2018-02-06 45 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 6 February 2018

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Access to Committee Reports 1 Presentation 1 12:01 The SPEAKER 00APG Pursuant to the resolution of the Senate on 6 September 1984 and the House of Representatives on 11 October 1984, I present a report on access to committee documents. PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS 1 PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS Speaker's Panel 1 12:01 The SPEAKER 00APG Pursuant to standing order 17, I lay on the table my warrant revoking the nomination of the honourable member for Page to be a member of the Speaker's panel. COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Membership 1 12:01 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received messages from the Senate informing the House of the appointment of senators to certain joint committees. As the list of appointments is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the list to the House. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BILLS 1 BILLS Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017 1

Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017

Returned from Senate 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Membership 1 12:02 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip that members have been nominated to be members of certain committees. 12:02 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell by leave—I move: That members be appointed as members of certain committees in accordance with the list which has been placed on the table. As the list is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the list to the House. Details will be recorded in Votes and Proceedings. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017 1

Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017

Reference to Federation Chamber 1 12:03 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I declare the Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017 is referred to the Federation Chamber for further discussion. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 1

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017

Second Reading 1 12:03 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney Attendance with police protection is the norm, and ongoing conflict around the sick and injured while they're being treated by the attending St John volunteers is a nightly experience. When ambulance volunteers who deal with alcohol illness and the consequences of alcohol fuelled violence every night tell you that the cashless debit card is making a big difference, then we need to listen. The card is working well, but other factors are creating some limitations. Sly grogging from neighbouring communities is a problem, as is the influx of people from out of town during the wet season. Quick booze like Poker Face, which is a cheap, sweet white wine in plastic squeezy bottles and easily sculled, remains an issue. Royalties payments continue to inject cash into the community and are not included in the income management of the cashless debit card. Despite some of these challenges, positive impacts on employment have been found in the second evaluation. The cashless debit card is shown to increase motivation to find work. Motivating young people and getting more people employed is a key strength of this bill, especially with its inclusion of the Youth Jobs PaTH supplement on the cashless debit card. I am a very strong advocate of this program. The Youth Jobs PaTH intervenes with early investment and training to get people into work and off a path to lifelong welfare dependency. This program increases young people's employability and provides them with real work experience to get the start they need in the workforce. And the Youth Jobs PaTH helps to instil confidence in young people and is all about helping young Australians by getting them ready, giving them a go and getting them a job. Eligible participants are paid $200 a fortnight in a supplement in addition to their income support payment. The intent of this payment is to assist participants with the cost of travel to and from work and the purchase of clothing or equipment for their on-the-job training. This bill will ensure that the payment of the Youth Jobs PaTH supplement will be managed also through the cashless debit card and will not give participants and other community members access to more discretionary cash, which would undermine the community benefits we are seeing from the use of the cashless debit card. There is some concern that the cashless debit card only targets majority Indigenous communities. This is direct feedback that I received from community members in Kununurra, and I'm not surprised that some people feel this way. The Indigenous proportion for the first two trial sites was approximately 78 per cent, but the cashless debit card does not target or distinguish. The cashless debit card applies equally to all participants regardless of background, race, religion or any other factor. The next trial communities, the Goldfields in WA and the Hinkler region in Queensland, have a greater proportion of non-Indigenous population. This should dispel perceptions that the card only targets Indigenous communities. With the addition of the Goldfields and the Hinkler region, the Indigenous proportion of cardholders will drop to approximately 33 per cent. The cashless debit card is not designed to stigmatise or penalise people, and it doesn't. It doesn't take welfare payments away from people with alcohol, drug or gambling issues. In fact, it quarantines more money to spend on the good stuff—food, clothing and the kids. The cashless debit card aims to ensure that income support payments are spent in the best interests of the welfare payment recipients and their dependants. Regardless, it is so important to remember that the cashless debit card is only being rolled out to communities that strongly support its introduction. The cashless debit card is a policy for all Australians. The announcement that two new communities would be added to the trial has opened the floodgates of support. There are community leaders lobbying for their community to be included in the extensions of this program. They want to be part of the success of this program, which is making lives better. And there is some sense of urgency from these communities, which are looking for more tools to address the devastating impact of alcohol, drugs and gambling on their residents. In my home state of Western Australia, around 3,400 people who are recipients of working age payments such as Newstart and youth allowance will receive the card in Kalgoorlie, Boulder, Laverton, Leonora and Coolgardie. Like the East Kimberley and Ceduna trials, community consultation has been the key. At the new Goldfields trial location, community consultation has been extensive and inclusive. More than 30 consultations have taken place with local government across five local government areas. More than 45 consultations have taken place with local service providers and peak bodies on the front line working with disadvantaged families. There have been more than 50 consultations with frontline state government officials delivering health, education and public safety services and 10 community information centres hosted by the Department of Social Services in Kalgoorlie, Leonora, Laverton and Kambalda. These were attended by more than 180 people. The bill maintains the legislative safeguards of the original trial, protecting how, when and where the cashless debit card can operate. The bill continues to ensure that the program cannot be implemented in any location without the introduction of a disallowable instrument. These instruments can also specify additional parameters, meaning the government can work constructively with additional communities to tailor the cashless debit card program to meet the needs of that community. These safeguards also ensure that parliament retains the right to consider each proposed new cashless debit card site. Instead of passing legislative amendments for these hypothetical communities and participants, this place can accept or reject new sites by considering the impacts and the level of community support for the measure on a case-by-case basis. The cashless debit card is a very considered and very well designed program. It is designed closely with the individual's community where the card is rolled out. The announcement that two communities would be added to the trial has opened the floodgates of support. I'm quite sure that this parliament will back the support for this program by Goldfields and Hinkler, and the broader community, and pass these amendments as soon as possible. If there is dissent from the members opposite, it is ideological. In speaking against the cashless debate card, they are going against what the community and trial locations want and demand. By refusing an extended rollout into the Goldfields and Hinkler, they are precisely saying that this card is okay for those majority Indigenous communities but not okay for other non-Indigenous communities. That's shameful on their part. An intervention on alcohol and drug dependence and violence and social unrest comes with this. I commend the work of the former Minister for Social Services and the former Minister for Human Services. Their reforms, which were announced in the extension of the cashless debit card, with greater mutual obligation provisions for welfare recipients, are bold but fair and they have my full support. The continuation of the cashless debit card in the East Kimberley and Ceduna, and the extension to the Goldfields and Hinkler, demonstrates this government's commitment to reducing social harm in areas with a high level of welfare dependency and to supporting vulnerable people, families and communities. Working-age welfare should not be compensation for the situation someone finds themselves in; rather, it must be an investment in where they can go. The lazy application of cash just isn't working; the cashless debit card is. 12:11 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 allows the existing trial of the cashless debit card, currently in Ceduna and the East Kimberley, to be expanded to additional sites. The government has named two sites they wish to extend it to: Hervey Bay and Bundaberg, and the Goldfields in Western Australia. The Labor opposition will be opposing this bill. I want to explain why that is. At various times, the Labor opposition supported the early trials in Ceduna and East Kimberley. But, looking at the plans to expand and looking at the reports on those programs to date, we don't believe an expansion can be justified. Clearly, Labor supports community driven initiatives that tackle drug and alcohol abuse. There'd be nobody in this House who doesn't want to assist people who suffer from addictions to build better lives. We support community driven initiatives to tackle drug and alcohol abuse but we don't believe that the vast majority of social security recipients aren't capable of managing their own personal finances, so we would oppose completely the cashless debit card being rolled out nationwide. But it is still worth looking community by community at what the needs are and what that community wants, which is why initially we supported the Ceduna and East Kimberley projects when they were put forward. We did so after consulting with local community leaders. We did so after securing additional funding for wraparound services, including drug and alcohol counselling and more mental health support services. It's really important to recognise that, in the case of Ceduna in particular, the community leaders were very supportive. In fact, in 2015 a formal memorandum of understanding was signed with community leaders, including the Ceduna Council, the Community Heads Group and leaders from the surrounding Aboriginal communities. So there was very real support for the trial in Ceduna. The government is now seeking to expand this project quite considerably and Labor can't support it. In 2017, the government announced that it would roll out the cashless debit card in two further locations: the Goldfields, and Bundaberg in Queensland. The bill would allow the existing trial to be extended to the additional sites. The original trials would end in June 2018. In the Ceduna and East Kimberley trials, the program applies to all people who receive a working-age welfare payment, with the exception of age pension and veterans' pension recipients. The Bundaberg and Hervey Bay program will apply to people aged 35 and under who receive Newstart, youth allowance, jobseeker parenting payment partnered and jobseeker parenting payment single. As I said before, it also ends the trial in Ceduna and East Kimberley in June 2018. Labor's position is really quite clear. We will be moving amendments in the Senate to reflect the position that the trials in Ceduna and East Kimberley should be extended to June 2019. That's something the community itself asks, but we'll limit the trials to only those two discrete trial areas. We'll oppose the removal of the limit to 10,000 participants. We'll specify how people in the trial areas who are on the cashless debit card can have a proportion of their income support payments on the card reduced or exit the trial. We'll also specify funding for wraparound services in trial sites formally in the legislation. Our position is really quite clear. I commend our shadow minister, Jenny Macklin, for the amazing work she has done on this. She has consulted widely. She has been to the areas. She has worked incredibly hard on this, and our position is clearly outlined in her speech on the second reading. If anybody wants the full 30-minute version, shadow minister Macklin has laid it all out in her speech on the second reading. The Senate is inquiring into this program now. It's unfortunate the government hasn't waited until that inquiry reported before bringing this bill on for debate in the House; we might all be better informed, including those on the government side, if that were the case. A number of submissions have been put forward to the inquiry, and those have been available. They make for very interesting reading. It's really clear that there has been insufficient consultation in the two proposed trial sites of Goldfields, in Western Australia, and Hervey Bay and Bundaberg in Queensland. As I stated earlier, from the Labor perspective it's incredibly important that any trials of this kind that affect an entire community are only undertaken after extensive consultation and agreement with the local community across the board. This is a very complex area that we're talking about here and something that profoundly impacts the capacity of people to manage their own financial affairs. Consultation must be extensive—and it hasn't been. There are also very mixed views on the evaluation of the program by the company, ORIMA. They did quite an expensive evaluation for the government, and there is extensive criticism of this evaluation in the submissions made to the Senate inquiry. One of the big criticisms concerns the nature of the survey itself. It was done in person. People had to give their own names. You can imagine, Mr Speaker, if someone asked you: 'So, did you take more or less illegal drugs after the cashless debit card was introduced?' I don't imagine there would be many people who would answer that question accurately. 'Did you drink more or less?' 'Have you been driving drunk more or less?' I assume you do not do that, Mr Speaker, but I'm sure you get my point. With the Indigenous community, in particular, who already have quite a suspicion towards authority, it's hard to imagine that the local populations in Ceduna or East Kimberley answered those questions accurately. One would suspect that you would get a bias towards good behaviour in the answers whether it was there in reality or not. There's also a bit of cherrypicking of the results themselves: 45 per cent of the users surveyed found they were better at saving—that's true, but what is not publicised as much is that 50 per cent found they were not; 23 per cent said it made their life better, but 42 per cent said it had made their life worse; and 40 per cent could better look after their children, but 48 per cent said they could not better look after their children. So we've seen a bit of cherrypicking. In the figures provided in the original research, you can cherrypick and get quite good results, but when you look at the overall results they're not as glowing as the government would have you believe. When participants were asked about the impact of the trial on their children's lives, 17 per cent reported feeling that their lives were better, but a bigger group of parents, around 24 per cent, felt that their children's lives were actually worse. And, in the conversations that reflected on the trial's impact on their lives, 32 per cent reported that it made their lives worse, compared with only 23 per cent that said it improved them. People responded too that it made things that seem so simple quite difficult. Transferring money to children who were away at boarding school, paying at the swimming pool and buying food at the markets, for example, were all rather difficult under this trial. Cost, though, was something that really stood out for me. We've seen reports that the cost to roll out this card is somewhere between $7,900 and $10,000 per person per year. That's an extraordinary amount of money per person. I look at that and think: 'Okay, is there a better way to use that amount of money? If the government's prepared to spend $10,000 per person rolling out this card, are there other services that might actually improve a person's capacity to manage their income that would work better than that one?' The biggest criticism for me in addressing that $10,000 per person is that I can't see how income management of this kind actually teaches a person about financial management in the long run. I can understand that, by taking away the capacity of a person to make good decisions on their own, you might get a short-term bang for your buck until, I would say, people start finding ways around it. Every system you introduce can be gouged and rorted. It immediately comes to mind that you'd find sly grog doing quite well on the side. You'd find the occasional corrupt shop that was prepared to accept a higher price for goods that weren't allowed on the cashless debit card and essentially cook its books to show it didn't do that. You'd find a person who would say, 'You buy me that fishing rod; I'll give you this carton of beer.' There are ways that people can find around these sorts of programs if they choose, and it's not hard to work out what they are. Over time, addicts will find a way to get access to the drugs they want. Gamblers will find ways to get access. And others in the community who have fewer moral convictions of their own will find ways to enable that for a fee. That's what will happen in the long run. It's impossible to imagine that that wouldn't be the case. I was looking at the rules for this card and comparing it to the way I manage my money. I actually think I'm quite good at managing mine, but I would find it very difficult to manage my money under this card because it has several pages of rules. In fact, even on the unexpanded version on the Indue website, there are 10 pages of rules. One of those that first struck me as something that would make my system unworkable is the limit on automatic transfers. You can transfer zero dollars per month for housing and $200 per month for other expenses on your Indue card. Now, you can go in and get that changed. You can apply to the department. You can go online. There are all sorts of things you can do—lots of online stuff—if you want to get those amounts changed, but it's quite complicated to do that. I would ask whether a person who actually was finding it so difficult to manage their money that the Indue card might be an advantage would be able to manage the complex systems that would allow them to structure their card for their best benefit. Housing payments of zero dollars per month—that means no automatic transfer of your rent unless you contact the department and get that changed. I sat down one week several years ago and moved all of my automatic payments so they all happened within three days of being paid. So my gas, my electricity, my rent, my insurances—everything is paid by automatic transfer. There is no capacity on the Indue card to do that without an incredible amount of paperwork. Again, I would ask whether a person who found it necessary to have this sort of system would be capable of navigating that process. I would argue that a person who is capable of navigating that process probably doesn't need income management because they know what they're doing. And, again, I can't see that this system works for people who are good at managing their expenses. It is quite an interesting challenge to get this sort of thing right. Another issue that came up in the review, and it's there in the submissions to the Senate inquiry, is the difficulty people have in getting out of this system. My understanding is that from the beginning the people in Ceduna, for example, were told they would be able to opt out—if you were good at managing your finances, and you didn't have drug and alcohol problems, you could opt out—but it's actually proving quite difficult to do that. The rules relating to how you actually opt out of this system and how you get people off it are very, very vague. Again, that's one of the reasons why we'll be moving amendments in the Senate to clarify that. I would argue that there are people in the community for whom income management would be very beneficial, but it's not across the board. There are many, many people in every community who are perfectly capable of managing their finances. I would argue that perhaps it might be more sensible for a government to look at an opt-in system, a system where people can be referred to income management because of the circumstances of their lives, and that any attempts to further expand this system take place after extensive consultation with experts on what is the best way to use the extraordinary amount of money that this program is costing. 12:26 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore I've been involved in this process since the pilot of the cashless debit card, and have seen the statements and comments from the communities that were taken into consideration. And while the pilots were done in two remote communities, I know there are actually people in my community who would benefit from such a program. Somehow, and in some way, we need to help turn the tide on the dependency cycle of drug and alcohol addiction and the subsequent social and cultural damage that are the results. Some people will think I'm referring only to the cashless debit card that has been trialled in these two very self-motivated communities in remote Australia, who wished to do it and who were consulted during the whole process, but I'm not. This initiative was set in motion by a request from that community—from their elders, from all of the stakeholders in that community. It was their desperate project to rescue their children, their neighbourhood and their self-respect. Alcohol and drugs are the causes of so much destruction: whether it's the physical damage to the jaw of the woman, the virginity of the child, the broken leg of the young boy, the hole in the wall, the wreck of a car accident, or the effect on the unborn child who will develop learning difficulties at best or the incapacity to learn due to brain damage and disability because of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. How can anyone think that this is not a good policy? The previous speaker, the member for Parramatta, spoke of questions in relation to the survey from the interpersonal responses. Any survey can be interpreted in any way, depending on the perspective of the researcher. The opposition are fundamentally opposed to this scheme, so of course they will find little pieces of statistics in there that match their counterargument. They talk about the $7,000 to $9,000 cost per person; we actually see this as an investment in these people. We're trying to prevent the car accidents that come about because of drunken drivers; we're trying to prevent the hospitalisation of women and children because of domestic violence; we're trying to prevent them losing their children because of their bad behaviour and their inability to manage how they spend the money they receive. All of these preventions are actually savings for the community and giving them the ability to deal with what's going on in their lives. These issues are so significant to me and they're not just related to remote communities. All the above issues—the domestic violence, the child sexual abuse, car accidents, hospitalisation and FASD—are not limited to remote Australia. They exist in everyone's backyard to a greater or lesser extent. This is everyone's problem, and we must seriously work together to repair the damage that, in some communities, is entrenched. The cashless debit card cannot and should not be summarily dismissed. That would effectively be turning our backs on the communities who are plagued by drug and alcohol addiction and gambling abuse. The cashless debit card has been in operation in Ceduna in South Australia and in the Kimberley in Western Australia since April 2016, and is planned for introduction into the Western Australian Goldfields, and Bundaberg and Hervey Bay from early this year. It was introduced with the support of the local leaders to combat the excessive welfare-fuelled alcohol abuse in particular. I hate to think that we would stop bringing in a good program because some people will try and get around a good program. Bad people will always invent a way to continue to be bad. But does that mean that we stop the social benefit—because of somebody's bad social ingenuity? We can't stop them all the time, but we can do our best, because every human life is valuable. We do our best to try and prevent drug addiction. We do our best to try and prevent alcohol addiction. We do our best to try and prevent gambling abuse. You can't actually teach that person unless they admit to themselves they have a problem. Then they start that cycle but don't have as much ready cash. It's part of the game of changing their behaviour, and it's so important. But, honestly, the main game here is to look after the vulnerable. The main game here is to look after the women subject to domestic violence. The main game is to look after the children—their education, their food. How can they learn if they're hungry because their parents have spent the money on something else? This is the main game of this program and that's something we should never lose sight of. One of the previous speakers said you can't automatically transfer funds for renting your premises. Last time I spoke to Centrelink, people who were renting a house had rent assistance and it went straight to the landlord or the department of housing or whatever, but Centrelink took care of that for them. So I seriously don't think that that should be a problem. In East Kimberley, one of the elders said they supported the card because 'alcohol abuse is destroying our community and our culture and devastating the lives of the children'. How can a drunk adult teach their children about culture in an Indigenous community? I doubt they could even get the dots on a dot painting in a straight line, let alone teach them about their history and philosophy, and the beautiful culture that goes along with their guardianship of the land. It's just not going to happen. It's estimated that a quarter of all babies in remote communities are born with brain damage from alcohol abuse. This is scary. This is absolutely scary. FASD isn't even a diagnostic tool with all doctors. Some doctors don't even know about it. So how can they diagnose it and get more teachers and more resources into a school for children who have been affected by alcohol during that first trimester of pregnancy? This card, which restricts money spent on alcohol, drugs and gambling, was subject to an independent evaluation—done by ORIMA Research—which, as I said, can be interpreted in different ways according to different people because statistics always can be, but there has been a considerable positive impact in the communities where it is operating. Forty-one per cent were drinking less, 48 per cent were gambling less and taking fewer drugs, and 40 per cent said they were better able to care for their children. Even more importantly, the number of car accidents was reduced, the number of hospital entrants was reduced, the number of domestic violence incidents was reduced and there were more children attending school. Those are undeniable facts and undeniable statistics. In the Goldfields, each of the elected councils in the region supported the card's introduction. There were over 270 consultations undertaken. In Hervey Bay, there were over 110 consultations, including public forums and a community-wide survey to which 75 per cent responded in favour. In Gilmore, there are many community advocates also requesting the introduction of this card. I agree there should be proper community consultation, but not that costs us an arm and a leg, quite literally—where children are damaged during a domestic violence fight. Let's make sure we get our stakeholders on board and make sure we bring this in properly. It is my belief that most of these potential participants will be only too keen for the card, to break the cycle. We know it will help make a difference to young kids' lives. Some kids are neglected, and parents are out of control, which is why we have so many custodial grandparents. We can't stop that unless we do something to intervene. Some of the Indigenous people said that they are burying people. They still have funerals ahead of them to lay people to rest, because of abuse of alcohol. Somehow, someway, we have to change the cycle. These communities are crying out for help to stop the drug and alcohol abuse, to stop the violence and to build better lives for their children. The cashless debit card is not a silver bullet, but it has led to fundamental improvement in these pilot communities. There are very few other initiatives that have had such an impact. If we can develop a better way to use money, where the welfare support is spent on food for the family, school uniforms, toys and all the other trappings of a better home environment, surely that is a worthwhile target. Surely we can aim to reduce the number of young people coming into hospital. Surely we can reduce the number of children being beaten up. Surely we can reduce the number of women presenting with a broken jaw, teeth knocked out, black eyes, broken arms. Surely we can stop it. Surely we can reduce the number of children being removed from their homes because the parents, addicted to ice, are incapable of looking after their children. I have one family back home where the grandmother is desperately trying to get access to her grandchildren, because the mother is addicted to ice. The father is the dealer of ice. Every time people come in they say to the family, 'We're going to come in and inspect your family,' so the lady cleans the house up, because she is not actually on ice at that moment; she is in her regular time. FACS comes in and says, 'Yes, they're fine.' The grandmother knows that these children are at risk. She's desperate to bring this in, because she knows it will help break the cycle. Surely we can get less gambling debt, less alcoholism and end this cycle of drug-taking. This card is most definitely a step in the right direction to help all of those in our community who have not had the chance to learn about balancing budgets, or that food comes before dope, beer, ice and the pokies. Financial literacy is not about giving people a booklet on how to put your money in the bank and take it out only when you need to spend it on things that are important to your family. That's a long-term learning curve for some families if they haven't learned it in their own family. I have third-generation families who have never put a cent in the bank themselves. They don't know how to. The only money they've ever had is income support. Let's not squander this opportunity for breaking the cycle of what's happening in some of our lower socioeconomic-status areas and some of our areas where people really don't know that this isn't the way to behave for their children. Let's put our kids first; let's put our women first; let's put our communities first. In the end it's putting our nation first. 12:38 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I rise to oppose the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. Labor does not believe in a blanket approach to income management. We do not support a national rollout of the cashless debit card. I speak as a mental health and drug and alcohol worker and as someone who strongly supports community-led, evidence based initiatives that address drug and alcohol dependency. I make the point that drug and alcohol dependency is not something that discriminates. It affects people across our communities. Labor believes most income support recipients are capable of managing their own finances. Labor has said all along that we will listen to individual communities and make decisions on a location-by-location basis. The cashless debit card is currently being trialled in the East Kimberley in Western Australia and in Ceduna in South Australia. The government announced in the 2017 budget that it would establish trials of the cashless debit card in two further locations from 1 December 2017, and this bill enables that. Since introducing this legislation, the government has announced that it wants to establish trials of cashless debit cards in the Goldfields in Western Australia, and in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay in Queensland. This bill was referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, which has now reported. After hearing the evidence presented to the Senate inquiry and after speaking with people in Bundaberg and the Goldfields, it has become clear that Labor cannot support this bill in its current form. The dissenting report by the Labor members of the committee identifies a number of significant concerns. It is apparent that there has been insufficient consultation with the communities in the proposed new trial sites and that there is no clear framework to establish whether these communities consent to trials being established in their areas. There is insufficient evidence at this point to support the establishment of further trials. The ORIMA evaluations are inconclusive at best. The evaluation has been thoroughly criticised by leading academics. We are also concerned that two years is not long enough for communities to see whether there has been any real benefit from the introduction of the cashless debit card. Given the significant costs of the trials, an accrued cost of around $25.5 million, which equates to around $12,000 per participant, we need to be sure that the cashless debit card can achieve its stated objectives. We're hearing that the communities in existing trial sites want to continue using the card and see the trial through. For these reasons, we will support the continuation of the trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley. Labor knows that entrenched social issues cannot and will not be solved by income management alone. That's why we insisted that the government provide additional supports for participating communities. We are calling on the government to support our amendment that funding for these critical wraparound service will be guaranteed in the bill. As someone who has worked in mental health and drug and alcohol areas for most of my life, I know that this is a complex problem and it's not one that can be addressed by one measure. This must be community led in order for it to be successful. Labor will also move an amendment to ensure that no new trial sites can be introduced, by changing the allowance of three discrete trial sites to the existing two. In the future, Labor will only consider the introduction of new trial sites if it can be demonstrated that the community have agreed that a formal consultation process with the community has occurred, that there is an agreed definition of 'consent' and that there is an evidence base established through robust evaluation. As I have said, Labor does not support a blanket approach to income management or a national rollout of the cashless debit card. In my electorate there is a real concern from people who are currently recipients of income support that this will be broadly rolled out and that they will be captured by this. Two young men in my electorate, Daniel and Danny, both currently disability support recipients, raise this concern with me often. I spoke to Danny's dad, Ken, today. They make the point that having a disability does not make them incapable of managing their finances, but this would be the inference made about them if they were forced onto a cashless debit card. Wendy, a Toukley constituent, wrote to me: I am rather worried about the Cashless Card proposed as they will probably want to roll it out to everyone on benefits. I pay private rent. So what would happen to someone like me? Could I end up homeless with a card in my pocket because who knows if a real estate agent would take it for rent. There is so much wrong with the whole idea of a card that it staggers belief that they would consider this. These are real fears that people are experiencing in my community, because this is being discussed, because of the government's overall approach to income support recipients—people in our community who are most vulnerable. Matt, from an adjoining electorate, wrote the following about the cashless card: I despair that the goal of the Coalition is to roll it out nation-wide. I want it stopped in its tracks and for the government to treat social security recipients and pensioners more empathetically. In addition to concerns about what the cashless debit card might be seen as saying about their standing in the community, my constituents have practical concerns relating to its implementation and impact. Another constituent, Margaret, also from Toukley, said: The 'Cashless Welfare Card' is a big mistake. I know from experience that many purchases of groceries etc. were not made from big supermarkets. Much was sought and bought by joining with others in similar situations and purchasing in bulk and dividing the burden. This would not be possible with the welfare card. Other household items were sourced second-hand and again the Welfare Card would not work. So forcing people onto this system would only disadvantage them more. Again, these are real fears held by people in the community who are most at risk. Another letter, from Greg, who is associated with a local food bank, shows that there is a belief that a blanket rollout is already happening and also raises a further practical concern. Greg wrote to me—and he also raised this when I visited their food bank in Toukley: With the introduction of the new cashless Welfare card for Centrelink recipients, who make up a large number of those we help, we have recently purchased an EFTPOS terminal, so that card holders will still be able to purchase food from us. We are a NFP— not-for-profit— organisation. My question is will the Government subsidise the purchase of the terminal and reimburse the cost charged for each transaction? From memory I think ours is 1.98% of the total amount. Further, Greg says: As you are aware, with the more outlay we save the more food we can purchase from Foodbank so it follows that we can help more families and individuals in distress. So it's not just individuals in the community who have concerns about this; it's not-for-profits and other providers who are concerned about the direction in which the government is heading. To reiterate: Labor supports community led initiatives to address drug and alcohol dependency. As I've said, as someone who has worked in inpatient mental health and drug and alcohol wards in our community, I understand that there needs to be a wraparound approach. No single measure is going to address these issues, and it needs to be done with respect. As a mental health worker what seems to me to be missing in this debate is respect, dignity and real empathy for people who are experiencing drug and alcohol dependency. As I said, there seems to be this view that drug and alcohol dependency affects only certain pockets of our community. Drug and alcohol dependency does not discriminate; it affects across our communities. To reiterate: Labor supports community led initiatives to address drug and alcohol dependency. Labor does not support a national rollout of the cashless debit card. Further, unlike the current government, Labor does not believe in marginalising income support recipients. Unlike the current government, Labor doesn't believe in kicking income support recipients when they are down. Unlike the current government, Labor does not believe in slashing programs designed to assist income support recipients to improve their education and boost their job prospects. I said 'unlike the current government' because time and again we see the government proposing measures that do these things—measures like establishing a trial of drug testing for jobseekers and compliance changes relating to drug and alcohol testing, a measure for which there was no basis in evidence, a measure which united the entire medical profession in opposition and a measure which was roundly condemned by charities, welfare bodies and experts. So why would the government propose such a measure? It is because the government wanted to hint—just hint—that some income support recipients are simply not worthy of a helping hand from fellow Australians. Unlike the government, Labor does not believe in hurting income support recipients. Labor believes that everybody, particularly the most vulnerable in our community, must be treated with dignity and respect. Let's look at the mean-spirited measures this government has in store for income support recipients—measures like cutting the bereavement allowance, a measure which will hurt people at a particularly vulnerable time in their and their families' lives. Unlike the government, Labor does not believe in cutting programs which will assist income support recipients to take up study to boost their employment prospects. In the last sitting we debated a government proposal to reduce the education entry payment and pensioner education supplement—modest payments made to people with a disability, carers, single parents and jobseekers who study so they can meet the additional costs arising from that study. Those measures are yet further examples of this government cutting support to low-income and vulnerable Australians. I grew up in Wyong on the Central Coast of New South Wales. I worked in our local Wyong hospital for the 10 years before I was elected. For most of that time I worked in mental health wards, inpatient units and drug and alcohol services. We need measures that are evidence based. We need measures that are community led. We need measures that are just. We need measures that are fair. We need to treat people with respect and dignity. We cannot continue to let people down, to marginalise people and to victimise the vulnerable people in our community. What the government is doing continues to send a signal to people who are vulnerable in our community, who most need our support, that it doesn't care and that they don't matter. Unlike the government, Labor understands that entrenched social issues cannot and will not be solved by income management alone. That's why we insisted that the government provide additional supports for communities participating in trials of cashless debit cards. That is why we are calling on the government to support our amendment that funding for these critical wraparound services be guaranteed in the bill. Last week I met with Coast Shelter, who provide a range of services to vulnerable people in my community. I met with them at Rondeley, which provides housing for women and families, particularly women with children who are fleeing family violence. Those are the sorts of services that we should be supporting; those are the sorts of services that we should be boosting. The government cannot continue to undermine, to victimise, to marginalise the most vulnerable people in our community. I go back to Danny and Daniel, young men in my electorate, young men who work hard, young men who live with disability, young men who have a very real fear about what this might mean and how this might be rolled out. As I said, I spoke to Danny's dad, Ken, this morning and let him know that this is being debated in the House today. They have grave fears for Danny and his welfare, and other people like him living with disability. I oppose this bill. I ask that the amendments be looked at very closely in the Senate and that a fair, dignified and empathetic approach be taken to those in our community who are most vulnerable. 12:51 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari I want to thank the member for Dobell for her very informed contribution to this debate, for exposing us to her experience working in the health field around the community in which she lives and for her perspectives that she was able to outline to us. In 2007, the then Department of Human Services developed what came to be known as the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory. This was the forerunner to the cashless debit card. It was introduced across the Territory to a whole population of people who were welfare recipients or receiving other government payments. It was not targeted. It was ham-fisted. It did not achieve the outcomes that it was purported to achieve. It stigmatised people and, in my view, had a very negative impact on many, many people. I must say that there were some who thought it had some positive elements to it, particularly in terms of allowing older people to control their incomes and not have cash in their hand and be exposed to 'humbugging', which means they would lose that money. But the universal application of this measure, in my view, has had a detrimental impact on the broader Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community—or, in this case, the Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory. We see people lining up in a store with a BasicsCard and being stigmatised by that very thing. Many of these people were quite capable of managing their own incomes. They had been using the Centrepay system in the Department of Social Security to manage payments. There were some, of course, who require their income to be managed because of the way they deal with alcohol and other drugs or other substances and because of the need to protect their family and make sure there was sufficient food on the table. But that's a small minority of people. We are here debating the cashless debit card. In my view it suffers largely from the same things. In terms of its universal application, I recall very vividly discussions about whether the communities of Ceduna and Kununurra were supportive of this trial. I made the point that whilst significant organisational leadership might be in support of a particular trial, that did not mean their broader membership or, indeed, community members would be so supportive. What has come to pass and has now been exposed, certainly in the case of Kununurra, is that large sections of the community were not supportive of the trial, and it remains without support in their community. Now I think I understand the objective of this measure. Its purpose is to provide to people who are, as we say, in difficult circumstances the capacity to be able to manage their lives and look after their families. Many do that anyway. Of course, the key issue around much of this is to do with the abuse of alcohol and other substances and the failure of adults in their responsibility to ensure that the people in their care are properly looked after, have a safe place to live and have food on the table. I understand totally that in those examples there could be a need, and perhaps there is a need in many cases, for people to have their income managed in a way which safeguards the interests of their families—but not for a whole population. If this were a targeted scheme, it would have greater merit. I have no objection in principle to the idea of a debit card—none at all—if it provides people with the capacity to manage their own income. But to say to people they can have, say, only $30 cash out of every $100 provides an enormous limitation on their capacity and ability to make choices about their own lives. It is not something which the broader community would tolerate, and I don't think we should expect Aboriginal people in these communities to tolerate it. This proposal to extend the debit card to other locations is based on the false premise that this debit card has achieved the objectives for which it was developed. We now know that is not the case. We know that there was an evaluation done by ORIMA. That evaluation was itself flawed and was seen to be flawed by others who have far more experience in these matters than I. They made it very clear that the process of this review was very dramatically flawed. I refer to the Library's wonderful piece of work on this in the Bills Digest. On the next to last page, it refers to comments by Janet Hunt of the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research at ANU in which she explains scepticism about claims that the trials had been a success, citing the Prime Minister's claim that there has been a massive reduction in drug and alcohol abuse and violence. Dr Hunt writes: Someone needs to tell them [Minister Tudge and the Prime Minister] that the report does not say that. Indeed, the authors qualify a number of their apparently positive findings with various caveats, but, at the same time, the evaluation itself has serious flaws, so even these findings are contestable. And indeed they are. It would be wrong to believe that the research itself was not contestable and that there were no major concerns about it. There were major concerns, for example, around the lack of baseline information and assessment prior to the establishment of this trial. There was no survey of potential CDC participants—the debit card recipients—to assess their usage of alcohol and drugs or the extent of their gambling. This did not occur until some months after participants had been on the card. There was never, in the later analysis, a breakdown of the income support payment categories among people interviewed, so no-one has any idea whether the card is good for some groups of recipients and not for others. This is a significant shortcoming of the evaluation. This is not the fault of ORIMA, the researchers, but is, of course, the fault of the government, who didn't actually bother to commission an evaluation of the trial prior to the trial commencing, to allow it to develop the baseline data that would be required to make a successful evaluation of whether the trial was in fact successful. The most significant findings of the evaluation produced by ORIMA were that, amongst families, 27 per cent said the trial had made their family better while, conversely, 30 per cent said it had made their families worse off. Across participants interviewed, 22 per cent said it had made their lives better and 49 per cent said it had made their lives worse. These changes were fairly consistent across the two trial sites. This is according to ORIMA. Alternatively, if you reinterpret the data, Dr Hunt's evidence concludes that for just 77 per cent of participants the trial had been of no positive impact. The indefinite extension of the cashless debit card in the East Kimberley and Ceduna was, as Dr Hunt provides, a very premature decision and could be a mistake that may lead to poor public policy and bad public expenditure. We won't be supporting the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 in this chamber. What we've done is respond now to the 172 submissions that were received during the Senate inquiry process, which concurred that the experience of community members and services in the trial region was mostly negative, that the quantitative data contained within the ORIMA evaluation lacked rigour and about the government's unwillingness to appropriately assess and invest in alternatives—and that's clear. The government's got in its mind's eye that this is the only possible thing it can do. I won't go through all those people in the Aboriginal communities who have expressed their opposition, but I will refer to just a couple. The Ceduna Koonibba Aboriginal Health Service Aboriginal Corporation and the Tullawon Aboriginal Health Service have made clear their concerns, particularly around the lack of resourcing for wraparound services to deal with people who have alcohol and other drug dependency issues and the opportunities that need to be gained by those communities. The Aboriginal Health Council of Western Australia report that they have concerns about it. One of the really key points here is that they say: We heard that at the time of the Card's proposed introduction in 2016, consultation was targeted to a select few in the community. Most of those impacted by the Card only became aware of their participation through the media once it was announced. This is despite the Government promoting at the time, that it had engaged in widespread consultation. As I said earlier, that's a view I expressed at the time, and I think now it's been demonstrated that I was absolutely correct. I won't go through the other criticisms because there are too many of them. If people have an interest, I encourage them to refer to the submissions made to the Senate inquiry. I want to just emphasise that it seems to me that this is a poor way of making public policy, without doing the appropriate consultation and providing the capacity for the proper research to be done at the time of the development of the program. But, more importantly, in many parts this is largely around issues to do with harm reduction and family violence. We know that there is a real issue around those questions. But, in one of the submissions made by the Aboriginal Health Council of Western Australia, they said: … we have heard more recent reports of concerning flow-on effects since the Card has been introduced. These include, but are not limited to: increases in elder abuse; reports of child prostitution; and, non-cash services (such as Taxi's) charging increased fees in return for cash. It is clear that there are many ways around the Card, and these are being exploited to the detriment of those most vulnerable. The other area that I briefly want to touch upon is the measures being adopted, not universally, around alcohol and other harm reduction. It seems to me that the principal issue, and the cause of most of this strife, is access to alcohol and gambling. What we don't have is a uniform approach to restricting alcohol access in many communities or a capacity for there to be, for example, changes to the taxation treatment of alcohol to make it less attractive for people. That can be done. There's plenty of work which has been done by preventive health agencies across this country advocating changes to the tax regime on alcohol. We don't need the plethora of outlets that are available in most remote communities across Australia, and we do need to limit access to alcohol to many people—that's clear. It's not hard to do; it's just a matter of will. It needs cooperation across jurisdictions so that there are common approaches to the way in which we deal with these issues. That, to me, is far more important in the first instance than handing out a cashless debit card. There might be some merit in it in the context of particular groups of people, but not as it has so far been universally applied. I've got particular concerns, as I've expressed. I come from the experience of the introduction of the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory. I've seen the negative outcomes of this, and now I have seen the negative outcomes of the cashless debit card. 13:06 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor It is an absolute pleasure to rise after the member for Lingiari, who has a long interest in the issues before us today and whose positions and knowledge, of course, we on this side all value. Labor have always said that we believe in a community-driven approach to tackling deep and persistent social issues such as alcohol abuse. The cashless debit card trial in Ceduna and East Kimberly was supported by Labor for this reason: because these respective communities, when consulted by us, wanted to take a new approach to tackling alcohol abuse and disadvantage in their community. The cashless debit card system sees 80 per cent of social security payments received by all working-age people in the trial sites being separated. This 80 per cent portion cannot be used to purchase alcohol—feeding into the deep social issues of these communities. Instead, 80 per cent of social security payments are only able to be used to purchase groceries, pay bills and for day-to-day items required to keep households running. It was on this basis that Labor agreed to support the idea of this bill in the House, which saw the implementation of the trial sites. The bottom line is, we see now that these cashless debit cards are a thought bubble used in theory to assist communities crippled by alcohol abuse but, in practice, we need to fully examine the outcomes and benefits before we glorify them and commission a wider rollout. We need to be listening to the communities involved in the trials, many of whom are feeling disengaged and disenfranchised by the cashless debit card. My Labor colleagues and I have concerns with specific aspects of this bill which will see a further rollout of the cashless debit card trial, which has not had adequate evaluation. The government brings this bill into the House, having failed to establish a formal framework for consultation prior to a further rollout. The proposed amendments that Labor would see inserted into this bill are around the provision for rigorous evaluation of the existing trial sites in Ceduna and East Kimberly. We suggest that this needs to be done urgently. In order to do this, more time needs to be afforded to the trial sites. We cannot be extending further trials when we do not know the outcomes of already existing trials. This is just common sense and, as you heard from the member for Lingiari, there have been many issues raised about the current sites and the report, which has now been widely criticised. There is no benefit to be made by extending the cashless debit cards if they are flawed and not benefitting the community. A rigorous evaluation might also throw up changes to the current system that would be better suited and give us the outcomes that are desired. As the member for Lingiari quoted, there are many critics of the cashless debit card, including Dr Jane Hunt from the Australian National University who said that the evaluation does not 'present adequate evidence of the trial leading to successful outcomes for participants'. That pretty much sums up the things that I have read from people very close to and very experienced in this work. And it highlights for us that at this juncture it is not the time to be widening the number of sites before we review and refine the way this system works. Obviously, this leads to the second issue with this bill—that is, there needs to be a formal framework for consultation and for confirming whether communities support a trial in their area. As I outlined, Labor supported the initial trials on the back of the knowledge that those communities sought to be a part of this process. Now it will be rolled out to other communities without a considerable framework and without consideration of how to best consult with those communities to ensure you've got buy-in from the outset. There has also been a Senate inquiry that has said that the position is inconclusive in terms of what outcomes are being met by this program. And, of course, there is the ORIMA evaluation, commissioned by the Department of Social Services, that's also been widely criticised. My colleagues and I agree to support the existing trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberly to continue until 30 June 2019, and we agree to move amendments reflecting this position because members of those trials genuinely want to see this through. Specifically, the amendments we seek will see the following changes to the bill in its current form: there is an extension to the current trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberly to 30 June 2019 to allow more rigorous evaluation; the trials are capped to the current two sites in Ceduna and the East Kimberly; it's ensured that places are capped to 10,000 participants in each respective community; it's specified how people in the trial areas can have a proportion of their income support payments in the card reduced or can exit the trial; and there is guaranteed funding for wraparound services in trial sites formally in the legislation. Labor will oppose the bill if the aforementioned amendments are not successful. This is because we need further consultation on the success of this program before further rollouts occur. In terms of the evaluation and consultation, the fact is the trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberly have not been going for long enough to make a thorough, detailed analysis of the effect being had on the community. In the 2017 budget the government announced that it would establish a further two trials of the cashless debit card. This is presumptuous given the subsequent lack of evidence in the review to support this and the lack of a clear framework for consultation. The bill enables these further trial sites by repealing one section of the Social Security (Administration) Act, which means that all trials must end on 30 June 2018. Trials are limited to occur in up to three discrete trial areas and the trial areas would include no more than 10,000 participants in total. This reflects ridiculous thinking from the government. That it expects a trial can be established almost overnight and then an outcome be reached in a matter of months only demonstrates that this government is not genuine about testing the effectiveness of the cashless debit card. It suggests, in fact, that they are determined to widen the use of this system despite lacking an evidence base that it is achieving the desired outcomes. This smacks of a belief that this is a magic bullet for social ills when we on this side all know that complex social problems require complex solutions. The fact is that although this bill provides the framework to allow additional trials to be implemented, it does not enable any specific trial sites. These trial sites need to be established by a legislative instrument. Labor believe that in order for the cashless debit card system to be successful we need to ensure that there is proper community consultation. We, therefore, need a framework. The Senate inquiry demonstrated that there has been insufficient consultation with communities, specifically those communities which have been identified by the government to participate in what they consider as the next round of trial sites: Goldfields in Western Australia, and Bundaberg and Hervey Bay in Queensland. Further to the Senate inquiry's consultations, these specific communities have demonstrated again and again that consultation has been minimal and that there is no clear framework to establish whether they consent to trials being established in their community. Ultimately, we need to respect the views of the communities involved. The government, through lack of consultation, have demonstrated that they do not respect a process that would ensure this. For the Department of Social Services cashless debit card, ORIMA Research was commissioned to undertake independent evaluation. The ORIMA evaluation of the existing sites was flawed, to say the least. The report compares data gathered throughout the evaluation period, being April 2016 to July 2017. Adverse consequences experienced by trial participants included that people who spent their money appropriately felt as though they were being penalised or discriminated against by being forced to participate; the stigma and shame associated with having a cashless debit card was creating other social ills; and being unable to make purchases from merchants or services where EFT facilities were unavailable was limiting their genuine ability to get the best value for money, in some cases, on their weekly purchases. Limiting transactions in regional communities in this way means people cannot access markets or op shops; the cards only work where there are sophisticated EFT facilities available. As someone who was part of school processes where we introduced the capacity for schools to use EFT, I wonder at the provisions in these regional communities around those sorts of things. If I think about a normal family week and the number of times you put your hand in your pocket to pay for things at school, including excursions and paying for sport through the week—in regional communities, those sorts of things are limited where limited EFT is available. This definitely would be narrowing down people's choices about the way they pay for things. I have to echo the sentiments of the member for Lingiari in terms of the ability of these trials to bring about the outcomes that are desired. We know that any evaluation stretching over a certain amount of time faces changes, but one would have to ask, in the case of the evaluation done in this instance, what parameters were put in place and who the control group was. If we want to do a serious scientific evaluation of something, it needs to be more than a thought bubble built around the notion of a magic bullet. Labor will continue to work towards insisting to the government that, if they are intent on pursuing the expansion of the cashless debit card, there are parameters that need to be met, the first of which, of course, is consultation processes and a consultation framework with those communities. The second, which is a priority for me when I think about the way this works, is about the notion of a blanket approach to a card and a system whereby there isn't provision and a clear framework for how people can reduce their use of that card or have the income attached to that card reduced over time. In fact, in education terms, we would call it the release of independence or the release of control, gradually, over time. If somebody needs to have their expenditure controlled in this way, then it needs to be a sophisticated program, in my view, that allows people to demonstrate when they feel more comfortable in managing their own affairs and therefore can be slowly or gradually released from this provision. It's an important issue. I know everyone on this side of the House is critically concerned about the effectiveness of the card and about ensuring we are not broadening the use of this card outside of those agreed areas where communities had expressed a desire to be involved. Personally, I would like to see that evaluation include measures that might improve this system rather than just assuming that it's the magic bullet that will fix the social ills. I'd also want to, of course, see measures included to assist families and the people involved to ensure they are getting the support services that they require alongside any kind of economic management system. 13:20 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison I think it is fair to say it beggars belief that the government would be contemplating significantly expanding the cashless debit card system when what we've seen so far has been so problematic. I would have thought it'd be much more appropriate for us all to come in here in a collegiate way and discuss ways to remedy the current arrangement or at least give the current trials more time so that we can understand what we've got better and can, indeed, remedy it in the future before we even start a conversation about legislating to allow it to be rolled out in broad geographic areas. There's already a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that this is not working as intended. For a start, the survey results are showing that about 75 per cent of the members of the community who are carrying these cards are telling us they don't drink, they don't smoke, they don't gamble, they're not on drugs and they can't for the life of them understand why they are being punished in this way and being forced to lose their independence and to carry one of these cards, with the limits it places on those people. Of course, that means that 75 per cent of the people carrying these cards haven't changed their behaviour, because there's no behaviour to change. We've also learned already that this is very expensive. In the two trial sites in Ceduna and the East Kimberly, over two years, it has cost about $10,000 per card to establish and maintain the system for those cards. That's ludicrous. That's an absolutely absurd amount of money that is being, I suggest, wasted in the pursuit of the current arrangements. I'll go further. What we've got currently is, frankly, racist. Let's not kid ourselves here. Let's not mince our words. Let's not forget the origin of the cashless debit card system. It was part of the Northern Territory intervention. It was a racist policy, and I think it is reasonable for people in the community to be concerned that it will continue to have a racist element or undertone to it, because it will be more likely to be expanded into geographic areas with Indigenous communities. So it's too blunt an instrument, it is covering too many people that don't need it or shouldn't have one of these cards, it's too expensive and it's racist. No wonder there is such concern in the community. Even in my electorate of Denison, in Tasmania, as I go about my business I am routinely confronted by constituents who are concerned that the cashless debit card is coming their way. They've seen the way that this government and the previous Abbott government have responded to the community with, quite frankly, a real ideological vendetta, and they've seen any number of other changes that have happened with the welfare system in this country that give them reason to suspect that the cashless debit card is coming their way. We've just got to look at the way the government under-resources Centrelink. Last financial year, 55 million calls went unanswered at Centrelink, an increase from 29 million the year before. We've had the robo-calls scandal. We had the attempt to implement policies that are focused unfairly on people who need the disability support pension, Newstart or youth allowance. We've seen these Taskforce Integrity letters go out co-branded with the Australian Federal Police logo. No wonder members of the community feel that this government is waging an ideological vendetta against anyone in the community who needs some help from the government in the form of a pension or payment. A disproportionate number of people around Hobart who have expressed concerns to me about the cashless debit card are older Australians. They have also seen the way that this government, and the previous Abbott government, has gone after older Australians: the way super has been changed, including defined benefit pensions; the way access to the age pension has been reduced; and the way funding of aged care has been slashed. This is now about a lot more than the residents of Ceduna or East Kimberley or the residents of some small areas the government might want to talk about. This has become an issue and a concern for many Australians, including many Tasmanians, who I think are quite understandably concerned that they're going to be lumbered with a cashless debit card themselves one day, even though they don't smoke—they can't afford to smoke!