2018-02-12 45 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Monday, 12 February 2018

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Petitions Committee 1 Report 1 10:01 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson Today I present the 20th report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament, together with 20 petitions and 44 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented. The right to petition the parliament dates back to the 13th century, and it's been described as the oldest of all parliamentary forms. Back then, bills were gradually derived directly from petitions. Nowadays, petitions continue to enable citizens to put their grievances to the parliament to gain public exposure and support for their cause and to draw issues to the attention of the House. In the 45th Parliament, a major part of the petitions process involves ministers responding in writing to petitioners about issues within their portfolio. This important act assures petitioners that their petition has reached the office of a representative of government responsible for change and that that office has heard the petitioner's grievance. As I noted earlier, this report contains 44 ministerial responses to petitions presented to this House. The committee is grateful for the ongoing support from ministers in providing timely responses to petitions and for their active involvement in the petitions process. While not every petition can be acted upon, what is important is that the petitioner has a chance to be heard. I'll continue to provide updates to the House on the work of the Petitions Committee. BILLS 1 BILLS Competition and Consumer Amendment (Free Range Eggs) Bill 2018 1

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Free Range Eggs) Bill 2018

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 10:03 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Free Range Eggs) Bill 2018 will ensure three things. Firstly, it will ensure that eggs marketed as 'free range' are eggs laid by hens that are able to, and do in fact, move freely on an open range during daylight hours on most days. Secondly, it will ensure that 'free range' is a term limited to hens that are stocked at a density of no more than 1,500 birds per hectare. Thirdly, it will clarify existing rules to ensure that stocking density is displayed prominently on egg cartons in only a 'hens per hectare' format. Eggs are part of the weekly shopping list for all Australians and the egg industry is an important driver in the Australian economy. Free-range eggs have grown in popularity with consumers. But what defines a 'free-range egg'? This issue was first raised with me by small-scale egg producers in my electorate. Many of the free-range farms through the Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu Peninsula and Kangaroo Island are exactly how consumers would picture an egg farm, with plenty of space, grass and fresh air for the hens to roam freely. I am happy to admit that, before speaking to my local producers, I was unaware on the exact definition of free range. In my mind, that picture represented free range. Little did I know that the Australian Consumer Law (Free Range Egg Labelling) Information Standard 2017, implemented by the Australian government in 2017, had significantly broadened the definition of 'free range'. As it stands, free-range eggs are eggs laid by hens that have meaningful and regular access to an outdoor range during daylight hours, have the ability to roam and forage on that outdoor range and are subject to a stocking density of up to 10,000 hens. Farms with this stocking density are very different to farms with a stocking density of 1,500 hens. There is a vast difference in this farming practice. Let's be clear: a stocking density of 10,000 hens does not reflect the consumer depiction of free range, and the cute pictures of hens on grass on the front of free-range egg cartons are not 10,000-hen farms. Nor does the vagueness about whether the hens actually do roam free and not just have access to roam—ambiguous at best and some would say misleading. In fact, my review of supermarkets showed that none of the producers that had 10,000 birds per hectare put those pictures on the front of any of their cartons. It's clear that the current standards do not meet consumer expectations. I want to make this bill about providing relevant information to the consumer. I understand there is a place in the market for both barn-laid and caged eggs. My intentions with this bill are to ensure that there is information and protection for consumers and that there is clarity. The Nick Xenophon Team promotes transparency and accountability, and I strongly believe that consumers should have all of the relevant information available to them when they are making their choices at the supermarket. Since this issue was raised with me, I have consulted extensively with my community and with free-range egg farmers. The overwhelming message that I have received is that most people don't understand the definition of 'free range'. The assumption in the community is that 'free range' is the farm with green grass and hens roaming far and wide, as depicted on cartons. The reality, as it stands, is vastly different. For products that are allowed to be marketed under the same banner, there is a wide gap in farming practices. I believe it is fair and reasonable for labelling laws to reflect community expectation. If community expectation of 'free range' is a farm where hens are outside for much of the day with lots of space, then legislation should reflect that. The current rules are ambiguous, and I believe this bill goes a long way to ensuring that we bring the existing definition of free range closer to the expectations of consumers. I profess that I am not the first champion of this cause. Indeed, this issue has been raised several times over the past decade by representatives of several different political parties. I want to acknowledge Ms Tammi Franks, from the South Australian Legislative Council. She is a member of the Greens. She has done extensive work to promote this issue in South Australia, but she was told that this was a federal issue—so here I am. I also support the private member's bill that my Liberal colleague in South Australia Mr Michael Pengilly, the member for Finniss, who is within the electorate of Mayo as a state member—a gentleman I don't often agree with—took to the South Australian parliament to implement some standards that this bill sets out. I am not surprised that this issue crosses party lines, as it is at its heart an issue about providing consumers with the information they need to make an informed choice. Reducing the stocking density of hens that are considered to be free range would bring our standards closer to those that are observed internationally. The European Union requires eggs labelled as 'free range' to be laid by hens with a stocking density of no greater than 2,500 hens per hectare. This stocking density is also followed in the United Kingdom. To think that our current laws allow for a stocking density four times higher than that of Europe and the UK, where in many cases we have lower rainfall and less fertile soil—the two ingredients required for great pasture—shows how out of touch our laws are with consumer expectations. The reason that this bill seeks to limit the maximum stocking density to 1,500 hens per hectare is to bring it in line with the CSIRO's model code, which was the voluntary code for free-range egg producers before the recent information standard came into place. I'm pleased this bill has the support of the RSPCA, whose code of conduct also recommends a stocking density of 1,500 birds per hectare. I'm also pleased that this bill has the support of CHOICE. CHOICE has been a long-time advocate for this issue. Their app, CluckAR, can be downloaded and used to scan egg carton labels so you can find out what the stocking density is on the carton and whether it meets your standards as a consumer. This app has been downloaded more than 109,000 times and has been used to scan more than 1.9 million egg cartons. That's an average of 2,500 scans per day. And we must keep in mind that not everybody has a smart phone and not everyone has the time to scan a carton while they're shopping—and nor should they. If ever you need evidence that this is a true consumer issue, this is it. I'm sure many of my colleagues in this place would have received many emails in their inbox over the weekend from constituents urging them to support this bill. That's not from me. That's because this campaign has been taken up by CHOICE, and I thank them for their efforts in raising awareness on this issue. I can only hope that my colleagues listen to the concerns of their constituents and push for this bill to go to a vote or be adopted by government. In an act of fortuitous timing, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission last week released its enforcement guidelines for free-range egg chicken claims, aligning them with guidelines for the federal government's information standard. As I have said, this standard does not specify that hens must actually go outside to be considered free range. As long as they're provided meaningful access and have the ability to go outside, they will be considered free range. I want to highlight the 2015 enforcement guidelines released by the ACCC before this new information standard was released. In those guidelines, the ACCC considered that if most hens do not range freely or do not go outside the barn then to market these eggs as free range would be a breach of the Australian Consumer Law. My bill explicitly sets out a requirement for free-range eggs to be laid by hens that are able to do so and do in fact move freely in an open range during daylight hours. It's as simple as that. There is no ambiguity. This provides clarification for both producers and consumers. I've drafted this bill with the thought of catering to egg producers, both big and small, who operate under the current rules. The changes in labelling requirements will not take effect until 12 months after the bill reaches royal assent. I understand that this would provide enough time for producers to make relevant adjustments, but I'm also open to amendments on this point, should it be necessary. I don't want to see any particular producer facing hardship because of labels. I understand it costs a lot to produce cartons, but no producer who I spoke to has more than 12 months worth of carton stock. I hope that both the government and the opposition will see fit to support this bill and in turn support Australian consumers. I commend this bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? Ms McGowan 123674 I second the motion, congratulate the member for Mayo on her work and reserve my right to speak. The SPEAKER 00APG The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. BUSINESS 3 BUSINESS Rearrangement 3 10:13 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Pursuant to standing order 113, I fix the next sitting Monday as the day for presenting the Fair Work Amendment (Making Australia More Equal) Bill 2018. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 3 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Morant, Lieutenant Harry ‘Breaker’, Handcock, Lieutenant Peter, Witton, Lieutenant George 3 10:13 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) approximately 16,000 Australians fought in the Boer War in contingents raised by the Australian colonies or the Commonwealth Government (after 1901), or joined British and South African colonial units; (b) Australians, Lieutenants Harry 'Breaker' Morant, Peter Handcock and George Witton served as volunteers in a South African irregular unit, the Bushveldt Carbineers, under British Military Command; (c) Lieutenants Morant, Handcock and Witton were found guilty at their courts martial for the death of 12 Boer prisoners even though they pleaded their actions were in accordance with orders of their British superiors; and (d) Lieutenants Morant and Handcock were executed on 27 February 1902, and Lieutenant Witton's sentence commuted to life imprisonment, but he was released from prison in 1904 after representations from the then Australian Government and British parliamentarians, including Winston Churchill; (2) acknowledges: (a) that Lieutenants Morant, Handcock and Witton were convicted of committing a serious crime; (b) the serious deficiencies in the handling of the legal case against the three men, including the right to appeal their sentences by their legal advocate, Major James Francis Thomas, the opportunity to seek intervention by the Australian Government and the ability to contact their families to inform them of their plight; (c) the failure of British Military Command to implement the recommendations for mercy made by the courts martial to be applied equally to these men; (d) the findings of respected legal figures and community leaders who support this assessment; and (e) the ongoing emotional suffering this case has caused the descendants of Lieutenants Morant, Handcock and Witton; and (3) expresses: (a) sincere regret that Lieutenants Morant, Handcock and Witton were denied procedural fairness contrary to law and acknowledges that this had cruel and unjust consequences; and (b) sympathy to the descendants of these men as they were not tried and sentenced in accordance with the law of 1902. Harry 'Breaker' Morant is a name which is familiar to all Australians, but maybe not for the right reasons. In the movie Breaker Morant, produced in 1980, Edward Woodward, Bryan Brown and Lewis Fitz-Gerald depicted the three Army personnel. It spoke of the executions of Lieutenants Harry 'Breaker' Morant and Peter Handcock on 27 February 1902—some 116 years ago—and the sentencing of Lieutenant George Witton to life imprisonment. The issue continues to ignite passionate debate about the guilt or innocence of these men and calls for the acknowledgement of and relief for their descendants. I wish to acknowledge some of the descendants of Lieutenant Harry 'Breaker' Morant, Peter Handcock and George Witton, as they sit in the chamber today: Michael and Lesley Handcock; Merrill Urban and Richard Williams; Beverley Little, Tony Little and Lynette Pont—all descendants of Harry; Jennifer Witton-Sand, a descendant of George Witton; Ann and Cathy Morant, descendants of Harry 'Breaker' Morant; and Beach Thomas, a descendant of Major James Thomas, their defence counsel. I acknowledge and welcome you here today to the Australian parliament. And I acknowledge their advocate, James Unkles, and his wife, Maries, and the historians Shane and Melissa Williams, who are in this chamber to witness this moment. James, thank you so much for the work that you've done to date in preparing this auspicious motion. Today, I acknowledge that Lieutenants Morant, Handcock and Witton were not tried in accordance with military law of 1902 and suffered great injustice as a result. The convictions were unsafe and unlawful and the sentences illegal as appeal was denied. This provides an opportunity for the parliament to discuss this. The war between Britain and the two Dutch South African republics—the Boer War—began on 11 October 1899, where the Boers declared war on the British, and lasted until 31 May in the year 1902. During the Boer War, approximately 16,000 Australians served under British command and about 600 Australians died during the conflict. It was the first major conflict involving Australians overseas. Harry Morant, Peter Handcock and George Witton, like so many other volunteers from Australia and other Commonwealth countries, joined up to support the Empire. The three men became commissioned officers and joined a volunteer unit called the Bushveldt Carbineers. These men shot 12 Boer prisoners while acting under the orders of senior British regular army officers—this fact is not in dispute. The court martial made significant recommendations for the three accused with respect to shooting the Boer prisoners. The court strongly recommended that, due to mitigating circumstances, including their lack of previous military experience, their ignorance of military law and their good military service during the war, mercy should be shown during the trial and their sentences. The court martial and Lord Kitchener, the military Commander-in-Chief, confirmed their sentences on 25 February 1902. He commuted Witton's sentence to penal servitude and ignored the court's recommendations for mercy for Handcock and Morant. Following the trial in 1902, Lieutenants Moran and Handcock were executed and Lieutenant Witton was imprisoned but released from prison following representation from Australian and British parliamentarians. Today, I acknowledge that the process used to try these men was flawed and that they were not afforded the rights of an accused person facing serious criminal charges enshrined in military law in the year of 1902. The prosecution had three months to prepare cases against the accused before trials commenced in January 1902. That was in stark contrast to Morant, Handcock and Witton, who were denied the right to consult legal counsel until 15 January 1902, leaving one day's preparation before trial to seek legal advice on serious allegations and complex issues with their defence counsel, Major James Francis Thomas, with whom they had had no previous contact. Their confinement and their limited time to prepare a defence, including locating and interviewing witnesses, prevented or frustrated them from mounting a defence to charges of murder. The circumstances that led to the execution of Morant and Handcock and the sentencing of Witton to penal servitude were characterised by indecent haste and a disregard for the rule of law and the appeals process. This is what this motion speaks to. It speaks to the fact that these officers in the Australian Army, serving as volunteers, were not afforded their right to an appeals process. They were also prevented from communicating with their relatives, the Australian government and, most importantly, the sovereign king, who could have examined their pleas for clemency. Had their verdicts been stayed for a few days, Handcock, Morant and Witton could have discussed their options with legal counsel. They could have sought advice from the Australian government, as the military standards would have normally provided. Lord Kitchener made himself unavailable when the sentences were announced and could not be contacted, denying an opportunity for the accused to seek his reconsideration of the sentences. Lord Kitchener's actions ignored due process and denied an opportunity for an appeal or allow the men to exercise their right to a state or military redress of grievance. The sentences were carried out within two days of convictions and the sentences being announced. The accused were denied the opportunity to consider all avenues of review, including appeal action, with this unnecessary haste. The laws of war prior to 1928 permitted reprisal against prisoners. 'Take no prisoners' was then a lawful order and was construed as such by Morant, Handcock and Witton, demonstrating that the British military had to take decisive action in fighting a devious guerrilla campaign waged by the Boers. Kitchener's decision to issue such orders was considered lawful according to the law in 1901, and one that had to be obeyed by the men. At the time of the offences, the law of reliance on superior orders was recognised as a legal defence in certain circumstances. Sir Isaac Isaacs, Witton's second defence counsel, who eventually served as Governor-General and Chief Justice of the High Court, entered a submission on Witton's culpability, obedience to superior officers, limited military experience and disproportionate sentence. This could also be applied to the cases of both Morant and Handcock. Following a petition signed by over 80,000 Australians and support from the Australian and British parliaments, Witton was released from prison. Several members of the legal community have also supported the expression that we have here today, and I mention David Denton QC; Robert McClelland, former Attorney-General; Sir Laurence Street QC, former Chief Justice of the New South Wales Supreme Court; Geoffrey Robertson QC; and Gerard Nash QC. I acknowledge the descendants of Lieutenant Harry 'Breaker' Morant, Peter Handcock and George Witton. The treatment of these men has caused them much grief and shame. Over the years, their families have had to try to deal with the guilt of the way in which these men were treated. Their collective grieving has been in secret, fearful that they would be shamed for the events of all those years ago. I'd like to express my deepest sympathy to all those in the chamber here as descendants and hope that this motion will go some way to easing your pain from 116 years ago. The Australian support for the British during the Boer War was significant for an emerging nation. This motion regarding Handcock, Morant and Witton recognises their service, respecting that duty to obey the orders of British superiors and be loyal to the Crown. Lieutenants Morant and Handcock were the first and last Australians executed for war crimes, on 27 February 1902. The process used to try these men was fundamentally flawed. They were not afforded the rights of an accused person facing serious criminal charges enshrined in military law in 1902. Today, I recognise the cruel and unjust consequences and express my deepest sympathy to the descendants and thank their advocate, James Unkles, for his ongoing work. Today, I acknowledge the Morant and Handcock descendants and I note that this appeals process, again, will help bring some closure to what is an oversight and a travesty of military justice. It is through these few words in this chamber that I hope you find relief and that the history books will reprieve you. 10:24 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro I rise to thank my good friend the member for Wright for raising this motion. I salute his support for men and women in the Australian Defence Force and the interest he's taken in this issue. I also acknowledge the descendants who are in the chamber with us today on what has been an issue that has been a deep scar on and deep trauma of the Australian experience over many years. It was in the context of one of the more traumatic conflicts that our men and women in the Australian Defence Force have been involved in—the guerrilla warfare counterinsurgency environment is the most challenging circumstance that serving men and women can be involved in. We all know the stories that there have been through the years of being unable to identify the enemy clearly in that environment, the severe tension and trauma that is put upon those people in working through difficult environments of being sniped at and, in more modern times, attacked by improvised explosive devices. The incident that comes to mind too, most recently, was the killing of the cook in Afghanistan, Private Jones, and the emphasis that that then places on leadership in these circumstances, where we have to ensure that we're wrapping around our personnel, that there are no revenge or retaliation motivations, and also that people that we identify who are experiencing the stresses and traumas of these environments are properly identified and provided with support. One thing that really jumps out at you if you look back at the history of this war, as I have. In also drawing on my own personal experiences in many deployments, I've noted that your standards start to get brutalised and can decline. This first happened to me in Somalia. It really came as a shock to me when I identified this happening. I understood then that one of my biggest roles as an officer was to maintain standards, to identify these kinds of pressures and problems that can arise. Many times in my own deployments there were circumstances where it would have been quite easy—no-one would have known—to fudge issues and problems in a way that would have been completely counter to the long-term strategic objectives we had and the interests of our soldiers in both their safety and their mental health in subsequent years. Coming back to that experience in the Boer War, one of the things that really jumps out at me is the issue of the mental health of Breaker Morant himself. When his good mate Captain Hunt was killed and his body mutilated, something clearly snapped in him. It was identified by all the observers who were there that he was a completely changed person