simply put the NBN in the too-hard basket, along with renewable energy and the rest of his values. In the meantime, communities are suffering as they receive an internet service that is often worse than what they already had. The experience that I've had in the Blue Mountains part of my electorate is set to be repeated in the Hawkesbury, where, in densely populated suburbs full of small, medium and large businesses, like in McGraths Hill, people will have to make do with fibre to the node, long stretches of copper. Places where the internet could help bridge the divide in accessing mental health services, employment and education—places like Wilberforce and Freemans Reach—will have to make do with FTTN. In fact, there is a one-kilometre stretch in Wilberforce where at one end they're getting fixed wireless, about halfway along they're getting fibre to the node and a few hundred metres down the road they're getting fibre to the curb. How inequitable is that? This is total digital inequality. It's hard to know where to start when talking about the experience faced by the communities of the upper Blue Mountains with their rollout of FTTN. Let me share a few cases. There are an endless number of them. Terry lives in Leura in the Blue Mountains. Leura went fibre-to-the-node live in August 2016. Terry's been unable to connect ever since. The NBN has identified that there are a number of premises within the FTTN footprint that are unable to receive a connection. Surprise, surprise. They say: 'We're currently investigating options to deliver an NBN solution for these premises. Although we're committed to delivering a fast broadband service as soon as possible, we can't provide a time frame at this stage.' But what we do know is that Leura is going to have its landlines switched off in February 2018. There are no guarantees that these people will even be connected by then. Nick lives in Lawson. Lawson went live with fibre to the node in August 2016 and Nick switched over. In February this year, Nick's speeds dropped and he logged a fault with his service provider. In September—I think that's about seven months later—NBN was saying it was an issue with the service provider, and the service provider was saying it was an NBN issue. This is something we have all heard multiple times. Nick was persistent; he kept at it. NBN has finally determined that it was a problem with the copper in the street after all—who'd have thought it?—and they have brought about the repairs. Finally, Nick's NBN service is working properly again. Tim lives in Wentworth Falls. This story will be familiar. Despite a node being only 75 metres from his property, he can't connect, because according to NBN the lines that Telstra has handed over to them are not necessarily direct. So it's not in a straight line. His property cannot be connected to NBN as NBN has identified a high loss of signal on this specific line due to—guess what?—the length of copper. In short, the government have completely blown a chance to make a real difference to the lives of Australians, and they'll go down as the people who took us back to the Dark Ages. 15:59 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes One of the great historical obligations, burdens or duties of every coalition government that comes to office is to clean up the complete mess they have been left with by the previous Labor government. Where would you like to start? How about the issue of border protection? Look at Labor's border protection mess that this coalition government has to clean up. Hundreds of children locked up in detention camps by the Labor government were let out by the coalition government. There is the issue of trade. We saw the mess Labor created, the delays of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, fixed up and repaired by the coalition. Defence is another policy area of complete and utter disaster from the Labor Party. Again, the coalition government comes in and fixes up the mess. And energy costs. What a mess the Labor Party left us. Under their governance, there was a 100 per cent increase in electricity prices. In six years under the Labor Party we saw a 100 per cent increase in electricity prices. It is exactly the same with the NBN: another complete Labor mess that the coalition has to come in and fix up. And what do Labor contribute? They put their hands up and go, 'You haven't fixed up our mess quickly enough.' They have created all this mess in every portfolio you can imagine, and their complaint is, 'You haven't fixed up our mess quickly enough.' Let's look at some of the mess they left us with the NBN. We know that in 2013 there were only 51,000 premises connected—that is, one in 50 across the nation. So far, we've got that down to one in two. Then we saw the hopeless budget and time overruns. And who can remember Labor's NBN promotion they did on the internet? They invited consumers or householders to go on the internet and have a look at a map of where the NBN rollout was. This map had colours that would fade away—so when you clicked on the map to try and focus on your street, to see when you would be connected, the map that Labor put up would fade out. Residents had no idea whatsoever. We knew that people would be waiting another six to eight years if we did not fix the mess the Labor Party left us. That is what households in Australia would be waiting for if the coalition did not clean up that Labor mess. And it would have cost another $30 billion. The changes the coalition have been forced to make to clean up this mess that Labor left us on the NBN have saved the Australian nation $30 billion and six to eight years. This is what we inherited in policy area after policy area after policy area, and the only contribution we can get from the Labor Party is, 'You didn't fix our mess up quickly enough.' I would like to take this opportunity to give a quick update on my electorate of Hughes—down in the beautiful south of Sydney—to show how we're progressing with the NBN rollout. So far, 44 per cent of the electorate is connected or has passed, and we have 32 per cent of premises that have taken up the NBN. Close to one-third of households in my electorate already have the NBN working in their premises. We have another 48 per cent under construction and ready to go, to be rolled out. My electorate will be complete by the middle to end of next year. There are some suburbs which have waited a long time for the NBN. We know Grays Point will be 1 May 2018. We know Hammondville, Pleasure Point, Sandy Point and Voyager Point are areas that have had difficulty with telecommunications for many years, and the NBN will be rolled out on 1 June 2018. Kirrawee, Chipping Norton and Moorebank will also be rolled out on 1 June 2018. Bundeena and Maianbar, down at the national park, are also areas that have waited a long time for improvements in their communications. We'll have that done next year. (Time expired) 16:05 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I am very happy for the member for Hughes in the luck he has had with his community getting the NBN halfway through next year, whereas my community has to wait at least until the end of 2019. It's lucky for some, I suppose! The Prime Minister has made many bold statements about the coalition's NBN, including that it's one of the greatest corporate turnarounds in Australia's history, it will be delivered for $29.5 billion and everyone will have access to it by the end of 2016. Of course, that's not the case. Unfortunately, unlike his colleague the member for Mallee, he has not been bold enough to acknowledge the truth, which is that the NBN rollout has become ridiculous. Like so many of us, the Nationals member for Mallee has to have one of his electoral office staff working nearly full-time to talk with constituents and help them deal with the implementation of the NBN to their homes and their businesses. The member for Mallee, on this point, is right: the rollout of the NBN is ridiculous. It's ridiculous because at the end of 2016 more than seven million premises were still waiting for access to the NBN. It's ridiculous because this multi-technology NBN mess has suffered a budget blowout of $20 billion. Instead of the $29.5 billion delivery cost, it's costing nearly $50 billion. And some of that is paying for 15 million metres of copper! I can hardly believe the things I hear. It's ridiculous because the reality of his corporate turnaround claim is soaring complaints from customers left languishing and constituents still waiting to be connected. The Prime Minister scrapped Labor's world-class fibre-to-the-premises NBN. It was an innovative infrastructure project and it was a challenging project. It would have delivered the optical fibre technology needed to provide our businesses, our students—all of us—with the tools necessary to compete in the 21st century global economy. Instead, he has left people with a second-rate NBN—it's third- or fourth-rate if I'm honest—that is slower and more expensive, and that's for those who are lucky enough to have access to it. Only last month I held a meeting in Baldivis with my colleague the member for Greenway, the shadow minister for communications. At this meeting we heard from a roomful of local residents about how their lives are being affected by substandard or non-existent internet access. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the local community needed no prompting to let us know the problems they're having with this abysmal NBN. The Prime Minister should acknowledge how frustrated people are in not being able to work, study or communicate effectively thanks to his inferior version of the National Broadband Network. The stories we heard brought home the impact that living in a communications black hole is having on people's lives. We heard how FIFO parents are not able to keep in touch with their children when they are working far away on-site. We heard how people have to drive to fast-food restaurants to get access to internet so they can check their emails and so their children can go online and do their assignments for school. We heard how people who, in a world with internet connectivity, should be able to log in, work from home and check their emails on a weekend instead have to get in their car and drive 45 minutes to the office. It's a disgrace in 2017 in a community only half an hour to 45 minutes from the Perth CBD. Not only this but many people in this community of Baldivis—and in Port Kennedy and at some places in Safety Bay—have no mobile phone coverage. They have to leave their home to make phone calls. It's a disgrace! Many people cannot connect to ADSL, as there are not enough ports available. And, thanks to the delay in the NBN rollout—as I said earlier, to the end of 2019— Mr Littleproud 265585 What about the Mobile Black Spot Program? Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 We don't get the Mobile Black Spot Program, thanks very much! And we've never had money in Brand. Luckily for you Nationals, you get your pork-barrelling money— Mr Littleproud interjecting— Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 You do, don't you. You can just be quiet and take your money while my community has no mobile coverage—so good on you! No new ports are available. These people don't have the internet, they don't have ADSL, they don't have the NBN and they don't have mobile phone coverage. It's a disgrace! I'm really glad one of the Nationals can joke about this! Mr Littleproud interjecting— Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 It sounds like you are. In my community this is an important matter. People are disappointed. They are angry. We don't have to stoke their anger at this government and its substandard NBN. The member for Greenway will back me up on this: we just have to listen to them. The Prime Minister should come and visit us. I don't know the last time a Liberal Prime Minister walked down to Rockingham. I have never seen one and never heard of one. I barely see a Liberal there. I don't know who is running against me next time, but they won't have much luck. Anyway, come and have a chat and try to fix your NBN. 16:10 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 MaranoaMaranoa The theatrics that we see here today are a pathetic attempt to conceal the pathetic plan that we were left when we took government—Labor's plan to create a so-called NBN. It was a never-never scheme for Australians. It was one of those grandiose plans that Kevin Rudd decided to come up with that had no substance—made up on the back of an envelope. The reality is we are delivering. We are delivering the tools of the 21st century for every community, particularly my community of . In the electorate of Maranoa, which takes up 45 per cent of Queensland, we are delivering telecommunications through a coordinated and sensible approach. In fact, it is this government that has, for the first time in this nation's history, appointed a regional telecommunications minister. When we talk about inequality, we are making sure that we deliver real outcomes for people in rural and regional Australia. Sixty-one per cent of the NBN has been rolled out across my electorate of Maranoa already, not only through fibre-to-the-node but through fixed wireless and through the Sky Muster satellite. We are delivering to households and are making sure, for the first time in this nation's history, that we have designated data plans for children who are receiving distance education. It is abhorrent to think that, until this government came into power, we were letting young children in outback stations go without the tools they needed to get a proper education. We have delivered that because we know what it is to deliver on inequality. We know what it is to make sure, no matter what your postcode is, that you get a proper education, and we are delivering on that. Couple that with the announcement by Minister Nash, only in the last month, that we are going to double the data for those people on Sky Muster. This is also about allowing them to trade and take advantage of those trade agreements that we have put in place as a government. This is something we should be very proud of. When you talk about wanting to go and find Ma and Pa Kettle from every community, let me tell you that nearly 14,000 households have been put onto the NBN in Maranoa. We have had 35 inquiries over the last 12 months. That is 0.2 per cent in terms of the complaints we've had about the NBN. This is a nation-building project. I grant you, there will be some complaints. But when you look at that percentage you can see that this is nothing more than a Labor fallacy, hiding behind the fact that they failed to plan properly. We are delivering for the people of rural and regional Australia. We are coupling that with a mobile phone black spot program. For the first time in this nation's history, we, as the Australian government, have put our hands in the pockets of government and gone out and invested in telecommunications, particularly in rural and regional Australia, where the commercial tension is not there for telcos to go and build on their own. The reality is we have put over 500 towers in, and we continue to roll these towers out throughout rural and regional Australia, in particular, because those are the tools of the 21st century that we need. We need to have mobility in what we are doing in our day-to-day practices, because we are the economic engine room of this nation. The electorate of Maranoa contributes more to the GDP per capita than Townsville, Toowoomba or the Gold Coast. That's without taking into account the significant energy that's being created in the electorate of Maranoa through the three coal-fired power stations. It is quite interesting, on a day of such momentous occasion when we are tackling energy prices, that the matter of public importance is something on the NBN. It goes to show that Labor is bereft of ideas and policies. They play behind theatrics and lie to the Australian people. The reality is we are delivering. We are delivering now on energy policies and also on telecommunications, to make sure that we have the tools that we need to take advantage of the trade agreements that we've made. It is something this government does quite proudly, because a government's responsibility is to put an environment and infrastructure around its people. We have done that. We have done that with the trade agreements and also with the small business tax cuts—that is the environment. But the infrastructure is the connectivity that we are undertaking. We are making sure that we are rolling the NBN out, and on time—not six to eight years later, as this mob on the other side would have achieved. The reality is that this is real delivery. We are making sure that we empower the Australian economy and the Australian people to be their very best. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The discussion has concluded. BILLS 43 BILLS Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 43

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017

Assent 43 COMMITTEES 43 COMMITTEES Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights 43 Report 43 16:15 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: Report 11 of 2017. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 by leave—The role of the committee is to examine recent bills and legislative instruments for compatibility with Australia's human rights obligations. In doing so, the committee aims to enhance understanding of and respect for human rights in Australia and ensure that human rights issues are appropriately considered in legislative and policy development. I note that a number of the bills examined in this report are scheduled for debate this week, including bills in relation to anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing; crimes legislation on sexual crimes against children and community protection; customs antidumping; social services and welfare reform; and Treasury amendments including housing tax integrity, foreign acquisitions and vacancy fees, and an Australian financial complaints authority. A number of the bills scheduled for debate were assessed from the outset as not raising human rights concerns and others have been examined in more detail to assess compatibility. More generally, in the current report, the majority of new bills considered—20 in total—were assessed as either promoting human rights, permissibly limiting human rights or not engaging human rights. The committee is also seeking further information in relation to four bills and has provided a further four 'advice only' comments to legislation proponents. This report also contains the committee's concluded examination of nine bills and instruments. Following correspondence with the relevant minister, the committee has concluded that three of these bills and instruments are likely to be compatible with international human rights law. This process of liaising with the legislation proponent to identify relevant information is an example of the benefit of the inclusive human rights scrutiny dialogue model. I encourage all legislation proponents when drafting statements of compatibility to draw upon any previous dialogue to ensure that the information that accompanies proposed legislation is comprehensive. Statements of compatibility accompany each piece of legislation that is tabled in parliament and contain the relevant minister's consideration of any human rights issues that may arise. These statements are critical to the work of the committee in its scrutiny task. Finally, I note that the committee's work is one mechanism to encourage ongoing consideration of human rights in the development and passage of legislation. As announced today, Australia has been appointed to the UN Human Rights Council and will take its seat from January 2018. I'm sure that this will be another important space for Australia to engage with human rights issues at a global level. I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their consideration of proposed legislation. With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 11 of 2017 to the House. BILLS 44 BILLS Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017, Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017, Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2017, Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017, Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017, Industrial Chemicals Charges (Excise) Bill 2017 44

Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017

Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017

Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2017

Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017

Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017

Industrial Chemicals Charges (Excise) Bill 2017

Second Reading 44 16:19 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I rise to speak on this package of industrial chemicals legislation. I'll keep my remarks brief, but I was moved to participate in this debate as some elements of the bills which relate to animal welfare are quite significant and, I believe, warrant acknowledgement. As previous speakers have touched on, including the member for Makin, these bills establish the legislative framework for the Australia Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme, which will replace the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme. The latter scheme, NICNAS, is currently responsible for regulating the introduction of industrial chemicals in Australia, whether by importation or manufacture. Under the new scheme, a risk based approach to the regulation of industrial chemicals will be implemented. Significantly, this means that there will be less emphasis on pre-introduction assessment of lower-risk new chemicals and a greater focus on post-introduction evaluation and monitoring. Whilst the government is telling us that this approach will enable the regulator to focus on higher-risk chemicals and that it will encourage businesses to use lower-risk chemicals, I think greater assurance is needed as to whether the right balance has, in fact, been struck. These reforms are extremely complex, and much of the technical detail will be enacted through regulations yet to be drafted. But there are a number of concerns as to whether the reduction in cost to businesses has been prioritised over health and environmental outcomes. The process that has brought this bill to the House for consideration is also extremely concerning, from our perspective, given that the bills were introduced whilst consultation was still ongoing. Even stakeholders from industry, who are broadly supportive of the bill, accept that further consultation will be needed, and many have highlighted technical concerns which still need to be resolved. As we've heard from the previous speakers in the debate, the bills were referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. The Senate inquiry process was going to be rushed as well, with the closing date for submissions being a mere seven days after the opening date. Given the complex nature of these bills, this narrow time frame for consultation was manifestly inadequate, and I'm pleased that the Labor senators were successful in their push for extensions of time for submissions and to for enough time to be allowed for a public hearing to be held. During those public hearings, a wide range of stakeholders, including unions and health and environmental groups, all flagged significant concerns. These related mostly to the focus on the reforms on the reduction of red tape and the failure to convince them that, in pursuing this reduction in red tape, health and environmental outcomes would not be compromised. One area of particular concern to my constituency in the electorate of Wills has been the apparent loopholes in this proposed legislation identified by a number of animal-welfare groups, which is, to be direct, well below the standards set by the Ethical Cosmetics Bill 2016, which Labor introduced over a year ago. The animal-welfare sector raised these concerns—specifically, that the ban on the use of animal-test data for cosmetics has been drafted to be very narrow. In its current form, it seemingly contains a loophole which would allow animal-test data to be used where industrial chemicals are introduced for multiple end use. I'm pleased to note that Labor intends to introduce several amendments to tackle significant stakeholder concerns and improve these bills, in particular in relation to the animal-welfare concerns that have been raised. Labor's amendments will ensure that the cosmetics animal-testing ban applies to all introductions for cosmetic use, thereby closing the loopholes that I've referred to. There are a number of further amendments we propose to move. They include requiring an annual post-introduction report with the name, volume and date of introduction of the industrial chemical for chemicals introduced via the exempted introduction category. Labor notes assurances given by the minister that the government will continue the work of the regulator to evaluate unassessed chemicals on the register and to ensure that the regulator tracks and reports on the status of actions taken by risk managers in response to recommendations from the regulator. We believe that our package of amendments will not be onerous on industry but will actually provide a more balanced approach with better health, environment and animal-welfare protections. It is important to highlight that the government has dropped the ball in prosecuting the case for these reforms. While this type of legislation can be complex and often quite exhausting to examine, it is of the utmost importance that the legislation is passed in an acceptable form, given that the consequences of failure in the chemical regulatory system can be extremely severe. I commend to the House the amendments moved by the member for Makin, which recognise the concerns relating to cosmetic testing on animals and go some long way to reshaping this legislation with due consideration to the concerns raised by all of the stakeholders. 16:25 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson It is my pleasure to speak on this bill. I will, however, be quite brief on this. It is important that we take notice of the bill that is before the House and discuss it in detail and give it the respect and consideration that it is due before this chamber. The bill that is currently before the House is the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017. The minister, in introducing the bill to the House, went through in great detail the key parts of the bill. So there are probably only a couple of points that I would like to add today. I will quote from the second reading speech, because it's important: Industrial chemicals play an essential role in everyday life—they are in paints and petrol, and are used in the production of a wide range of consumer goods and products such as cosmetics, dyes, cleaners and plastics. They are also an integral part of Australian industry and are extensively used in mining, manufacturing, and the building and construction industry. But they can also present risks to human health, worker safety and the environment that require management through fit-for-purpose regulation. I would like to associate myself with the minister's second reading speech for this bill, and I commend the bill to the House. 16:27 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I am privileged in that many schools in my electorate of Mackellar choose to send their students to visit Parliament House. It is a real pleasure to meet these young kids—our future leaders of Australia—show them around Parliament House, and talk about what it is like to be a member in this place. Importantly, it gives me an opportunity to find out what matters to them and what would make a difference to their lives. I get the usual replies: they would like to see more skate parks, and they would certainly like to see less homework. I'm sure that is nothing new to other members in this place. But I'm asked one question particularly often, and that is around the testing of animals when creating cosmetic products. The reality is that Australians haven't been testing their cosmetics on animals for a very long time. What we have done in the past is used information from animal tests done overseas when evaluating whether a specific product or ingredient is safe for us to use. The average Australian uses at least seven cosmetic products a day. That is a lot of products and ingredients to manufacture, test and bring to market. Indeed, some of my colleagues don't look this way naturally; it's the cosmetics they use every morning that help them look as good as they do now. Even Australian-made products often use chemicals imported from different parts of the world. So it is all well and good to say, 'We don't test on animals here' but, if we use the data from overseas tests to evaluate the products we allow to market, isn't that implicitly allowing tests in the first place? That is why we are here today. This government is finally putting the regulatory framework in place to make sure we stop using any data derived from animal tests when deciding whether these cosmetic products are fit for Australian use. At the same time, we are streamlining the approval processes so that Australian businesses that manufacture, import and sell cosmetics can spend more time growing their businesses than jumping through regulatory hoops. We are making sure that Australian consumers get as much choice in the products they want while knowing that we have not allowed these products to be tested on animals in order to be on the shelves. Currently, chemicals in Australia are regulated under a number of schemes. If a chemical is not for a therapeutic, agricultural, veterinary or food use, it is considered an industrial chemical under the existing scheme. This will not change for the new scheme. When a business wishes to introduce a medium- to high-risk industrial chemical in Australia, it will need to provide information, including data, so that the regulator can make an assessment of the risks of that chemical and provide information to promote their safe use. This maximises protections for both Australian consumers and our environment. Our commitment to banning cosmetic testing on animals was cemented in the 2017-18 budget. This bill is the first step. We are creating the regulatory framework so that animal test data will no longer be used to support the introduction of chemicals used exclusively as cosmetic ingredients. We are replacing the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme with the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme and a new inventory. Six categories of introduction will be created, proportionate to the level of risk to human health and safety or the environment. Transparency will be increased, putting more choice in the hands of Australian consumers. Businesses can rest assured that the system by which the regulator evaluates any chemical is responsive, flexible and transparent. Data derived from an animal test from 1 July 2018 will be banned and disregarded when used by companies to support the introduction of a cosmetic ingredient. We are also making sure that our framework aligns with the highest international standards. The marketplace for these ingredients is global, so harmonising the rules around them will help businesses and increase protection for consumers. It has the added benefit that the different regulators can exchange information and assessment—something that can be done only if the standards are of comparable quality. As a Liberal, I am particularly supportive of the light-touch regulatory approach we are taking. Ham-fisted, one-size-fits-all regulations—those often favoured by my colleagues opposite—have a tendency to backfire when taken out of the Canberra bubble and applied to the real world. There is no need to apply the same regulatory burden on businesses using the lowest-risk chemicals as those choosing to use higher-risk ones. Introducers will be required to apply for assessment only for higher-risk chemicals. Overall, assessments are expected to reduce from three per cent to approximately 0.3 per cent of all new chemicals introduced. Ultimately, we are lessening annual reporting and making the introduction process much simpler and faster by providing same-day registration for introducers. This will reduce industry's annual regulatory burden by around $23 million. Companies introducing chemicals will now also be able to use relevant international risk assessments to a much greater extent, reducing double-ups and having an added benefit of adjusting our regulations to international standards—only, of course, if the risks are no higher than those we would accept here. All these changes, particularly this new stepped approach to the regulatory burdens, will encourage businesses to veer towards lower-risk chemicals. They will encourage products to be reinvented and improved—once again, more and better choices for Australian consumers. When it comes to public and worker health and safety regulations, these reforms will continue to maintain Australia's high standards for protecting the community, workers and the environment. The executive director will be able to impose conditions on new, higher risk chemicals and refuse to allow a chemical to be introduced. He will also have more flexibility to rapidly respond to risks from new chemicals or chemicals already on the market. Modern enforcement tools will be available, and used, to ensure compliance and identify noncompliance. I mentioned transparency a little earlier, and I come back to that. By linking the inventory listings to assessment statements, we are making more appropriate information than ever before available to Australian consumers so they can find out about the risks of any particular industrial chemical and make informed decisions. Of course, we must also protect our businesses' ability to compete in the market, so confidentiality will be protected by the use of partially masked names or use where appropriate. Under our legislation, committed to and introduced by the Turnbull government, no section of the inventory will be confidential any longer. Thanks to the work of the Assistant Minister for Health, the member for Lyne, Dr David Gillespie, there is overwhelming support for this legislation from both sides—from animal welfare groups and from the industry. We are leading the charge, enacting legislation that has taken the European Union 10 years to legislate. We will get it done in one year. So what's the problem? As always there is the one outlier, one black swan, one group that wants to make the perfect the enemy of the good, supported by the Greens; they would rather we end up with nothing. No masked data here. And then there is the Labor Party, refusing to come to the table and ban what Australians overwhelmingly condemn as cruel practices—because why would they help us achieve anything? Once again, they are playing politics with public policy that would actually benefit Australians. Using their traditional fear tactics, these groups are trying to scare constituents into believing their ideological opposition has merit. They claim our bill has a massive loophole that cosmetic companies will mercilessly exploit—that the companies will test their chemical ingredients on animals by listing them as multiple-use chemicals; they will sneak animal testing data past the regulator and ignore our safeguards. This proposition is ridiculous. Cosmetic companies want to make money by selling things to people; therefore, they want to make things people will like. Why would they pursue a method of testing that is, firstly, more expensive; secondly, less appealing to the consumer; and, thirdly, more complex to achieve? In reality, the trend has been moving towards cruelty-free products for years. Most companies know their target market. They want to provide products that reflect the desire of Australian consumers to purchase cruelty-free cosmetics. People like to buy them. The legislation specifically mentions chemicals solely for use in cosmetic products, because scientists agree that we need a safety mechanism to protect Australian consumers. It allows data provided from animal tests to be used solely as a last resort, to make sure chemicals that are used across multiple disciplines, like baby wipes or fragrances and detergents, are not harming us or our environment. These include, by the way, chemicals found in products such as paints, fabric dyes and household cleaners. This added safeguard is all the more important when you think about the multitude of chemicals we can be exposed to each day. On any given day you could wash your hands, use a cologne or perfume, wash your face using a cleanser, and there you go: that's three chemical exposures racked up in a single day. If there is any data out there that proves any of the chemicals used in any of these products is unsafe for us to use, we would be harming our own people if we were to not take that into account. We are talking about preventing side effects ranging from skin irritations to more serious consequences of repeated exposure, like fertility and developmental issues and cancers—the list goes on and on. It doesn't mean we will allow any of that data to prove a chemical is safe to use, but, if it proves it is unsafe, how can we not protect consumers from harm? How do people in this place not support this? How are the Greens so stuck in their own parallel universe of ideological superiority that they would rather we do nothing, disregarding what Australian consumers actually want, allowing this practice to continue implicitly, rather than supporting our package, with the added protection for consumers when it comes to multi-use chemicals? This is a good bill. It's a good reform. It's what the stakeholders, the industry and, most importantly, hardworking Australians want. Let's get it done, then I can go back to the schools in my electorate and tell them that politicians in Canberra don't just live in a bubble. They listen and they act. 16:41 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh Before I start, I thank the member for McPherson for jumping to her feet and filling the gap while we were waiting for the member for Mackellar to come in. This is an important bill. It's a bill that fast-tracks industrial chemicals, and that has benefits. It assists some of those companies that are producing particular industrial chemicals to get their product onto the market quickly so that they can compete with overseas competitors. So it's a good thing. But we need to ensure that we fill some of the gaping holes that are in it. We heard the member for Makin say earlier that he will be moving some amendments and that there are some flaws in the bill, even though this side of the House will be supporting most of it. The things that are lacking in this bill are, basically, the ability to create a register that tells us where the chemicals are being used, who is using the chemicals, how much of the chemicals are being used, and at what times over a period of time. Currently, companies must maintain records, so we are asking: why not just pass that record on for future governments, for future agencies, to be able to tackle any issues that perhaps arise in the future? Looking back in history, there are many products that were deemed to be very safe, but today we know of their long-term massive health effects on human beings. One of them that comes to mind, and I am sure everyone is aware of it, is asbestos. For many years we used this particular product in everything from buildings to paints—you name it—thinking it was safe. Then, years later, we discovered it was a very unsafe product and actually kills people. Another one is tobacco. For many years people thought it did no harm to your health—even though it is a different type of chemical to the ones we are talking about here—but we now know that it, too, kills people. For us to get to the results and a final admission of danger to human life, it took many years. With asbestos, even today it can be in the body for years before tests show someone is affected. Therefore, we are saying there should be some form of register with an agency. There could be issues to do with ensuring that that register is used to track when issues do come up, when things go wrong in the future—and let's hope they don't—so that they can go back and know who has worked with that particular product, what sort of work has been done, where it has happened and what needs to be done. A great example of this really important issue, something that resonates with many in the community, includes former firefighters and others in my electorate. My electorate has the airport in the middle of it, and firefighters use dangerous chemicals. For many years they were testing foams for emergency use at the airport. They were all told it was safe many years ago. They were told it was safe; they wore safety equipment. But now we know that it was very unsafe. These chemicals have seeped into the ground. They seep into the bloodstream of people working with them. I'm really glad that ABC's Four Corners recently raised this issue. They raised the issue of contamination around airports and RAAF bases all around Australia. Today we know that people who worked with those chemicals have had some adverse effects. I first raised this matter in this place early last year, following a visit to my electorate office from some very concerned firefighters who had worked with chemicals at Adelaide Airport. We know it's not just limited to Adelaide Airport; there's Edinburgh in the northern suburbs of Adelaide; there are many RAAF bases around the country; and there are many airports around the country and in fact around the world that use this particular product. This particular constituent was a retired firefighter. He had 35 years of experience at Adelaide Airport as a firefighter and he was very concerned that when he was working there, in his younger days, this product was deemed to be safe, and then he found out later that it was not. Because it was in a confined area, they know where it was used, where the testing was done, where they did their emergency training and therefore where it has seeped into the ground, so they could contain it. Many constituents and firefighters are asking for a greater government commitment to develop and to implement a testing and monitoring regime for some of these people. They have raised it with me on many occasions. They've raised it with the government on many occasions and through the firefighters union that covers them. I hope one thing today that these speeches do is raise this issue which has affected many people that worked with this foam in airports around the country and in RAAF bases that did training for fighting fires. It's an ongoing issue of contamination for defence and aviation sites around Australia—and the impact it is having on people in defence and aviation sites. Even residents around these areas are now concerned. But, as I said, because this particular product was used in one area, we know where it was tested and we know where they used it for their emergency training. We know exactly where it is. You can imagine the concern if this particular product was used all over the place—and it was used in many other products—and we didn't know where it was. This legislation will create a register that's with a government agency. It will tell us where the chemicals have been used, what they've been used for and who has used them, for future reference. It has been said that that may be an onerous job for the industries and the companies that use these particular products, but they already must maintain a record of where they are using it, who is using it et cetera, so why not pass it on? It would be a very simple thing to do. We heard the member talk about ideology and things before. This is nothing to do with ideology. It is about common sense. The particular substances that were used had great qualities in terms of doing the industrial work that was required. They had the ability to repel oil, grease and water and put out fires. They've been used in firefighting foams and chemicals and many other products around the world. In addition, these foams containing these chemicals have been deployed on fires at traffic and railway accidents, and even at building fires. It's not just those metropolitan areas; it is country and rural areas as well that have an issue with this particular product. The foams have been used for nearly 50 years on defence and civilian facilities and in airports in Australia due to their effectiveness in extinguishing liquid fuel fires. Firefighters trained every day on airport facilities with these chemicals. Today we know that there have been some tests and that their blood has been tested. Some people have fairly high levels of this particular chemical in their systems. But unfortunately there are no regular checks. The levels may be safe today, but we don't know what the future holds for these people. There should be some form of regular testing for them so we can tell exactly how their health is going and how they are doing with this chemical that we know causes harm to humans. It also impacts our waterways, our groundwater and our oceans. It's not just firefighters and those who work with it; all of us are affected by these particular chemicals. We heard the member for Mackellar talk about animal testing. There is a loophole in the legislation for a company that wishes to produce a product, if it's for cosmetic testing. We know that there are no animal products that should be used because we also know, as the member for Mackellar said, that companies really want to sell the product to consumers, who don't want to be turned off by hearing about animal testing, et cetera. But the loophole nevertheless exists, if a company wanted to circumvent this particular 'no animal testing' law. If it's for cosmetics, yes, there is no animal testing. But if you are producing a chemical or a product for industry, then you can use animal testing. It's no secret that on this side of the House we would stop animal testing altogether if we could. There is a loophole there and that has to be looked at as well so companies cannot circumvent the legislation that currently exists. To put it in a nutshell, the bill establishes a legislative framework for the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme, or the AICIS, and that will replace the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme. It'll regulate the introduction, whether by importation or manufacture, of industrial chemicals. There's a cost recovery principle, which will be retained in the new scheme. The new scheme implements a risk-based approach to the regulation of industrial chemicals. Significantly, there will be less emphasis on the pre-introduction assessment of lower-risk new chemicals and a greater focus on the post-introduction evaluation and monitoring. As I said at the beginning, I don't think we have a problem with the concept of the bill. It does assist companies to fast-track the industrial chemicals that they're producing. There are benefits for them, and it ensures that they're competing with overseas companies that are producing the same sorts of products. This is a good thing. But we just want to ensure that some of the small loopholes that are there are filled so that we don't go through what we've already been through over the years with a range of other products that we thought were safe. We had human beings who had been working with these particular products for years and it was being denied that there was anything wrong happening to them because of the product they worked with. We saw that with asbestos. We saw the massive court cases that took place, with people fighting and saying, 'No, it had nothing to do with your bad health today.' What we must do is maintain a good register so that, in years to come, if there are any issues with a worker who has worked with these products, we know where to find them and how to track them down so we can give them the assistance that may be required. Many new products come on the market. They are deemed safe and they look good, but we don't know what the results will be for years. I mentioned two of them very quickly—asbestos and this foam, which has an effect in my own electorate and many electorates around the country that have airports. They are both products that people worked with, that they thought were safe and that did good things. But, in the end, we found out that, for all the good they did in putting out oil based fires and liquid based fires, they also did a lot of damage to the environment and massive damage to human beings. But because those were contained within the airports around the country, we know the people who worked there and we know the geographic land area where these chemicals were used. So we want to ensure that that takes place. We want to ensure that that loophole is closed to keep people safe when they're working with products. 16:55 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I wanted to make a few brief remarks about this bill, the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017. There will be a more lengthy contribution from the Greens, particularly Senator Rhiannon, when it reaches the other place. I want to make a couple of remarks about the issue of animal testing in cosmetics, which is dealt with in this bill. There have been a number of organisations—in particular, the cruelty-free campaign, Animals Australia and the Animals Justice Party but also many others—that have campaigned for some time, with the full support of the Greens, for a ban on cosmetics that have been tested on animals. There are great companies in Australia like the Lush brand and many others that are already cruelty free because they know people in Australia want to be assured their cosmetics haven't been tested on animals. Many, many people have done some very, very good work on that. There have also been people in this place from across the political spectrum who have also wanted to see that change. On the government back benches some have spoken up, including in this debate, saying that that's a change we need to see. It's a change that the Greens have called for and pursued for quite some time. So, to the extent the government is taking a first step towards addressing that, that is welcome, but, as is often the case with many of the things that come from this government, it's not as good as it seems. It comes bundled up in something that has nothing to do with the issue of animal testing and, in fact, seeks other reforms that could potentially jeopardise those very good reforms. As has been said many times during the debate, there are loopholes in the government's proposal around animal testing. They are loopholes that do need to be fixed. That will be dealt with further when the matter comes to the Senate. Also of concern is that, as I am briefed by the various people who have been campaigning for that, there is a deal of concern that the government has wrapped up a measure around animal testing in amongst something much, much broader that goes towards changing the way that industrial chemicals more broadly are regulated and in a way that has nothing to do with cosmetics and nothing to do with animal testing. But, under the guise of talking about animal testing, the government may well be attempting to get through a bunch of other changes that might actually mean that people are more at risk from harmful chemicals. We've heard from some of the other members in this debate the kinds of risks that people currently face when it comes to industry. One of the ones I'm particularly familiar with is the risk that firefighters face. If there was a fire in this building at the moment, most of us would run one way—out—and the firefighters would run in. They run into rooms where things are burning and creating a huge amount of toxic smoke. In your average home, there are tens of thousands of chemicals that have been used to make the plastics that surround your TV set, that go into the couch, that are in the carpet or that are in the paint. When those chemicals burn, we now know that they, in many instances, produce cancer-causing smoke. If you're a firefighter, no matter how good your equipment is, you've got to be able to breathe, and breathing out to let the heat out of your body also means that air comes in. As a result, even with the best equipment in the world, the best PPE—personal protective equipment—in comes toxic smoke into your system. Firefighters have told me that you could be scrubbing yourself for a couple of days after a big job and still be seeing black gunk coming out of your skin, out of your system. We now know that a lot of that is cancer causing. As a result, firefighters find themselves with much, much higher rates of cancer than their counterparts. Firefighters tend to start in the job being healthier than the average human specimen. After five years, they could find themselves having twice the risk of getting leukaemia, for example. That's the kind of risk we're asking them to face, because they go into environments where they're faced with chemicals. But we also know that they're exposed to industrial chemicals through their training. We're now seeing some of the consequences of the use of chemicals called PFOS and PFOA at Defence bases. We have also seen them being used in firefighting training areas for some time, most notoriously in Fiskville in Victoria, where a lot of the chemicals that were used, the PFOS and PFOA, as well as others, found their way not just into firefighting systems but into the water, and they have contaminated the ground. Every major airport around Australia has a firefighting base on it, as it should have. The aviation firefighters spend a lot of time training so that they can get to a plane should a tragedy ever befall it or if a plane catches on fire. They have to be able to get there quickly and know exactly what they're doing, so they spend a lot of their time training. Quite like the Defence bases and Fiskville, a lot of the training done at airports uses firefighting foams containing chemicals that were banned elsewhere in the world and that were only relatively recently banned in Australia. The firefighters do a lot of training, using a lot of foam. Those chemicals seep into the ground and then into the watertable. At the Gold Coast Airport, those chemicals are now finding their way into the water system. The Gold Coast Airport abuts a broadwater, just south of the border, and a creek. We know that the government intends to dig up part of that and extend part of the Gold Coast Airport. Worryingly, we are hearing that these industrial chemicals, which relate to the subject of this bill, are sitting in the soil, potentially having leached into the water. When you dig that up to extend the length of the runway, more of them are going to come out and find their way into the water system. As a result, they will potentially put at risk not only all the people who've worked there but everyone around the area who catches fish and eats it, plus the wildlife in the area and in the waterway itself. So we've got a very, very long way to go with industrial chemicals in this country. If the government were serious about health and welfare on that front, we'd be using this bill as an opportunity to rein in what is going to be a level of scandal that's going to require a royal commission to deal with Defence sites and airports, and other training grounds, where we've used chemicals that have put people's lives at risk and that are continuing to put people's lives and the environment at risk. Sadly, that nettle isn't being grasped, despite all the warnings, but it is something that is going to come back and rightly bite this place and the governments that have made decisions in the past to allow the significant use of those chemicals. To come back to the question of cosmetic testing on animals, which is covered in this bill, I want to applaud the groups I mentioned before for their tireless campaigns, resulting in some partial step from the government towards addressing this issue. But we do need to fix it and we do need to ensure the government isn't trying to use that good move and the goodwill of the Australian people, who want to make sure that their cosmetics haven't been tested on animals, to try and get other legislation through. And we need to explore, when the matter goes to the Senate, whether there's a way of making sure we get good bits of legislation without letting through some of those other nasties that the government might be trying to get through and, if we get the good bits, that they actually do the job, by closing the loopholes, and that we don't just allow something to go through that ticks the box under the appearance of it having been done and we never come back to the issue again—and in fact then find that there are loopholes big enough to drive trucks through. That's the approach the Greens will be taking when this bill goes to the Senate. 17:05 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I'd like to thank members for their contribution to the debate on the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017 and the other five associated bills—the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2017, the Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017, the Industrial Chemical Charges (General) Bill 2017, the Industrial Chemical Charges (Excise) Bill 2017, and the Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017. These six bills realise a longstanding acknowledgement, spanning several governments, that reform to the regulation of industrial chemicals was required. The bills create a new regulatory scheme in Australia, to be known as the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme. The reformed scheme was developed through many years of consultation with the stakeholders, and I thank them for their dedication and the time involved in this process. I'm confident that the new regulatory scheme strikes the right balance between benefitting the community as well as businesses. This scheme will maintain Australia's high standard of human and environmental protection while seeing regulatory efforts made more proportionate to the risk. This means that the regulator will be able to focus its regulatory efforts on assessing the higher-risk chemicals where the greatest regulatory oversight is needed. By ensuring that this regulatory effort is proportionate to risk, we are removing unnecessary barriers to the introduction of very low risk chemicals in an effort to promote safer innovation. This should have the effect of encouraging these cleaner, greener chemicals while continuing to protect the Australian people and environment from any harmful effects from industrial chemicals. The member for Makin has raised concerns around the use of the exempt category. These concerns are misplaced. The subjectivity he's objecting to is what exists now under the current NICNAS. Under the current regime, 97 per cent of chemicals are being introduced under an exemption category where the introducer determines that there is no unreasonable risk. The new scheme actually sets clearer, more objective criteria to ensure that the continuing protection of human health and the environment is paramount. The exempted category will contain only chemicals that are considered very low risk, including polymers of low concern, and chemicals introduced for the purposes of research and development, provided that their introduction meets the definition of R&D and some volumetric thresholds are met. We have also heard calls for increased reporting for chemicals in the exempt category. It is not the reporting of these chemicals that will protect health and the environment but the new strengthened evaluation framework that we are introducing. This allows the regulator to respond quickly and initiate evaluations as soon as concerns about a chemical arise. This includes new, stronger powers to gather information. We're also strengthening the regulator's power to place conditions on certain chemicals, including new powers to refuse entry into the Australian market in certain circumstances and powers to remove chemicals that are already being used. I should also emphasise that there are clear obligations on introducers to keep records of the information they have used to demonstrate their category of introduction, and the regulator will be able to audit these records and take appropriate and proportionate actions to ensure continued compliance by all introducers across all categories of introduction, including the lowest-risk categories. These strengthened monitoring and compliance powers, consistent with those used by other regulators, will ensure continued protections for the Australian people. This will ensure that workers, the public and the environment remain protected from any potential harmful effects of industrial chemicals. Another concern that was raised was that the Industrial Chemicals Bill does not include any reference to continuing the Inventory Multi-tiered Assessment and Prioritisation framework, known as IMAP. IMAP was developed as a practical way to accelerate the review of over 30,000 unassessed chemicals that have been on a public list, known as the national inventory, since the NICNAS arrangements commenced in 1989. The excessively prescriptive evaluation process in the existing law had resulted in very few evaluations of these chemicals being completed. IMAP is widely considered to be an example of a very successful collaboration between government, industry and non-industry stakeholders, and has resulted in over 7,500 chemicals being assessed since 2012. I'd like to assure the Australian community that we will continue to prioritise these chemicals for systematic evaluation. So we are building on the success of IMAP with a new, more flexible and responsive framework in the Industrial Chemicals Bill that gives the regulator the flexibility needed to tailor an evaluation to address an issue or a chemical of concern. This framework will allow us to more effectively evaluate industrial chemicals in commerce in Australia and will lead to clear regulatory outcomes, which could include the removal of a chemical from use. This, I note, cannot be done through the current IMAP process or the current act. We will use this framework to continue to assess those unassessed chemicals on the national inventory. The reforms also provide greater transparency for both industry and the public, with each assessment and evaluation undertaken by the regulator from 1 July 2018 being published on the regulator's website, providing all stakeholders with important risk and safety information. Every new listing on the inventory will be linked to its assessment statement, outlining any measures recommended to mitigate known risks. We will also track and report on the status of actions taken by the national and jurisdictional risk managers in relation to any risk management recommendations made by the regulator. This reporting will provide timely access to information, which will be of greater benefit to industry and the community. For business, the risk based approach to regulation will remove unnecessary regulatory burden and, along with improved IT systems, will provide the opportunity for industry to self-categorise lower risk chemicals against—and I state this—criteria that we, the regulator, establish. This will reduce costs for business and ultimately for consumers. It will also remove the barriers to introduction of cleaner and greener chemicals which would benefit the Australian community and environment. Higher risk chemicals will continue to be assessed by the regulator before they can enter commerce in Australia. Many Australians have expressed concerns about the welfare of animals and have called for a ban, like that seen internationally, on the use of animals when establishing the safety of cosmetics. At the same time, there is an international trend away from using animal testing for chemical research, including for ethical reasons. Developments in technology are enabling a reduction in reliance on animal testing as, for example, computer modelling becomes more sophisticated and reliable. As a result, very few industrial chemical introductions rely on animal test data to support assessments of risks to human health and safety or the environment. For this reason, the scheme established by this bill is specifically designed to not rely on animal test data except as a very last resort, where it's absolutely necessary to protect human health and the environment. I am pleased to say that these important pieces of legislation include the government's commitment to introduce a ban on the use of animal testing for cosmetics. As in Europe, the new scheme recognises that we must continue to protect Australian workers. Also as in Europe, the new scheme allows the limited use of data from animal tests for chemicals that have other industrial uses in addition to use in cosmetics. Since the bill was introduced, there have been some calls to extend the scope of the ban—to include chemicals with other industrial uses in addition to a cosmetic use. Amendments introduced by the opposition today promise to close some perceived loophole. But the amendments actually create loopholes. This is because they were written by people who have not sought to understand how the Australian regulatory system works. We have spoken to key animal justice organisations that are keen to be part of creating Australia's ban on the use of new animal test data to support the introduction of chemicals used as cosmetic ingredients. I thank all of them for working with us to get the best outcomes for animal welfare. The proposal from the opposition is not consistent with the regulatory framework in Europe and would place Australian industry at a disadvantage. Animal test data that are permitted for use in Europe for assessing multi-use chemicals could not be used here, even if the data showed risks to worker health and safety. This is not a regulatory arrangement that the government could support. Those proposed amendments will not result in an improvement in animal welfare outcomes and would likely result in some chemicals being considered of lower risk than would otherwise have been determined, which places human and environmental health at risk. Members may be interested to know that we received written confirmation just today from the European Chemicals Agency that Australia's proposed ban is consistent with that of the European Union. Industrial chemicals form a multibillion dollar international market in which Australia is both an importer and an exporter. This new scheme provides alignment with the schemes of Australia's trading partners, and greater acceptance of assessments made by comparable international regulators. This will support Australian industry to become more competitive internationally, providing not only jobs, which everyone wants, but safe jobs for Australian workers. The new scheme is a proportionate approach to the regulation of industrial chemicals that will promote innovation in Australia and incentivise the introduction of safer chemicals into Australia. The member for Makin referenced the huge number of jobs in Australia linked to the industrial chemicals sector. We have heard from key industry players that those jobs are at risk if Australia doesn't reduce the burden placed on the sector by our outdated regulation. This is apparent when we consider that other Western nations with markets far larger than Australia's are miles ahead of us in how they treat very low risk chemicals. The Australian community can be confident that Australia's high standard of protection of health and safety for people and the environment will be maintained in this new regulatory scheme. Thank you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Makin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. Question negatived. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Consideration in Detail 53 17:19 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 1 and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2 together. (1) Clause 103, page 88 (line 4), omit "for an end use solely in cosmetics", substitute "for an end use in cosmetics (whether or not that end use is the sole end use)". (2) Clause 103, page 88 (line 5), omit "may", substitute "must". (3) Clause 103, page 88 (line 10), after "2018", insert ", in relation to the end use of the industrial chemical in cosmetics,". (4) Clause 103, page 88 (after line 10), at the end of the clause, add: (3) Subsection (2) does not limit section 100. (5) Clause 168, page 137 (line 3), omit "for an end use solely in cosmetics", substitute "for an end use in cosmetics (whether or not that end use is the sole end use)". (6) Clause 168, page 137 (line 5), omit "requirement in subsection (2)", substitute "requirements in subsections (2) and (3)". (7) Clause 168, page 137 (lines 6 to 9), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) If: (a) the industrial chemical is to be introduced for an end use in cosmetics and one or more other end uses not in cosmetics; and (b) a single application under this Act relating to the introduction for each of those uses would include animal test data obtained from tests conducted on or after 1 July 2018; it is a requirement that separate applications must be made in respect of: (c) the introduction of the chemical for the end use in cosmetics; and (d) the introduction of the chemical for the end uses not in cosmetics. (3) It is a requirement that an application for the introduction of an industrial chemical for an end use in cosmetics must not include animal test data obtained from tests conducted on or after 1 July 2018 in circumstances prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this subsection. (1) Clause 96, page 80 (line 7) (table), after "category.", insert "An annual post‑introduction report must be given to the Executive Director to provide information about introductions of industrial chemicals in the exempted introductions category.". (2) Page 82 (after line 13), after clause 98, insert: 98A Post ‑introduction reports for exempted introductions (1) A person contravenes this subsection if: (a) the person introduces an industrial chemical during a registration year; and (b) the introduction is an exempted introduction; and (c) the introduction is the first exempted introduction of the industrial chemical by the person during the registration year; and (d) the person does not give the Executive Director a report in accordance with subsection (2) in relation to the exempted introduction within 4 months after the start of the last month of that registration year. (2) The report must: (a) be in the approved form; and (b) include the following information:    (i) the CAS name and CAS number for the industrial chemical;    (ii) the molecular formula for the industrial chemical (if defined);    (iii) the date of the exempted introduction;    (iv) the total volume of the industrial chemical introduced by the person during the registration year; and (c) contain any other information prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this paragraph for the type of exempted introduction. I appreciate the response the minister made to the House in the summing up of these bills. It is complicated legislation. I also thank the minister for the time he spent with me discussing many aspects of the bills. I don't accept all of the minister's explanations, and I made it clear in my address to the House why we still have some concerns. The first matter is the issue of both the IMAP process and the risk managers. I accept the letter that the minister sent to Catherine King, our shadow minister for health, and the commitments made by the minister and, through him, by the government in respect to the continuation of the IMAP process and how we will respond to the risk managers in terms of the assessments that were carried out and what actions resulted from them. We accept that and we thank the minister for his response. With respect to the exempted chemicals and the animal welfare data, we do still have some differences. Regardless of my personal view or those of any others who made submissions, the Parliamentary Library paper on this states: Record keeping requirements in the new scheme do not require introducers of chemicals to inform AICIS of which chemicals they have introduced in the ‘exempted introductions’ category (the lowest risk category), only whether they have introduced chemicals in this category. This means that there will be no complete Government record of the industrial chemicals introduced into Australia. I accept the minister's comments that this is currently not the case and that it wasn't in the previous scheme. We can learn from the previous scheme, which may not have been perfect. What we're saying is, as a result of having learnt from that scheme, let's make it better. Secondly, there will be many more chemicals under the new scheme that will go through the exempted pathway. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to say that the government ought to maintain a register of some kind that, at some stage, if necessary, it can refer to. It will also assist the director of the department, in the ordering of audits that he or she might feel appropriate, to know what is actually coming in. It's in the public interest—it's in the government's interest—to have that register maintained. I fail to understand—given the current reporting arrangements and the fact that all of the companies that will introduce the chemicals already have to maintain a register of those chemicals so that if they get audited they can produce those documents—why that same information cannot be provided to government. I suspect most people in the community would ask the same question. With respect to the animal welfare material, there is no reason we should put in place any particular system, whether it be the EU system or anyone else's, as the benchmark of what we should be aspiring to. I don't accept the minister's comments that this is the standard we should aspire to and that this legislation does that. What I say to the minister is that the policy now written into this legislation falls well short of the coalition's own election policy of 2016. Again, I quote the library paper: During the 2016 election campaign, the Coalition announced that, on re-election, it would implement a: … policy to ban the testing of finished cosmetic products on animals in Australia, the testing of cosmetic ingredients on animals in Australia and the sale of cosmetic products and ingredients that have been tested on animals outside of Australia. I believe this legislation does have a loophole, and whether it will be used or not we can only speculate, but it does have a loophole. What we're simply saying on this side of the House is that that loophole ought to be closed and it can be. I want to requote the statistics with respect to the number of chemicals that were brought into Australia in 2014-15 in the brief time I have: 4,269 chemicals were introduced solely for cosmetic use, with only three of those using animal test data; and for multiple uses, there were 2,889, with only 11 using animal test data. This affects a miniscule amount of introducers; so, therefore, why not close the loophole rather than leaving it open? The justification from the minister is simply not persuasive. I believe that what we're asking for is not unreasonable and, can I say, there are a lot of animal welfare supporters who would support our position on this. 17:25 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I would like to thank the member for Makin for his comments. Just a brief word about the current system and the exempt category. Many of the opponents who have formed this opinion were of the mistaken understanding that this is creating an exempt category. As I mentioned in my speech, there is already an exempt category where 97 per cent of the chemicals that come into Australia are in the exempt category. What happens under the current scheme, though, which this new scheme is going to replace, is that it's very subjective. The introducers decide what is classed as exempted. We have changed that. There are very strict, objective criteria—not subjective and under the control of the introducer, as in, 'Trust us, we know this will be safe.' The regulator, or the executive director, sets exact criteria that they have to match. Many of these are very low volume substances that are in research and development, and some of them have very safe profiles because they are established chemicals that are known to be very safe and they are meeting the criteria that the new scheme sets. The other comment that the member for Makin made is that we should make it better. Well, indeed, that is exactly the intention of this new objective set of criteria—to make the system better. Because no longer will they be able to just bring something in and say, 'Trust us.' In fact, if you look at some of the responses across the five community consultation papers, many of the industry people thought, 'You're making it harder for us.' As the member for Makin has told me in our six consultations—that's good, if you are getting pushback from industry. So, I am very confident that that exempt category will be a very tight category, and they will have to meet all those criteria. Then the second thing that's making it better is that the executive director has much more power to investigate, remove and assess immediately when there is any concern. Part of the system is currently very slow and laborious to get some intervention by NICNAS. For the regulatory and civil penalties, there are much stronger enforcement, investigation and assessment powers so that the community and the general public can be reassured that the regulation is tighter but it's proportionate to the risk. There's even a touch of paranoia in some of the comments that have been circulating in correspondence coming in and out of our office about the animal testing. That's the last thing I would like to make a comment on. This is a major improvement. Ninety-nine per cent of animal testing for cosmetics—going forward from 2018, if you are bringing in a chemical purely for cosmetics, it won't be allowed. However, in the 1 per cent of cases where it's really important to know that chemical which is used in multiple things—because not every product has one chemical in it, and most products have lots of chemicals, and it's very important for people who are exposed to chemicals. As I mentioned to the member for Makin, in my career as an industrial cleaner and a hospital cleaner I was exposed to hundreds of solvents and various industrial solutions that had very little product information. The jurisdictions have a place in this as well. It is a very robust system that we have. In an attempt to get absolute philosophical purity, those opposite are going to miss out on achieving a 99 per cent improvement and better regulation to prevent unnecessary testing on animals. This is better than jurisdictions across the Tasman Sea. As I mentioned, we have confirmation that we're in keeping with what they do in the European Union. We are as good as any other jurisdiction. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Bill agreed to.

The House divided. [17:34]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 70 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 Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD 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 Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA 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, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 56 17:40 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017 56

Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017

Second Reading 56 Third Reading 56 17:42 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2017 57

Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2017

Second Reading 57 Third Reading 57 17:44 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017 57

Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017

Second Reading 57 Third Reading 57 17:45 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017 57

Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017

Second Reading 57 Third Reading 57 17:46 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Industrial Chemicals Charges (Excise) Bill 2017 57

Industrial Chemicals Charges (Excise) Bill 2017

Second Reading 57 Third Reading 57 17:47 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Defence Legislation Amendment (Instrument Making) Bill 2017 58

Defence Legislation Amendment (Instrument Making) Bill 2017

Second Reading 58 17:47 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Labor supports the proposed amendments set out in the Defence Legislation Amendment (Instrument Making) Bill 2017. The bill amends both the Defence Act 1903 and the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 in relation to inquiries, defence aviation areas and public areas. The amendments do not make significant changes to Defence's current operations. They are intended to enhance them and to update the regulations and make them more flexible for our 21st century. The changes to the two acts will enable instruments created under these provisions to be remade, taking into account the updates that we talk about here today. First up, there are the sunsetting provisions. All legislative instruments are subject to the sunsetting provisions in the Legislative Instruments Act. Under those provisions, instruments that are not exempted will be automatically repealed after about 10 years unless action is taken to preserve them. In coming years, thousands of legislative instruments are due to sunset, and the amendments discussed in this bill will affect three legislative instruments that will sunset in April 2018 unless they're remade. These instruments are the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985, the Defence (Areas Control) Regulations 1989 and the Defence (Public Areas) By-Laws 1987. These amendments are intended to ensure the legislative instruments remain fit for purpose, necessary, relevant and flexible. As you can see, those two regulations and that set of by-laws are around 30 years old now, so this ensures that Defence can stay up to date with the latest developments and ensure that its regulations and by-laws reflect those. An honourable member interjecting— Ms BRODTMANN 30540 They are very proper and very fit for purpose. There are a significant number of inquiries that Defence can undertake—general courts of inquiry, boards of inquiry, Chief of the Defence Force commissions of inquiry and inquiry officer inquiries—that all perform a similar function, which is to assist commanders in the Defence Force to get accurate and relevant information in a timely manner to inform their decisions and actions. Similar procedures and powers apply to each of these types of inquiry. Given these similarities, the intention of the amendment bill is to remove the list of inquiry types and replace it with the general term 'an inquiry'. This consolidates the list and maintains the flexibility I mentioned before for the types of inquiries that have been undertaken previously to continue. It also creates the opportunity for a new inquiry type to be introduced, should the need arise, in the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations in the future. In addition, it means that an inquiry could be scaled to meet the circumstances of each inquiry, providing a level of tailoring that we haven't quite seen under the current framework. There are, however, some inquiries that will remain distinct from the consolidated definition of an inquiry, and these are some important ones. They include inquiries conducted by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. Next are the Defence aviation areas. There are currently 12 declared Defence aviation control areas across Australia. These are areas that Defence has jurisdiction over. There are a range of them—from memory, East Sale is one of them and Pearce is another—and Defence shares a number of these aviation areas with its civilian counterparts. Although it is a civilian jurisdiction, similar regulations for the safety of the aviation area apply. The regulations maintain the safety of the aviation area by limiting building heights, prohibiting some items being brought into area and making arrangements to deal with hazardous objects, whether they're within or outside the area. Hazardous objects could be anything that may be dangerous to aviation or aviation communications—for example, an overhanging crane arm that impedes the aviation area or a smoke plume from back-burning on an adjacent industrial area. The proposed amendments in this area do not change the existing regulations; they just give them a bit of backbone when it comes to enforcement. One of the amendments clarifies the existing regulatory power when it comes to taking action to remove or reduce existing hazards to aviation or aviation communications by stating action may be taken no matter the nature of the hazard or the nature of the action required in removing or reducing it. Existing Defence operations show that actions are generally taken as a last resort when other means—for example, other means for communicating with the owner of the crane—have failed. It is the responsibility of authorised persons, such as inspectors for Defence aviation areas, to undertake necessary actions when it comes to identifying and taking action to remove or reduce the hazard. Under the current regulations, authorised persons are limited to the secretary of the department and the CDF. This bill will allow the function of an inspector for an aviation area to be appointed from the Public Service in Defence or from the ADF, as well as from a number of one-star or SES ranks through the ADF and the Public Service. Finally, there are currently two public areas that have been declared on Defence land—the Beecroft public area in New South Wales and the Garden Island public area in Western Australia. These areas are national parks and there's a strong interest in preserving access to the community for recreational purposes. But public access needs to be balanced with Defence use of the land for exercises. Defence continues to use the land in the public areas for military exercises from time to time. This means members of the public who are using the area would need to be moved on at these times for their own safety. Defence has indicated there are times when members of the public refuse to move, so that requires some assistance from the local police. To help address this, the bill proposes the introduction of an infringement notice scheme. Infringement notices would be issued by a ranger in circumstances where people have refused to comply with a direction to move on from the area. Defence has indicated it is not expected that a significant number of infringement notices would be issued; however, it is intended to provide a necessary deterrent. The proposed changes in this bill are not comprehensive; they simply consolidate and clarify existing governance arrangements and bring them up to date—because some of them are 30 years old—in relation to Defence inquiries, aviation areas and public areas. I commend the bill to the House. 17:55 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper It is my great privilege to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Instrument Making) Bill 2017 and to commend the member for Canberra for her very fine contribution to this debate. I would like to thank honourable members for participating in the debate. The proposed bill will amend instrument-making powers in the Defence Act 1903 to ensure that, when remaking certain instruments made under the Defence Act in the future, the instruments can reflect modern policy requirements and approaches to drafting. As outlined during the debate, there are several instruments made under the Defence Act which are scheduled to sunset in April 2018, including the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985, the Defence (Areas Control) Regulations 1989, and the Defence (Public Areas) By-Laws 1987. These instruments deal with important subject matters, and it will be necessary to remake them in some form before they sunset. Where possible, the intention is to improve the instruments by consolidating like provisions, improving consistency and making some amendments to enhance their operation. The proposed amendments to the Defence Act will ensure that there is clear authority to remake the content of the instruments as intended. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I thank the minister for his contribution and summing up. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 59 17:56 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, First Home Super Saver Tax Bill 2017 59