—they are not on drugs and they don't gamble. They are responsible with their money and they appreciate the money they receive from the taxpayer. They're worried that they also will be lumbered with the cashless debit card. Make no mistake: if this bill becomes law it will authorise the government to roll out the cashless debit card across broad geographic areas, virtually wherever it wants to. It is a slippery slope. I notice that some members have already spoken, I think quite rightly, about the need for other government responses to what are often complex problems in the community. Why isn't the government talking about reforms to reduce the rate of alcoholism in this country? Why aren't we having a conversation about advertising and trading hours and the taxation regime for alcoholic beverages? Why aren't we having conversations in this place about more effective ways to deal with drug abuse and the ice epidemic in this country at the moment? Why isn't this place doing anything much about gambling reform? Instead of going after all of these people, most of whom don't have any problems with any of these substances or with gambling, why aren't we putting in place sophisticated solutions to what are complex social problems: alcoholism, domestic violence and gambling addiction? For a brief moment, like a falling star, there was a conversation the other day started and quickly ended about a sugar tax. Why aren't we talking about those sorts of things? Why aren't we talking about fixing the taxation regime on alcoholic beverages so that we don't have the ridiculous arrangement at the moment where someone can walk into a bottle shop and walk out with five litres of cheap wine for 11 bucks. No wonder we have alcoholism. They're the sorts of measures this place should be talking about and the sorts of issues this government, with the support of the opposition and the crossbench, should be addressing. While we're at it, let's not forget that the main reason that people who rely on a government pension or payment get themselves into financial strife is that they're not getting enough money to live on to live a dignified life. Why aren't we having a conversation about raising the level of government pensions and payments so that people in this country who need a disability support pension, who need youth allowance, who need Newstart, and who need the age pension can live a dignified and reasonable life? Heavens, we can afford it! I don't know if people in this place understand it, but we are the 13th biggest economy in the world. There are almost 200 economies in the world and we're the 13th biggest. Our national wealth per capita is second only to the Swiss! By that measure, we are the second-richest country in the world, not the 13th. Surely we can afford to have sophisticated solutions to complex social problems. Surely we can afford to ensure that everyone who relies on a government pension or payment receives enough money that they can live a dignified and nice life. The fact is, people who rely on government pensions and payments need pensions and payments. They're not dole bludgers or some other form of bludger. Almost all people on the disability support pension desperately need the disability support pension. Almost everyone who's on Newstart desperately needs Newstart. Just about everyone who is relying on the age pension, either in part or fully, needs every dollar of that money. They're not bludging off the taxpayer. I think it is downright scandalous that this government, the Turnbull government, and the Abbott government before it, have waged such a crude and shocking ideological war against the disadvantaged of this country and against the people in this community who need some financial support. We can afford it. We're the 13th richest country in the world. We're the second-wealthiest people in the world in national wealth per capita, after the Swiss. We can afford it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Crean, Mrs Mary 15 13:30 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham Vale, Mary Crean, a Labor legend who passed away on 28 January aged 103 years. Mary had a rich, full life—much of it devoted to our party and to our movement. Mary was the matriarch of a family of Labor warriors. She was fiercely loyal to her husband of 63 years, Frank Crean, who served as the member for Melbourne Ports for 26 years, and to her sons: Simon Crean, my predecessor in Hotham and former Labor leader; David, a former Tasmanian Labor Treasurer; and the late Stephen Crean, who was a public servant. Mary was a spear carrier for our movement. Her political smarts gained the respect of some of the most senior people in our party, who were known to seek her out to discuss the political issues of the day. She was passionate, compassionate, smart and loyal. She was a great contributor. Had she been born in this century she might have had a shot at being Prime Minister herself. Mary devoted her life to others from the local kindergarten to the Red Cross, from the Girl Guides to the National Gallery of Victoria. The community I serve in Victoria and the movement and the party I represent in this parliament owe Mary a great deal. She was a stellar human being and deeply respected on both sides of politics, so I know I speak for all of us in the chamber today when I send the chamber's deepest condolences to the Crean family and our great respect and thanks to Mary for all that she contributed and achieved. May she rest in peace. Wright Electorate: Australia Day 15 13:31 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It was my pleasure more recently to attend the Scenic Rim and Lockyer Valley regional councils' Australian citizenship ceremonies and welcome Wright's newest Australian citizens. It was also a great opportunity to honour the outstanding achievements of local individuals and community groups who make such an enormous contribution to our region through the Australia Day awards. I offer congratulations to all the recipients. Thank you for your contribution to our community. I make special mention of the Scenic Rim and Lockyer Valley citizens of the year—Kim Crow and Adrian Shepley—for their contribution to their respective communities. Kim was recognised for her generosity and calm nature, for sharing her contagious enthusiasm with the community and for being a willing worker and leader. Kim was the first female first officer of the Beechmont Rural Fire Brigade and has been involved in numerous community groups in the district. Adrian is credited for his passion and his commitment to the local community through his contributions to various sporting clubs and the Laidley RSL, his tireless work as a bus driver for the Aged and Handicapped Association and his heavy involvement in the local Catholic Church. I would also like to take this opportunity to place on record my empathetic support for maintaining Australia Day celebrations on 26 January. There may be other ways in which we can recognise and acknowledge the impact of white settlement on Indigenous Australians, including National Sorry Day and NAIDOC Week. I suggest that it would be better for activists to spend their time in trying to close the gap between the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and non-Indigenous Australians on a range of issues— (Time expired) Tasmania: Biosecurity 15 13:33 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin Yesterday in this place my Tasmanian colleagues spoke about the biosecurity threat in Tasmania and the fruit fly that has been found on Flinders Island and in north-west Tasmania. There have been more developments overnight. We now have confirmation that farms inside the fruit fly exclusion zone are dumping product. They are dumping fruit. Very sadly, we have a farm throwing out 300 kilograms of cherry tomatoes. This is heartbreaking for Tasmanians and for the farmers and workers who have put many hundreds of hours into these crops. It's simply not good enough that the Liberal Hodgman state government cut funding from biosecurity in its first year in office. It cut $1 million from biosecurity in Tasmania. What's worse is that, since that time, Tasmania has had an influx of visitors. It is so wonderful that so many people are coming to visit our great state, but of course the state government hasn't kept up the presence of biosecurity officers at our ports and airports. When you come into Tasmania you're supposed to be checked to make sure that you're not carrying any fruit. There is supposed to be sniffer dogs at airports and at the Spirit of Tasmania port. I fly regularly and many visitors to Tasmania have told me that this is simply not happening for every flight and for every ship, for every person, coming into our state. That's how fruit fly got into our state. It's the negligence of the state government that has caused this. It's lack of funding and lack of biosecurity officers, and the state government needs to be held accountable. (Time expired) Safer Internet Day 15 13:34 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland Today is Safer Internet Today. I just attended a function here in Parliament House which was addressed by the Prime Minister and by the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant. Both spoke about the importance of the four R's of online safety: respect, resilience, responsibility and reasoning. It's important that we do have bipartisan support as we deal with issues around online bullying and inappropriate behaviour on the internet. As you are aware, bullying has been around forever. There's nothing new about that, but what is new is the bullies can now follow our kids home. Bullies can follow our kids into their lounge rooms and into their bedrooms as they use their devices online, and it's very hard for young people today to find a safe haven from a bully. As parents and grandparents, we need to support this digital generation of young people. We need to help them as they cultivate respectful relationships both online and offline. We need to make sure that the internet is a force for good in their lives. Can I conclude my remarks by congratulating the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant. We are world leaders in Australia in having such a commissioner in place, and she is doing a tremendous job as she works to give people the skills to communicate safely online. She needs our help, though, to get the message out. As members in this place, we have an important role to play by demonstrating respect for each other at all times, both in this place and online. Goods and Services Tax 16 13:36 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin South Australians should be very concerned that the Turnbull government is delaying the release of the Productivity Commission review of GST distribution to the states, because the hidden message in that deferral is that South Australia is once again about to be dudded by the Turnbull government. We saw the Turnbull government turn its back on South Australians with respect to Holden and thousands of associated auto industry workers, the River Murray, infrastructure funding and education funding, and now it seems that South Australia's GST allocation is in its sights. The Turnbull government should come clean with South Australians before the March state election, release the report and tell the South Australian people whether South Australia will lose $557 million in GST funding—and if it's not $557 million, just how much will the Turnbull government cut from South Australia? I know the Liberal opposition in South Australia is hopeless, and South Australia's Liberal leader, Steven Marshall, needs all the help that he can get. He doesn't need more bad news for South Australia from his federal leader, but South Australian voters are entitled to know before the March state election which political party they can trust to protect South Australia's fair share of GST funding into the future. Mining 16 13:37 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson For more than 200 days now, 180 workers have been locked out of the Oaky North mine in Central Queensland. While there has been some disgraceful behaviour from unionists on the picket line, the reality is a lot of these workers just want to get back to work and let the union and company negotiate the new enterprise agreement. Last week, I told Glencore's chief operating officer that I thought they should end the lockout. I think both sides need to stop this industrial warfare and sort this matter out through the Fair Work Commission, which was set up to mediate these disputes. I note that one of the workers' complaints at the heart of the dispute is that mining companies are casualising their workforce. This issue concerns me deeply. I believe in free enterprise. No-one could describe me as a socialist, but it is morally wrong for a worker to be contracted on a site as a casual employee, yet work the same hours, the same days and the same shifts as full-time employees and for that situation to continue for years on end. It affects their family life, it affects their ability to get finance and, ultimately, it affects their mindset around job security. They have none. Mining companies need to end this practice now. I'm pleased that the new minister responsible for workplace relations, the member for Reid, has reached out to me on this matter and I will be impressing upon him the need for legislation to fix this casualisation issue and end the Oakey North lockout. Armadale Youth Intervention Partnership 16 13:39 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt In 2016 the Armadale Youth Intervention Partnership was established by the Youth Partnership Project to demonstrate how a targeted, collaborative, place based approach with purposely resourced backbone leadership can better support outcomes for young people with complex needs in our area. It is an early-intervention model which aims to act as an interface between the youth justice system and the community to prevent the need for tertiary engagement. AYIP, through the City of Armadale and Save the Children, runs an intensive school holiday program for at-risk kids, which is focused on teamwork, respect, understanding one another and building resilience. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to join youth leader Jamie Barr, his team from Save the Children and a group of young participants from my electorate during their summer holiday program for a day where we kayaked to Penguin Island. It was great to see the kids learning, working effectively together and interacting with the natural environment, all whilst having a lot of fun, as well as building trust and rapport with the youth leaders. I often spend time meeting with and supporting the leadership of our community organisations and was proud to host the YPP manager, Karina, at a meeting of Labor's crime and justice task force here last year, but getting frontline experience of these programs, like spending a day with them, is also rewarding and highly educational as a local MP. These sorts of programs are really important to our community and are critical to how we together can change the story. Famechon, Mr Jean-Pierre 'Johnny' 17 13:40 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley Australia is a great sporting nation. Boxing enthusiasts, and no doubt many others, will surely recognise the name Johnny Famechon, or 'Fammo' as he was known to the many Australians who cheered his successes. On Sunday, 21 January the Dunkley community gathered at Ballam Park to pay tribute to Fammo, as Frankston's own legendary boxer, WBC featherweight champion and a Hall of Famer, with the unveiling of his permanent new 2.1 metre bronze statue. Hundreds of people turned up, as well as over 16 world and Australian boxing champions, including Africa's most famous boxer, Azumah Nelson, who flew all the way from Ghana just for the event, showing what an impact Fammo made not only across Australia but throughout the sport worldwide. I was honoured to have been a guest speaker at the formal dinner the night before, not only as local member but as representative of the federal government. Many were present who deserve recognition, but special tribute must go to Gary Luscombe, who launched the Johnny Famechon statue project, fundraising over $100,000 over many years; as well as sculptor Stephen Glassborow; Ragnar Purje, who, through his amazing work and Johnny's determination, helped Fammo recover from a 1991 accident; and boxers like Barry Michael, who provided such strong support. Fammo's sense of humour has never wavered, and I'm immensely proud to have him as my constituent. What a champion! Congratulations to all those who put in so much effort into honouring Johnny Famechon through this statue project. Safer Internet Day 17 13:42 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay Today is Safer Internet Day, which encourages us all to promote safe and respectful practices online. With cyberbullying an ever-pressing issue, we need to combat online harassment and stop online bullying. These are the calls from members of my community. Children and adults deserve a positive online and offline environment. The theme this year is: 'Create, connect and share respect: A better internet starts with you.' I'm a parent raising the first generation of social media users, not a position I take lightly or enjoy very often. We all have a responsibility to keep our kids safe whilst using the internet, the same way we keep them safe offline—all of us, included in a collective way to protect our kids online. As an MP I'm often surprised at the behaviour on my own social media by adults who make inappropriate comments and threats. Our kids see this. They see what we do and they copy us. Being a good role model for our kids online is just as important as being a good role model offline. Our kids need parents and grown-ups to demonstrate safe views and teach them to use the tools respectfully and with responsibility, the same way we teach our kids to ride a bike with training wheels and helmets, the same way we teach them to learn to swim with paddleboards and floaties. The internet is absolutely no different, and I encourage everybody to do what they can to keep our kids safe. Morris, Mr John 17 13:43 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I take this opportunity to recognise a great community leader, developer and dear friend of mine, John Morris. I also wish John a very happy 90th birthday for this Thursday. John is known as 'Mister Port Douglas' and is a living icon in the Far North. His vision and determination has helped to shape our beautiful local areas like Port Douglas, Mossman, Cairns and the Tablelands. John was instrumental in establishing Port Douglas as a resort destination, having developed and operated several resorts, including Sheraton Mirage and Radisson Treetops. He created unique experiences and outback adventures in the area, such as Wetherby Station, Crystalbrook Station and the Wildlife Habitat, just to name a few. His latest initiative is the Mount Emerald Wind Farm, which now sits on top of a mountain range in the tablelands. He continues, at the age of 90, with new projects as he's going through the process. In his personal life, he's been a very kind and generous mentor to people of all ages, sharing with many his experiences, his values and of course his wealth of knowledge. John loves old trains and recently established the Choo-Choo cafe and steam engine train rides, which I highly recommend should you be visiting the area and find yourself in Port Douglas. You will most likely find John sitting on the deck with a cuppa, taking in our community's enjoyment and love of his many creations. John, I wish you all the very best for your birthday, my friend. Have a glass of red with your beautiful family— (Time expired) Discrimination 17 13:45 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Everybody has the right to feel safe in our community, but right now cynical politicians are putting the safety of Melbourne's African-Australian community at risk. This summer, Melbourne's media has been dominated by racialised crime reporting and politicians like Matthew Guy or immigration minister Peter Dutton seeking to exploit it. Politicians targeting communities for political gain set the tone, but the impacts on people are real and lasting. Racism is on the rise in Australia. Openly white-nationalist groups are organising, and this summer's media panic has made things worse and put people at risk. My constituents tell me stories of racial abuse that they've faced on the streets and online, and I've heard from African-Australian constituents who are worried to leave their homes because they fear being abused or attacked because of who they are. Today in parliament I stand with the African-Australian communities. I condemn the politicians and media who are racially targeting young people and making our community less safe. Last year, overall criminal incidents in Victoria were down 4.8 per cent, and youth crime rates have been dropping slowly for a decade. Of course we must do everything we can to reduce crime, but a racialised fear campaign led by media and politicians based on misinformation is not the way to do it. Last month, police officers were injured when 100 young people rioted in Torquay, and I heard the immigration minister say nothing about it—because those people were white. He only targets people whose skin colour is black. Let's have a serious conversation about how we make everyone safe. Meningococcal Disease 18 13:47 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane Last year on 3 September, Zoe McGinty, a 20-year-old from Brisbane, tragically passed away from what was, at the time of her passing, an unknown illness. Her mother, Kirsten, watched as her daughter's condition progressively worsened from what seemed at first a common gastro bug. Soon Zoe was losing the feeling in her legs. Kirsten did everything she could. Ambulances, then further paramedics, arrived as Zoe's condition deteriorated. Before midnight she was in the hospital, and before 2 am she had, sadly, passed away. That night, amidst the grief and the shock, Kirsten said neither the paramedics nor the emergency doctors knew what had taken her daughter, a fit, bright young woman. Only later did doctors realise there was a slight purple and red discolouration on Zoe's stomach, which led them to the diagnosis of a strain of meningococcal. Kirsten has a message for all of us: don't wait for the rashes to appear. There are vaccinations that can save lives. She's trying to channel her indescribable loss into something positive, spreading her story and promoting meningococcal vaccinations. I welcome her recent appointment as the Queensland representative for Meningococcal Australia. This month, this government has announced that it will add a quad-strain vaccine to the National Immunisation Program which will cover against A, C, Y and W strains, the W strain being the strain which Zoe unfortunately contracted. I wish Kirsten all the very best on her new path of advocacy. Lalor Electorate: Australia Day Awards 18 13:48 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today to congratulate two local women who were named in the Australia Day 2018 Honours List, and I celebrate that, in a year when 32 per cent of the Australia Day honours went to women, two local women from the electorate of Lalor were a part of that. I also congratulate Professor Michelle Simmons on being named Australian of the Year. One of our locals was Carmel Tom. She was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for her service to naval veterans. She's from Werribee. Carmel joined the Royal Australian Navy at 17 years of age. She served in the Navy for three years. From there, Carmel went on to serve as a media liaison officer for the International Force East Timor. This role saw Carmel supervising media accreditation, transport and administration. During this time she also visited East Timor. It was here that she was able to see firsthand the crisis that affected East Timor. The other is Susanna Mary Dean. She was awarded the Ambulance Service Medal, and she lives in Point Cook. Over the past 16 years, Susanna has demonstrated distinguished service and ability as a paramedic at Ambulance Victoria. She has outstanding expertise and has been highly valued by Ambulance Victoria. Her contribution to the organisation has been significant. She was instrumental in the management of state disasters such as the Black Saturday bushfires in 2009 and the Hazelwood mine fires in 2014. Susanna was also a significant contributor in providing management and leadership support to Ambulance Victoria's first Indigenous paramedic cadet. Both Carmel and Susanna are locals who have made important contributions to our society. Mackellar Electorate: Schools 18 13:50 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar In December last year I was honoured to join Narrabeen Sports High School in their recognition of their students' hard work and impressive achievements throughout 2017. I was especially pleased to hear of the students' continued commitment to addressing community issues, with the school helping to raise awareness of domestic violence in Australia on White Ribbon Day. I'm incredibly grateful for the zest with which the students embraced my own Mackellar Food Bank Christmas drive, delivering nearly 25 crates full of canned goods to my electorate office. Congratulations are also in order to the students who participated in the acclaimed Schools Spectacular, an occasion I'm sure they'll never forget. Having celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2015, Bilgola Plateau Public School has gone from strength to strength and most recently appeared in the Schools Spectacular alongside over 5,000 students from across New South Wales. With excellent results across the student body, under the guidance of principal Cindy Gardiner, I would like to congratulate staff and students of Bilgola Plateau Public School for yet another great year. Thank you for inviting me along to your presentation morning, and all the best for this new school year. Safer Internet Day 19 13:51 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Today marks Safer Internet Day, and this year's theme is 'Create, connect, and share respect: a better internet starts with you'. I welcome the call for more respectful communication as part of making the internet safer. But, as shadow assistant minister for cybersecurity, I also remind Australians that they can make the internet safer and more secure by following a few basic steps. Step 1 is making sure you have a safe, secure and strong password. A 2016 Verizon report revealed that 63 per cent of confirmed data breaches involved weak, default and stolen passwords. Astoundingly, around 50 per cent of people still use the top 25 most popular passwords. We're talking here about passwords like '123456', 'password1', 'abc123' and the new ones on the list this year, 'iloveyou' and 'starwars'. If you are using any of these popular passwords, you need to change them immediately. Sixty-three per cent of attacks are through weak passwords. You are vulnerable to attack. The current best practice is to make sure your passwords are long but memorable and contain a mix of upper and lower case letters, symbols and numbers. Secondly, make sure you regularly back up your files and data. Thirdly, make sure you regularly update your security. Make sure you patch regularly on all your devices. Boothby Electorate: Roads 19 13:53 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby Last month I was delighted to announce a significant milestone for the $170 million Oaklands Crossing grade separation, with design work beginning on the project. The federal Liberal government has committed a total of $95 million to fix the crossing, which the state Labor government had not fixed in 40 years. I was proud to be the first member of parliament to secure funding of $40 million during the 2016 federal election campaign. When state Labor refused to provide the remaining funding required to progress the project, I fought for and secured an additional $55 million. I would like to thank the Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities for his hard work and support on the project. Thanks also to the hard work of my state Liberal colleagues Corey Wingard and David Speirs, who drove the Fix Oaklands Crossing campaign. Fixing the gridlocked intersection will have huge benefits for my community by helping residents get to work, school, local businesses, Westfield Marion and the SA Aquatic and Leisure Centre more quickly, while greatly improving road safety. Forty-one thousand vehicles pass through the crossing daily, and the boom gates can be closed for a total of two hours a day. It is ranked as one of Adelaide's most dangerous crossings. This project will vastly improve safety for road and rail commuters and will ensure the safety of thousands of pedestrians and cyclists who use the crossing each day. This project represents my commitment to delivering better road infrastructure for the residents of Boothby and illustrates what can be achieved for the community when state and federal Liberals work together. Workplace Safety 19 13:54 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo The construction industry is a dangerous industry. Tragically, 40 construction workers lost their lives at work last year. They did not return home. The construction industry is rife with rogue labour hire companies ripping off temporary workers. We have a problem when it comes to safety in that safety breaches are being raised but are not being properly followed up. We have a problem with asbestos. We thought 'banned' meant banned, but it is coming through weak border controls onto our construction sites. Yet this isn't what the government is focused on. No. This government is not focused on the tragic workplace deaths or the asbestos coming onto our construction sites. No. Instead, what it is focused on is banning the Eureka flag or banning stickers that show the Eureka flag. This is the priority of the government. This flag actually has a very proud history in our nation. For those who don't know the history of the Eureka flag—and, as the federal member for Bendigo, it is controversial that I raise it because it is a flag from Ballarat—it is about the many nations that came together on the goldfields under one flag, under the Southern Cross. It is a flag that represents our multiculturalism, yet that is what this government is focused on banning. That is what this government's ideological war is doing today: banning a flag from construction sites. Grow up, government! New South Wales: Roads 19 13:56 Mr GEE 261393 Calare One of the Holy Grails of unfinished road projects in the Central West is the crossing at Dixons Long Point between Orange and Mudgee. It is a project that local community members have been pushing for years. Dixons Long Point is located on the Macquarie River. The road between Dixons Long Point between Orange and Mudgee is important, because, as the crow flies, it is the most direct way to get between these two key regional centres. At present, it takes about two hours and 20 minutes to drive between the two. An improved road and crossing at Dixons Long Point would drastically reduce the travel time between Orange and Mudgee. It would not only link Orange and Mudgee but also help open up the Central West for tourism and industry. Mudgee and Orange have much in common. For example, both regions are world-renowned wine-producing centres and both are mining centres. The problem is that there is currently no crossing at the Macquarie River at all. Most of the road is dirt, and the only way to cross the Macquarie River is literally to drive through it. Local farmers have had to pull vehicles out of the river for years. In fact, Sir Charles Cutler, the former member for Orange and Deputy Premier of New South Wales, was one of the earlier advocates of this project, and he took office in 1947. Our local communities have been advocating for this road and crossing for about a century. One hundred years is too long. State, federal and local governments should all be supporting this key project that will link regions, and I urge them to do so. Let's together try to build this road and crossing that will benefit the communities of the Central West in the decades to come. (Time expired) South Australia: Education 20 13:58 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston Parents and families in South Australia should be very worried by the Minister for Education and Training's politicking today in South Australia. In a clumsy attempt to insert himself in the South Australian election campaign, the minister has selectively used data to attack four-year-old preschool attendance rates and, worse, use this data as a cover to crab-walk away from his earlier support to fund preschool for three-year-olds. This comes less than a week after the minister quoted the lack of quality data as justification for not providing a long-term funding commitment for a four-year-old preschool program. We know the minister has previously been supportive of this program and, indeed, he has been speaking publicly about extending preschool to three-year-olds. Of course, don't let that get in the way of an election campaign in South Australia. The minister for education now wants to play Steven Marshall's attack dog. He wants to turn up and say that, as a result of the lack of data, we no longer want to fund preschools in South Australia. This is not good enough. The minister for education needs to put children first, he needs to put families first, and he needs to stop playing politics with preschool. He needs to fund it, keep to his commitments and ensure that the children of South Australia get the best possible start to life. Immigrant Business Networking Association 20 13:59 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore I would like to congratulate in parliament the entrepreneurial efforts of Cema Santos and Mariane Bornelli, two immigrants who founded the Immigrant Business Networking Association Inc to assist new migrants to Australia to establish their businesses. The association will be holding its inaugural multicultural business expo at HBF Arena in the City of Joondalup on Friday, 16 March 2018. The IBNA is a not-for-profit organisation supporting culturally and linguistically diverse individuals to gain access to local, professional and business networks that support them to achieve business and career success. It helps them to adapt quickly and effectively to new commercial environments to promote better integration of immigrants into the Australian business community. The Multicultural Business Expo aims to educate and inspire new immigrants to become successful entrepreneurs. It will do so by showcasing the resources and business opportunities available and by creating a well-connected, inclusive and integrated community that nourishes entrepreneurial spirit in the Western Australian economy and in commerce. The event is being held to coincide with Harmony Week, a time when we celebrate diversity. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 20 14:01 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Last year, average wages for Australian workers rose by only two per cent but corporate profits rose by 20 per cent. When ordinary workers are already doing it tough, why is the Prime Minister slugging millions of workers with a $300 tax increase at the same time as giving away $65 billion to big business? 14:02 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The Leader of the Opposition, as usual, is seeking to mislead us by talking about the level of company profits. The reality is the figure that he's using is one massively inflated by the commodities boom, a once-in-a-generation boom. The Treasurer will have more to say about that. What we need to focus on today is the fact that the Labor Party, which poses as the alternative government, has not one policy that would create one job or encourage one business to invest one dollar. The Leader of the Opposition wants to impose $165 billion of new taxes. He seems to think that, somehow or other, it would be good for employment if business owners are forced to pay more taxes. We know that more than half of Australia's workforce works for small and medium family businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million a year. They are not gigantic businesses. Opposition members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 You can hear the Labor benches scoffing at that. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he should encourage his team to get out more and find out who the workers in their electorates actually work for. They're working for hardworking Australian-owned family businesses. They have been investing their earnings, their after-tax earnings, for years to grow their businesses and create more jobs. I was with one in Brisbane the other day, the Eckersley Print Group, a classic example of that. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith. Mr TURNBULL 885 They are being encouraged by our small and medium enterprise tax cuts to do more of that, and they're responding. Last year, the Leader of the Opposition went to the National Press Club and said that this year, 2018, he was going to be talking about 'jobs, jobs, jobs'. Well, he didn't talk very much about it, other than his own job. But what we saw was 403,000 jobs created in Australia, three-quarters of them full time. The biggest contribution came from those small and medium family-owned businesses—Australian businesses. They are the very businesses that the Labor Party want to impose higher taxes on, and they claim to come here and say they're for jobs. What do they really think the response of a family-owned business, a small or medium business, is going to be when a Labor government imposes higher taxes? They'll cut back, and I tell you what: they'll cut back on jobs. We're for jobs. Labor's seeking to destroy them. (Time expired) Taxation 21 14:05 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe My question is also to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government's plan for lower taxes will grow the economy, create jobs and increase wages, including in my electorate of La Trobe? 14:05 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The honourable member understands very well that the jobs of his constituents depend on businesses having the confidence to invest and to employ. He understands that, as do all of our colleagues on this side of the House. I think some of the Labor side understand it too, but they're being dragged off to the left by the Leader of the Opposition. Off he goes with Ged Kearney, seeking to win the by-election in Batman. Everything depends on a strong economy: our ability to pay for health, our ability to guarantee Medicare and our ability to deliver, for the first time, national, consistent, needs based school funding—a massive increase in school funding and, for the first time, consistent so that a school with the same needs in one part of the country will get the same funding as a school in another. Dr Chalmers 37998 Rubbish! Mr TURNBULL 885 The honourable member opposite calls out, 'Rubbish!' I tell you what was rubbish: the rubbish was when the Labor Party shamelessly appropriated David Gonski's name and claimed that their dog's breakfast of inconsistent, contradictory school funding policies was somehow or other the Gonski model. We accepted David Gonski's recommendations, and that's why he stood with me and the Minister for Education and Training when we announced our schools policy. What we know is that with a strong economy we get more opportunities. Our economic plan that we set out in the budget is delivering that growth: 403,000 jobs, three-quarters of them full time. Overwhelmingly, you're seeing small and medium businesses—the ones that are benefitting from the tax cuts Labor opposed so strenuously and is now committed to rolling back—responding with confidence, offering Australians the opportunity to get started in the workplace. He talks about jobs, or claims to. We delivered jobs: 403,000, the largest number in our history in any given year. That is an achievement of giving Australians the opportunity to get ahead. What does Labor have to offer us? Billions of dollars of taxes—$165 billion of tax imposed on companies, on businesses large and small, imposed on investors and imposed on families. Every dollar of those taxes is designed and determined to crush incentive, discriminate against hardworking Australian businesses and put Australians out of work. (Time expired) Taxation 21 14:08 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. The government has legislation in the Senate right now to increase personal income tax for seven million working Australians. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the government's legislation will mean that a worker earning $60,000 a year will pay $300 more in tax every single year—yes or no? Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. 14:09 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth He wants to know yes or no. What about: did the Labor Party fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme? No. Were they fair dinkum to Australian families with disabled children? Did they deceive them? Yes. The Labor Party claimed the credit for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. They came to the opposition, led by the member for Warringah, and they challenged him and our side of politics to support an increase in the Medicare levy to go towards funding the NDIS. We supported it because we knew that Australians wanted a National Disability Insurance Scheme and Australians expected that the government would put in place the measures to fund it. That's what an honest government does. That is what a government does that is fair and fair dinkum. There is nothing fair about saying to the parents of disabled children, 'Well, the money won't be there in the future. The funding isn't in place.' The Labor Party failed the Australian people. They failed to put in place the funding that was needed to support the NDIS. And now, in their hypocrisy, they want to oppose that responsible measure which will ensure that Australians get the support that they need for disabilities. It is a great national enterprise, and you would think that a party as old as the Labor Party and one that has held government in this capital on so many occasions would rise to the occasion and recognise that that great national enterprise should be funded. It's honest. It's fair. It's fair dinkum. Sadly, the Labor Party of today is anything but that. Employment 22 14:11 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on why it is important to lower the tax burden to support more and better-paid jobs for hardworking Australians, including those in my electorate of Grey? 14:11 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Grey for his question. As he knows, the Turnbull government has already delivered lower taxes for 3.2 million small businesses in Australia employing some 6½ million Australians—that's half the Australian workforce and more—for businesses with a turnover up to $50 million a year. There are tax cuts for businesses with turnovers of above $2 million and up to $50 million that the Labor Party will reverse if they ever get back to the treasury bench. They will remove those small business tax cuts for hardworking small businesses across Australia. Those tax cuts already delivered have been part of the plan that has supported job creation in this country: 1,100 jobs created every single day, and more last year. The job growth that we have seen in our economy over the last 12 months, in calendar year 2017, is unprecedented. Jobs growth is so strong in this country, I notice even Sam Dastyari got a job this week! These companies that will get the tax cuts next are not multinationals. They're not big companies. The next cab off the rank, the next companies to get a tax cut under our enterprise tax plan, are companies of between $50 million and $100 million a year in turnover. They employ half a million Australians and, on average, have 200 workers. But, as the member for Grey knows, they can be companies with as few as 30 employees, which includes Hunts Fuel in Jamestown, in the member's own electorate. They are suburban businesses. They are regional businesses. These are businesses that the Labor Party are lined up against to deny them a tax cut so they can pay their workers better wages and invest more in the future of their business. The member for Barker knows about Angove Family Winemakers, a fifth-generation family winery based in Renmark, that exports South Australian wine products across the world. He wants them to get a tax cut. The Labor Party says no to that. The member for Adelaide, by contrast, wants Nobles, an Adelaide based manufacturer of lifting and rigging equipment with 300 Australians employed in their business, to pay higher taxes, not lower taxes under our plan, as they seek to ride out the transition from the mining investment boom. The member for Makin wants Ellex Medical Lasers in his electorate to pay higher taxes. This is an innovative laser technology company at Mawson Lakes with more than 200,000 South Australian employees. How do they think that forcing companies to pay higher taxes will help them deliver wage increases for Australians? If you had to choose between a company run by the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister, which company do you think would be more profitable and able to pay their workers more? There's no question. You wouldn't trust the Leader of the Opposition to run a company—and you wouldn't trust him to run the country either. (Time expired) Taxation 23 14:14 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Wages growth for workers is stuck at record lows. Why is the Prime Minister asking Australians to believe that his Trump style $65 billion big business tax cuts will trickle down to ordinary workers? 14:15 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The opposition either have the memory of a goldfish, or they think that everybody else does. Go back to 2011 and some remarks from the House of Representatives: Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages. Who was the economic genius that said that! Who was it? It was the member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition. It really wasn't that long ago. And everything that's said here gets written down, you see; that's what they've overlooked; they thought it just vanished in the breeze. No. He said: More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages. It may be that the member for Sydney does not find her leader entirely convincing; it could be that. But he was, to be fair, only quoting economic orthodoxy and common sense. And, of course, in the previous year, the member for Lilley's Budget Paper No. 1 said: Cutting the company tax rate will make Australia a more competitive destination for investment. What an insight! He goes on: Greater investment in capital will support higher productivity and real wage increases for Australian workers. Dr Chalmers 37998 You voted against it! The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin is warned! Mr TURNBULL 885 The member for Lilley went on: In current terms, this reform dividend is equivalent to an extra $450 per year in the pocket of a fulltime worker on average weekly earnings. He went on in the budget speech—he didn't just leave it in the fine print. The member for Lilley said: Our key business tax reforms will increase real wages by about 1.1 per cent in the long run, putting an extra$450 a year in the pockets of workers on average earnings. All of that was a penetrating glimpse of the obvious. It is plain that if you give companies the incentive to invest more, they will do so. When they invest more, just as the Leader of the Opposition said on 23 August 2011, it will lead to higher productivity, economic growth, more jobs and higher wages. I refer the honourable member to her leader's economic lesson of some years past. Indigenous Affairs 23 14:18 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. Approximately half of Indigenous Australians in remote areas live in overcrowded housing, with some three bedroom homes containing 17 occupants. In contrast, only five per cent of non-Indigenous Australians live in overcrowded housing. Will the minister please provide the reasons why the federal government has abandoned the National Partnership on Remote Housing, which will mean a shortfall of $24 million for South Australia and $483 million nationally? Defunding will inevitably lead to more overcrowding and even poorer health, social and educational outcomes for remote Indigenous communities. Minister, how can this be closing the gap? 14:19 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I thank the member for her question and her interest in this particular issue. It is a matter of priority for our government and certainly has been part of a priority that has been the focus of a remote Indigenous housing agreement for the past 10 years. The negotiations that are occurring between states and territories that are part of this remote agreement require ministers from the states and territories to also equally commit and match Commonwealth funding. The funding that we provided to South Australia last year was $430 million for mainstream, or general, housing, but over the last nine years South Australia has received $3.3 billion. The point you make about reducing overcrowding has been a result of that continued partnership. We've seen a 15 per cent reduction in overcrowding in the four jurisdictions that are affected: Western Australia, South Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland. The funding has not been cut. It has not been reduced. Senator Scullion is in ongoing negotiations with the relevant ministers. Sadly, Zoe Bettison has, so far, refused to put any money on the table as part of those bilateral discussions. That is important, because there is a need to consider all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as part of the citizenry of each jurisdiction. Equally, there is an obligation for state and territory governments to come to the table and make their contribution in the same manner that they do for mainstream. The remote housing report has identified that another 5,500 houses are needed in all jurisdictions, but if we are to address that then there must be equal partnership between the jurisdictions and the Commonwealth, because the impact of housing is beyond just accommodation. It goes to the social determinants in which housing provides the opportunity for shelter but also the same trappings that we would expect to find in any home within our country. My colleague Senator Scullion in the other chamber is continuing to have ongoing discussions with the relevant ministers, with a view to seeking to put into place an agreement that is jointly agreed to but equally shared in meeting the needs of Indigenous Australians within those four jurisdictions so there is not a cutback in Commonwealth funding. Employment 24 14:22 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister advise the House how company tax cuts will assist the defence industry and encourage the creation of more and better-paid jobs? Why is it important to have a consistent approach to policy? 14:22 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. As the member for Chisolm well knows, the Turnbull government's support for defence industry extends right through to research and development, for example, through the Defence Innovation Hub. In January I announced grants of about $13½ million to five different companies through the Defence Innovation Hub. One of those was Daronmont Technologies, in the member for Chisholm's electorate, which received $8 million to help create a prototype radar capability for the Australian Defence Force. The government is supporting defence industry in many different ways, one of which is research and development. We're also supporting defence industries in Australia through things like corporate tax cuts—by lowering the company tax rate in order to give businesses the chance to invest in their own businesses, to create jobs, to create growth and to create higher wages. One economic guru, back in 2012, said: As Australia is buffeted by the economic affairs overseas, we understand that lowering corporate tax assists the creation of jobs. And what can be more important in this country than the creation of jobs? Does that sound familiar, Bill? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will refer to members by their correct titles. Mr PYNE 9V5 I apologise. I will refer to the Leader of the Opposition— The SPEAKER 00APG And you're warned! Mr PYNE 9V5 I accept the warning. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I'm going to remind him again of the use of correct titles, and it really doesn't bother me whether he accepts the warning or not. He's warned! Mr PYNE 9V5 The Leader of the Opposition would know those words because he spoke them himself in 2012. What we've seen from the Leader of the Opposition is a complete inability to maintain a consistency to policy development throughout his political career. He is well known for his policy elasticity, but this stands in stark contrast to the member for Grayndler. One of his gauleiters was at work in The Australian today. He said—and I had better use his correct title—'The member for Grayndler's greatest strength is he is the member for Grayndler.' In other words, the member for Grayndler has always been of the Left and he's never made any pretence about it. I was reminded of those scenes in The West Wing when the President's advisers used to say, 'Let Bartlet be Bartlet.' Imagine if the Leader of the Opposition's advisers said to the Leader of the Opposition, 'Let the Leader of the Opposition be the Leader of the Opposition.' The reality is the Leader of the Opposition wouldn't know which one he was going to be. He wouldn't actually recognise himself because he's changed sides so often. He's had so many policy positions. He's been on so many different sides of the Labor Party. He wouldn't know how to let Shorten be Shorten. The SPEAKER 00APG You'll need to come to the dispatch box and withdraw. Mr PYNE 9V5 I withdraw. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW Just briefly, last year there became a pattern of government ministers saying things they knew were out of order for the purpose of getting a grab up, and then withdrawing and sitting down as though it was the first time they'd ever heard that that was a mistake. I simply ask that this year it not be allowed to be repeated. Mr Hunt 00AMV From you of all people! The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Health will cease interjecting. He's not assisting. I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his point of order. I think that the point is well made and I think the Leader of the House knows he's right at the edge of the cliff. Taxation 25 14:26 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Treasurer. Last night on Q&A, the former head of the Australian Industry Group and former RBA board member, Heather Ridout, described the government as cowards on economic reform and said its $65 billion company tax cut was 'polarising'. With company profits up 20 per cent last year but wages growth only at two per cent, why is the government pitting business against employees by giving the top end of town a tax cut and increasing taxes on ordinary Australians by $300 a year? 14:27 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for his question. I wasn't watching Q&A last night. That may come as a surprise to many Australians, and particularly those at the ABC! I'm sure they're disappointed. But I understand there were a number of guests on Q&A last night, and one of those was Chris Richardson. This is what he had to say about company tax cuts. An honourable member interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L I was reliably informed! He said: … the smaller the economy, the bigger the difference you can make through company tax cuts. And he said: If the world's money investment comes here and works here, then we are better off as a result. And he said: … two out of every three of those dollars would show up as higher wages. That's Chris Richardson. They may not be persuaded by that, so I think I'll go to Professor Holden, the good friend of the member for Fenner, fellow wedding guest and all the rest of it. I assume the member for Sydney didn't get an invitation to that wedding because she obviously is not as close to Professor Holden, but he made a very good point in referring to an excellent study from Germany. He said: 'Cutting the Australian company tax rate from 30 per cent to 25 per cent is not just good for business and workers. It also helps reduce economic inequality. Surely this reform is something that deserves across-the-board political support when it comes before parliament this year.' What Professor Holden found, referring to that study, is the people who would benefit from this would be women and people on lower incomes. That's not the work of the coalition. That is the work of a serious study done over 12 years in Germany, which was looking at tax changes in various state jurisdictions and federal jurisdictions over more than a decade. They concluded that, if you lower the tax burden on business, they respond and they invest more. They invest more in their company, they grow and they pass on. A very important point is made about looking at what has happened to company profits over the last five or six years. It is true that, in that last 12-month period, when you look at the GOS, or gross operating surplus, which is the effective measure of company profits, in that last year, there was a strong improvement and that was off the back of commodity prices and for mining investment firms. What the Leader of the Opposition seeks to represent is that this was broadly based across every business in the country. What he doesn't tell you is that, in the five years before that, the average growth in that figure was actually negative. For five years, hardworking small and medium sized businesses sweated it out in a tough economy, forgoing income themselves to pay their workers and keep them in jobs. The Leader of the Opposition comes in here, diminishes their sacrifice and says, 'It's worth absolutely nothing.' This is an opposition, a Labor Party, that sneers at small and medium businesses. (Time expired) Infrastructure 25 14:30 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Would the Deputy Prime Minister outline how the coalition government's record $75 billion investment in infrastructure is providing job opportunities in communities across Australia, particularly in my electorate of Page, and is he aware of any alternative approaches? 14:30 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for his question. He has put in a superb effort in the seat of Page in making sure there's substantial investment in infrastructure. It goes beyond the work he has done on smaller projects such as mobile phone towers, Bridges Renewal, Roads to Recovery and making sure the Casino saleyards are upgraded; it goes to the major projects as well. In the member's electorate we have the upgrade of Woolgoolga to Ballina, which is part of an investment in excess of $3 billion: $3.46 billion. It's well needed as well, because it builds on the work that was formerly done by Warren Truss and John Howard to make sure we have a vision for this nation, a vision of a dual carriageway road, a divided road that goes from Melbourne to north of Gympie. We're working on that all the time. In the member's electorate we will see 2½ thousand direct jobs and 7½ thousand indirect jobs. That's 10,000 jobs due to investments that the member of Page has been part of driving forward, making sure Page is part of a vision for our nation in linking this great Pacific Highway up with the Bruce Highway and ultimately widening the pavement right up to St Lawrence. What we always see on our side is a vision that takes in regional Australia. It was great to see this morning the Regional Investment Corporation has now been voted through, a great win, and we look forward to moving that into regional towns. Obviously we want to get it into Orange, to make sure we drive that part of our regional agenda forward. But we're always waiting for the Labor Party's view on what they're going to do in regional Australia. Maybe if we have a future by-election in Longman—I don't know why we'd have one of those! Ms Plibersek interjecting— Mr JOYCE E5D It's great to see the member for Sydney giving a few election tips to the member of Longman to try to help out at a future election that will be happening there. What will be very interesting, if there is a by-election in Longman, is whether the rhetoric for Longman is anything like the rhetoric for Batman. We know in Batman we have the Left fighting against the far Left. Maybe we can replay some of that Left versus far Left in a future election in Longman. What we have to also recognise in the support of regional Australia, because I think the people of Longman need someone whom they know is absolutely entitled to sit here, is that we have to work out whether we can actually trust people. It was the member for Maribyrnong who stood here and said everything was under control. The only way that something will happen in regional Australia is if you remain on the opposition benches. Health Care 26 14:34 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Medibank Private has a return on equity of 26 per cent. That's about double the return of even the big banks. At the same time, private health premiums are at record highs. Why is this government giving big private health insurers a big tax cut instead of supporting Labor's plan to cap private health premium increases to two per cent? 14:34 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that many of the people he used to represent as a trade union official are members of smaller employee based health insurance companies, and he knows that APRA pays the closest attention to the solvency and the prudential management of all those health insurance companies but, naturally, particularly the smaller ones. When he came out with his thought bubble to unilaterally cap the premiums of health insurance companies, he saw the reaction from the industry, which was that this would put the solvency of so many of these insurance funds, particularly the smaller ones, at risk—put them at risk of bankruptcy. What does he then say to one of his former members who is a member of one of those funds? I think we'd find many members opposite are members of them. What does he say to them then when they get sick and they're off in hospital with big private hospital bills, and the insurance company has gone broke? What does he say then? He says: 'Oh, well, I had my thought bubble. I thought I'd just cap the premiums without any regard to what APRA said and without any regard to the viability of the industry.' The reality is this: the Leader of the Opposition hates business and he's seeking to declare war on business, but he hates private health insurance even more. He went to the Press Club and he wasn't prepared to stand up for the private health insurance rebate. He wasn't prepared to do that. He was crab-walking back to a favourite Labor field, to undermine private health insurance and undermine choice. The consequence of that would be nothing less than more and more pressure put on the public health system, and in particular the public hospital system. The Leader of the Opposition will not fool us or the Australian people. His target is business, it's private health, it's private hospitals and it's choice. He is determined now—the most left-wing Leader of the Labor Party we've seen in generations—to move his antibusiness, anti-investment, anti-jobs agenda. Well, Australians won't be fooled by that. They know that 403,000 jobs last year is the growth you see with strong economic leadership, and they won't be putting that at risk for his left-wing populism. Taxation 26 14:37 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services: Will the minister update the House on the importance of creating a tax setting that helps grow the economy and reduces the tax burden on hardworking Australians? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that pose a threat to Australian small businesses and families alike, including in my electorate of Dunkley? 14:37 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I'd like to thank the member for Dunkley for his question. As a former small business owner, he knows that the best generator of jobs is businesses. The best generators of incomes are businesses. When we see businesses thrive, we see them invest more and create more jobs for Australians to be employed. This is precisely why the government has legislated tax cuts for small- and medium-sized enterprises, and the results of this are very compelling: more than 400,000 jobs created in 2017—that's over 1,000 jobs created every single day. We have seen the results this morning for Australian business confidence, and we see that this is at its highest point since December 2010. But not only do Labor want to keep business taxes high; they will actually increase business taxes on small- and medium-sized enterprises with a turnover of between $2 million and $50 million. These are businesses that are employing millions and millions of Australians and that either have already received a tax cut or will be receiving a tax cut on 1 July this year under the coalition. The Leader of the Opposition was on the record recently at the National Press Club proclaiming, in his usual self-righteous fashion, 'We are in danger of creating a left-behind society.' What a very interesting choice of words given the reckless stance that he has taken on tax and the direct threat that this poses to businesses and workers across our great nation. Thanks to the Leader of the Opposition, we are in danger of being left behind by the United Kingdom, which has reduced its company tax rate to 19 per cent, soon to fall to 17 per cent. We are in danger of being left behind by the United States, which has reduced its rate to 21 per cent. We are in danger of being left behind by France, Italy and Belgium, which have either reduced their rates or announced an intention to do so in the future. The importance of ensuring that our tax settings remain competitive should not come as news to the Leader of the Opposition, because, as the Prime Minister has quoted him, he has said that it leads to more jobs and higher wages. The Turnbull government, the OECD, the IMF and governments of various political persuasions from all around the world all recognise the economic benefits of reducing company tax rates. It's Labor opposition to the government's enterprise tax package that would see Australia left behind on business investment, on jobs, on growth, damaging our economy and harming the prosperity of millions of Australians. Taxation 27 14:40 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga My question is to the Minister for Social Services: How many Australian families are currently worse off because of the government's two-year freeze on family tax benefits? And why is the government putting big business before Australian families, with their unfair $65 billion company tax cut? 14:41 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I would like to thank the member for her question. And can I say that this government is about supporting families. This government is about ensuring that families get the assistance and the support that they need, and it is doing that through its economic policy. Our economic policy is delivering for this nation. The best thing that we can do for mums and dads, for individuals, is to make sure that they can get a job. We're delivering 1,100 jobs a day to help those families. Now, it's funny when you start off in a new portfolio like this, you decide to do a bit of research. It was funny because when the member for Jagajaga moved 80,000 single parents onto Newstart—I thought, well, some might see that measure as having been a bit harsh—this is what she said: Unfortunately we have far too many people - children - growing up in Australia in families where nobody is working. …   …   …    … the more that people go back to work the better. It's better for the family, it's great to see mum and/or dad going or both going to work. That was the member for Jagajaga. I thought, that's incredibly sound. So I thought we would see support from the opposition for what we are doing to create jobs, because the best thing that we can do for families, for individuals, is to make sure that they have a job so they can support their kids to make sure that they can give them a good education, to make sure that they can provide the health care they need. And that is what we will continue to do through the good, sound economic management of the Treasurer, supported wholeheartedly by the Prime Minister and everyone here, building on the great work done by the previous Minister for Social Services and by the previous Minister for Human Services. They both did an outstanding job in making sure that we can deliver for all Australians. Trade 27 14:44 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment: Will the minister please outline to the House how the coalition government's trade agenda is creating more and better paid jobs for Australians? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:44 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I thank the member for Petrie for his question. He is another member of the coalition who is absolutely steadfastly wedded to making sure we open up export markets for Australian small businesses and wedded to the types of trade outcomes this government has delivered consistently over the past several years. Having visited the member for Petrie's electorate, I noted a great local business in his electorate, Packer Leather, which, among other products, supplies leather for Kookaburra cricket balls and also supplies the iconic Sherrin footies. They also supply footy boots for soccer players and the iconic RM Williams boots—that leather often comes from Packer Leather, as well. It is a great example, championed by the member for Petrie, of a business that is succeeding now. Under the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement the 14 per cent tariff on kangaroo leather exports is eliminated over four years. This gives them unprecedented export opportunities into the world's second-largest economy. It's outcomes like that, and what it means for jobs in the member of Petrie's electorate, that underpin why we pursued the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and underpin why we pursued the TPP-11. It's not like everyone has agreed with us. Both on the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and on the TPP-11, the obstacle that stood in the way was the Australian Labor Party. The people who kept naysaying the TPP-11 and the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement were the Australian Labor Party. So, when the member for Petrie asks about alternative approaches, there are some. I couldn't help notice that Ged Kearney, Labor's candidate in Batman, said this about the TPP-11: Trade agreements like this are pin-ups of the failed neo-liberal experiment … The Turnbull Government should abandon this deal … This is the kind of rhetoric— A government member: Is that the Greens candidate? Mr CIOBO 00AN0 No, not the Greens candidate. It is a very loony left type of comment, but that's where the Australian Labor Party is today. As the Prime Minister has outlined, the fact is that the few rational economists on that side—I am terrified that I'm going to be asked to point one or two of them out—have lost the war, because the Australian Labor Party has been dragged to the loony left now, and people like Ged Kearney, who describe trade deals like the TPP as being a failed neo-liberal experiment, are the ones who call the shots now. You know what she said about ChAFTA? Ged Kearney said that ChAFTA would be a job-destroying deal. But what we have seen under the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, and what we will see under the TPP-11 agreement, is the commitment of the coalition to growing exports, to growing investment and to growing jobs. The only people who stand in the way of us achieving that success are the Australian Labor Party and their loony left trade agenda. Taxation 28 14:47 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga My question is again to the Minister for Social Services. I refer to his previous non-answer, as it's around 1½ million Australian families that are worse off. Isn't it the case that a family with a household income of $60,000 a year with two primary-school-age children will be around $440 worse off because of his freeze to family tax benefits? Ms Henderson interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Corangamite will cease interjecting. 14:48 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I would like to thank the member for her question. I don't want to start in this portfolio by getting into tit-for-tat discussions with her. But, since she's come back again, I'm going to have to point out that the paid parental leave threshold was first paused in the 2011-12 budget for two years. An honourable member: Who was in then? Mr TEHAN 210911 I'm still a bit new in this portfolio, but I'm trying to remember who was in government then. An honourable member: Or who was the minister. Mr TEHAN 210911 Or who was the minister. Was it the minister who said this: The more that people go back to work, the better. It's better for the family, it's great for the kids to see mum and or dad or both going to work. Unfortunately, we have far too many children growing up in Australia where nobody is working. Was it the minister who moved 80,000 single parents onto Newstart? Was it that minister? I can keep going, but what I want to say to all of you— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Mr TEHAN 210911 There are other examples, member for Jagajaga, of where you froze payments. So what I will say is that we on this side are about positive policies which will help people be able to get work, earn incomes, look after their kids and provide for their families. That is what we are about. We are going to deliver for those families by producing a strong economy and making sure we continue to have jobs growth so that, as was mentioned before, when people lose their job—like Sam Dastyari—they can find another one. We are going to make sure that we can continue to do that. We are going to build on the work that we are doing so that every Australian who has the opportunity to do so will be able to get work and support themselves. National Security 29 14:50 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on why strong borders are a necessary part of our national security framework? Is the minister aware of any risks to Australia's borders? 