after that. Because this was an irregular unit, there were clearly failures of leadership about managing those personal matters in that brutal environment. Of course different standards applied at that time about how prisoners who were wearing uniforms were dealt with. The circumstances in which these people found themselves created this massive mental trauma that should have been better managed. As has been alluded to, the issue of the 'justice' process was the greatest heinous issue of all. When you look back and think that we became a nation during the course of this war, and our government was not even informed for a couple of months about the process that took place and that these men were executed and Witton imprisoned, that led to the fact that we weren't going to let that ever happen again. So, if there's anything positive that we can say came out of this, it was that Australians on all sides of politics, and in our national approach to these issues, were never going to be subject to military justice again. And just as well, because in the First World War there was a lot of intense pressure to bring Australian military personnel under military justice. The British executed over 300 people—306 people, including Canadians and New Zealanders and Irish—but no Australian was executed. We were subject to our own discipline system. The reason that happened was the experience that occurred in this unfortunate and tragic circumstance. So it's important and it's great that we've learned these lessons. I might also say, to the great credit of the Australians serving in the Boer War at that time, that many of them identified and were ashamed and disgusted by some of the practices that were going on there, given, obviously, signals by higher command, and actually raised this issue en masse in a petition to say, 'These need to be investigated and dealt with.' We've learned that lesson. We need to maintain that standard. If we take any lesson out of this, we need to preserve the integrity and the reputation of the slouch hat. Obviously these injustices of the past need to be remembered. 10:29 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports I commend the member for Wright and the member for Eden-Monaro for their remarks. The injustice suffered by Harry 'Breaker' Morant is something that is in the Australian imagination. I commend the members of his family that are here in the gallery, and particularly Jim Unkles, for his long campaign for justice on their behalf. This is not an issue, as the member for Eden-Monaro pointed out, of whether some wrong act was committed; it's an issue of whether Australian servicemen serving in the Boer War were treated differently to British troops fighting in the same conflict. It's not just clear from the legend of the film but from all of the research that has been done since that that was the case. I really think the member for Eden-Monaro made a great point: because of this great injustice, perhaps Australian troops were not executed during World War I, which came so soon afterwards. That's a very important step. It was a step that Australia took in seeing that we were more independent of Britain—not that we want to disassociate ourselves from the great Westminster system or anything like that, but there were circumstances where the imperial interests of Great Britain, prior to the First World War, were trying to be friendly with the German kaiser. Lord Kitchener felt, therefore, that the Australian colonials could be treated differently to British troops. These kinds of incidents happened after, as the member for Eden-Monaro said—and I'm sure the member for Wright did too—the mutilation of members of the Bushveldt Carbineers by the Boers. It was a very vicious conflict. Breaker Morant and his associates were treated differently to British troops. I think the idea of Lord Kitchener, in making himself absent from any ability to appeal the court martial, was that this would appease the Germans. After all, a German minister had been killed in that conflict. If one looks at even the geostrategic aims of what was attempted to be achieved, no appeasement was raised with Germany. The kaiser was determined to have his Great War; he was determined to show that Germany was the great power in Europe. And such foolish efforts by Lord Kitchener to appease, in anticipation, the Germans by executing colonials was unethical and a mistaken idea. Jim Unkles, in his wonderful piece recently in The Australian, explained that this is a debate not about the execution of prisoners during the Boer War but about whether they were denied justice. He details the scandalous point that Lord Kitchener left Pretoria and told his staff he was uncontactable, thereby denying the Australians their legal right to appeal to King Edward and seek the assistance of the Australian government. That was a calculated perversion of the course of justice. He may have been told to do that by higher-ups in the British government, but, whatever it was, it was an example of treating Australians differently. I think this country has developed independently since then. That was a key point in the breaking of the commonality between Australia and Britain. If one looks at The Bulletin or any of the magazines that were published in all of the intervening years, they were very strongly aware of this injustice, and it sort of helped develop the independent Australian psyche that we have now, particularly when we're involved in military conflict. It's commendable that we continue to raise this with the British. I don't think any justice will be done until the capital punishment suffered by those two poor men is overturned. The SPEAKER 00APG The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. At a personal level, I welcome the descendants of the Morant, Handcock and Witton families to the gallery today and also James Unkles and his wife. Jim is a very passionate and dedicated member of my constituency and I want to welcome him here today. South Australia: Schools 7 10:34 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield I move: That this House: (1) acknowledges that the $210 million funding cut to South Australian schools in 2018 and 2019 means that schools will face significant cuts, which the South Australian Government has estimated to include: (a) $1,315,000 from Adelaide High School; (b) $882,000 from Craigmore High School; (c) $1,392,000 from Norwood Morialta High School; (d) $1,114,000 from Gawler and District College B-12; (e) $817,000 from Parafield Gardens High School; (f) $1,226,000 from Paralowie School; (g) $875,000 from Playford International College; (h) $512,000 from Nailsworth Primary School; (i) $731,000 from Glenelg Primary School; (j) $24,000 from South Australian School for Vision Impaired; (k) $1,165,000 from Roma Mitchell Secondary College; (l) $426,000 from Port Noarlunga Primary School; and (m) $863,000 from Thebarton Senior College; and (2) calls on the Australian Government to immediately reinstate the funding previously committed to South Australian schools. This motion revolves around the deal that this government—the Turnbull government; the Liberal Party—did with the Nick Xenophon Team to cut $210 million out of South Australian schools. We all know, in South Australia, the importance of well-funded schools. I've spoken in this House many times about Gonski—about the importance of the full Gonski and about the fact that the full Gonski was legislated for, which is why bills had to come through this House and the Senate to change that level of funding. That's why this is a cut, because the government legislated and the Nick Xenophon Team voted 57 times in the Senate to cut funds from South Australian schools. For the benefit of those listening, this is the effect of that $210 million cut—because sometimes when things are shown at the macro level you don't quite understand what the impact is at the local level. In, for instance, the state seat of Elizabeth, the Adelaide North Special School lost $152,000; Blakeview Primary School lost $520,000 over two years; Craigmore High School lost $882,000 over two years; Craigmore South Primary School lost $237,000; Elizabeth Downs Primary School lost $313,000; Elizabeth East Primary School lost $252,000; Elizabeth Grove Primary School lost $248,000; Elizabeth Park Primary School lost $332,000; Elizabeth South Primary School lost $181,000; Elizabeth Vale Primary School lost $344,000; Kaurna Plains School, a school for Indigenous students, lost $81,000; Playford International College lost $875,000; Playford Primary School lost $692,000; and the South Downs Primary School, where my mother taught prior to bringing me into this world, lost $116,000. That's the effect on all of the schools in the state seat of Elizabeth. For the people in those communities, the March state election is an opportunity to send a message to the Liberal Party and to the Nick Xenophon Team about what you think about those cuts to your local schools. Similarly, in the state seat of Playford, the East Para Primary School lost $408,000; Karrendi Primary School lost $196,000; Mawson Lakes School lost $696,000; Para Hills High School lost $456,000; Para Hills School P-7 lost $239,000; Para Hills West Primary School lost $195,000; Parafield Gardens High School lost $817,000; Parafield Gardens R-7 School lost $565,000; and the Pines School lost $571,000—again, massive cuts to local primary schools, local high schools, special schools and schools that cater for Indigenous students across the northern suburbs of Adelaide. These are savage cuts which directly affect their capacity to educate children in our local area. They directly affect their capacity to actually deliver the NAPLAN results we want and the opportunities we want for those students. These cuts are not just to this generation of students; those cuts get locked in over time. They will affect generations of students in the north. The March 2017 election is an opportunity for every one of the residents that relies on those local schools to send a message to the Liberal Party and to Nick Xenophon to say: 'We won't accept your cuts. We want the full Gonski model. We want the full $210 million to be reinstated to help our local schools, to help our local students and to help our local communities.' The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the motion seconded? Mr Butler HWK I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 10:39 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I listened to the contribution of the member for Wakefield with great interest, and I was reminded of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister. Mr Champion interjecting— Mr RAMSEY HWS I never said you were; I never implied in any way— The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E A point of order, Member for Wakefield? Mr Champion HW9 Yes, a point of order: I'll cop a lot of things, but I'm not going to be compared to a Nazi, and he should withdraw. Mr Ramsey HWS I haven't compared the member to a Nazi. It was a quote from Joseph Goebbels, which I haven't had the opportunity to deliver yet. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E It's very, very close to the line, but I'll allow the member for Grey to continue, and I'll listen. Mr RAMSEY HWS He was reputed to have said that if you tell a lie enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it. The member for Wakefield went down a long list of schools. I won't mention how many, but the underlying fact here is that these schools have not had funding cut. He seems to believe that if he repeats it long enough people will believe it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E A point of order, Member for Wakefield? Mr Champion HW9 The member for Grey says he's not comparing me to Joseph Goebbels and then goes on to reiterate a point comparing me to Joseph Goebbels. He should just withdraw. It's completely unacceptable, and I take great personal offence to it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E I think the member for Grey has actually stepped over the line on that one. Mr RAMSEY HWS Then in that case I withdraw. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E I thank the member for Grey. Mr RAMSEY HWS I do believe, though, that a mistruth is being repeated here which is simply not correct. Labor and the member opposite claim to have the high moral ground on education. On one hand they say David Gonski's the font of all knowledge on education, when in fact Mr Gonski was never happy with the model Labor devised. They ignore his statements to that point, and in fact they even named their hotchpotch of funding after him—the 'the full Gonski'. How disappointing it must be to them that David Gonski has disowned that model. They never had the full Gonski. They never had full needs based funding. They had a different set of deals for each state and each sector within the state, meaning that students in one state were receiving less than students from other states in similar schools and of similar socioeconomic backgrounds. In fact, the model provided incentives to states to reduce funding to schools. What the Labor Party will not acknowledge now is that their unfunded proposal was not fair or consistent, and the man they've put so much store in—the man they named their unfunded policy after, David Gonski—has not endorsed their model; he has endorsed the government's. How can it be that grown-up people duly elected to this place can stand here and say that an increase in funding is a cut? What planet does that come from? Australia wide, the government sector will receive an extra $25 billion over the next 10 years on the 2016-17 figures—extra, not less. I had a look at the dictionary, and in this context 'cut' means 'reduce, decrease, decline, drop or fall'. I asked myself, which one of these best coincides with 'increase'? Is an increase a drop? Is an increase a fall? Is an increase a decrease? It's just as well the member for Wakefield is not a maths teacher. Is it that the member for Wakefield doesn't want an extra $850,000 for Craigmore High School over the next four years? Or is it that he doesn't want an extra $700,000 for Salisbury Primary over the next 10 years? Perhaps he should tell Elizabeth South Primary School that he's opposed to their receiving an extra $210,000 over the next four years and $430,000 over the next 10 and is hanging out for a better offer. In my electorate there are schools like Ceduna, Port Augusta Secondary, Whyalla High, Port Pirie Secondary and especially remote and disadvantaged schools, like Ernabella and Coober Pedy, that stand to gain greatly from the new arrangements. Labor and the member for Wakefield are flogging a dead horse—a dead and deceitful horse—on this particular issue. And how do I know the horse is dead? Because I'm not getting any contact to my office. No-one is contacting my office and saying they are unhappy with the education deal that has been put forward by the federal government. I've been in this place long enough to pretty much know that a government policy is out of order with a sector of the community—the phones and emails run hot. On this issue there is silence. That's why I know the government has got it right. The only people left bleating at the edges now are the Labor Party. They are the only people. Everybody else has moved on from this issue. I congratulate Senator Birmingham, Minister for Education and Training, on this model. He has done very good work. 10:44 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide I thank the member for Wakefield for bringing this very important motion to the parliament. On 29 January, as South Australian students were walking into their new classrooms, excited to find out who was in their class for this year and who would be their teacher, they were blissfully unaware, probably, that this federal government had robbed them of their rights to a properly funded education. Their teachers, however, are all too keenly aware of what these children have been denied. South Australian schools have been betrayed by this government, which, with the disgraceful support of the Nick Xenophon Team, tore up a clear written agreement promising never to touch funding, taking $210 million from South Australian schools over just two years, 2018 and 2019. In my electorate of Port Adelaide, the cuts to public schools alone total more than $14.6 million over the coming two years. Two schools in my electorate, Woodville High and Paralowie R-12, stand to lose more than $1 million each. These figures are simply unbelievable. The value of the resources that these schools would've been able to use to support their students—Indigenous students, recent migrants and students with special needs—and to provide greater one-on-one time with teachers for all students is immeasurable. The true costs of this cut are beyond numbers. They shape the future for our children. All 31 of the public schools in my electorate will receive funding cuts, against the written agreement this government had promised to implement. These are some of the most high-needs school in South Australia, including schools servicing the northern areas of Adelaide, like Paralowie R-12, Parafield Gardens High, the Adelaide School of Languages—a vital resource for new migrants to South Australia—and not one but two special education schools in my electorate: The Grove Education Centre and the Adelaide West Special Education Centre. The government has done all of this while at the same time giving a $65 billion tax cut to big business, robbing our children to give to big business CEOs. Australia has always punched above its weight on the world stage in economic terms, in scientific discovery and in innovation, and we've achieved this through a strong tradition of public education. Public education in every colony of Australia was firmly established by 1880. Even prior to that, church parishes provided education with government support. This is what has allowed us to achieve at the same level as nations much older, more established and more populous than we have ever been. But we've never sat on our laurels. We've always striven to better our system and the outcomes that we achieve for our children. That was what drove the Labor Party to commission the Gonski review. Our reforms weren't politically motivated. They were the recommendations of the best education experts in the nation. This government's poor shadow of Gonski reforms aren't based on the best advice of educators. They're not based on the desire for a world-class system. They're based purely on political games that sacrifice our children's futures. Almost more disgraceful was the betrayal of the Nick Xenophon Team, the so-called SA-BEST party, who broke their promise to South Australia and have ended up delivering 'SA second best'. Nick Xenophon promised in writing that he would deliver the Gonski reforms in full—but, true to form, when the crunch came, Nick Xenophon sold out South Australian children. Every Australian child should be taught that they can achieve, regardless of postcode or parental income. They should be given the tools that allow them to do that. That is what our school system should be based upon. But Gonski found it wasn't doing that—that we needed proper needs based funding to give every kid the power to unlock their full potential. An OECD report released in September last year found that Australian students attending richer schools have an unfair advantage, particularly when it comes to STEM education—a higher resource-demand area, as we all know. By contrast, nations with better STEM outcomes had similar rates of resources and access, regardless of the socio-economic status of the school. Under this government's system, the difference between the public schools, Catholic schools and less wealthy independent schools on the one hand and the more elite private colleges on the other will only grow, and Australia will only fall further behind. Gonski was a vote of confidence in all children, regardless of whether they went to elite private colleges or the local public or Catholic school. Gonski said, 'The kids in all schools deserve the same resources as those whose families can afford the elite private schools.' We know that the children in less wealthy schools can achieve when given the proper tools. 10:49 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes Here we go again—another election campaign, another big untruth peddled by the Australian Labor Party. At the last federal election we had the infamous 'Mediscare' campaign. It was a completely dishonest, deceptive campaign that scared pensioners in the middle of the night under the false premise that the coalition was going to privatise Medicare. We heard the comments from the member for Wakefield. He should come to the dispatch box and apologise to everyone in his electorate for misleading them at the last election. He should say: 'I am sorry. I misled you. I tricked you about the Mediscare campaign.' But, instead, he comes into this House and he wears it like a badge of honour. As if it's a badge of honour that the Labor member deceives his own electorate. What a sham! Here we go again. This time we've got the cuts to education. It is a big untruth, which is repeated over and over and over—as the member for Grey noted—in the hope that people will remember it, frightening schoolchildren, frightening parents. Will they ever learn? The facts are: under this coalition government there is record funding going to schools this year. Never before in the history of the Commonwealth has more funding flowed to Australian schools than it has under this coalition government. And next year they will receive more. And the year after that they will receive more. And yet we have the Labor Party coming in here claiming that there are cuts. Of course, this goes back to the infamous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd regime with their sort of trickery around their Gonski funding. Of course, we all know that we do our forward estimates over four years. And, of course, it just happened to be that their Gonski funding was all back-loaded in years 5 and 6 so they never had to show where the money was coming from, because they didn't have a clue. Today it's almost as though we live in a post-truth world with the Labor Party. Take the member for Port Adelaide, the shadow minister for energy, who just came in. On his Facebook page he's got a post up sharing the South Australian Premier's post that says, 'South Australia leading the way.' It also says, 'South Australia is already a world leader in affordable and reliable power.' South Australia, a world leader in affordable power! No wonder the member for Wakefield's head goes down, because he knows that South Australia have not only the highest electricity prices in Australia but they now have the proud title of the highest electricity prices in the world. And yet we have the Premier of that state saying that they are a world leader in affordable power. You couldn't make this up—George Orwell could not make this stuff up. For the Labor Party it is like 'freedom is slavery' and 'ignorance is strength'—affordable electricity is the world's most expensive, and increases in government spending are a cut. We see this time and time again. When a Labor member comes to the dispatch box or starts to talk about anything, you really need to check. If they said it was raining, you would need to go outside to check for yourself. Another example: again we had the member for Port Adelaide on his Facebook page last year saying, 'Thermal coal exports are in rapid decline.' Rapid decline for coal exports! The numbers are just in for Australia's coal exports—guess what? They're not in rapid decline. In 2007 we had the highest export earnings of coal in our nation's history. They were up 35 per cent on 2016 levels. Last year we exported $56.5 billion worth of coal, up 35 per cent. That even beats the previous record, in 2011, of 46.7. We had 20 per cent above our best ever exports of coal—and we have the member for Port Adelaide saying that thermal coal exports were in rapid decline. Is there any wonder that nobody believes a word that comes out of the mouths— (Time expired) 10:55 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin This motion is about education funding. I commend the member for Wakefield for bringing it before the House. But we just heard the member for Hughes, in five minutes, talk about anything but education funding, which is proof of the very point we are trying to make—that $210 million