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

First Home Super Saver Tax Bill 2017

Second Reading 59 17:58 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I was saying before the debate was interrupted that the Labor Party will strongly oppose the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill because it represents a fundamental undermining of Australia's superannuation system. It is in breach of the government's own proposed superannuation objective and it will make housing affordability worse, not better, by pushing up demand and overinflating prices, through people accessing their superannuation, and, for those strong reasons, the Labor Party will oppose this bill. There are also matters of technical difficulty with this bill, which the government has failed to explain. For example, we are told by the government that it is only voluntary contributions that can be accessed under this scheme. But what the government hasn't explained is how those voluntary contributions will be kept separate in superannuation, particularly in the perhaps unlikely but certainly not unthinkable and unfortunate event—it has happened in relatively recent history—that superannuation accounts shrink in a downturn, that people actually have less money in their account. Which part of that account would be able to be accessed? What was voluntary? What was compulsory? How would it be separated? At the very least, it introduces another significant layer of complexity to our superannuation system, which would best be avoided. There is no policy case for this approach. There's no evidence to support it. On the contrary, many commentators have pointed out the folly of the government's approach here. The government is also being incompetent in its implementation. You might be shocked to learn this, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, but I follow the Treasurer on Facebook. He's a Facebook friend of mine and, for my sins, I see what he has to say on Facebook. I noticed on 1 July that he was out there spruiking that this scheme was wonderful, that it was available and that young people should access it. It might not have escaped you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but today is 17 October and we are debating now a scheme that he was spruiking back on 1 July. It was not the law of the land when he was on Facebook encouraging people to be taking advantage of it. In fact, the ATO said in response to a media inquiry, 'We urge caution for people in making their arrangements based on legislation which has not passed either house of the parliament.' At that stage it hadn't been introduced. So the Treasurer has some explaining to do as to why he was out there misleading people, encouraging people to access a scheme which, at that point, did not exist and may well never exist. It may well not pass the parliament. I dare say it will be pass this House, but it will not necessarily pass the other house because it will not get our support. We will certainly be talking to the crossbenchers about why we believe they should be opposing it. Then I hope that the Treasurer might go back and delete his little 1 July Facebook post encouraging people to participate in a scheme which did not exist then and might not exist going forward. That is typical of the Treasurer—all talk. He is out there operating his spin machine but not engaging in the policy work and the substance. The second measure in the bill is about contributing the proceeds of downsizing to superannuation. I will say at the outset that there is a legitimate policy issue here at its heart. Enabling people—and we are talking overwhelmingly about older Australians here—to more easily downsize their home is something that is a legitimate area for governments to examine. Older people who have raised a family—a large family, potentially—in a large house and no longer have the family on their hands don't necessarily want the big backyard and big house to maintain but feel they will be penalised if they do downsize. Of course, that is housing stock which could be available. I will make it very, very clear that no older Australian should feel under any obligation or pressure to downsize if they are comfortable in their community and happy to stay in their family home. Of course that not only is their perfect right but should be celebrated. Their continuing ability to live in that house should be celebrated. But if they would downsize if it weren't for the interaction of downsizing with government policy then that is something governments can examine. We in office had a pilot program to look at this. The government abolished that. Now they are coming back late to the party, as is often the case in this policy space of the Treasury portfolio. They are coming very late to the party, saying, 'We think there might be a problem here.' A former Minister for Mental Health and Ageing is at the table. He was intimately involved in dealing in a very considered way with Labor's policy approach. Labor looked at the interaction of downsizing with the pension. Labor looked at people on low and middle incomes who might consider the need to downsize. The government have taken a different approach. They are concentrating on the superannuation side of things, proposing to allow people aged 65 or over to make a non-concessional contribution of up to $300,000 from the process of selling their home. These contributions would be exempt from the age test, work test and the $1.6 million balance test for non-concessional contributions. This measure would overwhelmingly impact on people at the highest end of the spectrum when it comes to savings, not people who are concerned about the interaction with the age pension. I do freely acknowledge this is a complex policy area and one on which we should be proceeding carefully. But it is a legitimate area for governments to examine. The government's proposal is not one that we think is the best way forward. I must say that this isn't our primary reason for opposing this legislation. Indeed, if the government wanted to split it out, we would engage in good faith with them and consider how a downsizing measure could best be progressed. We don't think the government's model here is the right one, but we do acknowledge that there are legitimate things for the government of the day to be examining when it comes to downsizing. I do note that we asked the Treasurer some questions on notice about this measure. We found that the Treasurer did not have an estimate of how many households would be expected to downsize as a result of the measure, or the assumed increase in the effective supply of housing that the measure was expected to generate. I'm not sure how the government can make many claims about reducing pressure on housing affordability, as it does in the title of this bill. But, as I said, if we were in a position where the bill was defeated and the government wanted to come back and talk to the opposition about downsizing measures, we would entertain those discussions and the government's proposed response and consider the best way forward. But what we make very clear is our strong and strident opposition to undermining superannuation. What we will fight in this House and the other house is this government's repeated attempts to unpick and unwind the hard-fought advances in retirement incomes that have been achieved overwhelmingly, universally, by this side of the House on the introduction of compulsory universal superannuation in the 1990s. What we will oppose are measures dressed up as housing affordability measures that will make the situation worse. I move: That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “The House declines to give the bill and related bill a second reading as: (1) the First Home Super Saver Scheme will do nothing to address housing affordability but will instead work to undermine Australia’s world class superannuation system; and (2) any housing affordability package that does not include reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax is a sham”. It is a sham, and this policy is a joke. The government has a damp squib of a so-called housing affordability package, which is a grab-bag of ill-thought-out ideas, thought bubbles and half-baked proposals. It is an attempted alibi for real reform to negative gearing and capital gains tax, which that side of the House is incapable of delivering and which this side of the House, if we win the next election, will do. I can feel the member for Port Adelaide champing at the bit to second my second reading amendment, which I commend to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Butler HWK I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for McMahon has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 18:07 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie It's great to be able to rise today, and it gives me great pleasure, to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 and the First Home Super Saver Tax Bill 2017. In the May 2017 federal budget, Treasurer Scott Morrison outlined a number of measures to help improve our national property market. Two of those proposed amendments were the First Home Super Saver Scheme and reducing barriers to downsizing. The First Home Super Saver Scheme will allow first home owners to get ahead. It'll give them a great opportunity. It saddens me to hear the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, come into this place and say the opposition won't support it. This man is supposed to be the shadow Treasurer of this nation, and there was not one good reason in his speech for not supporting this bill. This bill will help young people who haven't bought their first home to get ahead and to keep more of their own cash. Those members opposite should be ashamed of themselves if they don't support this bill. They're just the blind leading the blind. This is good policy. This will help people in every one of our electorates. The member for McMahon is totally wrong, and I would say that he lies when he says that it undermines Australian super. He lies. Mr Bowen DZS There are limits, Mr Deputy Speaker! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I agree. Can I ask you to withdraw, please, member for Petrie. Mr HOWARTH 247742 I withdraw. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Thank you. Mr HOWARTH 247742 I say that the truth is being stretched considerably when the member for McMahon says that the coalition is undermining Australian super. It is just not true—just not true—and not one thing that that man said, as he walks out of the chamber now, made any sense at all. This policy is good policy for Australians wanting to buy their first home. I will come back to that. I want to express my enthusiasm for this amendment, because in my opinion it addresses the biggest barrier that young Australians face when buying their first home, and that is the deposit. That's the biggest barrier that they face—getting together that deposit for their first home. With low interest rates, and house repayments in many cases just a bit higher than rent, now is a good time to buy. If we're able to help Australians secure their deposit, I say that that is a win for first home buyers. Importantly, the First Home Super Saver Scheme isn't a handout, a free ride or a new tax. It's not a new tax. It's a commonsense economic policy that helps young people keep more of their own money. This is their money. I say to every member of this House and to every senator: we are talking here in this bill about these people keeping their own money. All this bill does is stop the Australian government taking a greater share of tax, so that people can keep their money for a deposit on their own home. What's the matter with that? There's nothing the matter with that. It's good policy. It'll help young people in my electorate of Petrie and in Oxley and right around this country. It really will. I'd hoped that the opposition, the Labor Party, would support it, and it's really disappointing that the shadow Treasurer isn't, but without one decent argument at all—nothing. He says, 'Well, how would you separate it?' Quite simply, you could put it straight into cash into your super saver scheme. This does not touch employer contributions—not at all. This is additional salary sacrifice money that goes in and is taxed at a lower rate of 15 per cent, as opposed to the 32½c minimum for anyone earning between $37,000 and $87,000 a year. It does not undermine Australian super at all. And I will come back to why I believe in super. Let me read this case study. This could be anyone in any one of our electorates or any one of our states. Lisa earns $60,000 per year and wants to buy her first home. She salary-sacrifices $10,000 of her pre-tax income into her superannuation account, increasing her balance by $8,500, because it's taxed at 15 per cent. If she put it into her Commonwealth savings account, she'd end up with $6,750, at 32½c. Straight up, Lisa is doing better. After three years, she is able to withdraw $27,380, which is three contributions of $8,500 plus deemed earnings. Her withdrawal is taxed at a marginal rate, less a 30 per cent offset. After paying $1,620 in withdrawal tax, she has $25,760 that she can use for her first home deposit. By putting money into her superannuation account through a voluntary—voluntary—salary sacrifice commitment of her own money, not touching employer contributions, Lisa has saved $6,240 more for a deposit than if she had saved in a standard deposit account. But the shadow Treasurer doesn't support this bill. It's just outrageous. If Lisa's partner, Todd, decides to salary-sacrifice exactly the same amount of his wage, they end up with $12,480 more of their own money than if they'd put it into a bank account. But the shadow Treasurer doesn't support it, and we will hear that from every one of the Labor members who get up to speak and who won't be offering this to people in their electorates. I will be going back to Petrie and talking to young couples and saying, 'You know what? I want you to keep 12,000 bucks, between the two of you, of your own money. I don't want you to give it to me and the government; this is your money. It's a lower tax rate for you to get into your first home.' By moving first home deposits into their superannuation accounts, individuals, as well, will not be tempted to dip into their savings for an impulse buy or a quick getaway. It's a forced way of saving—a voluntary forced way of saving. Funds will be allowed to be withdrawn only for the primary purpose of purchasing their first home. So it's a great voluntary scheme for those who want to save for a deposit to do so. There is concern that the average age for first home ownership is increasing, but I think we also have to correlate this data with having a partner and getting married at a later time, for many people. My mum and dad married when they were 21 and 19, so they bought their home when very young. I didn't get married until I was 27—I did it a bit older. Nowadays, we see a lot more people in their 30s settling down with their partner or marriage partner. So people are getting older before buying. I was lucky enough to have a good financial mentor in my father. And do you know what? In relation to superannuation—and this is why I take great exception to what the member for McMahon says when he comes into this place—when I was 19 my father encouraged me to put $50 a month away into a super account. I said, 'What do I want to do that for?' I think I was earning $250 or $280 a week at the time—whatever the minimum wage was back then. He encouraged me to put away $50 a month. I was living at home, so I thought: okay, let's do it. But the point is that I had $600 a year extra in my super and after 10 years I had another $6,000, plus compound interest. This man comes in here and says that we don't support super. My family supports super. My father and mother support super. I support super. The member for Oxley should stop interjecting and just grow a brain! He's got a big mouth on him. He comes into this place mouthing off all the time. Just be quiet and stick up for the first home buyers in your electorate, mate. Let them keep their own money, instead of you wanting to grab it. We know that Labor always wants to tax higher. I recently did a Facebook video with Steph from Ubiquitous Realty, a young woman in my electorate who bought her first home at 21. She is now 27. She has great tips for Australians buying their first home. She said, 'Have a goal—if that is what you want to do. Talk to a mortgage broker and don't overcapitalise. You don't have to spend $500,000 on your first home. You can buy a fixer-upper up for $350,000. No problem. That way you are not paying as much in interest and repayments.' It is great advice from her. I will tell you that the Super Saver Scheme for first home buyers will really benefit people in Queensland and people in South Australia, where property is a little bit cheaper than in, say, Victoria and New South Wales. I jumped on realestate.com.au and looked for a three-bedroom, one-bathroom house in my electorate. I found 2 Cater Street, Brackenridge on offer now for $360,000; 13 Chamomile St, Griffin—$389,000; 557 Anzac Ave, Rothwell—$319,000; 19 Knights Terrace, Margate—$360,000; and 2 Cornwall St, Deception Bay—$299,000. Sold! Mate, if you were a first home buyer, $299,000, and this scheme, will give a young couple $12,000 between the two of them, which is additional money over three years that would normally be given to the federal government. All we are doing is allowing them to keep it in their own pocket and get their deposit together. I say that we are mugs if we don't support this. If members of parliament and senators don't support it, they are mugs, because we are allowing first home owners to get ahead. It does not dip into the superannuation savings that employers contribute—the 9.5 per cent, or whatever it is, that employers contribute. It can be put into cash, so it's separate and ready to be used when they want it. We are not the only ones saying this will be of benefit. I talked about Stephanie from Ubiquitous Real Estate. Andrew Reibelt from RealWay Property in Redcliffe also said it's a great idea. Corelogic, a financial services company, said, 'First home buyers will be better off with the First Home Super Saver Scheme.' And Dixon Advisory is calling for bipartisan support for passing the First Home Super Saver Scheme legislation to give certainty to first home buyers. Australians are sick of this parliament not giving bipartisan support for a lot of issues. For the members opposite not to support it is really disappointing. Don't follow your leaders on this issue—talk to them. It is not too late to vote yes on this issue. It's good policy and it won't weaken superannuation. It won't weaken industry super funds or any type of superannuation; it will benefit and give people a leg-up. I'm not going to criticise the policies of those opposite. They want to reduce negative gearing and everything else, which I think will encourage more people to positively gear and will push up rents, for those who can least afford it, in places like Deception Bay. That's fine; you can implement that policy, but don't stop this one that gives people a leg-up now to get a deposit for their first home. It just shows that this shadow Treasurer is really just playing politics on this issue. It's very disappointing. I will quickly touch as well on the government's proposed scheme for reducing barriers to downsizing. It will help free up larger homes for more growing families. They might not be first-home buyers; they might be families getting into their second or third home, if they've moved. But for those aged over 65 and who would like to move into a smaller apartment they will be given flexibility, by the Turnbull government, to contribute up to $300,000 per person from the sale of their home as a non-concessional contribution into their superannuation. That's great news. That means a couple from Scarborough, in my electorate, are able to sell their family home worth a million dollars and purchase a flat or a smaller home and put the difference into their super account. I just think this is really good policy. I would encourage every member and senator not to listen to those negative people opposite but to say it's okay for young Australians to keep more of their own money, to not pay as much tax if they haven't bought their first home, to put it into their super. It doesn't weaken superannuation in any way. I say to those opposite who get up and say that it does: it's clearly wrong. Read the bill. It also gives a great opportunity for older Australians who want to downsize to put extra non-concessional contributions straight into their superannuation, over and above current limits. That is good news for them, too, freeing up extra stock for growing families. I support this bill wholeheartedly and I, once again, encourage all members of the coalition to support this bill, all members of the Labor Party to support this bill, and all Independents and crossbenchers to support this bill. 18:22 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I don't know where to start, with the member for Petrie. Not only have we now confirmed he is an apologist for the big banks, an apologist for the multinational companies who he wants to give big tax cuts to; now the evidence he's presented to rip off people with their superannuation, to push up prices, is—his big evidence—we've got to look after real estate agents as real estate agents need defence. I've heard it all, that, somehow, his defence and the government's defence is all about getting people into the home market and protecting superannuation. I thought I'd better check what the industry is saying about this, what the experts are saying about it. I'm not sure if the member for Petrie read the submissions to the draft legislation and the submissions. I didn't read a lot of support for the government's legislation from experts. There were, of course, the real estate agents the member for Petrie is desperate to look after, not working people in his own electorate. When I read the submission from Industry Super Australia, they said about this bill, this great body of work, that the first-home super saver scheme potentially exacerbates the housing affordability problem; it also undermines the goal of the superannuation system as a provider of adequate retirement income. Mr Howarth 247742 It doesn't touch their super; the employer's contribution isn't touched. Mr DICK 53517 I will take the interjection, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Petrie indicated in his speech he has spoken to real estate agents who are quite happy about prices being inflated as a result of this policy, but the superannuation companies, the experts, are wrong. But somehow we'll listen to the member for Petrie talk about his extensive consultation with real estate agents and how they love this policy. So you're right—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the member for Petrie—I will be telling constituents in his electorate and every other electorate in Queensland, Australia, that the key objective from the government, courtesy of the member for Petrie, is that we have to look after real estate agents. Not on my watch! We oppose the measures in these bills— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Is there a point of order from the member for Petrie? Mr Howarth 247742 I seek to make an intervention. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Member for Oxley, you can accept the intervention if you wish. Mr DICK 53517 Of course; I'm not afraid of any question. Mr Howarth 247742 The member for Oxley just said that this would push up prices. Real estate agents did not address that with me at all. Real estate agents said that it would address the deposit issue for first home buyers. When I consulted with real estate agents, it was nothing to do with pushing up prices for real estate; it was to do with getting together a deposit for the first home buyers that they see, because the deposit is the biggest barrier for young people, and these bills helps them keep their own money. Mr DICK 53517 I wish there was a question about what I was saying, but, unfortunately, I'm happy to take the intervention, which was really a rant, as furthering my point that the member for Petrie is interested in defending real estate agents. Nonetheless, we will be opposing these bills for very sound reasons—they do undermine superannuation, and they will push up costs in the housing market. We know that our superannuation is the envy of the world. If there was ever an example of how the Liberal and National parties in this place, since the beginning of the great labour reform which is superannuation in the modern economy—the example given by the member for Petrie shows that he clearly doesn't support superannuation, just as his own party has not supported superannuation over the last couple of decades. I want to refer to the then Treasurer, John Dawkins. When we introduced the superannuation guarantee administration bill, he said: The superannuation guarantee levy represents another major step forward in the development of retirement incomes policy. It will lay the foundation for income security and higher standards of living in retirement for future generations… Before these reforms came in and before there had been attempts to undermine them by those opposite, there was no guaranteed income for seniors in our community. It was something out of reach for most working people in this country, and it was a reform bitterly, bitterly opposed by those opposite. At the time, members spoke in this parliament saying, 'The whole sorry saga that we've seen repeated here this morning has convinced me more than ever that this approach to helping people provide for their retirement is completely wrong and entirely misguided.' These bills undermine modern-day superannuation. We know that the government does not believe in the integrity of the system of compulsory super. In my opinion, it is not in their DNA. As self-evidenced by the introduction of these bills, they will look for any opportunity to weaken—not strengthen; weaken!—our system of superannuation. This is a government attempting to set the precedent that Australia's $2.3 trillion in retirement savings can be accessed for something other than retirement income. It goes against the core objective of superannuation. I want to reflect on what the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services said when she introduced the Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2016 to the House, as recommended by David Murray. This is what she said last year: …there has never been a clear, legislated objective for superannuation. This has meant that it has been too easy for different governments to make ad hoc changes to the superannuation system—and, ultimately, undermine confidence in it. That's what your own minister said about superannuation. So what are you doing today? It is the complete opposite of what your own minister indicated when she brought that legislation about superannuation into this place. Let's not forget: this is the third attempt by the government to somehow do something. I give it to the government: this is doing something, even though I'm bitterly opposed to it and mainstream Australia is bitterly opposed to it, apart from the real estate agents, who are delighted that this policy could become law. The then Treasurer, Joe Hockey, talked about how to deal with housing affordability and said, 'You should just get a better job.' Then the Prime Minister of this country, when asked on radio about how to get into the housing market, floated the idea of getting rich parents. Now we're debating a bill before this House today which is about undermining superannuation and ultimately pushing up the costs of housing for people who will not be able to afford to enter the housing market. It's tough now; why is this government making it harder? We know this bill has been a long time coming. We know from listening to the shadow Treasurer today that we saw the current Treasurer announce through social media in July that this was the panacea to deal with housing affordability in this country—apart from the fact that housing industry experts have said that this does absolutely nothing to deal with supply. We know that from reading through the submissions and doing background checks for this bill. Again, Industry Super Australia says: … the main risk is that the measure could be used as a Trojan horse by some future government with the scope extended to allow higher withdrawal amounts and the possibility that Superannuation Guarantee balances might be included. So the industry has real problems with these bills. They have been ill thought out. You only need to read the coverage of the government's policy that we're debating today, not just consulting with real estate agents and seeing their happy faces: The 'big risk' in the budget's first-home saver accounts 'First-time buyers led up garden path' That will just simply aggravate the problem … 'Academics and industry express concern' I think it was a drop in the ocean … Where's the body of evidence, besides the litany of real estate agents that the member for Petrie has provided? I'm looking forward to members of the government indicating where the expert advice surrounding this legislation lies. What actual input says that, as a result of this legislation, housing prices will drop and housing supply will increase? We know it won't do either of those things. It will increase housing prices and undermine superannuation. That is why Labor will not support it. I support the shadow Treasurer's amendment, because if we're dealing with affordability and supply, I, alongside my colleagues, am proud to support the policies of a future Shorten Labor government, if we are privileged to serve in this nation, to see a tax cut given to people entering the housing market—not to people buying their seventh or eighth house. How on earth in anyone's language is that fair? I know when I speak to local families and parents in particular that people are worried about their kids getting into the housing market. I represent a high-growth corridor in the south-west of Brisbane, through suburbs like Springfield, Springfield Lakes, Collingwood Park and Bellbird Park, where terrific new housing is being developed and great infrastructure is being provided across all levels of government. We could do with some more, but when you represent a fast-growing community—and I'm privileged in this place to represent one of the fastest growing communities in Australia—parents come to me and say: 'Will our daughter or son ever be able to enter the housing market? Will they ever be able to see a clear path for their having the great Australian dream of owning their own home?' Mr Howarth 247742 Support this bill and help them get a deposit. Mr DICK 53517 I've just heard from the member for Petrie, who says, 'They just need to get a deposit.' If only it were that simple. I will tell my residents that the government's answer is, once again, confirmed by the member for Petrie, 'Just get a deposit.' If only dreams could come true! If only those unicorns walking around could wave their wands and say, 'You have a magical deposit.' Of course no-one believes the utter rubbish of members opposite when they come to this parliament about housing affordability. They have done nothing, as they now enter their fifth year of government, besides wanting to raid Australia's superannuation. That's their one solution to dealing with the housing affordability crisis in this country. We listen to stakeholders in the superannuation industry and look to people in the housing industry, not just the real estate agents. The real estate agents are really keen for this policy to go forward—I understand that and I understand that they've got an industry and businesses to run. But we represent middle and working Australians, who are crying out for leadership and simply don't believe the spin and the nonsense that comes from the government about raiding superannuation. The government are undermining retirement income and retirement savings policies for a short-term fix that, ultimately, will lead to a dramatic increase in housing costs. If the government is serious about wanting support and if they're serious about tackling this issue, they will look at the issue of negative gearing and capital gains tax. It is that simple. We have to have that conversation in the community. Time and time again we have been calling on the government to listen to what the community wants and to listen to what experts are saying in the housing market: instead of dealing with giving a tax break to people who perhaps are lucky enough to be buying their seventh, eighth, ninth or 10th property, we should be looking at those people entering the housing market. What does this bill achieve? It undermines our system of superannuation in this country and does nothing for housing affordability. I believe it is a serious backward step. For those reasons, I will be joining with my colleagues and advocating with members of the Senate to not pass this bill, to not undermine Australia's superannuation, and to make sure that this government finally takes a step towards dealing with the housing affordability crisis in this country. 18:37 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017. Housing is much more than just having a roof over one's head. It is a basic and essential right that every Australian should have access to. There are three basic essentials for human existence: food, water, and shelter. It is very, very basic. Access to shelter, or lack thereof, is a stressor that often leads to unemployment, substance abuse and mental ill health. I would have thought those opposite would consider that these are very important issues. I think we are all of a like mind in recognising that these are important issues, but this government is seeking to do something about them. I recently had the very great privilege of representing the government on a mental health tour to Europe over the last couple of weeks. I went to England, the Netherlands, Sweden and Canada with a member of the opposition—a member of the other place—and also a Greens senator. We looked at mental health and best practice for research and clinical treatment of those suffering from mental health problems. One of the most common issues that arose in relation to mental health was a lack of affordable housing. There are thousands of people living homeless in Australia. I can say, with a degree of unfortunate comfort, that there are many, many times that number of people who are living rough and sleeping rough around the world. I recently had an opportunity to take part in the Vinnies corporate sleep out, and I'm sure a number of my colleagues here did as well. I joined the member for Fairfax and the member for Wide Bay and we slept rough for just one night. Admittedly it was only one night, but, from the perspective of my back, it was one night too many! I was asked by many people why I did it and what I learnt from it, and the answer was very simple. For me, it is: don't become homeless. That's very easy for me to say, of course. There are many people around our country who are sleeping rough and living on the streets. Being homeless isn't just about sleeping on the street on a piece of cardboard. There are thousands of people in Australia who couch surf. There are thousands of people in Australia who sleep in cars. This government is committed to doing what it can to ensure that we look after our most disadvantaged. This issue recently hit home in my own Catholic parish of Stella Maris only a few weeks ago when one of our local homeless people found one of his homeless friends dead in our parish church grounds. We all asked: 'How could this happen on the Sunshine Coast? How could this happen in our very own parish church grounds?' Brett was a 31-year-old dad whose life had taken a turn for the worse. It is a tragic story that is repeated all too often right around this country. I recently had the privilege of inviting the Assistant Treasurer, Michael Sukkar, to my electorate on 13 April. We held a housing summit. I want to acknowledge the participants of that group. We had: Paul Bidwell, who is the Deputy CEO of Master Builders Queensland; Deb Blakeney, who is the CEO of Lions inPlace; Kelli Dendle from CHASM; Andrew Elvin, who is the CEO of the Coast2Bay Housing Group; Llew Gartrell, who is from Stockland; Helen Glanville from Coast2Bay; Wendy Gleeson from Sunshine Coast Council as the senior social policy adviser there; Shane Goodwin, the Managing Director of HIA; Tony Long, who heads up an affordable housing company; John McNamara, who is a finance broker; Joy Morwood, who is the manager of Sunshine 60 & Better; Shane O'Brien from Vantage Homes; Ben Simpson from Stockland; and Warwick Temby from HIA. So they were people from all walks of life involved in the housing industry in one way, shape or form, whether as a builder or as a community housing group. We met with the Assistant Treasurer and we thrashed it out. Bear in mind this was back in April, prior to the budget. We thrashed it out. We had a session on what the government could do to try to alleviate housing pressures. One of the many things that came out of those discussions was that one particular group that gets forgotten about when we talk about the homeless and disadvantaged are women who have often gone through a divorce and are in their 60s, often having stopped work. This particular category or age group of people find it very hard to re-enter the workplace. Often after a divorce they're left with nothing and they cannot even afford to rent a home on the Sunshine Coast. This really struck home to me as a result of this housing summit that we held with Michael Sukkar. I want to thank in particular Joy Morwood from Sunshine 60 & Better for opening my eyes to this particular problem with this demographic. I will turn now to the bill. I know I made a long segue there, but it was very important that I gave it that context. This bill is unlikely to stop homelessness, but what it will do is help Australians, among other things, to purchase their first home. It will enable retirees over 65 to downsize their home and take advantage of the sale of their home, and I will come to that shortly. It will enable the better targeting of deductions relating to residential and investment properties, and it will boost the availability of rental accommodation on the market through a foreign resident vacancy tax. The first aspect of this bill I would like to address is the First Home Super Saver Scheme. Many of us have kids who are in the age group that is having trouble saving a deposit to buy a home. Three of my four daughters are in this age group, and I really wonder whether they will ever own their own home. Under schedule 1 of this bill, the government will help Australians boost their deposit savings for their first home by allowing them to save for a deposit inside superannuation through the First Home Super Saver Scheme. From 1 July 2017, individuals can make contributions of up to $30,000, with up to $15,000 per year, to their super account. Despite what some members opposite have said, this is in relation to voluntary contributions. It is not in relation to the 9½ per cent that their employers put in their account. The First Home Super Saver Scheme enables people to put additional money, up to $30,000 over two years, into their super. This is not an attack on superannuation. This is a mechanism that enables people to put additional money into their superannuation account, which they can then take out. These voluntary contributions, along with deemed earnings, can be withdrawn for a deposit, with withdrawals taxed at the individual's marginal rates less a 30 per cent offset. Under the First Home Super Saver Scheme, most people will be able to supercharge their deposit saving by around 30 per cent, compared with saving through a standard deposit account—and that's very important. The second issue I want to address is that of reducing barriers to downsizing. Under this bill, older Australians will be incentivised. When the time is right, people aged over 65 will be able to sell the family home that they have held for more than 10 years and make a non-concessional contribution of up to $300,000 into their super funds. If the property is owned by a couple, each of them can take advantage of this, which equates to $600,000. Far from being an attack on superannuation, this is a vehicle where older Australian couples can put $600,000 into their super accounts. Imagine the impact putting $600,000 into people's superannuation account will have. That will quite possibly set them up for the rest of their lives. This measure will help free up housing stock for younger families. I'm not an economist, but, applying the simple rule of supply and demand, more stock, more supply, equals downward pressure on pricing. It seems to me to be a fairly simple concept. The third issue I want to raise is that of the vacant property tax. Under this bill, the government will implement an annual vacancy charge on foreign owners of residential real estate where a property is not occupied or available for rent for at least six months of the year. We've all heard stories—each of us in this chamber has heard stories—of international buyers buying up, usually off the plan, units and townhouses and then land-banking them, for want of a better term. They don't put anybody in them; they just land-bank them. Now, that has a drastic impact on the price of housing. It forces housing prices up. Worse still, it makes it more and more difficult for our most disadvantaged Australians to be able to rent units—which is what they usually are, but they could be any type of residential real estate. Now, that's a crying shame. It's criminal that we have got international buyers buying Australian real estate and then locking out Australians, some of whom are our most disadvantaged, from even having the capacity to rent those properties. This vacant property tax will be a disincentive for these international investors to do that. Once again, this will make more homes available for rent. It is supply and demand: the more houses that are available for rent, the greater the pressure on rents, and that can only be a good thing. The last issue I want to touch on in relation to this bill are the travel expense deduction and plant equipment deductions. From 1 July 2017, the government will no longer allow tax-deductible claims for travel expenses, and it will limit plant and equipment depreciation deductions to new assets only. We've all seen the situation where people have claimed interstate trips, even overseas trips, to inspect their properties, and that's very unfortunate. This law will ensure that property investors can no longer take advantage of those provisions. This will strengthen the integrity of our tax system, and I would have thought that those opposite would have supported it. I support this bill and I commend it to the House. 18:52 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I'm speaking in opposition to these bills, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 and the First Home Super Saver Tax Bill 2017, and I want to point out from the outset that the bills contain two measures. The first one allows contributions into superannuation accounts—with concessional treatment in terms of tax—to be later withdrawn for a home deposit. That aspect is opposed by Labor. The second measure is one which allows those over 65 the opportunity to make non-concessional contributions of up to $300,000 from the proceeds of the sale of a home and not be disadvantaged in terms of their treatment associated with the pension and other government payments. That is a measure that Labor is open to considering. In fact, Labor did a similar thing when we were in government, and the Abbott government, when they were elected, cancelled it. So here they are bringing back a measure similar to what they cancelled in the past, which doesn't make any sense. But, because they are coupling it with this disastrous proposal in respect of superannuation, Labor and I are unable to support this reform going forward. This really is a weak response to what is a huge issue for many Australians at the moment, and that is not being able to afford to purchase or rent a home, particularly in the community that they grew up in. In the electorate that I represent, Kingsford Smith, people are waking up to household prices that literally rise every day. In the last three years, from 2014 to 2017, the price of homes in the suburb of Malabar, just around the corner from where I live, have grown by a whopping 46 per cent to an average of $2 million, adding $635,000 to their value. That equates to an increase of $580 in the value of that property every single day—every single day. It's not confined to that suburb; it's occurring everywhere in the electorate that I represent. Up the road, in Coogee, the average price has increased by $592 every single day to just under $2.4 million. Particularly in the last five years, property has become so expensive that many young people in our community fear that they'll never be able to afford to buy their own home and be close to family and social support networks, and that is a great shame, because, in my view and in Labor's view, access to housing is not a privilege; it's a human right. Governments and the people of this country, given the high living standards that we enjoy and the wealth of the nation, should be able to provide reasonable and affordable housing for its citizens. And it's not occurring at the moment, because this government is unwilling to do what is necessary to tackle the issue of housing affordability and the distortions in the housing market, fuelled by taxation policies that are the most generous in the world and encourage investment over owner-occupiers. I'm speaking, of course, of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount that was introduced by the Howard government. It's not just the electorate that I represent where people are doing it tough in terms of housing. Home ownership in Australia is at a 60-year low. Home ownership rates for 25- to 35-year-olds have collapsed from around 60 per cent to less than 40 per cent in the last 30 years. Rental stress is on the rise, with the proportion of low-income households in rental stress now at more than 40 per cent—and you see it every day. I was in Melbourne on the weekend. While walking through the streets I saw there was, unfortunately, an alarming number of people who are now homeless and literally living on the streets, particularly in our major cities, because they can't get access to public housing, because they can't afford rents or because they can't afford to buy their own property. For Sydneysiders, the issue of housing affordability and the sad fact that many homes are completely out of reach for so many has now become a topic in all conversations around our community, bar none. Literally not a week goes by in the electorate of Kingsford Smith when someone doesn't come up to me and complain about housing affordability and their anxiety and their stress and worry that their kids will not be able to afford to buy a home in the future—and I'm not talking about children in their 20s or 30s; I'm talking about children in their 50s and 60s—in the community that they grew up in and alongside family. These measures that we're debating here today don't do anything to deal with the heart of the problem, and that is the overly generous tax concessions that exist around negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts in this country at the moment. Basically, if you are not tackling those issues, if you are not talking about reducing the generous negative gearing concessions and capital gains tax discounts that exist at the moment, you are not fair dinkum about housing affordability in Australia. These bills don't do that; they don't go to that measure. Again, they're tinkering around the edges. These bills seek to introduce two measures that the government introduced in this year's budget. The first is the super home saver scheme, and the second is the contributing of proceeds from downsizing to superannuation. The government's first home saver super scheme plan would mean that first home savers who make voluntary contributions into their superannuation system can withdraw these contributions up to certain limits, and an amount of associated earnings, for the purpose of purchasing their first home. Concessional tax treatment applies to amounts that are withdrawn under the scheme. I and my Labor colleagues feel that this sets a very, very dangerous precedent. You're setting a dangerous precedent by seeking to tinker and chip away at the foundations of the universality of our superannuation system. Superannuation accounts are meant to be working-life savings accounts that generate retirement incomes, not to be used at the whim of governments to try and tackle problems that don't actually do that and be accessed for whatever they wish. At the moment, quite a large proportion of Australians, on the trajectories that we have at the moment with the compulsory superannuation contribution level at 9½ per cent and very few people contributing on top of that, won't be able to afford to retire on their own. They'll have to rely on at least a part-pension or the full pension into the future. Basically we're not saving enough as it is at the moment, through the current superannuation system, and this government wants to allow people to tinker with that and to potentially reduce it over the course of their lifetime by getting concessional treatment for contributions up to $30,000. Now, I can tell you, $30,000, in the context of where I live in Kingsford Smith, doesn't buy you a window pane. What an affront to young people to say, if you're going out to try and buy your first unit—which in reality is at least $800,000 to $1 million, in the area that I represent, for a one- or two-bedroom unit—that we'll give you a leg-up with 30,000 bucks, which you'll have to save yourself through the superannuation system. What an affront to young people, while at the same time they allow massive tax concessions to the wealthiest property investors in the country. Someone who's seeking to negatively gear their seventh or eighth investment property gets more support from this government than that first home buyer who they're asking to put 30,000 bucks into their superannuation when they go to an auction on the weekend to try to buy their first home unit or their first townhouse. What an affront to Australians who are seeking to get into the housing market. And of course we all know that with superannuation those who miss out the most in this country are, unfortunately, women. If there is a category of people who are going to be defined as those who will have inadequate savings to fund their own retirements when they reach retirement age, it is women, because women have intermittent breaks from the workforce, and unfortunately we still have a gender pay gap in this country. Policies such as this are blind to issues associated with superannuation and saving for adequate retirement among women. The other measure in this bill is about contributing proceeds of downsizing to superannuation. The government proposes to allow people aged over 65 to make a non-concessional contribution of up to $300,000 from the proceeds of selling their home. These contributions will be exempt from the age test, the work test and the $1.6 million balance test for non-concessional superannuation contributions. Labor doesn't have any objections to this measure. If it were split from this bill and put up on its own—and if you look at the full title of this bill, they are two separate measures, but the government has played politics with this and sought to bring them together, just to try to wedge the Labor Party—then this is something that I and my Labor colleagues would be of a mind to support. The reason is that we did a similar thing when we were in government. In the 2013-14 budget we instituted a pilot program that had the aim of doing just that: trialling a means-test exemption for aged pension recipients who were downsizing from their family home. Our threshold was that up to $200,000 of proceeds was to be put in a fund which would have been exempt from the pensions means test for up to 10 years. So, when Labor was in government, we actually did this; we did something like this. And what did the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, do when he was elected as Prime Minister, and his government? They got rid of it. And here they are trying to bring it back? I mean, what sorts of fools do they think the Australian people are? The waste of all that time and effort, the bureaucracy that was undertaken to get rid of this measure, purely because, I suspect, the member for Warringah didn't support it, because it was introduced by the Labor Party—no other reason; he wouldn't have looked at the sense associated with it. Purely because it was introduced by the Labor Party, they got rid of it, and here they are bringing it back. It makes no sense whatsoever. And they've sought to couple it with this disastrous amendment to our superannuation laws. That's the reason Labor is not supporting this. This bill comes on the back of much spruiking by this government. Indeed, they've been very enthusiastic about their so-called housing affordability plan—out there, like used car salesmen, spruiking just how good this will be for housing affordability in this country, when really what they're trying to offload is a lemon. The assistant Treasurer promised and proclaimed in the 2017 budget: The housing package will be extraordinarily large … It will be an impressive package. It will be a well-received package. What we got was a hotchpotch and a shambolic mess of measures that have done nothing to address the key drivers of housing affordability that are in Commonwealth control. I'm speaking, of course, of the negative gearing and the capital gains tax concessions. This is an issue that Labor takes very seriously. In fact, for the last three years we've had a policy of reducing these excessively large concessions that exist for people. Labor will seek to reduce those concessions, because they're overly generous and don't benefit those whom they should. Currently 50 per cent of the benefit of negative gearing goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners in this country. That says it all about what is wrong with housing affordability in this country. The wealthiest Australians are armed with this tax concession through negative gearing and may be going to invest in their seventh or eighth investment property. They're armed with the support of the government. They have the support of the government when they go to an auction on the weekend and seek to buy an investment property, and the poor old little first-home buyer, who has no support from the government whatsoever, is battling against someone that's getting a massive tax concession from the Commonwealth government—a housing tax concession, by the way, that is the most generous in the Western world. Fifty per cent of that negative gearing benefit goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners. For capital gains tax discounts, it gets even worse, because 70 per cent of the benefit of capital gains tax concessions goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners, and 30 per cent of the benefit of superannuation concessions goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners. That is unfair, that is what's wrong with the system and that's why Labor will reform negative gearing. We will reform capital gains tax discounts by reducing them by a half, because we are fair dinkum about tackling housing affordability in this country, taking the pressure off the housing market and ensuring particularly that first-home buyers can get a leg up into the market, can establish themselves either with a rental property or with housing and set themselves up for a better life around the family that they grew up with and in the community that they love so much. 19:07 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee It gives me a lot of pleasure to talk about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, because I want to bring out some key principles. A society remains stable when people believe that there are greater opportunities for their children than there were for themselves. I think about an example where I was once in a very remote part of China, standing in the house of our interpreter, who was very poor. Quite a contrast here: the farmer said to me: 'I have been able to double the size of my house. My children have a better opportunity than what I had. I am happy.' That is something that I think that creates a strong society. You might ask why I am pointing out that at the start, but I think the issue of housing affordability harks very much back to that key principle. There are many Australians now who feel that they are unable to achieve the standard of living that perhaps their parents had, who feel that they may never be able to own a house. I want to say to them that that is not the case, it should not be the case and the government that I am part of is contributing towards ensuring that won't be the case. The two things that make a great and stable society are if a person has a job and a person has a house, a roof, something over their head, somewhere they can make a home, somewhere they can raise a family. If you want to get your economy right, you get those two things right and things have a way of falling into place. You get up, you work, you have purpose, you have somewhere you can invest, you have stability and you have a family life, and that is something that I think makes a great society. But increasingly we're seeing it's becoming more difficult for young Australians, particularly, to save for that deposit. I do find it quite remarkable that the Labor Party would be against the first part of this measure. I understand that it is very close to super. It holds it to its heart as a dear reform and says we shouldn't touch it. But if you think about what the key purpose of superannuation is, it is to provide or increase your net financial worth in order to be able to self-provide in your senior years. If you are unable to own a house, that does draw on your ability to self-provide in your senior years. In fact, the sooner you can enter the housing market, the sooner you can grow your net worth, which therefore does contribute to your ability to self-provide in your senior years. I think the first part of this schedule of this bill actually is in line with the aims of providing for your retirement, allowing Australians to use the superannuation vehicle to make voluntary contributions of up to $15,000 per year to get to a contribution of $30,000 as a first start to get a deposit. Often in my patch, which is rural Australia, there are opportunities to purchase houses that are somewhere in line with what you would pay in rent. Mildura, to give an example, has a population of 50,000. It's a place where I live—a wonderful place where I can look out the window and see the vineyards. It has everything: private schools, good infrastructure and community infrastructure. It's a beautiful place to live. It is possible to purchase a house there for about $200,000—and quite a reasonable house, I might say. For a person living in Mildura, for example, one of the things they are finding if they are paying rent is their rental repayments are higher than what their home loan repayments would be if they were able to get a deposit. To provide a mechanism to allow a person to accelerate their capacity to get a deposit actually puts them in an opportunity where their weekly outgoings would be the same. But instead of paying rent to an investor who is building up their net worth, they're paying it to themselves to pay off a home that will eventually build up and eventually be theirs, and they will no longer have to make that repayment in the fullness of time. I think a tax incentive around savings is very worthwhile and a very good policy, and I would encourage the Labor Party not to be so opposed to it because it actually is in line with their super reforms. I have a view that we should be accelerating that opportunity even more. I believe that in some regards the banks put too high a threshold on the level of deposit that a person has to have as proof of their capacity to pay. I'll give you a consideration that I would ask the banks to look more favourably at. If a person has a three-year rental history and they've had the capacity to pay rent and have not dropped a payment for three years, I think that too should be a consideration as to eligibility for a loan. Instead of requiring as much as a 10 per cent deposit before they are able to purchase that property, if they've been renting for three years and they've clearly demonstrated that they've got the ability to manage money and that they've been able to earn and make rental payments, then, if those rental payments are somewhere near what they would pay in repayments, I think the deposit amount that a bank asks should be somewhat less. I think that is another way of accelerating the opportunity for someone to become a purchaser rather than a renter. I see the challenge that a lot of young Australians have at the moment, where they're paying rents and those rents are going up at the same time as they're trying to save deposits, and the requirement for a deposit is going up at the same time as house prices are going up. They feel that the more they swim, the further away the shore is getting from them. I think that is heartbreaking for a lot of Australians. If we can address some of those things that allow them to get on that first rung of the ladder, that certainly is an advantage. I know from my personal experience. I didn't go to university; I worked in shearing sheds. The hardest dollars you ever earn are the first dollars you earn. When I was able to save enough of a deposit to get started on a farm, then I could actually make some money. Saving that deposit and getting started as well as trying to pay rent, as well as having the price running away from you, is something that we do need to be addressing, and this bill is a pretty good first attempt at addressing that. Can I just touch on negative gearing. I do think negative gearing has a real role to play in encouraging investment in housing. The government doesn't build enough public housing across the country. As a result of that, we incentivise investment for Australians to buy houses that will be available for people who want to rent, but I do think there is an argument that there should be a cap on the amount that you can deduct through the property purchases and rental return through negative gearing. It might be in the vicinity of a tax deductibility of $30,000 a year. I do think that, like anything, there are never two extremes of policy—there is always somewhere in the middle. I do believe that there should be consideration given to incentivising the person to be able to buy one, maybe two, investment properties to make provision for their self-funded retirement, but I don't think there should be a tax benefit if you are up to seven, eight, nine, 10—that is just a personal view which I want to put on the record here. Schedule 2 of this bill is very, very wise, and I'm pleased to hear that the Labor Party are supportive of it, because it will actually facilitate growth in regional Australia. Increasingly, we are seeing people who are in their senior years living in cold old Melbourne. Now, Melbourne is a wonderful place to visit, but not a wonderful place to be—not a wonderful place where you want to live out your winter. Why would you want to live winter in Melbourne? It's freezing. It's only worth being in Melbourne in wintertime when it happens to be the year when the Western Bulldogs win the grand final! But, apart from that, you do not want to be in Melbourne at wintertime. What we are seeing is many Australians from Melbourne now selling their houses for pretty good money, and they are using that money to build a new house in regional Victoria where the sun shines and where it is warmer. For example, this last year there has been over $100 million worth of new housing go up in Mildura, and largely the people who are going there are Australians who are 65-plus; they come and build a new house. They can sell a house for $1 million, build a house for $300,000 and have $700,000. They can have their caravan. They can have their overseas trips. They can have a quality of life that they never thought possible. They can go fishing down the river. They are 38 minutes in a 737 from Mildura airport to Melbourne if they want to go down and watch the Western Bulldogs win another premiership, hopefully, in 2018! It goes to show that there are people making these decisions. With schedule 2 of this bill, we are allowing people who are going to sell a property to still be able to put a non-concessional contribution of up to $300,000 into their superannuation after selling their main residential home. This will actually incentivise them to downsize, which does make a property available for another young Australian who wants to live in Melbourne, for example. This does a lot of other things that are not just a financial benefit for these people but also a great thing for our country towns. I want to touch on this. We love to harness the skills and the passion of Australians. I'm a strong believer that our grey-haired Australians and our no-haired Australians—I have to encompass everyone—have so many skills and so much to offer. What we want to do is use them in regional Australia. We are increasingly seeing these people who have had international careers, who have had very successful careers in the cities, shifting to regional Australia. They are active and they are getting out because, frankly, they don't need to sit in front of the heater in Mildura. It was 33 degrees today. They are warmer—no arthritis—and they are contributing to making our towns vibrant and strong. I think this is such a wonderful thing, so I would encourage the opposition to think broadly about just how important schedule 2 of this bill is. This is about incentivising our senior Australians to go out and live life in an area where they can downsize and shift out to the regions. In order for this to happen, there is, of course, a strong argument for good public transport links. If you talk to those senior Australians who have downsized and shifted to the regions, the things they look for are adequate health services, communications services so they can make contact with those they love and also public transport. One of the great concerns for me in my patch, which is north-west Victoria, is that there certainly is not adequate public transport to Horsham, to Stawell or—with the exception of air transport—to Mildura. Addressing those three things—adequate health services, public transport and telecommunications—will facilitate the greater decentralisation of our cities. It will also increase the opportunities for these people with skills to come to our regions. Giving a financial incentive to people to put some money into their superannuation is a welcome thing. When we lift the wealth of average Australians, we lift the wealth of Australia. Sometimes we lose sight of that fact in this place. Sometimes we spend too much time thinking the government's got to do it. But if you can actually incentivise Australians to make good financial decisions, if you can lift their individual wealth, then ultimately, collectively, we are a wealthier country as a result. This bill really is about that. It's really about a first step in helping young Australians into the property market: it's clear that we believe that you've got a future; it's clear we want your standard of living to be equal to or better than that of the generation that came before you; we want you to have a house; we want to help you. It's our government that's delivering that in this bill, and I'm very pleased to be able to speak about this very important bill in this parliament. Debate adjourned. Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 72

Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017

Report from Federation Chamber 72 Third Reading 72 19:22 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 72

Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017

Report from Federation Chamber 72 Third Reading 72 19:22 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 72 COMMITTEES Law Enforcement Committee 72 Membership 72 19:23 The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator O'Sullivan has been discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement and that Senator Bushby has been appointed a member of the committee. DOCUMENTS 72 DOCUMENTS Presentation 72 19:23 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell For the information of members, I present addenda to the explanatory memoranda to the following bills: Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017 Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017 Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017 Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017 Industrial Chemicals Charges (Excise) Bill 2017 BILLS 72 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 72

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

Second Reading 72 19:24 The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 19:24 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie When it comes to tackling housing affordability, there is absolutely an urgency to act, and we need to act with purpose. But this bill doesn't do that, and I can't support it. Rental stress in the Blue Mountains, in my electorate of Macquarie, is three times higher than in the Prime Minister's local council area of Woollahra. Prices are out of reach of average income earners in the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains without enormous stress. By refusing to act on capital gains tax and negative gearing, the government is actually making the situation worse. We will never see a material change in housing affordability with the measures that are being proposed under this legislation and this amendment. I think John Daley from the Grattan Institute described it well when he said: You'll need a scanning electron microscope to see an impact on prices. He went on to say that he couldn't see any reason why the measures would make a discernible difference to housing affordability or a discernible difference to the number of young people who buy a house. Richard Holden, Professor of Economics and PLuS Alliance fellow at the University of New South Wales, commented on these proposals: … the biggest minus of all was the absence of any measure whatsoever to address negative gearing and CGT— capital gains tax— exemptions for rental properties. That's what's missing. Any housing affordability package that does not address these concessions is totally toothless. The majority of the benefits of negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions go to the wealthiest in the community. The top 10 per cent of income earners reap 50 per cent of the benefit of negative gearing and 70 per cent of the benefit of capital gains tax concessions. The government needs to lead the way and propose real measures for easing affordability. Preferencing tax concessions for property investors buying their fourth or fifth property over young, first home buyers is not leadership. It's just thinly veiled, bad policy that will in fact just lock in intergenerational inequity. I look forward to speaking in more detail in this debate about the two individual proposals. One is the plan to allow young people to access their superannuation, a plan that is a little bit like building a poorly thought-through road. It will simply push the traffic problem further down that road. I also look forward to addressing some of the issues around the proposal to allow people close to retirement to downsize their homes. That in itself is not a bad idea. It's a pity that it has not been put in separately in these so-called housing affordability measures. But, in this particular package, it fails to do anything to address the intergenerational inequity. As well as changes to the tax system, there are many other things that we could be doing rather than the two things in this bill. Increasing the stock of social housing is vital, and the National Rental Affordability Scheme that this government cut was one of the best schemes ever for increasing the amount of affordable social housing in areas where workers needed to be and where families could not afford to live. We need to look at long-term transparency and accountability within the national partnership agreement on homelessness. We need to look at the inclusionary zoning that is being used really effectively in the UK, where 50 per cent of the build has to go to social housing or some alternative payment to allow social housing to be developed. These are innovative ideas that might actually make a difference. These are essential issues that aren't even being looked at here. Older women and young people who are coming out of care are, more and more, finding themselves becoming homeless or getting close to homelessness. That means that they are feeling quite hopeless and helpless. Rental security and uniform tenancy standards are also issues that need to be looked at if we are going to deal with rental housing affordability. The position in this bill that the government has adopted is simplistic. It is really very disappointing to see that they can't come up with more ideas than this. What they are proposing will not solve the problem for young people who cannot access the market. We really need to have a level playing field. We have to support renters. We have to support those who are experiencing homelessness or are at risk of losing their housing. We have to support the generations to come. While this is a thinly veiled attempt to appear to be doing that, it very much will do the opposite. It will push up the prices for first home buyers, as every measure done in isolation has that same impact. Using superannuation as a substitute for real measures on housing affordability is shallow and short-sighted and probably what we would expect from this government. I'm very conscious that I'm about to lose the last of my time tonight. I look forward to talking in more detail about this bill and the problems with it when we come back to it, hopefully, tomorrow. ADJOURNMENT 74 ADJOURNMENT China 74 19:30 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports In dealing with a foreign power like China, Australia needs to balance its commercial interests with its national security and democratic ethos. A recent report by the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States said: In June 2017 the New York Times and The Economist featured stories on China's political influence in Australia. The New York Times headline asked "Are Australia's Politics too Easy to Corrupt?," while The Economist … referred to China as the "Meddle Country." The two articles were reacting to an investigation by Fairfax Media and ABC into the extent of China's political interference in Australia, that built on internal enquiries into the same issue by ASIO and Australia's Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet in 2015 and 2016. The media … concluded that Australia was the target of a foreign interference campaign by China "on a larger scale than that being carried out by any other nation" and that the Chinese Communist Party … was working to infiltrate Australian political and foreign affairs circles, as well to acquire influence over Australia's Chinese population. According to a recent Herald Sun front page, donations amounting to $6 million over the last five years were made by the Beijing-influenced business front the APPRC. The head of the APPRC, Mr Huang Xiangmo, withdrew $400,000 from the opposition when Labor supported Australian naval patrols in the South Pacific. Of course, we value Chinese Australians and investment from China, which is now our leading trading partner, but fears about prospective damage to Australian trade or investment by China must not deter us from clear-eyed opposition to Beijing's political intervention, such as its buying control of almost the entire local Chinese language press. The Foreign Investment Review Board reports that in the financial years 2010-11 to 2015-16 there was $169 billion of investment in Australia from China. Investment rose from $16.91 billion in financial year 2010-11 to $47 billion in financial year 2015-16. This is nothing to be alarmed about, but there are pitfalls to such investment. In 2014 Australia's then Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, proposed that the Chinese telco Huawei bid for the NBN. Australian agencies feared a Huawei-engineered technological back door to our secret communications. The proposal was dropped. Then a myopic Northern Territory government sold to Beijing interests a 100-year lease to the port of Darwin for a mere $500 million. After that 'own goal', former ASIO director-general David Irvine was appointed to the Foreign Investment Review Board. The FIRB then recommended against Beijing based investment in Ausgrid, Australia's largest electrical network, owned by the government of New South Wales. Striking the right balance, however, a state based interest in China won a 25 per cent interest in the successful bid of $9.7 billion for a 50-year lease of the Port of Melbourne. The $169 billion investment in Australia over the past five years is the big picture. It debunks the alarmism of comrades Drysdale and Denton in the Financial Review that 'opportunities will be squandered if Australian policy towards China is bungled'. Investors and traders from China are treated fairly and are not scapegoated. They are judged on commercial and national interests, the same as other investors. Attempts to influence local academia are less easily countered. Even before Frances Adamson, the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, put this issue on the front page, Professor Allan Fitzgerald, in an AFR essay 'Red pen on academic freedom', argued, 'Universities jeopardise intellectual integrity when they collaborate with Chinese institutions that do not share a commitment to liberal values or open inquiry.' It's a bit like Admiral Lord Nelson putting his blind eye to the telescope to claim that China is an upholder of international rules based order. Beijing flouts the international law peacefully sought by ASEAN to stop the militarisation of the South China Sea, where 60 per cent of Australian maritime trade transits. Canberra's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters will recommend, and I believe the parliament will endorse, the banning of foreign donations to parties. The Foreign Investment Review Board will continue to prevent imbroglios like the sale of the port of Darwin. Finally, Beijing's interference in universities, think tanks, institutes and parties will be subject to media and parliamentary scrutiny. Nervous Nellies who advocate a hands-off policy for investments in China should be reassured that commercial arrangements will continue to prosper, but pro-Beijing academic and business interests should never override Australia's national security, firmly rooted in our ANZUS alliance and our deeply democratic ethos. Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce: Heritage Bank Business Excellence Awards 75 19:35 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom Last Saturday night, my wife, Anita, and I sat as guests at the Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce's Heritage Bank Business Excellence Awards—obviously in Toowoomba. What a magnificent night it was to celebrate business excellence in our community. The eight division finalists included, for tourism, Peters Coaches; for hospitality, The Finch cafe, one of my regulars, in Ruthven Street, Toowoomba; for industry, Toowoomba Bearings & Hydraulics; for retail and wholesale, Tentworld; for professional and business services, Focus HR; and for community and not-for-profit, Sunrise Way, a magnificent drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility led by very good friends of mine: the CEO, Wendy Agar, and chairman, Shane Charles. In the innovation category we had Story Fresh, a tremendous business based at Cambooya, just south of Toowoomba—a regional success story, of which I will speak in more detail in a few moments. Lastly, the category of best regional business in the Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce's Heritage Bank Business Excellence Awards was Story Fresh. Each year the Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce celebrates a Hall of Fame inductee in these awards. Over the years they have included many notable businesses and organisations in our community, including Wagners, for example, who have developed our new Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport, an internationally capable airport; other construction firms; printers, such as Cracker Print and Paper; and other firms who have meant so much to our community over the decades. This year, I was very proud to observe this award going to Hutchison Builders, led by Rob Weymouth—again, a good friend of mine. He leads what is a recognised and very well-renowned construction firm that is focused not only on their business but also on community support and significant philanthropy throughout our community, such as a Vanguard Laundry, various Indigenous youth activities; and, of course, they support tennis as a significant sport in our community. Rob Weymouth is a friend to many people in our community. He is an absolute champion, a real gentleman, a quiet achiever and one who would be best described as a real leader within our community. So it was tremendous to see him quite humbly accept that award on behalf of Hutchison Builders. The Business of the Year in these awards this year was none other than Story Fresh, who, as I have just mentioned, also cornered the categories of innovation and of best regional business. This business, led by Geoff and Anne Story, who between them have many years of experience in the horticultural sector on the Darling Downs and in the Lockyer Valley to our east, is recognised as one that is setting the pace in innovation, not only in horticultural production but also in packing. They are a grower-packer organisation—a lettuce specialist. It has been most enlightening to visit their business on a number of occasions over the years and see not only the professionalism on farm but the professionalism in their packing activities and their willingness to invest in significant capital upgrades to ensure they are providing not only a quality product but one that is efficient as well in terms of costs of production. We see them now on the world stage as significant suppliers to the Subway chain of fast food restaurants here in Australia, amongst others. So, if you are having a Subway sandwich, more than likely you are eating lettuce produced by Story Fresh on the Darling Downs. They also have significant interest in the export market, which I was thrilled to hear Geoff talk about quite passionately on Saturday night. Their exports are based around their access, their proximity, to the Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport, developed by the Wagner family. This was a true celebration of business excellence in our community. I particularly recognise the efforts of Joy Mingay, the president, and Jo Sheppard, the CEO of the Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce, also good friends of mine, and the fact that everyone who received an award recognised their staff was most magnificent. Indi Electorate: Regional Development and Decentralisation 75 19:40 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi Tonight I would like to honour, acknowledge and thank the 38 Indi residents who have taken the trouble and made the time to make submissions to the House committee inquiry into regional development and decentralisation: 20 organisations, seven of the nine local governments, and numerous businesses and individuals. I would particularly like to acknowledge the role of NESAY YouthForIndi, who actively worked with the young people in my electorate to get their involvement; to Mitch, the teacher at GOTAFE who coordinated and helped; and to Leah, Noni, Georgie and Casey, the staff who made such a difference. Colleagues, the Indi way is alive and well in my electorate—the idea of engaging in politics, of putting a call out and having it answered, of people taking responsibility for speaking up and for having a say, of democracy in action, and of knowing that what they say matters and how they engage matters. The submissions have been published on the website and people can follow them up. The next stage in the process is that we are having hearings. In my electorate, I will publish the Indi submissions and they will inform the process of the kitchen table conversations and the Indi summit which we will have next year, leading to policy formation for the next state and federal election. I would particularly like to acknowledge the role of the Prime Minister in supporting the inquiry and to acknowledge the chair, John McVeigh, the member for Groom, and the nine other committee members. We have four Liberals, two Nats, three Labor and me, so it truly is a representative committee. The committee has such a passion for the future of rural and regional Australia. Altogether we've received 174 submissions. Last week we were in Bendigo, Launceston and Burnie. As soon as parliament rises, we go across to Western Australia, and then to South Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland over the next four weeks. What I want to say tonight is that this inquiry is about getting best practice. It's about working out what the government can do and what the role for business is. It demonstrates that, for regional policy to work—to deliver better education and job opportunities, economic growth, infrastructure and a healthy, vibrant community—we need to work together: Commonwealth, state and local governments, and community and individuals. This is what we have seen in the submissions from Indi and from those people who presented at the hearings in Wodonga. So to those who answered the call, thank you. To those who shared your knowledge, thank you. Thank you for telling us what works and what best practice is. I look forward to playing a part in the draft report and the recommendations and to forwarding the draft copy for feedback before Christmas. I would particularly like to acknowledge Bronwyn Martin; Murrindindi Shire Council; Albury and Wodonga city councils, who have proudly signed a memorandum of understanding; Wodonga TAFE; Rural Australians for Refugees; Northern Victoria Refugee Support Network; David Corben of the union movement; Goulburn Murray Water; Edith Peters; Northeast Health Wangaratta; Benalla Rural City; Wangaratta Rural City; Alpine Shire Council; Moira Shire Council; and Tolmie Sustainable Transport Group. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the five NESAY participants: Jarvis—more about him in a minute—Jordan, Grayce, Corey and Sam; and also Brown Brothers of Milawa; the Central Hume Primary Care Partnership; Tomorrow Today Foundation; Ant Packer; Voices for Indi; Parklands Albury Wodonga; Regional Development Australia Committee—Hume; Indigo Shire Council; Jordan Wilson; Brian Vial; Andrea Stevenson; Russell Sully; Narelle Martin; Rivers and Ranges Community Leadership Program; Peter Kenyon; Beverley Dick; Michael Gobel; Murray Hume Business Enterprise Centre; and La Trobe University. And there are more, but I want your names to go into the record because I want you to know it matters that your voice is coming to parliament and that we care about what you say. But the last word goes to Jarvis, because it's for him and the young people of Australia that we are really working. Jravis says: I live in the Wangaratta region. I am 17 years of age. I am going to write about what we need more of in our town. I am writing about this because I think there can be more to do in our town. Our town needs more community swap meets for young people that are into cars. The reason I'm writing this is that I believe it will have a positive outcome for the youth of Wangaratta. Jarvis, I hear you. I hear you say it will be good for socialising and teaching young people about cars and money, and to share and develop skills. It's good for recycling and reusing parts. To Jarvis and to all the people who contributed, but particularly to the young people of north-east Victoria: we hear you and parliament hears you. Thank you. Goods and Services Tax 76 19:45 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney WA federal Liberal members and senators have long advocated for GST distribution reform. Through their efforts and persistent advocacy, the government has committed to implementing a floor in the distribution of GST under which no state's share can fall. This government has also tasked the Productivity Commission to report on the impact of GST distribution on national productivity and economic growth. That inquiry will give the government the evidence it needs to make real and critical GST reform that sticks. As a new member of parliament, since my election I've been pleased to witness and assist the work of my WA federal Liberal colleagues. WA federal Liberals have succeeded in developing the pathway to reform with the release of the draft report that we can now see bearing fruit. The hard work and advocacy of the WA federal Liberal team will continue throughout the PC process, and particularly when the government considers the final Productivity Commission report. In politics, there are choices. So we have to assess the position of federal WA Labor members who have disgracefully opposed the reform of the GST distribution. Federal WA Labor members said in their submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry that they: … seek an outcome to this situation, but one that doesn't negatively impact on other States and Territories. Their submission goes on to say: The reality is that our local community is not particularly concerned by the specifics of formula adjustments or policy framework. Specifics and good policy are exactly what people in Western Australia demand. Emails and calls to my office on GST are frequent and are very detailed. What our community is sick of is Labor's tricky politics of saying one thing and doing another. Recently the opposition leader announced the ALP's single and shameful solution to fix the GST. A bit like a Monty Python skit, Labor's solution to fix the distribution of the GST would not change in one way the actual distribution of the GST. Even worse, the shadow Treasurer confirmed that Labor would not consider the final Productivity Commission report and did not support changes to the distribution of the GST. As expected, WA federal Labor has fallen into line. Labor's most senior federal WA MP, the member for Perth, has said that the pain facing WA is 'a blip on the radar' in a system that is sound. Labor's position is absolutely outrageous. But it's not just the pollies who have a role to play. It's essential that WA business makes the case for GST reform to national business organisations. The work of the CCIWA has been invaluable, and I thank them for their efforts, in particular the great work of their chief economist, Rick Newnham. But, sadly, the CCIWA have not been able to get their own national peak body, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and interstate chambers to support the case for reform. Worse still, these bodies have sought to undermine the case for reform and have directly countered CCIWA's position by making unhelpful submissions to the Productivity Commission inquiry. We are entering a crucial phase between the draft report and the final report of the Productivity Commission inquiry. While I'm very pleased with the draft report, we will face some strong opposition from the eastern states. In the same way WA federal Liberals have made the case to our leadership and our parliamentary colleagues in other states, it is essential that WA business makes the case to peak national business organisations. The Productivity Commission is inviting comments in response to the draft report, and there is an opportunity for public hearings in WA on 13 and 14 November, in Melbourne on 17 November and in Sydney on 22 November. WA federal Labor has the opportunity to correct the record and stand up for Western Australia, and the CCIWA have time and should be judged on their ability to get the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the eastern state chambers to support GST distribution reform. We have to use a Productivity Commission process to make the case for change in the national interest. The draft report, while pleasing, has awakened the eastern states' beast. We all need to work together during this critical period to continue to make the case for reform. This fight is not over. The hard work and advocacy of the WA federal Liberal team will continue. Dobell Electorate: Business 77 19:50 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell There are around 2.5 million businesses in Australia. Roughly two per cent of those 2.5 million businesses export their products and services overseas. Today I would like to showcase two of those businesses exporting to the world from my electorate on the Central Coast of New South Wales: Darkroom Door, a creative design and manufacturing company, located in Berkeley Vale and nominated for a Premier's NSW Export Award; and Lowes TC, a tissue culture company boosted by a recent $50,000 federal government grant to help work with international partners on their wasabi project. Lowes TC, from their base in Tumbi Umbi, cultivate between 80,000 and 100,000 premium plant stocks every week all year round for export across the world. This business began 36 years ago and established on the Central Coast in 1995. The vision of owner Greg Lowes has seen the business expand to facilities in India and Ireland and, this year, supply over 3.5 million live plants. They stock over 1,200 plant varieties, have developed their own logistics software and play an active role in biosecurity through their plant bank of maintenance clones. With food production expected to increase by 50 per cent by 2050, this is a Central Coast company positioned for the future. Lowes TC recently received a $50,000 grant from the Global Connections Fund to help them work with their international partners on their wasabi project, which they're looking to export to the lucrative Japanese market. Did you know that most of the wasabi consumed in Australia is actually horseradish? This may be because wasabi is very picky about where it grows—traditionally, undisturbed in misty mountain stream beds. What Japan and the rest of the world will soon find out is that it thrives at Lowes TC. Despite being told over and over that wasabi cannot be grown successfully in Australia, Lowes TC have done just that. The Japanese consume around 1,750 tonnes of wasabi each year, mostly in restaurants. Lowes TC want to see this become a delicacy enjoyed at home as well, and their innovation grant will help them partner with the University of York in England to produce a wasabi by-product that can be used as a food additive. Innovation and research like this is central to Australia's economic future, which is why Labor is committed to ensuring that three per cent of GDP is spent on research and development by the end of the next decade, making us globally competitive and protecting and growing Australian jobs. Lowes TC is a local business achieving outstanding results, and their focus on innovation and research drives their success. Congratulations, Lowes TC, on being an outstanding business and employer. Congratulations are also in order for Darkroom Door, an award-winning local business in Berkeley Vale that manufactures and distributes quality art rubber stamps and photographic paper craft products for creative use to more than 18 countries worldwide. Husband and wife duo, Rachel, a professional photographer, and, Stewart, a graphic designer, took an idea they brainstormed in their blue kombi van while travelling through Europe and turned it into a successful export business. Recently, they have secured an American distributor, making further inroads into the competitive US market. This year, they are once again nominated for a Premier's NSW Export Award in the creative industries category to be presented in Sydney later this month. This is in addition to other accolades achieved—the Australian Craft Industry Awards, the Hunter Manufacturing Awards, the Central Coast women in arts and culture awards, and the Hunter Central Coast export awards. Rachel and Stuart have found a niche market and are successful. There is much that government can and should do to support their success—and that of other businesses like theirs. That's why I was pleased to invite the shadow minister for trade and investment, the member for Blaxland, to the Central Coast to visit Darkroom Door last week and showcase one of the great small business success stories of the Central Coast. Labor wants to see more Aussie businesses break into the overseas markets—businesses like Darkroom Door and Lowes TC; businesses that export, make bigger profits and employ more people. It's great for the business, and it's great for our local economy. The Central Coast is a place where business can invest and succeed. Lowes TC and Darkroom Door are proof that our region is a place where innovation can and does thrive. Finally, I would like to congratulate the Wyong Regional Chamber of Commerce, which I joined in 2008 as a councillor delegate. The chamber has been supporting local businesses in our region since 1925 and has been named a finalist at the New South Wales Business Chamber Awards. I wish President Ron Stevens, the board and the executive team the best of luck for the award ceremony in November. Gambling 78 19:55 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I've never been much of a gambler, Mr Speaker. A lot of my old mates are terrific punters—the horses, mainly. I actually haven't known that much about gambling, and I've known even less about a particular type of gambling: playing the lottery. Now, gambling, I think, particularly in a democratic free-market economy like ours, usually comes with a social compact, one that says we recognise that there are some harmful impacts of gambling. We therefore ensure that it's regulated and some of the revenues that come through gambling industries get fed back into local communities. I have learnt over recent times about the lottery. Typically, it operates at state and territory levels, although there are some national lottery games. Whilst state government owned operations used to be major players in the industry, many have since been privatised—so we've got a mix of private, government and not-for-profit lotteries in the industry. They are well regulated and well taxed. State and territory lotteries contributed over $1.1 billion in specific lottery taxes in FY 2016-17. Communities do stand to gain from tax revenues that go back into the communities, hospitals, schools, roads, services and, of course, charities. And beyond those who operate directly in the lottery sector, such as Tatts and the like, you also have small businesses. There are over 4,000 registered lottery retailers in Australia, mostly family-run newsagencies and convenience stores, so this is a vital part of our small-business economy. If you are wondering why I'm raising this industry tonight, it's because there's a new entrant that has come in the online gambling space of the lottery: Lottoland. And it concerns me. I started hearing about this player earlier in the year. A petition has since been given to me, which I've subsequently handed to the relevant House standing committee. Lottoland is a foreign online gambling business that manages players' bets on the outcome of lotteries overseas. I have no in-principle problem with that. I'm a free-trader. I have no problem with international players. I have no problem, quite frankly, with disruptors in any marketplace. What concerns me is that I've been advised that Lottoland, in contrast with existing operators, is based in Gibraltar, which is a tax haven, and apparently it pays no Australian taxes. I've been advised that it pays only a $500,000 licensing fee annually to the Northern Territory government and is subject to no other compliance cost or regulation beyond that, including no state or territory lottery taxes. I also understand that its marketing strategy is to replicate the look and feel of Australian lottery advertising, thereby leveraging the existing value that comes with such branding association. Apparently, it's not even a real lottery; rather, it operates through a complex international model. So while many customers think they are participating directly in a state lottery, they are actually betting on the outcome of a lottery elsewhere, a lottery for which they are not registered ticket holders. To me, this seems unconscionable; it's not the type of conduct we would expect in our market economy, here, in Australia. Simon Barrett, a constituent of mine, owns the Coolum Park News Extra and operates that newsagency. He has reported a significant fall not only in Lotto sales but also in general sales as customers seem to be in decline compared with last year. This newsagency is right next door to a Woolworths, so it's not as if it's suffering from lack of traffic. I've raised the issue about Lottoland with Minister Mitch Fifield and his office and I'm happy that he is now examining it. I raise it today to put it squarely on the agenda for this parliament. I am encouraging not only our minister to take the necessary action to investigate and address the issues I've outlined but also our state and territory governments to do the same. The gambling industry relies on a social contract. Lottoland, in my mind, is breaching that contract and needs to be held to account. The SPEAKER 00APG It being 8 pm, the debate is interrupted. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 79 NOTICES