14:51 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the member very much for his question. I was up on the Sunshine Coast with him just before Christmas at a round table with the local police looking at issues that would make the local community there safer. I commend him for all the work that he does in his local community. This government is very proud of the fact that we've been able to stop the drownings at sea. We've not had a drowning at sea now for over three years, coming up to four years. We've been able to close 17 detention centres. We've been able to get every child out of detention that Labor put into detention. We've been able to stare down the people smugglers. We don't take that for granted because we know that the people smugglers have not gone away. They are still there in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Vietnam and elsewhere preparing to put people onto boats this very moment. The Leader of the Opposition scoffs at that because he doesn't believe that there is a threat and he can't hold a consistent policy when it comes to border protection. All Australians know that, if you can't secure your borders, you can't provide for a safe and secure community. The Leader of the Opposition is seen as shifty and dodgy by the Australian people, because he is. He promised one thing to one audience and something to the next audience. He will tell whatever group of people he's in front of what they want to hear. The problem is—this great dilemma that the Leader of the Opposition has at the moment with the by-election in Batman and the prospect of one in Longman—that he would have to tell the people of Batman, a trendy left-leaning seat, that he is going to walk away from this government's tough border protection policies. The trouble is when he gets off the plane in Queensland and goes up to Longman and is in Caboolture. I notice that the member for Longman is busily involving herself in conversation next to her about some made-up topic. The problem is that the people in Longman strongly support strong borders. The real dilemma for the Leader of the Opposition is that he would be caught out telling one thing to people in Melbourne and something different to people in Brisbane. But this would come as no surprise to the Australian public. The Australian public have this bloke pegged. I'll tell you who else does—the member for Grayndler. He is getting ready to go. This bloke is biting at the bit because he knows that this Leader of the Opposition is propped up by the union bosses—and I acknowledge the CFMEU workers up in the gallery today, the true champions; there you go, mate, throw your arm up—out on building sites breaking arms and carrying on. They give millions of dollars to the Labor Party and they own and control this bloke 100 per cent. (Time expired) Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides will cease interjecting. The member for McEwen is warned for earlier interjections in the answer. I caution the minister about discussing matters with the public galleries. Discrimination 29 14:55 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he said today, about multicultural Australia, 'The key foundation of our success is mutual respect'? Does the sharing of racist and bigoted material, including from extreme right-wing hate groups like Britain First, present a threat to the mutual respect the Prime Minister referred to earlier today? 14:55 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The honourable member knows very well that the government and every member of the government and our party have absolutely zero tolerance for racism. I want to say this— Mr Hill interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 We in this nation enjoy extraordinary freedoms. Yesterday we were at the Australian War Memorial at the Last Post ceremony, recalling that that place of quiet contemplation and remembrance, which we can see across the lake, remembers and honours the sacrifice—the supreme sacrifice—of over 102,000 Australians who fought to defend our Australian values. And I want to remind the honourable member that in this parliament on both sides there are men and women who have served Australia in our uniform, putting their lives on the line to defend those values. They haven't just defended them; they've fought for them. Regional Jobs and Investment Packages 30 14:57 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government. Will the minister outline to the House how the government's Regional Jobs and Investment Packages are unlocking jobs and economic opportunity for communities across the nation, including those in my electorate of Corangamite? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that would threaten the jobs of hardworking Australians in regional areas? 14:57 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom I thank the member for her question, and I share with the House that it was fantastic to join the member for Corangamite and the Prime Minister in Geelong just a few weeks ago to announce the successful recipients of the coalition government's Geelong regional jobs and investment package. Now, there is no more relentless advocate for their community in this House, no more passionate supporter of regional jobs, regional growth and local businesses, than the member for Corangamite. And this is why it was so pleasing to announce these transformational projects for her local community. After an extensive assessment process involving strong community input, 21 projects totalling $20 million will be delivered in the Geelong region, providing residents with a wider range of employment and, of course, investment opportunities in the future. Some 600 new jobs generated in the construction phase and a further 600 jobs ongoing are proof that 600 families will confidently invest and spend more in the Geelong region. This program is all about the government coming together with private investment to leverage significant investment in local communities. Twenty million dollars from the coalition government, in this case, will leverage a total investment pool of some $95 million. That includes support for LeMond Composites to build Australia's first next-generation carbon-fibre manufacturing facility, which the Prime Minister was attending as well. This is truly a transformational project for the important regional area. Equally important to the Colac community is support for the implementation of the Lake Colac master plan—significant importance there in relation to improved amenities, community infrastructure and drawing in more tourists, as we saw with Councillor Joe McCracken. All of this adds to the record 403,000 jobs delivered by the coalition in the last 12 months, 120,000 of which were in regional Australia. What are the threats to this approach? Those threats sit opposite. We're delivering for regional Australia. The interests of regional Australia are simply a niche issue for the Australian Labor Party. The Leader of the Opposition's political opportunism knows no bounds. The Batman by-election will be the coalface once again, where the opposition says whatever it needs to say at the expense of regional Australia, simply to appease inner-city Greens voters. Unlike those opposite, many regional members of the coalition from the great Liberal and National parties are standing up for regional Australia. We want to see those jobs and growth. (Time expired) Molan, Senator Jim 30 15:01 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that the Prime Minister has just said that every member of the government has absolutely zero tolerance for racism, will the Prime Minister direct Senator Molan to act according to the Prime Minister's stated 'zero tolerance for racism' by taking down the racist and bigoted material that he's sharing? Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith has already been warned. 15:01 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Major-General Jim Molan has just this week joined the Senate. He defended Australian values in the battle against Islamist terrorism in the Middle East. He has stood up for our values, put his life on the line and led our troops and those of our allies in conflict. He has led thousands of troops in the battle for freedom against terrorism. The Leader of the Opposition wants to describe him as a racist. That is deplorable. It is disgusting. Jim Molan is a great Australian soldier. We are lucky to have him in the Senate. He doesn't have a racist bone in his body. He stood up for freedom. He stood up against terrorism. He stood up against extremism. He and thousands of others like him are the reasons we enjoy the freedoms we are practising in this chamber today. Cyber Safety 30 15:02 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest My question is to the Minister for Law Enforcement and Cybersecurity. Will the minister update the House on the importance of keeping our kids safe online? This is important. What action is the Australian Federal Police taking to help educate children and parents about cyber safety? Dr Chalmers interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin has been warned. He continues to interject. He can leave under 94(a). Those that have been warned will follow him if they interject again. It's ridiculous. I can't even call the minister to answer the question. The member for Rankin then left the chamber. 15:03 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the honourable member, who is well known for her longstanding and keen interest in ensuring that all Australians, especially young Australians, are kept safe online. Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lyons will leave under 94(a). I don't like to give character assessments, but he might like to re-read the Leader of the Opposition's speech at the Press Club about this being a better year. The member for Lyons then left the chamber. Mr TAYLOR 231027 Most parents would rightly be shocked by the reports that emerged from the Australian Federal Police today. The AFP has seen cases where children as young as four have produced sexually explicit material, uploaded it on social media and subsequently engaged with online child sex offenders, who may well have encouraged the initial upload. The reality is that, in the digital age, we face real risks on every phone and every computer. And children are now engaging independently online from extraordinarily young ages. I'm sure that everyone in this place can reflect on the incredible aptitude of younger Australians with mobile devices. They have, quite literally, grown up with the technology. That engagement can be a great thing but our law enforcement, our policies and our education of our children must keep up. That's why the AFP has broadened the scope of its training to ensure that our youngest and most vulnerable Australians are protected. The AFP has, for the first time now, expanded their ThinkUKnow cybersafety program for children in kindergarten through to year 2 and their parents. It is also why the Turnbull government is committed, like no previous government before it, to strengthening our national cybersecurity against those absolutely deplorable threats. The government's Cyber Security Strategy, which was launched in April 2016, sets out an ambitious four-year plan to secure Australians online. It is just one of our many reforms to national security legislation, policy and funding—the most significant reforms in a generation. With the creation of the Home Affairs portfolio we're now better placed than ever to deal with the complex national security threats. The sad truth is that those threats can now reach into every home and every schoolyard, aided by technology and sophisticated criminal networks. As with every other aspect of national security, only the coalition government can be trusted to keep Australia's digital borders secure. Environment 31 15:06 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Given the nature of the previous answer, on indulgence I associate the opposition with the first part of that answer. My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Yesterday the minister said allegations that Adani tampered with scientific evidence in relation to the spill of coal-laden water on the sensitive Caley Valley Wetlands were a state matter. Is the minister aware that the very federal conditions he spoke about yesterday impose direct responsibility for the federal government concerning the Caley Valley Wetlands? Given the minister, in fact, has direct responsibility for these wetlands, when will the government investigate and will it report publicly? 15:07 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong It must be my lucky day because, as environment minister, I waited 566 days for a question and now I've had two in 48 hours. Yesterday the shadow minister for the environment, the member for Watson, referred to an issue related to Abbot Point terminal. As the shadow minister knows, Abbot Point terminal was constructed before the EPBC Act came in. As a result, the primary regulator for that is the Queensland government. We know why Adani owns the Abbot Point terminal. It is because the Bligh Labor government sold it to them. And the Bligh Labor government sold it to them because they support the Adani project. The member for Watson knows that this is a state matter, that what he is referring to is the primary regulatory authority and responsibility of the Queensland government. But do you know why he has come to the dispatch box now to ask this question? It's because of the by-election in Batman. It's because in Batman they have a candidate called Ged Kearney, and now Ged Kearney and the 'Kearneyistas' are in control of the Labor Party. Those opposite used to support the Adani mine. On 12 April 2017 who said 'I support the Adani coalmine'? None other than the Leader of the Opposition. Who said 'I welcome the jobs that it will provide in Queensland'? None other than the member for Shortland. Who said the following? Adani is 'a massive project and it's got the potential to create thousands of jobs, which would be fantastic for regional Queensland'. Labor senator Murray Watt. And who said the following—that the Adani project is a 'vital project as an economic opportunity' for their region? Labor senator Anthony Chisholm. The reality is that the Labor Party supported the Adani project, but now, on the eve of the Batman by-election, Ged Kearney and the 'Kearneyistas' are writing the Labor Party's policy. And this should not surprise us from the Leader of the Opposition, because he famously said: If you don't know where you're going, any road'll get you there. The Leader of the Opposition doesn't know if he supports more jobs in Queensland. In fact, he does know now: he doesn't support more jobs in Queensland because he doesn't support the Adani project, all because he is placating the Labor Left in order to win the seat of Batman. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business? Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the environmental approval from 2013 to Adani Abbot Point Terminal which specifically regulates the Caley Valley wetlands, where the coal spill occurred. The SPEAKER 00APG Is leave granted? Leave is not granted. Agriculture Industry 32 15:11 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—and I congratulate him on his elevation to the front bench. Will the minister update the House on the state of the agricultural sector in Australia and how coalition government policy has encouraged more and better-paying jobs for hardworking Australians? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 15:11 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa Can I thank the member for Flynn, who is a real fighter for the people of Flynn. I was fortunate enough to visit his electorate and go across the length and breadth of it, and talk to his farmers at their kitchen tables and have a look at the innovation that takes place on their farms. I was fortunate enough to meet with Smart Berries in Mundubbera, a town of a thousand people. But, at the height of their picking season, they employ up to 500 people, which is a huge influx into a community like that. When I sit at their kitchen tables and talk to them they tell me the most important things to them are the trade agreements that we've put in place that are allowing them to put their product right around the world and will allow them to get into markets they don't have at the moment—the free trade agreements that we've done with Japan, Korea and China, and now the TPP if only we have some support from the other side. But I don't know whether that's going to come, because the tinfoil-hat approach to trade on the other side of the House is something that's going to hold back agriculture. This is something that would drive growth and jobs in regional and rural Australia. And it's not just at the farm gate that you get the returns; it's in the small communities that support those farms. I can tell you it's from St George to Blackbutt and down to Colac. Those are the communities that take advantage of the free trade agreements. We're putting in the framework and the environment for our farmers to invest back into their farms, and complementing that with the tax cuts we are giving them. They are real tax cuts, because we on this side have employed people. We know what it's like. We know what the pressure is like— Mr Conroy interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Shortland! Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 to have to come up with the wages— Mr Conroy interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Shortland is warned! Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 of your employees on a Friday afternoon—the stress and strain. Let me tell you, the reality is that there is strain and stress. But, if you give them that opportunity and put money back into those small businesses, they invest it back into their small businesses and they invest it back into their communities. We're also putting in infrastructure around our farmers for the telecommunications of the 21st century, through the Mobile Black Spot Program. Never before have we seen an investment of $200 million in the tools of the 21st century that our farmers need. As the member for Flynn and I went around, we heard day after day about the huge advantages that the Mobile Black Spot Program has put into regional and rural Australia. We believe in the 320,000 Australians employed by agriculture. But the thing that worries me is that, only a week ago, in a National Press Club address, the Leader of the Opposition did not once utter the word 'agriculture'. Not once did he say 'agriculture'. God help those that work in agriculture and those in regional Australia if the Leader of the Opposition ever becomes Prime Minister. Mr Turnbull 885 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 33 DOCUMENTS Presentation 33 15:14 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. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 33 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost of Living 33 15:15 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: “The Government increasing the cost of living on working Australians”. 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— 15:15 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Ronald Reagan once famously asked the American people to question whether they were better or worse off than they were four years before that. If that question were put to the Australian people, they would give an answer that was very clear: they are worse off; but, more than that, their government is making their situation worse off. Their government, on whom they rely, is making their situation worse off. We have a nation where household debt is 200 per cent of disposable income—one of the highest in the developed world. We have a government which encourages this debt, because it refuses to reform negative gearing. We have had average weekly earnings in the private sector increase by 1.4 per cent over the year to May 2017. The Prime Minister asked us at question time to reflect on where most people work. He told us that most people work in the private sector. Yes, Prime Minister, that's where wages growth is so weak. The Prime Minister, with his own arguments, undermines his case. There's an important point about wages growth being at 1.4 per cent a year: it's less than inflation. It means people are going backwards. Some people are even in a worse situation. They are not just going backwards relatively compared to inflation; they're going backwards in absolute terms. These are the people who work on weekends, and this government thinks the answer to low wages growth is to cut their wages even further. Of course, when it comes to health, we see, under the Liberals, costs are up by 20 per cent to visit a doctor and a consultation with a specialist is up by 25 per cent. We know that the government wanted to charge $7 a visit to the doctor. Instead, what they've done is freeze the Medicare system and seen these charges go up. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners noted late last year that 860,000 patients had delayed a visit to their doctor because of the costs. These policies have real-world implications. Of course, while we're on health, private health insurance premiums are up by 27 per cent since the Liberal Party came to office. In the last financial year, Australians paid $4 billion more in premiums than they got back in rebates. The government says that everything is working just fine from their point of view. The Minister for Health pats himself on the back that he has approved these increases. The member for Ballarat and this side of the House say: 'No. That's not good enough. We have an alternative plan.' When it comes to energy, we see costs going up. The government told us months ago that they had a concrete plan when it came to energy costs. It is called the National Energy Guarantee. Since then, what have we heard? No details. No modelling. It's not a national policy and it's not a guarantee. But, of course, the government have worked this out. To give them credit, they know that they've got a problem on their hands. They know that people are hurting. So what do they come up with? We hear about it a lot. We are told: tax cuts. Whenever the government are in a bit of hot water, which is every day that ends in a 'Y', they trot out: 'It's okay. We've got tax cuts. We're going to give you tax cuts.' The Prime Minister and the Treasurer talk about them a lot. But what we don't have is any detail. We don't know who is going to get the tax cuts. We don't know how big the tax cuts are going to be. We are told they've worked so hard and so long on these tax cuts; it is such a concrete and developed plan; we just don't have details. What we do have details on is their tax rise. That's what we have got details on. That's the one concrete policy we have from this government. We have a situation where people on $60,000 a year will be paying $300 more in tax, and people on $55,000 a year will be paying $275 more a year in tax. These are the government's actual policies—not their speeches, not their words, not their rhetoric. They want to increase tax. They want to take $1.7 billion more a year out of Australians' pockets. That's actually higher tax. Whenever Malcolm Turnbull talks about tax cuts— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! Mr BOWEN DZS The Prime Minister, I apologise. Whenever the Prime Minister talks about tax cuts, his policy is to increase tax. I saw the Prime Minister on Insiders on Sunday. He seemed offended that he could possibly be asked: 'Aren't you putting tax up on the one hand? Won't your taxes need to be so big just to justify what you are taking off?' He seemed surprised to get this question. He was offended to be asked about this. Maybe he needs some help from the minister for revenue. Remember she told us negative gearing was going to send house prices up and down at the same time? Maybe she can help the Prime Minister explain why they are putting taxes up and down at the same time. She could ride to his rescue. She'd do a better job of explaining it than the Prime Minster has done. The fact of the matter is when Australians on an income of $60,000 will be $300 a year worse off that is a tax rise. They can call it a levy, a charge or an imposition—they can call it whatever they like—but they are increasing the personal income tax paid by those Australians. Again the Prime Minster on the weekend was reminding us that they had actually introduced a tax cut. They had taken the threshold from $80,000 to $87,000. That's true. With our support that was passed through the parliament. That was a tax cut. What that did was give $5.1 billion back to the people who received the tax cut. What does the tax raise that they want to impose, the Medicare levy increase, take off people? They have given back $5.1 billion but want to take from people $8.2 billion over the same period. This just goes to show that whenever the government talk about lowering tax, they are misleading the Australian people because they want to increase tax. That's what they want to do. The government don't believe in lower taxes; they believe in different taxes. They believe in taxing different people in a different way. They believe in a tax cut for high-income earners. I concede that point. I give them that. They do believe that somebody earning more than $180,000 a year needs a tax cut. That's what they delivered. They were happy to take the deficit levy off people who earn more than $180,000 a year, despite the fact that we are still in deficit. The situation is worse than when the deficit levy was put on and was projected to be, yet they've gotten rid of the one measure in the 2014 budget that actually impacted on high-income earners. They still believe in everything else. They still believe in everything that impacts on low-income earners and pensioners. They have gotten rid of the one measure that applied to people who earn over $180,000. Of course, they got their $65 billion a year corporate tax cut, which they believe will trickle down. They say: 'Don't worry about penalty rates. Don't worry about the fact that average weekly earnings are going backwards. Don't worry about the fact that energy costs and health costs are going up. Don't worry about the fact that private health insurance premiums are increasing. Don't worry about the cost of living, because we have a plan.' The Prime Minister says: 'It's going to trickle down to you eventually, one day. In 20 years time you'll get some of that benefit from the corporate tax cut.' The Australian people are awake to that. They know that there's a better idea. Maybe a better idea is not to cut penalty rates. Maybe a better idea is not to increase the tax on people who earn between $21,000 a year and $87,000 a year. These are people doing it tough. Maybe that's a better plan. Maybe a better plan is to actually deal with the private health insurance premium increases in a sensible way, like the Labor Party has suggested. Maybe a better plan, instead of talking about tax cuts, instead of trotting out the rhetoric at every opportunity and instead of treating the Australian people with such contempt and with such disdain, is to actually not increase their tax in the first place. The Prime Minister would have more credibility when he talks about a personal income tax cut if he wasn't increasing personal income tax, because that is exactly what his policy is. He would pass it tomorrow if he could. He would pass it through the Senate tomorrow if he could. It's stuck in the Senate. Do you know why? Because this side of the House will not let him do it. This side of the House will stand up for those Australians earning between $21,000 and $87,000 a year and will block that tax rise with the support of other senators. There is one thing standing between the Prime Minister and a tax rise on those Australians who earn $21,000 a year and that is us. That's the only thing stopping the government doing it. You don't need to take my word for it. It is government policy. It's there in the budget. It's all laid out. They believe in increasing personal income tax. So every time they talk about a personal tax cut, they are being fundamentally dishonest. They are treating the Australian people with contempt. We welcome this debate. We'll debate tax anywhere the Treasurer likes. We'll debate tax anywhere the Prime Minister likes. We'll debate it in this chamber; we'll debate it in the other chamber; we'll debate it at the National Press Club; we'll debate it in town halls in regional Australia, because we have better plans. We actually understand the cost-of-living pressures on ordinary Australians. We don't say, 'Don't worry; it'll trickle down to you some day.' We don't say, 'Look after the top end of town, and the rest will be okay.' We say that those Australians who are working hard on weekends in cafes and in hospitals deserve not to have their wages cut, and they don't deserve a tax rise—both of those things that this Prime Minister wants to give them. The minister at the table is responsible for penalty rates. He should say to his electorate why he supports people in his electorate—and every other Australian who does so as well—being paid less when they work on the weekend, and why he is supporting increasing their tax at the same time. (Time expired) 15:25 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid You know what, Deputy Speaker? I have to give it to the shadow Treasurer: his heart was almost in that. We see him in this chamber normally, at his best, yelling and screaming. At times, and I don't know how he does it, he gets very red—although, having seen him on the treadmill this morning, I now know! What I would say to all Australians is that the Fair Work Commission is a body set up by the Labor Party and staffed by the Labor Party. It was charged with independently four-yearly reviewing modern awards at the behest of the now Leader of the Opposition, who, when they changed penalty rates for some awards in 2010, whilst in government, made no reference to the quality of that commission or the need for it to be changed. When, in some restaurant awards in 2014, Sunday penalty rates were reduced from 200 per cent to 150 per cent, Brendan O'Connor, the shadow minister responsible at the time, said: We've always said that employment conditions should be considered properly and should be considered by the Fair Work Commission. People should submit reasons why you should seek to make changes to the employment conditions of Australia. The reason that the shadow Treasurer's heart isn't in it is that he is a member of the once-proud New South Wales Right of the Labor Party. Members of that party historically must be rolling their eyes today. I don't know if you like The Rocky Horror Picture Show—I do; I'm a particular fan. Mr Husic interjecting— Mr LAUNDY 247130 The member for Chifley is one step ahead of me. We are stuck in a time warp. We've had the jump to the left, and the shadow Treasurer cannot get in a step to the right. He cannot get in a step to the right. This is the biggest hoax of all time in a campaign by the union movement, who are the puppeteers of those opposite. The shadow Treasurer, in his defence, is being dragged there. He's not a willing marionette, but—I tell you what—the opposition leader and the shadow minister are. It's not hard to see, when you look at time lines. We've heard. What are the issues? Penalty rates and casualisation of the workforce. Penalty rates I've spoken about. They talk about them when it suits them. Why? Because the union movement isn't happy with the committee, independent of government, which they set up, dealing with unions at the time in 2007, and launched in 2009. Casualisation—where did this thought bubble come from? Twenty-five per cent is the rate of casualisation today in the workforce, the same as it was two decades ago, but the Labor Party will have you believe it's a problem. No. An opposition member: What about labour hire? Mr LAUNDY 247130 'Labour hire,' the member from South Australia yells out. It is two per cent, the same as it was 10 years ago. Independent contractors are nine per cent—again, another pet thing of the union movement—the same rate as it was 10 years ago. Where did this come from? You start to see a trend here. On 28 July last year, Sally McManus urged the ALP to support amendments to the National Employment Standards to provide greater protection for casuals, including the right to request permanent part-time status. Lo and behold, six days later, on 4 August, Brendan O'Connor, the shadow minister, said: It's about recognizing that the labour market today does not look anything like the labour market of 30 years ago … Brendan, bad news: it does. It looks identical. But there we go; Labor Party adopting. Then, on 26 December, we get Sally McManus saying: The issue of casualisation, the casualisation of jobs, is going to be a key focus of the whole trade union movement next year in 2018. On 26 December—the same day this time—the member for Gorton said: We are examining the conversion. We do believe employers get an opportunity to employ people and see if that works in their workplace, we accept that. Casual work is the backbone for this economy for the people that need it. It gives them the flexibility. Ms Price 249308 Uni students. Mr LAUNDY 247130 Uni students. I've got two almost there. There are people that have caring responsibilities. It has a leave loading lodged into it, which the opposition always manage to conveniently forget. But then—surprise, surprise!—on 30 January the Leader of the Opposition said in his National Press Club speech: So why are big companies keeping workers' wages low? … It's the same reason they try to turn every job they can into a casual job. What a load of rubbish! So something from Sally McManus's mouth on 28 July, which was a falsehood to start with, is echoed as official Labor Party policy on 30 January this year. Then we get the living wage thought bubble, which, to her credit, Sally McManus front-ran again, on 2 November. Then Brendan O'Connor again, on the same day, welcomed the suggestion. Then—surprise, surprise!—on 30 January 2018, Bill Shorten said in his National Press Club speech: The minimum wage is no longer a living wage. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! The minister will refer to people by their— Mr LAUNDY 247130 The Leader of the Opposition—sorry, Deputy Speaker. I do note that I have it on good authority from, I hope, a reliable source in the media that, at the National Press Club conference—probably a sign of how far to the left he was being dragged, to his credit—one notable omission was the shadow Treasurer. Mr Bowen DZS Wrong. Mr LAUNDY 247130 You were there? I apologise if you were there. I was told by a journalist you weren't. Were you at the speech? Mr Bowen interjecting— Mr LAUNDY 247130 Oh, okay. Sorry. I apologise. I do say, as I said yesterday, that there is a clear and frank left-leaning agenda that has permeated its way through the leadership team of the Labor Party. It is so clear that there are those who are responsibly economically minded and don't want to be there. Then there's the last piece of the puzzle, the piece that for me, as the new minister responsible, makes it make sense: the claim that enterprise bargaining is dead. Again, the Fair Work Commission—the commission put in place by the Labor Party and staffed with Labor people between 2007 and 2009 to consider matters of the workplace, independent of government—is supposedly not coming up with decisions that the Labor Party's union member puppeteers like. We've heard a lot about the EBAs falling away. Last year, the number of EBAs that were contested upon termination in this country was three per cent. Ninety-seven per cent of the EBAs that were terminated last year were not contested. I don't understand, if there is a problem with three per cent being contested, why you would need to completely overhaul something that is quite clearly working. Ninety-seven out of 100 is a pretty good rate. Ninety-seven out of 100 was a pretty good mark when I was going through school. It would have been good if I'd got it too! The system is not broken. It is the unions that want more power. They want more access. In the party opposite, as I said, historically some genuinely right-wing, reforming and economically minded Labor politicians have managed to come up with sensible, centrist economic policy. I can say this loud and clear: those days are long gone. Those opposite are again being dragged so far to the left, under the guise that things are broken. It is their system. They put it in place between 2007 and 2009. It is working the way that it has worked, independent of government, for the past 10 years. It is making decisions that it considers on the basis of fact, with submissions from across the working portfolio, from employers to employees and from unions to employer organisations—you name it. You have the ability in this country to put your best foot forward in that commission. In the matters that are considered there, the decisions that are made are made in good faith by people, based on fact. However, over the past two to three years the facts haven't suited the union movement in this country. So what have they done? They have moved in and strongarmed a weak and feeble leader who is in need of their support to garner and save his own leadership. Formerly a member of the Right side of the party, he is a leader who has now worked so far Left away from everything that could arguably be named a significant Labor reform and has dragged them—some still with economic sense—kicking and screaming back to a place that this party hasn't seen historically. The time warp has gone back to the 1970s—a time that we have walked so far away from. The shadow Treasurer is today not at his 'zippiest'. I get that, but I know why. It's because I don't believe his heart is in it. 15:35 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert Australian's living standards are going backwards, and it's no wonder when we are led by a back-to-the-future government. Recent ANU analysis shows that living standards are declining for the first time in a generation. Cost increases have outpaced income growth by 3.8 per cent since 2013 when this government came to power. Under the Turnbull government it now costs you more to see the GP, more for your private health insurance, more for your electricity bills and more for a house. This government is only interested in representing millionaires. Under this Prime Minister, anyone earning up to $87,000 pays more income tax. There are more than two million Australians that will get a $300 tax hike under this government next year. Under the Turnbull government's plans to increase the Medicare levy, millionaires get a tax cut of $16,400, while someone earning $60,000 gets a $300 tax increase. Under the Abbott-Turnbull governments, costs are up 20 per cent for a visit to the doctor and up 25 per cent for a consultation with a specialist—all because of their unfair Medicare freeze. That is, of course, if you can get in to see a doctor. Right now, there are 12,000 people on waiting lists to see specialists and some are deferring because the costs are so high. And then there is the absolute rort of private health insurance. Ten years ago only 8.6 per cent of health insurance policies contained exclusions. It's now 40 per cent. Families are paying an average of $1,000 more since the Abbott-Turnbull governments came to power. Whilst workers', families', veterans' and pensioners' health bills continue to rise, so do their electricity bills. Instead of the Turnbull government delivering relief for the real Australians, they are giving big business a $65 billion tax cut. Big businesses and millionaires don't need relief. In 2014-15 there were 48 millionaires who paid no income tax in this country, not even the Medicare levy. In the same year, 678 corporations paid no tax. The richest one per cent of Australians own more wealth than the bottom 70 per cent of Australians combined. Profits are going up by 40 per cent, and wages are increasing by less than two per cent. Real wages have grown by 72 per cent for the top 10 per cent. In 1975, the top 10 per cent of earners earned twice as much as the bottom 10 per cent but by 2014 they earned nearly three times as much. If low-wage earners had enjoyed the same percentage gains as the highest paid, they would be $16,000 better off a year. When the facts are laid out plain and simple, it is pretty easy to see where the inequality is lying, and it is certainly not with the top end of town. The Turnbull government is doing nothing to stop the inequality or the cost-of-living burden on workers, pensioners, veterans and families. The Turnbull government is so out of touch with workers, pensioners and families that they have no idea what it actually costs real Australians to simply survive. I wonder if anyone in the Turnbull cabinet can tell me the price of electricity bills in Townsville or the cost of a loaf of bread on Palm Island or how much the Townsville City Council is in debt because of our water crisis. I'm pretty sure the answer is no. But I'll tell you. Stuart is from Kirwan. His electricity bill for the last quarter was $960.77. A loaf of bread on Palm Island has been as high as $7. It cost the Townsville City Council $35,000 a day to pump water. So far, that has put our council more than $2.8 million in debt. There would not be one member of the government who would have known the burden of these costs, even though they have Senator 'Gold card' Ian Macdonald's office in Herbert. While the Turnbull government prefer to be in their ivory towers in Sydney and Canberra, I'm out on the ground fighting for regional    Queenslanders. I know how hard it is for families to pay for their groceries when wages are stagnant, because I'm on the ground standing with workers, fighting for their wage increases and stopping the penalty rate cuts. I know how hard it is for pensioners to pay their electricity bills, and the effects of the Turnbull government's cut to the energy supplement, because I am on the ground meeting with pensioners and fighting for them, so they don't have to penny-pinch to pay their electricity bill. I'm on the ground fighting against the Turnbull government's $66 million outstanding bill to the Townsville Hospital and Health Service. I'm on the ground meeting with families and local organisations like the Upper Ross Community Centre about the detrimental impact of the Turnbull government's $14.8 million cuts to Herbert schools. Labor has always stood up for, fought for and delivered for the underdog. Only Labor has committed $100 million towards long-term water security infrastructure for Townsville, addressing our drought issues and jobs. (Time expired) 15:40 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne The best thing we can do to help with the cost of living is to keep people in employment and get those who are unemployed into a job. The great news from the Turnbull-Joyce coalition government is we have had a jobs bonanza over the last couple of years: 403,000 new jobs in the Australian economy in the last year, and 75 per cent of them are full-time jobs—not part time; full-time employment. That is the best thing we can do for Australian citizens so that they can afford the cost of living. We have done so many things to improve the lot of the Australian citizen who is working hard, trying to get ahead, paying their mortgage off and wants to know they have a secure job and a future for their kids. We have major reforms and improvements from July 2018 in child care. That's one of the biggest costs for a family, along with health insurance, electricity bills and their mortgage. We're helping on all fronts. The amount of child care will increase, because the cap is being moved up to $10,000 from $7,600. For example, a family with two people working full time, earning $80,000 in income, like many of the people in my electorate, with two children under six years old in long day care, will be $100 per day, or up to $8,000 per year, better off in their childcare rebate. That means they can work more, they can save, they can get ahead. In the Lyne electorate we had a North Coast jobs and investment package announcement last week: $2 million in targeted investment for established companies that want to grow but need capital. These targeted investments will lead to, at the estimates of the companies who are the recipients, over 200 long-term jobs during construction and as the businesses grow. We have that on top of all the infrastructure we're rolling out around the country: a $75 billion spend. In the Lyne electorate we've had over a billion dollars in roadworks and major employment growth in civil construction. Jobs are the best thing that will help with the cost of living—but not just that: electricity. The National Energy Guarantee will lead to a reduction in costs of at least $115 per year. It will make more gas available, increase the capacity for base load so that we don't have the disaster they had in South Australia, where they had no base load to kick in when the fuse blew on the extension cord from Victoria, because of the storm. Mr Champion HW9 Because of the storm. I think you just undermined your own argument. Dr GILLESPIE 72184 But they had no black start capability. The National Energy Guarantee will bring more gas into the market and will guarantee that the retailers and the generators get the electricity where it's needed. In South Australia they closed Playford B Power Station and Northern Power Station. Victoria closed Hazelwood, and what did we have in TheHerald Sun the other day? AGL are putting their prices up in Victoria by 15 per cent. We've given tax cuts to the average worker. We've addressed bracket creep. The Treasurer already announced over a year ago that tax brackets will be lifted about $7,000 to address that very thing for people in the second-lowest tax bracket. We have done many things to make housing more affordable. We've got a register of Commonwealth land that's available. We're making the grants to the states to improve housing affordability and reach KPIs. They don't just get the money: they have to deliver on housing supply targets. We've got a new Housing Finance and Investment Corp to give cheaper interest rates to low-cost housing providers. It goes on. We have made it easier for first home buyers with the Super Saver initiative. That means you can put up to $30,000 into your super account at a preferential rate to develop your first home deposit. We're letting downsizers, at the other end, make non-contributory $300,000 contributions if they downsize from their family home. So we're helping both ends of the spectrum, but the best thing we can do to make costs of living affordable is to keep people in a job, get more people in a job and make the economy stronger, and we're delivering in spades. (Time expired) 15:45 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler It's good to see everyone back after their break, but it's very easy to identify those who spent little time in their electorates over that Christmas period, because those people are not in this debate. When you think about it, if they were out there talking to constituents, they would know that average working families are hurting at the moment. They would know that. Hence, that's why they're not participating in the debate today. Constituents also resent the fact that we now have a government whose signature policy is giving a $65 billion tax cut to big business—$65 billion. This is all based on this concept of trickle-down economics. Those opposite have taken their eyes off working families in the belief that, if we give the rich more, they're going to feel obliged to hand that down to workers and down the line, and eventually everyone is going to be living in utopia. As the saying goes, pigs might fly. You can see the very notion of this being conjured up as people are sipping their gin and tonic in the local yacht club—maybe around Point Piper, but maybe not—and talking about what's good for working families. They would say, 'Yes, a tax cut for the top end of town—and meanwhile can we now talk about investment opportunities, maybe around the Cayman Islands, and a few other areas and how we can best provide for our ongoing superannuation.' Yes, you could just imagine that. The electorate I represent is very colourful. I'm very proud of this electorate. It's one of the most multicultural electorates in the country. The colour, vibrancy and diversity are on display day in, day out, and it's something we're very proud of. But, sadly, it's not a rich electorate. We have significant pockets of disadvantage. As a matter of fact, the average household income in my electorate is just a tad over $60,000 a year. What do you think these people think when they see company profits going up 20 per cent, yet they are not seeing any wage growth—being flatlined or, at best, two per cent. So much for Tony's tradies, the way they're going about looking after them. Now we've got the government deciding to freeze the family tax benefit, but at the same time as they're doing that they're giving those wealthy people—millionaires—a $16,400 tax cut. Yet, if you're on a household income of $60,000 and you have two children around primary school age, you're going to be over $400 worse off. What do you think the people in my electorate think about that? Bear in mind, $60,000 is the average household income in my community. If this government can't afford to look after families, how is it that they think they can afford to look after the top end of town—the multinationals, the big businesses, the very profitable health insurance companies? They can do all that but they can't look after working families. We see this is a government that won't stand in the way of stopping the cuts to penalty rates. And, by the way, there are a lot of people in my community that rely on penalty rates, and I'm sure those opposite, if they looked and if they were around over Christmas, would know that as well. This is a government that has all its eggs in one basket: trickle-down economics. We shouldn't be too surprised about this, somehow. We have the advice coming from the Deputy Prime Minister: if you're in housing stress in Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne, just sell up and move to Armidale—great advice from the Deputy Prime Minister! But just put this in economic terms. The Prime Minister made it very clear at the outset of his leadership, when talking about housing issues, that you need to have rich parents—at least rich like him. The then member for North Sydney, the then Treasurer, Joe Hockey, made it very clear: you just get a better job. Now we have a Deputy Prime Minister adding to the debate by simply saying, 'Get out of town.' That's great economic advice for people that are doing it tough! What it shows is that they don't care. We see the real value of people's pay packets going down. Things like electricity and private health are skyrocketing. We're in a housing affordability crisis, household debt is at record levels, and we have record underemployment and job insecurity, and they are basking in the glory of trickle-down economics. (Time expired) 15:51 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It gives me great pleasure to be able to stand and talk about some of the achievements of the coalition and how we are working to make the cost-of-living pressures on Australians more affordable. The best way we can give a break to an Australian is to make sure that they have an honest, reliable, stable job. The coalition has delivered in this space in absolute spades. If you go back and have a look at our record, we are shifting more people from the unemployment queues, from those that are on welfare, into full-time jobs. I will outline what those achievements have been. More than 400,000 jobs were created in 2017. It was the strongest calendar year on record. The Australian economy is creating, on average, around 1,100 jobs every single day. So how is it that, when a coalition government gets into office, we're able to create an environment of positiveness with the small business sector for those jobs to be created? The vast majority of these jobs have been full-time jobs, and 75 per cent have been in the private sector. In the private sector, I look at projects like the Bromelton Industrial Park just outside Beaudesert in my electorate, with a transport intermodal rail hub—over 1,200 jobs during construction. During the election, you would have heard the Prime Minister and the coalition team banter on about jobs and growth and jobs and growth, and people were sick of it. They were sick of hearing 'jobs and growth'. But what I want to say in this debate is that we delivered the jobs, and we will continue to deliver the jobs. We were able to deliver the jobs because we got our economic settings right. The number of new jobs created last year represents nearly five times the job growth of the last year in the previous Labor governments—jobs and growth, jobs and growth. We will continue to banter on about that. We're working to build a stronger economy with more and better-paying jobs for Australians. It is those better-paying jobs that are actually helping cost-of-living pressures. We're doing it through fairer taxes. How we've done it is by creating confidence and creating incentives. We've cut company tax rates for more than 3.2 million small businesses and reduced income tax for 500,000 middle-income Australians. That's how we're doing it. We're putting money back into their pockets. We'll fight Labor's plan for 150 billion new dollars in tax increases on pay packets, homes, electricity and enterprises. Company tax rates will be at the centre of our debate moving forward. Company tax rates, for us, are about creating those jobs, creating that opportunity and leaving the principles of demand and supply to take their place. Affordable and accessible child care is also critical to parents who are balancing work and family responsibilities. From July 2018, we will remove the $7,613 annual rebate cap for families on incomes up to $185,000 a year. That's 85 per cent of families using child care. Families earning more than around $185,000 will also benefit from the increased cap of $10,000. That's how we're doing it. We're increasing the childcare subsidy from around 72 per cent to 85 per cent for more than 370,000 families earning around $65,000 or less. Almost one million families will benefit. That's how we're reducing the cost-of-living pressures. The government has also announced an extra $440 million to extend the existing preschool program into 2019 to ensure that all children have access to 15 hours of quality early learning in their year before school. That means that over 2,000 of the little learners in my electorate of Wright will have the best start to their education, with a $2.85 million boost. That's how we're reducing cost-of-living pressures. During the six years of Labor government, electricity prices doubled. Federal and state Labor policies have continued to increase pressure on prices. They have shortages in gas supply, unrealistic renewable energy targets and open hostility to reliable base-load power. The coalition government understand that we need reliable, affordable base-load power, and we're fixing this mix. We have stated over and over again that, for us as a coalition, base-load power will be part of our energy mix into the future. Our new Energy Guarantee will cut prices, ending subsidies for energy which are passed on to all customers, creating a level playing field that will ensure that all types of energy are part of the Australian mix into the future. We're reducing pressures on housing affordability. There are clear differentiations as to which government is creating downward pressure on— (Time expired) 15:56 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I think most parents would hope that their child will have at least as good a life as theirs and hopefully a better life than theirs, and that is pretty much what's happened, generation after generation, in Australia. While we are far from an equal nation, the statistics do show that parents have been proud to see their children better educated, better remunerated, better travelled, living longer—having a better standard of living. But something has changed. I now see people my age expressing real concerns about how their children will fare independently in the world—how this next generation, and the one after it, is going to go. It seems to me now that we would probably settle for our kids having the same standard of living as ours. We have lost that expectation that they should have a better standard of living. That is a real change in psyche for Australia. When you unpack it, it's because of the cost of going about your daily life, the things like going to a GP, paying your rent or saving for a home, paying for your electricity, keeping your phone connected or your internet on, covering the childcare costs, putting kids through school, keeping your car on the road or paying for your public transport. All those basic costs are eating up so much of your income that, for many people, there really doesn't seem to be very much left over. Young people, working people—we're talking working people here—young families, families with teenagers, older people, self-funded retirees and pensioners all tell me that it is harder to keep your head above water. Now, anecdotal evidence is one thing. The conversations we have back in our electorates are one thing. But I do like to know that perceptions are backed by fact and data. So I wasn't actually surprised to see the reports this week that new research shows that it is costing more for us to stay where we are and that people's wages are not growing at the same pace, so the gap is widening. In other words, our standard of living is falling. The Australian National University research points to the fact that we have the weakest wage growth on record. You can't bank on getting an annual pay rise that will keep pace with the increased cost of stuff that you have to pay for. The take-home pay of the average Australian who works for a private business grew by just 1.4 per cent over the year to May 2017. That's less than inflation, which means that you are going backwards when it comes to paying the bills. The slow wage growth isn't because business isn't doing well. Record profits in recent years simply haven't come through to workers in wage rises. What's happened to them? They've gone to share buybacks, higher executive pay and bonuses for executives. They haven't—funnily enough—trickled down. The cuts to weekend penalty rates come on top of this. For people who work on a Sunday and public holidays to provide for their families, this government is certainly not helping them. If you're on the minimum wage, which 3.2 million people are in their awards, it is actually no longer a wage you can live on. If you speak to people about the day-to-day grind you have to wonder why anyone would think that taxing people on the middle and lowest incomes more would be a good thing. Why would you tax those people more? Yet that is what this government is doing—call it a tax or call it a levy. If you're a multinational, this government wants to give you a big tax cut. If you're a millionaire—and they don't seem to be doing too badly—this year you get a tax cut of $16,400, while someone earning $60,000 gets an extra tax bill of $300. When there is this sort of gap between how much you earn and how much you spend just to cover the basics, I think the real damage is done in the area of health. In the Blue Mountains my upper-mountains constituents tell me that it is almost impossible to find a bulk-billing GP, unless you're a pensioner or have a health care card or a child. GPs have been absorbing the Liberals' ongoing Medicare freeze for five years under this government and they can't do it any longer. The rent's gone up and their staff's wages have gone up. So health is where people are being hit. The cost of living is not just costing people their pockets; it is costing them their health. 16:01 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee It gives me pleasure to speak on this matter of public importance, because it is indeed a matter of public importance. I represent an electorate that is not a rich one. I'm a worker. They talk about workers not being on this side of the chamber, but I would like to point out that there are workers on this side of the chamber—and I enjoyed getting on the tools over the weekend. While I've sat quietly here in the chamber and not interjected, I have listened to no answers. There have been lots of criticisms and lots of attempts to try to make the Australian people feel that their lot in life is tough, but there have been no answers. There is no doubt that there are people struggling out there in Australian society, people who are working hard and paying their bills and trying to provide for their families. But looking at the history of Australia, we enjoy a prosperity that many generations of Australians have not enjoyed, and I think that needs to be stated. It needs to be stated that we are a very prosperous nation. The prosperity is there because of the hard work of Australians. Money does not grow on trees, and the wealth of Australians results from the individual pursuits of people. They get up, they get out of bed early and go to work, they work hard, they pay their taxes and they contribute to the society. That is ultimately what creates wealth. When you create individual wealth, you ultimately create a wealthy Australia. What we've heard from the discussions today is attempts to knock those who have created individual wealth. This appears to be a great strategy of the Labor Party, but it ultimately undermines the pursuits of individuals. Let me say that again: it is the pursuits of individuals that collectively creates the wealth of Australia. I want to see more people become wealthy. I want to see people who get out of bed and work hard be rewarded for that. I want those who work hard to pay less tax, and that's why we're proposing a tax cut, hopefully, in the future. I want to see the people who take a risk and invest receive the benefits of that. We should not be a society that knocks those people. We should not say: 'Oh, they're earning too much money. We've got to take the money off them and give it to someone else.' We should say, 'Good for you,' and if we do that, it means you pay a little bit more tax into the pot, meaning there is more money to fund the things that we need to fund in our society, such as welfare. We hear a lot of talk about the cost of living going up. I have got to say that the responsibility for a lot of those cost-of-living bills—the bills that come across households—still sit with other governments. I think of rates, sitting with our local governments. I think of electricity, predominantly the management of electricity in Victoria by the Victorian government. I think of car registration, which is something that people struggle to pay, which is the state governments. I think of health administration, the money that we, the federal government, give to the states, and the states collect tax and administer health. That is a cost on people and it is largely run by state governments, and many of the state governments in Australia are Labor governments. I also think that the discussion here isn't putting much forward thought into the implications that Labor are proposing for future generations. I heard the previous speaker talk about how people are concerned that their children haven't got as much opportunity. The best thing we can do to ensure the opportunity for the children of Australia is to not leave them with a national debt—to not leave them with the liability to pick up the tab for the current people who are running this country. When the Howard government finished in this place, they finished in this place with a surplus—money in the bank. We then had years of Labor, which left us with a deficit, and it has taken us quite a while to start to curb off the trajectory. Eventually, we will get back to surplus. In contrast, there was not one savings measure suggested on the other side of the chamber in this whole matter of public importance debate. So, ultimately, what we're talking about here is an attack on people who want to get out of bed and work harder. It's an attack on the future children of Australia. The only answer they have to restore wage growth, the only answer they have to restore prosperity, is to borrow more money to put more debt on future Australians. I am not the sort of politician who can do that. I am responsible. People on my side are responsible. Do not trust them on the other side. They have no answers. They have talked all this afternoon—not one suggestion on how to make things better. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Before I call the member for McEwan, I might remind the member for Lalor that I have just checked the new seating plan and she is out of place. She might be disorderly if she is interjecting. 16:06 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen I will say this very clearly for the member for Mallee, who claims to be a Victorian but is in the government that has cut the guts out of funding for Victoria. Mr Broad interjecting— Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E I will speak slowly so you can keep up. You have a choice: $65 billion in tax cuts for big businesses, or you can use that money to fund pensioners, to fund people on low incomes, and you wouldn't be putting an extra $300 tax on every worker earning less than $87,000. It's about choices. You made it quite clear that in your view of the world the people who get rich are the ones you worry about. In our view of the world, society depends on how you treat your most vulnerable. While you want to leave them to the scrap heap, we actually want to encourage people and help them grow. Think about the long break over Christmas. On the north shores of Sydney, while flouting the boating laws, the 26 Newspolls-in-a-row losing PM was enjoying his Cristal and stogies. This year he had a little bit extra to celebrate. Do you know what that was? This year he gave himself a $16½ thousand tax cut. This is a bloke who stores millions of dollars overseas so he doesn't pay full taxes in Australia. And now, 'Captain Cayman', as he's commonly known outside, the Prime Minister, comes back to Canberra and continues his hardline assault on Australian families and Australian workers. Under this government, Australian living standards are on the decline for the first time in a generation. When we look at this fact, since the Liberal government came in in 2013 the cost-of-living increases have outweighed income growth by 3.8 per cent. The incompetency of this government becomes crystal—or Cristal—clear, we might say. What is the government's response? Let's give big businesses a tax cut. Big businesses get a $65 billion tax cut while Australian workers earning under $87,000 get slugged with a $300 a year tax increase. That is before they get slugged with these outrageous health insurance increases. That's before they get slugged with the energy prices. And I did laugh at the member opposite talking about energy; they won't pull the gas trigger, because of the issues they had with the dual citizenship of the now Deputy Prime Minister, which means Australians are paying more for gas than they need to. More than two million Australians will have their taxes increased while the PM celebrates his $16,000 windfall. Just think of that for a moment. That's nearly the same cost as a pensioner. A pensioner earns about $20,000 a year. That is all they have to live on. Yet the multimillionaire merchant banker gives himself a $16,000-a-year tax cut. When we talk about opportunities and things we can do to address issues, there is one: don't go giving millionaires tax cuts and putting the tax up on ordinary Australian workers. Go the other way around. Support the people who are struggling to make ends meet, and those with plenty of money can support themselves. I tell you, for those who weren't here yesterday, you missed an absolute ripper of a day. We often hear those opposite talk about how wonderful they are and they've all been in business—blah, blah, blah. We had the rich daddy's club yesterday. Rich daddy No. 1 talking to rich daddy No. 2, who was talking to rich daddy No. 3 saying, 'I was in business.' 'How were you in business?' 'My rich daddy gave me a job.' That's not how it works for most of us. Most of us have to get out. While they're all celebrating their ability to go and work in the family business—if you look at a lot of Liberal philosophy it always is getting ahead off other people's hard work; that's how they get to here— Ms Flint 245550 As opposed to being a unionist. Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E Please—that's the banker lady there. What we've consistently seen from this government is that we watch national debt get bigger—that's more. With debt, there's a little minus sign in front of it. You sit there and talk about what great economic managers you are, but what you've done is increase deficit, increase debt, increase cost of living, cut wages, cut support for pensioners, cut support for families, cut education funding and cut health funding, and you congratulate yourselves. We heard Treasurer Morrison today saying, 'There are greater times ahead.' Five years in government and all we've heard is, 'gonna, gonna, gonna'. The best way that we can help Australian families and Australian workers is to get rid of this mob opposite and put a government in that actually values people, not big businesses. They want to give big businesses like the banks a tax cut. We want to give them a royal commission. There are stark differences. We want to support people on low incomes. They want to crucify them. The choice is very clear. (Time expired) 16:11 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby The coalition are doing a range of things to reduce cost-of-living pressures for Australians. Let's start, for example, with our record on bulk-billing—85.9 per cent of doctors' visits are now bulk-billed. That is something that helps everyday Australians with their cost of living. We have record federal hospital funding. We have tax cuts for businesses, which helps businesses earn and generate income, reinvest, purchase goods from other businesses and, most importantly, employ Australians. We have tax cuts for 500,000 Australians who are on middle incomes. I can tell you what we're not doing. We are not abolishing the private health insurance rebate, which assists something like 13 million Australians who have private health insurance cover. At the Press Club in the past week, the Leader of the Opposition refused to rule out abolishing the private health insurance rebate, which, as I said, does assist some 13 million or so Australians to cover themselves and be responsible for themselves and their health insurance. We also have record jobs growth. After four years of coalition government, we have over 918,000 more jobs for Australians. In 2017 alone employment increased by 403,000 jobs, and around 75 per cent of these jobs were full-time jobs. These are the sorts of things that we're doing to help with cost-of-living pressures, because when you have a job you can afford to do a range of things. You can afford to make the choices that you want to make for your life that are good for you, good for your family and good for your community. Coming from South Australia, of course, I have to talk about one of the biggest cost-of-living pressures in my home state, which is the cost of power. We know the result of Premier Jay Weatherill's 'big international experiment'. I want to read the Premier's statement about his power policy in South Australia, because it does bear repeating. We need to remind everybody what the Premier has done to my home state of South Australia. He said: We are running a big international experiment right now. We have got a long, skinny transmission system and we will soon have 50 per cent renewable energy, including a lot of wind and some solar. We want to get as close as possible to 100 per cent renewable power. We know there are challenges. But with big risks go big opportunities. I can't see many opportunities that have come for the people of South Australia, apart from paying some of the world's highest electricity bills, and that is not an opportunity that I want for my residents in my seat of Boothby, nor anyone in my home state of South Australia. We have families, individuals, pensioners and elderly people who are suffering. We have people who won't turn the air-conditioner on because they do not know if they will be able to meet the cost of their power. This is a result of the failed energy policies of not just the state Labor government but also those opposite. During six years of federal Labor, we saw electricity prices double under the failed Rudd-Gillard-Rudd regimes. Both federal and state Labor policies have continued to increase pressure on prices through shortages in gas supplies, for example, unrealistic renewable energy targets, and open hostility to reliable baseload power through gas and coal. In South Australia, after 16 years of the Labor government, we've seen the closure of the Playford station and the Northern Power Station, the disastrous 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target, which I have already touched on, the terribly unreliable power in the state and the highest prices in the nation and in the world. What is the coalition government doing? We are doing everything we can from the federal level—even though it's not really our responsibility; this is a state government responsibility—to bring down this cost pressure on South Australians and all Australians. We don't want to see these mistakes repeated in other states. Through the National Energy Guarantee, we are looking at gas. We are making sure that there is enough gas available for Australians through the Domestic Gas Security Mechanism. We are working on Snowy Hydro 2.0, which will provide a fabulous new source of renewable energy that is completely and utterly reliable, as the Snowy has been for a couple of generations now. We're looking at what the retailers can do to reduce retail prices and also a range of other mechanisms to help everyday Australians with their cost-of-living pressures. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! The discussion has concluded. DELEGATION REPORTS 43 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 63rd Annual Session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Bucharest 43 16:16 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 63rd Annual Session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Bucharest, Romania, from 7 to 9 October. I place on record my gratitude to our committee secretariat, Mr Richard Selth and Onu Palm, and my colleague in that delegation Mr Ross Hart, the member for Bass. COMMITTEES 43 COMMITTEES Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters 43 Report 43 16:17 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's report on the inquiry into decisions made by the Court of Disputed Returns. In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a parliamentary paper. BILLS 43 BILLS Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 43