has been cut from South Australian schools as a result of the Turnbull government changing the agreement that previously existed between the federal government and the state of South Australia. This is a cut; it's a real cut, based on a previous agreement. So it's no good for members of the government to come into this place and say, 'This is not a cut. Education funding is going to increase over the next few years.' It may well do, but it will not increase by the amount that was previously committed to South Australia by a previous federal government. That's why it is a $210 million cut. It's interesting that, last week, when there was an MPI before this place on this very issue, not one South Australian member was prepared to come into the chamber and defend the cuts, because they knew that, for all their attempts to spin it as an increase, the reality is that it's going to be a $210 million cut to South Australian schools. I say to the member for Grey, who spoke earlier on with respect to Ceduna, Ernabella and Fregon schools: Ceduna will lose $461,000 from these cuts, Ernabella will lose $145,000 and Fregon will lose $58,000. These are some of the most needy schools in South Australia, and yet they will lose that money, which would have gone a long way to helping the students who go to those schools and their families. For South Australia it means that public schools will be the worst off out of this $210 million cut. They will lose $168 million. These are the schools that look after our lowest-income families—the schools that need it the most. I'm aware of schools in South Australia that are already bursting at the seams; they do not have enough classroom space and, therefore, have too many children in their classrooms, because they could do with the extra funding. Yet we're seeing the funds being cut. In my own electorate of Makin, 38 schools are going to lose $16.6 million over the next two years. Those are, again, schools that I'm very familiar with, and I can assure listeners to this debate that they are not wealthy schools; they are not schools that have extravagant facilities; they are schools that could use every single dollar. I want to list just some of those because I can't list the whole 38: Keithcot Farm Primary School, $434,000; Salisbury East High, $565,000; Para Hills High, $456,000; Salisbury Heights Primary, $367,000; and East Para Primary, $408,000. Those are just some examples of some of the cuts that are being made to schools in my electorate, where the parents will inevitably have to pay because, when the schools cannot afford to fund the facilities that they need, they inevitably increase their school charges to the families of the students that go there. So funding does make a difference. It makes a difference to the quality of the education for the child, but it also makes a difference to the families who are already struggling because they have probably had their hours cut at work and because of the increased cost of living—and who now will have to find additional dollars just to make sure their kids get an education. I want to single out a couple of schools in particular that are going to get cuts. The Modbury Special School looks after children with disabilities. I have been to the school several times. It is a very high needs school. And it is going to get a $144,000 cut. These are students that, in all fairness, need all the support they can get. The staff that are already at that school do a fantastic job. But they could do an even better job if they had additional funding. Yet they will be getting a $144,000 cut. As the member for Wakefield pointed out, the special school in his electorate will also be getting a cut. This is a government that simply doesn't believe in education. We have a Prime Minister who talks about innovation and science but simultaneously cuts education funding to the tune of about $17 billion from what it would otherwise have been, cuts university funding by $2 billion, cuts funding to our TAFEs by about $3 billion, and then talks about us being an innovation nation. You cannot be an innovation nation when you withdraw funding to the education services of whichever stream people want to go down. You cannot expect this nation to prosper from that. Unfortunately, this is a government that absolutely has its priorities wrong when it can find $65 billion in tax cuts for big business and cuts education funding. 11:00 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby If there's one thing the Australian people can be certain about it's that they cannot trust Labor when they claim funding has been cut, and the Australian people can't trust Labor to fund the promises they make. The claims made by those opposite about funding cuts to South Australian schools is yet another example of the Labor Party deliberately misleading the Australian people. Unfortunately, there are a number of examples I can draw on to illustrate my point. Those opposite promised the National Disability Insurance Scheme but failed to fully fund it. I'm proud to say the Turnbull government is fully funding the NDIS. We are looking after the people in our community who most need our support. Labor promised the NBN but they had no plans to pay for it. In fact, under Labor, the NBN would have cost the Australian people something like $30 billion more and it would have taken six to eight years longer to deliver. Getting back to the issue we're discussing today, when Labor promised increased funding for schools under Gonski, they did not fund it. In stark contrast, the Turnbull government is investing record funding into our schools and growing that funding in Australian schools. Unfortunately for the residents of my home state of South Australia, it's not just the federal Labor Party who have failed them; it's the state Labor Party too—the Weatherill Labor government. On the so-called Gonski scheme, the state Labor government failed South Australian schools in the most spectacular manner. Premier Jay Weatherill signed South Australia up to a deal that would deliver most of the money in years 5 and 6 of the program—money that we know was never in the forward estimates of the budget. That's right: the Premier of my home state of South Australia signed us up for a deal that delivered almost no money for schools in South Australia in years 5 and 6. The money never existed. It was all to be delivered in the magical years, and the money for those years was never passed by the parliament; it was never in the forward estimates. Those opposite know that this money didn't exist and that they never budgeted for it. In stark contrast to Labor, the Turnbull government has funded its education policy. The coalition government is investing an extra $23.4 billion in schools over the next decade. I congratulate my South Australian colleague the Minister for Education and Training on the work he is doing in education. Thanks to the minister for education, funding per student is increasing by 52 per cent, on average. In my electorate of Boothby, I have some 24,800 students spread over 52 schools and they are going to benefit from this unprecedented investment in our education system and our school system. Schools in Boothby like Colonel Light Gardens Primary School, Clovelly Park Primary School, Eden Hills Primary School, Mitcham Girls High School, Aberfoyle Park High School, Seaview High School and Edwardstown Primary School will see a 24.3 per cent increase in funding by 2021, growing to 62.8 per cent over the next 10 years. I'm particularly proud of the funding increase for students at Suneden Special School in Mitchell Park, which is near my electorate office, which will see 58.1 per cent growth in funding by 2021, increasing to 131.6 per cent by 2027. The previous speaker made some points about the support we give to students with disabilities, whether that is physical or intellectual. I'm quite concerned that they are scaring parents with children at these schools, because Suneden Special School is a fabulous example of the incredible support we are giving to the students who most need it. As I said, under the Turnbull government, funding for Suneden Special School will grow by 131.6 per cent over the next decade. Suneden is an independent school for children aged five to 21 years with intellectual and multiple physical disabilities. Currently, the school has about 70 students in attendance and their classes have a high staff-to-student ratio to ensure all students have adequate support through their learning. The Turnbull Liberal government's schools funding overhaul means, on average, an extra $262 of funding for every student in South Australia in 2018 and $1,099 more by 2021. We are delivering more specialist support, teachers and resources for our schools. We are delivering a more transparent, fairer and more sustainable funding arrangement. We've engaged David Gonski to investigate how our extra funding can be best used to improve results to address the decline in student results over the last decade. We are delivering in education. (Time expired) 11:05 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I'm very pleased to join my Labor colleagues from South Australia in highlighting a stark contrast between the two sides in Australian politics. Labor has a clear vision for supporting our schools and, much more importantly, our students and our future, whereas this government has walked away from both. In the debate on this motion we've seen some extraordinary contributions from government members. I listened carefully to the contribution of the member for Grey, who did not mention students, teachers or parents in his contribution in this debate. Mr Conroy 249127 Incredible! Mr GILES 243609 It is incredible, as the member for Shortland says, particularly in light of the electorate that he represents. I have a lot of time for the member for Grey, but I think he should be conscious of what is going on in our Australian schools at the moment. We are seeing an ever-increasing gap in outcomes, and that gap in outcomes isn't simply around the socioeconomic circumstances of parents; it is particularly apparent in remote and regional communities. It's those schools which need extra support that are falling further and further behind. It's those schools which are being particularly short-changed by this government's short-sighted approach to schools funding. That's why this debate is so important in a South Australian context. It's not just that South Australian schools will be losing $210 million over the next two years; it's that the formula that this government has put in place will strangle South Australian government schools for funding into the future. The formula that this government has put in place is starving South Australian public schools. That's a fact that the government has not recognised and will not recognise, but it is constraining the future of the communities that make up South Australia. That is something that has been recognised in all the schools that I have visited in South Australia—in Adelaide and elsewhere. Dr Gillespie interjecting— Mr GILES 243609 The minister at the table, the Assistant Minister for Children and Families, seems to find this an amusing debate. I don't see why he would do so. Ms Henderson ZN4 That's a ridiculous thing to say. Mr GILES 243609 The minister will be able to account for himself if he wishes to make a contribution. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The member for Corangamite will sit there quietly. Ms Henderson interjecting— Mr GILES 243609 And you, too, Member for Corangamite, can make your position clear when it comes to the funding of schools in South Australia. I was here, also, for the contribution of the member for Boothby. I note that her electorate, like that of the member for Barker, will be particularly adversely affected by the cuts contained— Mr Pasin 240756 Every school in Barker gets more—every school. Mr GILES 243609 Well, you can make that contribution, but it is clear that there will be nearly $20 million less for schools in the Barker electorate over the next two years—a $20 million cut. The member for Barker should reflect on the growing gap in outcomes between metro and non-metro students in Australia at the moment and think about what this government's package of reforms is doing to counter that. The short answer is: it is exacerbating those differences. There is no model for equity in this government's approach to schools education and there is certainly no mandate to push towards excellence. I was mentioning the member for Boothby's contribution. To be fair to the member for Boothby, she does have an interest in schools policy, which I recognise and welcome, and she did mention students. She was right to highlight the stark contrast here, because there is a stark contrast between this government and a Shorten Labor government. A Shorten Labor government would invest in our students right around Australia and would walk away from this bizarre compact that locks in inequities in funding in a way that short-changes students in public schools, particularly students in those public schools in states that are the recipients of what can only be described as uncooperative federalism by this government. I refer to South Australia today—the subject of this debate—but the same also applies to Tasmania and the Northern Territory. We are seeing students in school systems that need extra help being denied that. That is the opposite of needs based funding. Let's be very, very clear about this. The debate before us is not a debate about David Gonski and who can appropriate him; it's a debate about needs based funding. It's about our values when it comes to schooling and its significance for people's lives and our collective wellbeing. We have not walked away from the panel report which led to the National Plan for Schools Improvement. It's that report which we cling to, which the government have walked away from. It is this that is denying South Australian students, particularly students in regional South Australia, a fair go. One last point: the member for Boothby talked about the contribution of the member for Makin, scaring parents of students with disability. The most egregious failing of this government is short-changing students with disability. We are seeing a much larger number of students needing adjustment, and the funding envelope has not changed. 11:10 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker This is a story about free beer tomorrow. That's how the Labor Party went about their Gonski proposal. They took a very serious funding issue and said, 'Look, we'll fund it over six years.' For those listening, you would know that the forward estimates occur over four years. The Labor Party significantly back-ended the funding into years 5 and 6. In terms of this place, years 5 and 6 don't exist. You fund programs, whether it's school based or any other sphere of responsibility, over six years. So effectively what the Labor Party was saying, in terms of Gonski school funding, is 'You'll get your free beer tomorrow.' That's the years 5 and 6. Now they come into this place—make no mistake, this motion is about the South Australian state election that's upcoming, and the Labor Party wanting to find a wedge between themselves and the threat that is the so-called SA-BEST party—and they try to find a point of difference between them. But, quite frankly, this is the wrong way to start, and it's the wrong position. It's more of the kind of 'Mediscare'-type tactics that we saw in the last federal election. Why do I say that? I say that because we have adopted the Gonski plan and we're funding it not with free beer tomorrow but with needs based funding that increases every year across the program. No school in my electorate is worse off, nor should they be, given that there's an additional $1 billion being delivered into the program over the 10 years going forward. I thought I'd deal with individual schools or classes of schools. I don't know if that's been done. If you talk about public schools in my electorate, they're seeing an increase of 24.3 per cent over the years 2018-21. If you take Keith—that might have been the type of school the member for Scullin was talking about earlier—they've gone from $3,021 in 2018 to $3,755 in 2021. That's a 24.3 per cent increase. Obviously there are great differences among schools across my electorate. We've also got a significant penetration of Lutheran schools in my electorate. They're enjoying increases of 16.7 per cent. Catholic schools: 12.8 per cent increase. Independent schools: 29.2 per cent increase. That's why I and other members of this place received a letter from Gregg Smith, the principal of Rivergum Christian College in my electorate, beseeching those opposite during this debate to vote for our proposal. This is about what is best for all schools across all sectors in the long-term. So don't take it from those opposite what's best for school sectors. Take it from people within the sector—someone who, with respect, lives this fight daily. Those listening shouldn't fall for this. I'm looking forward to Mr Zappia, or the member for Makin, coming into this place— The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Member for Barker, this will be the last time. That's twice. Refer to members by their correct titles. Mr PASIN 240756 I'm looking forward to the member for Makin coming in, Mr Deputy Speaker. You can seek to interrupt me if you wish, but I want to see motions on the following topics— The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E You can sit down if you keep going. Mr PASIN 240756 Transforming health. Let's see South Australian members come in here to talk about transforming health. Let's see them come in here to talk about the recent blackouts in South Australia or—something that members might not be aware of—the fact that a whole wing of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital fell into blackout last week. Let's come in here to talk about children in state care. Let's have a motion about Chloe Valentine and how the South Australian state Labor government failed her and hundreds like her—let's have a motion on that. Let's talk about Oakden and how we failed some of the most vulnerable older people in our state—deathly silence. Let's come in and talk about the Gillman land deal, which a justice of the Supreme Court of South Australia regarded as 'highly unusual'. You won't hear any of that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let's hear a bit of it. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Human Rights 14 11:15 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley I move: That this House: (1) notes that modem slavery continues to devastate the lives of millions of people, with latest estimates of over 40 million people impacted across the world, including over 4,000 people in Australia; (2) acknowledges that the Government has one of the strongest responses to combat human trafficking and slavery around the world, delivered under the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking and Slavery 2015-19; (3) notes that the Government: (a) remains committed to continuing to improve this response and recognises the importance of partnering with those on the frontline to combat this abhorrent crime; (b) initiated the inquiry into Australia establishing modern slavery legislation, led by the Foreign Affairs and Aid Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which released its interim report in August 2017 making a number of recommendations and statements of in-principle support; and (c) following extensive consultation with business and civil society, and taking into account the Foreign Affairs and Aid Sub-Committee's recommendations in its December 2017 final report, will introduce targeted legislation requiring large businesses to report on the actions they are taking to address modern slavery in their supply chains; and (4) calls on the House to support the Government's modern slavery legislation when it is brought before the Parliament. Modern slavery continues to have a devastating impact on the lives of millions of people around the world. Modern slavery is an umbrella concept covering a number of different forms of exploitation, such as forced labour, debt bondage, child labour, human trafficking, sexual slavery and forced marriage. These are some of the worst crimes of humanity, creating situations where people can be trapped for years in cycles of exploitation and suffering. The stories can be harrowing. I have listened to stories of people being forced into domestic servitude and beaten on a daily basis for years—a story I believe will be covered on Australian television this evening. I have also read media reports regarding workers forced to live in wall cavities in my own electorate in Seaford. Sadly, victims can be hidden in the depths of supply chains, contributing a small part to a larger product while their suffering is hidden from the world. Australians may be unknowingly contributing to these crimes, whether through the food they eat or the clothes they purchase. The latest estimates suggest that there are more than 40 million people in some form of modern slavery today, including some 4,000 in Australia. Various industries have found themselves at global risk, including fashion, fishing and horticulture. Globalisation has created a situation where goods manufactured for the Australian market are at risk of having elements produced by modern slavery. Thankfully, this is an issue already on our radar. The Australian government has delivered a strong response to modern slavery thus far through the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking and Slavery. The action plan has provided a whole-of-government framework for Commonwealth agencies to address the problem of modern slavery through both clarifying the problems and creating a number of priorities for government in addressing this issue. Furthermore, the Australian government is delivering a response internationally through its involvement in the Bali Process. The foreign minister is working closely with our regional partners, as well as business and non-government organisations, to develop best-practice solutions to these problems. By ensuring that our regional partners have a best-practice approach to tackling these problems, we can continue to fight modern slavery in the countries where it has had the greatest impact. However, there is still room to expand our efforts in addressing modern slavery. While government certainly has a role to play in the response, we cannot be in every factory or on every farm around the world ensuring that people are not exploited. Businesses have a crucial role in addressing modern slavery, as they are the ones that can ultimately affect this issue. As such, the Australian government has already committed to legislation to enhance our response to modern slavery. In particular, the government announced during 2017 that it will introduce a mandatory supply-chain reporting requirement for businesses and a central repository of published statements. These actions will ask businesses to look into their supply chains and understand the challenges and risks of modern slavery to their own enterprises. I know that many directors would be horrified to find modern slavery as part of their business's supply chain, and this will see many of our businesses change their practices to stamp out this problem. The legislation will also see a central repository of modern slavery statements developed. This will allow any individual to access the modern-slavery reports of businesses and other organisations in order to understand what they are doing to fight and limit their risks. This will create a race to the top, producing and boosting the reputations of those businesses that embrace the fight to stop modern slavery. Moreover, there is still further scope for improvements to this legislation. The report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Hidden in plain sight—which I was very proud of as Chair of the Foreign Affairs and Aid Sub-Committee last year—addresses other shortfalls in Australia's response to modern slavery. The recommendations of this report address issues not currently covered in Australia's response to modern slavery. One crucial element is expanding the oversight and response mechanism through the creation of an anti-modern-slavery commissioner in Australia, similar to a role that already exists in the United Kingdom. The commissioner would be independent and become