Tuesday, 17 October 2017

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ) took the chair at 16:02.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 83 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Talabani, His Excellency Jalal Husamuddin 83 16:02 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I rise to commemorate the life of Iraq's first elected president post the Saddam Hussein regime, Jalal Talabani, who passed away on 3 October. I want to express my deepest sympathies to the Talabani family, to the people of Iraq and to all the Kurds around the world. Jalal Talabani, commonly referred to as Mam Jalal, which translates as Uncle Jalal, was a larger than life political leader. He was the founder of one of the main Kurdish political parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the PUK. For over 50 years he was a committed resistance fighter turned political leader who fought and advocated for democracy and the rights of his people. During the 1960s, Mam Jalal served as a Peshmerga, the name given to a Kurdish fighter, which translates as 'one who faces death'. Mam Jalal took charge of the Peshmerga battalions around Sulaymaniyah and Kirkuk. In 1970, he married Hero Ibrahim Ahmed, herself a former guerilla fighter. He excelled on the battlefield as well as off it, with a sophisticated leadership style. He was fluent in Arabic, Persian, French and English as well as his native tongue of Kurdish. He joined the Kurdish Democratic Party, the KDP, at 14. But he broke with the KDP in 1975 while in exile and founded his own party, the PUK, to rival the KDP. From the time of Saddam's accession to power in 1979 until the US-enforced no-fly zone in 1992, hundreds and thousands of Kurds in Iraq were killed by the Saddam regime. By 2003, the US had invaded Iraq, and Mam Jalal played a key role in fashioning Iraq's new interim constitution. He was President of Iraq from 2005 to 2014, including being re-elected in 2010. Critically, he stabilised post-Saddam Iraq and played a crucial role in fostering a more democratic and inclusive nation. I had the great pleasure of meeting Mam Jalal when I was posted in Iraq in 2003-04 and negotiating and working with him on the Peshmerga's inclusion into the Iraqi defence and security forces and the new Iraqi Ministry of Defence. Mam Jalal was a genuinely warm and jovial person. We spent many days and nights at Sulaymaniyah under his protection and were fortunate to receive his generous hospitality. The feasts of delicious foods he prepared for us each time we met were very special and made those negotiations just a little bit easier. I think he was softening us up quite effectively. He was a very shrewd and gifted negotiator on behalf of his people. I also worked with his son, Qubad Talabani, the current Deputy Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government, and he's carrying on the legacy of his father. Mam Jalal was a giant figure of the 20th and 21st centuries, and his achievements for the Kurdish and Iraqi people will be long-lasting. He's no longer with us. His lifelong struggle to realise his dream of freedom for Kurds still shines brightly. As President of Iraq, he was a unifier. Whether Kurd or Arab Turkoman or Chaldean Assyrian, Sunni, Shia or Christian, he brought those people together. He will be missed and mourned by millions around the world for his passion, vision and achievement. For my part, I'll miss him and that twinkle in his eyes. We will miss this good man. May he rest in peace. Page Electorate: Goanna Pulling Championships, Barker, Mr Isaac, Sullohern, Miss Celia 83 16:05 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page The annual Australian Goanna Pulling Championships were held in Wooli recently. I can allay any concerns you may have, Deputy Speaker, and say that no goannas were injured during this event. The sport of goanna pulling is a test of strength between two contestants who get down on all fours, linked by a leather belt around their heads. The aim is to pull backwards, dragging the opponent across the line, tug-of-war style. I not only had the pleasure of attending this great event but also had the opportunity to open it and step onto the mound to test my own goanna-pulling technique against local Bob McPherson. I'm very happy to tell you that my goal of leaving uninjured was achieved. The event has been held for 32 years. This year's event was opened by Trevor Collins. I'd like to thank the Wooli community who volunteered their time and made the day a great success: Wayne Tank Phillips, and I thank Tank for his tip of stay low and keep your arm strong; Michelle Kellett; President Kellie Blacksell; Secretary Kirra Mcfarlane; Treasurer Leanne Plowman; as well as the rest of the committee and many local businesses who support the day through sponsorship. It was a well-attended family day out with other highlights, such as woodchopping and tug of war. Congratulations to Wooli. Twelve-year-old Isaac Barker from South Grafton has recently returned from representing New South Wales at the National PSSA Rugby Union championships in Darwin. His team was victorious and, after playing three games in two days, they left Darwin as the undefeated champions. Isaac earned his way onto the side after playing for the North Coast in the PSSA titles. It's not just on the union field that Isaac has shown his versatility and potential. The South Grafton Public School Captain has also represented the North Coast in rugby league, Aussie Rules and athletics. Isaac is currently in Sydney to compete in the New South Wales State Athletic Championships later in the week. I acknowledge his mother Kathryn and father Jason, who continue to support Isaac in his passions for the sports. I'd also like to congratulate Celia Sullohern, who recently won the Melbourne Marathon. The win was a special event, as she competed with her father Michael. The win places her fourth in the national rankings, with the top three being selected for next year's Commonwealth Games, which obviously she's in the running for. In August, Celia also won the famous Sydney City2Surf. I congratulate Celia—your community is very proud of you. NILS Tasmania 84 16:08 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I rise today to speak on behalf of the more than 600 Tasmanian families who will be affected by an imminent $160,000 cut to the no-interest loan scheme in my state. This funding is being axed from NILS Tasmania because Good Shepherd Microfinance, which oversees the scheme nationwide, has restructured the way it allocates its national funding pool. Rather than allocating funding by need, Good Shepherd will, from next year, allocate funding on a purely per capita basis, which drastically impacts smaller states like Tasmania, despite demonstrably higher levels of socioeconomic advantage and need for these services. NILS provides loans of up to $1,500 to low-income earners who receive a pension or hold a concession card. No fees or interest are applied to repayments. NILS can be used to access finance for things like a new fridge or washing machine, unanticipated dental costs, education services or a car repair. It can also offer microfinance to launch a new small business. Without NILS, many low-income families would be forced to consider signing up with high-cost payday lenders and rental schemes, and the difference in cost is astronomical. For example, an LG eight-kilogram washer from a rental firm will cost around $2,500 over the lease period, with no ownership at the end. The repayments on a NILS loan would cost $874—simply the cost of the machine—and the machine would be owned. That's $1,600 not going into the pockets of payday lenders and rental schemes. We know that NILS Tasmania is needed, because it's reaching double the percentage of clients that NILS on the mainland is. Little wonder, given Tasmania's historically higher numbers of low-income earners and people requiring income assistance. I do not want to be critical of Good Shepherd Microfinance; it is a non-profit agency doing very good work. But I urge it, in the strongest terms, to reconsider its decision to strip $160,000 from Tasmania. Meanwhile, I take the opportunity to remind the House that this is Anti-Poverty Week. The Tasmanian edition of the Salvation Army's The Hard Road makes for sober reading. Some 72 per cent of survey respondents said they had foregone food at some stage to pay their rent. The Tasmanian Council of Social Service estimates 5,000 Tasmanian households have gone without meals in the past year due to financial stress—stress that is increasing, not coming down. In November last year, the federal government released its response to the final report of the independent review of small amount credit laws. These are designed to protect vulnerable people. I urge the government to look at these recommendations and, with stakeholders, implement these recommendations at the earliest opportunity. Energy 84 16:11 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm Throughout the year, thousands of Chisholm residents have been filling out my community survey, eager to have their say on the issues of the day and to play their essential role in the functioning of our democracy. One of the most frequent concerns people have raised is rising energy prices, with household electricity prices more than doubling since 2007. During the time when Labor was in government, electricity prices increased by 100 per cent, and we see by South Australia's example what a Labor government does to energy prices. I'm proud to say the Turnbull government is taking action, with a national plan that will guarantee reliable and affordable energy. Underpinned by the recommendations of the Finkel review and the Energy Security Board and whilst remaining committed to our agreement in the Paris agreements, the Turnbull government's plan is built on three key areas. The first is affordability. It's integral that we tackle the issue of the rising cost of electricity head-on. The Turnbull government, through the introduction of the National Energy Guarantee, will provide certainty for investors, reducing volatility in energy prices, and end the subsidies for renewables which were simply passed on to the consumer. The National Energy Guarantee will generate savings of $100 to $115 per year per person. The second is reliability. Ensuring that blackout disasters witnessed in South Australia are never repeated is of key importance for the Turnbull government. Through guarantees being put in place, the right level of power will always be delivered from a wide variety of sources, such as coal, gas, solar, wind and hydro. The third is emissions. The Turnbull government is not going to shy away from Australia's international commitments to the Paris climate agreements. It will reduce emissions over time with a measured and responsible approach, utilising a market based solution that will ensure emissions are reduced at the lowest cost by using a range of innovative technologies. At the heart of these technologies lies Snowy 2.0, which is set to be the biggest battery in the Southern Hemisphere. Indeed, the Australian Energy Council have come out and said that Snowy 2.0 will help facilitate a smooth transition to a lower-emissions power grid without sacrificing reliability. These three areas work in conjunction with the Turnbull government's existing policy achievements, including ensuring that energy retailers are offering consumers the best deal, guaranteeing Australians have priority access to gas resources and preventing energy companies from exploiting the system that was previously working against the average Aussie consumer. The Labor Party would see higher taxes and an ideologically driven renewable target—based on the Labor-Greens alliance—that would be simply unrealistic and irresponsible. It would not only threaten the energy security of thousands of Australian families and businesses but put at risk vital services such as hospitals and the wider health network. On the other hand, the Turnbull government has clearly outlined a plan that takes the recommendations of a number of other experts into account in order to formulate an energy policy that will deliver affordable and reliable energy in a considered, sensible and reliable manner. Western Australia: Beer 85 16:14 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Western Australians don't seem to be able to catch a break. Whether it's the GST, grocery prices or beer, we always seem to be paying more and getting less. While I would have loved to have got into the recent activities of Oktoberfest or celebrated local brewers by downing a glass of my favourite bevvy, it's becoming harder and harder for West Aussies to find a well-priced pint at a local pub. Until recently, the schooner was a relatively foreign thing to us sandgropers. However, a growing number of Perth watering holes are phasing out the 568 millilitre pint glass in favour of the smaller and clearly inferior schooner—apparently a standard size for Sydneysiders and Melbournians. What's worse is that, in many cases, patrons are ordering pints at pint prices and are downgraded 143 millilitres without notice. It's like ordering a Coke and getting a Pepsi! There is a clear consumer protection issue here. I'm happy to stand up for the WA beer drinking public. Don't serve me a schooner when I order a pint without telling me first. Thanks to the tyranny of distance, West Aussies have become accustomed to paying more for things. In part, I'm okay with that. I'd rather pay more for my beer than suffer the scourge of pokies in Western Australia. However, more expensive beer also means more beer generated GST revenue being lost from Western Australia. Clearly, Perth publicans couldn't bear to increase beer prices any more and decided instead to reduce the size of their vessel. WA has a proud history of being different. We love quokkas, we are obsessed with shark attacks and, although it's not taught in school, we all understand that Bali is essentially a northern suburb of Perth. We all know that drinks come in two sizes: the pint and the middy, not a small and a large. What is 'large'? Even the National Measurement Institute, an Australian government body, advises that venues should disclose the actual size of their beer. The 'schoonification' of the West has me concerned about what other east coast beverage trends are likely to start popping up in Perth. Will we soon find ourselves sipping on deconstructed lattes at morning tea time or be forced to order 'horses' or 'butchers'? And what the hell is a schmiddy? The east coast may not look to WA for guidance on many things, but we understand good beer—and good beer comes in a pint. Mallee Electorate: Great Country Towns Tour 85 16:17 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee That was a fantastic speech. I pay credit to the other side. One of the best things about having a break from Canberra is that I get to go on the Great Country Towns Tour, and all the great country towns happen to be located in the electorate of Mallee. People ask: why does democracy work? Democracy works largely because we don't spend all our time here. We don't get caught in the Canberra bubble. In fact, members of the House of Representatives get out there and people set us straight about the things that are important to them. As I travel around the great country towns, the basics are important: being able to drive on a decent road, being able to make a mobile phone call and being able to have access to telecommunications. One of the things that happened while sitting around the coffee shops was that people would raise their concerns about mobile broadband. We had an Optus phone and we had a Telstra phone and we would go to their house afterwards to see what the options were. This is something the parliament might be interested in. Sky Muster is offering 300 gigabytes of data at a figure of $150, and that is peak and off-peak. Optus is now offering 200 gigabytes for $70 and it's faster. We were able to help people work through what is available. With regard to driving on a decent road, we took notes of where the roads were poor and then wrote to the Victorian roads minister and to VicRoads, highlighting the roads that need an upgrade. The other thing people raised with us is doctors. We have an interesting situation. The Howard government introduced things to train more doctors and those things appear to have worked. We have more doctors practising now, but we're still having trouble bringing them to the regions, so much so that one of our hospitals is offering a package of nearly $400,000, with a house and a car, and still can't attract doctors. A clinic in Horsham said they have packages for 12 GPs who don't have to work on weekends and will rotate, and they still can't attract doctors. That is something we really have to look at. It's not the lack of trained doctors now; it's about how you move them into the regions. That, I think, is the real challenge. Just because you live in regional Australia does not mean you should have a second-rate level of health. So those are the things that I think keep members of parliament grounded—we actually go out there and talk to people in our patch. I have to say that it was very humbling to go to met with Karen refugees and talk to one of the ladies there who had just failed her English test in a work visa she had gone for, and yet her English was very good. So we've been able to take that back to the parliament. The Great Country Towns Tour is such an important part of being a local member and being a member of the parliament. It's the fact that we get out, talk to our people and bring that back that parliament works. Braddon Electorate: Forestry Industry 86 16:20 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon I rise today to recognise Hydrowood, a recent finalist in the Australian Forest Products Association Innovation in Business Awards. Hydrowood is a uniquely Tasmanian business located in my electorate at Lake Pieman on the west coast of Tasmania. Hydrowood recovers hidden timber from the floor of a Hydro Tasmania impoundment, which is Lake Pieman. Lake Pieman was filled in 1986 and the forest was covered in water, where it remained until today. Timber is harvested with a water-proof harvester that goes down to the depth of up to 28 metres in Lake Pieman. Hydrowood's sonar technology also allows it to identify the species of timber being harvested, saving an enormous amount of time and effort. The timber that they harvest is uniquely Tasmanian—Huon pine, blackwood, celery top pine, sassafras and western beech. Nearly all of these species are in short supply, very valuable and highly desirable. These are high-value, high-demand timbers for the specialty timber market. I know these are exported around the world and should appear, and can appear, in just about every Australian embassy in this globe. Also, Hydrowood has a partnership with Oakdale Industries, an Australian disability enterprise, to deliver western beech flooring to the national market. In announcing this partnership, Oakdale's CEO said the partnership was 'a natural fit, as we both believe in hidden potential'. Hydrowood is truly a world leader in innovative business. Its success demonstrates the foresight of the former state and federal Labor governments, who knew that Tasmania's forestry industry needed to restructure and to be more innovative into the future. Hydrowood was funded with a $5 million grant through the Tasmanian forestry agreement. I do note the irony of the cavalcade of coalition MPs lining up to praise Hydrowood; yet, the same MPs were opposed to the very agreement from which it was funded. This business is just one of many innovative forestry businesses in my electorate. Britton Brothers and Ta Ann in Smithton and Specialty Veneers in Somerset are also doing amazing work as they value add to Tasmania's forest products. As Australia continues to be a net forest importer, we on this side of the House remain determined to support greater innovation and investment in our local timber industry. Projects like Hydrowood are an example of how market demand can be met with government support and innovation. Gwyther, Mr Lennie 86 16:23 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan I seek leave to table the story of Lennie Gwyther. Leave granted. Mr BROADBENT MT4 I'd like to speak to that. Congratulations to Leongatha on the presentation and unveiling of the statue to Lennie Gwyther and his horse Ginger Mick. Lennie had a dream at nine years of age to ride from Leongatha-Koonwarra to Sydney for the opening of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. At nine years of age, he did that after his father gave him permission. The presentation and unveiling of the statue was attended by his sister Beryl Ferrier, sister Leta Gardenal, daughter Mary Gwyther, granddaughter Sally Gwyther, sister-in-law Shirley Gwyther, brother Keith and many other relatives and friends from near and far. Bob Newton, a local councillor and former mayor, had a dream that he would like to see a statue of Lennie Gwyther in Leongatha. Those who also attended included Bob's committee members; the Leongatha Chamber of Commerce's Peter Watchorn, Brenton Williams and Glenn Wright; Gordon Morrison; the Leongatha Historical Society's Andrew Sage; Peter Farrel, who did the concrete with Jim Newton; the McDonald brothers, who did the lighting; C&L Stainless, who did the plaque and helped with the lighting; and T&M Southern Cranes. Everybody from Leongatha got into it and supported this tremendous opening. Probably the highlights of the day were the shire brass band. Certainly Jessica Stein and the children from the Leongatha Primary School were an absolute highlight of the event and they should be congratulated for their presentation. It was a most memorable day in the heat and I think I'm still sunburnt from the day because in the end we weren't under cover. Huge congratulations go to Leongatha. Lennie Gwyther actually shook the hand of the Prime Minister on his way through from Koonwarra. He was attacked by vagabonds and he survived a bushfire. You can imagine the rain and hail and slush he went through, and he arrived to great accolades at the opening of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. There's a photograph of Lennie Gwyther, nine years of age, riding his horse Ginger Mick across the Sydney Harbour Bridge. It was most amazing. A lot of the kids on Saturday had the Lennie Gwyther storm hat on that he had worn all that way. I got the nine-year-old children up around me and said to the whole crowd, and there were hundreds of people there, 'Have a look at these children, they're nine years of age; this is the age he hopped on a horse and went from Koonwarra to Sydney.' Paterson Electorate: Employment 87 16:26 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Media reports today highlight that unemployment rates in the Hunter Valley, which is home to my electorate of Paterson, hit 7.6 per cent in August. In my home town of Kurri Kurri the unemployment rate was 7.5 per cent in March of this year, while the rate in Raymond Terrace, where my office is located, sat at 7.8 per cent. At that time the national average was 5.9 per cent. I'm committed to helping identify the barriers faced by people in my electorate when they're seeking work and to searching for opportunities to help communities create jobs. I was therefore delighted to welcome the Australian Jobs Taskforce to Paterson and to host two hearings, one in Kurri Kurri and one in Raymond Terrace. This federal Labor caucus committee is chaired by the member for Longman, Susan Lamb, and includes the member for Braddon, Justine Keay. They are travelling Australia to hear firsthand about grassroots challenges and solutions. During their visits to Kurri Kurri and Raymond Terrace the member for Longman and committee secretary the member for Braddon heard some key points. Regional jobseekers face a transport barrier. There is little and infrequent public transport in many parts of the Paterson electorate. Young people navigating secondary schooling are relentlessly funnelled towards the HSC and an ATAR score and being sent on to university. Apprenticeships have acquired a second-class stigma that is not deserved, and the erosion of TAFE and VET funding is compounding the dearth of available apprenticeships; 457 visas and the transient backpacker workforce exacerbate the problems created by disappearing industries, skills gaps, the casualisation of the workforce, underworking—people can't get enough hours—and diminishing support for workers' rights. The task force heard from employers, recruitment agencies, councils, secondary educators, young jobseekers themselves, mature long-term unemployed people, union representatives and concerned parents of their unemployed children. Their ideas on how to fix some of these problems deserve to be heard. They said: 'We need to ensure infrastructure and services are adequate or we'll not attract industries and businesses to our regions. Reliable broadband and mobile access is paramount, as is reliable and affordable energy. We need to encourage new businesses and help unemployed people create their own jobs—ones that they're truly invested in. Strong businesses lead to lower unemployment. Government spending and procurement must stipulate minimum local content in manufacturing apprenticeships and they're only successful if there are long-term industries.' I commend the committee and I commend my community for being part of it. Dairy Industry 87 16:29 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I rise today to highlight the plight of the Australian dairy industry and in particular the dairy industry in Queensland, and South-East Queensland, which is doing it incredibly tough at the moment. I also rise to put my support behind Beaudesert, which was recently announced as the 2017 Legendairy Capital of the subtropical region and is now in the running to take out the award for National Legendairy Capital. Beaudesert, set in the rolling hills of the Scenic Rim, boasts around 34 dairies, eight per cent of Queensland's total. Well, there were 34 when we wrote this speech; a couple of them have probably fallen over by now. Those farmers are punching well above their weight, producing 47 million litres per year, or just over 11 per cent of the state's production. Beaudesert dairy farmers have often had to deal with the cruel inflictions of Mother Nature. Earlier this year, Scenic Rim farmers had to deal with massive crop losses and fences being washed away in the aftermath of Tropical Cyclone Debbie. These extreme events have happened before and will happen again, but, with the worst of Mother Nature, comes the best of human nature. The resilience of local farmers and the support of the local community meant that they were quickly back on their feet, but they still wear the financial scars. It's always been that way around Beaudesert. It's a great community, and we got in behind and helped our farmers. These characteristics are personified by the Daughters of Dairy Farmers group. Founders Rachel Rohan, Joanne Mollinger and Lisa Harrison aim to educate and encourage consumers to buy branded milk and to break down the stereotypes through social media. Helped by a $2½ thousand grant through the Dairy Australia Legendairy Capital program, the group helped distribute life-size cut-out cows around town to local businesses and schools, for decoration. The group held a Legendairy event to launch the artwork, which can now be seen, along with cattle pads, all around our town. It's a moving reminder of the struggles that our dairy farmers are facing. There's an ACCC report coming down to give its findings on the dairy industry, following a Senate report into the dairy industry. You don't have to get too far into a chat with people in our dairy industry to find that they lay the blame for their financial demise solely on $1 a litre milk. I commend the Legendairy Capital work, but I encourage retailers to abandon their $1 a litre milk campaign, which is crippling the industry. Day by day, I'm losing dairy farmers because they are being asked to produce milk below their production cost. If Australians would just show their compassion to the dairy farmers, as my community shows compassion to the dairy farmers, we could maybe save some farmers and save the industry. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 88 BILLS Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017, Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 88

Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017

Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017

Second Reading 88 16:32 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I rise to discuss the vital importance of international trade—particularly with our close ally Singapore—to Capricornia. Capricornia, in Central Queensland, holds a diverse and strong economy based on primary and mineral production. We are in many ways the backbone of Queensland's economy, providing billions of dollars in GDP and royalties each year, while generating the vast majority of the state's—and indeed the nation's—energy needs and growing high-quality food for customers the world over. Central Queensland is an absolute engine room, and we want to keep it that way. While it is all very well and good to have a great product, it is equally important to be able to sell it. As a National within this coalition government, I am proud of what we are achieving in the sphere of trade. Liberalised trade has underpinned Australia's 26 years of continuous economic growth. Our free trade agreements are generating new opportunities for local businesses and creating jobs, something I am very passionate about. While Central Queensland is such an economic powerhouse, we are doing it tough at the moment. Since the end of the most recent mining construction boom, we've seen property prices fall, businesses go to the wall and many of the good, reliable jobs disappear. It is vital now, more than ever, that we continue to grow and develop our export markets so we can address this downturn in one industry with gains in another. In 2015 the prime ministers of Australia and Singapore signed a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, CSP, to further integrate our economies, militaries, institutions and people. The CSP is broad-ranging in its scope and brings benefits to Australia across a range of sectors and throughout the country, including rural and regional Australia. Investment from Singapore has the potential to help unlock opportunities in Australia's north. Northern Australian communities like Rockhampton, Sarina and Clermont stand ready to be the beneficiaries of stronger trade, tourism and investment links with Singapore. The Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement is a massive economic asset in a broader national sense, particularly for Central Queenslanders. Central Queenslanders understand trade and realise just how important it is to have open trade with our Asian neighbours like Singapore. Singapore and Australia are such natural partners, sharing centuries of history together both as part of the British Empire and as two countries committed to free trade and open markets. Singapore is in many ways a doorway to Asia, a real key trade market through which so much of South-East Asian economies rely. In 2016, two-way trade between Australia and Singapore amounted to $23 billion. Singapore is our largest trading partner in ASEAN and the seventh largest overall. The free trade agreement with Singapore promises to boost competition for Australian exporters by addressing behind-the-border barriers, delivering new access and greater certainty to service suppliers. Central Queenslanders, perhaps more than most Australians, are well aware of our close relationship with Singapore as we play host to thousands of Singaporean military personnel each year. Exercise Wallaby is on the Shoalwater Bay military training grounds in my electorate of Capricornia. As we speak, roughly 4,000 Singaporean troops, airmen and seamen are joining Australian troops for vital training, war games and live-firing operations. This exercise provides a welcome boost to the local economies of cities and towns like Rockhampton and Yeppoon, particularly for businesses in transport and logistics, accommodation, retail, dining and entertainment. The Singaporean influence cannot be underestimated in our community and is undoubtedly another string to the bow of Central Queensland's economy. This benefit is set to become a real game changer for our region, as Singapore is set to dramatically increase its presence. Under the plan, Singapore will not only more than triple the number of personnel they send to Australia but also expand the time for which they will be here. Singapore is also investing $2 billion into improving the training, infrastructure and prioritising local businesses for the works at two training sites in Queensland, one of which is Shoalwater Bay. This will mean roughly a $1 billion investment in training infrastructure that will remain Australian, and will do what I am absolutely committed to—that is, creating jobs. The amendments tabled for this free trade agreement are an important addition to what has been a monumentally beneficial agreement between two of the region's great nation's since its acceptance under the Howard government in 2003. Moving forward, a greater range of Australian businesses will be able to utilise SAFTA to better tap into the Singapore market. These amendments place an emphasis on our burgeoning services industries, a sector easily overlooked when it comes to international export but one with significant export appeal. New opportunities for education as an export exist through increased recognition of tertiary qualifications obtained at Australian universities in law, medicine and allied health—again, excellent news for Central Queenslanders studying through one of the country's finest education facilities and its largest external study university, CQ University. These changes will allow local universities to be far more competitive in the global market for education. I firmly believe education is one of the great opportunities for our economy as the growing middle class of South-East Asia looks for educational products to help deliver their children the edge in life they need to succeed in the modern world. The process will also make it easier for our great Australian universities like CQ University to set up campus in Singapore. Up until now, they've not been able to call themselves a university. The opportunity for Australian companies to tender for valuable procurement contracts with the Singapore government is an exciting opportunity, particularly for the myriad of Central Queensland businesses with skills transferrable across the globe. This increased opportunity, teamed with a marked reduction in red tape, should see relationships, and therefore trade, between our two great countries continue to grow well into the future. Red-tape reduction will come in many forms, especially with regards to certifying origin. Exporters will be able to self-certify, rather than paying through the nose for a third-party certifier to tell them what they already know. Another key aspect of the amendments deals with international business travel. An enormous number of Australians travel to Singapore for business for varying reasons—some for a day, some for a month and others end up making their lives there—and the same can be said for many Singaporeans in Australia. It is vitally important where we have such high numbers of expats from each country that we have guaranteed access for Australians to work and stay in Singapore, while keeping security and safety paramount. As far as Central Queensland is concerned, the stronger our ties with Singapore, the better. We see so much benefit from our already strong relationship that more can only be a good thing. 16:41 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore I rise to support the Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017, which is part of a suite of measures designed to facilitate trade and investment between our nations. The proposed legislation will simplify administration and reduce compliance costs for traders operating under the agreement by introducing new product-specific rules of origin for goods that are imported into Australia from Singapore. This is simpler than the existing 50 per cent content rule that requires businesses to record all production costs. Goods which satisfy the new rules of origin in the amended agreement will be able to enter Australia at preferential rates of customs duty. Procedures for claiming the preferential treatment will be modernised and traders will now be able to self-certify that their goods meet the rules of origin. These procedures will also provide exporters with flexibility to continue to have goods certified by third parties. The new rules will operate as an alternative framework for goods claimed to be the produce or manufacture of Singapore for a transitional period of three years, after which the framework for produce or manufacture of Singapore will be repealed, and only eligible goods that are determined in accordance with the new rules of origin will be subject to preferential rates of customs duty. The amended agreement will enter into force after the governments of both Australia and Singapore have completed their respective domestic treaty approvals processes, having exchanged notes confirming the completion of their respective domestic procedures. At this time both countries are working cooperatively to facilitate the entry into force on 1 December 2017. In 2016 Australian investment in Singapore reached $61.5 billion, while Singaporean investment in Australia amounted to $99 billion. In terms of services, Singapore is our third-largest trading partner, with international services amounting to $10 billion annually. Singapore is our 11th-largest trading partner in terms of merchandise trade, with combined imports and exports totalling $12.6 billion in 2016. I attended the Australia Singapore Exchange Conference, which was held at Suntec City in Singapore between 28 September and 1 October. Delegates from Australia travelled to Singapore to network with representatives of the Singaporean business community, the objective being to strengthen the trade and investment relationship between our nations. The Australian Deputy High Commissioner to Singapore, Ms Kate Duff, was in attendance. I would like to acknowledge the visionary and proactive work of the organising committee, in particular Mr Roy Yeo, Faith Tay, Paul De La Cruz, Nicholas Tay, Clinton Cheng, Yang Ping, Sim Lai Ngin, Chong Rong Rong, Shaun Aw, Helen Qin, Lily Phua, Denise Twigger and Jon Szeto. Mr Yeo and his dynamic team are committed to developing stronger business links between Singapore and Australia. I was pleased to participate in pre-conference visits with two local chapters of Business Networking International—a tour of the Beyonics Advanced Manufacturing facility; a visit to the Singapore Cruise Centre to see the passenger facilities for the cruise ship industry; and a visit to the Metro department store chain, which stocks a number of Australian-sourced items, such as canned abalone, honey and cosmetic products. I delivered the keynote address at the conference, promoting sectors of the Western Australian economy that are attractive for Singaporean investment, including mining, resources, and energy; hospitality and tourism; retail and wholesale; property development and land subdivision; agriculture, food processing, agribusiness, fisheries; and the development of northern Australia. The Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement is in the process of being comprehensively updated, with a greater focus on services and improved exchanges in the areas of innovation, science, education and the arts. Under the upgraded arrangements, Australian industries, including education, law, financial and professional services, will gain improved access to Singaporean markets. Australia and Singapore will establish a framework to support mutual recognition of professional qualifications. Exciting new updates will provide greater certainty for Australian lawyers and law firms operating in Singapore. Australia has locked in existing opportunities in the legal sector, including the ability for Australian lawyers to practise Singapore law and to work in international commercial arbitration. There will also be scope to have Australian qualifications recognised by Singapore, giving lawyers, engineers, accountants and medical professionals greater certainty to practise in Singapore. Singapore will also recognise Australian tertiary qualifications, including juris doctor degrees, as well as those in allied health, such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy, from a number of Australian universities. Finance firms will also be able to provide a range of services on cross-border transactions with Singapore. This includes investment advice, portfolio management services and brokerage services for insurance of maritime, aviation and transport-related risks. Australia will raise the Foreign Investment Review Board screening threshold for private Singaporean investment in non-sensitive sectors from the current $252 million to $1,094 million, consistent with the approach taken in the Trans Pacific Partnership and North Asian free trade agreements. Australia will locate one of its five start-up landing pads in Singapore to promote innovation and entrepreneurship. This initiative will support emerging Australian technology companies to gain a foothold in Singapore and the wider Asian market. Furthermore, the Singapore-Northern Australia Agribusiness Development Partnership will involve an ongoing program of activities focused on encouraging and attracting Singaporean investment to develop northern Australia. Singapore and Australia have made commitments on work rights on a reciprocal basis: Australians will enjoy longer lengths of stay for independent executives, contractual service suppliers and their families, up from two months to three years. Longer lengths of stay will apply for intracorporate transferees and their families, up from two years to three years with a new maximum stay of 15 years. A more streamlined process will be implemented to facilitate temporary entry and work permits for Australian professionals and business people. Similarly, Singaporeans will have exclusive access to a new long-term, multiple entry visa option by 1 January 2018, making it easier to travel to Australia for business and pleasure. The Visitor (Subclass 600) visa will allow travellers, with just a single application, to visit Australia for up to three months at a time over a six-year period. The new visa option was announced during the Prime Minister's official visit to Singapore and will further strengthen ties between our countries. There are currently an estimated 7,578 Singaporean students studying in Australia. In terms of tourism, 709,000 Singaporeans visited Australia in 2016 and about one million Australians visited Singapore. Located at the heart of Asia, Singapore offers Australian businesses access to global markets. Strategically located to serve the Asia-Pacific, one of the world's fastest-growing regions, Singapore's well-established business infrastructure, global connectivity and trade linkages enable investors to access the approximately four-billion-strong Asian market within a radius of seven hours flight time. Singapore continues to be well regarded as a AAA-rated economy with strong growth potential and a sound and stable location for business expansion and investment. The 2018 ASEAN summit will be held in Australia, with Singapore as the chair. Australian businesses, including firms in my electorate, will benefit from greater access to the Singaporean market through increased trade and investment. Australian companies are already winning high-value contracts with the Singapore government in sectors such as road transport, construction and engineering. This legislation is part of a suite of measures designed to facilitate trade and investment between our nations. It seeks to achieve this by simplifying administration and reducing compliance costs. The future looks promising, with improved cooperation and stronger ties between our nations. I commend the bill to the House. 16:52 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith The 2003 Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement was the second free trade agreement that Australia entered into. The benefit of the institution of that agreement was that Australian imports into Singapore became tariff free. In June 2015, there was a comprehensive strategic partnership signed between Singapore and Australia, and one of the priorities under that partnership was to undertake a third review of the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. I'm very hopeful that this free trade agreement will build on the already strong trade relationship that exists between Singapore and Australia. The two-way trade between our nations in the 2014-15 financial year was $28 billion. I'm hopeful that this revision will help us to build on that trade. One of the benefits of this revision will be to continue to increase free trade between the two countries by working on removing some of those behind-the-border impediments to trade—some of those non-tariff trade impediments. I hope that this free trade agreement will have that benefit. Labor supports trade liberalisation. I think we've all made it very clear that we would prefer to be working towards multilateral trade liberalisation through the World Trade Organization. Nonetheless, and despite some misgivings about the preferential nature of bilateral agreements and whether they improve net trade or are simply diversionary, this is an agreement that we hope will have some mutual benefits for Singapore and Australia. I wanted to speak on these Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement bills specifically because, in relation to previous legislation and on previous occasions, I have raised concerns about investor-state dispute settlement provisions in trade agreements, particularly bilateral trade agreements. Everyone in this room would be aware of the difficulties that have arisen in relation to investor-state dispute settlement provisions, including a case against Australia in respect of our tobacco labelling. Tobacco labelling was one of the most significant pieces of public health improvement in recent decades, and I'm pleased that Australia was successful in fending off an ISDS-based complaint about cigarette and tobacco labelling. It is of interest to most people that we ensure that our national sovereignty is not impeded or eroded through the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions in free trade agreements. I have long been a critic of ISDS provisions, so I did want to make a couple of observations about the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement does contain an ISDS provision, one of the investor-state dispute settlement provisions which are obviously provisions that allow for investors, if they invest in one of the countries involved, to then go to an arbitration process to seek to have their rights as against the country determined in the event that the country does something that causes harm or loss to that investor. The ramifications for sovereignty in those cases are obvious, and so I maintain my criticism of ISDS provisions. I wanted to acknowledge that there has been some improvement in the ISDS provision in relation to the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Those improvements go to some of the public criticisms that have been made of investor-state dispute settlement processes internationally over a number of years. It is encouraging to see that there's an acknowledgement in this agreement that there do need to be limitations on ISDS provisions. In this revision of the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement there are more explicit safeguards protecting the Australian government's right to regulate in relation to public interest and public welfare, including some explicit rights to regulate in relation to protecting public welfare when it comes to matters relating to health. Obviously tobacco labelling is an important example of that, but you can imagine all sorts of other areas in which it might be in an investor's interest to consider action against a sovereign government in relation to health regulation in that country. So it is pleasing that that is there. Similarly, it is pleasing that there is an explicit provision regarding the environment and our government's right to legislate and regulate in respect of environmental matters. Members will also be aware that one of the arguments sometimes used in investor-state dispute settlement is that a particular policy of a nation effectively represents indirect expropriation of an investor's property. There's a provision in this revised agreement that deals with that, and it says that mere government regulation, provided it is not discriminatory, will not be considered to be indirect expropriation of the investor's property other than in rare circumstances, and that is very positive as well. Finally, government action that might be considered to be inconsistent with an investor's expectations should not be considered to be a breach of the minimum standard of treatment obligation in the free trade agreement, which again is a positive thing. We want governments to be able to act in the best interests of the nation without having to worry about being pulled into some sort of secretive international arbitration process and have legislative authority overridden because of wanting to uphold free trade agreements. It is positive to see that there is some acknowledgement of those problems. When I say 'acknowledgement', it is quite pleasing to note that there are process-related improvements for the ISDS, not just substantive improvements. One process improvement that is really important is the requirement that those ISDS hearings be conducted in public, so the public can find out what happens—they are not the secretive behind-closed-doors ISDS provisions that we've come to expect in other free trade agreements. Similarly, there's some provision for ensuring a code of conduct for arbitrators, which is included in the agreement. Again, arbitrators have been criticised as being a bit like an international club that do their work in secret and it's a small number of people in the international arbitration field who are specific to investor-state settlement dispute procedures. Having a code of conduct for those people is an improvement. This is not me saying it's great that we have ISDS provisions—I maintain my concerns about sovereignty and the erosion of sovereignty; however, I thought it was important to acknowledge there has at least been some movement in this new revised trade agreement in coming to terms with some of the real and genuine concerns and criticisms that people have had in relation to free trade agreement ISDS provisions. There are other measures. There are measures in relation to creative arts, Indigenous cultural heritage and other cultural heritage, and tobacco-specific provisions. I don't wish to delay the chamber any further, but I wanted to put on record my continued concern in respect of investor-state dispute settlement provisions and my sense of encouragement that there is now some international acknowledgement of the improvements that need to be made. 17:00 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I'd like to thank the member for Griffith for her contribution. There's much merit in what she says—that this government would prefer multilateral agreements to bilateral agreements. However, we live in a world where it is very difficult to get the World Trade Organization to agree on a particular outcome. Indeed, farmers in India have been holding up an agreement with the World Trade Organization for nearly two decades now. ISDSs are also very important measures by which people can find ways to enforce free trade agreements. There are certainly process improvements and enhancements that we can make—there's no doubt about that—but to throw the baby out with the bathwater would be a regressive step. As I'm sure the member for Griffith agrees, it is important that we live in a world of law, not a world where might is right. Free trade is the cornerstone of the Liberal tradition in Australia. It allows Australians to have access to a wide range of goods and services that would otherwise be unattainable for the average consumer. It allows Australians to project their business and professional expertise across borders. In short, it allows Australians to thrive, unencumbered by the constraints of protectionism that those opposite would introduce if they were given the chance. There has been no greater force in pulling people out of poverty than free trade. There has been no greater deterrent to war and conflict than free trade. It was the postwar regime of free trade and open markets that saw European nations rise from the rubble of war and re-emerge as competitive and developed economies. It is free trade that will help to sustain our economy into the future and ensure that Australians have the means to succeed in a free and democratic society. This government has a mandate to secure the economic future of our country. As part of this commitment, we must modernise and adapt our trade agreements to better suit the dynamically changing demands of the global marketplace and to facilitate trade and business between our nations with greater efficiency. After all, it is this commitment that has helped to fuel over 26 years of uninterrupted economic growth. It was a Liberal government that implemented the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement in 2003, marking a new chapter in an economic relationship that has since proven to be of immeasurable benefit to both Australia and Singapore. Allowing Australian businesses to finally access the countless export opportunities in Singapore has elevated that country to becoming one of our largest trading partners. Australian businesses have chosen to invest heavily in the Singaporean economy. Likewise, our businesses have been on the receiving end of considerable Singaporean investment, totalling over $31 billion of foreign direct investment in 2016 alone. This bill will build on our existing economic partnership and create new opportunities for Australians and their businesses to thrive overseas. It will allow them to expand their footprint into South-East Asia, whilst cutting the red tape that has so often hindered entrepreneurial ambitions in the past. Singapore is not only a key economic hub in its own right; it is also a gateway into the rapidly expanding economies of Asia. With a burgeoning middle class that is set to more than double over the next decade, Asia should be of great interest to any Australian business seeking to increase its export opportunities. With existing infrastructure to support the expansion of our businesses into a lucrative market, Singapore is an ideal starting point for such ventures. By addressing and mitigating behind-the-border barriers to trade, this bill will allow Australian businesses of any size to tap into increasing consumer demand in Asia, boosting our global competitiveness. We are increasing the threshold at which outbound investment into Singapore requires approval, from the previous $252 million, by four times. That means much faster investments requiring less hurdles. Ultimately, it means greater productivity and efficiency for our businesses, and more highly paid jobs and opportunities for all Australians. Another change we are implementing to the same end is simplifying the certification-of-origin process, meaning more time for Australians to spend doing business instead of in their business. Professional services contribute one-third of our total exports to Singapore, so this bill includes provisions to ensure that Australians are better able to offer their services in Singapore, with more and wider-spread recognition of Australian accreditation in fields like law, medicine and health. For Australians, this means they can now much more easily transition into life in Singapore, earn competitive wages and compete for lucrative private-sector and government contracts. Those opposite constantly lament the cost of living in this country, yet, at the same time, they oppose our trade agreements at every corner. The one solution to rising prices has, time and time again, been proven to be free trade, but there they stand, steadfast in their opposition to measures that will actually help those they claim to represent. This is yet another example of Labor kowtowing to the demands of union leaders whose aims are motivated by the quaint idea that protectionism doesn't make our low-income earners less well off. This is nothing new. We have seen it before in many of our attempts to integrate with the global economy. We have seen it in our negotiations with China, we have seen it with our negotiations with Japan, we have seen it with our negotiations with South Korea, and I assure you that we will see it again here. After all, we know the Leader of the Opposition does not believe in the proven benefits of free trade. As he said himself, 'There is no such thing as fair trade.' If ever there was proof that those opposite don't believe in the future of Australia, here it is. There are people in my own electorate of Mackellar that have experienced the other side, the dark side in which trade does not exist and free markets do not exist—and, guess what: neither do free people. They hail from countries like China, Cambodia, Vietnam, the former Soviet bloc and, sadly, many others. Having experienced what living under communism was like—or, dare I say, even economic socialism—they fled to Australia for this very reason. Take China, for example: plagued by a historic tradition of protectionism and insulation from global markets, its people were suffering from wide-reaching poverty, mass starvation and a stagnant economy. Once faced with a large, rural, poor population isolated from vital services and deprived of access to goods, economic liberalisation has pulled hundreds of millions out of poverty whilst allowing for equitable access to consumer goods and services. Through liberalisation of its economy, the quality of life increased exponentially for the average Chinese person, as has the opportunity for their businesses and investments around the world. China's integration into the global economy and the impact that this has had on its citizens is a testament to the nature of free trade, not as an economic policy benefitting only big business, but as a proactive approach to improving the lives of every citizen. Their story is personal to me. It is reflected in my own. As I talked about in this very chamber during my first address to parliament, my grandparents fled the oppressive communist regime of the Soviet bloc. Economic isolationism was not just a term found in economic books; to them, it was a stark reality. It led to a suppression of free enterprise, competition and new ideas, but, importantly, it brought to the fore an incessant need for a pervasive state to control its own people. Coming to Australia was a dream come true. Finally they were in a society in which they could flourish, in which their ideas were given free reign and where ambition and hard work were rewarded. That is what free trade does: it gives people the power to decide over their own destinies. Even in less extreme forms, excessive economic regulation hinders growth. It stifles the very creativity and need for self-expression in all human beings and it hurts the people whom it is meant to help. We celebrate value in all truly free and democratic countries. Free trade is the silver bullet to global poverty, achieving what countless charity drives and government aid packages could not. Free trade and economic liberalisation have improved living standards, created jobs and pulled the global community closer together. I use this metaphor from Thomas Friedman all the time, but it never gets old: No two countries with a McDonald's have ever gone to war with each other. Tightening our economic bonds with one another in this globalised world increases our threshold for going to war with those very nations. It makes war a more costly exercise and therefore a less likely one. In a world in which we find more and more similarities with one another, predominantly through building trade relationships, we are pushed and incentivised to work together to cooperate, but to build rather than destroy. If history has taught us anything, it is that there is nothing to be gained from economic isolationism. Protectionism and excessive economic regulation has long been the mainstay of authoritarian governments whose main aim has always been to control their citizens rather than see them prosper. 17:12 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce You're not always sure why you're asked to add remarks, but you are asked to add remarks, and we'll see how they go. An honourable member interjecting— Mr HILL 86256 Indeed. I'm pleased to make a contribution to add some words of support and provide a bit of context for our support. I do so as the vice-chair of the Singapore-Australia Parliamentary Friendship Group, along with my colleague, the member for Moore, Mr Goodenough, and also as someone who has a longstanding interest in good policy and the architecture to develop Australia's trade relations broadly, but particularly with South-East Asia. My former work, before I entered the parliament, was with the Victorian Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, working in the trade and engagement area. I've led trade missions to South-East Asia in a range of sectors. So I have a great personal interest as well as reflecting Labor's long and strong support for good trade policy and trade agreements. I'll try to focus on the substance of the issues. I'm not inclined, with my head cold, to respond to some of the propaganda which we heard interspersed with some sensible comments that somehow the world is black and white and everyone on the side of truth and righteousness over there loves trade and trade agreements, and that somehow we're all Neanderthals who don't. If you look over the last few decades and, indeed, the history of this trade agreement, there's been strong bipartisan support from the Hawke-Keating government, which was not much loved by the parties opposite when they were in government, but, as the years go on, we hear more fond remarks from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister about the glory years of Hawke and Keating and their economic contribution to Australia. To the context for this trade agreement, Australia sits at the bottom of a region of 4½ billion people—the fastest growing part of the world. The world's economic centre is returning to Asia faster than at any time in human history. Indeed, that's been the norm—that the economic centre of the world was around north of us. This is full of opportunity for us—and some threat, as we're seeing. Importantly, these opportunities have to be seized. Good outcomes don't just happen magically. They require sustained effort over many years by all sides—all parties of government at the very least, both in trade policy architecture, the day-to-day efforts, trade missions and Austrade's work and so on, and the deal-making. These agreements can be fine as far as they go, but, ultimately, it's up to Australian business to take advantage of them, particularly in the case of trading with South-East Asia, to make best use of that incredible resource which we have as a diverse country—our diaspora populations. There's an enormous amount of research that indicates that migrant diasporas, including a wonderful Singaporean diaspora, many in my electorate who settled from the 1970s and 1980s and who started businesses and are trading with Singapore now, and that those cultural networks and the trusted relationships, with families moving backwards and forwards, are also critical enablers to take best advantage of the trade architecture which may be in place from time to time. With that broad context, I think to be fair of bipartisanship in aims and sometimes differing objectives, I would also make the point that bilateral agreements can be good as far as they go. But, in trade theory, they're always suboptimal to good multilateral agreements. I don't think any sensible economist would dispute that a broader multilateral agreement is going to give you a better outcome over the long term than a series of sometimes patchwork bilateral agreements. We are in an era where, for a range of reasons, good multilateral agreements improvements have been hard to come by. But that doesn't mean that every trade agreement is a good trade agreement. That's a really important thing to note—that it's too easy when we might raise legitimate concerns about aspects to then play the silly partisan game which we heard in question time again today that, all of a sudden, when you raise a query or a concern about a trade agreement, like we did with aspects of many that have gone in recent times, somehow, therefore, you're against free trade and you hate the whole thing, which is just nonsense. As the committee that looked at this made clear—and Labor is supporting this legislation; it implements a couple of the key aspects to the new and improved agreement, as they say; the tariffs and customs changes—importantly, we did make some comments raising concerns about aspects of the agreement. And they're not new concerns. They're things which we've said for some years. They're things which we took to the last election. They're things which we've said in the parliament. They're things which we've said consistently in relation to other trade agreements. They go to good scrutiny. So the point that I made was that not every trade agreement is a good trade agreement. You don't sign a deal just because you can get one. You sign a deal when you're absolutely convinced in a transparent and robust way that it's in the national interest. To that effect, Labor maintain our concerns, as we provided in the additional comments to the main report, about the lack of transparency in negotiation and, importantly, the lack of independent economic analysis. Amusingly, perhaps for those who watch the parliament and the workings of the parliament, strangely it's not just Labor that says that—it's not just Labor MPs. We've seen in this parliament alone two government-controlled committees—that's right; controlled by those opposite—publish reports which back up the points which we're making here in relation to this bill and this agreement. On the Indonesia-Australia investment relationship and trade agreement, the trade and investment growth committee only a few months ago issued a report that said there should be independent economic scrutiny of trade agreements. This is a good practice and a good policy—that you shouldn't just sign these things because you're the government and you can. If you believe what you say and you believe the advice that DFAT is giving you, then you should have the confidence to put them to some external scrutiny—expose the assumptions. It shouldn't be that controversial. That committee recommended that any future Indonesia-Australia free trade agreement should be subject to independent scrutiny—for example, by the Productivity Commission or a similarly competent body. Indeed, there have been other committees controlled by the government that have signed up to the same principle. In supporting this legislation, which is necessary to give effect to some of the customs and tariff aspects of the agreement, we do maintain our concern about the lack of transparency in negotiation and the lack of independent economic analysis across these sorts of agreements. The second point, and a consistent point we make, is that the SAFTA update will undermine Australia's migrant visa program by failing to apply labour market testing for contractual service suppliers. In plain English, that means that, under this new and improved government agreement, jobs in Australia will be able to be filled by workers from Singapore without being offered to Australians first. It doesn't mean we're against free trade or against economic growth to maintain that simple, firm principle that we shouldn't trade away labour market testing rights. It is a globalised world and we welcome that. Interconnectivity is great economically and it's great strategically. Countries who trade are less likely to end up in conflict in the broader region. That's all true. There are a couple of things we believe shouldn't be globalised without proper scrutiny. One is labour market testing and people's jobs. The other is the ISDS clauses that we've got great concerns with. Notwithstanding our support for this legislation to give effect to this aspect of the agreement, we are concerned that, yet again, another agreement by this government weakens labour market protection for Australian workers. It's no great comfort when they say, 'Oh, well, there's a theory here that says we might grow the pie in a couple of aspects of the agreement.' That's fine, but you could be the one who loses your job because of the way this government approaches trade agreements with an ideological bent. It's not a controversial view. Many of their own members sign up to this unanimously committee after committee. I do not understand the blind ideology that stops them from accepting it's a reasonable proposition. I should have mentioned at the start that there is continued bipartisan support for this. As was rightly said, the Howard government first signed this agreement in 2003 and it was updated by the Gillard government in 2011. The continued attention to updating the agreement is welcome. The final point I'd make is that ISDS clauses have been in the SAFTA. In a sense, there are changes which we welcome. There are some improvements to acknowledge the right and the ability of governments to regulate in the public interest, and that's been one of our serious concerns about ISDS clauses broadly. This agreement does acknowledge that governments have a right to regulate to ensure protection of public welfare, including health and environment; that non-discriminatory regulatory actions to safeguard public welfare objectives are okay; and that government's action, which may be inconsistent with an investor's expectations, does not constitute an agreement of the minimum standard of treatment obligations, even if it results in loss or damage to the investor. These things form an important part of the context for the specific provisions of the bill in relation to the new rules of origin for goods imported from Singapore and the new procedure to claim preferential tariff treatment for goods that originate in Singapore, and the transitional provisions around that. In recognising that there are changes and improvements is also to concede that there are problems, therefore, in the other ISDS clauses which this government continues to have operative and pursue in other agreements. 17:23 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017. If you go back to 1965, to the time when Singapore became a nation, you would have to say their prospects did not look good. Here was a small island nation with virtually zero natural resources and a small migrant population. At that time in 1965 it was almost the height of the Vietnam War. We had the North Vietnamese, the Communists, wanting to infiltrate the rest of the countries through South-East Asia. Back in 1965, there was still a legitimate argument about which economic system would provide the greatest prosperity for its citizens. Was it the Communist socialist model promoted by Russia and the North Vietnamese, or was it the free market capitalist model promoted by the West? We ask today why Singapore is so successful, and there are two things. Firstly, Lee Kuan Yew spoke in his autobiography about the importance of America and Australia's intervention in the Vietnam War. He said: … the communist underground was still active in Singapore— at the time of action in Vietnam— America's action enabled non-communist Southeast Asia to put their own houses in order. By 1975, they— the South-East Asian nations— were in better shape to stand up to the communists. Had there been no US intervention— of course, with Australia's support— the will of these countries to resist would have melted and Southeast Asia would have most likely gone communist. The prosperous emerging market economies of ASEAN— that we see today— were nurtured during the Vietnam War years. Singapore went down the track of free trade. They understood the importance of free trade—how that brings prosperity to your nation. I was reading an article the other week and thought, 'This actually says everything that needs to be said about free trade.' It's by a gentleman called Allan Golombek. He said: Imports are not a necessary evil; they are a necessary ingredient. Companies requiring inputs toward a finished product need to get the best price, quality, and service levels they can to compete. They need the widest potential network of potential suppliers. Being able to import—and therefore obtain the best possible terms and conditions from domestic and foreign suppliers—is crucial to being able to efficiently make products for export. He continued: In fact, the opportunity to import helps achieve productivity and prosperity more than the opportunity to export, because it does more to broaden choice. Importing widens the circle of potential suppliers competing to meet the needs of consumers and intermediate producers. It forces domestic companies to become more efficient and compete more effectively. It generates economies of scale, spreading production costs over a wider and larger market. It allows countries to utilize comparative advantage, importing goods and inputs from countries that are most efficient at making them. And it transfers knowledge, allowing importers to benefit from technological spillover. That pretty much sums up Singapore's approach. And what have they achieved? One of the most successful and wealthiest societies on the planet. We contrast that with those who decided free trade and free market capitalist policies are not the way to go. We look at a nation like Venezuela that, in contrast to Singapore, has more oil wealth than Saudi Arabia, but instead spurned free trade—that said capitalism is no good, that went for their thing of equality and social justice. What do we see in Venezuela today? A nation that once had a higher GDP than Australia—a nation that was once ranked fourth in the world with GDP—we now see in absolute collapse. Inflation there runs at 460 per cent. They have the world's worst economic growth at minus eight per cent. We see a nation where there are food riots and they slaughter the zoo animals for food. They have one of the highest murder rates in the world. Last year, there were over 21,000 murders in the nation of Venezuela, at a rate of 90 per 100,000. In contrast, Singapore had 16, at a rate of 0.3 per cent. In Venezuela, we see the re-emergence of diseases that were once eradicated—diseases like diphtheria. We see increases in child mortality. We see the final stages of socialism, where they even run out of toilet paper. There cannot be a greater contrast—a greater example—between Singapore and Venezuela to show what is the greatest way to create prosperity for a nation's people and their economy, and yet we still have people in this parliament and state parliaments around this nation that argue against free trade. While the historical evidence of how it drives prosperity is there, we still have so many people who want to argue against free trade. Among all the wonderful things this coalition government has done, one of the best is the free trade agreements with China, with Japan and with South Korea, and now we can add this free trade agreement with Singapore to the list. I will go through some of the things that this free trade agreement will achieve. Firstly, it will enhance our education opportunities. There will be new opportunities, through increased recognition of tertiary qualifications obtained from Australian universities. In the legal field, it will be simpler for Australian lawyers and law firms operating in Singapore to obtain and retain accreditation. In the financial markets, Australian financial service providers will be able to provide services to Singapore, including banking, insurance, fund management, portfolio management and brokerage. Professional services will benefit. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:31 to 17:46 17:45 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I'm very pleased to speak on the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement amendment implementation bill. Given that he is in the chamber, I really want to commend Minister Ciobo on his efforts in putting this Singaporean deal together—it is very important to have any amendment to the free trade agreement, or SAFTA, signed in an agreement. The free trade agreement is one of the pillars of our close relationship with Singapore. As a member for an electorate that exports some fine quality products and produce around the world, and services that will be available in Singapore as a result of this agreement, I acknowledge the work of the minister. The minister, having visited my electorate not so long ago, understands the capabilities and the capacity not only of my electorate but of those around Australia and the opportunities this agreement provides. As a trading nation, Australia relies on trade—there's no other way of putting it. Every new free trade agreement that we do brings another opportunity for those who provide goods and services, as this one does. I represent the amazing region of the south-west, and the Margaret River region in particular, and my electorate already exports to all areas of the globe and especially into Asia. Singapore is one of the main gateways for this fast-growing region. The OECD estimates the global middle class will swell to 4.9 billion people by 2030—two-thirds of whom are expected to reside in Asia, with China itself having one billion of that global middle class. SAFTA provides unprecedented access to Asian markets through the trade hub that is Singapore. Opportunities in the Margaret River region and throughout the south-west—as the minister is well aware, and he supported me strongly in achieving the necessary federal funding—have been boosted with the upgrade for the Busselton-Margaret River Airport to international status, with international and domestic freight. This is really a critical issue in my electorate. It opens up the whole of the south-west, not just the immediate Margaret River-Busselton area, to allow the export of products directly into Singapore and then onto Asia. It is an amazing transformative project and opportunity. My electorate has things like the wonderful wine that we're internationally known for, and Amelia Park's beautiful lamb and beef. We have that amazing and wonderful delicacy, marron, and Brad Adams down at Augusta has his ocean-grown baby abalone. Then there is the Margaret River Chocolate Company, which produces a handmade premium product, a wonderful delicacy. Vasse Virgin is producing some amazing olive oil, raw soaps and natural products. There are also the artisan cheeses and yoghurts. Then there are niche companies like the Margaret River Fudge Factory, which is an experience in itself, or Nauti-Craft, which recently won a national award for innovation. There are lots of opportunities. We will see people coming to and from the region as a result of this free trade agreement and we will see even more opportunities. The SAFTA does a number of things, removing the tariffs on exports to Singapore across the board and giving market access for Australian exporters of services, particularly around education, the environment, telecommunications and professional services. I look at all the expertise we have in the irrigation space in the south-west. Harvey Water is a multiaward-winning provider of irrigation. It is a co-op run by local farmers. They've done extraordinary, groundbreaking work. I'm sure this is the sort of expertise that is transferable. That sort of expertise fits into the services space. There will also be opportunities in education—for Manea college, for example—and for telecommunication companies, law firms and insurance companies. When we get people coming into the south-west, into Busselton and the Margaret River region, through that wonderful airport, we'll be able to offer them a range of amazing experiences. The free trade agreement provides a more open and predictable business environment, exactly what businesses call for both in Singapore and in Australia. It includes competition policy, government procurement, intellectual property, e-commerce, customs procedures and business travel. This is just the beginning. These amendments are a key economic plank of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. This is another high-quality trade deal completed by the Turnbull government. It builds on the agreements with China, Thailand and South Korea and the Singapore agreement itself, delivering significant economic benefits and driving strong growth in the value of Australia's exports. I want to see more of those opportunities for businesses and my region of the south-west of Western Australia. I thank the minister for his efforts. 17:52 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland The Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 are the legislative changes required as part of the recent update to the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 amends the Customs Act 1901 to introduce new rules of origins for goods that are imported into Australia from Singapore. It introduces new procedures to claim preferential tariff treatment for goods that originate from Singapore and it extends the record-keeping obligations that apply to goods exported to Singapore that are produced and manufactured in Australia to Australian-originating goods that are exported to Singapore. The second bill, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017, provides for duty-free access on entry into force of the amended agreement for most eligible goods. It inserts a new schedule 4A to provide for excise-equivalent rates of duty on certain alcohol, tobacco, fuel and petroleum products and it repeals provisions in schedule 3 of the Customs Tariff Act that provide for excise-equivalent rates on duty on certain alcohol, tobacco, fuel and petroleum products in line with the amended agreement, after the expiration of the three-year transition period. Labor supports these changes and, more broadly, we support the update to the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The original free trade agreement was signed by the Howard government, with the Goh government, back in 2003, and it was first updated by the Gillard government in 2011. This is the second update to that agreement. Singapore is our seventh-largest trading partner, and last year we exported more than $10 billion in goods and services to Singapore. This update provides a framework for bilateral investments. It also recognises a number of Australian qualifications, which will provide more opportunities for Australian workers in the areas of education, law, e-commerce, telecommunications and professional services. They're all good things. The updated rules of origin will also help cut red tape for exporters and reduce compliance costs. The harmonisation of investor rules for the Foreign Investment Review Board should also help to increase business in both countries. All of that is good news. The updated agreement also restricts the use of ISDS mechanisms, and this is welcome. As part of the updated agreement, ISDS exemptions have been included for governments to regulate to ensure the protection of public welfare, including in areas of health and the environment. The ISDS provisions will not apply to tobacco control measures and Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medicare Benefits Schedule, Therapeutic Goods Administration and Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. Measures with respect to the creative arts, Indigenous cultural expressions and other cultural heritage will also not have ISDS provisions apply to them and, likewise, Australia's foreign investment policy, including decisions of the Foreign Investment Review Board. These are important protections; however, I take this opportunity to restate Labor's position: we believe that ISDS clauses should be removed altogether. Sovereign governments should be able to legislate in the national interest and should not be constrained by litigious companies or groups. A part of the updated agreement that's not in this bill that we don't support is the removal of labour market testing for contractual service suppliers. I've made this point in this place and elsewhere a number of times. This is the sort of stuff that makes Australians angry. Before a company brings a worker in from overseas—an electrician, a carpenter or a mechanic—we think they should first have to go through the basic task of seeing if there is an Australian who can do the job. That's not what is happening here. The government is using trade deals to waive this with a number of different countries. Despite all the talk from the Prime Minister that this wouldn't happen, it is happening. It also contradicts the government's announcement earlier this year that labour market testing would be mandatory for all temporary skill shortage visa applications. In April, the Prime Minister said: If a job is able to be done by an Australian, it should be done by an Australian. Every nation is entitled to take that point of view, and we certainly do. When they announced the changes to temporary work visas, he said: It will require, in almost all circumstances, in the majority of cases, mandatory labour market testing. But in the policy document that was also released that day there was a get-out clause. On page 3, it said that labour market testing will be mandatory unless an international obligation applies. That's what's being done here. It is what was done with the Chinese-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the South Korean agreement and the Japanese agreement. They have waived labour market testing in this update. If the government would adopt the same approach with the range of other bilateral and regional free trade agreements they're currently negotiating, the impact would be that around 75 per cent of those who come to Australia to work would do so without labour market testing happening first. That objection stated, we support the update to the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement and support this legislation. I told the Singaporean Deputy Prime Minister and the Singaporean trade minister that when they visited a few weeks ago. We are two countries with a long and important bond. We're both free and open economies. Our bureaucrats work together to open up our region for even more trade and investment. Our soldiers, sailors and air men and women train and fight together. Many Australians who fought and died in the Second World War lay forever in Singaporean soil. I hope this update will further cement the bonds between our two great countries and lead to more trade and investment. 17:58 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I want to thank members for their contribution to the debate on the Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017. I thank the member for Blaxland for his comments. We have a good working relationship. I think that we have the chance to be motivated by common interest in terms of Australia's national interest; though. of course, we disagree from time to time on the best way that that national interest is served. That notwithstanding, I appreciate the contribution he made in this debate. Although I don't agree with all aspects of his remarks, I appreciate the nature in which he made them. I particularly thank the members for Capricornia, Moore, Mackellar, Hughes and Forrest who made contributions. I think their contributions highlight the significance of the SAFTA and the opportunities that the coalition is creating for Australian businesses. I note that, across the board, coalition members are genuinely excited about what SAFTA represents. This new comprehensive strategic partnership between Australia and Singapore does represent incredible potential to keep building on the strong trade and investment ties that exist between our countries. It represents incredible potential because of defence links that exist between Australia and Singapore, which have been further entrenched and help to bind together the work that Singapore and Australia will be able to do today. It represents incredible potential because of the way in which we have, for example, the CSIRO and A*STAR working collaboratively in innovative new areas. It represents incredible potential because of the great work that the landing pad that the coalition has instigated and put into effect in Singapore. It is now well and truly a breeding ground, for lack of a better term, for nascent Aussie businesses that are taking some of their first steps in the world. For these reasons, I'm genuinely motivated by what I think is going to be a comprehensive and substantial trade and investment deal that will help to change and further develop for the positive the relationship between Australia and Singapore. They do represent a deepening of our bilateral relationship with Singapore. Given, of course, its modern services-based economy, it is, in many respects, a natural gateway for Australian businesses to those rapidly growing markets in South-East Asia. These are markets that we, of course, as a coalition government, have sought to further entrench through our China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, our Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement and, of course, the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement. Singapore is our fourth-largest export market for services. It's a very significant factor for Australia's largest service-driven economy. I note that roughly 76 per cent of the Australian economy is services based—roughly four out of five jobs—and yet, notwithstanding that fact, it only accounts for around 22 per cent of our exports. SAFTA represents the embodiment of incredible potential when it comes to services exports for our nation. That's why we—and I want to pay credit to my predecessor, Andrew Robb, who started this process with Singapore—were so focused on making sure we put in place this comprehensive deal. The benefits from this deal were also made apparent to me when I travelled, together with the defence minister, Senator Payne, and the foreign minister, Minister Bishop, to what we call the Plus Three dialogue in Singapore only a matter of a month or two ago. I took with me a delegation of Australian businesses, all motivated and excited to make the most of this deal that we're putting through the parliament today. The Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement has mobilised people across a range of industries: agribusiness, those involved in innovation, those involved in higher education, and those involved in defence industries. I was particularly pleased to see Senator Ian Macdonald and the member for Capricornia come with us on that journey to accompany those businesses as well as a number of mayors from local communities, all of whom came to reinforce the message that this is a good deal for Australia. I should also note that the member for Herbert's in the chamber. I note that the member for Herbert didn't make a contribution to this debate, and I find that extraordinary, frankly. I find it extraordinary because the member for Herbert represents Townsville, a region that is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The member for Herbert replaced the former member for Herbert, Ewen Jones, who certainly wouldn't have been silent about the incredible potential that the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement has for the township of Townsville. He wouldn't have been silent; he would have been talking about and advocating for the myriad benefits that Townsville will enjoy as a direct consequence of the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. He would have actually had the wherewithal to contribute to a debate like this, knowing full well that this debate represents incredible potential for the people of Townsville. In fact, the member for Herbert, in my view, should be condemned for not having the wherewithal to make a contribution to this debate. She should be condemned for not having the wherewithal to actually make remarks about what the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement will mean for her community. She should be condemned for not backing in Australian ADF personnel and not backing in Australian businesses, especially from her region, all of whom will, of course, stand to benefit as a consequence of the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. It is extraordinary that there's just a wall of silence from the member for Herbert. I want to encourage the member for Herbert to get mobilised, get active and get engaged with the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. If the member for Herbert wants to be an advocate for her community and wants to be someone who's taken seriously in this building, then it's probably important that she speaks about one of the single biggest issues that affects her community directly rather than just sitting, stony faced and mute. In fact, I think that to actually even be in the chamber while the debate is taking place and not contribute to it really reinforces that the member for Herbert has no interest in something like this—something which has such an impact on the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Australia exported some $4.8 billion of services to Singapore in 2016, including some $2.2 billion of professional and business services. Since SAFTA was first signed in 2003, our bilateral trade relationship has grown by over 80 per cent and our bilateral trade relationship has grown by more than 350 per cent. The agreement to amend SAFTA underscores the importance each country places on further integrating our two economies and remaining open for trade and business in the face of what is, unfortunately, it sometimes seems, a more protectionist sentiment that prevails in some quarters. These two bills implement legislation that will help bring the agreement into force as soon as possible and allow Australians to benefit from even greater access to global markets. The government will move two amendments to the Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 in the Senate to address an inconsistency with the definition of 'harmonised system' that's currently contained in the bill. Since the agreement to amend SAFTA was concluded, the World Customs Organization has introduced an updated version of the harmonised system, and the government amendments will ensure Australia's domestic processes are completed in time to meet entry and to force deadlines. The agreement to amend SAFTA is our most comprehensive update to a free trade agreement to date. Singapore has given Australia its best FTA treatment, putting our exporters on equal or better footing than our foreign competitors. I particularly want to acknowledge the excellent relationship with Minister Lim, Minister Balakrishnan and, indeed, Prime Minister Lee, all of whom have played a critical role on Singapore's side, as well as the work of the Singapore high commission. All have been mobilised and focused on making sure that this Singapore-Australia free trade agreement embodies the full potential of what is a wonderful relationship between Australia and Singapore. The conclusion of such a high-quality deal reinforces the leadership of the coalition in delivering new opportunities for Australian businesses. I commend the legislation to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 100

Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017

Second Reading 100 CONDOLENCES 100 CONDOLENCES Scott, Dr Evelyn Ruth, AO 100 18:08 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert It is with great sadness and respect that I rise in this place on what is first nation people's land and will always be first nation people's land. In doing so, I want to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land upon which we stand today, the Ngunawal people, and I would like to pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. North Queensland has recently lost a truly inspirational woman who was one of the towering figures of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Dr Scott was an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educator and social justice campaigner. She passed away in Far North Queensland at the age of 81 in September. She will be remembered as a trailblazer who changed Australia. She possessed a striking presence, always standing tall and proud, and often wearing her signature black hat—perhaps to lessen the glare of the spotlight in which she worked, even in her later years. The granddaughter of a man who was brought from Vanuatu to Queensland in chains to work as a slave labourer in the sugar fields in the days of the blackbirding industry, Dr Scott lived by the words of her father: if you don't think something is right, then challenge it. This motto would mark her life and her role at pivotal moments in the history of the nation. Finding friendships with the likes of Eddie Mabo, Faith Bandler and Joe McGuinness, to name just a few, Dr Scott was a tireless and determined fighter for equal rights for Indigenous Australians. Dr Scott was a remarkable woman who displayed the qualities of true leadership and passion. I was struck by her calmness and humility when I first met her in Townsville. Her tireless work throughout her life was truly instrumental to the key achievements in Australia's reconciliation journey to date. In the early sixties, Dr Scott was drawn to a life in political activism after witnessing discrimination in employment, housing and health care in the Townsville region. During that time, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were considered minors and had few rights in Queensland. This is an embarrassing and shameful part of my region's history. But in the spirit of truth telling, we must acknowledge the reality and celebrate the progression that has occurred in recent years, largely due to the activism and tireless campaigning of this extraordinary woman and others who shared her passion. It was through the realisation of inequality in Queensland that Dr Scott became the driving force behind the 1967 referendum. The referendum changed Australia's history forever when Australians voted overwhelmingly to amend the Constitution to include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the census and to allow the Commonwealth to make laws for them. Over 90 per cent of voters chose to delete the discriminatory references to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that were at the time in the Australian Constitution. It is also worth noting that Townsville and Toowoomba were the only two cities in Queensland that voted no. Yet, this was only the beginning of the momentous achievements of Dr Evelyn Scott. After the referendum there was a seminar held in Townsville and the purpose was to pressure the federal government of the time to use its new-found power in a way that was just for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It was here that Dr Scott met Faith Bandler and other southern activists. In 1971, Dr Scott joined the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, FCAATSI, as executive president. She used her role to lead the transformation of FCAATSI into an Indigenous-controlled organisation in 1973, when she then moved the headquarters of the organisation to Townsville and became the first general secretary. With the support of Josie Briggs, Dr Scott played an integral role in re-establishing the organisation as, essentially, an Indigenous body. Dr Scott progressed further in her career by obtaining the role of chair of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. The role proved to be particularly challenging at that time as the then federal government, under the leadership of John Howard, was cutting reconciliation funding. During the time of 1997 to 2000, Dr Scott accomplished some of her most important and memorable work. She led the council and the nation through a period where the government refused to apologise to stolen generations and where the budgets to several Indigenous organisations were significantly reduced. Her leadership through this time was integral. Through her lobbying efforts, she obtained the support for reconciliation among some of the country's leaders, which assisted in influencing every day Australians. Through her direction, the council facilitated the people's Walk for Reconciliation across the Sydney Harbour Bridge as part of Corroboree 2000. I can remember seeing more than a quarter of a million people participate in this walk. To this very day, watching that march gives me goosebumps. This was a significant part of Australia's history that we can all vividly recount today. Its impact was substantial throughout the nation and will be remembered as the most significant mobilisation of people in Australian history. Dr Scott believed the reconciliation was, and remains, a people's movement that must involve all Australians. I believe this is one of her greatest successes. In late 2000, the government's 10-year time frame was quickly drawing to a close. Once again, Dr Scott rose to the occasion and secured support for a new body, which we know today as Reconciliation Australia. Dr Scott wanted security that Australia's reconciliation journey would continue in the 21st century and the fight for the rights of our first nation people would remain. In acknowledgment of her contribution to the nation, Dr Scott was awarded two honorary doctorates. The first one was from the Australian Catholic University in 2000 for her work in reconciliation and the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and women. The second, in 2001, from James Cook University, was in recognition of outstanding service to the Queensland community and exceptional contribution to human wellbeing. In the same year, Dr Scott was made an Officer of the Order of Australia, General Division. On Friday, 6 October, we said goodbye to Dr Evelyn Scott with a state funeral. Dr Scott is the first Indigenous woman to receive a state funeral in Queensland. The words of Dr Evelyn Scott that will always stick with me are: There is only one race, the human race. Rest in peace, Dr Evelyn Scott. COMMITTEES 102 COMMITTEES Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme 102 Report 102 18:15 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay Today, I am very happy to be able to stand here and present the joint standing committee's report into the provision of hearing services under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It is an interim report and comes off the back of months and months of work by the committee. I'd like to thank the chair, the member for Menzies, and the deputy chair, Jenny Macklin, the member for Jagajaga. I also thank all the people who presented evidence to our committee and ensured that we got a good outcome. It is anticipated that approximately 16,000 to 20,000 people with hearing impairments as their primary disability will join the NDIS by 2019-20. This will represent a small cohort within the scheme—less than three per cent of NDIS participants. The introduction of the NDIS has had a disruptive effect on what is broadly recognised as international best practice in the support provided to the deaf and hearing impaired. In fact, we have managed to see successful numbers around the world with our infant screening tests. Hearing impairment has been reduced significantly in this country. Some concerning issues emerged from our hearings and need to be resolved to ensure deaf and hard-of-hearing people continue to receive world-class services. In March 2017, the committee delayed finalising its report, pending the release of the NDIA key operational guidelines for access criteria to the scheme for deaf and hard-of-hearing people and the baseline reference packages to guide planned development for early intervention services. The NDIA indicated to the committee that it would release these guidelines and packages by the end of April 2017. While the NDIA released guidelines for access criteria on 1 September, 2017, the early intervention packages remain outstanding. Without definitive information about the early intervention packages, the committee cannot report and make considered recommendations. This is a cause of great concern for many families, the hearing sector and, obviously, our committee. The committee has decided to release an interim report while it awaits the release of the packages. The interim report focuses on the access criteria to the scheme and the issues pertaining to access and delivery of early intervention services. Until now, there has been a clear lack of access criteria to determine eligibility to NDIS services for deaf and hard-of-hearing people. This has caused uncertainty for future access to services and supports, especially for newly diagnosed infants and children. The committee is relieved that clear guidance to determine access to the scheme has been articulated and publicly released by the NDIA. However, the committee is frustrated that it has taken so long. I assure you that many of the people giving evidence were equally frustrated. Based on the evidence received to date, the recently released access criteria for early intervention requirements for deaf and hard-of-hearing people aged zero to 25 appear to be technically consistent with the current practices of Australian Hearing and are therefore broadly welcomed by stakeholders. With regard to the access criteria for those who are 26 years or older, the committee is concerned that the requirements may leave some people ineligible for the scheme, despite their need for reasonable and necessary supports. I will run through the recommendations in this report: Recommendation 1 2.57 The committee recommends the NDIA monitors eligibility rates for adults with hearing impairments to build a clearer picture of the number and needs of the people who have been found ineligible for NDIS services and reports on its finding in 12 months. Recommendation 2 2.58 The committee recommends the NDIA reviews immediately the cases of people with hearing impairment who were previously found ineligible and tests their eligibility against the revised guidelines. Recommendation 3 2.59 The committee recommends the Australian, state and territory governments clarify and make public how they will provide services for people who are deaf and hard of hearing who are not participants in the NDIS. Recommendation 4 3.83 The committee recommends Australian Hearing be formally appointed as the independent referral pathway for access to early intervention services under the NDIS and funded appropriately to take on this new role. Recommendation 5 3.87 The committee recommends the NDIA ensures that the early intervention packages take a holistic approach to the needs of participants and include: •   scaled funding, depending on need; •   funding provision for additional services beyond core supports, depending on need; and •   retrospective payment of the costs borne by approved service providers for the provision of necessary and reasonable supports between time of diagnosis and plan enactment. Recommendation 6 3.90 The committee recommends the NDIA urgently finalise, publish and introduce the early intervention reference packages. Many other MPs in this building would certainly be in the same position as me—and members of the committee certainly are—in taking on a lot of questions about the NDIS and exactly what's happening with it, and they are absolutely hoping to get the best outcomes for their constituents, particularly people who need those reasonable and necessary supports. So I'm hoping that this report that we put a lot of work into is actually accepted and looked upon favourably by this government and they are able to fund those things that need to be funded and continue with those recommendations that we have diligently sought to make. This is an interim report. The committee is currently looking at other areas of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, including the transitional period and the early intervention, early childhood, approach. It is with great pride that I hand over the work that's been done by this committee on the biggest social reform that this country has seen since Medicare. It is an important and vital part of legislation for our country and for people who rely on it. Debate adjourned. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 103 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Cybersecurity 103 18:22 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra The revelations last week about what was happening on the cybersecurity front here in Australia in Defence contracts or what was not happening on the cybersecurity front just underscored the fact this government is failing in its most basic responsibility, and that is our national security. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security launched the Australian Cyber Security Centre's 2017 Threat Report in a speech at the National Press Club, and an extraordinary announcement was made. It was quite extraordinary—it was a little drop there but its consequences were significant. The extraordinary announcement was made that a small Defence contractor's network had been compromised last year—just a little oops there. What continues to amaze and concern me is that the compromise wasn't picked up by Australian cybersecurity authorities. Our authorities were tipped off by international partner agencies. The fact is that an unknown hacker was able to steal 30 gigs of sensitive Defence data. That's a lot of very sensitive Defence data. Although the language that's been used around this by the government has been incredibly flippant in terms of the seriousness of this issue—it was commercially sensitive, according to some reports, and it was unclassified according to some reports—for the purposes of today's speech I'm basically underscoring the fact that the unknown hacker was able to steal 30 gigs of sensitive Defence data. This sensitive data included information on major multibillion-dollar Defence projects, including the Joint Strike Fighter program, the P-8A surveillance craft project, the C 1-30 transport planes and several current naval vessels. As much as the government tries to downplay its significance, this was a serious breach with the potential for serious consequences. It is incredibly concerning that the Minister for Defence Industry is so flippant on an issue of national security. This is not about blame; this is about responsibility. The government is responsible for Australia's national security, and it should hang its head in shame for this breach in national security. The Turnbull government is responsible for the cyber resilience of government agencies, and this responsibility extends to the contractors that government agencies employ. There are over 4,000 of these defence industry businesses in Australia, and many of them are micro or small. We know that small and medium businesses are especially vulnerable to cyber attacks. They have limited resources and limited time. I know because I used to be a microbusiness, and I know there are other small business people in here too. In my case I had no resources except me. You have limited time because you're going out there making money, you're marketing your business, you're out networking, you're doing your admin and your invoices and, in your limited spare time, it's nice to put you feet up and be with the family. These businesses have limited resources and do not have much time to mitigate against cyber attacks. Unfortunately, as a result of that, they are a regular target for attacks. According to a 2016 report by cyber security firm Symantec, 43 per cent of cyber attacks are targeted against small businesses. This recent Defence data breach is a symptom of a much larger problem amongst small and medium businesses here in Australia. The government is failing to get the message across about correct security practices, and more needs to be done in communicating with and supporting small and medium businesses to help them improve their cyber security and their operating practices. Last week we heard about the 'Alf's Mystery Happy Fun Time' hack, as it was dubbed by the Australian Signals Directorate. The name of the hack may be amusing, but it's a symptom of a very serious problem. Basic precautions like changing default passwords and installing security updates are, obviously, continuing to be ignored. The security of this hacked contractor system was laughable. The ASD revealed that the oversights were as glaring as having default 'admin' users and passwords—I think one of them was 'guest' as well. This is a contractor to Defence contracts worth billions. Action must be taken. Our small to medium businesses need more support and clear communication from the government, and it needs to be from one voice and one point of truth. At the moment we have a spaghetti tree of different agencies involved in communicating and in governing cybersecurity. So it's very difficult for businesses to know where to go for help and information. There is a convoluted and confusing mish-mash of various agencies and organisations responsible for providing assistance and communication to businesses, and this needs to change fast. Instead of passing the buck, the Turnbull government ought to be sitting up and taking notice of the significant improvements that need to be made all the way down the line. Cybersecurity is a whole-of-supply-chain issue. One weak link is all it takes to expose sensitive information and introduce attack vectors into larger systems, as we heard last week. Our policies to protect government agencies also need to extend down the chain. At the moment, not even the government agencies are adhering to their own cybersecurity requirements. Despite being required to comply with the protective security policy framework, we know that many government agencies continue to be noncompliant with the information security manual. This is mandated. A stern letter by ministers asking agencies to 'please comply' is not enough. There are still no ramifications for those who refuse to comply. I've been calling on the government to take the cybersecurity of government agencies seriously since the release of the damning 2014 audit of cyber resilience, where no agencies were found to be compliant. We've got to get our own house in order. This has to be a priority, but this must also be extended further down the supply chain. There's currently no legislation or requirement on government contracts to have adequate cybersecurity measures in place. This recent breach is not the first and nor will it be the last, while the government continues to ignore this issue. The ASD already provides guidance for government contractors on how to secure their systems, so why isn't it mandatory? Government agencies like Defence must be able to ensure a basic cybersecurity standard has been met before they release sensitive information. How can the government and the Australian people trust that sensitive information is being secured if it's being handed over to private contractors with no minimum cybersecurity assurances? Our US ally recognised this supply-chain threat long ago and has already taken steps to rectify it. In May this year, an executive order was passed, requiring all US government agencies to comply with a national cybersecurity standards framework. This includes cybersecurity risks facing the defence industrial base, including its supply chain. Not only have minimum cybersecurity standards been applied to government agencies and their supply chains, they have also been applied to critical infrastructure systems as well. This is yet another glaring cyber risk that's been ignored by the Turnbull government. The draft Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill, released last week, is a joke. It doesn't require critical infrastructure operators to improve their cybersecurity. It doesn't require critical infrastructure operators to report on the current state of their cybersecurity. The Turnbull government cannot continue to turn a blind eye to cybersecurity. It's endangering our ability to work with our allies and endangering our national security. The Turnbull government needs to clarify what it is doing to ensure that those handling sensitive information have the proper security precautions in place. The government has to start taking cybersecurity seriously now. It's the government's responsibility. (Time expired) Australian Budgerigar Society 104 18:32 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I'm very pleased to say that it's less so of a grievance tonight and more so of a good news story of one of the great community organisations in my electorate of Forde. There's big news from this one local group. The Australian Budgerigar Society is about to launch its Twitter account. That's very appropriate, I'd say! Puns aside, it is my great pleasure to mention the club in this chamber today and officially commend them for the work they do, which extends much further than Twitter, I can assure you. The Australian Budgerigar Society was formed at a public meeting in Brisbane in February 1957 and so celebrates its 60th anniversary this year. The past three years, however, have been akin to somewhat of a golden age for the club, with the society's membership growing from just over 30 members in 2014 to over 100 members today. The club has strong roots in the Logan community and the Forde region, and has proudly worked for their interests throughout its history. Among the key aims of the club at its inception were to promote the breeding and development of the budgerigar to assist the progress of scientific knowledge about the species and to support the local exhibition of these beautiful birds. It has been my privilege as the club's patron to witness their continued success in that regard. The club's carnival show, for example, which was the first event of its type in Logan City, has seen incredible growth over the years. That show commenced in 2015 with just 12 displays and drew a record crowd of 120 people. It more than doubled in size last year and, in 2017, the upcoming carnival show is said to include over 30 displays and is so far expected to draw more than 700 people to our region. It is a fantastic achievement and a ringing endorsement of what the group offers. Another key item on the club's annual agenda is its annual show, held in February each year. It is always the second- or third-largest show in the South-East Queensland region, usually exhibiting well over 500 budgies. Lately, the club itself has reached a milestone, as well. The society was the first budgerigar club to have a clubhouse in Australia, with the venue generously provided by Logan City Council in April of this year. It was also the first Australian budgerigar club to venture into the online arena with a Facebook page. It will launch a new internet site this week. This, connected to its growing Twitter account, as I mentioned, and Facebook following, is giving them a great online presence and is allowing them to engage further with the broader community. The club's new uniform will also be rolled out to coincide with these exciting developments. I know I'm certainly hoping to get a new shirt to wear proudly when at club events. It is worth mentioning that, currently, the club has the largest junior membership of any budgerigar club in Australia, having focused heavily on encouraging youth participation since 2015. Individual members are also achieving highly as part of the club. Club member Mrs Barbara Kelly won the spangle AOSV class—that is, any other standard variety—at the Australian National Budgerigar Council's 2017 national show. She was the first club member to do so. The club's junior members have also won the best junior budgerigar for the South Queensland Budgerigar Breeders' Association national preselection show for two of the past three years. It's important for me to say that much of the club's growth and its ongoing success can be attributed to its current president Wayne Robinson, whose passion, energy and drive to help the club reach new heights is to be applauded. Mr Robinson is a true local community champion in my book. He should be greatly congratulated for his efforts. As he says—and this is very important—the club's focus is on being a club for everyone. Part of that focus is the club's dedication to supporting our local community in Forde, with a truly philanthropic streak running through its operations. The society is actively involved in fundraising for Mater Little Miracles. Earlier this year, it also stepped up to the mark when devastating floods were brought about by an ex-tropical cyclone tearing through our region. Never ones to shy away from a challenge, the budgerigar society banded together at that time to raise over $1,400 for the silent auction as part of the Eagleby flood relief fundraiser. I'm sure I do not have to spell out how much that effort was appreciated by the local families. Clubs such as the Australian Budgerigar Society go easily unnoticed in our busy world, but they truly provide an invaluable service and social outlet for so many in our communities. Such organisations provide colour, flair and points of interest to so many people. I would never have known, for example, just how many varieties of budgies there are and how many amazing colours and breeds exist if it had not been for this steadfast group. It is a wonderful thing that such committed people are teaching us and the broader community more about the world we live in and how important it is to appreciate it. The Australian Budgerigar Society was nominated in 2017 for the Community Organisation of the Year Award through Awards Australia. While missing out on the major award, it has been officially invited to the November event to receive special mention from the judges, who were particularly impressed with its ongoing community involvement. I look forward to seeing the club receive many such honours in the coming years. It certainly deserves broad recognition for the incredible community efforts it has made. To Wayne Robinson and the whole team of the Australian Budgerigar Society, I wish you every success for the future. I thank you for your valuable contribution to our community. Employment 106 18:39 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam A short time ago the member for Gilmore asked that I apologise for campaigning to save jobs in her electorate. I declined to do so. In fact, I invite her to join with me in defence of the 70 defence workers' jobs at the HMAS Albatross naval base in Nowra in her electorate. It is proposed that 70 jobs be cut. We understand a restructure has occurred throughout this area of the Department of Defence. This restructure was confirmed to the ABC. It was reported by an ABC Illawarra reporter who had had discussions with the Chief of Navy, Tim Barrett, who has confirmed that this restructure is occurring as a result of a first principles review, known as Pectel report, that was conducted. These are jobs from the Navy aviation system program office. Jobs of this sort are highly sought after in regional Australia. If you work on a rough estimate of a value to the local economy of about $100,000 per position—although that doesn't mean that's what the worker is getting—removing 70 of these positions equates to around $7 million recurrent that would no longer be enjoyed in the Nowra economy. I understand that the member is embarrassed because she didn't know that this restructure was occurring. I understand that the member may be embarrassed because, at the same time that her government is purportedly campaigning to decentralise jobs out of Canberra and into the regions, we have, in a regional electorate, a proposal to centralise jobs from the region back to Canberra. But being embarrassed is not an excuse to not do everything that is within your power to stop these job cuts from occurring. The member for Gilmore says that she has information which may refute what the staff have been told in a staff briefing and what the Chief of Navy, Tim Barrett, has confirmed is going on within the department. She said in the House a little while ago that she has confidential information. She did not table that information. I can understand that there may be good reasons that a confidential document from the Department of Defence that was in her possession was not tabled and made public, but there are a number of things that the member for Gilmore and, in fact, the government could do to clarify this matter. The member for Gilmore could do what I did on 13 October when news of this proposal to recentralise jobs from Nowra to Canberra first broke. She could write to the Hon. Fiona Nash, the Minister for Regional Development, who is currently in charge of a project to decentralise jobs out of Canberra. She could have done what I did and demanded that the minister directly intervene to stop these jobs being lost. To the best of our knowledge, no such approach has been made to the minister. If she had wanted to, she could have written to either of the ministers for defence, Senator Payne or the member for Sturt, and asked them to directly intervene to stop these job cuts out of Nowra from occurring. To the best of our knowledge, this has not occurred. This is not a small matter. In places like Nowra and, in fact, right throughout regional Australia, defence jobs matter; public sector jobs matter. As I said, over the last 12 months the coalition have been running a campaign purportedly around decentralising jobs out of Canberra and into the regions for the employment benefits that would flow. I and many on the Labor side have been very sceptical about the rhetoric behind the government's proposed campaign to decentralise. The reason we are sceptical is that, over that same period—and, in fact, since 2014—they have removed 890 ongoing Public Service jobs from regional towns throughout Australia. Deputy Speaker Goodenough, these jobs include over 760 roles in regional New South Wales, over 180 jobs in regional Queensland and over 320 roles from your home state of Western Australia. That's 320 roles no longer performed out of Western Australia. In total, over 890 ongoing Public Service jobs have been taken out of regional Australia at a time when towns are screaming out for quality jobs, ongoing jobs and secure jobs such as these. In the electorate of Gilmore, the town of Nowra, like so many other towns around Australia, needs somebody who is willing to fight for the jobs that they have right now and fight for the jobs that they need in the future. The Shoalhaven has a higher-than-average level of unemployment—around 6.6 per cent, close to seven per cent, and higher in some of the hotspot towns up and down the Princes Highway. Youth unemployment has a figure that will shock you: youth unemployment is over 28 per cent. That's in the electorate of Gilmore, in the area of the Shoalhaven. We really do need at this time, more than ever, somebody who is willing to fight for the jobs in the Shoalhaven—somebody who's willing to fight for the jobs that we have and to keep the jobs and grow the jobs in these areas. I was very disturbed when news of the high level of youth unemployment broke last week, when Senator Cash toured the Shoalhaven to promote the government's PaTH program, which I'll return to in a moment. Instead of saying that we have a crisis and we need to do something about it, the member for Gilmore described the figures as 'statistically weird' and that we had to have a government taskforce to look into the black economy, somehow suggesting that maybe there were more people working in Gilmore and that the 28.1 per cent of young people without a job weren't telling the truth. That beggars belief. We need somebody who is willing to fight for jobs in regional Australia. I will say something about Defence jobs in particular. My concern is that the 70 jobs and others could be slated to be removed from Nowra and taken back to Canberra or taken elsewhere. Defence is one of the most decentralised agencies in the Australian Public Service. Right around the country, from Townsville in the north to northern Victoria, Rockhampton, Darwin, Nowra, Jervis Bay, Newcastle, throughout South Australia and in Mount Isa there are Defence bases. Public sector employees work at those bases in good and meaningful jobs that are critical to our national economy and our national security. Those jobs are a source of income for the people in those towns. At a time when the government is seriously talking about decentralisation, we need to send a very clear message through the minister to the Department of Defence that Defence jobs in regional Australia matter. If there is no compromise to our national security, we should be prioritising the location of Defence jobs and the maintenance of those Defence jobs in regional Australia because it means so much to those regional economies. Today, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, through you to the Minister for Defence and to the heads of our national defence agencies, I call on the department to ensure that these jobs in Nowra are saved and other jobs in regional Australia in the Department of Defence are saved. It makes no sense for the government to say, 'We are going to transfer jobs out of Canberra into the regions of Australia to create employment opportunities,' if, in the very next step, they do the opposite. It's all very well for the Deputy Prime Minister to say, 'I moved a handful of jobs out of Canberra to Armidale at a cost of $26 million,' but the jobs in Nowra exist in regional Australia today. We call on the member for Gilmore to fight for those jobs and we call on the minister to do the right thing and put a stop now to any changes to move those jobs. It is within the gift of the minister to put a stop to this and make a statement in the Senate today to say, 'This will not occur.' If the minister does that, I will congratulate him. (Time expired) Coal Industry 107 18:49 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Our resources are one of the great strengths of this country. Baked into the words of the first verse of the national anthem is the reminder that 'our land abounds with nature's gifts'. Australians are rightly proud of the strengths of the resources sector and its contribution to our economy and our national prosperity. It's very good to have in the chamber at the moment the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Mining, the member for Durack. It's up to Australians to manage these resources for the benefit of our nation. I want to focus on one particular aspect of the resources sector—that is the coal industry, which is constantly under attack. I'm for coal. Providence has given Australia a wonderful natural advantage, an advantage that many nations would love to have. Coal has been the backbone of our prosperity and our industrial development. Australia has the fourth-largest reserve of coal in the world—around 13 per cent of the world's reserves of coal exist in Australia or around 145 billion tonnes. Australia's coal industry accounted for $17.9 billion of GDP in 2015-16 or 1.1 per cent of GDP. Coal is Australia's second largest source of export revenue behind iron ore. Coal exports in 2016-17 were worth $54 billion, which was 15 per cent of Australia's total exports of goods and services. Australia's coal exports in 2016-17 were of higher value than each of agriculture and manufacturing exports. The coal industry directly employs 47,500 Australians, and estimates indicate around 110,000 indirect jobs are also created in the coal industry. Australia is the largest exporter of coal in the world. We export both metallurgical and thermal coal, primarily to Asia. Australia's metallurgical exports in 2016-17 totalled 170 million tonnes; the main destinations were India, China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Australia exported 202 million tonnes of thermal coal in 2016-17, and the main destinations were, in order, Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan and Malaysia. We have the highest-quality coal in the world right in our backyard. With increasing worldwide demand—with thermal prices having risen to $87 a tonne this last year and coking coal from $820 a tonne to $200 a tonne over the same period—it's a good