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017

Second Reading 43 16:18 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I rise to put on the record my serious concerns about the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. I do so to join my Labor colleagues. I particularly acknowledge the shadow minister, the member for Jagajaga, and the shadow minister for human services, the member for Barton, for their contributions to the debate in this place and to the wider issues that this bill seeks to remedy in Australian society. On that point, I also wish to make a small contribution to an important, wider debate about our social compact to one another as Australians: how we as a society support vulnerable people and how we treat our fellow citizens who are doing it tough; whether we listen to those who are most affected by the decisions we, in this place, make; and what agency we afford to people and to communities to shape their futures and to see their experiences reflected in the decisions made on their behalf by their government. We need to think about agency, dignity and respect as we debate the provisions of this bill. We should not lightly deprive Australians of these. My concern is that implementing the provisions in this bill would do just that. The debate we're having here about the cashless welfare card trial and its extension beyond any reasonable remit is a debate fundamentally, on the one hand, about ideology and, on the other, about evidence. In both of these regards, debate on this bill and on the wider issues has been revealing. The shadow minister, the member for Jagajaga, in her contribution in the second reading debate set out the principles governing the Labor approach to this issue. This is so important. So I join her in stating that I would like to support community driven initiatives to tackle alcohol abuse and all of its consequences, recognising that there are communities which have been reaching out for assistance but also that a cashless debit card or, indeed, any individual public policy initiative is no magic bullet. As the member for Jagajaga said, Labor have consistently said that we would take a community-by-community approach to the further rollout of the cashless card. We'll listen to each community's leaders and talk with them about the consequences of this card being rolled out in their community. Wraparound support services must also be community designed, agreed upon and resourced to address the challenges facing these communities. Of course, they're different in different places. We understand—and this is a very important point—that the vast majority of social security recipients are more than capable of managing their own personal finances. That's why Labor does not support the cashless debit card being rolled out nationwide. It's important that I reiterate the words of the member for Jagajaga, because they go to the very nub of this debate. That last point that she made is so fundamental: we should not assume that people who happen to be in receipt of social security benefits are incapable of making decisions over their lives. We should be very slow to do so. In fact, it's not just me or other Labor members saying this. That is at the core of the concerns which have been expressed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which expressed its concern that the provisions in this bill, unlike some other approaches to income management, do not reflect individual circumstances. It's an odd thing for the party of individualism to be so cavalier in its attitude to this right, although its attitude to rights in general has been exposed shamefully today, as it has, indeed, over the life of this parliament. I turn again to Labor's approach to this issue, which is anchored in our deep sense of respect for individuals and community and our determination to have regard to the evidence in tackling real problems and helping people who are often in very complex circumstances not of their making. There is recognition on this side of the House of the need for a holistic approach to the challenges this bill is intended to address, rather than a superficially attractive quick fix which answers the call of ideology rather more than the calls of lived experience or evidence. Earlier this week—or it may have been last week—I read with great interest an article in The Guardian by the journalist Calla Wahlquist, which highlighted a very troubling and, I say in fairness to the minister and his predecessor, no doubt unintended consequence of the present arrangements which are proposed to be extended—in my view without due warrant. This article is entitled 'Domestic violence survivor could not have escaped abuse on cashless debit card', and it recounts the experiences of Jocelyn Wighton, a woman from Ceduna who said that, without access to her entire disability pension in cash, she would not have been able to afford to start a new life. This, of course, refers to the circumstances of Ceduna, as well as her individual circumstances. I think the article dramatically and, for me, movingly and effectively highlights again an unintended consequence of what I believe to be a well-intentioned intervention: "I'm a domestic violence survivor," Wighton said. "If I was on this card when I escaped from my husband, I would not have made it. I bought secondhand furniture down to the plates and knives and forks. You can't do that on the card." She talks also—movingly again—about the sense of shame that she has. I would commend this article to members because it highlights some of the complexities of individual lives that this instrument addresses. I think it requires all of us to ask ourselves if the intervention is appropriate in all cases and if it answers the aspirations that I think we share. This is why we need, as Labor has proposed, to properly consider firstly what is presently going on in Ceduna and in the East Kimberley, to ensure that proper evaluation is conducted and reviewed and also to listen to all of those who are affected and ensure that their experiences can be adequately reflected in the answers we seek to propose going forward. Let's be very clear. The legislation before the House would license, in effect, the expansion of the trials of cashless debit cards beyond those sites presently underway which impact, I think, some thousands of people in additional locations across the whole of the nation without due process or due consideration. Government members, in supporting this legislation, have spoken of helping young people. It's a laudable goal and it's shared across this chamber, right across this parliament. But we should be careful not to take such claims from government members at face value for two reasons. Firstly, the record of the Turnbull government when it comes to young Australians is simply shocking. The conservatives, since their election, have been prosecuting nothing less than a war on young people. We on this side of the House remember the attempts to leave young jobseekers without any income support for up to six months. We know that today young Australians' futures are being constrained by $17.3 billion of cuts to school education and massive cuts and even greater uncertainty going to post-compulsory education. Young Australians' future is anything but secure under the Turnbull government. Secondly, fundamentally, the evidence is simply not before us to support this claim when it comes to the cashless debit card. We note the claim of the previous minister that it could 'provide additional motivation for a capable young person to take the jobs which are available'. Putting to one side the confidence in jobs being available in particular areas—and let me just say that in some parts of regional Australia, in deference to the areas you represent, Deputy Speaker, I simply do not share the confidence of the Deputy Prime Minister that, wherever young people can move to, jobs will magically appear. That defies the evidence where half of all the jobs in Australia in recent years have been generated in a very small radius around the central business districts of Melbourne and Sydney. I also note that the bill that we're discussing today was rushed on for debate in the House last year while the Senate inquiry into it was underway, not enabling Labor members—principally, the shadow minister—to properly consult with community about the proposals. This is a fundamental problem with legislation like this. It is also said by government members that the extension of the trial, effectively without limitation, is warranted by reason of the evaluations of the Ceduna and East Kimberley trials. Again, this claim simply does not withstand the most cursory scrutiny. I will return to this point again. As we return to the debate this year, in this place, we do have the benefit of the Senate committee review. I do hope that government members, if any are going to continue to participate in this debate, will have close regard to this too—and I say not to the tick and flick of the majority but, rather, the good work of Labor senators who looked to the evidence and the submissions before them and found there is an insufficient basis to establish further trials at this stage. If this government were either reasonable or responsible, it would have regard to this and, in doing so, would show at the very least the courage of its stated convictions. If the case for the extension of the trials is so strong, why not let it be shown to be so? What are they afraid of? The Senate has proposed further amendments consistent with the Labor framework laid out by the shadow minister, which I referred to earlier in this contribution, and the evidence before them. This is the right way to go about this, not to rule the approach out—we're not proposing that through the amendments that we've foreshadowed—but to further interrogate the claims which have been made to consider alternatives and other services, always having regard to those whose lives are directly affected and their human rights. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has raised significant concerns which should not be lightly disregarded. It remains unclear whether the wide extension of the trial is a proportionate response to the important rights which are engaged. The committee found there to be serious doubts as to whether the measures proposed in the legislation are suitable in contrast with other income-managing approaches which reflect individual circumstances, not the blanket approach which is contained in this legislation. It's clear also that we need to continue building the evidence base if we are to deliver policies which are effective. So, as Labor proposes, let us continue and refine the present trial and see—as the present legislation in fact requires—what comes of this. I want to speak briefly about the evaluation, because this is something government members have been hanging their hat on improperly. If we look to the evaluation, there are serious concerns that go to its findings, which seem, on fair examination, to be inconclusive. I note, just as one example, there is reference in the evaluation to some positive self-assessments by participants and community leaders, and I take them seriously. But these are inconsistent with some of the objective data which has also been derived. These are things which require further work before we roll out a program such as this more broadly. Perhaps more telling to me than these issues with the findings—which we need to work through further—are the concerns that go to methodology. These, I believe, have been compounded by this rushed approach, racing to meet a preconceived ideological answer before considering the evidence. We do need to consider the evidence. And, in doing so, we need to reflect on the fact that the evaluation that the government's case is founded on rests on no baseline data, no control evidence and—this would be dear to the heart of the member for Fenner—no randomised individuals forming the basis of the trial. This is what we have seen from so many of the stakeholders—indeed, I would say almost all of the stakeholders without a particular interest; I note the AHA is a supporter—such as ACOSS, WACOSS and the Queensland Council of Social Service. The Australian Association of Social Workers' submission importantly highlights the weakness of the evaluation and, in particular, says: … it contravenes the expectation of fairness and assumption of autonomy that underpins welfare support payments. I think this is a really important point and it goes the nub of the issues which are before us here, and that is to give a sense of agency and a sense of decency to the individuals who are affected, as well as to the communities in which they live. The Labor approach is not to say no to an extension of proposals such as these but to ask that the government properly interrogates them, having regard to the evidence and fundamentally to the lived experience of those affected. That's why I support the amendments foreshadowed by the member for Jagajaga. (Time expired) 16:33 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I rise to speak in praise of Andrew Forrest, who has the only big mining company left that is still in an Australian hands. To his credit, he could have sold out for his fortune somewhere along the line. He is very patriotic. He went to a school that was predominantly First Australian. I went to a school that was about 40 per cent First Australian. You can't go to school with kids and play football with them and not end up with them being your mates. I have not the slightest doubt about his sincerity on this issue. A very controversial issue, it's brought him a lot of criticism, but he believes in it. He's the only employer in Australia that I know that employs 600 people of First Australian descent. One of my townsmen went to boarding school in Charters Towers, like myself. He was a boss at Fortescue, a CEO, so I know the intimate workings of Fortescue, quite apart from any friendship I might have, big or little, with Andrew Forrest. They're the only organisation in this country that has a cadre of people—I think there were six in the group—who, if people don't turn up for work, go around, nurse them, do everything humanly possible to keep them at work. It's not just a matter of giving them the jobs; they give them the backup to keep the jobs. When I worked at Mount Isa Mines, I think there were three First Australians on my 12-man gang. I was just an unskilled labourer there. The boss of the lead smelter, Charlie Ah Wing, was one of the pallbearer's at my father's funeral. Charlie was the big boss there, and he was First Australian, very proudly Kalkatungu. Having said all of those things, if I were on the ALP side, I really would not be throwing stones. They were there for six straight years. Up until two years ago, they were the government of Australia. Mr Dreyfus HWG More like five. Mr KATTER HX4 I don't want my remarks to be construed as being positive about the other side of the parliament, who have been there for most of the last 12 years. Our diabetes is at epidemic levels. In fact, I would hope that other nations do not find out what the level of diabetes is in Australia. A lot of people say diabetes is just malnutrition, because the people can't get a decent diet. Most of them are on welfare in the community areas in the Gulf of Carpentaria and Cape York, where most First Australians live, not in the Northern Territory. In one community of about 300 people, two people died of diabetes the fortnight before I was visiting, and the matron in charge of the hospital there said another one would die that month—three people from a community of 300. That would not be atypical of the community areas in Queensland, where some 40,000 or 50,000 people live. They can't afford to get fresh fruit and vegetables into these areas. There are a number of people in this parliament still that went on a fact-finding mission to the Torres Strait. I never wanted to go back to the Torres Strait, because, as minister for six, seven, eight years—I don't know; whatever it was—in Queensland, I'd seen paradise. I never wanted to go back there again, because it would never be as good as when I saw it as minister. I have some emotional difficulties in expressing this to the House, actually. When we went to the island of Joey Mosby, who was no fan of mine when I was minister—he fell into a category of people that were not keen on self-management and other areas—he stood up at the back of a meeting and yelled out, 'Bobby, they're murdering my people.' The chairman of the committee, who is now a frontbencher on the Labor side said, 'What's all that about?' I said, 'You people and the Liberals banned market gardens.' Every house, every family up in the Torres Strait had a market garden. They had yams, taros, sweet potatoes, bananas, mangoes and numerous other things all growing in the backyard. I cannot remember having a meal in the Torres Strait, in my six, eight years—whatever it was—as minister, where all of the food, not just some of the food, was not Indigenous. Turtle, dugong, fish, crayfish, crab and all of the things I mentioned before, fruit and vegetables, all came from the Torres Strait. This time when I went up there to that same island, Joey Mosby's island, I actually paced out the shelf space. One-seventh of the entire shelf was taken up with rice. This is a really grindingly poor Third World country, and you created that—you people in this parliament. It's on your consciences. Who do we blame? Who banned the market gardens? That sounds horrific and it sounds unbelievable. Why did you ban the market gardens of the Torres Strait? Because you said disease could come down from New Guinea. AQIS couldn't be bothered putting any AQIS officers at the Torres Strait's Horn Island Airport. The only way of getting into Australia is through the airport. They couldn't even be bothered putting a quarantine officer there, and yet they could go and ban every single market garden in the Torres Strait. They couldn't be bothered putting a single AQIS officer at the Jardine River, which is the only other real way of entering Australia with anything from the Torres Strait. You can either land and come by road transport or cross the Jardine River and go on the Jardine River ferry, so all you've got to do is pay someone there to check out the food coming in from the Torres Strait or New Guinea, and similarly at the airport. But they didn't have officers at either place. Over a long period of time, I've kicked up such a hell of a stink, and I proudly say that I think I was the only voice that did, and we do have officers now inspecting at both those places. But that didn't help the Torres Strait Island people, who are now dying in massive numbers as a result of decisions by this place. No-one seems to feel ashamed. No-one has any sense of shame. What do they do? The Labor government of Queensland went out and brought in Mr Fitzgerald, who had destroyed our government, to tell us what was wrong in the community areas and what to do about it. This absolutely brilliant person came up with the fact that it was alcohol that was the problem. Oh, what a searching finding! Oh, what a brilliant intellectual insight! It was alcohol that caused it. Alcohol was the cause—not the effect but the cause. Therefore, he said, 'Let's ban alcohol.' So he advocated that we have racial laws in Australia: whitefellas can drink but we blackfellas can't. There's no way that you can say anything else except that that is a racist law. It applies to blackfellas; it does not apply to whitefellas. If you doubt what I'm saying, have a look at the diabetes figures, because they're the highest in the world. I just picked diabetes. There are a dozen other diseases, but I haven't got time to go through all those. On the unemployment figures, every community area in Queensland has a higher unemployment rate than any whitefella community in Australia, by a long way—the highest unemployment rates, probably, in the world. The crime rate is higher than any whitefella community in the country. When this brilliant ban on alcohol occurred, what happened was that all the alcoholics moved into Townsville, Mount Isa, Alice Springs, Darwin, Cairns or Mareeba—all the no-hoper crowd. So what happened in Townsville is that Townsville now has the highest crime rate in Australia and the highest unemployment rate in Australia. That was imposed by the brainless B-A-S-T-A-R-Ds who imposed the ban on alcohol. I'll be very specific about Townsville. We have 110 cars being thieved every month in Townsville, which means that, over a 15-year period, every single family in Townsville will have their car thieved. That's the result of this decision. The suicide rates in these communities, once again, are the highest in the world. You measure a nation by the way it treats its poorest people and its most downtrodden people. If we're being judged by that then we are judged abominably and we must stand as a pariah amongst nations. If I speak with passion, it's because these are persons that I know. I was speaking about this to Barry Waldron, the brother of the famous Clarence Waldron—I put Clarence in my book An Incredible Race of People: A Passionate History of Australia because I thought his comments were important enough to go into the book. When they banned alcohol, they said to me, 'We discussed it. We've appointed representatives from your community and'—surprise, surprise!—'they've all voted to ban alcohol.' Three people yelled out, 'Yeah, the missionary ladies.' I'm a practising Christian and I greatly revere the missionary ladies. They set a very good example in the community. But it was a fair call to say that they appointed the missionary ladies to decide whether they should not have alcohol at Doomadgee. Clarence Waldron said—and I've quoted this a million times: 'You don't come here and say what's what, and that's that. This is my land! This is my land! You don't come here and say what's what, and that's that. This is my land!' And, yes, as a person that identifies as a blackfella in my homeland, I proudly say that we held British occupation at bay for nearly 70 years at Kalkadoon. Not a bad effort. Because of that, Clarence Waldron can proudly stand up and say, 'This is my land.' But it's not his land if we go in there and tell him he's not allowed to drink alcohol. The only group of people on earth banned from drinking alcohol are the First Australians in Australia. And why are you doing it? You're doing it to suppress the symptoms, to hide the horror that is out there. You want to hide it so no-one can see it. Noely Pearson disagrees with me on this. Noel said, 'I don't argue with you that it is an effect, not a cause.' But he said, 'It has now become a causal effect and we must address it.' He has probably changed his position a bit on this. I said to Noely, and most certainly to his brother Gerhardt, that, if it was going to achieve anything, surely it would have achieved something after 10 years. Now I'm going to switch subjects completely. When poker machines were introduced, under the much-maligned Bjelke-Petersen government, they were banned in Queensland and I was his right-hand man in banning them. As soon as we were thrown out the socialists came in and immediately introduced pokies. They are big bankrollers of the Labor Party—we all know that—and the Liberal Party too. But the Labor Party was in power and they introduced them. At the Buffalo Club in Mount Isa, where I spend a lot of my time, Bobby Jacobson said: 'I should never tell this story, you should be the last person I tell this to, but $3.2 million a year is sailing out of Mount Isa down the throats of the poker machines and into the hands of the government of Queensland.' That is for a town of 20,000 people. That's coming out of the pockets of the poorest people in that community. Bobby Leong, the prominent First Australian leader and long-term president of one of our best rugby league clubs there—I had the dishonour of sitting on the sideline when his brother scored against 11 tries against Cloncurry!—said— (Time expired) 16:48 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman There are countless differences between Labor and the Liberals. When it comes to values, we stand on opposite sides of the spectrum. When it comes to policies, we are really, really worlds apart. When it comes to the way we operate, we're nothing alike. There are many points of difference between the Liberal and Labor parties. The Liberals, our current government, tend to run in, guns blazing, without proper consideration. They base policies on flippant thought bubbles that might make for good sound bites but really do lack in substance and consideration. But we in Labor think things through. We consult with people, we consult with business, we consult with communities and we listen. We use the evidence available to formulate strong, really sensible policy. That's why we in Labor are reserving our position on the cashless debit card for welfare recipients until the completion of the Senate inquiry. For such a drastic overhaul of the current welfare system, it was absolutely crucial that this inquiry was undertaken. I suppose the question is: why would Labor support such a measure if it did more harm than good? Labor is in this for people. That's how we viewed this piece of legislation. That's how we viewed the Senate inquiry. We view it in terms of how it impacts people, how it helps people and how it assists victims of drug and alcohol abuse and the communities that they live in. Labor will always support community-driven initiatives to tackle abuse. Whilst it's heartbreaking that they are needed in our communities, I have to say my community is fortunate enough to have support from some truly amazing and incredible services. They are services provided by some wonderful organisations in my community like the Caboolture Neighbourhood Centre, our local headspace, the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health and the Primary Health Networks. They're doing wonderful work. These organisations and service providers understand that people who suffer from drug and alcohol abuse are people who need support. They understand that people are all so different. There are different people that may have different needs, different goals and different struggles, so it only makes sense that they may require different approaches. I don't believe in a blanket approach to income management. I think that's pretty lazy. Neither I nor my party, the Labor Party, believe in a national rollout of a cashless debit card. It's quite clear that the vast majority of income support recipients are more than capable of managing their own finances and that being forced onto income management simply won't help. Labor has said all along that we will consult with individual communities, that we will talk with them and that we will listen—and then, and only then, will we make decisions on a location-by-location basis. Labor supported the trials of the cashless debit card in the East Kimberley and Ceduna on the basis that the communities wanted to trial the card. After years and years of cyclical issues of abuse and of disadvantage plaguing their areas, they were willing to try something different—a circuit breaker. Labor has been happy to support this test. We've been waiting for the results that have sufficiently indicated whether the trials should be either expanded or concluded, and we're still waiting for these results. The Senate inquiry has heard that the evaluations of the existing trials have been unreliable and that no judgements can be made on the basis of the information that's been collected to date, so I think it's understandable that Labor won't support expanding this trial until we see credible results. I'd also note that, in addition to the poor quality of the evaluation, the trials haven't really been running long enough to form solid conclusions. I think it would only make sense that the trials on those two sites continue until we can properly formulate accurate results from accurate data. Unfortunately, true to form, we've seen this government announce, in 2017, budget plans to expand the trial to two further locations: the Western Australian Goldfields and, in my home state of Queensland and not very far from my electorate, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. So I would ask those opposite: what if? What if, when we finally get reliable results from these existing trials, we find out that the cashless debit card is ineffective? Or, even worse, what if it had a negative effect on those communities? In particular, we've heard from communities in the Bundaberg and Goldfields regions that there's been insufficient consultation with people who actually live there and know their communities. And yet this government wants to rush ahead without thinking, without talking, without listening and without a clear framework in place. They haven't properly specified how people in trial areas could have a proportion of their income support payments on the cards reduced, and they haven't properly specified how these people can exit that trial either. There needs to be a plan. We owe it to these communities and we owe it to the people who live there. So until this government can present a plan, we in Labor will oppose expanding this trial. Shaky evidence that's based upon unreliable evaluations and murky consultation processes might be good enough for the other side of the House but it's not good enough for this side of the House, especially when we're talking about people, their lives and their livelihoods, which are all at stake. The sheer lack of compassion makes me question—it really does—this government's motives behind these measures. Surely, if they truly cared about helping people they'd take the time needed to work out the best possible solution for everyone involved. What they should do is what the Queensland government's done. The Palaszczuk Labor government have been consulting with committees right across the state to formulate an action plan to tackle the epidemic of methamphetamines. One of these consultation events took place in my electorate at Longman, just down the road from my office in Caboolture, down at the Caboolture RSL. I attended alongside our local state member, the Hon. Mark Ryan, who also holds the police and corrective services portfolio. It was a truly valuable experience and a strong reminder of the value of listening. Just to give you an example, when I was attending I came into the Caboolture RSL, signed in and said hello to one of the staff members I regularly see on the desk. She asked me if I was going upstairs to the ice summit. I said, 'Yes, I am.' She said to me, 'I lost two children to ice.' I've been going to the Caboolture RSL for a lot of years and I never knew that story. I never knew that story that she'd lost two children to ice. It just reminds me, re-enforces, how important it is that we consult with people when we're talking about our social issues. The data and evidence from the round table I attended that day are helping the Palaszczuk government finalise their action plan to really tackle the issue around ice addiction. That draft plan has 65 recommendations. Across different regions and across different demographics, it has 65 actions—not just one, but 65. I think this federal government would need to take a page out of the Queensland government's book. They need to understand the importance of listening, of consultation and how dangerous it is to move with haste and not be patient where it's needed. You can't rush through trials like this. Labor will not support this trial extending until we have received that evidence of reliable data from the existing trials that suggest they have been successful. We won't support these measures until the government can show us that they have a plan to transition sites following their trials, whether they're successful or not. What's the plan? What's the plan for those people in Bundaberg and the western Goldfields? Of course, we won't support the government forcing such drastic measures on communities that do not want them. As I said, until the government can agree to Labor's amendments, I won't be supporting this bill, of course. Vulnerable communities like mine deserve the respect of consultation. They deserve to be listened to. Whether it's consultation around matters such as these, such as major overhauls, or changes to systems or services, communities deserve respect in being consulted. Vulnerable communities deserve respect. They need to know that they've got measures that work, not just ones that the government assume do because they've written them on a piece of paper, so of course they must work. They need to be consulted on these. I've seen the damage that substance abuse can do to a community, and it's heartbreaking. I've heard the stories of lives that have been shattered, of families that have been shattered—of how the life of that woman at the Caboolture RSL and her family have been shattered. More needs to be done, not less. More support needs to be given. But rushing through these measures in their current form won't help with the help that vulnerable Australians need. Just prior to the member for Kennedy, the member for Scullin spoke, and he was sharing with us a story about a woman re-establishing her life after domestic violence. Part of that re-establishment meant buying second-hand furniture—plates, cups; some second-hand items to get her house re-established. This could be a woman in any part of the country. It could be a woman in my electorate. It could be a woman in Bundaberg. It could be a woman in the western Goldfields. Has this government stopped to think about how important that is for that woman to re-establish herself, to re-establish a home, and what a cashless debit card would mean to her—what it would mean to have income management forced upon her? I mentioned before that in my electorate, down in Caboolture, we have a great market on a Sunday. It overflows with people buying their fruit and vegies. They're affordable fruit and vegies from local growers. For a lot of people, this is how they feed their family. Could you imagine having a debit card forced upon you if this is where you get your family's food from? This legislation, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, needs sensible amendments, ones that of course I agree with, the ones that Labor has put forward. They ensure consultation. They will take a good hard look at the evidence and ensure that people who live in those communities that will be impacted by the introduction of a cashless debit card are consulted and that there is actually an appetite and a welcoming of this as a way of dealing with some of their community's issues. 17:03 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle It's with pleasure that I rise to speak on this bill in the House tonight. It's a pleasure only in the sense that my comments come from a place of concern about the legislation being put before the House this evening, concern that is based upon both evidence that has come before respective committees of this parliament and the experiences of Indigenous men and women who have talked to me about the implications of this proposal in their communities and concerns about the expansion of such proposed trials into new communities. The bill before us is the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. In essence, this bill is seeking to remove section 124PF of the Social Security (Administration) Act, which is the one that currently provides for the trial sites for the cashless debit cards in three discrete locations, puts a cap on there being no more than 10,000 participants and in fact expires on 30 June this year. The bill seeks to make amendments to allow for both the continuation of the cashless debit card in existing sites and the potential expansion of the cashless debit card into new locations. Regrettably, it does so on, at best, very flimsy evidence, and that is a real problem for us as lawmakers and policymakers. We do not have substantive evidence before us to be able to say that these measures are meeting the deliverable outcomes—that there were clear purposes set down for the cashless debit card and there have been terrific measured outcomes and you can see the genuine social, cultural and economic advantages of the cashless debit card. We don't have any of that before us so, like my Labor colleagues speaking to this bill today, I have grave concerns about a number of aspects in this bill. I am deeply concerned about the non-voluntary nature of the measures in this bill. I am also deeply concerned about the clearly disproportionate impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and those who don't have drug, alcohol or gambling concerns, and in these communities there are many. This approach of throwing a big wide net to capture everybody in a community with this very blunt instrument—the cashless debit card—sweeps up everybody and in doing so completely disempowers so many people in those communities. I could not even begin to imagine what it would be like to have spent my life determining my future and that of my family and being an autonomous human being and a great contributor to my community and perhaps being a leader in that community and to now have to forgo all of that autonomy because the government prefers to cast the wide net and throw a very blunt instrument at what is a very deep, historical, social and economic challenge in many of our communities. To me that is the essence of lazy policymaking. That is an example of a government that has such short-term thinking and has such a narrow focus on the situation before it. It is indicative of a gross lack of vision. It's indicative of the complete lack of ambition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia. In a few days this House is going to have the Closing the Gap report before it again. Without pre-empting that report, I expect that, like the years beforehand, that report is going to gravely let down Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia. Every one of us in this House should be deeply ashamed by the continued lack of progress. I am hopeful that we will see in the Closing the Gap report some progress around some of the education indicators and some movement towards both secondary and higher education achievements for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in this country, but I think we are all dreading that report in the sense that there will be continued failures of government policy to have the desired impact and outcomes. You would think that the Australian parliament might learn from these mistakes that we face year after year after year. You might think those of us in this place might think, 'Well, we're not getting it right when we simply seek to impose policy solutions on these communities.' We've got any number of reports and examples to show that this is a pathway to failure. Yet, here we have before us another piece of legislation that I would argue does exactly that. It is exactly what we know doesn't work. Where is the plan for jobs in remote and regional Australia? Where are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people going to be getting their jobs, participating in mainstream economic activity, earning a livelihood to increase their quality of life and having a decent income? There aren't any plans for that on the table. Where are the plans that are going to improve Indigenous health and wellbeing in Australia? For goodness sake, this government can't even commit to a housing agreement across the states and territories in Australia! Right now, there are communities everywhere screaming out for safe, affordable housing options in their communities. We know that housing is one of those social determinants for quality health and wellbeing in our communities. But, no, we've got no answer for jobs and employment for these communities that are crying out for some kind of support mechanism. We've got no investment in important infrastructure, like housing, in these communities. We've got no additional adequately funded and long-term wraparound services that would assist people seeking rehabilitation around alcohol, drugs, and gambling addictions. That's not part of the government's thinking. That's not part of the plan here. No! And that is why I call this policy out as lazy policy. We see it far too often in this House, and nowhere is it made more clear than policies directed at first nation peoples. Each and every time this government says: 'Frankly, we don't know what to do. We're going to throw this one out there, and see how that goes. But don't worry. It'll just be a temporary measure. It's a bit of time-out for these communities who are facing challenges.' I don't underestimate for one moment the challenges that a number of these communities are facing. People absolutely are crying out for support and help around the drug, alcohol and gambling addictions that are troubling not just to those individuals but to entire families and networks within communities. I don't underestimate that for one moment. But, as I said, what is required in those situations is community-driven solutions—community-driven solutions that are then supported by us in this House. They are supported financially. Indeed, there are other sorts of support in terms of infrastructure and encouragement around being able to assist communities to implement great community-driven solutions. We've seen this in places like Fitzroy Crossing, a place that I called home for many years in my life, with some of the most amazing people I have known—predominantly women. Very strong Bunuba women—and not just Bunuba women—have led really brave and courageous changes in their community to deal with the issue around alcohol and the impact that that was having for kids in their community in particular. They have managed to turn around a situation without blaming particular persons and without victimising or socially isolating parts of their communities. They have engendered great community buy-in to the solutions in their town that are going to work to help turn around that alcohol addiction in Fitzroy Crossing. There's much evidence, and that story is now well documented. I say this House should be supporting those kinds of community-driven approaches and pathways that assist communities to empower their own people. They, in fact, know much better than most in this House what will work in those communities. Regrettably, what we have before us in this House is, as I said, a very narrowly focused piece of legislation that purports to be a temporary measure—but we've seen what temporary measures are like in this House. They have a terrible habit of becoming permanent impositions in communities as decades go by, chipping away slowly at any efforts at self-management and any efforts to restore autonomy to families and community lives. We do people no favours when we disempower them. We do communities no favours when we do not support their own community-driven solutions and approaches. It is a great disappointment that we appear not to be learning from important lessons shown to us in the past. If there were terrific community support backing in these proposals, or if there were a body of strong evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of these proposals, that would be a different conversation for this House. There have been many alternative approaches put before the Senate inquiry. Regrettably, we're not exploring those in this House. We're not looking at different ways that you might look at increasing taxation on alcohol to assist with those. Again, a narrowly focused— (Time expired) 17:18 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I'm really pleased to rise today to support the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. Many Australians enjoy the freedom to crack open a coldie—crack open a beer with mates—or have a punt on the Melbourne Cup on Melbourne Cup Day, but we in this House are all aware that the flip side of these freedoms is that gambling, drugs and alcohol abuse can have dire consequences in our society. I see it regularly as the member for Petrie, with different families that come into my office for various reasons. It could be family breakdown or domestic violence, and a lot of the time it is associated with these issues. The latest statistics—before the member for Newcastle leaves the chamber—from the ABS show that in 2016 374 people died from alcohol-induced causes and 1,808 died from drug-induced causes. That, I think, is very conservative too, because it doesn't look at all the other health effects that are related to it. This is not a subject that members in this place should skim over or ignore. Beyond fatalities, there are many other associated consequences, including abuse in the family home, depression and ongoing health issues. These ongoing health issues involve chronic diseases that can and will seriously impact on the person's quality of life and their ability to participate in their community. These issues also hinder a return to the workforce. If someone presented evidence to a member of parliament in this place—there are 150 members here from different parties—that a program would reduce drinking abuse by 41 per cent and reduce drug abuse and gambling by 48 per cent, it would be irresponsible for that member not to implement this program. The arguments that I've heard in here today are, at best, very weak. The word 'consultation' has been used, but I'll touch on consultation again in a minute, on the trial programs. These statistics are very real. They're real. They are the real-life changes that have occurred in two trial sites for the cashless debit cards. The member for Grey in the House yesterday outlined some of the benefits he saw in the community of Ceduna in South Australia. He spoke of the reduction in alcohol use, illegal drug use and the amount of money spent on gambling. He said there was a big reduction. He also spoke on the benefit of the look of the cashless debit card. One of the problems with the BasicsCard, it has been reported, is that it comes with a level of shame; the BasicsCard looks different. The cashless debit card just looks like everyone else's debit card, so there is no shame or stigma attached. Mr Deputy Speaker, here is my phone. On the back of my phone I carry my debit card. I don't carry cash anymore. If I want to buy a $4 coffee, I don't carry the cash; I just payWave it. And payWave is pretty well accepted everywhere. I would imagine that most people in this House would do the same—that they'd carry their debit card. It's a common form of payment. You don't need cash, okay? It's common to be able to payWave things now. The cashless debit card takes aim at the social harm caused by alcohol, drug abuse and gambling. I must also give credit to the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, who yesterday spoke about the children that this will affect and the importance of implementing this program right across the country. Participants in the program receive 80 per cent of their welfare payment onto the debit card. So onto the card, like this one here, they receive 80 per cent each fortnight. They can use their card in shops, the same way they use existing debit cards, while restricting the purchase of alcohol or gambling services, or withdrawals or cash payments. And that's fine. The participants still receive the remaining 20 per cent of their payments into their nominated bank account. So they can still actually get 20 per cent as cash. I just don't understand how any member or any senator could vote against this proposal when 80 per cent of the participant's welfare income is put onto a card that can be used for everyday items: grabbing a coffee, going to the supermarket, or buying clothes, schoolbooks or new school shoes for their kids—whatever it is, they can use the card. Twenty per cent they can take out in cash and it can be used for whatever they wish. That sounds very reasonable to me, and not one argument put forward today or yesterday has had a lot of merit to it, if you are against this idea. In my electorate of Petrie I spoke to representatives from local organisations that see the effects from individuals spending their payments on alcohol and gambling and not on the basic necessities like food and clothing for their family. Mary-Ann from Kairos Community College, a community college in Deception Bay in my area, thinks this program should be rolled out to all people aged 16 years and over. With her work in the community at Kairos Community College and the school, she knows too many individuals who choose to spend their entire welfare payment on illegal drugs and who, as a result, are currently homeless. That's what she told me. The parliament has the opportunity to help fix this problem. It won't fix the problem completely. People will still have 20 per cent cash, but this will go a long way to fixing the problem, and the statistics in the trial sites currently prove it. Lisa from Active 60 And Better thinks that this is a great program. She believes that intergenerational welfare is an issue prevalent in her community. By helping recipients spend their money on essentials, the program would be a big win for the community. She said it really is sad when you see children at the local pub at midday with their parents rather than being at school. The fourth proposed trial site is in the federal seat of Hinkler. I thank the member for Hinkler for coming in and listening to my speech today. It is proposed that those under the age of 35 living in the Bundaberg, Hervey Bay, Childers and Howard regions who receive Newstart, youth allowance and parenting payments will transition over to the cashless debit card. Last night the member for Hinkler outlined his support of the proposed trial in his electorate. That's what we want to vote on here, to make sure that we can get this trial up into the member for Hinkler's area as well. He's right here next to me. He knows his community better than anyone else in this House, and he would like the opportunity. Extensive consultation has been carried out in the member for Hinkler's seat, including 55 local service providers, I believe, and peak bodies on the front line working with disadvantaged families; two community information sessions open to the public; 26 consultations with local church groups; and 25 meetings with local government. The members who are talking about consultation, are you listening? Are you listening to what I'm saying? There have been three meetings with the Queensland state government and direct engagement with over 70 community members, either through direct correspondence or meetings. Some 32,000 emails have been sent out from your office. Is that right? Mr Pitt interjecting— Mr HOWARTH 247742 5½ thousand—32,000 direct mail, 5,000 emails, and phone polling of around 500 people by the member for Hinkler. He's sitting next to me. I think 75 per cent of the feedback received from speaking with that community supports the cashless debit card. They support it. This region was selected as a potential trial site, and they desperately want it up there. The same feedback has been received from the government's other trial sites in the Ceduna—I spoke about the member for Grey—and East Kimberley regions. As I noted earlier in this speech, I was interested to read the comments of Kimberley local leader Ian Trust. He said, 'Unlike other reform efforts undertaken by government, it has been the Indigenous leaders of the East Kimberley who have led this reform.' When comparing trends a year on in the East Kimberley region the results are fantastic: a 28 per cent decrease in St John Ambulance call-outs; a 20 per cent decrease in community patrol pick-ups in the first six months of the trial; a 48 per cent decrease in referrals to the Kimberley Mental Health and Drug Service. So I say to the members that come into this place and say there hasn't been consultation: are they looking at the ABS statistics and are they listening to these figures? Because if they were, they would jump at the opportunity to roll this program out right around the country. Mr Trust said the reason he was one of four Indigenous leaders to sign off on this trial is that they have been trying the same programs for 40 years, and nothing is changing. We come into this place every year and we listen to the Closing the Gap report, and then the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and everyone says, 'We're making some improvement, but a lot hasn't been improved. There's a lot more needs to be done.' When a program like this that produces statistics and with extensive consultation shows real results, members come in here and baulk, and I say shame on you. I listened to the member for Denison. What a pathetic contribution that was to this debate earlier today. It really was quite offensive listening to the member for Denison. He rolled out the excuse, 'Well, it was expensive.' Every other time he looks at a government program, he says we're trying to save money. He said it was racist, but we hear from Mr Truss how well it is working in Indigenous communities. It is not racist, because we want to roll it out in other trial sites, like the member for Hinkler's electorate, where the majority of people are not Indigenous. He said it was an ideological vendetta, but I say to the member for Denison that the only person with an ideological vendetta is yourself. You vote against government policy even if it's good policy, even if it's backed by ABS statistics and consultation through these communities where we want to roll it out. I have heard from other members here today that there's not enough consultation. They're wrong. I say to the people in this House today, the members and those listening in the gallery, if you think of people that gamble and spend their money, and they come back and they've lost all their money for the week on gambling, how do they feel when they come home? I would suggest they feel depressed, angry and desperate. What about someone who's an alcoholic? The member for Denison says 75 per cent don't have a problem. That may be true. Well, they won't be affected, will they? If they don't buy alcohol or don't go gambling, it won't matter if they don't have access to it on their card and they still have 20 per cent cash in their pocket. But what about the 25 per cent that are affected? What about the alcoholic that comes home in the middle of the night and wakes up in the morning and the 11-year-old son says, 'Dad, there's nothing to eat.' How do you think he feels? I think he feels dreadful. I don't think he'll be able to function properly, and I think that they will, in many cases, need mental health support. This is a win-win situation. I say to members that if you don't vote for this, you are guilty of maintaining the status quo. Look carefully at what you support. I understand that members opposite don't always want to vote for what the government proposes, but this was supposed to be a bipartisan program that's meant to help Australians, the very people that we're elected to represent. I haven't heard any argument from those opposite. If anyone else gets up and talks about consultation again, give me a break, when I've just read out the statistics and the consultation that the member for Hinkler has taken in his electorate alone. I believe that if this goes through, people will thank us. If you have a gambling problem and you can only lose 20 per cent of your cash, and a couple of days later you've got 80 per cent left, I think they'll thank us. I'd ask members and senators to support this bill. 17:33 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I speak in support of the position put by the member for Jagajaga on behalf of the opposition in respect to this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. I have listened to most of the speeches given by members on both sides with respect to this legislation. I don't question for a moment the sincerity of their belief in their remarks and in their efforts to respond to what is a very serious social problem, in which alcohol, drug abuse or gambling—indeed at times a combination of all those—are generally the underlying contributing factors. The reality is that efforts to manage alcohol abuse, drug abuse or gambling have proven to be very difficult across all communities right throughout Australia and, indeed, throughout the world. It's also the case that alcohol, drug and gambling addictions cause suffering to innocent people, often children, to whom we also have a responsibility to protect. That speakers both for and against this legislation have been so passionate tells me that there is some truth to many of the arguments that have been put forward. More importantly, it tells me that there is not unanimous agreement on the merits of the cashless debit card proposal. For that reason alone, the government should proceed with caution. The fact is that the evidence about the effectiveness of the cashless debit card is inconclusive and opinions are, indeed, divided. That being the case, the extension of the program into more communities—that is, in the Goldfields of Western Australia and Bundaberg and Hervey Bay in Queensland—should be put on hold. The fact is that the existing cashless welfare card trials commenced in March 2016 in Ceduna and in April 2016 in the East Kimberly. They were assessed less than a year after that. Unless those trials were an overwhelming success, which is not what the evidence suggests, then the trial period should be extended for a further period and then they should be evaluated. That would enable a much clearer picture of the effects of the trial as well as much more time to consult with local communities about what works best for them. That is what Labor is proposing by extending the trial date of the Ceduna and East Kimberly community programs to end in July 2019. It's one more year. Quite frankly, within that year, there would be a much clearer picture of how effective the trials have been or, indeed, whether they have not been effective. This is a matter which profoundly affects the lives of people involved in the trials. To tell people that they will not be able to access all of their entitlements other than through a card which limits the way that they spend their money is a fairly profound decision for government to make. Indeed, I ask members of this parliament how many of them would like to have their finances managed the same way. Because it affects people so personally, every member of this parliament should consider very carefully the impact it will have on the lives of the people affected. The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquired into this matter and reported to parliament in December last year. Not surprisingly, the report was not unanimous. When a parliamentary committee inquires into a matter and presents a divided report, it is a clear signal to parliament to proceed with caution. That is the very purpose and value of the parliamentary committee process. We should not ignore that. Committees of parliament are used as a tool by the parliament to better inform the parliamentary members before decisions are made. Yet the government wants us to ignore that report, which was not unanimous, and thus make a mockery of the parliamentary process. Since the trials commenced, I have personally received many representations from people knowledgeable about the trials, who have expressed their criticism of them and concern to me. Not too long ago, I spoke with Aboriginal health workers whose work takes them into the Ceduna area. They raised with me their grave reservations about the trials and the negative outcomes that they noted with the cashless welfare card. These were the very people who have to deal with the fallout of the use of these cards and the fallout of the problems that these cards are intended to try and address, but, because they work for government, they are reluctant to speak out themselves and would prefer not to. I understand that, but, at the end of the day, it's people like them that we should listen to, because they are right in the firing line of trying to manage the problems of the communities that we are targeting with the cashless welfare card. I also listened carefully to the speech of the member for Lingiari. He supports Labor's position and spoke passionately in defence of it. I've known the member for Lingiari since I first joined this parliament over a decade ago. His experience and understanding in the very communities on whom the trials are being imposed, or proposed to be, should not be ignored. I know that he has the best welfare of those communities at heart when he comes into this place and says, 'Let's proceed with caution.' Let's extend the trials for another 12 months. Let's evaluate them then and we will be in a better position to know not only which other communities they should be trialled in, if at all, but also what changes should be made if they are to be extended into a new community. Indeed, are the current guidelines with respect to the cashless welfare card exactly as we want them. I doubt very much that we got the guidelines absolutely perfectly right the first time round. Have we learnt nothing from the trials that might enable us to change the guidelines and make the card more effective, if that is the way that parliament wants to go? I said earlier on that this is an issue that goes right to the heart of how we treat people. It's an issue that makes a huge impact on the lives of the people who are caught up in these trials. That's why I keep reiterating that we should proceed with caution. There are some other matters that I want to raise with respect to the trials. Firstly, the trials are intended, predominantly, to target a particular sector of the Australian community—that is, Indigenous Australians. In Ceduna, my understanding is that 75 per cent of the people who are participating in the trial are Indigenous Australians. In the East Kimberley, the figure is 82 per cent. This is not just coincidence. The reality is that this trial is predominantly targeted towards Indigenous Australians. The fact remains that Indigenous Australians have been racially discriminated against, neglected, abused and disadvantaged for decades. I don't point the finger at anyone at all in that respect; I simply make a statement of fact. Treating them differently to other Australians now not only continues that discrimination but also is demeaning and demoralising, which is the very opposite of what we should do if we are going to ever close the gap. I understand that there have been some concerns expressed with respect to our human rights obligations to these people and how this measure may, indeed, infringe and impact on the human rights of those who are participating. That may be a side issue for the time being but the reality is that it is a matter that should not be ignored. In my view, the ultimate answer to fixing the problem is to close the gap when it comes to health, education, employment, housing and the like—doing all the things that enable Indigenous people to be able to live a similar life to everyone else in this country. Maybe the gambling, the drug addiction, the alcohol addiction and the domestic violence would also diminish proportionately as that gap is diminished. I would have thought that one of our most important objectives if we're going to close the gap would be to ensure that people are able to take responsibility for their own lives. Yet this very measure does the exact opposite. It takes away the ability of people to take control and responsibility for their lives. The social problems of remote Aboriginal communities are, indeed, complex, and both state and federal governments of all persuasions have struggled with the problems for decades. Most of the people affected by the trials are not drug addicts, not gamblers and not alcoholics, yet they will be caught up in the trial itself and they will be obliged to abide by the rules that apply to the cashless debit card. Why are they being caught up in a process when they have done absolutely nothing wrong other than to say that they happen to live in the two communities in which the trials are currently underway? Indeed, if a cashless debit card is to be used, perhaps, rather than identifying specific communities, we should be identifying specific criteria for who should be issued with a card. The criteria might be to do with the person's ability to manage their financial affairs or whether the person is, indeed, an alcoholic, a drug addict or so on. It should be person targeted, not community targeted. I would have thought that that would be a much more effective and much better way of dealing with a cashless debit card if that is the direction that parliament wishes to go in. I turn to a second matter with respect to my concerns: it seems to me that the cashless debit card program is a tough measure. Some people might choose to use the terminology that it's 'tough love'. Serious social problems are rarely ever resolved by imposing harsh measures. Inevitably, all that happens is that a problem is fixed in one area and simultaneously another problem is created, or that the problem that is fixed in one area is simply shifted to another area. I wonder, when parliament flags that we are going to introduce the cashless debit card to the Goldfields area of Western Australia and the Hervey Bay area of Queensland, whether the people in those communities, with advance knowledge of where it's going, will simply move out of those communities to a different location. I wonder how many of them already did that with respect to the card in Ceduna and the East Kimberley. Therefore, for those who wish to avoid the card's impacts, there are ways out of it and, therefore, in my view, the assessment that then takes place is not genuinely reflective of whether the problem has been fixed—it has simply shifted to another location. That's why—and it's issues such as that—simple observations and simple measurements about the claimed success of a program can so often be misinterpreted. If we want the best for these communities—and I suspect we all do, from both sides of this House—it would be wise to extend the trials that are currently underway in Ceduna and the Kimberley for another 12 months, because that would enable us, at the end of the 12 months, to not only more accurately evaluate the effect of those trials but also evaluate any unintended consequences that were not foreseen when the trials started. It's a cautionary approach. It makes sense. I see little advantage in moving onto two new sites when we still have more work to do in the existing sites where the trials are underway. 17:48 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. What was the purpose and what is the purpose of the cashless debit card trials? In principle it sounds encouraging: it was designed to assist people to make positive choices in the spending of Centrelink payments and to limit the amount of discretionary spending on alcohol, cigarettes and gambling. It's critical that we acknowledge in this place that not everybody on Centrelink payments spends money on alcohol, tobacco, pokies or gambling, but it's also important to acknowledge that every person in a trial site, even if they are on Newstart or youth allowance, is affected by this trial. Isolated sites were chosen so that thorough research could be undertaken to determine whether the implementation of the cashless debit card had an overall positive or negative effect on a community. Isolated communities were chosen so that it would be easier to identify the benefits or unintended consequences of the trial. The great challenge with this legislation is that, at this point in time, we do not know if the cashless welfare card is, indeed, helping the communities where it is currently on trial. We do not have the conclusive evidence. And now before us we have a bill to extend the cashless welfare card at its current sites, and for new sites in the Western Australian Goldfields and for Queensland. I acknowledge that with the Western Australian Goldfields the government already has some legislative power to do that site but this bill would provide for the extension to places such as Queensland. I think it's important to point out this is an incredibly expensive trial. It is well purported to be so, but I actually have no idea of the cost as this has not been disclosed. Media reports state that the cost of each Indue card used by Centrelink recipients costs approximately $10,000 each to manage. If that is so, if those figures are correct, this is an incredibly expensive trial, although I do acknowledge that the minister has advised me that when it's in large numbers, obviously, the cost goes down. We do not yet have a clear determination on whether the card actually benefits participants and communities and it is an incredibly expensive experiment to continue, let alone to expand. On behalf of NXT, I have a number of recommendations that I would like the government to consider. Firstly, that the government should only ever operate the cashless debit credit card trials in communities where there is support—genuine social licence—to instigate those trials as gauged by broad community consultation and not just the support of a few prominent community leaders. This support must also be forthcoming from the people in the community, some of whom would be recipients of the card. Secondly, all trials must always be properly supported with wraparound services—namely, all of the support programs and services that can augment and leverage any positive outcomes that the trial may possibly produce. The cashless debit card will not change behaviours of participants itself. There must be a network of social services to support the participant to change their behaviour, whether it relates to alcohol addiction, gambling addiction or another damaging behaviour. Thirdly, and most importantly, before you roll out the card to any new communities beyond those that are currently legislatively available to the government, you must have conclusive evidence that the card is working effectively and these conclusions must come from independent evaluations. However, I and the Nick Xenophon Team cannot support the cashless debit card that seeks to expand to trial sites beyond the legislative power the government has until we have the conclusive determination that the card is helping people rather than hurting the communities in which it operates. I do not believe we will truly know how successful the trials have been until much more data is collected, especially as the research findings and community response from the trials to date have been so mixed. In my following comments, I'm thankful to the published work of Dr Janet Hunt of the Australian National University, who I occasionally quote, and the trial evaluation reports from Orima Research. Whilst I note that the evaluation reports indicate the trial has been effective in reducing alcohol consumption and gambling at both trial sites, these findings have been based predominantly on self-reported data for which we can reasonably expect survey respondents would seek to present themselves in the best possible light. In any case, I note that 77 per cent of participants reported no positive impact of the trial, with 43 per cent reporting that they'd had no change in their behaviour since the trial began and 34 per cent reporting that they did not engage in alcohol consumption, illegal drug use or gambling prior to the trial in any case. The data we have is also plagued with problems of correlation versus causation. In September 2015 Ceduna introduced alcohol restrictions independently of the trial and the East Kimberley region introduced additional takeaway alcohol management from December 2015. Therefore, unless some complex and rigorous regression analysis is undertaken, it is hard to know whether it was the trial or something else entirely that was responsible for any of the purported positive outcomes. However, there are a few pieces of more conclusive data. For example, in the 12 months after the Ceduna trial started, there was a 12 per cent reduction in poker machine revenue in Ceduna and the surrounding local government areas. Yet, even here, I note that there was no such equivalent data reported, assuming it was even collected, in the East Kimberley region trial site. So, again, it's hard to know whether the trials are responsible for any reduction in poker machine revenue or there was some other factor entirely at play. Further, I note that there has been no conclusive finding that there has been a reduction in violence or crime at the trial sites. There has been no clear connection established between participants' reports that they have reduced their gambling and alcohol consumption and any purported reduction in violence and crime. I recognise that community perceptions have indicated a decrease in violence and crime, yet again there's no hard data to confirm these perceptions. I was also concerned to see that the use of methamphetamines, also known as ice, had significantly heightened among stakeholders from the initial condition stage of the research compared to wave 1 of the research, published six months later. I'm beginning to feel like a broken record here, but, yet again, without comprehensive data collection, it's hard to know whether the cashless debit card trial has increased, decreased or had no effect upon methamphetamine use. Yet the most concerning finding, I believe, was that only 27 per cent of family members said that the trial had made their family lives better, and 37 per cent said it made them worse. Across participants interviewed, 22 per cent said it had made their lives better, but almost half said that it had made their lives worse. These are really disturbing results. It's one thing to have participants dislike the effects of the card upon their life and their financial freedom but another thing entirely for their families to say the card has made the lives of their loved ones and themselves worse. In summary, the data seeking to track the outcomes of the trial are less than robust, and the data surrounding the secondary social and economic impacts are even less robust. The clear lesson here is that real longitudinal data need to be collected, and more effectively collected, before we can make any final conclusions about the efficacy of the cashless debit card. I strongly urge the government to address these issues if it seeks to continue the existing trials. We also need to look at homelessness. We need to look at education and connection to education. All of this impacts upon a community, and all of this would be impacted upon by the cashless debit card. I do recognise that 12 months is too short a period for conclusive outcomes and impacts to be fully apparent. It is for that reason that NXT would support the bill to continue, with a limited extension for a 12-month period in its existing trial sites. This is supposed to be a trial, and I want to make it very clear to government that this is not ongoing, indefinite support of the existing sites. We need to get the data, and we need to get this right. However, I reiterate that the Nick Xenophon Team cannot support this bill in its current form until it can be conclusively determined with solid evidence that the cashless debit card is actually effective. 17:54 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. The bill that is currently before the House provides the underpinning legislative authority to enable the expansion of the cashless debit card into new regions. The government is committed to addressing the serious harm that's caused by alcohol, gambling and drug abuse paid for by welfare payments. The cashless debit card aims to reduce the devastating effects of welfare-fuelled alcohol, drug and gambling abuse. The card operates like an ordinary debit card, but the primary difference is that it doesn't work at liquor stores; it doesn't work at gambling houses; and cash cannot be withdrawn from it. Welfare payments are placed into an individual's account, which is only accessible with the card. The card has been in operation since March 2016, when the first of two 12-month trials began. The first of those trials was in Ceduna, in South Australia, and the second trial took place in two locations, at Kununurra and Wyndham, in Western Australia. It began soon after that. In each of those trials, 80 per cent of an individual's welfare payments is placed into their cashless debit card account, and the remaining 20 per cent is placed into their ordinary savings account. The results of the trials are encouraging. It's reported that there is less public drunkenness, less poker machine gambling, fewer alcohol related hospital admissions, and people are engaging with the support services and working to improve their lives. Many communities have expressed interest in having the card introduced into their region. The cashless debit card is a world-first in how it operates. The trials have been completed and they have been shown to work. There is now an opportunity to expand the card's operation. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that this bill be read a second time.