a focal point for Australia's efforts and would be able to both inform and examine our ongoing efforts as well as advise on best-practice responses to modern slavery. Additionally, an independent commissioner would help erase the regulatory burden of the business reporting requirement by helping to advise concerned businesses on what is required under the reporting mechanism and how they can best tackle the risk of slavery in their supply chains. The report also addresses orphanage trafficking, whereby children in orphanages and generous donors are exploited by orphanage directors and operators overseas. This can see everyday Australians of goodwill who want to help children in need having their donations instead diverted to line the pockets of some unscrupulous orphanage operators and even middlemen who traffic the children into orphanages. By changing some of our regulatory responses and improving education for Australians who seek to assist orphanages, we can ensure that donations and efforts genuinely assist children in need rather than continuing to fund human trafficking. Another area addressed by the report is the risk of exploitation in our horticultural industry here in Australia. The committee heard from Moe Turaga, a Fijian migrant who gave evidence of being unpaid for his work on farms for two years. Furthermore, it was disappointing to hear that Mr Turaga's experience is not unique, with reports of ongoing exploitation of workers persisting. Thus the report recommended changes to Australia's visa system as well as improvements to our criminal justice responses to ensure that police in at-risk areas have the responses and training to identify victims of modern slavery. Furthermore, the report addressed the risks victims of modern slavery face when trying to have their stories heard. Cases such as that of Mohammed Rowi, who was trapped in a modern slavery situation in northern Victoria before being locked in prison and deported, show that sometimes victims of this crime cannot receive the justice they deserve. This also continues the cycle of suffering for others, as the criminals exploiting people like Mr Rowi continue to go unpunished while the victims are deported and lose what money they have. By improving our identification and training for crimes such as debt bondage and forced labour here in Australia we can catch these persistent criminals and improve the situation for all involved. By addressing these and other areas of concern the committee's report presents a multifaceted policy response to modern slavery. As a result, this report has been widely welcomed by both business and not-for-profit groups. Organisations as varied as Konica Minolta, the Law Council of Australia and the Freedom Partnership have all praised the recommendations of the committee's report. This broad spectrum of support creates a real opportunity for us to seize the momentum and ensure that Australia is at the forefront of this important global fight. Passing this legislation is crucial to our efforts in fighting modern slavery, and I call on each and every member of parliament to do so. I also look forward to our recommendations being considered, and hopefully approved, by the government, which would then follow with this legislation incorporated in these recommendations. This will ensure that we continue to bring slavery out of the shadows and address the problems with broader attention from directors, board members and the wider community. This is a landmark report that I commend to the House. I hope the government that I am part of accepts the recommendations of the report. I look forward to legislation this year to tackle this issue to see that this problem, which faces over 40 million people worldwide and over 4,000 people in Australia, can be tackled both now and into the future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is there a seconder for the motion? 11:24 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I'm happy to second the motion and commend the member for Dunkley for bringing it to the chamber and to the attention of the Australian people. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E I thank the member for Moreton. Mr PERRETT HVP The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquired into establishing a modern slavery act in Australia. They handed down their final report in December. As a member of that committee, I was horrified to read the evidence presented at that inquiry. I also dealt with this issue as deputy chair of the Human Rights Committee. I'm horrified that human trafficking, forced labour, sexual slavery, child labour and trafficking, domestic servitude, forced marriage, bonded labour—including debt bondage and slavery—are still being inflicted on our fellow human beings in the 21st century. I'm horrified, but, sadly, I'm not surprised. I'm horrified that in 2017 there are 45.8 million people living in slavery around the world. That's about double the population of Australia. Two-thirds of those trapped in slavery-like conditions are in our Asia-Pacific region. These people are our neighbours. Often, they are enslaved in the global supply chains of companies that provide products and services to Australians every day—you and me. Industries like manufacturing, construction and agriculture agree that exploitation is occurring in these sectors. Some Australian companies have acknowledged that they have found forms of forced labour in their own company's supply chains. These are mainstream companies like Fortescue Metals and Wesfarmers, to name but a few. Some horrifying exploitation is occurring in the production of chocolate that Australians consume every day. Australians chew through an astounding three million tonnes of chocolate every year—a fair bit of that in my household. Around two million children—some as young as eight years old—are being used as child slave labour on cocoa plantations in Africa. Some of these children are brought to the plantations after being abducted or kidnapped. They live in terrible conditions, are given very little food and receive almost no education. They are made to work in the hot sun for hours upon hours and they suffer beatings from those enslaving them, just so we can gorge ourselves on chocolate. We should remember these children at Easter time, when the supermarkets are full of wall-to-wall chocolate eggs. I'm not prepared to sit back and do nothing while this cruelty is happening right on our doorstep. Labor has already committed to a modern slavery act, an act which would have penalties for noncompliance. Other countries have already enacted legislation designed to combat modern slavery, including the United Kingdom, France, Canada and throughout the European Union. I've had briefings from members of the United Kingdom parliament and activists on that particular legislation and how it's been rolled out. The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade gives in-principle support in its report for developing a modern slavery act in Australia, including mandatory supply chain reporting requirements for companies, businesses, organisations and governments. The committee gave in-principle support to key elements of the United Kingdom's model of supply chain reporting. There are already some companies operating in Australia that are required to report because they have offices in the United Kingdom. The committee heard very positive accounts from those companies about the legislative requirements from the UK. I attended a human rights conference in London a year ago and met with people who advocate against modern slavery. The former Senator Chris Evans is actually doing some great work in this area. This model of legislation which has reporting requirements attached is popular throughout Commonwealth nations. We can and should learn from other countries, like the UK, who have already taken a stand and are making companies accountable for their supply chains. I look forward to the Turnbull government's bill being introduced. The bill must include penalties for companies which breach the act. A modern slavery act without penalties is a toothless tiger. Modern slavery is an important human rights issue and should concern all of us. We should not be leaving big business to police themselves on slavery. Too often, the Turnbull government panders to big business. Only a modern slavery act that improves transparency within business supply chains and has penalties for companies which breach the act will be an effective tool to combat modern slavery. The committee also recommended that the government establish an independent antislavery commissioner so that the estimated 4,300 victims of modern slavery right here in Australia can receive the crucial help they need. Victims of modern slavery rarely get the justice they deserve. An antislavery commissioner would provide support for law enforcement and also for victims; and an independent antislavery commissioner would also provide crucial oversight of supply chain reporting. So I call on the Turnbull government to include in their bill an independent antislavery commissioner. A bill without penalties or a commissioner would rely on goodwill too much. Sadly, it would be symbolic and empty. The government must join with the Labor Party and implement a strong modern slavery act. Again, I thank the member for bringing this motion to the chamber. 11:29 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I'm pleased to speak to this motion. In doing so I reflect that William Wilberforce is regarded by many people as one of the greatest parliamentarians. He was born to a wealthy merchant family and attended Cambridge University, where he became lifelong friends with William Pitt the younger. Pitt was to become a member of parliament and Prime Minister at the age of just 24, a position he held for some 17 years. Neither Wilberforce nor Pitt were renowned for serious study at Cambridge, as they enjoyed the life of the university. Among other things, Wilberforce was known for his fine singing voice. Like Pitt, he was elected to parliament in his early twenties. Despite his friendship with Pitt, Wilberforce never held ministerial office. Why, then, is this backbencher, an independent MP who served in the House of Commons for some 45 years, regarded as one of the greatest parliamentarians? After being elected to parliament, Wilberforce was recruited by the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade and became their parliamentary leader. Many will have seen the movie Amazing Grace, which marked the bicentenary of the 1807 vote in the House of Commons against the slave trade. It depicts the struggle for over 20 years by the abolitionists, led by Wilberforce, to overcome the evil of slavery. The film depicts a tension in the mind of Wilberforce between serving his religious cause and serving the nation through parliament. In one memorable scene in the film his friend Pitt asks Wilberforce, 'Do you intend to use your beautiful voice to praise the Lord or change the world?' At the urging of the Clapham Sect, Wilberforce eventually concluded that he could do both. Indeed, his epitaph in Westminster Abbey reflects this choice. It reads in part: Eminent as he was in every department of public labour, and a leader in every work of charity, whether to relieve the temporal or the spiritual wants of his fellow-men, his name will ever be specially identified with those exertions which, by the blessing of God, removed from England the guilt of the African slave trade, and prepared the way for the abolition of slavery in every colony of the empire: in the prosecution of these objects he relied, not in vain, on God; but in the progress he was called to endure great obloquy and great opposition: he outlived, however, all enmity… Indeed, through sincerity of purpose and civility of manners, Wilberforce attracted many to his long fight for the dignity and liberty of each individual. His courage and perseverance ultimately won through. But it was a long struggle, which endured many decades after the first breakthrough in 1807. There were many setbacks and many more decades before slavery was abolished throughout the developed world. These reflections bring me to the motion before the House. Regrettably, slavery still exists in the world today. It may be more subtle, less obvious, hidden in places, but there is little doubt that many people, probably millions of people, are enslaved, often but not only in third world countries, and often in the production of goods for sale internationally. Our task, like that of Wilberforce and others two centuries ago, is to get rid of the evil of slavery in all its guises throughout the world. A modern slavery act would aid that cause. As evidence from the United Kingdom indicates, it would be game changing in raising awareness of modern slavery issues for many businesses. I therefore commend the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to the House, especially the work of the Foreign Affairs and Aid Sub-Committee chaired by my friend the member for Dunkley, and I congratulate him on this work. I hope that in due course a modern slavery bill would have the support of all members of this parliament. 