news story. Around 84 per cent of Australia's electricity comes from coal. Despite these advantages, despite its strength and centrality to our economy, some don't see the real benefit and, indeed, some people deliberately want to undermine an industry that is of great benefit to this country. A few years ago, a range of left-wing activist organisations, including Greenpeace, GetUp!, Lock the Gate, the Australia Institute and United Voice, got together to put together a strategy document called 'Stopping the Australian Coal Export Boom'. The document spells out a six-prong strategy to: …'disrupt and delay' key projects in infrastructure while gradually eroding public and political support for the industry. The six prongs of the strategy are to: (1) disrupt and delay key infrastructure; (2) constrain the space for mining; (3) increase investor risk; (4) increase costs; (5) withdraw the social licence of the coal industry; and (6) build a powerful movement to oppose the coal industry. Lawfare, through legal challenges in the court, was an essential element to this anti-coal campaign to help slow down the approval process. As the document says: This means lodging legal challenges to five new coal port expansions, two major rail lines and up to a dozen of the key mines. This will require significant investment in legal capacity. While this is creating much needed breathing space, we need to continue to build the movement and mobilize to create pressure on politicians and investors alike. Here we have a very important industry in Australia that creates jobs, creates prosperity, wealth, creates energy, and that creates wonderful export opportunities for the country, and we have left-wing activist organisations trying to put a stop to the whole thing. Ironically, this strategy document was funded by the Rockefeller Family Fund. Here we have a foreign organisation playing a key role in a debate behind a secret smokescreen, using taxpayer-funded charity exemptions to boost the war on coal. One of the authors of the report, Greenpeace Senior Campaigner John Hepburn, eventually admitted to receiving $70,000 from the Rockefeller Family Fund. This is a family, it should be remembered, that made their money in the oil extraction business from the famed Standard Oil Company, which was started in 1870. Why are they suddenly opting to fund a paper aimed at destroying one of Australia's extractive industries? Similarly, the Lock the Gate Alliance, which is intent on killing coal, has accepted sizeable donations over the years from the US-based Tides Foundation, which was established with the proceeds of a tobacco company fortune. Why is it that the heirs of big tobacco and big oil are trying to assuage their consciences by destroying one of Australia's key industries? Why is it that left-wing activists being funded by foreign interests are trying to destroy one of Australia's homegrown industries, an industry providing a very important energy source? These campaigns, backed by overseas interests, are costing Australians jobs and money, particularly in regional areas, by making investment in good-quality Australian coal too hard, and it's having an impact. India's minister for coal, Piyush Goyal, is on record saying that experiencing difficulty for Indian investment in Australian coal projects will, 'Certainly dampen future investments.' This is at a time when India is forecast to need 142 megatonnes of thermal coal imports by 2021, which is almost the total level of annual coal exports from New South Wales alone. We need to be able to take advantage of the demand for coal in Asia; otherwise, these nations will flock to other markets, with poorer regulation, such as Indonesia and South Africa. While Australia's on the verge of an unprecedented worldwide coal boom, a boom that will see coal demand in 10 ASEAN countries triple, the political left, including Labor, the Greens and left-wing activist groups, have decided it's time to wage a war on coal. The Leader of the Opposition used to say he was a supporter of coal. When he was a union leader in 2007, he said: We believe completely that coal is part of Australia's energy future. As a first-term MP in the Rudd government, he said: We're going to keep a coal industry. For some people who believe the way to solve climate change is to shut down coal. That answer is not going to give you any joy at all. But with the Leader of the Opposition you can never be sure. The Leader of the Opposition might have supported coal as a union official, but he also gave union members' money away to anticoal organisations. The Leader of the Opposition was a founding director and donor for GetUp!, giving at least $100,000 of union funds to the left-wing activist group as start-up capital when he left the Australian Workers' Union. That's $100,000 of union member money raised from workers in the coal industry going to an organisation that's dedicated to closing coal-fired power stations. Labor have abandoned the coal industry. This is despite the fact that they hold seats like Herbert, Hunter, Shortland and Newcastle, where coalminers are the backbone of the local economy. We see how a future federal Labor government would operate when we look at the Labor governments of South Australia and Victoria, and the great joy that they take in closing coal-fired power stations. You know they take great joy, because they don't just close the stations; they tear down the towers when they close the stations to ensure that the power stations are not only closed but also completely dismantled. The image of the towers being torn down is a purely ideological exercise. The fact that these scenes are reminiscent of statues being torn down by liberation movements after the fall of some oppressive tyrant demonstrates the pervading anticoal ideology which is at the heart of the political left in this country. We've already seen the impact of Labor's policies. In Victoria, as a result of pushing out Hazelwood, energy companies AGL and Energy Australia increased electricity bills by up to $135 in 2017. In South Australia, as a result of pushing out Northern, contract prices for large industrial users jumped 50 per cent and spot market prices tripled in the months following. But the coal industry will do no better under a federal Labor government. Federal Labor have vowed to close coal-fired power stations. In their climate action plan, Labor said they would 'kickstart the closure' of coal-fired plants. Labor teamed up with the Greens in the Senate to pass a motion to encourage the closure of coal-fired power plants, saying: The question is not if coal fired power stations will close, but how quickly … This will lead to the destruction of jobs at Australia's 24 coal plants and thousands of other jobs. The Australian Energy Market Commission said a forced closure policy could cost up to $24 billion. I couldn't speak this evening without contrasting the approach of Labor with the coalition. Labor are pursuing a dangerous mix of policies that will hit energy security and affordability, with their 45 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030. Coal is the backbone of Australia's economy. Let's stop letting foreign nationals, Labor and the Greens wage a war on coal to dictate policy that won't deliver affordable and reliable energy for all Australians. The anticoal movement is a threat to this country. Climate Change 109 18:59 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne We're barely into spring and there are already bushfires in New South Wales on the eastern seaboard of Australia. Hurricane after hurricane has smashed into the US. Twelve hundred people have died in floods in Bangladesh. Climate change is happening and it stands to get worse unless we fix it. And what does this government do? This government comes in and says, 'We want to get rid of the Renewable Energy Target, which is driving down power prices and driving down pollution, and we want to replace it with a coal energy target,' because this government is under the thumb of the Trumps on the backbench who are in denial about climate change and who seem to be able to run the show. Australia should be the renewable energy superpower of the world. Look around us. Look at the sun that falls on this country. Look at the wind that blows. Look at the waves that surround us. We should be the place that is exporting renewable energy to the rest of the world. We should be the country that business and industry comes to if they want cheap, clean and reliable energy. Other countries smelt aluminium using renewable energy. We could be powering energy intensive industry here from the sun and the wind and the waves if we had a government that wasn't under the thumb of the climate deniers and those who don't even believe climate change is real. What has happened? Today, the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has given in to the first demands of the member for Warringah, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott. He said the Renewable Energy Target is no more. Even though it has led to unprecedented levels of investment in renewables in this country, the Renewable Energy Target is no more. So former Prime Minister Abbott gets his first tick. The Chief Scientist came along and said, 'Well, if you're not going to have a Renewable Energy Target what we ought to have in this country is a clean energy target. Put that in, and we'll meet our Paris emissions reduction commitments,' which are appallingly low, but he said we'll meet them. 'Let's do that.' And Mr Abbott stands up and says, 'No. We're not to have a Clean Energy Target in this country.' Today, the Prime Minister capitulates to him and says, 'Okay, former Prime Minister Abbott, we won't have a clean energy target, either,' even though people are lining up for it. But what do we get instead? We get a promise that there is now going to be a requirement by law that we have a coal energy target. While the rest of the world is saying, 'How can we move as quickly as possible to renewables and replace our coal-fired power stations with renewables?' we've had today from the Prime Minister an announcement that Australia is going to join only the United States under Donald Trump and wind back support for renewable energy and instead put in place support for coal-fired power stations. There's now going to be a requirement in this country by law that there will be an obligation that coal and gas and other baseload power has to continue while the rest of the world is working out how we can have mechanisms to retire those sources and replace them with clean energy. As a result, every Australian, when they pay their energy bills, is going to have to stick their hand in their pocket and fork out a subsidy to a coal-fired power station so it can stay open longer while there's renewable sun, wind and solar lining up to take its place. No! The greatest brain wave now from the Prime Minister who is under the thumb of the Trumps on his backbench is that we, the Australian people, are going to have to pay to keep these coal-fired power stations open even longer. They then come up with a fig leaf and say, 'It's alright. It's not just a protection racket for coal. There's something else in here, as well. There's going to be a requirement that you have to have some low-emission sources.' When you delve into the small amount of detail that there is, because this policy was dreamt up by a board that only had its first meeting two months ago—'Forget the year-long review of the Chief Scientist, we'll just handpick a new board and ask them to come up with a policy,' and then, bingo, it just happens to be the one that the Prime Minister wants—they say, 'It's alright. There's a low-emissions target in there, as well.' Delve into the detail of this policy that has been cooked up very, very quickly and you will find that, by 2030, we might get an extra five per cent of renewable energy over and above what the Renewable Energy Target would have delivered. While other countries are saying we could go to 50, 60, 70 or 80 and other people are saying we could get to 90 or 100 per cent renewables by 2030, this government is going to give us an extra five per cent. Well, thank you very much! What's even worse, as you delve into the detail even further, is that a state government might say, 'Actually, we think that this new approach isn't going to meet our Paris commitments.' Because it certainly won't, and it's certainly not going to contribute to cutting pollution enough to keep us below two degrees. If a state government says, 'We want to do a bit more,' under this new approach the regulator says: 'Good on you. You do a bit more, and I'll take a bit off over here from the other state.' If one state wants to do more, it gets cancelled out by another state doing less. The pathetic national target that this government has put in gives us absolutely no hope of meeting our Paris commitments and meeting the two degrees target and ensuring a safe climate for our kids and grandkids. If a state government listens to the scientists and says, 'We've got to do a bit more,' Prime Minister Turnbull will come along and say: 'Thank you for doing the heavy lifting. Queensland can now do a bit less. Thank you very much, Victoria. I, as Prime Minister, will just sit back and put my feet up and do nothing at all.' Renewables are bringing down power bills, and others are heeding the Greens call to start reregulating power prices in this country and stop treating electricity like a stock market and instead look at it as an essential service. But at the same time the government says: 'It's okay. You'll save a bit of money on this.' When one of the members of the Energy Security Board was pressed on this on television today, do you know what he said on how much you will save in 2020 when this comes in? He said you'll save 50c a week. Maybe it will go up to $2 by 2030, and who knows what power bills will be then under this government? For the sake of 50c a week, that may or may not materialise, we are selling out our children's future. We are signing people up to going to every Christmas holidays wondering when the next bushfire is going to hit or how many people are going to die in the heat waves. It's worth remembering that the summer that accompanied the tragic Black Saturday bushfires in my home state of Victoria saw more people die from the heatwaves associated with it than from the bushfires. It is the old and the vulnerable who find themselves unable to deal with rising temperatures. If you live in one of the housing commission flats near my place, those concrete boxes heat up. With two days of 40 degrees in a row, they don't get under 30 degrees overnight, so families are bringing their kids down to sleep on the oval because it's too hot to go to sleep in their rooms. This government says they've given it a guarantee. The only guarantee from this government's announcement today is that climate change is going to get worse. The risk of more heatwaves and more bushfires and worse droughts and consigning our agricultural productivity to the dustbin—that is the guarantee from this government's policy. They have just signed up to say there is almost no chance of Australia doing its fair share to keep global warming below two degrees. What could we do in this country if we had a government that had guts? We could legislate to bring in more renewables so that we can get our country running 100 per cent renewables by 2030. We could legislate a storage target to make sure that batteries and pumped hydro store the sun that shines during the day and the wind that blows overnight, so that it's available for you there the next day. We would have a plan to remove coal and support the workers in those coal-fired power station communities, so that as coal is phased out there are secure industries for them to go to. I hear a lot of talk from the government about coal-fired power station communities. I have spent the year travelling around to them in Lithgow, Muswellbrook, Collie and the Latrobe Valley, to talk about why we need to transition beyond coal. If we start planning now, the power stations can close and they won't be left in the lurch like they were at Hazelwood. If we plan now we'll have new renewable energy jobs there for them to take up when the next power station shuts down. Or we'll support the new industries in the region that will come up to take its place. There are a lot of things we used to do in this country. We used to mine asbestos until we worked out that wasn't a great idea. The government could have stood up and said, 'There are hundreds and thousands of people employed in the asbestos industry, how dare you want to shut it down?' There comes a time when you realise that the science is clear, that coal kills and that, if we keep digging up coal and burning it at the current rate, we are going to kill people. We are killing people. We will kill people in heatwaves. We will kill people in floods. We will kill people from extreme weather events such as we have seen just in the last couple of months. They are going to come more and more often. A government with guts would phase out coal and increase renewables. (Time expired) Domestic and Family Violence 110 19:10 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson What does hope look like? How can you see hope in the shadows of darkness? Last week I was honoured to attend a Night of Hope in West Gosford, run by two incredible people, Mark and Darlene Zschech, at HopeUC, the Hope Unlimited Church. The aim of the night was to raise funds for those living with cancer on the Central Coast, but it was also—and, for me, this is what made it a night of hope and not of sadness—a night to let people know that, even in the most difficult of circumstances, they are not alone and they are surrounded by a loving community. This in many ways sums up the triumph of community spirit that I see often on the Central Coast. Today I rise to speak about another scourge in our community that, at its destructive worst, causes immense pain and lifelong suffering. I'm speaking tonight about domestic violence. But I'm also speaking about the fact that, even in the darkest of times, even through the darkest of acts, when a partner is subject to violence from somebody who claims that they love them, there is hope. Admittedly, it can be tough to glimpse this hope when we hear, too often, the tragic circumstances of lives lost to domestic violence. Last month, our community wept together as we heard about the sudden death of Ettalong resident Blair Dalton. Blair died after she was strangled by a former partner—who has also since died, in custody. As the tragic and senseless news broke, hearts across the coast also broke. Like everyone in our community, I was devastated, and my heart broke for Blair's family, her young son, her friends and her colleagues. Even though I didn't know the family personally, I know that those who were close to Blair have shown incredible strength. As reported in The Daily Telegraph, Blair's father, Robert, posted a tribute, writing, Our beautiful Blair who is always helping others will today continue on this path when the transplanting of her organs begin. A GoFundMe page was set up by a friend, to help the family. Just from reading through the comments on the page, it is clear that Blair will forever be remembered and admired as a strong, beautiful woman and of course as a very loving mother. The GoFundMe page itself is another fitting tribute to Blair. It says: Blair was the most beautiful, kind, caring, proud person and she most certainly got that from her family. I'm wanting to help take some of the financial burden off them at this time. I would love for everyone to pull together to help with Blair's send-off which I would love to be as beautiful as possible and also for her adorable little boy. So please everyone open your hearts and help this amazing family in any way you can. So wrote her friend Renee, who set up the GoFundMe page. The target was $10,000. Today, the tally stands at more than $36,000. We can't change what has happened to Blair or to her future, but, by our community showing their support at a time like this, we can help create hope for a better future, for Blair's son and for all women and children. At times like this, I know that so many in our community ask, 'What can I do?' Sometimes you feel a great sense of hopelessness at not being able to do more or not being able to do enough. Our community on the Central Coast is a tight-knit one, and so many people feel like family, even if we don't know them personally. Blair's family are closely connected with the Woy Woy Roosters Rugby League Football Club. In the days after this tragedy, the club set up a committee very quickly to host a charity event designed to raise funds to help. The committee includes Roosters Club President Dean Slattery, Senior Vice-President Mick Bovis, Treasurer Jo Bovis, Registrar Melissa Moore and Junior Vice-President Tim McFarlane, along with Assistant Secretary Chris James. Together they've been working with Central Coast Council on a significant community event, one that I'm honoured to be able to announce today. It's called Blair Dalton Day: Domestic Violence needs to STOP. Taking place on Sunday, 26 November at Woy Woy Oval, it'll be a community family picnic open to everyone. I'd encourage families from across the Central Coast to come along and join with our community at Woy Woy Oval to say with determination that domestic violence must stop. With events like this, I see the Central Coast reaching out to a devastated family to let them know that they're not alone. I'm always struck by the way that our community bands together in times of tragedy. A few days after the news of Blair broke, I happened to walk by her workplace at Erina Fair. Outside the shop where she worked, Blair's colleagues, friends and even strangers had established an impromptu flower memorial. It was a beautiful tribute to a life lost too soon in such a senseless manner. It struck me as I spoke with Blair's workmates how often it is that we walk by a stranger or even a friend who may be struggling with a similar issue. It reminded me that you may never know what someone may be dealing with. You may never know what is happening in the home behind closed doors. It reminded me that domestic violence is something that could affect anyone. It could be someone you pass in the street. It could be you. It could be me. But it also reminded me that, although this may be a difficult topic and sometimes hard to approach, it's always okay to ask how someone is going and to check if they're okay. I spoke with the Brisbane Water LAC commander, Superintendent Sullivan, recently. Superintendent Sullivan is a fantastic community advocate of reducing domestic violence in our community. He articulated this so well. He said, 'With domestic violence, there are no innocent bystanders. We all receive some information from time to time that may indicate someone is in trouble. It's up to all of us as a community to stand up and speak out.' On this, he's absolutely right. Domestic violence is an issue for all of us. Because there are no innocent bystanders, I want to take the opportunity in this place to repeat my White Ribbon oath: I pledge to stand up, speak out and act to prevent men's violence against women. I'd also like to encourage each and every person in our community to do the same. You can make your pledge online at whiteribbon.org.au or, better still, join us on 25 November for White Ribbon Day. No matter how small your contribution is to this issue, just as you may never know what someone else is dealing with, you may also never know the impact of your actions—of turning up to one of the community walks, asking 'Are you okay?', posting something on Facebook or showing up to an event raising awareness of domestic violence. It may mean that somebody who is struggling and isolated feels more supported or encouraged, or it may be the thing that helps some woman suffering at the hands of a violent partner recognise that it's okay for her to speak out and ask for help. There are White Ribbon events happening right across the coast, including a walk up the Skillion at Terrigal. I would encourage everyone in our community to take part. I'm looking forward to joining Superintendent Danny Sullivan, an incredible ambassador for White Ribbon, and so many others from around our community to stand up against domestic violence on 25 November—on that day and on every day. I also want to acknowledge the outstanding work of Superintendent Sullivan, along with his team at Brisbane Water Local Area Command. The command is really helping to lead the fight against this scourge in our community. Superintendent Sullivan and his command remain committed to working with our community to help drive down the impact of domestic violence in our community. The command does outstanding work. The Brisbane Water Local Area Command has also embraced recent changes and development in New South Wales and, since 2015, has used the Domestic Violence Evidence in Chief or DVEC. This kit enables video footage relating to domestic violence charges to be admitted to the court as evidence and allows victims to record video evidence at the scene of an incident. I understand that these kits have assisted many officers of the Brisbane Water Local Area Command, and I commend the command for their commitment to this important issue. I'd also like to pay tribute to my colleagues in the New South Wales parliament for the work that they continue to do on this issue. The New South Wales Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Pru Goward, announced earlier this year changes to the Apprehended Domestic Violence Order Scheme to better protect victims of domestic violence. To my colleagues on the Central Coast—the member for Terrigal, Adam Crouch, and the Hon. Taylor Martin MLC—I commend you also for standing up and speaking out against domestic violence in our community. Figures from the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research indicate that between June 2016 and July 2017 there were 684 recorded incidents of domestic violence in the Gosford area, in my electorate—a reminder that there is much more work to do. I'm pleased to say that, this week, the coalition government announced that a new domestic violence unit will be established in Gosford with Legal Aid NSW. The centre in Gosford will partner with other service providers to deliver financial counselling, crisis accommodation and mental health support as well as other practical assistance. Finally, I once again encourage the Central Coast community to join together next month for White Ribbon Day and also at Woy Woy Oval. With your help, we can send a strong message about putting a stop to domestic violence once and for all. 19:20 The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order for the next day of sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:20   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 113 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Women's Safety Package (Question No. 601) 113 601 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Women in writing, on 10 November 2016: Has the 'up to' $1.1 million funding commitment announced in the Women's Safety Package to help remote Indigenous communities prevent and better respond to the incidence of domestic violence through targeted support, been spent. Mr Turnbull 885 The Minister for Women has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: $1.1 million of funding has been provided by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet under the Women's Safety Package to adapt an existing training module to educate nurses and nurse supervisors on Indigenous family violence when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait families through the Australian Nurse Family Partnership Program (ANFPP). Payments totalling $800,000 have been made under the grant agreement with the provider Abt Associates developing the training module. Women's Safety Package (Question No. 558) 113 558 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs in writing, on 9 November 2016: Of the 'up to' $15 million to enable police in Queensland to better respond to domestic violence in remote communities and for measures that reduce re-offending by Indigenous perpetrators, announced in the September 2015 Women's Safety Package: (a) what sum has been spent, and (b) on what measures. Mr Turnbull 885 The Minister for Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Please refer to the answer to Parliamentary Question in Writing 596. Women's Safety Package (Question No. 559) 113 559 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs in writing, on 9 November 2016: Of the $3.6 million for the Cross Border Domestic Violence Intelligence Desk to share information on victims and perpetrators who move around the cross border region of Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory, announced in the September 2015 Women's Safety Package, what sum has been spent. Mr Turnbull 885 The Minister for Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Please refer to the answer to Parliamentary Question in Writing 597. Women's Safety Package (Question No. 562) 113 562 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs in writing, on 9 November 2016: Has the $1.4 million funding commitment announced in the Women's Safety Package to extend the Community Engagement Police Officers in remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory been spent. Mr Turnbull 885 The Minister for Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Please refer to the answer to Parliamentary Question in Writing 600. Women's Safety Package (Question No. 563) 113 563 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs in writing, on 9 November 2016: Has the 'up to' $1.1 million funding commitment announced in the Women's Safety Package to help remote Indigenous communities prevent and better respond to the incidence of domestic violence through targeted support, been spent. Mr Turnbull 885 The Minister for Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Please refer to Parliamentary Question in Writing 601. Domestic and Family Violence (Question No. 572) 114 572 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Women in writing, 10 November 2016: In respect of the Government's announcement on 28 October 2016 that it would commit $25 million of funding, for the period of the Third Action Plan for the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, towards services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians experiencing family violence, how will this funding be distributed between the three measures identified in the announcement. Mr Turnbull 885 The Minister for Women has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Under the Third Action Plan, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs announced an investment of $19 million in eight Indigenous community organisations to deliver a range of services, including trauma-informed therapeutic services for children, services for perpetrators to prevent future offending and intensive family-focused case management. $3.5 million has been provided to six Family Violence Prevention Legal Services (FVPLS) to deliver holistic, case-managed crisis support to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women experiencing family violence and around $848,000 for We Al-li, a specialist Indigenous organisation to develop and deliver trauma‑informed training to all 14 FVPLSs across Australia. The FVPLS Secretariat will also receive $300,000 over two years to assist with implementing this training. The remainder of Third Action Plan funding, $1.4 million, is being used to help providers develop, monitor and evaluate the projects. Domestic and Family Violence (Question No. 573) 114 573 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Women in writing, on 10 November 2016: (1) Why is the Government only providing funding certainty for Family Violence Prevention Legal Services (FVPLS) until June 2018. (2) Will the Government commit to maintaining funding for FVPLS at current levels until at least the end of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children; if not, will the Government commit to maintaining such funding at current levels until at least the end of the Third Action Plan. Mr Turnbull 885 The Minister for Women has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: On 17 May 2017, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs announced an extension of funding for FVPLSs to 30 June 2020, so they can continue their critical work in supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander victims of family violence. Central Australian Women's Legal Service (Question No. 574) 114 574 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister Representing the Minister for Women in writing, on 10 November 2016: When will the Central Australian Women's Legal Service receive a response to its proposal, submitted 11 August 2016, for funding to extend remote outreach across the Central Australia and Barkly regions. Mr Turnbull 885 The Minister for Women has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: I am advised that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has not received a funding proposal from the Central Australian Women's Legal Service (CAWLS). Internet Content (Question No. 581) 114 581 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Women in writing, 10 November 2016: (1) Is the Office for Women participating in the Government's response on the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. (2) What steps has the Office for Women taken to respond to the recommendations of the recent Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee's report on the inquiry into the phenomenon colloquially referred to as 'revenge porn'. Mr Turnbull 885 The Minister for Women has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) The Government's response to the Senate Committee's recommendations is being coordinated by the Attorney-General's Department, in consultation with relevant Commonwealth agencies including the Office for Women, the Department of Communications and the Arts and the Department of Social Services. Women's Safety Package (Question No. 596) 115 596 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Women in writing, on 10 November 2016: Of the 'up to' $15 million to enable police in Queensland to better respond to domestic violence in remote communities and for measures that reduce re-offending by Indigenous perpetrators, announced in the September 2015 Women's Safety Package, (a) what sum has been spent, and (b) on what measures. Mr Turnbull 885 The Minister for Women has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: In May 2016, $2.5 million was provided to the Queensland Government for upgrades to five airstrips in the Torres Strait. These upgrades will enable police to make night landings which will shorten response times at night, including for family and domestic violence incidents. Reported rates of domestic violence in the Torres Strait are at least five-and-half times the Queensland average. Another $555,000 is due to be paid to the Queensland Government on completion of the project. The remaining $12.3 million is allocated over three years from 2016–17 to 2018–19 to Prisoner Through Care services based in New South Wales ($0.7 million), Queensland ($3.1 million), Western Australia ($3.5 million), South Australia ($0.7 million) and the Northern Territory ($4.2 million). This funding is to deliver intensive case management to Indigenous prisoners to address the underlying causes of offending behaviour and reduce their risk of committing further offences, including family violence, upon their release from prison. Women's Safety Package (Question No. 597) 115 597 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Women in writing, on 10 November 2016: Of the $3.6 million for the Cross Border Domestic Violence Intelligence Desk to share information on victims and perpetrators who move around the cross border region of Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory, announced in the September 2015 Women's Safety Package, what sum has been spent. Mr Turnbull 885 The Minister for Women has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: This entire amount has been provided to the Northern Territory Police. Women's Safety Package (Question No. 600) 115 600 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Women in writing, on 10 November 2016: Has the $1.4 million funding commitment announced in the Women's Safety Package to extend the Community Engagement Police Officers in remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory been spent. Mr Turnbull 885 The Minister for Women has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: This entire amount has been provided to the Northern Territory Police.