The House divided. [18:05]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 76 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) 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 71 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 58 18:14 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 59

Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017

Consideration of Senate Message 59 18:16 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I move: That the amendments be agreed to. 18:18 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter The member for New England has left the agriculture portfolio and tonight we start cleaning up the mess. Tonight we hopefully can move on from the pork-barrelling, the boondoggling and the divisive tactics of the former minister; move on from the forced claims, the sackings of departmental heads and the wasted money on various failed white paper projects. Do you remember the agriculture white paper, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz? We waited about three years for it. When it came out, it fizzed. No-one ever talks about it now. When do you ever hear anyone talking about the failed agricultural white paper? You don't, because it delivered nothing for Australian agriculture. It delivered no strategic vision, no strategic guidance, no new ideas about how to tackle the key challenges, including climate change, the need to improve our farming methods and lift productivity and sustainable profitability. It was just pork-barrels and boondoggles. This is what we're talking about tonight—the Regional Investment Corporation. An amazing thing happened in the Senate today. The Senate unanimously embraced a range of amendments put forward by the opposition in that place. These changes would at least improve the governance of the bill, improve transparency and make decisions of the minister and the RIC board more accountable in this place. In other words, they would allow the parliament to run a ruler over the operations of the RIC and the directions of the minister. This is very, very important because the RIC in itself is a pork-barrelling exercise, an unnecessary entity planned to be established in Orange for one purpose and one purpose alone: to lift the stocks of the National Party in the electorates in that region. Of course, Orange was lost to the National Party in the last state election, and that is the only reason the Regional Investment Corporation is going to Orange. I would have liked to deny the government or the minister of the day the power to determine where the Regional Investment Corporation is situated. If there is a case for a centralised agency to deal with these loans from the government to farmers and to state governments, let the government make it. I haven't seen one yet. There is no logical reason it's going to Orange, other than the former minister's political intentions. We weren't able to amend the bill to prevent that and, instead, have the board entirely make the decision about where the RIC will be situated. But we have at least won an amendment which will insist that the board make recommendations about where the Regional Investment Corporation goes. Given the board will be appointed entirely, probably by Minister Joyce, it probably isn't going to prevent it going to Orange, because obviously the minister is pretty determined that it be Orange. But at least the board will be forced to provide some policy guidance and some rational explanation as to why it might go to Orange. All we've had up until now is no reason whatsoever, other than 'it will be a good thing for Orange'. It can't be a bad thing for Orange, obviously. But potentially it could have been a good thing for hundreds or thousands of other regional cities around the country, including in your own electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz. At least we hope the board might be able to put forward some logical explanations as to why it believes Orange is the right place for the Regional Investment Corporation. It will be interesting to see what those reasons are. I suspect it won't be easy for the board to put that case. This bill has been delayed in the Senate since before Christmas. The government really needed to get the bill through the Senate before Christmas to ensure it could have the Regional Investment Corporation up and running by 1 July this year. That is in doubt because we are now into February. It's going to be a difficult task for many people in the department who are charged with the responsibility of trying to make this shocking boondoggle work. So here we are accepting basically the same amendments we moved in the Senate last year—they have been slightly changed, in arrangements with the minister, but they have the same effect—amendments which narrowly lost in the Senate, in one case by a tied vote. That gives you a sense about the will of the Senate at that time. We could have had these amendments done and dusted and the bill through the Senate last year. But no, the former minister, the member for New England, wouldn't have that. Why wouldn't he have that? Because the lack of transparency, the lack of accountability to the parliament, would have allowed the now former minister to further politically abuse the Regional Investment Corporation, to continue the pork-barrelling and make decisions based not on the needs of our communities, our farmers and our economy but on the needs of the National Party. That's why we're dealing with the Regional Investment Corporation Bill in February 2018, rather than in December 2017. It is because the former minister, the member for New England, dug in and insisted that those parts of the bills that would have allowed him to abuse the bill remain in place. Thank goodness common sense has now prevailed, whether it be from the new minister—if it is him, I give him credit—or from the intervention of other senior ministers in the government. I know that Senator Cormann took a very strong interest in this matter. Whatever the case, thank goodness that we now have some form of outcome. The Labor Party still opposes the establishment of the Regional Investment Corporation. A Regional Investment Corporation is being established in Orange to do two things: (1) to administer new concessional loans to farmers, and (2) to administer loans to state governments for water infrastructure. The latter is being done by the department now and could continue to be done by the department. The minister will remain the final arbiter and decision-maker in the matter, in any case. The loans, which have existed in one form or another since 2013, have been administered quite competently by the various state rural adjustment authorities. Yes, there have been problems; there are always some problems when you are dealing with loans and risk which is partly being worn by the states. The ministers in the various states have been keen to shape the loans to suit their own states. For example, the conservative Western Australia minister wanted to have a productivity component in one of the loan programs. People would be eligible for the loans only if they could establish that they had a new way forward for their struggling farm business—a plan to lift productivity. That's a good thing. I congratulate the former conservative minister in Western Australia. But now, because the former minister's loans have been somewhat unsuccessful in assisting farmers, the member for New England is looking for someone to blame. He wants to blame the states, so he's going to take loans off the states and have them administered by this central authority. I correct myself: he's going to have new loans administered by the new central authority, but any existing loans—some of which have a 10-year life and may have been secured only a year ago—will continue to be administered by the states. We'll have the central authority administering new loans for the next 10 years and we'll have the various state adjustment authorities administering other loans for the next nine or 10 years, so we have this crazy duplication—something so typical in our Federation. To make it worse, what has the now former minister done? He's charged the people designing the RIC to go to the states and ask them how to do it. They were so hopeless at administering loans that the people who were establishing the Regional Investment Corporation have been charged with going and asking the states how to do their job. If that's not inconsistent and just plain madness, I don't know what is. This minister had nearly five years in the portfolio in which to do some things. But, no, he was not prepared to look at the long-term interests and sustainable profitability of the agriculture sector. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The member for Hunter. Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 No, all he wanted to do was play the game, play to his base, and keep things going just the way they were—and in many cases just keep farmers poor, basically. He had no interest in lifting their sustainable profitability. He comes in here every day and claims credit for the free trade agreements, which, of course, are a matter for the trade minister. But he never talks about the non-trade barriers, the protocols, that still exist for so many growers and producers in this country. They are not getting access to those markets, because of non-tariff barriers and the failure of this government, of which he is a part, to put in place the protocols that are required for that market access. There is another point here. It goes again to the unnecessary delay of the government's own bill. The intergovernmental agreement on drought is about to come to an end; the minister abolished the COAG committee which was charged with further progressing drought policy in this country; and, of course, farm household allowance, the ultimate safety net for farmers in drought or facing other problems, which is effectively Newstart with a more generous assets test, under this government is now only available to farmers for three years—and guess what? Many farmers on farm household allowance are coming to the end of their three years. So what do they now face? What help do they now hope to have from a government in this very dry period? I think that, if he were at the dispatch box, the member for New England would say: these new loans that are going to be administered by the RIC. Well, I question whether that is going to be of sufficient assistance to farmers at all. But let's hope, if we take it as written, that it may assist some. Let's hope that this delay between December and February won't deny farmers the opportunity to apply for those loans on 1 July because the department hasn't been able to implement the program because the former minister refused to put his ego and his aspirations for further pork-barrelling behind him and just allow these amendments to go through last year. That's what he should have done. That would have been the right thing to do by the agriculture sector and the broader economy. But, of course, he refused to do it. He wanted to hold all the power. He wanted to pull all the strings. He wanted, at the click of a finger, to send some money here, there or elsewhere in the name of political expediency. It wasn't about what was right for farmers generally or for the sector generally. It wasn't about productivity, sustainable profitability or dealing with the challenges as well as the opportunities that farmers face in this country. The minister can't even articulate what these loans are going to be, what their real purpose is and what the criteria are. These, of course, are still up in the air. We don't know. He'd say it's a matter for the board, but he also wanted to ensure that he could change whatever they said. I am very pleased that the government has backed down. I'm glad we've got a new minister who, from time to time in recent weeks, has talked some common sense and has indicated that he might be up for a discussion about the big issues that are facing the agriculture sector and about how we make the most of the opportunities ahead of the sector in the face of growing global food demand. I look forward to doing what I hoped to do five years ago and maybe work with him in a bipartisan manner so that we can ensure that Australia's farmers are able to make the best of those opportunities. We still think the RIC's a terrible pork barrel and a shocking boondoggle. We remain opposed to it, but the Senate's made its decision. It has passed the bill—33 to 31, by the way, on the third reading. If one senator had voted differently, it would have been a tie. I think that again reflects, in large part, the Senate's will and views. That doesn't happen on a bill like this if the bill before the Senate isn't very flawed, and this bill is a flawed bill. Question agreed to. Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017 62

Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017

Report from Federation Chamber 62 Third Reading 62 18:34 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 62 COMMITTEES Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights 62 Report 62 18:34 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: report 1 of 2018. I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report—and I guarantee it will be shorter than the member for Hunter's comments! Leave granted. Mr PERRETT HVP I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Human Rights Scrutiny Report 1 of 2018. The role of the committee is to examine bills and legislative instruments for compatibility with Australia's obligations under international human rights laws, as expressed by treaties and the like. The committee's report provides parliament with a credible technical examination of the human rights implications of legislation rather than an assessment of the broader policy involved. Committee members performing a scrutiny function are not bound by the contents or conclusions of scrutiny committee reports and may have different views in relation to the policy merits of legislation. I note that several bills examined in the current report are scheduled for debate this week, including in relation to: Non-consensual sharing of intimate images; Broadcasting (digital radio); Governance of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the National Capital Authority, respectively; and Financial sector amendments—including in relation to banking accountability and the powers of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. Several bills scheduled for debate this week did not raise any human rights concerns, and others have been examined in more detail to assess compatibility. Of the new bills in the current report, 13 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 10 bills and legislative instruments. The report also contains the committee's concluded examination of eight bills and instruments. Following correspondence with the relevant minister, the committee has concluded that six of these bills and instruments are likely to be compatible with international human rights law. This illustrates the constructive process of liaising with legislation proponents to identify relevant information in order to assist the committee in its assessment of legislation. Finally, I note that Dr Jacqueline Mowbray, of the University of Sydney, recently commenced as the committee's new external legal adviser. The legal adviser provides the committee with independent advice on the compatibility of legislation with international human rights law. On behalf of the committee, I would like to welcome Dr Mowbray to the position and I look forward to her contribution. On behalf of the committee, I would also like to thank the committee's former legal adviser, Dr Aruna Sathanapally, for her services to the committee and I particularly wish her well for the future. I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their consideration of proposed legislation, because chipping away at human rights makes for a very dull and very dangerous world. With these comments, I commend the committee's report No. 1 of 2018 to the House. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). BILLS 63 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 63

Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Bill 2017

Second Reading 63 18:38 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon The Labor Party will be supporting this legislation. This is a substantial piece of legislation, and I won't take the House through every element of it, but I will comment on significant elements. Firstly, these measures in relation to credit cards are long overdue. We support them on this side of the House. In fact, we have been calling for these measures for a long time. These measures will improve consumer protections, and it's disappointing, if anything, that consumers will need to wait until 2019 for most of these protections to come into force. That is particularly disappointing when you consider that it was in 2015 that a Labor-led Senate inquiry first urged changes to credit card regulation, which was in response to recommendations to this inquiry that the Treasurer promised to progress these changes to credit card regulation. It's been a long time coming. That was May 2016 when the government promised to bring forward draft legislation 'in the near term'—and now, in the 2018 sitting year, we finally have the legislation. We have been pushing for these reforms consistently since then and are glad that they are now being introduced to the House. Despite the May 2016 promise of draft legislation in the near term, it wasn't until August 2017 that we saw draft legislation. That means we won't now see most of these protections come into place until 2019 . For a Treasurer who often boasts that he is taking an action-now approach to the banks, it is actually action-later, in 2019. He will get back to us shortly when it comes to credit card reform; nevertheless we welcome the fact that they are finally coming into play. One of the changes to credit cards is the tightening of the responsible lending requirements for credit cards to require that the suitability of a credit card contract is assessed on the consumer's ability to repay the credit limit within a certain period. That period is to be set in a legislative instrument made by ASIC. We'll be watching closely to see what this period is. It's very important that Australians are properly protected from predatory or unsuitable lending. Another of the changes is the standardisation of the way credit card interest is calculated. CHOICE has said that the way the banks calculate credit card interest is 'mind bending'. When respected governance adviser Phil Khoury did a review of the code of conduct of banking practice he looked at the ways that banks were applying credit card interest. He looked at some practices and found that few customers would be aware that they were happening at all. Khoury described some interest calculation practices as unacceptable and substantially unfair and that, if understood, would be seen as just plain tricky. This is a very respected reviewer. Under this bill, credit card providers are prohibited from imposing interest charges retrospectively to a credit card balance or part of that balance that has the benefit of an interest-free period. Again, we welcome these changes to the way credit card interest is calculated. Again, they are long overdue and we've long been calling for them. We are also pleased that banks will now be required to allow online cancellation of credit cards. This makes eminent sense. You can get a credit card online quite easily—and I'm sure all honourable members have done it—but if you try to cancel a credit card online, it's very difficult. It shouldn't be that way. This means that, if a customer sees a card that is a better deal, they should be able to move over to that better deal with greater ease. Additionally, customers end up hanging onto old cards that they do not intend to keep, with access to more credit than they otherwise need and obviously often with annual fees and other ongoing costs, which add up over the years to a substantial amount of money. So it does make sense to require banks and card issuers to have simple online cancellation of credit cards. We note that, under this bill, a bank may not be required to cancel a credit card where there is still an outstanding balance. Again we need to ensure that this bill is monitored to make sure that the impact of encouraging customers to switch credit cards is real and to ensure that it enables customers to better ditch unsuitable cards. We note that this bill will also require banks to allow a reduction of credit card limits online. Again, this is very sensible. Again, the same principle applies: you can increase your credit limit very easily, so you should be able to reduce your credit limit. If a consumer has the insight, the awareness, that they have too much credit available to them and it might not be easy for them to manage, actually in doing the right thing and taking control they should find it easy, not hard, to reduce their credit card limit. So that is very welcome. The Consumer Action Law Centre has drawn attention to the fact that, as the bill is currently drafted, banks are not required to reduce credit limits below the minimum credit of the card. I met with them today. We'll continue to monitor that closely. If further improvements are needed, we'll make those suggestions in due course. Schedules 1 and 2 of the bill will give APRA powers in relation to non-ADI lenders. These powers, which have been described as reserve powers, are designed to be used should the activities of these lenders pose a risk to financial stability in the future. The bill also gives APRA power to collect certain data from these lenders. ADI lenders, such as banks and credit unions, are subject to APRA's prudential requirements and ongoing supervision. These new powers for APRA are proposed in recognition of the fact that APRA has responsibilities in relation to stability of the Australian financial system which are consistent with its core mandate of protecting depositors. We note that some non-bank lenders have raised concern about the scope of these powers. We recognise that non-ADI lenders can play an important role in terms of ensuring competition against banks. Indeed, this is an increasing element of our financial system—there is disruption with these new providers, peer-to-peer lenders and others. This includes in relation to business lending. As an example, innovative non-banking lenders can play an important role in providing finance needed to small business owners to expand. This industry is growing. I have seen some of these enterprises myself and watched the quite efficient way in which this occurs. We note that, in response to the concerns raised about the scope of the powers in the exposure draft legislation, the application of these powers has been narrowed since the exposure draft, and we would regard that as being appropriate. The explanatory memorandum states that these powers are intended to be reserve powers only to be used where there is material risk to the stability of the financial sector. According to the explanatory memorandum, it is not anticipated that these powers will need to be used in the immediate future and will be there to respond to future developments. Schedule 3 will allow smaller ADIs to use the word 'bank' in their business name, should they choose to. As the EM points out: … the changes will align community expectations in respect of the use of the term 'bank' with the fact that ADIs are prudentially supervised by APRA and deposits are covered by the FCS— the Financial Claims Scheme. Under this change, all ADIs can use the word 'bank' in their business name unless APRA, for whatever reason, has issued a determination to the contrary. Currently, APRA permits only ADIs with tier 1 capital exceeding $50 million to use the terms 'bank', 'banker' and 'banking'. There are a number of smaller ADIs who would benefit from the use of these terms, and I note that the Customer Owned Banking Association, which represents credit unions and building societies as well as mutual banks, has been particularly supportive of this change. Again, I do welcome this change. This is sensible. I well remember building societies transferring to big banks when I was a boy, and I had an interest in this matter and learnt why it was the case that you might transfer from a building society to a bank. Building societies are much rarer these days. But this is a sensible change. The member for Port Adelaide, here at the table with me, shares my deep interest in these matters; I'm sure he had a similar experience. On bills like this, the government always seems to have talking points—and perhaps the next honourable member to speak might go there—which say that the previous Labor government did nothing. That's often what's in the talking points. Mrs Prentice 217266 That's standard. Mr BOWEN DZS That's a standard in the talking points—the same talking points which told us the cabinet was working exceptionally well just before those talking points were leaked by somebody in the cabinet! But, just in case any honourable member is tempted to run that fallacious argument in this chamber, we had the landmark National Consumer Credit Protection Act in 2009, which was the first single-standard and nationally consistent regime for consumer credit regulation and oversight in this country; and we had the very substantial Future of Financial Advice reforms, which I was responsible for and then the current Leader of the Opposition was responsible for after me, when he took over as Assistant Treasurer—all very substantial reform in this space. But I do recommend this bill to the House. It is a good one. Of course, we could talk about the royal commission and other matters, but there are other opportunities to traverse those matters. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 65 18:47 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan by leave—I move: That the bill be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. Question agreed to. Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017 65

Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017

Second Reading 65 18:48 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017. In 2014, Labor supported changes to section 501 of the Migration Act to strengthen character test provisions and introduce mandatory visa cancellation provisions for noncitizens. These were important measures to protect Australians and to address legitimate evidence based concerns. Labor continues to support visa cancellations of noncitizens on character and criminal grounds, and their removal from Australia under section 501 of the Migration Act. Labor is committed to keeping Australians safe. Although there is a mixed cohort in immigration detention facilities, it is important to note these are immigration detention centres, not correctional facilities. They are centres where people are held pending the outcome of visa applications or legal challenges, or are awaiting deportation. As at 31 October 2017, as per evidence provided by the department, there were 1,264 people in onshore immigration detention in Australia. More than 60 per cent of the current population in immigration detention are asylum seekers, visa overstayers or people such as backpackers who have breached visa conditions. It's important to keep these numbers in mind when we talk about what this bill is intending to do. These people are not there because their visa has been cancelled on character or criminal grounds. They have not committed criminal offences. The bill before the House seeks to amend the Migration Act 1958 to allow the immigration minister to determine a 'thing' as prohibited in relation to immigration detention facilities and detainees. The minister will be able to determine what is a prohibited thing by a legislative instrument, but that instrument is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny; it is not disallowable. There is no parliamentary oversight. The bill amends search and seizure powers in immigration detention facilities, including the use of detector dogs, for screening of detainees and visitors. I want to make it clear that Labor agrees that illicit drugs, weapons and child exploitation material should not be in immigration detention facilities and transit centres. They should not be allowed in these places. These items should never have been allowed in these facilities in the first place. The immigration minister has serious questions to answer if he has been sitting on his hands, allowing this to occur unchecked for the last three years that he has been the minister or during the five years of the Abbott-Turnbull government. Of course, Labor would support reasonable measures to improve the good order of immigration detention and transit facilities to improve the safety and security for all detainees, staff and visitors, but the Turnbull government must get the balance right, put forward well-drafted legislation that doesn't have unintended consequences and seek powers proportionate to the risks. The minister and the Prime Minister don't have a good track record when it comes to consulting business, industry or communities about migration legislation. We saw this with the unintended consequences of the 457 visa changes that sent shock waves through various sectors of the economy. This poor track record is why Labor referred this bill to the Senate the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry, to ensure that there were no unintended consequences. This minister is very good at pointing the finger and name-calling, but the minister struggles to back up his claims when asked for evidence. The Senate inquiry was the Turnbull government's opportunity to have an open discussion about the challenges of managing Australia's onshore immigration detention operations, outline any issues and provide evidence of potential risks to staff, visitors and detainees in these facilities. Instead, what the minister did—he did what he often does—was cobble together a poorly-drafted bill and ask for a massive expansion of his own powers, and then he and his department refused to adequately defend their position during the Senate inquiry. There was no evidence given during the inquiry that the minister attempted to address potential risks in immigration detention in less restrictive ways or to consider the particular vulnerabilities and differences of the detainee populations. Instead, he jumped straight to legislation that would grant him unchecked powers. These concerns are not just held by Labor but also by peak bodies and stakeholders who submitted evidence to the Senate inquiry, including the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Human Rights Commission, FECCA and many others. The Senate inquiry revealed that the bill in its current form gives the immigration minister unnecessarily broad powers, is poorly drafted and has obvious adverse unintended consequences. This is a minister who wants to grant himself unchecked powers and wants, by this bill, to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. Labor are willing to work with the government to ensure good order of immigration detention facilities, but we do have concerns about how the minister is managing these facilities already. Given the sheer number of concerns about this bill and noting that even members of the government's own team in the Senate recommended changes to this bill, Labor will oppose the bill in its current form. We'll move a second reading amendment. We strongly encourage the government to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better bill. They should look at the recommendations of the Senate inquiry, as well as the concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the more than 80 stakeholders, peak bodies and individuals who made submissions to the first Senate inquiry, opposing the bill or raising concerns in relation to its current form. The bill contains a new definition for 'immigration detention facility'—it includes immigration detention centres, immigration transit facilities and alternative places of detention. Similarly, there is a new definition for 'prohibited thing'. It includes anything unlawful in a state or territory across Australia, irrespective of the location of the detention centre, which seems reasonable, or—and this is the crux—a thing that 'might be a risk to the health, safety or security of persons in the facility, or to the order of the facility'. There is a new section that enables the immigration minister to determine, by legislative instrument, prohibited things in relation to these immigration detention facilities. The explanatory memorandum to the bill notes the following: These things will include illegal things, specifically narcotic drugs and child pornography and things that present a risk within immigration detention facilities including mobile phones and SIM cards … I note 'child pornography', because the EM should pick up the fact that the views of the Australian Federal Police and other authorities are that you shouldn't use that expression, because it encourages abusers. You should actually use the expression 'child exploitation material'. For future reference, I ask the minister look at that in the EM. There is a new section that authorises officers and officers' assistants to search immigration detention facilities without a warrant. The facilities covered include: (a) accommodation areas; (b) administrative areas; (c) common areas; (d) detainees’ personal effects; (e) detainees’ rooms; (f) medical examination areas; (g) storage areas.There are new powers that authorise officers to seize and dispose of prohibited items, including weapons. These amendments deal with screening procedures, strip searches, searches in immigration detention and use of detector dogs. Labor believes the Turnbull government must take more seriously their duty of care for people detained or working in or visiting Australia's onshore immigration and transit facilities. There is no question about it. But there are other things that could be prohibited as a result of this bill and the legislative instrument that avoid all parliamentary scrutiny, including: (a) mobile phones; (b) SIM cards; (c) computers and other electronic devices, such as tablets; (d) medications or health care supplements, in specified circumstances; … These proposed rules will apply to all detainees, irrespective of their cohort. It won't matter if they're a student who overstays their visa or a person who didn't pass immigration clearance at an airport because they applied for the wrong visa. The proposed rules apply to everyone, irrespective of the person's circumstances or risk profile. Labor believes the department's submission and testimony lacks sufficient evidence to make a case as to why the legislation should be supported in its current form. There is unprecedented secrecy within the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The minister won't release information about what's going on in these centres, and he won't admit he's got things wrong. But he wants to use what's going wrong as justification for the changes. The Senate inquiry gave stakeholders who regularly visit asylum seekers and other detainees the chance to explain the impact of the proposed changes and to have their say about the practical effect and implications of the bill. Eighty-two submissions were made to the Senate inquiry. Eighty of them raised significant concerns about the bill or recommended that the bill not be passed in its current form—80 of the 82! That included the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Human Rights Commission, Legal Aid NSW, FECCA, the Refugee Advice and Casework Service, the Refugee Council of Australia, Rural Australians for Refugees, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights—I could go on and on and on. Only one submission supported the bill in its current form, and that was the submission of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The minister is responsible for everything that goes on in immigration detention via the Border Force. He has responsibility as the minister. The management of onshore immigration detention and transit centres is contracted to Serco, which provides security and welfare services,. Medical services are provided by International Health and Medical Services, or IHMS. I have met people who work for Serco and IHMS in some of these detention centres. They are good people, they work hard and I believe they should be supported. They work in these facilities with the best of intentions, but I note neither Serco nor IHMS made a submission to the Senate inquiry. They didn't make a case as to why their employees would need or want the minister to have these powers. Submissions to the Senate inquiry expressed concerns about how broad the powers included in the bill were and said they were disproportionate to the stated risk. Rural Australians for Refugees highlighted that the bill enables blanket prohibitions on all detainees regardless of their needs, vulnerability or risk profile. They stated that the bill 'fails to protect the rights of these groups and requires them to face the same restrictive measures as those who have committed violent crimes and are assessed to be of high risk to self or others'. The Human Rights Commission outlined the broad nature of the legislation, stating: … blanket restrictions on the possession of items that do not present an inherent risk to safety or security may not be reasonable, particularly when many of the individuals affected have never used these items in a manner that threatens safety or security. The Human Rights Commission continued to highlight that the threshold for prohibitions made by the minister is too low. The Law Council of Australia argued that: … any number of things could fall within this broad definition, particularly because the provision does not require any standard by which the Minister is required to consider whether something might be a risk, nor is there any guidance on what would constitute a risk to the 'order of the facility'. There is also no guidance on what 'order of the facility' means in this context. Further, the current bill would allow items to be prohibited if the minister is satisfied they 'might' pose a risk to immigration detention facilities. It was suggested that if pens or pencils were to fall under this low threshold, the minister could argue for them to be banned in immigration detention facilities. Labor agrees with the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, who submitted that legislation 'should always represent an appropriate and proportionate response to the harms being dealt with'. The minister previously attempted a blanket ban on mobile phones in immigration detention facilities before the Federal Court granted an injunction in February 2017 to stop guards from confiscating phones from detainees. The minister then doubled down on his position, appealed the decision and subsequently lost in August 2017. The courts intervened again against this overreach. The government has used this bill to focus on mobile phones being problematic in immigration detention centres and being used for apparent ill will. The EM actually mentions it: Evidence indicates that detainees are using mobile phones to coordinate and assist escape efforts … However, in evidence provided to the Senate inquiry, the department could cite only two escape attempts being made with the assistance of mobile phones, on 11 November 2014 and 23 October 2017. The department offered no additional information as to how the phones were used or how the phone itself enabled two adults to sneak past staff or over fences. This is in spite of the fact that during the same period there were 32 instances of successful escapes from immigration detention facilities, involving 36 individuals, and 47 incidences of attempted escape from immigration detention facilities, involving 56 individuals. Rather than relying on a blanket ban on mobile phones, I suggest it would be more beneficial for the minister and his department to focus on preventing people from escaping or attempting to escape from immigration detention facilities by making sure the staff had the best training and were well resourced, the staff-to-detainee ratio was always maintained and the centres had the appropriate infrastructure. How about the minister do his job and stop trying to do blanket bans? The government talks about standover tactics. The minister has said in relation to mobile phones that 'owners of mobile phones are also being subjected to stand-over tactics'. It is one thing to say it is happening; it's quite another thing to prove it. Despite the minister's repeated claims, the department was unable to provide any evidence about these apparent standover tactics. The department said, in the evidence they gave to the inquiry, that they had not received any formal complaints relating to standover tactics—no evidence at all, yet the minister says it. Just because the minister says it, doesn't mean it's true. Rather than addressing the management issues in onshore immigration detention centres by enforcing existing policies, the minister is simply trying to rewrite a new rule book with this legislation that gives him all the power. I want to be clear that any standover tactics are unacceptable. That's why policies and procedures already exist to address these behaviours. Evidence heard during the Senate inquiry showed access to mobile phones is imperative for detainees to maintain contact with their legal representatives, in addition to external support networks. The president of the Law Council of Australia testified at the inquiry: Mobile phones play a significant role in ensuring detainees can access timely legal advice, which is of course a fundamental underpinning of the rule of law … Labor will always uphold the rule of law whilst understanding how important the work that legal representatives and refugee advocates undertake with respect to onshore detention facilities. The Refugee Council of Australia submitted that 'it is extremely challenging to work within the tight deadline when … clients are detained in remote detention facilities and do not have access to mobile phones. RACS, the Refugee Advice & Casework Service, further said that the bill 'underestimates the difficulties currently faced by people in detention in accessing legal services and the importance of mobile phones in this context'. During the Senate inquiry, the department testified there was sufficient landline access available 24 hours a day across the immigration detention network, stating: Families and legal representatives have the ability to call the centres at any time, and the centres facilitates those phone calls. However, in their answer to questions on notice, the department conceded that only some facilities allow calls 24 hours a day. They continued, saying: The remaining facilities call-divert to a manned control room after 8pm. However, in the latter case if the call is not an emergency call, Serco receipt a message and pass the message to the detainee the following morning. This answer corroborates the testimony from Legal Aid New South Wales, who said it was very difficult to contact a detainee at Villawood after 7.15 pm. Access to legal representation shouldn't be dependent on a message being taken or reliant on an officer within an immigration detention centre determining whether a person's call is an emergency or not, especially when it's up against a court filing deadline. You could have expected, if the department and the minister had thought about this, some less overreaching methods could have addressed any concerns, without the mobile phone blanket ban that the minister is trying to impose. Access to justice is crucial, and legal representation is crucial for refugees and asylum seekers. Even Liberal senator Ian Macdonald, the chair of the Senate standing committee, thanked the Human Rights Commission's positive approach in suggesting a number of amendments during the Senate inquiry. Recommendation 2 of the chair's Senate inquiry report recommends: … that the government consider amending the bill in accordance with the third recommendation of the Australian Human Rights Commission, to ensure that detainees have access to communication facilities that will reasonably meet their needs, and enable timely, and where appropriate, private contact with friends, family, and legal services. Given this evidence and given the attitude of the chair of the Senate inquiry, Senator Ian Macdonald from Queensland, Labor made it clear that, in the absence of other appropriate communications options or direct intelligence relating to specific individuals, detainees should be allowed to use mobile phones. The department has failed to make the case, as has the minister, for denying detainees the opportunity to manage their own health, by removing from them the right to their own medication in immigration detention facilities. In this legislation, the government is contemplating medications or healthcare supplements as items which may be prohibited by the minister, in notes to subsection 251(A)(2). Australian Lawyers for Human Rights commented on the troubling nature of this provision, stating: … if this Bill becomes law, detained refugees could be arbitrarily deprived of their essential medication. It is never acceptable for illegal or narcotic substances to be abused. It's never acceptable for those types of substances to be actually allowed in detention facilities. However, detainees should always have the opportunity to manage their own health. In their dissenting report to the Senate inquiry, Labor senators recommended the bill be amended in accordance with the third recommendation of the Law Council of Australia. This would ensure that medications obtained under prescription, or supplements recommended by health practitioners, are not caught by the provision the government's contemplating, and that the provision is restricted only to narcotic or restricted substances. I must highlight that, in the 2014-15 financial year, there were 1,387 instances of contraband being found in immigration detention centres. This figure increased to 1,947 in the year 2015-16, but it actually went down to 1,709 instances in 2016-17. This contraband was found by guards and officers in immigration detention facilities with search powers they already have. They already have them. Labor is willing to work with the government to improve search and seizure powers, but they must be clearly defined and have appropriate safeguards. There's been evidence that proposed amendments to search and seizure powers in this bill do not have sufficient safeguards. The Law Council of Australia stated: To extend the power of search to anything which might be a risk to the health, safety or security of person in the facility, or to the order of the facility allows the Minister to declare virtually any kind of item contraband subject to search. A pen or pencil and paper could be in that category. There are also concerns raised in relation to both strip searches and the use of detector dogs. Strip searches are sometimes necessary to ensure detainees and staff are kept safe, but it is critical that legislation contains adequate safeguards. I note the Migration Act already includes a power to strip search. The delegation to approve this is given to the deputy commissioner of the Australian Border Force and doesn't include a cavity search. Labor agrees with the Law Council that all detainees should not be searched unless there is a reasonable suspicion that illegal substances or items are in their possession, and that strip searches are only conducted in exceptional circumstances. There are vulnerable people in immigration detention in Australia, such as asylum seekers. We've got a moral obligation to treat these people well and to take care of their health. Rural Australians for Refugees submitted that for many of these individuals, 'seeing dogs during these search processes can bring to mind memories of police raids in countries of origin'. For too long the minister has allowed drugs and other substances in immigration detention facilities, and that's the evidence given by the department. Labor is willing to work with the government to strengthen search and seizure powers; however, the measures must be proportionate to the risk, appropriate to the circumstances, and they must be based on evidence. That Senate inquiry was not the only inquiry which has had concerns about the bill. The bipartisan Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills considered the bill three times in 2017 due to repeated requests for further information from the minister about the drafting of the legislation. They consistently and repeatedly raised concerns about the delegated powers and the ability of the minister to prohibit items in a non-disallowable legislative instrument. The committee queried the broad delegation of the administrative powers, which provide that an authorised officer may without warrant conduct a search of a wide range of areas in immigration detention facilities and effectively give an authorised officer the power to use force against a person or property. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the bill in reports 11 and 13 of 2017. A number of concerned were raised about the bill's compatibility with various human rights. In regard to the minister's broad power to declare items as prohibited things, the joint committee stated: … the scope of the power, and the absence of sufficient safeguards, is such that the power could be exercised in a way that is likely to be incompatible with the right to privacy. In relation to the broad power to ban mobile phones, computers and other electronic devices, such as tablets, the joint committee said it would 'impermissibly limit detainees' right not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with family', and their right to freedom of expression. Labor does not accept that this immigration minister's powers should go unchecked, and we we'll always stand up to the government when they overreach. This is not their first failure. The failure of the government in relation to issue after issue—whether it's corruption in the department that's been exposed or whether people who are Australian citizens have been detained—is simply not good enough. Recently, in 2016-17, two Australian citizens were wrongly detained in immigration for 97 days and 13 days respectively. An independent investigation into the cases revealed systemic problems in the minister's management of onshore detention centres. It's similarly not good enough. It's clear this is a minister who is a 'tick and flick' minister, who repeatedly fails to appropriately manage his portfolio and the department. We are debating this bill today because he has failed to adequately manage Australia's onshore immigration detention network. The minister has failed to make his case as to why these powers in this bill are necessary. Instead we have this piece of legislation that is poorly drafted, with powers that are too broad and with unintended consequences. The minister wants to give himself unchecked power. He wants to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. He's clearly not across the details of his brief. He's shirked responsibility when he has been held to account. Remember, this is the same minister whose department made asylum seekers living in our community get permission to get a goldfish. At any given opportunity, this is a minister who likes to demonise asylum seekers rather than accept responsibility for his own failure. Given this, we won't support the bill in its current form. We will actually keep Australians safe, but it's quite clearly incumbent on this government to ensure the safety of detainees, staff and visitors in immigration detention and transit facilities. The government should go back to where they have come from in terms of this bill, revisit this issue again and bring it back to us. We'll work with them in a bipartisan way. For this reason, we will not support it. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House declines to give the bill a second reading because the bill as written is too broad, poorly drafted and has unintended consequences". Labor's position is clear. We won't support the bill in its current form. Come back to the drawing board. We'll work with you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Mr Giles 243609 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Blair 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. 19:16 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I and the Australian Greens will be opposing the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017. This bill is nothing more than another power grab by an out-of-control Minister for Home Affairs. This bill really makes you think. How much lower can this government go? More pointedly, is there any room left to go any lower? For this mob, it's not enough to lock up in torture camps people who've committed no crime. It's not enough to send them back to the war-torn places that they fled. Now we're going to strip them of something else. This government's not satisfied with taking away their dignity, their mental and physical health, their freedom and their liberty. It's now taking away their possessions as well. If this bill passes, the minister can now determine that any item is a prohibited thing, and this can include their mobile phones, their computers or their money, as if the people who are in prison can somehow use these phones to hack through the concrete walls of their immigration prison. These people, if this bill passes, will have no right to privately communicate with their lawyers or their loved ones. These are people who've committed no crime other than coming to this country seeking a better life. This bill will allow existing screening, search and seizure powers, including strip searches, to be used in relation to prohibited things; it will provide a statutory power to search all areas of immigration detention facilities operated by or on behalf of the Commonwealth for certain items, including prohibited things, without a warrant; and it will enable the use of detector dogs to screen detainees and persons entering immigration detention facilities operated by or on behalf of the Commonwealth and to search the facilities themselves. It's not enough for the government just to break people; their intention is to obliterate them. Their intention is to shatter them into a million pieces. This is the latest in a long cycle of cynical ploys from cynical politicians who are willing to target asylum seekers for political gain. This is straight out of the John Howard political playbook of dog-whistling: target a vulnerable group for cynical reasons, and then deny that that's what you're doing, or justify the unjustifiable by describing your actions as a security measure. When I hear the home affairs minister saying that he needs unlimited power because the people in detention are apparently all criminals, I feel like we've seen this movie before. We've seen it with the politicians who told us that parents were throwing their children overboard, who were ready to lock up Mohamed Haneef without even a semblance of due process, and who lied and said that asylum seekers were somehow responsible for the death of Reza Barati. The home affairs minister, Peter Dutton, has said that parents have harmed their children in order to stay in Australia. The home affairs minister has said that an asylum seeker who set himself on fire in desperation did so to get entry into Australia. This is the same minister who now introduces a bill that says he should have complete control over what asylum seekers in detention should be able to have access to, or how they can be searched, or whether family members can bring a home-cooked meal to them. Well, I don't buy it. Vulnerable people seeking asylum have just become fodder for the baying conservative right in this country. They are seen by this government as nothing more than a dog whistle to blow hard on, to race bait and to incite hatred, fear and suspicion. They are being used as a wedge to force people apart in an attempt to bring out the worst in us. And the worst thing is that this government is seeking to normalise this. They want us to believe that this is just part of doing business, that this should just become a normal part of everyday life in Australia, but that view is something that we have to fight. We have to fight so that people in this country do not become desensitised to the cruelty that is part of offshore detention, that is part of imprisonment and that is part of the cruelty that Liberal and Labor inflict by singing from the same song sheet on their refugee and immigration policy. Because, in effect, this bill takes us further down the path of turning immigration detention into a parallel prison system where due process and legal protections do not apply. Let's be clear: in most countries the people who are having this inflicted on them would be living in the community while their immigration status is resolved; not in offshore detention as Liberal and Labor want, but living in the community while their status is resolved. People who have sought asylum in Australia, who have committed no crime and who have been through a timely security and health check should not be detained indefinitely with their fate decided at the minister's discretion. Any move to weaken the protection for people in detention, whether asylum seekers or not, is troubling. People in Australia's immigration detention centres are incredibly diverse in both background and personal circumstances, and many of those detainees, even on the government's own reckoning, are low risk. So what possibly could be the measure for applying these punitive detentions to those people that even the government says are low risk? The Australian Greens share the Human Rights Commission view that a blanket application of restrictive measures by the designation of prohibited items by the minister to all people in detention, regardless of their individual circumstances, 'may not be a necessary, reasonable or proportionate response to the identified risks'. Many of the submissions received in relation to this bill have highlighted the potential for this bill to infringe on the rights of people in detention. The Law Council of Australia noted that there are inadequate protections in place for detainees in relation to the bill's expansion of search powers. They said, in terms that should chill us all: There is no requirement for a warrant, nor is there a requirement for the authorised officer to hold a reasonable suspicion that a detainee might be harbouring a prohibited thing. The Bill contains no limitations on how searches are to be carried out, including in respect of how often they are conducted, what time of day they can be carried out, or how many times individuals can be searched. This bill is indicative of an alarming trend to increase the discretionary power of the home affairs minister. If there is anyone in this country who deserves to have the parliament watching every move he makes, it's the home affairs minister, Peter Dutton, but instead he comes in here saying, 'I want more power, I want more power.' The Refugee Advice & Casework Service and the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre submitted and they made this point: It is significant that legislative instruments made by the Minister for the purposes of determining new prohibited things would not be disallowable by the Senate. This limit on parliamentary oversight of the Minister's open-ended power to ban and confiscate classes of objects should be of concern … And they were right to say that. Indeed, it is worrying, as the submission goes on to say, that the minister's already broad discretionary powers are proposed to be expanded in such a broad and vague manner. Ask yourself: who benefits from stripping people in immigration detention of mobile phones? Who benefits from that? Why is that necessary? Why strip people of the ability to communicate with loved ones or simply access the internet? The evidence is clear. The telecommunications that are available to detainees at the moment are not available without their mobile phones, so what is the possible justification? Who could benefit from it? Only a government that wants to bury in secrecy what it is doing in these offshore hellholes. This government and this home affairs minister have built an entire system on secrecy and on lack of transparency. When the minister talks about on-water matters or operational matters, he is saying that Australians do not have the right to know what is being done in our name. That is the secrecy which allows this minister to keep abusing human rights. Brave journalists in detention have been able to communicate with the outside world, despite the controls put on them. Behrouz Boochani, in particular, has reported tirelessly from Manus Island, directly via social media. Australians and people worldwide have seen the art of the cartoonist Eaten Fish. Reports have come out about the reality of Australia's cruel detention regime—and let's remember this is a detention regime that enjoys the support of Labor and Liberals—and the government has been unable to control those reports because the truth has been revealed. I've heard justifications for this bill from the minister, but when a minister who has spent an entire career increasing his own unaccountable power and obscuring as much information as possible from the Australian people tries to introduce a law to remove one of the remaining tools to share information about his actions then you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to be worried. Let's also be clear that, in introducing this bill, the government is setting out to formalise a system of increasing criminalisation of people in immigration detention. We are already seeing harsher and harsher measures directed at people in detention centres, both in Australia and offshore. It is clear now that this system, set up and supported by Labor and now run by the Liberals, is a system that is designed to punish people—people who have committed no crime. It is becoming increasingly a system designed to punish people. We are now endorsing a process that says, 'We want to turn Australia and its detention centres into places that are worse than the places that you fled, in the hope that conditions in these hellholes might be so bad that you decide to go back and face war, face persecution and face torture.' That is not something which we should sign up to. I'm pleased to hear that on this issue Labor said that they were going to vote against the bill, although they have offered to work in a bipartisan manner to come back and do it again—which should send shivers down everyone's spine. But I say to the opposition: this is what happens when you sign up to a system which says that innocent people who come here seeking our help have to be sent to offshore prisons. This will happen again and again and again. It is not an anomaly. It is the point of offshore processing and mandatory detention, which both Labor and Liberal signed up to. The point of it is to put people far away—out of the way of support, and now, increasingly, out of the way of the ability to connect with the rest of the world and tell them what is going on. They will become abused and abused and abused until they become broken people or they take their own life. I refuse to believe that in this country we can somehow justify breaking people and killing them in the name of 'We've got to stop people taking to the boats.' The choice is not between people getting on boats or torturing people. What that is saying is that somehow this is some kind of necessary evil. We have to torture people in these hellholes, otherwise the boats will restart. Well, it is not beyond our wit as one of the world's richest countries to work out a way of doing what Malcolm Fraser did 40-odd years ago, to say to people, 'There are safer pathways to come to Australia.' If we assist the people and the countries in our region, like Indonesia and Malaysia, we will bring people here safely, in a way that can stop them risking their lives and without having to torture them in offshore hellholes. So I hope that this bill is not only potentially defeated in the Senate but is the start of saying that we need to end mandatory detention once and for all. That will happen. That will happen (a) when this government is kicked out and (b) when the Labor Party have the courage to say, 'We're going to end mandatory detention and end offshore processing.' Until you do that, these kinds of abuses are going to happen time and time and time again. And what we find every time is that you might make the right noises, but when powers like these are given to the minister, very rarely do these powers get reversed. So let's take this opportunity not only to chuck this bill out—and let's take the next few months to, hopefully, chuck the government out—but also to join together to end the system of mandatory detention which leads to people taking their own lives and destroys people who are doing nothing more than coming here and seeking our help. ADJOURNMENT 73 ADJOURNMENT McMahon Electorate: Energy 73 19:30 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I've been in politics in this House for 14 years and in that time I've seen some very stupid ideas, but perhaps the most stupid idea I have ever seen is the proposal to build an energy-from-waste incinerator in Western Sydney. This would be the largest incinerator of its type in the world. It would operate continuously—24 hours a day, seven days a week. Local residents in this area already put up with a lot of waste disposal facilities nearby. Over the years, residents in St Clair and Erskine Park in my electorate have often complained to me of odours from those facilities. What's the proposal for the people of Western Sydney who are already suffering from many of these facilities? To build the world's biggest energy-from-waste incinerator and for it to operate 24 hours a day. The proposed site of this facility is 800 metres from the nearest homes and less than two kilometres from three different schools. It would create thousands of tonnes of toxic ash each year, and it would release dangerous pollutants into the air from the top of its two 100-metre-high stacks. The people of Western Sydney are not second-class citizens. We should not have to put up with this proposal. We are not a dumping ground for New South Wales's problems. There are significant problems with the screening process of the waste materials, with all the waste that comes from third parties undergoing no inspection, which is roughly 500,000 tonnes per year. It is likely that recyclable materials and green waste will be included in the substances that are incinerated. This is to say nothing of the fact that hazardous materials, such as asbestos and highly flammable waste, will not be screened and prevented from reaching the incinerator—asbestos being incinerated 800 metre away from someone's home! I've met with many residents of Minchinbury, Erskine Park, St Clair, Horsley Park, Kemps Creek and Cecil Park. They all think this idea is nuts; they are correct. There has been much commentary on the first environmental impact study, and there is much more work that needs to be done. In fact, this should not proceed any further. It should be rejected immediately. There are, it appears, two groups of people who think this is a good idea: the developer and the New South Wales state government. This could be stopped tomorrow if the New South Wales government showed some gumption. I want to pay tribute to my state Labor colleagues Edmond Atalla and Prue Car, who have been leading the fight against this proposal. My federal colleagues the member for Chifley, the member for Lindsay and the member for Greenway and I have been of one mind that this is a silly proposal. The mayor of Blacktown, now the state member for Blacktown, has also been very vocal on this. The people who could actually stop this proposal are the Premier and the planning minister in New South Wales. I must say—I don't say this lightly and I very rarely make a speech critical of state colleagues—that the member for Mulgoa, Tanya Davies, has been missing in action when it comes to this issue. I attended a public meeting in St Clair or Erskine Park with about 300 people, and it was very clear that she was not willing to go in to bat to stop this proposal. She should go to Premier Berejiklian and say, 'This is not on.' She's a minister in the Berejiklian government. Yet what we're seeing is this waffle and process that the state government is entertaining, which has caused great concern for the people of Western Sydney. It's estimated that 168 trucks will deliver waste to the facility every day. That's 168 extra trucks on roads that are already struggling with the current workload. What's the value in building this incinerator? We're told it will create jobs. But, just like the EI estimates, that falls well short of community standards. The Broader Western Sydney employment area draft structure plan states that development should have an employment target of 21 jobs per hectare. Did the original proposal for the incinerator create 21 jobs per hectare? No, six jobs per hectare! So, we have to cop this pollution and this, to be frank, insult from a developer who, I must say, does not have a great track record, and we are meant to put up with it. Blacktown Council is having a community forum at 12 pm on 17 February at Minchinbury Neighbourhood Centre, and I urge all the residents of Minchinbury, St Clair, Erskine Park and nearby areas to attend and let the state government know this isn't on. Calare Electorate: Australia Day Honours 73 19:35 Mr GEE 261393 Calare The Calare electorate is home to many outstanding Australians, a number of whom were honoured on Australia Day for their contribution to our communities and also to our nation. I would like to acknowledge them in the House this evening. In Wellington, Jan Montgomery was named Senior Citizen of the Year, Jill Phoebe was named Citizen of the Year and Jesse Mills was named Young Citizen of the Year. Kerry Goodworth won the Community Service and Achievement Award, Naylise Thompson was named Young Sportsperson of the Year, and Alistaire Thompson was named Senior Sportsperson of the Year. I would also like to make special mention of Marlene Jones, who was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia, OAM, for her service to music and education and the Wellington community. In Bathurst, Vicki Wilson was named Citizen of the Year for her outstanding contribution to Bathurst. Well done, Vicki. Caroline Harvey was named Young Citizen of the Year and Will Hazzard won the Youth Arts Award. The Community Event of the Year was the 125th Anniversary of the Rockley Game, and the Destination Event of the Year was won by Mount Panorama Punish. Congratulations to organisers Jennifer Arnold and Stephen Jackson, and congratulations also to Ian McCartney, who won the Jo Ross Memorial Award in recognition of his efforts to improve the local environment. A special mention also goes to Roland Auguszczak, who was announced as a recipient of the Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to the performing arts and choral music. In Blayney, John Mason was the winner of the 2018 Blayney Citizen of the Year Award. It was a privilege to be there at that presentation. Jessica Jones was named Young Citizen of the Year and Barbara Anderson was named Volunteer of the Year. The Millthorpe Public School Sesquicentenary Celebration was named Community Event of the Year. Congratulations to Principal Jo Jackett. Also, well done to Margaret Matthews, Bob Dickie and Julie Prosper, who all won the Appreciation Award. In Orange, Friends Assisting the Community was named Community Group of the Year. Well done to Leona Baker, Kerry Foster and Robyn Colley. Sisters Ailish and Alanah Seedsman were both named Young Citizen of the Year, and Karlene Irwin was named Citizen of the Year. The Orange Camel Races was named Community Event of the Year. Well done to organiser, Graeme Eggleston, who is a proud member of the Orange Lions Club. West Orange Motors won the Business Philanthropy Award. Congratulations Bob and Kay Craig for all of their good work. Congratulations also to Reg Golding, an old friend of mine, who won the Local Legend Award. He has many experiences of Australia, including his career as a drover. Well done, Reg. In Orange, three local residents also featured in the Australia Day Honours List. I would like to make special mention of Kate Baxter, who was appointed as a Member of the Order of Australia for her services to education administration in rural New South Wales and for training programs for Indigenous students and to the Orange community. Mary Brell was awarded an OAM for her service to the Orange community, particularly her work with the Rotary Club of Orange Daybreak and involvement in the Nepal project. A special mention also goes to Peter Robson of Orange, who received an AO for his service to business through research and development in government advisory and leadership roles in the manufacturing and industrial relations sectors, and also to engineering. In Lithgow, Emma Martin was named Young Volunteer of the Year. Congratulations, Emma. She is certainly one of the people that our community is very proud of. The Volunteer of the Year Award in the open category was jointly awarded to Donna White and Kerry Guerin. The Young Citizen Achievement Award was presented to Hayden Way. The Citizenship Achievement Award was presented to Bev Coombs. The Services to the Community (Organisation) Award was presented to the teaching staff of Lithgow Public School Special Education Unit. The Outstanding Event Award was presented to Walk N Talk. Their work in the community is much appreciated. In Portland, Ron Bidwell was named Citizen of the Year. Young Citizen of the Year was jointly awarded to Hayden Way and Alex Bretherton. The Community Event of the Year went to the Portland Business Association for its Christmas Festival. St Joseph's Primary School received an award recognising its achievement in staging a musical. Mia Dunleavy, Libby and Jorja Bailey and Tom Collins were recognised for their sporting achievements. Yashik Valabjee, best known for his work at the Portland Post Office, also received an award for his commitment to the local community. I would also like to recognise Edna Walton of Portland, who was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia, OAM, for her service to the local community. Cate Martin, my old friend, was also awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for her service to the Central Tablelands community. In Wallerawang, Citizen of the Year was awarded to Colin Steele. Lastly, but not least, in Oberon, Citizen of the Year went to Neil Francis. Young Citizen of the Year was awarded to both Hannah Dusselaar and Victoria Webb. Sportsperson of the Year went to Jackson Brien and Peter O'Neill. The Oberon Hotshots Under 11's Netball Team were named Sports Team of the Year. The Oberon Little Athletics Community Christmas Carols was named Community Event of the Year. Janet Clayton was named Volunteer of the Year. Congratulations to all of the award winners in Calare on Australia Day. We are all very proud of you and we certainly appreciate your efforts. Gambling 75 19:40 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison In Tasmania, at the state election early next month, we will finally have the opportunity to get poker machines out of hotels and clubs. It has been wonderful to see politicians, experts and community groups make the strong case for such a reform, but regrettably we have also seen the poker machine industry consistently mislead the community about the issue. That's why I'll now address five of the lies that are currently being spread by the poker machine cheer squad. The first is about jobs. The poker machine industry makes much of the claim that removing machines from hotels and clubs will cost jobs. Indeed, Federal Group, the current monopoly licensee of every poker machine in Tasmania, claims that 2,000 jobs will be lost, while the hospitality industry reckons as many as 5,000 jobs are on the line. This simply isn't true, because the most recent social and economic impact study of gambling in Tasmania, commissioned by the Tasmanian government, found there are only 317 full-time equivalent jobs linked to poker machines in hotels and clubs. Other government research shows that the level of employment in hotels and clubs actually fell following the introduction of poker machines in Tasmania. What's more, we know that $1 million spent on gambling creates just 3.2 jobs whereas the same $1 million spent on the sale of liquor and other beverages creates 8.3 jobs, and if it's spent on food and meals, it creates 20 jobs. The second lie is the way the industry has characterised poker machine venues. We have already seen a dishonest campaign called Love Your Local, the aim being to make these venues seem like small, mum-and-dad enterprises that would be devastated by having their poker machines removed. The truth is that there is nothing lovable about these locals, because they are actually big business. Of the worst 20 venues for poker machine losses in Tasmania, which I revealed last week, 10 are owned by Federal Group, including Glenorchy's Elwick Hotel, which rakes in $4.5 million a year from these machines. This is almost $150,000 per machine, over three times the state average. Federal Group is a company that is making millions from poker machines in Tasmania. In fact, by one estimate, from author and historian Dr James Boyce, 70 cents out of every dollar lost to poker machines in Tasmania goes straight to the Sydney based Federal Group. Moreover, another three of the top 20 poker machine loss venues in Tasmania are owned by the Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group, which is owned by Woolworths. Make no mistake: poker machines in Tasmania are big business and not some cheery local publican. The third lie is the claim that if people can't use poker machines then they'll migrate to online or other forms of gambling. Again, this isn't borne out by the facts. In Norway, for example, when poker machines were banned in 2007, there was no subsequent increase in other forms of gambling, including online gambling. To quote Gary Banks, former chair of the Productivity Commission: Poker machine players tend to be poker machine players and are not all that likely to suddenly become internet based gambling players or punters on the horse races. The reality is that poker machines have uniquely addictive features, so there is simply no truth to the claim that poker machine addicts will just move online or to other forms of gambling. The fourth lie is about the importance of tax revenue. The Tasmanian government collects about $50 million from poker machines annually. That's less than one per cent of the state budget. In any case, the evidence shows that the cost to the community of problem gambling is much more than this. Indeed, the costs associated with problem gambling, which include bankruptcy, crime, suicide and ill health, are conservatively estimated to be up to $144 million a year. The fact is that poker machines don't make Tasmania money; they cost Tasmania money. Finally, the poker machine industry is misleading Tasmanians about the scale of the problem. The fact is problem gambling rates in Tasmania are going up, but the poker machine industry and the government have been fudging the numbers to say that there has been a decrease. They also ignore that 40 per cent of the money lost on poker machines is lost by gambling addicts and the fact that for every gambling addict an estimated seven other people are affected. The poker machine industry in Tasmania is a pariah. Eighty per cent of Tasmanians support reform. It is simply unconscionable that the Tasmanian Liberal Party government continues to side with the industry and not the community. (Time expired) Western Australia: Infrastructure 75 19:45 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore With the 2018 federal budget preparations in progress I wish to strongly advocate for a number of landmark regional projects which will benefit the residents of my electorate. Continued federal government investment on infrastructure projects will support economic development initiatives and business growth. Until a satisfactory resolution to the present inequitable distribution formula for the GST to Western Australia is reached through the current Productivity Commission review process the Commonwealth should alleviate the situation through interim infrastructure funding grants in the short term in the same way that, as part of a GST compensation package, $209 million in Commonwealth funding was used to federally fund the Mitchell Freeway extension north from Burns Beach Road to Hester Avenue, which was opened by the Prime Minster in August last year. Major local projects that are top priorities for federal funding include the next stage of the extension of the Mitchell Freeway by a further six kilometres north to Romeo Road, at an estimated cost of $300 million. This will connect Joondalup as the regional CBD with the residential suburbs around Alkimos and will promote growth. In terms of regional public transport, the extension of the northern suburbs railway line by a further 13.8 kilometres from Butler to Yanchep will also connect the rapidly developing northern coastal suburbs with the city of Joondalup as a regional city. The total cost of the project, including train stations at Alkimos and Eglinton, will be approximately $520 million, with federal funding already designated for a significant proportion of this cost. These projects will also significantly benefit residents in the neighbouring electorate of Pearce. I share a close cooperative working relationship with the member for Pearce to deliver infrastructure for our communities. The widening of the Mitchell Freeway southbound by adding an extra lane for 7.3 kilometres between Hodges Drive and Hepburn Avenue and 1.3 kilometres between Reid Highway and Erindale Road, at a cost of approximately $74 million, is essential to reduce traffic congestion caused by significant population growth in the northern suburbs. In terms of health services, the next stage of the Joondalup Health Campus extension would benefit from $140 million in federal funding to meet the medical needs of an expanding regional population in one of the fastest growing regions in Australia. Continued investment in leading-edge research and development at Edith Cowan University is essential to build the knowledge economy of the future. The redevelopment of Boas Place in the Joondalup city centre will benefit under the federal government's City Deals program. City Deals is a new approach designed to bring together the three levels of government, the community and the private sector. The public-private partnership focuses on aligning planning, investment and governance to accelerate growth and job creation. It stimulates urban renewal and drives economic reforms to secure the future prosperity and livability of our cities. Large-scale projects, such as the Ocean Reef Marina redevelopment, could also benefit from this approach and kickstart the necessary private sector institutional investment capital which is required to progress the construction phase of the project once the planning and environmental approvals are in place. The city of Joondalup would derive significant benefit from additional Roads to Recovery and black spot funding to improve the safety of our local roads for residents, who have nominated through my community survey a number of local roads which require upgrading. The upcoming federal budget is key to delivering the infrastructure necessary to serve the people of my electorate and beyond. I strongly make the case for interim infrastructure funding grants from the Commonwealth to alleviate the effects of the present inequitable distribution formula for the GST to Western Australia until a satisfactory resolution is reached through the current Productivity Commission review process. National Disability Insurance Scheme 76 19:50 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Canberra was one of the first places in Australia to roll out the National Disability Insurance Scheme trial, a trial that was designed by a Labor government and was warmly welcomed by so many in my community. However, the mood at the moment is not as warm. Fast-forward to 2017 and early 2018, and the stories I'm hearing are of people so frustrated with the current NDIS that they are near breaking point. They are so frustrated they are considering pulling out of the NDIS altogether. Callum is 11 years old and suffers Kleefstra syndrome, a rare genetic disorder characterised by intellectual disability and other features. Callum received funding to attend a specialised school holiday program. This funding was removed at Callum's most recent plan review, and the explanation is absolutely shocking. In the ACT there is no after-school care for kids with disabilities—and that's a separate issue I will be addressing with our local representatives at the Assembly—so Callum has been attending an after-school program paid for by his parents in the mainstream system for no more than one hour per day for three days per week to fill the gap between Callum finishing school and his mum being able to pick him up after work. There is no other choice. Because Callum is forced into a non-specialised after-school care program, the NDIA has arbitrarily decided he doesn't quality for funding for a specialised school holiday program. No-one met with Callum nor his family in coming to this decision and no-one met with the organisers of the holiday program in coming to this decision. While this issue has been referred to the tribunal, it must be at the back of Callum's parents' minds that, if the decision doesn't go their way, they will need to make a choice. They'll need to make a choice to cut back the hours at work during school holidays, which means less pay at the end of the day, or they'll have to face out-of-pocket expenses, which makes the additional work hours redundant anyway. How does this make sense and how did it get to this? Nisrine is 12 years old, with severe epilepsy that has caused significant intellectual disability. Nisrine is also non-verbal, she is fed via peg tube into her stomach, she is reliant on a wheelchair and she requires 24-hour care. Nisrine's mother submitted three applications for equipment between March and May 2016. We are talking March and May nearly two years ago. The most important piece of equipment needed was a sit-to-stand frame. This frame was recommended not only by Nisrine's endocrinologist and paediatrician but also by her orthopaedic surgeon, her physiotherapist and her occupational therapist—that’s the recommendation of five medical experts. But, despite the recommendations of all of Nisrine's medical experts, all five of her experts, the process took months and months, with the NDIA needing more and more information. It was absolutely ridiculous. When the situation became so impossible, when Nisrine's mum got so desperate to ensure the care of her daughter, she borrowed $9,000 from family to pay for the equipment that five medical experts—I will say that again: five medical experts—told Nisrine that she needed. What did the NDIA do? They said there would be no reimbursement for that $9,000 that Nisrine's mother had to borrow from family members to ensure the care of her daughter. It is now February 2018. Those initial applications were submitted in March to May 2016—as I said earlier, nearly two years ago. While the NDIA's decision not to reimburse the sit-to-stand frame is heading to the tribunal, and rightly so, Nisrine is still waiting for approval of an activity chair applied for in the same period of time. This is simply unacceptable. The worst of it is that I know Nisrine's experience is not isolated. I've had so many Canberrans, particularly over the Christmas break, coming to me and talking about the frustration of dealing with the NDIA and their experience of the NDIS. There are far too many different and negative NDIS experiences in my community to be able to tell you about with the time I have. Each story on its own is gut-wrenching. Knowing that they represent a trend is heartbreaking, and it beggars belief. The experiences I share show us that this version of the NDIS rolled out by this government is close to breaking point. (Time expired) Foreign Investment 77 19:55 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby Some of the most important and fundamental reforms to the Australian economy over the past four decades were aimed at getting the Australian government out of the private sector. Liberal and Labor administrations reformed industry-specific tariffs and subsidies and privatised a range of government-owned enterprises. They ended government involvement and interference in businesses and markets. They did this because, when governments participate in markets, they crowd out private sector businesses. Individuals and companies, not government, are best placed to deliver goods and products and earn income for the nation. There are a few exceptions to this rule, like instances of market failure, but such exceptions are rare. Without reforms like ending tariffs and subsidies and privatising government-owned enterprises, it's unlikely that our nation would be enjoying its 26th year of unbroken economic growth. So why, then, have we allowed governments to again interfere in the private sector? Why have we let in not the Australian government but instead foreign governments to compete against businesses in agriculture, telecommunications, commercial property and infrastructure? Why have we so quickly forgotten the hard-won and traumatic reduction of tariffs and subsidies and the pain of privatisation over recent decades that rightly removed government from markets so that businesses would function efficiently and successfully? Perhaps this is because, as The Australian's Paul Kelly observed in the inaugural Alf Rattigan lecture: … reform is a battle of ideas. One big mistake reformers made … is to think a debate won is won forever. That's wrong. Debates are not won forever. They must be fought and re-fought generation by generation. By allowing foreign government sovereign wealth funds and foreign government investment in private markets, we have allowed government back into key sectors in a new and damaging way. Take for example the agricultural sector, where foreign government ownership of farming land has grown significantly in recent years. Companies like Hassad Australia Pty Ltd are directly competing with local farmers and private investors. Hassad Australia was established in 2009 by the Hassad Food Company, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Qatar Investment Authority, the Qatar government's sovereign wealth fund. Hassad competes with local farmers not just for land but also in the production and sale of sheep and grain, for example. After Australian governments inflicted so much pain and trauma on the agricultural sector by dismantling protection, from dairy to sugar to wool and wheat, we owe our farmers the courtesy of not allowing any government back into their markets. Similarly, allowing foreign governments in to invest in our ports, telecommunications or electricity infrastructure has the effect of crowding out private sector businesses in the same way. Australian workers did not endure uncertainty as the Australian government sold businesses like Qantas, Australian Airlines, Telstra, electricity companies and the Commonwealth Bank to let foreign governments in to compete against the very businesses we privatised. We need to have a very close look at the influence and involvement of foreign government ownership in our nation. The federal government is looking closely at the issue of foreign investment as a whole, and I congratulate the Treasurer for the work he has done and continues to do in this area. I know the Treasurer has our national interest at heart, which is why our government has taken steps to ensure that any foreign investment is in the national interest and is transparent. This is why we've established the agricultural land register. This is why we have significantly reduced the screening threshold for foreign purchases of agricultural land from $252 million to $15 million. This is why just last week the Treasurer announced new rules to mandate that vendors must advertise and market agricultural land to Australians first. And this is why the Treasurer and the Minister for Home Affairs also announced that we will create a critical assets register to monitor who owns and controls critical infrastructure like ports, gas, electricity and water. They announced that all future applications for the sale of electricity transmission and distribution assets, and some generation assets, will attract ownership restrictions or conditions for foreign buyers. As the Treasurer and the minister noted, these assets and this infrastructure are key national security concerns, as is the diversity of ownership of these assets. Of course, carefully managed foreign investment by private individuals and private companies is a necessary part of our economy, but in my opinion the same does not apply to foreign governments and foreign government sovereign wealth funds. As a relatively small nation we require injections of capital, but not at any cost. Debate interrupted. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 78 NOTICES

Tuesday, 6 February 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) took the chair at 16:00.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 81 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Museum of Australian Democracy at Eureka 81 16:00 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand Ballarat has a wonderfully rich history built on the gold rush of the 19th century and all of the events associated with that period. Arguably, the most significant of those events is the Eureka Stockade. The site which is widely regarded as the location of the stockade battle is currently the home of the Museum of Australian Democracy at Eureka, MADE. MADE, which is owned by the city of Ballarat, not only commemorates the events of Eureka but also celebrates the significance of democracy in our world. In 2013, the site was redeveloped from what was the Ballarat Eureka Centre. This centre has focused more specifically on the events of Eureka and its links with democracy nationally and internationally. With funding of $5 million from the Victorian state government and the then Labor federal government, the place was expanded and redeveloped to become the more comprehensive centre we see today. It is now home to the original Eureka flag. Sadly, the future of MADE is under a cloud, with the City of Ballarat having undertaken a feasibility study—a study that has not been made public. I understand that options raised for the centre's future range from closing it completely to significant funding cuts. I want to make it very clear that if the Ballarat City Council votes to cut MADE's funding or, worse, slowly withdraw its council funding altogether I will be campaigning against it. There will be many others across our community and beyond who will do likewise. Council knows that there were many other projects back in 2013 that were competing for funding; the Ballarat Regional Soccer Facility was one. Ballarat City Council made the decision that receiving Commonwealth and state money for MADE was the priority for Ballarat city. In speaking to them at the time, I made it very clear I would support the bid but that I did not want to be back there years later with the council saying that they no longer wanted to commit funding to the centre. This was a council decision. It would be very disappointing to see the conservative-dominated council, one that has unfortunately operated, at times, in a very partisan manner—something that does our city a great disservice—not honour that decision. The city of Ballarat and we as its residents are the custodians of an extraordinary history. The city of Ballarat has been trying to divest itself of various versions of the Eureka Centre for many years. After having lobbied me, the council secured funding under a Labor government of $5 million and a further $5 million from the state. If they vote tomorrow night to abandon their commitment to MADE, it makes it very hard to treat future funding requests seriously. It will be a breach of faith with me and something I strongly caution counsellors against. We have to save the Eureka Centre. Forde Electorate: State Emergency Service, Alzheimer's Australia 81 16:03 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's my great pleasure to rise today to share some of the great success of the 2017 SES Orange and Purple Ball held last year in my electorate of Forde. The beneficiary of last year's ball was Alzheimer's Australia, which received a sizeable donation thanks to the generosity of our community and the inspiring humanitarian spirit of our SES volunteers. A large crowd attended the ball, which was held at the Logan West Community Centre. The attendees dazzled in stunning outfits of orange and purple, donning masks for the occasion and dancing the night away. I was astounded not only by the effort put in by so many people but also by their willingness to dig deep to help those in need. I'm sure that it is this willingness to give back which has inspired our event host, the Logan SES. I will just say in this chamber again what a pleasure it is to have people of such calibre in our community. Last year I took the opportunity to speak in this chamber of the amazing efforts of our SES during the flood event caused by ex-tropical Cyclone Debbie in our region. I reflected then on how deserving these men and women are of our recognition and thanked them for going above and beyond the call of duty for others. Yet, with these fundraisers, they proved their altruism extends even further than that. They truly exist to help all people in our community, no matter what hardship they face. Alzheimer's Australia is certainly a deserving beneficiary for the annual event. As the ball attendees heard on the night, there are more than 413,000 people living with dementia in Australia, with that number expected to rise to more than 536,000 by 2025. Current projections suggest that by 2025 more than 225,000 carers will be needed for sufferers across the nation, while the costs of dealing with the condition will increase to some $18.7 billion annually. Dementia is the single largest cause of disability in Australians aged 65 years and older and the third leading cause of our disability burden overall. One of the most pressing issues we face with this condition is to ensure that there is necessary support for people doing valuable work as students and early-career researchers in this space. It's pleasing to see how much our community is contributing to this vital work. It might be a small amount but it's the little bits that all add up, and I wish to commend the Logan SES. PFAS Contamination 82 16:06 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I rise to speak on behalf of my constituents in the Williamtown, Salt Ash and Fullerton Cove areas whose lives have been devastated by ongoing PFAS contamination through absolutely no fault of their own. In December last year, Labor and the Greens successfully put forward a Senate motion calling on the Turnbull government to stop contamination from coming from RAAF base Williamtown in my electorate. We demanded that the government explain what consideration had been given to understanding and addressing any financial impacts on affected businesses and individuals. Yesterday, the deadline came and went. My constituents scoured the public domain searching in vain for a long-promised solution to their suffering. It wasn't there. The saddest thing is that, despite all they've been through—the years now of inaction, the promised but not delivered rescue plans, the cover-ups and conflicts, the stress of navigating various levels of government—many of my people were actually still expecting something from Senator James McGrath and his PFAS task force. They were hoping against hope that Senator Marise Payne and the Department of Defence might do the right thing, accept accountability and clean up their mess. They were expecting something from their Prime Minister, something from their government. Instead, the people of Williamtown and surrounds received an insult—a piece of spin tabled after the deadline, where the government rattled through a list of things it has spent almost $100 million on across the country but conveniently neglected to address the fact that there are hundreds of people trapped on contaminated land who have no way out. These people have grave fears for their financial futures. They have grave fears for their health due to the much publicised connections that have been made between PFAS and the human immune system and rates of cancer, and their mental health is under siege. In short, my community is on the edge. As one resident put to me during a meeting in my office last month: 'Meryl, this is not living; it is just existing.' Families are frightened. They're frightened of their land and the produce that they used to be able to grow and consume but no longer can. They're frightened of the very puddles that appear on the ground. I call upon the Prime Minister—in fact, I am begging the Prime Minister and this government—to intervene immediately. Remove the Department of Defence from any future investigations; accept that these are human beings whose lives, hopes and futures have been decimated. The federal government must act now to create choices and options for those who are caught up in this diabolical mess. Calare Electorate: Australia Day 82 16:09 Mr GEE 261393 Calare On Australia Day in Calare we honoured many of the wonderful local residents who work so hard in our country communities. Ceremonies were held to recognise individuals who make great contributions and, in fact, are the glue that keep our country communities together. I would like to acknowledge them today. From the Mid-Western Regional Council, Citizen of the Year went to Carolyn Peek and Young Citizen of the Year went to Brody Mundy. The Mudgee Bee Group won the Environment Award and Soolan Clifford won the Sports Award. Alesha Bennetts won the Junior Sports Award. Joshua Hayward took out the Arts Award. The Community Event of the Year was the Cudgegong Valley Public School Garden Fair. Ben Thompson was named the Young Farmer of the Year. The Volunteer Services Award went to Trent O'Brien. The Volunteer Emergency Services Award went to Garry Dollisson, and Ruby Gossage and Edna Wells won the Wall of Reflections Award. In Cabonne, awards were presented in each town and village. In Borenore-Nashdale, Vandre Ingham won the Citizen of the Year Award and the Nashdale CWA was named Community Group of the Year. In Canowindra, Young Citizen of the Year went to Joanna Balcombe, and Citizen of the Year went to Michael Harrison. Community Group of the Year went to the Canowindra Challenge, which organises the balloon challenge in Canowindra every year. It was a privilege to join the folks in Canowindra for those celebration. In Cargo, Beverley Sargent was named Citizen of the Year, and the Cargo Blue Heelers took out the Community Group of the Year, famous sporting group and club that it is. In Cudal, Bronte Chown was named Young Citizen of the Year. Cath Kearney was named Citizen of the Year. The Cudal Soccer Club was named Community Group of the Year. In Cumnock, Citizen of the Year went to Kerrie Christie and the Community Group of the Year was the Cumnock Public School Crunch and Sip Volunteers. In Manildra, Zac Reimer was named Young Citizen of the Year, and the Manildra Men’s Shed was named Community Group of the Year. Well done to President John Farr and the team. They cook a great batch of scones. In Molong, Young Citizen of the Year was awarded to Sarah Hobbs. Citizen of the Year was awarded to Ian Gosper. Good on you, Gossie! Community Group of the Year was awarded to the Amalgamation No Thank You Committee. In Mullion Creek, Young Citizen of the Year was awarded to Sophie Gorman. Citizen of the Year was awarded to Janelle Culverson, who has served her local community with distinction for many years. The Community Group of the Year was awarded to the Mullion Creek and District Progress Association. In Yeoval, Young Citizen of the Year was awarded to Blake Cameron. Citizen of the Year was awarded to Nikki Tremain-Hennock. Community Group of the Year went to the Little River Landcare Group. In Eugowra, Britney Dukes was named Young Citizen of the Year. Viv McMillan was named Citizen of the Year. The Eugowra Community Biggest Morning Tea Group was named Community Group of the Year. I would like to recognise Wilfred Norris of Eugowra, who was awarded an OAM for his service to heritage preservation. Mr Norris is a member of the Eugowra Historical Museum and Bushranger Centre and has also donated various items. He was involved in the Australian Draught Horse Stud Book Society, a founder of the Golden Plough (Horse Drawn) Ploughing Competition, a member of the restoration group Braveheart Wagon and also very active in many other community groups. Congratulations to all of the award winners. (Time expired) Broadband 83 16:12 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley Since coming to government in 2013, Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals have done just about everything they possibly can to destroy the NBN. They have taken a world-class fibre-to-the-home network and they have turned it into 'fraudband'. Literally, across the area I represent, tens of thousands of households are frustrated and caught in a time warp. There are at least 20,000 households in my area which have received Labor's first-class broadband. They have received the fibre. Their neighbours and their fellow citizens are sitting back and asking, 'Why couldn't we have that?' In those areas, house prices are now rising even further because people have access to first-class broadband. But across the rest of the area there are approximately 40,000 premises that are receiving 'fraudband' or receiving absolutely nothing. For example, there are something like 20,000 premises which are in line for receiving some combination of copper and the old HFC cables. The problem is that the speeds and service that have been promised have not arrived and people have been left in limbo. Some people have no service whatsoever. Some people have services which drop out. This is particularly the case in the bayside suburbs in my electorate. The standard HFC network has been more degraded in the bayside suburbs and it has led to cost blowouts, wait times and very, very poor service. So it is quite clear that, in those areas that are receiving, in particular, the HFC, connectivity is very low and service is very poor. Large sections of the area are receiving the inferior service, but there are many households in places such as Chermside, Chermside West, Geebung, Kedron, Northgate, Nundah and Wavell Heights that are still waiting for a connection to the NBN. Roughly a third has Labor's first-class broadband. Roughly a third is caught in the time warp of copper and HFC. They may have a service, but it is not likely to be superior in the way that was promised and is likely to be inferior in many cases, compared with what they had before. In the remaining third, people have not received anything at all. This is a disaster. When it comes to infrastructure, it is probably the biggest infrastructure failure in the history of the country. There are dramatic consequences for small businesses right across my electorate. People who are operating childcare centres, many other people who are operating accounting firms, and families with kids studying at schools and universities have all been sacrificed to Turnbull's 'fraudband'. (Time expired) Corangamite Electorate: Regional Development 83 16:15 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite It's my great pleasure to rise and celebrate our Regional Jobs and Investment Packages. The Prime Minister was in Geelong a couple of weeks ago to announce that 21 different projects will receive $20 million under our very significant regional program to drive further jobs, adding to the 403,000 jobs created last year. This is record jobs growth of more than 1,100 jobs per day. I'm incredibly proud that this program will create 600 jobs during the construction phase and a further 600 ongoing jobs, with 200 of those jobs in advanced manufacturing. This is a great boost for the people of Corangamite and right across the Geelong region. One of the most significant grants was to LeMond Composites, which received $5 million and will very soon be starting construction of Australia's first carbon fibre production line. This is an absolute game changer not just for our region but for all of Australia, building on the 1,500 or so people who work in carbon fibre production, including at the wonderful Carbon Revolution company. There will be $2 million that will go to the Conservation Ecology Centre to build an incredible tourism facility at Marengo, $2 million that will go to the Royal Geelong Yacht Club for it's fabulous Safe Harbour Precinct project, and $2 million that will go to Flat Glass Industries, which is using this money to transition. They were making components, mainly windscreens for the car industry, and they're transitioning into architectural glass. This is a great example of how the Turnbull government is supporting proud manufacturers to transition into future opportunities and creating ongoing jobs. ConFlex Technology will receive nearly $2 million, and EMU, who produce sheepskin footwear, will receive $720,000. There is $500,000 that will go to the Anglesea Surf Lifesaving Club. I want to congratulate the club on its incredible advocacy. They do an incredible job. I recently visited the Starfish Nippers program. That's a program especially for disabled children, and they do an incredible job. And 36T will receive $300,000. They are developing an advanced manufacturing facility to produce export carbon fibre composite bicycle wheels. There will be $300,000 to go to Basils Farm, and I'm very pleased to announce that $250,000 will go to the Colac Otway Shire for their continuing upgrade of Lake Colac, which is a very important asset for the people of Colac. We're very proud of the many ways in which we are standing up for regional Australia and for the people of Corangamite, including under this program. Broadband, Infrastructure, Knowles, Mr Stanley Alfred James 'Stan' 84 16:18 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa In December last year I sent out a community survey to my constituents to give them an opportunity to raise the issues that matter to them. The results highlight the stark reality of what we already know: people of the outer western suburbs of Sydney are being let down and forgotten by state and federal Liberal governments. Despite people winding down for Christmas, hundreds of people filled in the survey, and I'd like to thank them for their feedback. The issue that was highlighted most was, not unsurprisingly, the NBN. Just today I was contacted by Mrs Polglase, who raised concerns about the connection of her landline under the NBN. It has not worked properly for over a month. She's concerned about her 90-year-old husband and how quickly she could contact emergency services if they are needed. I've spoken multiple times in this chamber about the problems that the people in my electorate have faced with the NBN, but the comments of Mrs Polglase and many, many survey respondents really drive home the level of dissatisfaction that's felt in my electorate. It is beyond well overdue that the government finally listens to the people, admits its failings and fixes the mess. Another matter raised is the planning and building of the Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek. Ninety-eight per cent of survey respondents said the airport should be serviced by a train line when it opens, despite the reticence of state and federal governments to make any commitment to fund such infrastructure. The same numbers agreed that the road and other infrastructure should be built now and 96 per cent wanted local people to have a percentage of the jobs at the airport. The government must immediately show that it has a plan for how it can operate the airport in a way that actually benefits our community. The residents of Sydney's outer suburbs are fed up with being left behind. My office is regularly contacted by commuters who find it impossible to obtain legal parking spots within a reasonable distance of train stations like Edmondson Park and Glenfield, or Macquarie Fields, a station which has no lift, little parking and few regular bus services. When it's impossible to find an appropriate parking spot after 7 am, the only option is to drive to work, putting further strain on clogged roads in my electorate and beyond, not to mention the strain on family time. I would like to close by paying tribute to Mr Stan Knowles, the former state member for Ingleburn and for Macquarie Fields, who passed away on 30 December last year. Mr Knowles also served on the Liverpool council from 1976 to 1982, including a period as deputy mayor. Stan was a stalwart of the local ALP, serving 33 years as our local branch president. He cared deeply about his community and was popular within it. His son, the Hon. Craig Knowles, replaced him as the member for Macquarie Fields and was a minister in the New South Wales government. To Stan's sons and his wife of over 60 years, Marie, I offer my condolences as well as my appreciation for all that Stan achieved for our local area. Moore Electorate: Australia Day Awards 84 16:21 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore I am pleased to inform the House that three constituents of my electorate of Moore have been recognised for their contribution to our community as part of this year's Australia Day Honours List within the general division of the Order of Australia. Kallaroo resident Lynne Bradshaw was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in recognition of her significant service to animal welfare at the state and national levels. A successful Perth business woman in medical technology, her compassionate advocacy for higher standards of live export and farm management standards stemmed from her love of our uniquely Australian fauna, when she first made Australia home from England more than 40 years ago. It was the goannas in her Sydney backyard that sparked her love for animals. Mrs Bradshaw first joined the RSPCA as a board member in 1997 and has been the president of the RSPCA's WA branch since 2004. She became the first female national president of the organisation in 2006, a role she held until 2013. Mrs Bradshaw also served on the Animal Ethics Committee for the Telethon Kids Institute from 2006 to 2017. She is also currently a representative of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee of the Department of Agriculture and Food in Western Australia. Hillarys resident Nonie Browner was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia in recognition of her long commitment to social welfare. Starting in 1966, Mrs Browner joined the Scarborough Police and Citizens Youth Club as a committee member, a role she would continue until 1998. During her time as a member, it wasn't long before she would take on greater responsibility as a board member of the Federation of Police and Citizens Youth Clubs of Western Australia from 1979 to 1986. Mrs Browner was the founding president of the WA Police Widows Guild from 1972 to 1978 and remains actively committed to the services it provides in offering assistance to the wives and families of police officers killed in duty. In 1976, Mrs Browner, as a founding member, helped form the WA Police Families Advisory Council and today is a life member and continues to invest her time to be an active committee member of the council. Ross Whiteman was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in recognition of his service to people living with motor neurone disease. The Ocean Reef resident has been a member and fundraiser for the association since 2001. Mr Whiteman led the Motor Neurone Disease Association of WA as president for 14 years, following the passing of his wife, Ann Winifred, from MND in 2002. During this time, he guided the association from strength to strength and initiated significant advancement in the services provided to people living with motor neurone disease in Western Australia. Lingiari Electorate: Telecommunications 85 16:25 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari In the last couple of weeks, we've had excessive amounts of rain in the Top End of the Northern Territory, and at least 4,000 residents spent three days without access to Telstra services. This affected communities such as Daly River, Wadeye, Peppimenarti, Palumpa or Nganmarriyanga and surrounding outstations. In fact, the Daly River community had to be evacuated, and 400 people were evacuated to the showgrounds in Darwin. The important thing here is that, apart from the evacuation, with the telecommunications failing, people had no phone lines or online access for three to four days. Fuel, internet, phones and electronic transactions were affected. The Centrelink BasicsCards were unusable. You couldn't get access to the shop for power, BasicsCard purchases or to withdraw money. For a welfare-dependent community, where 70 per cent of income is income managed via the BasicsCard, it's a totally unacceptable situation, because these people are suffering as a result of the conditions under which they are placed. There are, as we know, constant holes in the BasicsCard, and the wet season doesn't help. Everything grinds to a halt when this happens—businesses included. In these times, there is not much awareness of when things can come back online, with no mechanism to find out because there's no way of communicating and, of course, with Telstra grounded because they can't fly. There are really difficult situations which I don't think the broader Australian community understands: no food, theoretically, would be available for people for up to three or four days because they couldn't get access to the store. This happens across the Top End, depending on where the storms and cyclones impact. Marion Scrymgour, the CEO of the Tiwi Islands council, said: 'It has a huge impact. It's something that policy makers and government people have not thought about. This happens quite a bit. With the wet season, when communications go down, it means people cannot go to the shop with their BasicsCard and buy what they need. Families can go two or three days without access,' and all that that entails. Scott McIntyre from Wadeye said this: 'The phone lines were down for three to four days last week, and we've seen it happen before. It has a major impact on the communities and business. The most notable thing is the impact of people on the ground. You don't know if it will be two days or two weeks. It's noticeable there is no plan B to handle it.' I would say: this is a matter to be taken up by Commonwealth agencies, along with the agencies from the Northern Territory government and local governments within these communities, to try and find ways of addressing these problems, along with Telstra, when the wet season occurs and these services are so affected. Employment 85 16:28 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning Employment is an enduring challenge in Canning, especially for young people. People need work for self-worth, dignity and purpose. Recently, though, we've had good news. Just before Christmas, the Department of Employment reported a decrease in unemployment over the past 12 months in the Peel region. In the City of Mandurah, unemployment has fallen from 11.6 per cent to 6.8 per cent. In the Shire of Murray, unemployment is down from 10.7 per cent to 6.5 per cent. This is really good news and cause for optimism. But employment isn't just about numbers; it's about people—flesh and blood Australians. Over recent months, I've spoken with people whose lives have been changed by job creation across the Peel region. One example stands out to me. It is the story of Harley, Tony and Dan. Tony and Dan Turner are the owners of a Mandurah small business, Madora Bay Glass. Last year Tony and Dan wanted to hire more staff. They were interested in taking on an apprentice but wanted to make sure they were hiring someone who was keen, reliable and teachable. So Tony came along to an employment breakfast put on my Mandurah's employment facilitator, Maryanne Baker. Maryanne's role is to connect businesses, workers and jobactive providers. Our government has driven this initiative and it is working, for the breakfast is where Tony and Dan heard about the PaTH program. Under PaTH, Tony and Dan had the opportunity to trial a new worker as a paid intern. It was the equivalent of a paid job interview. It's an opportunity for businesses to see someone up close and get a sense of their personal skills, their work ethic and their commitment. This is where Harley comes into the story. Harley is a young bloke from Dawesville looking for work. Through the local offices of Bridging the Gap and Employment Plus, Harley completed the prepare stage of the PaTH program. Over six weeks he learnt skills essential for securing work: goal setting, intensive job searching, cold calling, resume preparation and interview skills. During his job interview, Harley stood out from the other candidates. He had researched Madora Bay Glass and glazing. He showed an interest in the business, which is something very important to business owners like Tony and Dan. The preparation worked. Tony took on Harley as their PaTH intern. This all happened in October and I was pleased to meet everyone at the growing business. Some weeks ago I visited with Tony and Harley, at Madora Bay Glass, to see how they were going. Harley had impressed Tony, Dan and the team. He was on time every day and took hold of the opportunity before him. He impressed Tony and Dan so much that they've taken on Harley as a full-time apprentice. He is now out and about with the team, learning his trade and contributing to our local economy. I noticed too that he's grown in confidence over that short time. Harley is another example of how work gives us dignity, self-worth and purpose, and I commend the PaTH program for the opportunity it gives to young Australians. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. BILLS 86 BILLS Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017 86

Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017

Second Reading 86 16:32 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest My constituents in Forrest—and every Australian—need to have confidence that when a Commonwealth department contacts them it is actually that department doing the contacting. If an individual or a group pretends to be Medicare, Centrelink, the ATO, the department of immigration or any other Commonwealth department body or organisation, that person or group will be charged. It is illegal. That is what this law is about. So the next time someone decides to send out text messages during an election campaign—or at any other time—and impersonates a Commonwealth department, deliberately scaring the most vulnerable people, that individual will be charged for doing so. To those with malicious intent or scammers pretending to be from a Commonwealth department: it will be against the law, once this law passes, to impersonate Centrelink, the Department of Defence and the Australian Taxation Office. There are over 2.1 million aged pensioners in Australia. Those people would be particularly worried to get the types of email or texts they received during the campaign. It was a dreadful time and very worrying for many people. This Labor's famous 'Mediscare' campaign impersonated a Commonwealth department, deliberately scaring the most vulnerable people. It will be against the law, once this law is passed, whether it be a scammer or someone with malicious intent, to impersonate Centrelink—or veterans affairs or immigration. It is really important. We saw—graphically—this infamous 'Mediscare' campaign during the 2016 election. Thousands of text messages were sent, supposedly, from Medicare. Of course, they weren't; they were from the Labor Party. Why is this so important? One of the great protections in our system of government is that, when people come into contact with a government institution, they need to be able to have the faith and confidence and trust that the people they're talking to or dealing with are in fact government officials. It is a really key part of confidence in our democratic process. That's why this bill is so important. We already have laws relating to impersonating a Commonwealth official. This is an extension of that to impersonating a Commonwealth body. It covers the situation where it's not just a Commonwealth official being impersonated but an entire Commonwealth organisation as well. We did see this, as I said, during 'Mediscare'. It was very clear from those text messages with 'Medicare' at the top that it was deliberately misleading. It was certainly Labor who did it. This bill will amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to safeguard the Australian public from misrepresentations and false statements purportedly made on behalf of Commonwealth bodies. The Turnbull government condemns the impersonation of Commonwealth bodies, as I do personally. I see it as well with scammers. We saw this was a giant scam and a giant con. We're committed to strengthening public confidence in communications from all government departments and bodies. This bill introduces new criminal offences, as it should, and an injunction power to prevent people from impersonating a Commonwealth body. The measures will ensure that the Australian public, pensioners, people on lower incomes and anybody who is likely to receive this type of message, sent deliberately with an intent to convince them that it's a Commonwealth body when it is not, will have confidence that those people are acting against the law. People need to have confidence in the legitimacy of communications from government agencies. It helps to safeguard the proper functioning of government. People shouldn't take what happened lightly. We haven't. That's why this legislation is here. It is essential to a well-functioning democracy that people in Australia have absolute trust in the legitimacy of statements made by government agencies. Trust is inevitably eroded if people are able, with impunity, as we saw, to misrepresent themselves and communicate on behalf of a government or a government organisation or body without any authorisation. Accordingly, this bill introduces new offences to criminalise conduct where a person falsely misrepresents themselves to be acting on behalf of or with the authority of a Commonwealth agency, as happened in the 'Mediscare' campaign. For the purposes of the new offences, a Commonwealth body would be a Commonwealth entity, a Commonwealth company or any service, benefit, program or facility—it covers the broad spectrum—provided by or on behalf of the Commonwealth. The offences will capture false representations in relation to a broad range of government bodies and services, from the Attorney-General's Department through to Centrelink and Medicare. Just think of where else we could see this type of campaign running. A scammer could claim to be from Regional Development Australia. Perhaps the Child Support Agency or the Department of Social Services or Human Services will be the next one. The list is significant. We saw the disgraceful use of messages that really confused with the legitimate messages from the Commonwealth during the 2016 election campaign. Those messages were sent out to people in the community encouraging them to vote a certain way, based on a falsehood. That's what it was. It took advantage of a loophole in the current law on impersonating the Commonwealth or its officials. There were pensioners receiving text messages about the government's policy on Medicare. It was blatantly false. They were spread maliciously in order to achieve an electoral advantage. That gap is being covered by this law. It is already a criminal offence to impersonate a Commonwealth official. This takes that even further. I am particularly pleased, given the work I've done in the online space, that this will cover scammers as well because we frequently see scams where people send a false invoice pretending to be from the ATO. This law will cover those people as well. Today, on Safer Internet Day, the people who are prone to this sort of behaviour had better be aware: this law will cover you, too, if that's what you're doing. The bill introduces offences to ensure that the punishment reflects the person's state of mind in making the false representation where a person intends that, or is reckless as to whether, their conduct will result in or is reasonably capable of resulting in a false representation. It will be punishable by up to two years imprisonment. The amendments also create a new aggravated offence where a person falsely impersonates a Commonwealth body or service with the intent to gain, cause a loss, or influence the exercise of a public duty. The more serious and deliberate nature of this conduct warrants an increased maximum penalty of five years imprisonment—as it should. These penalties are commensurate with offences for impersonating a Commonwealth official. The bill contains safeguards to ensure that neither of these offences unduly limits the freedom of expression—equally as important. The bill also enlivens the injunction provisions in the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, providing persons whose interests have been or would be affected by the false representation the opportunity to prevent such conduct through a court-issued injunction. This is particularly important online. The issues around the online space are immediate, global— Mr Craig Kelly 99931 Important on election day, too. Ms MARINO HWP Very important on election day. The bill will enable affected persons to apply to a relevant court for an injunction to prevent conduct in contravention of the new offences in the Criminal Code. As I'm reminded, it's important to note that the purpose of this power is to enable affected persons to act swiftly—as you need to, particularly online, and you saw that with the 'Mediscare' campaign; there needed to be an immediate and effective response—to prevent conduct amounting to false representation of a Commonwealth agency, which is what we saw. It was very cleverly targeted, unfortunately, at the most vulnerable. These amendments are critical to protecting Commonwealth bodies from what is and will be criminal misrepresentation—and it should be. It should be against the law to misrepresent a Commonwealth agency or body. The amendments will ensure that the public—those people out there who elect us to this place—can have confidence in all forms of communication that come from the Commonwealth government. The people who live in our electorates take it very seriously when they get any form of communication claiming to be from a government agency. They take it seriously and they need to have confidence that that's who it's actually coming from. That's why this law is so important. We're committed to safeguarding the proper functioning of Australia's democracy—that's what this is about; it's not about anything other than safeguarding our democracy. Trust is so critical. Australian people need to have trust in the validity of communications from our Commonwealth bodies. After all, if you can't trust a Commonwealth body, who can you trust? That's what people say to me. They need to have that level of confidence, and we here are the guardians of that trust. That's why we take it so seriously, and we do, and why I'm very pleased to be speaking on this bill. This bill will strengthen public confidence in all such communications. Just as importantly, it will ensure that those who deliberately deceive the Australian public are ultimately captured by the law. What a great result that will be. I commend the minister for bringing the legislation to the House. It is important legislation. I commend the bill to the House. I'm pleased that my colleagues are here to support that endeavour. 16:44 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher When I spoke on the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill last July I said, 'I'll be back,' and now I'm pleased to finally be able to fulfil that promise. I'm proud to be part of a government that passed that bill, and now I'm determined to be part of a government that sees through the second crucial plank of this reform. After hours of debate, we know what this legislation, the Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017, will achieve. In short, it will make it clear that it is a criminal offence in Australia to impersonate a Commonwealth entity and will give affected parties the right to secure an injunction to prevent such an impersonation—crucial on election day. It will also introduce a maximum penalty for this offence of two years imprisonment or five years in circumstances of aggravation. But before this debate got underway we all knew that this legislation was necessary, because we all knew that impersonation of Commonwealth bodies does occur. We know that it occurs when it can have the most corrosive effects on our democracy, especially during our national election campaigns. Members opposite, in particular, know that that occurs. They know that their party and their friends in the union movement are among the nation's leading perpetrators of this kind of impersonation. During the 2016 federal election, an older lady came up to me at a polling booth and she asked me: 'Andrew, what are you going to do? Are you going to take Medicare away from us?' She wanted to vote for this government, for the coalition government, and its vision for Australia, but not if we were going to take away Medicare. When I told her the truth, that we would not be selling or privatising Medicare, she was willing to vote for the coalition government. But why did she think the Turnbull government was going to privatise Medicare, despite the Prime Minister's repeated assurances to the contrary? She believed that Medicare would be sold, because that's what she was told. She thought Medicare would be privatised by the coalition government. In Queensland, text messages from a phone number that identified itself on recipient's phones as 'Medicare' read: Mr Turnbull's plans to privatise Medicare will take us down the road of no return. Time is running out to save Medicare. But it was not Medicare that sent that text; it was in fact the Labor Party. It's hard to think of a clearer case of an organisation impersonating a Commonwealth entity. This impersonation was assisted by the friends of members opposite in the ACTU. The ACTU distributed one million replica Medicare cards which suggested that voters should preference the Liberal Party last and lied about the Turnbull government's proposed policies. How do I know it was a million? Because the ACTU crowed about it in a media release. These cards didn't just bear a passing resemblance to a Medicare card, didn't just look a bit like a Medicare card; they were identical do a Medicare card—the same green colour, the same Medicare watermark, the 10-digit code, the font and the validity date. Most damning of all, the Medicare logo was used without any permission, obviously, from the federal government. Is it any wonder that little old lady constituent of mine thought that Medicare was going to be privatised by the government? This is a clear case of impersonation and it can't be allowed to happen again. Let's face it, the Leader of the Opposition, members opposite and their union mates don't need any more help to spread lies about the government and its healthcare policies. They were doing a pretty comprehensive job of that before they started impersonating Commonwealth entities. During the last election the ACTU sent voters in marginal electorates robocalls suggesting that a Turnbull government would reduce access to Medicare, while women over the age of 65 were targeted with late-night phone calls repeating the same lies. Meanwhile Labor ran TV campaigns with the completely baseless claim that the Prime Minister wanted to privatise Medicare. In case there is anyone in the country who is left in doubt, who has not yet seen through this rank dishonesty, let's take a second to review the Turnbull government's actions on Medicare since the election. This government is spending more on Medicare than ever before: $23 billion in 2017. Under Labor it was $19½ billion. This government restored the indexation of the Medicare rebate after the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition froze it in 2013. That restoration began in July last year and included the retention of bulk-billing for pathology and diagnostic imaging. In 2013 we saw the highest-ever GP bulk-billing rate for a March quarter: 85.6 per cent. So, we know that Labor and the unions will happily impersonate Medicare during an election in the pursuit of their dishonest political agenda. What we don't know is what's next. Impersonating a Commonwealth entity was the last stage in a 'Mediscare' campaign that began with simple, old-fashioned misrepresentations. What other impersonations might we see in the future, without this law? Will Labor and the unions perhaps impersonate the Department of Education and Training? In that regard, too, their lies and misrepresentations have in fact already started. At the end of April 2017 the Leader of the Opposition claimed that the government was making $500 million in cuts to TAFE. In fact, there were no cuts to the TAFE budget. Rather, there was an additional $360 million a year in the budget to fund 300,000 more apprenticeships. Apprentice numbers, in contrast, collapsed under the Leader of the Opposition when he was a minister. In May 2017 the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, standing next to her leader, claimed that the government was going to cut $22 billion out of the education budget over the decade—a disgraceful line that she continues to push to the media, right up to this week. As we know, the Turnbull government is actually committing $23½ billion in extra funding during that period. Will Labor or the unions perhaps impersonate the Fair Work Commission? Once again, the misrepresentations have already begun. The ACTU said in March 2017 that nurses, teachers and disability workers were all at risk of having their penalty rates cut following the Fair Work Commission decision. They weren't, as the commission themselves said and as has proved to be the case. Not long after that, ACTU President, Ged Kearney, said that the independent umpire had never before reduced people's pay, in 100 years. In fact, they had done so twice in the past decade alone. And of course we all remember 'Trent the Battler', supposedly a worker, presented by Labor, who was supposedly gutted by the Fair Work Commission's decision. In fact, he was a union delegate who was completely unaffected—a Labor member. It could be others. Their track record in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the ABCC and many other agencies is consistently dishonest. It is ironic that this Leader of the Opposition started the year suggesting that he wants to introduce a federal ICAC—a national integrity commission. Purportedly, it would be set up by a man who, without doubt, was present when the dishonest 'Mediscare' campaign was created. This is a Leader of the Opposition who has never apologised for the Labor Party's impersonation of Medicare. The Leader of the Opposition is the same man who fought tooth and nail to stop the Heydon royal commission. He called it politically biased and claimed it was a witch-hunt. He's the same Leader of the Opposition whose evidence to that commission was described as evasive and whose credibility as a witness was called into question by the commissioner himself. Is this the man we want setting the terms of reference for a national integrity watchdog? I don't think so. We all know that that sort of conduct Labor and the unions indulged in at the last election is wrong. I suspect that members opposite would even agree with that themselves. After all, when the Minister for Human Services' office discovered that ACT Labor had been distributing replica Medicare cards and asked that they cease, it took nine minutes for ACT Labor to apologise and promise to stop. If even ACT Labor can tell that this is wrong, why can't the Leader of the Opposition and the Australian Labor Party? As parents, we all tell our kids that honesty is the best policy. How, then, can Labor get away with these fabrications? If we do not pass this legislation, there is every reason to believe that Labor and the unions actually intend to continue this kind of conduct. ACTU's secretary, Sally McManus, was, after all, in a previous role, the architect of the 'Mediscare' campaign. She was rewarded for her base achievement by being promoted to secretary. She believes, as is well known, that obeying the law is optional for unions, and she appears to believe the same about telling the truth. In May 2017, she said, in a column in TheSydney Morning Herald and The Age, that 2.3 million Australians earn minimum age. At the time, it was actually 196,300. That's a fabrication by more than a factor of 10. In March 2017, she said, of CFMEU law breaking, that it was done quite often when a worker was killed on a building site, when, of the 47 matters that were then before the courts relating to illegal action by the CFMEU, not one was in direct response to a workplace fatality. Labor has never apologised for the 'Mediscare' campaign. In fact, exactly the same lies about 'Mediscare' continued in the recent Bennelong by-election and will, no doubt, be repeated in the Batman by-election. The Leader of the Opposition in the House has already suggested that they intend to take a number of their current scare campaigns all the way to the next federal election. We know that this legislation is necessary now and so does the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which wrote: The committee considers that impersonating or purporting to act on behalf of a Commonwealth officer, or an entity, is unacceptable and that steps should be taken to ensure that neither occurs in future. Everyone, with the exception of the Leader of the Opposition, would agree that we need this legislation, just as we need the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Act. We cannot allow a repeat of the outrageous dishonesty and deception that we saw in the 2016 election. We must act now. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House. 16:58 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank all the honourable members for their contribution to the debate on the Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017. Criminal misrepresentation of Commonwealth bodies requires, clearly, an immediate response to protect the integrity of Australia's democratic system of government. By amending the Criminal Code Act 1995, people will be prohibited from falsely representing themselves to be or to be acting on behalf of a Commonwealth body. This bill promotes public confidence in representations that come from Commonwealth bodies and, by doing so, safeguards the proper functioning of government. The bill introduces new criminal offences to criminalise the impersonation of a Commonwealth body. The amendments will cover false representations in relation to a wide range of government bodies, including Commonwealth departments such as the Attorney-General's Department, Commonwealth corporations such as the NBN Co Limited and Commonwealth services such as Centrelink and Medicare. The bill contains relevant safeguards to ensure that the offences do not unduly limit freedom of expression, and exemptions are available for conduct that is engaged in for genuine satirical, academic or artistic purposes. With respect to injunction powers, there is recognition that there is often a need to be expedient in addressing issues of false representations, and the bill also introduces for this purpose a new injunction power. The power would enable affected persons to apply to a relevant court for an injunction to prevent conduct in contravention of the new offences in the Criminal Code. An injunction power provides an option to swiftly prevent the conduct in contravention of the new offences. By way of conclusion, the Australian government condemns the impersonation of Commonwealth bodies. It is essential to a well-functioning democracy that the public can trust in the legitimacy and accuracy of statements made by the Australian government. It is clearly appropriate that we, as parliamentarians, give the Australian public the confidence to trust in communications emanating from Commonwealth bodies, and the new offences contained in this bill are a necessary and proportionate measure for ensuring this confidence. The bill ensures the protection of the Australian public from criminal misrepresentation of Commonwealth bodies and further safeguards the integrity of the Australian system of government. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has considered the bill and has recommended the bill be passed without amendment, and the government accepts this recommendation. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights have also considered the bill, and the committees reported no scrutiny or human rights reservations. I would like to thank these committees for their consideration of the bill. I would also like to assure the House that, consistent with these reports, the bill contains appropriate measures balanced by appropriate safeguards. I don't intend to reiterate some of the submissions that have been made with respect to the behaviour that this bill is meant to outlaw and which has occurred previously, save to note this fact before committing the bill to the House: I understand that Labor do not oppose—in fact, they support—the passage of this bill. The passage of this bill would criminalise the conduct which the Labor Party engaged in, which has become known as the 'Mediscare' campaign. The Labor Party are, in fact, now acknowledging that that campaign should have been and should in the future be criminal. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. CONDOLENCES 90 CONDOLENCES COHEN, The Hon. Barry, AM 90 17:03 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports Yesterday, there was a very moving state memorial at Old Parliament House for its former deputy chairman the Hon. Barry Cohen AM, 1935 to 2017. I've attended many state memorials, but the speeches, the warmth, the emotion—I've never been at a ceremony like it. I want to congratulate the organisers and say it was an honour to be part of it, along with the Prime Minister, former Prime Minister Hawke, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, Rabbi Shmueli Feldman who was the MC, and Stewart Cohen who spoke on behalf of the family. There was a very moving Welcome to Country that I want to pay tribute to in particular. The memorial took place after Rabbi Feldman conducted a funeral—as is the Jewish custom—at the north Canberra cemetery a couple of days before Christmas, soon after Barry passed. The state memorial and the funeral were two distinct events. I want to repeat and elaborate on some of the things I said at the memorial yesterday. I particularly want to praise Rachel Baxendale, who, in the online version of The Australian, had a very good report of what the various major speakers said about the passing of such a notable former minister. The ABC ran a report too, but it's a shame that the Fairfax press in its self-indulgence didn't carry a word of it today or yesterday. I said yesterday that all of us worked for Barry Cohen even when we were not employed by him. Even when I was elected to parliament it made no difference to Barry: he still thought I worked for him and just needed to implement his million bright ideas. Barry was, in the Australian vernacular meaning of the word, a character. He was a sports commentator for Sydney's TCN 9. That's probably because he was nearly a professional golfer. The wonderful booklet that accompanied his memorial shows a picture of him in the swing in the back. Apparently he accompanied Prime Minister Hawke many times on the golf course. He was the first small businessman I know of in North Sydney to join a union, the SDA. The legendary 'Johno' Johnson was really taken aback by Barry's interest in Labor when Barry was running his beloved fashion store at St Ives, Fashion Plate, where he insisted I attend to get my first suit when I came up to work for him as a staffer in the Hawke government. Many years later he turned the marginal Central Coast seat of Robertson into a bastion for Labor, holding it from 1969 to 1990. I notice there are probably many good members of the opposition who've held it since. Some of the people working for prime ministers and leaders of the opposition have no understanding of what it takes to be a marginal member and what a difference individuals can make. Woe betide them for their political faith and their lack of knowledge of that. Barry was the last opposition male to hold the position of spokesman on women's affairs, as in 1978 there were no women in the House of Reps. Barry was elected nine times between 1969 and 1990. Few will replicate that record. Phillip Ruddock, who is in the audience, is one who did. As Martin Luther King said, 'Longevity has its place.' Barry's passion for the arts, heritage and environment was fulfilled when he became minister in these portfolios. His passion for Kakadu, as I said yesterday, established it in the public imagination alongside Indigenous natural icons like Uluru and the Kimberley. He was absolutely a visionary with road safety. In his early years in parliament he demanded that vehicles have airbags, in the 1970s. Now it's par for the course, but it was absolutely visionary then. I was sitting in the Labor Party caucus today and Senator Gallacher came up to me and said, 'Even a few years ago Barry was driving us mad about road safety.' I think it's encapsulated in a quote from one of his articles: When I became obsessed with the subject, I was treated as an eccentric. I don't regret a minute of it, and in my twilight years I'm determined to do what I can to revive the road safety campaign. I'd like to live long enough to see the headline: No one killed on the roads this year. That was a conversation just today with Alex Gallacher, one of the senators who remembers his campaign on this. Barry was environment minister when they forbade mineral sands mining on Fraser Island. He was one of the Hawke government's spearheads in preserving the natural wonders of the Franklin in Tasmania. I know that other people in other political parties claim credit for that, but Barry was absolutely crucial in that. When we wander around the Franklin these days, I think about him and his role in preserving it. He had a successful life in business and, as I said, a great career in politics. He was the author of nine books between 1987 and 2011 and an immense collection of newspaper and magazine columns, which I've been re-reading in the last two weeks. Some of his columns were excoriating about topics as varied as the wit and wisdom of the New South Wales right, the perils of nouvelle cuisine and the superannuation industry, where he argued that governments should 'save seniors from racetrack touts posing as fund managers'. I think we've all had experiences with constituents who feel that. In his immense newspaper output, Cohen made unpopular forays, arguing that ministerial travel should be judged on its outcome, not on its cost—I could tell some of the people at Fairfax and the ABC about that—and that the backbenchers should resume their independence and resume their rights in question time. We could tell some of the whips, prime ministers and leaders of the opposition about that. He was a devoted ally and advocate of Senator John Faulkner and his plans to clean up Labor. Barry's whiplash pen critiqued people on his own side as well as on the conservative side of politics. They included Peter Garrett, Graham Richardson and, most memorably, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. In the early 1980s, years before Rudd became a national figure, Cohen gave him a searing character evaluation. When you read it 20 years later, through all that happened with Rudd in opposition and Rudd as Prime Minister and Rudd as insurgent, it makes Barry Cohen sound like the oracle of Bungendore, 20 years before Rudd became a national character. But big, brave Barry didn't simply snipe from the safety of newspaper columns. He was a fierce critic of the maladministration of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and when he attended his last gathering of that august organisation he was the subject of a two-hour harangue by Fidel Castro. With incredible courage, the next day he gave it back with both barrels to the Cuban dictator. I didn't include some of the things that he said in my memorial speech, but I'll just read a couple of them. Cohen said: 'President Castro’s harangue was one of the most nauseating, disgraceful exhibitions I have ever witnessed. What was so extraordinary was his complete omission of any of the crimes committed by his friends in the communist bloc, the Third World and the non-aligned countries. Where in his speech was there any mention of the Soviet Union's invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, of Vietnam's invasion of Kampuchea, of Syria's slaughter of Palestinians and Lebanese, and the hundreds of thousands of political prisoners and denial of human rights in dozens of countries here today?' He did that in Cuba, while he was in their maw. Barry's gentler side was shown in his passion for the Indigenous people of this country. This began with his extreme involvement, as a non-Indigenous assistant, in the Aboriginal campaign for the successful 1967 referendum. Years later, you could see that passion and involvement, with a tribute to his mentor and Indigenous friend, Faith Bandler, on her death. It is one of the most memorable columns I've ever read, and I urge people to go back and read it. It's in The Australian and it's called 'Thanks to Faith, change won out'. He also said incredible and valuable things about housing affordability, which I won't go into. He and I didn't always agree on the issue of 18C. Barry was in favour of the legislation, but he said, 'I've come to the conclusion that you cannot change people's minds by legislation.' Arguing people around on these important issues was something he considered to be very important. If all of that wasn't enough, Barry Cohen was the deputy chairman of Old Parliament House from 1990 to 2001. In 1999 he made an ill-advised foray back into state politics at the request of the then Labor Premier. I must admit, I took 20 Mexicans north of the border to help him with how-to-vote cards. Throughout his parliamentary and newspaper life, Cohen shared with me an immense pride in his Jewish origins and was a subtle, well-informed advocate of Israel. He was a very strong supporter of the two-state solution. The weight of the Nazi genocide of millions, including large segments of his family, weighed very heavily on the shoulders of his memory. He and his wife, Rae, did great justice to his murdered relatives, visiting Poland and writing a searing account of the fate of the Koziwodas, that branch of the family that was utterly wiped out, in an article which was published in the now defunct Bulletinand which you can get from my office. Lastly, let me deal with the difficult topic of Barry's last years. His courage in dealing with his dementia publicly was matched only by the devotion of his son, Adam, and his wife, Rae, to his increasing physical fragility. He even turned his suffering into a good story. It would have been in one of his books if he had been writing books in the last years. This is from a newspaper: … When word got out that I had joined the list of dementia sufferers one of the first calls I had was from an old "friend". "A Mr Howard calling," was the message from the nurse. 'I don't know a Mr Howard, unless it's the former prime minister.' "That's the one," said the nurse. I'm very proud that a group of us—his Praetorian Guard and former ministerial staff, led by Dr Sergio Sergi, Peter Conway, his son Adam and I—travelled to Goulburn to farewell Barry at his nursing home. He was compos mentis. It was a tearful farewell. He recognised all of us. He cried. We all cried. It was a great thing to do, just a few months before he passed. Barry Cohen, a big character and a big Australian. His memory is a blessing. 17:15 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I too rise to join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing my deepest condolences of behalf of my community at the passing of the Hon. Barry Cohen AM, aged 82. I join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in extending my thoughts to Barry Cohen's family and friends at this time, including many of those who travelled to Canberra this week for yesterday's state memorial service at Old Parliament House. I do wish to thank the member for Melbourne Ports for the incredible insight in the speech he just gave, which, I must say, filled out a whole life that perhaps I was not privy to. Barry Cohen was the member for Robertson when I first came to the Central Coast in 1984, aged 12. I suspect that, had I ever met him and known him, the old adage that I like to live by—that more things unite us than ever divide us in politics—would stand true for somebody who has been described as the member for Melbourne Ports so aptly and beautifully described him in his speech just now. As the Prime Minister said yesterday in the House, Barry was a man known for his wit, his humour, his memorable anecdotes and his dapper dress sense. He was recognised with an Order of Australia in 2007 for service to the Australian parliament and to the community through a range of cultural and environmental roles, along with contributions to public discussion and debate through his work for The Australian, in books and in publications. Much can be spoken about Barry's legacy. I note how proudly, as a member of the Hawke government, he championed Indigenous issues, as has been raised before. One of the most enduring legacies was that the government handed back Uluru to its traditional owners, doubled the size of Kakadu National Park and extended the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. He was, indeed, a powerful advocate for the rights and the advancement of our First Australians. Mr Cohen would carve a strong parliamentary career as the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment and then as Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. But, as the serving member for Robertson in this place today, I wish to pay tribute to a man who served our community with incredible passion and distinction for more than 20 years. As the member for Robertson from 1969 to 1990, Mr Cohen was a fierce advocate for our community on the Central Coast. He was the member for Robertson when one of the greatest and most essential transport links in our region was built, the Mooney Mooney Bridge, which thousands of commuters travelling to Sydney and Newcastle now take for granted when we drive across it every single day, along the F3—or, of course, as it's now known, the M1. That was part of Barry's legacy to the Central Coast. Across the Central Coast, he will probably be best remembered in our community for his passion and commitment to the environment. The environment is something that I think people on the Central Coast have a great love for. They have an instinctive great love for and a deep regard for the environment and the protection and preservation of the environment, and that's something that, in his time as the minister, he certainly reflected well. There were several lasting policy achievements during his time as the minister, but in Barry Cohen's life after politics he continued to serve and search for ways to care for people and our world around us. In 2001, he dedicated himself to protecting wildlife, building the beautiful Calga Springs Wildlife Sanctuary on the Central Coast. When he eventually sold the sanctuary four years later to Tassin and Gerald Barnard he had, in the words of Tassin, suddenly put Calga on the national map. As Tassin told the ABC Central Coast's Scott Levi just this week: 'Calga suddenly became more than an interchange.' This passion came from hearing about the impact of feral animals on the local wildlife. Along with his son Adam, Barry then began to build the sanctuary that could be enjoyed by visitors. Now known as the Australia Walkabout Wildlife Park, it is a fantastic tourist attraction for our region. Even when, later in life, Barry began his battle with Alzheimer's, he continued to be a tireless campaigner for the issues that mattered to him. Alzheimer's is an issue that transcends politics and that affects families on both sides of this place, and I think we can all admire the way that Barry Cohen fought for better awareness and support for Australians suffering with this insidious disease. Although a cure has not been found in his lifetime as he hoped, I know that his efforts will continue to inspire those who have followed him on both sides of politics, and I note the member for Dobell and her tireless advocacy in this particular area of dementia. As we heard in the tributes in the House yesterday, Barry Cohen's writings opened the door to what had previously been the very private pain of those who lived with Alzheimer's and dementia, and, as the current member for Robertson, I want to put on record my thanks for Barry Cohen's service to the Central Coast and to our nation and also for his incredible advocacy during that time. May I end with a reflection from Barry's son Stuart. He described his father as a fiercely passionate individual who did nothing by half measure: 'Nothing left undone. He never took a step back.' It's a beautiful tribute to a man who cared so much and gave so much. To his wife, Rae, and to his sons, I extend my deepest sympathy and thank him for his service to our community and our nation. 17:21 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell Long before I knew the late Hon. Barry Cohen AM, I knew his books. Growing up, they lined our bookshelves in my family home in Wyong. My personal favourite was Life with Gough, and I gave it to my brother Nick for his birthday as soon as it was released. My dad had worked with Gough as a young staffer, and he was keen to relive the best of times with the great man, told of course with Barry's unique wit, humour and empathy. Now, as the federal member for Dobell, my electorate neighbours the electorate of Robertson, which was represented solidly by Barry Cohen in the House of Representatives from 1969 to 1990. For 21 years, Mr Cohen represented the people of our community, the Central Coast, with passion, dedication, good humour and great success. Yesterday, I was reminiscing with a former Labor member for Dobell, Michael Lee, who attended the memorial service, and he wanted me to share some of his recollections of his time working with Barry. He said to me that he remembers Barry as a strong advocate for his electorate, which originally stretched from Asquith to Swansea. He said that, in the Whitlam years, the Regional Employment Development Scheme, known as the RED Scheme, was a jobs creation program, and that Barry was famous for getting so many local projects approved. Surf clubs, senior citizens' centres, scout halls—there were many local projects that benefited from his dedicated lobbying. Another win for the Central Coast, Michael said to me, was when, in 1975, Barry organised the ALP national conference to be held at the Hotel Florida in Terrigal. The member for Melbourne Ports may have some good memories of that conference! I'm told every hotel and motel across the coast was booked out for the conference. Michael also said that, as has been mentioned by the member for Melbourne Ports, Barry was a strong advocate for road and car safety, and he invited the American political activist and author Ralph Nader, who had just written Unsafe at Any Speed, to visit Australia to pressure car companies into improving car safety. As has been mentioned, Barry held three ministerial posts in the Hawke government between 1984 and 1987. For these three years he was the Minister assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial—such a momentous occasion in our nation's history—and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. In 1983 and '84, he was also the Minister for Home Affairs. As the member for Robertson has noted, his greatest legacy must surely be that he safeguarded some of our most precious natural treasures for our future generations, from Uluru to Kakadu to the Great Barrier Reef, and more locally in our community on the Central Coast. For this work we will remain in his debt. Barry was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in 2007 for his service to the Australian parliament and to the community through a range of cultural and environmental roles and contributions to public discussion and debate. After leaving the federal realm, as the member for Melbourne Ports said, Barry had a tilt at the New South Wales state election in 1999. I fact-checked this with Michael Lee yesterday, and apparently my own dad was the one who talked him into running for the seat of Gosford against the incumbent, Chris Hartcher. Unfortunately, Barry didn't win the seat, but Bob Carr did win a second term. Even after his time in public life had ended, Barry Cohen continued to make a contribution. When he became one of the 400,000 Australians living with dementia, he became a champion for a better deal for older Australians. Just as his written works resonated with me as a younger woman, that passionate advocacy for people living with dementia resonates with me now as I share caring duties for my own father, who lives with dementia. As the member for Robertson and the Labor leader, Bill Shorten, have said, we do not yet have a cure for dementia. As a daughter, a mental health worker and a local MP, I am doing all I can to continue Barry's work towards a cure and to improve the lives of people living with dementia and those who care for them. When we do find this cure, and we will, some small measure of credit must go to the late Barry Cohen for speaking out about the way it affected him and the way it affects so many others living with this condition. I extend my condolences and those of my family, particularly my mum, Barbara, and my father, Grant, to Barry's wife, Ray, and to his family and honour his contribution to the Australian parliament, the Australian people and the people of the Central Coast. May he rest in peace. 17:26 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra It's an honour to follow my colleagues, the members for Dobell, Robertson and Melbourne Ports, in paying tribute to Barry Cohen. Unfortunately, other commitments prevented me from attending the memorial service that was presided over by Rabbi Feldman on Monday, but I want to take the opportunity in this debate to make some reflections on the life of the Hon. Barry Cohen AM. I had the privilege of meeting Barry on only one occasion, and therefore I didn't know him as well as did my friend the member for Melbourne Ports, who worked for him in 1983 and 1984 and became a lifelong friend. But I have got to know Barry's son Adam, who's here in the chamber, a little over my time in the parliament, as we've worked together on issues of mutual interest for the Jewish community. Barry Cohen came to this parliament as the member for Robertson in the 1969 election. A redistribution took place in 1968 that took 14,000 electors from the electorate of Robertson, comprising electors from suburbs around Hornsby, and put them in a new electorate called Berowra. The sitting member for Robertson, Bill Bridges-Maxwell, a vet, was not very happy with this—he was the Liberal member—and sought to stand for the newly created seat. Bridges-Maxwell, like my illustrious predecessor Tom Hughes QC, was a member of a group called the Mushroom Club that centred themselves around John Gorton. They were great Gorton supporters. Gorton wanted Hughes to move to Berowra, as his own seat of Parkes had been abolished, while he thought Bridges-Maxwell had the best chance of retaining Robertson, but it wasn't to be. At the Don's Party election in 1969, when there was a swing of 7.1 per cent against the Gorton government, Barry achieved a bigger swing against the Liberal Party, of 9.7 per cent, winning the seat on first preferences. He went on to hold the seat and improve his margin until retirement at the 1990 election with, as I saw, his best results in the years when the member for Melbourne Ports worked for him. Relatives who knew I was interested in politics would invariably buy me Barry Cohen's books for birthday presents. My shelves contained books like From Whitlam to Winston, Life with Gough and Bringing the House Down. Barry had his own anecdotes, and one of the best of those was told by the Prime Minister in the House yesterday, but he was a great chronicler of Gough. One of my favourite stories of Barry's appears in Bringing Down the House. With the indulgence of the chamber, I might read it to you now: The late Senator Ron McAuliffe, a lovable Runyonesque character, represented Labor in the Senate from 1971 to 1981 but he was better known as President of the Queensland Rugby League. He was often referred to as the 'Senator for Rugby League.' In September 1974, at the peak of Labor's popularity— and I think Barry probably used the word 'peak' ironically there— he invited the Prime Minister to 'kick off' the Grand Final of the Brisbane Rugby League competition. Although not an ardent sports enthusiast he accepted. Gough arrived at Lang Park, where a crowd of 23,000 less-than-enthusiastic football fans greeted him with boos, jeers, beer cans, meat pies and anything they could lay their hands on. It took nearly ten minutes for them to exhaust their viciousness and spleen. Finally they quietened down to the point where Gough could launch the 1974 Rugby League Grand Final. The mission accomplished, Gough walked off the ground with his senatorial host. 'McAuliffe,' Gough sniffed, 'Don't you ever invite me to a place where you are so unpopular.' Like me, Barry Cohen was Jewish. Over the summer I read Simon Schama's second volume of The Story of the Jews 1492 to 1900. While there are moments of sunlight, in the main it doesn't tell a happy story of long-term acceptance and welcoming of the Jewish people into full citizenship. Schama, in that book, doesn't deal with Australia, but had he done so he would have observed that Australia has been one of the great exceptions to that story, even in the 19th century. From the earliest days of colonial administration, Jews have been fully accepted and taken their place in leadership positions in the nation. Behind me is the portrait of Sir Isaac Isaacs, who was one of three Jewish MPs to serve in the first Commonwealth parliament. And in this parliament there are a record six members of the House and Senate who are Jewish. Barry Cohen was one of a significant number of Jewish MPs who've served here since Federation. As he wrote, he never suffered any anti-Semitism in politics and his religion was never an issue during his service in this place. But, as it has on all of us, the experience of being Jewish had a profound effect on him. Although some of his family had been here since the 1890s, he also had family who perished in the Holocaust. He wrote: Australia is probably the least anti-Semitic country in the world, but what happened to my family made a deep impression on me. I became obsessive about discrimination; be it fighting for civil rights in the US, or against apartheid or the appalling treatment of our indigenous people. Having experienced no racism growing up in Griffith until he had his bar mitzvah, when he was suddenly regarded as different, and having experienced further anti-Semitic attacks as a schoolboy and as a golfer, Cohen was determined to fight against racism and to improve the conditions of Indigenous people when he came here. Like other Jewish MPs, he had a deep and abiding interest in Aboriginal affairs. Like Jews, Aborigines have a culture which is hundreds of thousands of years old, handed down from generation to generation, with a deep and abiding sense of connection to traditional lands. The crowning glory of Barry's involvement in this particular space was handing back Uluru to its traditional owners when he was Minister for the Environment. In his retirement, the culture of his party had shifted left and Barry Cohen found himself sometimes at odds with his own people. Barry became concerned about the direction that the Labor Party had taken on anti-Semitism in Israel, and in the wake of the 2004 election he courageously went to print to criticise what he saw as anti-Semitism creeping into his party. He wrote: I'm sick of the calumny heaped on Israel - most of which is a pack of lies. I'm sick of Labor leaders making all the right noises to Jewish audiences while an increasing number of backbenchers launch diatribes at Israel. How long is it since any Labor leader gave the sort of passionate and accurate defence of Israel we used to hear from Hawke or Kim Beazley? I don't want even-handedness when it ought to be obvious to all but the blind that there is no moral equivalence between a country that seeks to defend its citizens from thousands of terrorist attacks, and the terrorists themselves. I want to hear Labor MPs stand up and be counted. I want to see an end to well-known Labor identities marching behind banners equating Israel with Nazism. Before the Iraq war one of the most senior NSW right-wing MPs told me: "I understand and support Israel's position, but in my group, I'm the only one." Soon after I told a Labor legend: "Anti-Semitism is now rampant in the Labor Party." I expected a vigorous denial. His response confirmed my worst fear: "I know," he said. This was a courageous thing for Barry to have pointed out in relation to the Labor Party at the time and it became an abiding issue for him, as it was in his time in this place the defence of the state of Israel. The second example concerns the one occasion I had the privilege of meeting Barry, which was when he launched perhaps an unlikely collection of essays, edited by two figures of the right, Gregory Melleuish and Imre Salusinszky, called Blaming Ourselves: September 11 and the Agony of the Left. The launch took place in the now defunct American Club and was followed by a good dinner and plenty of Cohen anecdotes. Some extracts from the foreword bear repeating. Barry wrote: I imagine my emotions were no different to most people's. Disbelief preceded shock before seething rage. The nausea commenced when I started reading the anti-American diatribe in the columns and letters to the editor section of the Sydney Morning Herald. How much the world changed on 11 September is yet to be determined but for me it ended some friendships. There are many quoted in this book whom I have no wish to speak to again. Have only one problem with this book and that is in the title, Blaming Ourselves: September 11 and the Agony of the Left. Having always regarded myself as being 'of the Left', I resent being lumped in with those who write such vile rubbish. As he concludes: It was long overdue for conservatives and genuine liberals to take on the intellectual thugs of the 'progressive' Left and to stop feeling guilty about supporting the United States. Never has the line between good and evil been so clearly drawn. For too long the Left have been able to enjoy the affluence created by American capitalism and take shelter behind the American defense umbrella while at the same time reserving the right to pour out their hatred of all things American. They take the best the Americans have to offer and spit in their face. Unlike Australians, Americans aren't perfect. They've made mistakes, but they are a decent people who believe passionately in the things the majority of Australians hold dear—freedom and democracy. Thank God that when the Cold War ended it was America who was left standing. Imagine for one minute the awful alternative. In those extracts you get a sense of Barry's passion and his enormous gift with words and language. Barry Cohen made an enormous contribution to his party, his community and his country, as a parliamentarian, a writer and an activist. We 're all poorer for his loss. I wish long life to his wife, Rae, and his sons, Stuart, Adam and Martin, and his broader family and to the member for Melbourne Ports, who is practically mishpocha. May his memory be a blessing. 17:36 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra It is with a great sense of pride and honour that I rise to honour Barry Cohen AM. Having attended his memorial service yesterday, which was also a great honour, I came away from that event wishing I had actually met him. He seemed like an extraordinary individual. Adam and your brothers and your beloved mum are so lucky to have had him in your life. He was a larger-than-life character. The tributes were flowing from former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, the current Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and also the Leader of the Opposition, who all had the most extraordinary anecdotes about a man with passion, with commitment, with a true sense of altruism, with a great love of Australia and a great commitment to advancing Australia for all Australians—not just a handful of the lucky few, but all Australians. He had a huge commitment to advancing our nation, and he did so with such bonhomie and such humour. He was a larger-than-life character. I really wish I had met him after hearing all those fabulous stories yesterday, not just the tributes, but also the eulogy, Adam, from your brother—a beautiful eulogy—and also from David. That eulogy was very powerful; and also the acknowledgement to country from Aunty Jannette. I've seen Aunty Jannette acknowledge country and welcome to country at many events across Canberra, but the beauty about yesterday's welcome to country and acknowledgement of country was the fact that Aunty Jannette was great mates with Barry. So in the welcome to country she gave an extraordinarily unique perspective on their relationship and the work he did in advancing the Indigenous cause from when Stuart, Adam and Martin were just small children. The fact that Barry Cohen was deeply committed to ensuring the betterment of Indigenous Australians, not just in his part of the world but right throughout Australia, and the connection he had with Aunty Jannette and others from the Indigenous community was palpable. You could sense that the relationship was deep and mutually respectful, and Aunty Jannette's and also David's comments on the relationship with Barry reflected that. Barry had a great sense of humour, a great sense of honesty, a great sense of candour, a great sense of banter but, ultimately, a great sense of love—not just in terms of commitment to better public policy, but mostly a real, genuine, deep, abiding love for the Indigenous community and a really deep commitment to advancing their lot in Australia, particularly in the 1967 referendum. He was very actively involved in that. I think that's where Aunty Jannette first had the connection with him, going right back to 1967. He was an extraordinary man. After going to the memorial service yesterday, I know I would love to have met him. I feel far lesser as a result of not meeting him. It's lovely that Adam's here today, to hear these speeches that honour his father, and Rabbi Feldman who beautifully presided over yesterday's service. We had these beautiful tributes and eulogies, and this beautiful acknowledgement and welcome to country by Aunty Jannette. It was punctuated by a drinking song—a joyous drinking song, was it not, Rabbi Feldman? It is not in keeping with the usually sombre nature of memorial services but we were all up singing that song. Everyone knows the tune, not necessarily the words, and we were singing and clapping away at the memorial service. This highlighted the nature of Barry Cohen and his joie de vivre, his passion for life, his wanting to suck the pips out of life. Every day, every hour you're living, you're working towards improving the lives of Australians, of making a difference. That was the very strong message I got from yesterday. You and your mum and brothers are so lucky to have had him in your lives, Adam. I was keen not just to talk about that extraordinary memorial service yesterday but also to acknowledge as the member for Canberra the contribution Barry Cohen made to Canberra, our nation's capital, and its national institutions. His legacy is quite extraordinary—and it was made in an environment that often wasn't in keeping with Barry's views on particular issues. That's particularly the case with the National Museum. There's always been a bit of ambivalence about the National Museum—whether we need it, what it should house and where it should be located. It's not just a Canberra pastime or Saturday night dinner conversation about a national museum; it's a national conversation about the fact that there has been this ambivalence and that he took the first steps towards making the museum happen. It underscores his commitment. He confronted and overcame adversity. If he believed in something, from what I can gather, he just pursued it, knowing he was on the force of right. He was fighting the good fight. He was the former minister for home affairs, the arts and the environment. His legacy here in our nation's capital, in terms of national institutions, is significant. I thank him for that. In April 1984 Barry announced the establishment of the National Film and Sound Archive. It's back in the news, that fabulous old deco building, at the anatomy building, at the ANU. Unfortunately, the new CEO is looking for alternative digs. It's been controversial since it went to that building and it's been controversial in that there's been talk of moving it out of Canberra. Canberrans have fought back to keep that fabulous national institution here, and it all began with Barry Cohen. The archive took over the former anatomy building and was built in the deco period of the 1930s. It was opened in 1984 and is now heritage listed. It began with 20 freshly minted staff led by Ray Edmondson, who Barry described as the persistent force behind the archive. Barry's belief in the work of the archive and Ray Edmondson was apparent as the archive built up its identity and there was a broader understanding of its role, within the national-collections institutions area, over the next 10 or 15 years. It was an extraordinary vision. Thanks to Barry's vision, the national archive was realised. It is Australia's living archive and already has more than 2.8 million items being preserved for future generations, and the collections continue to grow. I also want to thank Barry for the legacy he left with the National Museum. As I said, it was highly controversial, over many years. There's been a lot of debate about its purpose and location. The history of the original concept of having a National Museum of Australia is that it was first raised in the seventies, but it was Barry who initially picked it up. He kicked the tyres and got the museum moving from concept to reality in the 1980s. It took successive governments another 20 years to consult and design the museum that we're familiar with today, down on the point on Lake Burley Griffin. It was Barry who oversaw the building of the temporary visitors centre and the headquarters at Yarramundi Reach, which were the first steps towards making the National Museum of Australia a reality. In closing, I just want to offer my condolences and the condolences of all Canberrans to Rae, Stuart, Adam, Martin and Barry's many, many friends right across Australia and throughout the world. As was said yesterday, he was a big character. He was a big presence. He created big memories. He had a big life. He was an extraordinary individual who I would have loved to have met. I look forward now to going over his writings and reading them, particularly his comments on the New South Wales Right—which I will very much look forward to—as a member of that esteemed establishment. We honour and thank Barry Cohen AM for his contribution to our nation, to our national capital and to our national institutions. Vale. 17:46 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I first associate myself with the outstanding speeches by my parliamentary colleagues. We just heard from the member for Canberra and, before her, the member for Berowra, the member for Dobell, the member for Robertson and the member for Melbourne Ports. In anticipation, we will hear from the member for Fenner. Yesterday's memorial service at Old Parliament House, which I had the privilege to attend, was a celebration of Barry Cohen's big life—his good life. We heard speeches from former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Melbourne Ports, his son Stuart and others. What came through these speeches was a picture of a man, whom I was fortunate to have met, who was first and foremost a proud Australian. He was a proud Jew and he was a proud Labor man. In his many achievements in public life—21 years in the parliament—he was responsible for a number of significant achievements which leave a lasting legacy. As the environment minister, I can only look back in awe at what he achieved with regard to Uluru, Kakadu, the Barrier Reef and the Tasmanian wilderness. As the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, we have heard about his significant contributions. Indeed, our presence in Old Parliament House in some way could be traced to his commitment to restoring that building and ensuring that it stayed for future generations. As the member for Robertson, he turned a marginal seat—in fact, a Liberal seat, as we heard yesterday—into a safe Labor seat by door-knocking thousands of homes with his wife, Rae, and a band of loyal supporters and winning respect for his passionate defence of local interests and the local community. He also was the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial. Barry Cohen came to the parliament in a non-traditional way in the sense that he had been a postman and a clerk and had broader business experience. When he came to the parliament, as was said yesterday, he was not a union rep or a party hack. He was somebody who came with a determination to make a difference. In reading his maiden speech to the parliament on 5 March 1970, he talked about how the motivating factor in deciding to become a political activist was: 'I have always been concerned with the question of prejudice, whether that prejudice be based on class, religion or race.' In his maiden speech, he spent the vast majority of the time talking about Aboriginal disadvantage, health, particularly infant mortality, and housing and the need to do better on behalf of our First Australians. We heard yesterday how genuine and long-lasting his commitment was. My colleagues the member for Berowra and the member for Melbourne Ports have referred to the fact that he cared deeply about his Jewishness. He was always prepared to wear that on his sleeve and he would speak openly about anti-Semitism where he encountered it as well as issues involving Israel. He was born and raised in Griffith, New South Wales, and he wrote about his local school that, 'There were seven Jewish children in a school of nearly a thousand, and that made us a bit of a curiosity.' He did say that he got his first taste of anti-Semitism when he was at Sydney Grammar School and that 'shocked, hurt and bewildered him'. In the parliament, he had a fellow traveller in his support for Israel in Bob Hawke. But it is apt and timely in the presence of our fellow members of the Labor Party to remind them of what he, Barry Cohen, said about the concerns he saw with a lurch to the Left and a growing antagonism towards Israel. He said, 'I'm sick of Labor leaders and foreign affairs spokesmen making all the right noises to Jewish audiences while an increasing number of Labor backbenchers launch diatribes at Israel.' That is a very powerful statement. I only mention it because I know that my fellow Labor members in the chamber care as deeply about Israel and anti-Semitism as I do and as the member for Berowra does. I know, in the Leader of the Opposition, Israel has a staunch and loyal friend. Bob Hawke, who fought for the refuseniks in the Soviet Union, has a very proud record on that. In fact, 'Doc' Evatt, again from the Labor Party, has a very, very proud record on that. We always need to stand firm on these issues. When we stand on the shoulders of giants like Barry Cohen in this place, it pays to listen to a warning such as that. If we, in this place, can take that warning and act upon it, I will feel better for not just the Jewish community of today but the Jewish community of tomorrow. Barry Cohen was an outstanding individual. He was decent. He was brave. He was humble. He was passionate. His causes stretched from Indigenous affairs to the environment, from the arts and culture to acting on behalf of our senior Australians and his own battle with Alzheimer's. He is somebody who shared his views through his columns and his eight books and who has provided wisdom and insight for us here today. To his son Adam, in the chamber; to his mother, Rae; to Stuart; to Martin; to the extended family: you have so much to be proud of in Barry Cohen. I have so much to be proud of as a Jewish member of this parliament. Because we follow in his footsteps, we can learn from his example. And if we do him justice in this place, Australia will be the better for it. 17:55 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Armando Iannucci, creator of The Thick of It and Veep, gave an interview recently where he said, 'Humourless politicians are the most dangerous ones, I think.' He was referring to oppressive regimes, but I think it applies to this place, too. In the tradition of Fred Daly and Jim Killen, Barry Cohen was a fabulous raconteur. I first knew him through his books; I grabbed three from the shelf on the way here—After the Party, The Life of the Party and From Whitlam to Winston—but, of course, that 's merely a small component of the Cohen oeuvre. In meeting him and chatting with him, one got the sense of a man who lived a full life. In his eulogy yesterday, the member for Melbourne Ports pointed out that Barry Cohen had a range of records—the first sports commentator for Sydney's TCN 9, the first boss to join a union in the SDA and the last opposition male to hold the position of spokesperson for women's affairs, given there were no women in the House of Reps in 1978. His achievements as environment minister were legendary: forbidding the mining of sands on Fraser Island, protecting the Franklin, and helping to safeguard Uluru, Kakadu and the Great Barrier Reef. It's a legacy which will outlive us all. His interest in the environment continued post politics, and I remember terrifically enjoyable conversations with him as he sought to persuade me to get up the great garden festival. Barry, I am sorry, we have so far failed you, but the international garden festival may yet become a reality. There are so many fabulous stories, but, with Adam with us, I'm minded to turn to one known as 'Generation Gap', in which Barry relates the moment he heard Adam answering the phone, 'Oh, Jesus, mate, I'm sorry, I didn't realise it was you' and then saying to Barry, 'It's Gough.' Barry said he was staggered: 'You called our glorious leader "mate".' He apologises to Gough Whitlam and gets the response: 'What are you running there, a sheltered workshop? I don't mind him calling me "mate" but he doesn't even recognise the voice.' He went on to recount his early experiences in the Labor Party, which many of us will have shared. He walked into the room, 'knowing' who the enemy were—the dreaded Liberals headed by Sir Robert Menzies—and: I was soon disabused of that idea. The enemy were either the groupers or the coms and they were in the same room as I was, the Asquith Progress Association Hall. I found the screaming and shouting strangely at odds with the party's moto, 'Unity of Labor is the hope of the world'. He also related a tale of a day of campaigning with Chris Hurford and Eric Fitzgibbon, the father of Joel Fitzgibbon. They spent a day visiting kindergartens and early childhood centres in the morning and an aged-care centre in the afternoon. At the event at the aged-care centre, Eric Fitzgibbon gave a speech in which he said: 'It has been a journey from the cradle to the grave.' Barry does not record whether the members of the aged-care home appreciated this description. Then, finally, there was a wonderful anecdote, in which he related his early experiences in Mann Street, Gosford, when a constituent came in and said to Barry, 'I've got a pain here in my shoulder. I've had it for some months. I can't get to sleep at night,' and the constituent got increasingly perturbed when Barry Cohen failed to respond and then began to take his shirt off: 'My embarrassment started to turn to panic. I stood up to stop him before he was naked. "Look, I understand you've got a bad back, but what the hell do you expect me to do about it?" "What do you mean, what the hell do I expect you to do about it! You're the bloody chiropractor, aren't you?" He went out to his secretary and said, "I think this gentleman has the wrong Cohen. He may want to see John Cohen, the chiropractor, just down the hall."' I want to close with an observation about an incident in 2011. As somebody who was a long-time fan of Barry's, my office was helping Deb O'Neill, then the member for Robertson, organise a fundraiser in which Barry would tell tales to the Labor faithful from the ACT Labor Party, and, just prior to the event, Barry Cohen wrote a piece in The Australian in which he said same-sex marriage was 'absurd'. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 18:01 to 18:19 Dr LEIGH BU8 So we were organising a fundraiser to raise money for Deb O'Neill in the Labor caucus room as the candidate for Robertson, and the star of the show was to be the former member for Robertson, Barry Cohen. But, as we prepared the event and set about publicising it among ACT Labor Party members, Barry Cohen wrote an article in The Australian in which he said that same-sex marriage was 'absurd' and compared it to his right to marry his dog. This caused some outrage among some of the activists within the party who urged me to cancel the event with Barry Cohen. I had to say to them, yes, he's wrong on marriage equality—at least in my view and theirs—but this was a man so profoundly right on so many of the social justice questions of our age. His opposition to apartheid came decades earlier than mainstream Australian opinion. His attitude to Indigenous Australians on the environment came earlier. I thought of that great John Donne line, 'Thine age asks ease' and the importance, at the end of a great life, of allowing a little sensitivity, a little forgiveness and a little understanding, and encompassing the mark of an entire career. Barry Cohen's career was an extraordinary one. He brought wit, humour and happiness to the parliament, a cleaner environment to the nation and a sense of commitment to public life that we honour today as we honoured it yesterday at that most moving funeral service at Old Parliament House. May he rest in peace. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 I thank the chamber. 18:21 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. Bjelke-Petersen, Lady Florence Isabel 'Flo' 100 18:22 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson It is with great honour that I rise to speak on this condolence motion on the death of Lady Florence Bjelke-Petersen. It is very hard to think of another woman from Queensland who has made a greater impact, not only on our beloved state but also on the nation than Lady Flo, as she was known. She was simply known as Lady Flo. Regardless of whether that term was technically correct, that's what she was known as. In earlier years she was in the public eye simply as the wife of the then Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the famous peanut farmer from Kingaroy who became the longest serving Premier of that state. She later proved to the doubters and naysayers that she had plenty to contribute to the political landscape in her own right. Florence Isabel Gilmore was working for the Queensland commissioner for main roads when she met Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who was then a backbencher in the Country Party that later became the National Party. The couple married in 1952 and became not only a rhyming couplet—people talked about the famous Flo and Joh shows—but also the leading figures in the state for the 19 years of Sir Joh's premiership and onwards as Lady Flo sat in the other chamber, the Senate. In the early years, Lady Flo was chiefly involved with family life, raising her four children and supporting her husband in the electorate of Nanango, which is now held by the present leader of the Liberal National Party in Queensland, the Leader of the Opposition, Deb Frecklington. She is another great woman from Queensland. Lady Flo became the de facto member for Nanango as Sir Joh was pretty much consumed with responsibilities of the premiership. I read that, as she attended these local electorate events on his behalf while he was in Brisbane or elsewhere across the state, it became so much of a fixture in the electorate of Nanango that they stopped sending the invitations to Sir Joh and just sent them directly to Lady Flo to come and attend. Not only that but, when there was a state election on, she was again known as a person in her own right. She would campaign right across the state of Queensland, winning the hearts and minds of Queenslanders because of her own personality, and she would do that on behalf of her husband. But then she moved on from that first lady sort of role in Queensland, where, I have to say, she did exemplify the Christian ideals that she held—the ideals of faith and family. She moved on from that role to serve as a senator for Queensland for 12 years. People said that she was just in the shadow of her husband, but I'd say that in this place she was a champion for policy issues that are still held by many conservatives today, including the idea of family based taxation and income splitting. That's something that I still champion. Cabinet ministers in this government such as Senator Matt Canavan from Queensland also champion those policies. They are policy issues that are long overdue, but she was here fighting that fight in her own right. I employed a young man, Damien Tessmann, a former councillor from Kingaroy, in my office for a period of time last year. He was a neighbour of Lady Flo and he shared some of the stories on her passing regarding her days as a senator and he also provided this fitting tribute, which I wish to read to the chamber. It goes like this: The story that I enjoyed the most was that of the Western Australian Labor Senator Peter Walsh, who would say the most awful things about her in the Parliament because of Sir Joh. They travelled overseas on Parliamentary business and got along famously. Senator Walsh said on their return that before he got to know her, he thought she was an 'old bag' but now thought she was a 'nice old lady'. She said she didn't know what was worse, being called an old bag or an old lady! Lady Flo Bjelke-Petersen represented everything it is to be a Queenslander—passion, tenacity and loyalty. From a personal point of view she was one of my dearest supporters and gave me so much encouragement. I loved our chats about her views on the modern political challenge, her time as Queensland's First Lady and a Senator in her own right. She never told the same story twice. She never failed to greet you with a smile and had the sharpest of political analysis. She unfailingly asked more questions about you than you would ever ask of her. A more genuine politician you'd go a long way to meet. I wish we had many more politicians of Lady Flo's calibre—a down-to-earth person, known, famously now, for pumpkin scones, but that is just emblematic of the fact that she was seen as one of us, as an everyday Queenslander in the home, cooking for the family, or down here in Canberra, fighting for her state on bread-and-butter issues. Lady Flo lived to that prime age of 97 years. She passed away just a few days before Christmas. I've got to say that she, indeed, was very, very worthy of a scriptural tribute which is recorded in the parables of Christ: 'Well done, good and faithful servant.' She was a faithful servant to the National Party, whom I represent in this place now, a faithful servant to the state of Queensland and a faithful servant to the people and her Lord and maker. May she rest in peace. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 It being 6.29 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 101 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Macquarie Electorate: Thompson Square 101 18:29 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I'm going to pose a question: within what time frame should you expect a response from someone after sending them a letter? How long is too long: 24 hours? A week? A month? Four months? Hypothetically speaking, what do we think is a reasonable time, and what would you do if you weren't getting a response? Would you write again and again and again? Well, it turns out that that doesn't work. I have unashamedly not been playing it cool, so to speak, when it comes to the issue of Thompson Square in Windsor, in my electorate of Macquarie. You see, I've written to the Minister for the Environment and Energy a few times over the last four months asking him to consider the application for emergency heritage listing for Thompson Square. I'm yet to receive any response. I get the feeling he hasn't read my letters, so I thought I'd take the opportunity today to run through them quickly—to summarise them a bit and save him some time. Just to clarify: I didn't send the minister the same information each time; each letter was an update on the colonial and Indigenous artefacts that have been uncovered and are still being uncovered during the archaeological dig that's being carried out in Thompson Square. I'm going to go through the most recent letters. On 29 September last year I wrote to the minister regarding the tender documents that were released for the Windsor Bridge replacement project, because they said, 'Construction will result in a number of adverse impacts, particularly on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage.' The documents went even further, detailing that there are substantial Aboriginal archaeological deposits, including evidence of Aboriginal occupation and use of the area dating back to between 17,000 and 27,000 years ago. I also mentioned the fact that the minister did manage to grant an emergency heritage listing for St Kilda road, which, according to the minister's own media release, he took the time to write to the Premier of Victoria about to ask whether he would reconsider the project design to lessen its impact upon the surrounding landscape, including the trees that give important character to the precinct. What happens in Melbourne, it seems, matters more to him than what happens in the outer suburbs of Sydney. Never mind that machinery is hacking into rare Aboriginal relics and the first pieces of government infrastructure in this country; St Kilda Road apparently has untouchable trees that, thanks to the minister, will continue to give important character to that precinct. Perhaps I should ask which form of communication was used to bring St Kilda Road to the attention of the minister. It is safe to assume that it wasn't the written word—or do I just need to mention that Thompson Square also has trees? Thompson Square does have trees, although it already has fewer than it did a few months ago. On 24 October 2017 I wrote to the minister to urgently bring his attention to the discovery of handmade and hand-laid Telford blocks near Thompson Square. Telford paving is a type of early 19th century road construction that was a leap forward in road building not only in Australia but also around the world. The only other known example of Telford paving in Australia is located in Willoughby, where the road is considered so significant that it's registered with the National Trust of Australia. Unfortunately, I had no response from the minister. On 7 December last year I wrote to the minister because many constituents came to me concerned about the level of destruction that was occurring during the archaeological dig in Thompson Square. You would think that, given the amazing Indigenous and colonial relics, archaeologists would be on their hands and knees chipping and dusting the ground to be sure not to damage anything of significance. Unfortunately, that's not what's happening. What's happening on the ground is that the caterpillar treads of a giant mechanical excavator are crushing the remains of goodness knows what artefacts. I got no response from the minister. On 14 December I called for backup, thinking that maybe the minister would acknowledge a letter from me if I wrote a joint one with the member for Watson, the shadow minister for the environment and heritage. We spoke about the recent discovery of two sections of brick barrel drain dating back to as early as 1814, asking him to intervene in the New South Wales government's plan to destroy the heart of Windsor, its heritage and its Indigenous response. Still no response. On 30 January this year I wrote again to the minister with the news that more of the brick barrel drain had been uncovered and was possibly the earliest piece of government infrastructure built in this country and that it paints a picture of what Governor Lachlan Macquarie had envisioned, not just for the Hawkesbury region but for this entire nation. I also spoke of the local history that says these tunnels played a role in illicit rum-running, which was rampant along the Hawkesbury in our early days. According to the community group CAWB, older residents of the area can recount that kegs of spirits were brought up from the riverbank through a tunnel in Thompson Square in more recent times. Access to these tunnels is thought to be in the basements of the pizza parlour and the Macquarie Arms Hotel, which of course happens to be the oldest pub in Australia. This is what locals are referring to when they talk about the legendary 'smugglers' tunnels'. I told the minister this and—you guessed it—still no response. That letter also detailed my fear that these discoveries were just the tip of the iceberg—items being discovered only during this archaeological salvage. They are salvaging these items, removing them from the site, putting them on trucks and storing them somewhere. The construction of the bridge hasn't even started, and this is what we're finding. Just last week, after I had sent my most recent letter to the minister, a sandstone pillar was ripped from the ground by a mechanical excavator. There was damage to the pillar on the way out. Photos taken of the stone by the people who are monitoring the square from as close as they can get to it show that it looks similar to a marker post that archaeologist Edward Higginbotham identified in his historical and archaeological investigation of Thompson Square in 1986, in the lead-up to the bicentenary celebrations that the Howard government auspiced. He noted that it was a rare survival. Local activist group Heritage Act summed up perfectly on their Facebook page why we should care about this block of sandstone, and they said: 'This sandstone block would have had a purpose in the square and would have contributed to the functioning of the civic space. In turn, the square played a vital role in feeding and saving a starving nation. It's not just one stone post or one drain or one building that is significant; it's each of these puzzle pieces that, when joined together, build the picture of an important place in the European history of this nation.' I would say to the minister: Thompson Square, much like St Kilda Road, has trees, but where they differ is that St Kilda Road has heritage listing based on its 19th century boulevard, and Thompson Square is being demolished—despite being the sole surviving foundation site for the late 18th and early 19th century settlement on the entire continent that still retains its original form and its sightlines from the top of the square to the Hawkesbury River and beyond to the farming grants across the river. In other words, it is the only surviving Georgian public square in this country. I would say to the minister: you have the power to immediately grant emergency heritage listing so that a full investigation into the many reasons Thompson Square deserves to be given national heritage listing can take place. I invite him to visit the area, to speak to the people who've been occupying this square for 4½ years, 24 hours a day, on shifts, to guard as best they can against the destruction that is taking place. I urge him to visit the area before making a decision so he can see for himself why it is worthy of listing alongside Port Arthur, Fremantle Prison, the Glenrowan Heritage Precinct, and, yes, St Kilda Road. I ask the minister that he no longer ignore the destruction that happens day in, day out at Thompson Square but puts politics aside and saves this piece of history. Let's be clear: the Hawkesbury was crying out for a new bridge. That's the reason this destruction is taking place. The Hawkesbury needs a new bridge, but it needs a bridge to bypass this Georgian gem and provide two things: a genuine traffic solution and the opportunity to revive and rejuvenate the unique history of Australia's colonial past. Federal Independent Commission Against Corruption 102 18:39 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan I want to appeal to the Australian public tonight about decisions made by governments that are purely populist. They have no substance whatsoever. There are headlines like this from Jessica Irvin: 'Corruption will never die, but we can do more to stamp it out'. It then goes on with a general discussion about the possibilities of corrupting government decisions. I've never seen a government decision corrupted in this country. We may think they're bad decisions or we may not agree with the policy, but I've never seen a decision corrupted—not by a politician. Her piece at the end says: As we enter 2018, corruption of government decision making is rightly a growing focus. Calls for a federal corruption body are well overdue— with nothing to substantiate why you'd have a federal corruption body. Timely, Richard Mulgan writes about the 'flimsy case' for a federal ICAC. If you want to ingratiate yourself to the general public, you become the anti-politician-politician-person. You stand back and you say: 'Yes, all politicians are corrupt at a local, state and federal level. Therefore, I'm going to champion the anti-corruption body.' And everybody says, 'He's on our side! He's on our side!' What are we offering? No-one has said what this body might do or how it might be shaped. Mr Mulgan's article is very interesting. It says: Influential advocacy for a federal ICAC has also come from— surprise, surprise!— several former judges and senior barristers, including those with direct experience in the NSW and Queensland anti-corruption commissions. Keen to see their state-based successes repeated on a larger stage, they have argued forcefully against Commonwealth exceptionalism … How dare the Commonwealth not do what the states have already done! How dare we! How dare we be different and stand up and argue the case that Commonwealth politicians are so separated from opportunities for corruption. It is blatantly obvious that corruption in this field is very difficult. There were the two examples that I expressed the other day: one was trial by press—which I've never agreed with, with regard to Dastyari—and the other was Theo Theophanous, who was found to be corrupt and was jailed. In both cases, the system of law and the coverage of our press worked as we expect this open, democratic society to work. If you step out of line in this country, we have 26 organisations in place to oversee government and what we do, to oversee the Public Service, to oversee the delivery of services and to ask people to be accountable for the expenditure of government money, and there are all the committees we have to assess what the government's doing at any time. We have the most open government system, I believe, anywhere in the world. We have the most scrutinised politicians anywhere in the world—perhaps in America it may be a little bit more, but it's a different system. There is the scrutiny of all our expenditure: our personnel expenditure, our office expenditure, what we do in election campaigns and how we raise money. There's all of that, yet there's always the innuendo. Somebody comes along and says: The Australia Institute's research director and report co-author, Rod Campbell, was quizzed on this point by Crikey. Asked how a federal ICAC would help reduce corruption in a tangible sense, he talked in general terms about restoring trust in our institutions. That's the only reason this man could come up with. Is trust in our institutions completely gone? I don't think so. I think that if you were to ask somebody, 'Do you trust all politicians?' they'd say, 'Probably not.' I know in this world that if someone is corrupt they will find a way to get around the system; they always have and they always will. Corrupt people in any situation will find a way to advantage themselves in the system. I don't see any reason at this stage for us to have a another very, very expensive oversight body that the judiciary would control. It would cost the taxpayer a bucketload of dough when we haven't got any tangible evidence of corruption. Why are we as a government so keen to tap into a vein in the Australian community that is not part of good governance of the country? What do the people require of us but to govern fairly, to govern in equity and to govern on their behalf? We should get on and do our jobs as politicians and refrain from the populist politics of saying, 'There must be corruption somewhere, and this ICAC, a federal ICAC, will spend their time searching for it!' Are they only going to be a reference body? Who are they going to be? They're going to have to be judicial. They're going to have to be appointed. They'll be on figures like—member for Leichhardt, you know how much these people are paid: $500,000 to $600,000 each? Mr Entsch 7K6 Absolutely. Mr BROADBENT MT4 To perhaps find some corruption, or suggest that there is corruption. Wow, what a ripper job that would be! And then they'd have their employees under that and their employees under that to support them. Don't forget, we'd have to rent a very, very expensive building. Now, the member representing Darwin would have his hand up, and he'd say: 'We'll do that in Darwin for you. We've got just got the building for you. We'll have our federal ICAC in Darwin.' Mr Entsch 7K6 No, no, no; Cairns. Mr BROADBENT MT4 The member for Leichhardt thinks it should be in Cairns. What would happen is that there would be a bipartisan compromise, and the federal ICAC, with probably 50 employees by now—because you need some backup, you need IT people and you need investigators—could do the investigation in Darwin and then they could have the headquarters in Cairns. They could fly all of their families with them because there has to be family leave. This is absurd. I'd like to appeal to the Australian people to not to be blindsided. By their calls for a federal anticorruption body, they're really suggesting to you that people like myself and the other members of this parliament are corrupt. I can tell you, we're not. Mr Richard Mulgan's case for a federal ICAC is very flimsy. There's actually not a place for a federal ICAC here. Do you know what I think is going to happen? Mr Entsch 7K6 Tell us. Mr BROADBENT MT4 I think that the government of the day, of either sort, will roll over and say: 'Oh, well. The public have called for it. We're just going to have to have it.' Then they'll be able to say: 'I brought this ICAC in. It's a very popular move and I'm on the side of the people'. Don't be fooled, don't be blindsided, don't be conned. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Safer Internet Day, City Deals 104 18:50 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I want to raise some issues of concern for and of interest to my constituents in the electorate of Solomon—the communities of Darwin and Palmerston, the capital of northern Australia. Today, we had a launch for a book that was written about the important subject of post-traumatic stress disorder. There has been a lot said about whether it should actually be called a disorder or a reaction, because it's a normal reaction to traumatic events. The name of the book is Everything's OK. It tells the inspirational story of a former commander, Todd Berry, and his journey with post-traumatic stress, which took him to the depths. But, with the love and support of his family and those around him, he wrote a book to help others who are going through the difficulties of the trauma that they have experienced. The book was co-written by Rob Ginnivan, and he acknowledges the brave work of our nation's frontline guardians and first responders. No matter whether you're a fireman, a trauma nurse or a veteran, many people experience trauma and need to experience assistance. That's what Todd and Rob have done in writing this book called Everything's OK, which we launched today. They've taken an interesting spin on PTSD. The subtitle for the book is 'Past traumatic stress dissolved'. It is a really easy-to-read practical handbook for those who are affected physically and psychologically by their service or the experiences they've had. It teaches those combatting the effects and their carers strategies to build emotional resilience and transform their lives for the better. Two of the key things they talk about in the book are mindfulness and the use of yoga—which Todd has termed 'combat yoga' to make it a bit more approachable for former soldiers. I want to thank my colleague the member for Kingston, our shadow minister for veterans' affairs, for launching the book and all those members from both sides of the House who attended that book launch. There was another event on at the same time as the book launch. It was about Safer Internet day. This is a very important subject as well. Today, of course, is that day, Safer Internet Day, with the theme 'Create, Connect and Share Respect: a better internet starts with you'. To that, I would add 'a better internet starts with all of us.' Safer Internet Day is an international event run in Australia by the eSafety Commissioner. I commend the website of the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, which has very useful resources for parents and children. People can find it at https://www.esafety.gov.au/. Within that website, there are various sections. There's one called iParent, with useful suggestions for parents about safety settings on web-connected devices and strategies for keeping young people safe online. There is eSafety Women, with suggestions on how Australian women can take control of their online experience—for example, when they need some help with cyberbullying. That part of esafety.gov.au is tailored for women. There is also the Kids Helpline, which provides free and confidential phone and online counselling. Online safety is a real challenge for kids and also for parents. With the massive growth in the use of smartphones, anonymous bullying is a big problem. I think that sometimes the kids who are carrying out this cyberbullying don't fully understand the gravity of that bullying and the effects that it can have. This came home to us in the Territory in a terrible way last week with the very sad death by suicide of Dolly Everett. Dolly, from the NT, was in Queensland, away from her parents, but it's very sad that Dolly saw death by suicide as the only way out. I was very pleased to see that the member for Capricornia, as reported in the NT News, was making suggestions around what could be done in this space. Until yesterday, we served on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources together, and at the moment there's an inquiry looking at the effects of online competition on Australian businesses. This has led us to think more broadly about the effects of online communications, emails and social media on individuals in our community, and particularly this issue of online bullying. To come back to the tragic death of Territorian Dolly Everett, I again send my sincere condolences to her family and her many friends. I hope that some good will come out of this terrible situation and that other young people will know that they can receive help and support and that the people who carry out this cowardly bullying will be stopped or at least have their behaviour changed in some way so that they're not having this terrible effect on our fellow Australians. This raises the point that we tend to approach this issue only from the perspective of the person being bullied, which is why I was interested to read a recent article in The Conversation, the online newsletter, called 'What should I do if my child is a cyberbully?' It gave useful suggestions, including making it clear that bullying is always unacceptable, but that parents should try to see the situation through their child's eyes, as young people may not have the maturity to fully consider the consequences of their actions. A parent's role is to help their children develop empathy for others. It is unhelpful for the child to be shamed or to ban access to the technology. This kind of response prevents a child from opportunities to learn responsible online behaviour. Parents must take charge in setting the conditions of using technology, and these include monitoring its use until the time when the young person shows that they can manage their online behaviour responsibly. I thought there was some helpful advice in that article in The Conversation. I am no expert on such issues, but I think we should listen to the experts and work out a way that we can work with young people to make sure that they really understand the ramifications of their actions, and then we can make sure that the bullied have access to those resources that we've described. I caught up with a fellow in Palmerston the other day who knows the Everett family, and he told me a bit more about the foundation that they're setting up, called Dolly's Dream, which aims to educate young people about how to protect themselves on the internet and where to get help. We'll be working together to support that charity in the future. Another issue I want to bring up quickly that is of great interest and concern to my electorate of Darwin and Palmerston is the City Deal. As to the City Deal for Darwin, it has now been 254 days since the Northern Territory government and the Commonwealth government signed a memorandum of understanding for a City Deal. In September last year, the Prime Minister reaffirmed the Commonwealth's commitment to that agreement, but we are now in February. So we want to see that deal confirmed at the earliest possible time. It's really important for our northern economy, particularly as the INPEX project draws down, to have these job-creating projects that will come out of that investment from the City Deal start to become a reality. Darwin's a resilient city, and that was demonstrated after the World War II bombings and with Cyclone Tracy. We will again get through these challenges but we'd love that City Deal to come on board. Economy 105 19:00 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I offer my affirmation and support for the member for Solomon's contribution on cyberbullying. It's a space in which we all have to take responsibility, including parents. I wish the parliament well in its deliberations and hopefully we will land somewhere that addresses that growing issue. In the time dedicated to me tonight, I want to speak about the stark differences between the coalition's economic plan for the future and the alternative position. The coalition government has a fairly fundamental principle: we support the principle of lower taxes. Those on the other side support and will argue the point that higher taxes are a way of returning the economy to growth. We campaigned at the last election around jobs and growth. I will demonstrate to you in my contribution tonight that we have not only touched our growth forecast but we have exceeded the historic growth forecasts of both Labor and the coalition. It is something the Turnbull government can be truly proud of. It creates a stark difference between what we offer and what the Labor Party does. I will go on and share with the room how those changes came into effect. The coalition government is heading in the right direction and we are making gains on easing the cost of living pressures, helping ensure jobs and job security, ensuring that we can afford to deliver social services and support those who most need it. The same may not be able to be said by those who sit on the other side. Before I roll into job creation, I want to quickly talk about the debt and deficit. Often, those on the other side will laud the fact that debt has gone up under this government. The very basic principle of deficit and debt is that debt will continue to rise under any government that doesn't bring surpluses back to reality. If we don't stop the spending, the debt position is accumulative. The only way that the debt can go down is to stop the spending. We are stopping the spending in and around welfare entitlements because we're creating opportunities in the workforce. We're taking those burdens off and that has helped the government in its midyear economic forecast, which I'll speak to. We believe a stronger economy is the key to creating more and better-paying jobs. It's topical at the moment that in Australia we're looking for better wage growth. This is not a problem isolated to Australia; it is a global problem. The Reserve Bank Governor Phillip Lowe has indicated that wage growth is directly linked to inflation itself. In the OECD we all struggle with the same thing, but we are leading the pack in the OECD on growth rates. That is a good thing. Part of that growth rate is down to the economic policy positions we're setting on tax reform. More than 400,000 jobs were created in 2017. You just need to breathe those numbers in: over 400,000 jobs. It was the strongest calendar year on record. The Australian economy is creating just on 1,100 jobs every single day. If you think that the Australian public are sick of hearing the jobs and growth slogan, we're going to keep on reminding everyone that we've created over 400,000 jobs—1,100 every day—because we are making a difference. The vast majority of those jobs were full time. Don't let anyone tell you that they are just trickery numbers or they're a sleight of hand. They are full-time, real jobs. Do your cross analysis against those who were on welfare, and welfare payments are going down; we have more people in work. The numbers of new jobs created in the last year represent five times the growth rate of the last year of the previous Labor government. I've got those figures here. We're looking to build on a stronger economy with more and better-paying jobs for Australians. There's a graph in my hand which states that from 2008 to 2013 Labor, in that environment, created just under 150,000 jobs for the year. I think that would have been just around the beginning of the 150-year capital expenditure in the mining sector. The average under the Howard government from 1996 to 2007 was just under 200,000. The average under the coalition in that last year, 2007, was more than 1,000 jobs a day, just over the 400,000. It is a remarkable achievement. Where did the jobs come from? How is it that a government can come into office and create record positions? We do it because most of us come from a business background. The member for Petrie is well aware of the opportunities created from the small-business sector. They create up to 80 per cent of the employment opportunities here in Australia. We sat down with the small-business sector and said, 'We're going to give 3.2 million small businesses a reduction in their income tax,' which effectively touched 500,000 middle-income Australians. As part of the government's enterprise tax plan, additionally, the company rate for small business has been cut to its lowest rate in 50 years: to 27.5 per cent for businesses with a turnover up to $25 million this year and for businesses with a turnover up to $50 million that kicks in in the year 2018-19. The principle of that is you keep your tax money, you keep the difference we would normally have taken on the 30 per cent. We believe if you've got that extra bit of money you'll go and invest it more wisely. You'll invest it in plant and equipment. You'll invest it in taking a holiday. You'll invest it in buying a new car. You'll invest it in renovations for the house. You'll invest it in putting on more staff. All of those buttons were ticked because all of those other investment opportunities have a multiplier effect in the economy. If you're going on holiday, you're employing people in the tourism sector. If you're buying a new car, you're employing people in the car sector. The flow-on effect has a multiplier of around four in the Australian economy. For unincorporated businesses with less than $5 million turnover, we have introduced a tax discount of eight per cent that is capped at $1,000. We need to do more and we will do more, because these changes will benefit 3.2 million businesses employing 6.7 million Australians, helping them to invest and create more jobs. Every year since 2015 the coalition government has provided an instant asset write-off for small businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million. This means small businesses can instantly deduct each and every asset under $20,000. What would have happened in that mindset is that the member for Petrie would have bought himself a new vehicle for his pest control business. Under the old accounting standards he probably would have depreciated that motor vehicle over four years, depending on the term of the lease he took out on the vehicle. Given that he would have been cashed up he would have paid cash for it anyway. What the instant tax write-off does now is give the member for Petrie and businesses like his the ability to write off that $20,000 in the first year, creating an enormous incentive. They get that money back at the end of the year with that extra coin and they go and put more people on. It's been of great benefit. Those on the other side, when they go and talk to their small businesses, would be supportive of the instant tax write-off. Last year 300,000 small businesses accessed the instant tax write-off to invest in machinery and equipment to help grow their businesses. We will fight Labor's plan for $150 billion in new tax increases on pay packets, homes, electricity and enterprise. We're also doing some incredible stuff in child care. We talk about cost-of-living pressures. Affordable and accessible child care is critical to supporting parents balancing work and family responsibilities. Most households are probably double-income families trying to make ends meet. Mums and dads are at work and kids are getting pushed off to child care. We are creating an environment that's cheaper for them, to help them cope. From July 2018 we will remove the $7,600 annual rebate cap for families on incomes around $185,000. That's 185 per cent of families using child care. At the next election, there will be a stark difference in our policy of lower taxes. I'll leave the room with the words of Winston Churchill, who spoke about tax reform and suggested that trying to tax an economy into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up with it. Lalor Electorate 107 19:10 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor The electorate of Lalor is a diverse and growing community in the outer-west of Melbourne, I was born and raised in Werribee. The privilege I have of standing here and representing my community is something that I do not take for granted. From my maiden speech to this moment, I have always been a proud advocate for my community. The electorate of Lalor is a place of opportunity. It is a place where people from all over the world have come to, and continue to, call home. Our community is a growing one. Houses are built every day. The city of Wyndham is the heart of the electorate and has seen sustained and dramatic population growth for over 40 years. We have a long history of turning housing estates into vibrant communities. As I said in my maiden speech, Lalor is a place where we all come together to create a unique mixture of culture and language, where traditions are accepted, created and cherished. There are over 60,000 families in this electorate and over 230,000 residents. It is one of the youngest electorates in the country, with incredibly high numbers of teenagers. It is one of the fastest-growing regions in this country. Nothing frustrates me more than to hear people trashing the community I love, the place I was born and raised, the place I worked for 25 years in education, the place where I raised my family and the place that I'm very proud to represent. Over the summer, the headlines about my community were deeply frustrating and disappointing. My community was shown in a poor light. As a proud advocate, I was deeply saddened and, like the community itself, frustrated and angered. I was angered by some local young people who were breaking the law and behaving appallingly. I was frustrated by other locals demanding responses and believing that social media and mainstream media would provide them. Some of the people I was frustrated with and angry at are members of this place. One was the Prime Minister and another a federal minister from Queensland. Neither offered solutions but felt free to denigrate our community for political purposes. Both of these so-called leaders are responsible for funding cuts to youth programs, schools and higher education. Both are members of a government that has no policies to assist areas of population growth like ours. It is very easy to throw stones from across the border. It is easy to make accusations and throw around petty slogans for political gain, but it takes courage to offer solutions—something that I will fight for in this place because I believe in my community. The Wyndham spirit lives in me and I am a proud advocate for it. To those throwing stones, I simply say this: you can seek to make a contribution by offering solutions or you can seek to divide. It is obvious that those opposite have no intention of assisting in solving the issues we're facing. To the young people, those who I have heard by day can be model students and model daughters and sons and those others who are disengaged and disenfranchised and who, in football terms, from either group, suffer a catastrophic brain fade and choose to become involved in violent crime, I say: 'Stop! You are damaging yourselves, your families, your immediate community and the community more broadly.' As I've always said to various young people from newly arrived communities across decades, you carry with you the reputation of not only yourself and your family but also your culture and even your faith. It may seem unfair and a heavy burden, but the quality of your life and the life of your family is on your shoulders. The actions and decisions that you make directly impact on those around you. I urge you to seek other first generation Australians from decades past and speak to them about their experiences and speak to them about how they, as proud Australians, live now in Australia. Ask them about the burden they carried and how they handled it. I know that the buck doesn't stop with these young people. It takes a village to raise the young, and all our young people need guidance and support. I'd like to thank Father Chris Riley and the Youth Off The Streets team who came down from across the border—there are some New South Welshmen who have empathy—and set up in my community across the summer to be of assistance and to conduct youth outreach. Our community has been tested like this before. We have a long history, and in those times the hard work of our community has shone through. In our sporting clubs, our schools and our work places, we have a history of overcoming these issues when the right support is put in place. But when the federal government cuts funding from vital services, our community takes a hit. This issue has highlighted for me what this government has cut, and we are seeing, to some extent, the effects of this in the news headlines. To make matters worse, the government has outlined in MYEFO that $1.3 billion will be cut from settlement services over a four-year period. Newly arrived migrants will be forced to wait three years instead of two for certain services. We are going to see issues compound, not just in my community but in others across the country, as a result of the decisions by those opposite. I am not justifying the actions of the young people in the community who are breaking the law, nor am I excusing it. But the federal government is throwing stones for cheap political gain with one hand and cutting funding from services with the other. In doing so, they are short-changing my community. They are short-changing our capacity to build social capital. In terms of community safety in Wyndham, there are genuine concerns held by members of the community. I've received emails and letters from constituents letting me know that they no longer feel safe in the community. This is deeply saddening. I want my community to be one that is accepting and safe for all, and I must highlight some of these facts. Contrary to some of the media reports, Victoria's youth crime rates have been on the decline. In the last quarter of 2017 there was, in fact, an overall drop in crime. Specifically in Wyndham, there was a 10.9 per cent reduction in total crime, with crime decreasing in every suburb of Wyndham. But this reduction in crime doesn't happen with cheap political slurs; it happens when we work together as a community. It happens from the grassroots through to the federal government. It happens when we embrace our neighbourhood and community by saying hello to our neighbours. It starts by waving in the driveway, introducing yourself, finding out the names of the people living in your street. I worked with young people for 27 years. Anonymity is their friend. You need to know their names. All in our community can assist in this. If you run a business or work locally, it will help if you contact your local school and volunteer to take a year 10 student on work experience, a VCAL student for a work placement or, even better, employ a local young person or their parent. If you're involved in a local sporting group or community group, invite the neighbours to get involved. That's how we form communities, and we are well practised at it. Instead of embracing the values of community, mudslinging by those opposite during the summer break has created genuine fear for people living on their own. It has also created fear in the South Sudanese community that they are going to have to face racism as they go about their life in our community. I know what happens when licence for racism is granted at kitchen tables and online platforms. Last week, as kids went back to school, many went back with a licence to be racist in the playground. This makes the job harder for our schools. As a former teacher and principal, I've seen it happen, and the Prime Minister, on the shores of Sydney, and the member for Dickson, when he joined in on Sydney radio at the start of the new year, gave licence for this to occur. I stand here now as the proud member for Lalor in this parliament and reject the Prime Minister's providing this licence with one hand and throwing stones with the other. I also reject those members opposite from Victoria who, throughout 2017, began this chorus. They began this political campaign against my community and communities like mine for political gain. I reject and condemn them in the strongest terms. Lalor is home to a proud community, and I'm a proud member of it. I know the challenges we face and I will be there to assist in healing the wounds, to work with those serious about changing the behaviours and building resilient and strong communities and to put the dual genies of youth crime and racism back where they belong. Gippsland Electorate: Infrastructure 108 19:20 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland Deputy Speaker Coulton, can I begin by recognising your 10-year service in this place as the member for Parkes, because this year marks my 10 years in the place as the member for Gippsland. As I look back on those years—and I'm sure you feel the same way, Deputy Speaker—I wonder where they've all gone. But as I reflected coming up here today, there have been plenty of good times in my electorate of Gippsland in that time, and some pretty tough times as well, and many achievements that I'm enormously proud of. The resilience of Gippslanders has shone through some of those very tough times. We endured the Black Saturday bushfires. We've seen floods and we've seen droughts. In some small way, my own resilience was tested prior to Christmas with the ministerial reshuffle. I got into politics, as I know you did, Deputy Speaker, and I think all members did, to make a difference in my community. It was an enormous honour and privilege to serve in the cabinet. I regard the infrastructure and transport portfolio as the best portfolio to be involved in. Over the past two years I was very fortunate to be part of a project and some policy decisions which will change peoples' lives and will save peoples' lives across our nation. I'm proud of the work that my team did over that period of time and I'm sorry that we won't get to finish some of the jobs we started, but I'm very confident that the government will continue to deliver that extensive program of works that we've undertaken. I'm looking forward to continuing to serve the people of Gippsland with all the passion I can muster and enthusiasm and determination for many years to come, perhaps for as long as they can put up with me. I do intend to continue to be an outspoken advocate in relation to road safety, and I'll be working to secure additional funding for regional roads, which I believe is part of the problem and certainly part of the solution to reducing road trauma in our regional communities. I'll certainly be very active in regional policy development, with a focus on helping young people achieve their full potential. I'll be working with the new minister, Minister John McVeigh—I congratulate him on his appointment—to make sure we're doing everything we can to help regional towns prosper into the future. We need better connectivity for Aboriginal towns and we need a fairer share of infrastructure investment to boost jobs and improve the prosperity of our regional communities. As a backbencher, I believe I'll also have more time to focus on two social policy areas that I'm particularly interested in and which concern me deeply. They are the use of illicit substances, such as ice, and the incidence of suicide in regional areas, particularly amongst young people and Defence Force veterans. In making these few comments here this evening, I want to put on record my personal and professional thanks for the efforts of my staff and the department, particularly Mike Mrdak, the secretary of the department for the majority of the that time I was in the role, but also, in recent times, Steve Kennedy, for the work he did in support of me and my ministerial staff. Our staff in this building put in enormous hours. I was lucky to be served by so many hardworking professional people, mainly young people. They put in an enormous number of hours and I respect them and thank them for their efforts. My focus tonight is to talk about the future and to recognise some of the achievements in my electorate of Gippsland over the past 10 years and also to reflect on where we're going as a region. I had a lot of time over the break to travel around Gippsland. It's only 35,000 square kilometres. I know that's a mere postage stamp compared with the electorate of Parkes! I had the chance to drive around and one of the things I couldn't help but notice was the amount of road works underway in my community. There's been some record road funding in Gippsland in recent times. We've worked very closely with the state government to see better, safer roads delivered in the region. The Princes Highway duplication project is one that I'm particularly proud of. It involved $260 million of funding—a mixture of state and federal funding. I believe in giving credit where it's due. It's one of those projects that have received funding from both sides of the chamber, from the Labor Party when it was in government and now the Liberal-Nationals in government, and also at state level from both Labor and coalition governments. I also had the opportunity to see the progress on the $50 million worth of work underway on the Princes Highway East. I want to do a lot more work on the Princes Highway in my continuing role as the member for Gippsland, working with my colleagues the member for Eden-Monaro, the member for McMillan, the member for Wannon, the member for Corio, the member for Corangamite and the member for Barker, on the Princes Highway itself. It is Highway 1, but, on many parts of the highway between Sydney and Adelaide, the standard of the road surface itself would not rate it as highway 10. While it's not on the national network, I think there are real opportunities for us to work with the three states involved in lifting the standard of the Princes Highway as a great touring route in the region. On the subject of previous achievements and looking towards the future, we're going to see the finalisation of the RAAF Base East Sale redevelopment in the coming months. In total, there's been $385 million allocated to it by the federal government, which will see RAAF Base East Sale become the home of Defence Force basic pilot training. That means that all pilots, whether they be in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, will get their basic pilot training in East Sale before moving on to their postings somewhere else in Australia. That's something that we're very proud of. We have a rich heritage at East Sale with the RAAF base, but we also have a great future. The amount of work that's gone on at that base has been quite transformational. When I think about the time I've spent in the role, the investment in RAAF Base East Sale has been one of the biggest changes I've noticed in Gippsland. I'm looking forward also to seeing projects start, after the best part of 12 months, through the Hazelwood power station response package that the federal government put together. In total, $43 million of federal funds have been allocated and we've already made announcements on a range of projects. Some of them have received matching funding from council or from the state government, but we need to get those works underway so that they can deliver the job outcomes that the local community's looking for. The Latrobe Performing Arts Centre is another project that we secured funding for in the last federal election period, and it's up to the local council to work with the state government to finally get those works underway. I spoke just last week at the launch of the Gippsland Community Leadership Program and we reflected on some of the projects that have been funded in recent times and for which works have been underway in Gippsland. I know others will dispute this, but I believe I live in the greatest region of the best nation in the world. But I posed a question to the room: 'Is this as good as it gets for Gippsland?' Unanimously, around the room people had the view, 'No, it's not. We can do even better. We can make our region an even better place to live, an even better place to work, an even better place to raise a family and an even better place to visit.' At a time when it's easy to be cynical and to get caught in the media cycle of negativity, in this place, as leaders of our community, we need to be relentlessly optimistic and positive about the future of our great nation and of the communities we represent. In the year that lies ahead, I'm very keen to see more collaboration at a federal level with state governments and with local governments to work very closely on projects we can agree on and get those projects happening, particularly in our regional areas. I want to see governments working more closely with the community and local businesses to deliver initiatives that will help them invest with confidence and to see our regional communities grow in the future. I believe one huge opportunity remains, particularly in the electorate of Gippsland, in investment in infrastructure to stimulate the visitor economy. For too long, we've talked about the potential of tourism in Victoria, particularly regional Victoria, but we haven't invested enough in the assets, particularly on public land, to make it more attractive for people to choose to spend their discretionary dollars in our regional communities. I'd love to see a commitment from the federal government, in partnership with states around the nation, to invest in the tourism product right throughout regional Australia. As we improve the connectivity of our regional towns through better road links, better rail links, more airports, better mobile phone connectivity and the rollout of the NBN, all that connectivity means that it's very easy for people to get about regional Australia. But we've got to make sure the infrastructure's in place to compete with other potential locations where people might choose to spend their holidays. So I'm very keen to see us working in a collaborative way with our state colleagues to achieve further investment in the visitor economy, because we know it will help to stimulate jobs in our regional areas. As we start the new parliamentary year, Mr Deputy Speaker, I again want to recognise the work you've done in your electorate of Parkes and what a great friend and supporter you've been of me personally during the last 10 years. I won't share the stories of when we sat together in opposition in those early days in the House, but it's fair to say there were times when we had to keep each other awake! It's great to have you here as Deputy Speaker and as a friend, a colleague and a mentor in this place. I look forward to serving with you again for the next 12 months and wish all members well in the 2018 parliamentary year. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19: 30     QUESTIONS IN WRITING 111 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Department of Home Affairs (Question No. 840) 111 840 Ms Butler 248006 asked the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 23 October 2017: (1) Is it a fact that the Department of Home Affairs has a zero tolerance approach to exposure to fumigant gases in respect of inspections on containers and containerised goods. (2) Is it a fact that his department does not adopt a zero tolerance approach to exposure to fumigant gases in respect of such inspections; if so, why. (3) Is it a fact that until November 2016 his department had a work instruction for tail gates where the only protection from fumigant gas exposure was a '10-minute 2 metre' rule. (4) Is it a fact that in November 2016 his department implemented mandatory usage of photoionisation detectors (ie, gas reading meters); if so, is it a fact that those devices detect, but do not prevent, exposure to fumigant gases. (5) Do his department and the Department of Home Affairs have different approaches to managing the risk of exposure to fumigant gases when performing inspections on containers and containerised goods; if so, why. Mr Littleproud 265585 hasprovided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) This question is a matter for the Minister for Home Affairs. (2) Consistent with its requirements under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources adopts a range of measures to control and manage the risk of workers from being exposed to the harmful effects of fumigant gases. For example, containers are never opened or deconsolidated by departmental staff, and workers are prohibited from entering any import containers containing cargo. Workers are instructed not to approach a container immediately after the container door is opened (even if import documentation does not indicate that the container has been fumigated). As an additional level of protection, the department requires workers to use photoionisation detectors to detect and alert them to any residual traces of fumigant gases in their intended breathing space as they approach an opened container door. Workers are required to retreat from potentially hazardous areas, and to wait before testing the approach to the opened container door again. (3) No. (4) The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources implemented mandatory usage of photoionisation detectors in December 2016. Photoionisation detectors detect gases such as fumigants and assist in the management of the risk of workers from being exposed to the harmful effects of fumigant gases. (5) The approach of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources in managing the risk of exposure to fumigant gases when performing inspections on containers and containerised goods can be found in the answers above. Questions relating to the Department of Home Affairs are a matter for the Minister for Home Affairs.   Department of Social Services (Question No. 888) 111 888 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017: In 2016-17, what sum did his department spend on (a) indoor plants, (b) office decorations, and (c) artwork. Mr Tehan 210911 The answer provided by my predecessor, the Hon Christian Porter MP, to the honourable member's question is as follows: In 2016-17, departmental expenditure on: a) Indoor plants was $8,086.98 (GST exclusive); b) Office decorations was nil; and c) Artwork was nil.