11:34 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman I thank the member for Dunkley for moving this motion today. It is estimated that there are 45 million people living in slavery worldwide. That is double the population of Australia. This is truly a heartbreaking statistic. There is absolutely no question then that there is zero place for slavery in any part of our modern world. I'm sure any member from either side of the House would agree with me on that, and yet there are still so many people who live enslaved to others, many as victims of exploitation in the private sector, such as in construction, agriculture and manufacturing. We in Australia have a very important role to play in fighting modern slavery. That's not just because of our proximity to countries where slavery is still so prevalent—two-thirds of people trapped in slavery are reported to be in the Asia-Pacific region—but also because it's estimated that a truly unbelievable 4,300 people are currently trapped in slavery right here in Australia. We must do everything we can to bring that number down to zero. While the Turnbull government may now finally be looking to act—and we applaud that—Labor has been trying to do something for a very, very long time now. The real challenge of being in opposition is you can only take so much action without the support of the government. When you have an ineffective, do-nothing government like this one, you have to overcome delay after delay before progress is finally made. Back in June last year, Labor announced our plan to tackle modern slavery and to bring the number of people enslaved in Australia down to zero. We recognised a need for greater transparency in supply chains, including information about a company's supply chain, where risk has been and what steps have been taken to ensure that slavery does not exist in that supply chain. This would be enforced to ensure that no Australian company is either directly or indirectly engaging in modern slavery. Our plan would also establish an independent office of the Australian antislavery commissioner to help remedy the gaps in enforcement and support. The commissioner would work with the victims of slavery, receiving inquiries and complaints and assisting victims where necessary. The commissioner would also assist businesses to build best practices in their supply chain to ensure that Australian businesses never engage in slavery, either directly or indirectly. Labor announced this nearly a year ago, but nothing's been legislated since, not even after the bipartisan Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade tabled a report following the inquiry into modern slavery in December last year. The committee backed Labor's policy for an Australian modern slavery act—one with some teeth. It recognised that we can't rely on big businesses to police themselves. There must be penalties and there must be accountability. But nothing much has been done. As I previously noted, we have an estimated 4,300 people living in slavery in this country, and yet there have only been seven slavery convictions in the last half-decade. This is really urgent legislation. We need to be working on it to pass this immediately. There should not be any people in this country living in slavery. We should be doing everything to bring that number down to zero as quickly as possible. To the member for Dunkley and the others opposite—I call on you to join with Labor. Let's pass through some meaningful legislation and let's do it sooner rather than later. Every day wasted is another day where someone is living under truly heartbreaking conditions. Join with us now. Let's put an end to slavery in this country once and for all. 11:38 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein First, I give this speech with sadness that the topic even needs to be raised—that we still have the scourge of slavery in its different guises in the modern world, including in a nation, a Commonwealth, as great as ours. But I also start with sadness having listened to the speech of the previous speaker. If you could find any issue that warranted bipartisan cooperation, I would have thought it would be this one. We could make some obvious points: this government actually initiated the inquiry that led to the report, which is the topic we're discussing today, in October of the previous year versus the policy announcements of the opposition last year. But to focus and dwell on these sorts of points about who's first distracts from the critical issue—and, frankly, the people—that this report and this cause is designed to address, because nobody should be under any misunderstanding about the importance of tackling modern slavery. It is a critical issue. The International Labour Organization measures the prevalence of forced labour. According to their 2012 global estimates of forced labour, an estimated 20.9 million people across the world are victims of forced labour. The statistics for each type of labour are quite staggering, I think, for many people in this chamber and without. There are 14.2 million people in forced labour in areas such as agricultural, construction, domestic work and manufacturing. In enforced sexual exploitation, there are 4.5 million people. Regarding state imposed forced labour, there are still, tragically, 2.2 million people who are in some form of state imposed labour, whether it's in military or rebel forces. Other UN organisations have reported that 63,251 victims of trafficking were detected in 106 countries between 2012 and 2014. In 2014, over 70 per cent of the 17,752 victims were women or girls, particularly those who are vulnerable and may not be in a position to assist themselves. Nobody disputes the importance of this issue. It is critical that we face it and confront it, and that is what the report and the committee have sought to do. The inquiry heard about the devastating impact of modern slavery on individual victims. At its public hearing in Melbourne the committee heard from Ms Sophea Touch, a victim of domestic servitude in Cambodia. I have now read her account; it was a very moving one. She was born to a violent family, was sent 300 kilometres from home and was forced to sell cakes from around the village. She lost her chance to go to school. She was beaten and denied food if the cakes were not sold. Sophea was denied the freedoms that we all too often take for granted. I have served as Australia's Human Rights Commissioner and worked directly on some of these issues with many others. Nobody can dispute the enormous impact that the denial of basic liberties has on someone's development throughout their childhood and their adulthood and on their capacity to go on and live a full and free life. The important thing is to do what we can, particularly in the areas that are within our control. In Australia, there have been over 750 referrals of human trafficking and slavery offences to the Australian Federal Police following the introduction of offences in 2004. From what little data there is available, it seems that forced marriage is the highest risk area in Australia, followed by sexual exploitation and labour exploitation. There have been similar problems in ethnic communities, where people have used dowries as an example of the way to extract relationships and force people into servitude. This is not acceptable in a modern, liberal, pluralistic country with a basic respect for the rights and freedoms of all people. What we know is that most cases were found in metropolitan areas. The committee heard that in 2014 a case of modern slavery was revealed in a brothel in suburban Melbourne, where a woman was held captive and found hidden in a secret wall cavity. We have the resources and the capacity to do something about that now and, as a society, we must do more now. What we need to do is focus as a country on the things we can control and work cooperatively with the private sector to help tackle the scourge of modern slavery beyond our borders. Of course, we should always work with companies that voluntarily take appropriate action and are part of the solution, not participants in the problem. Where we can work with them to try to effect change, we should, so that we can stamp out modern slavery together. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. COMMITTEES 19 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 19 Membership 19 11:44 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mr Danby to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affair, Defence and Trade. 11:44 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston by leave—I move: That Mr Danby be appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Question agreed to. BILLS 19 BILLS Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017 19

Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017

Second Reading 19 11:44 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I'm speaking today on the Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017. This bill gives effect to two measures announced in the 2017 budget: firstly, the government response to the parliamentary inquiry into the child support program and, secondly, supporting No Jab, No Pay and Healthy Start for School's new compliance arrangements. Labor supports the No Jab, No Pay component of this legislation as well as the majority of the proposed changes to child support in schedule 1. But we do have some concerns about the changes relating to the amendment of tax assessments and overpayments, and I'll come to that. We're concerned that child support recipients who've received child support payments in good faith will unexpectedly owe debts having already spent that money caring for their children. We've made representations to the minister on this issue and requested some further information. We will reserve our final position on this, including whether any amendments are required in the Senate, until we get this further information on the potential impacts of the changes. Labor, of course, believe that all children deserve the opportunity to have the best start in life, and we support the efforts in this legislation to strengthen immunisation rates so all Australian children have the best chance at growing up strong and healthy. In government, Labor made important changes to family tax benefits designed to lift immunisation rates. We made the decision to link the family tax benefit end-of-year supplements to immunisation. Ahead of the 2013 election, Labor committed to further tighten immunisation requirements within the family payment system. So the principles on which the No Jab, No Pay policy are based have enjoyed bipartisan support for a number of years. Let me say very clearly for the record that Labor strongly believe in vaccinations. Vaccinations are one of the great success stories of human development over the last century. We've seen the eradication or near eradication of diseases such as polio and smallpox, including here in Australia. In the early 1950s Australia had just come through its worst ever polio epidemic. Around 10,000 Australians a year, mainly children and teenagers, were contracting polio. No treatment was available for the virus. Polio results in paralysis by destroying nerves cells in the spinal cord. Australia started using the newly discovered polio vaccine shortly after and, by the end of that decade, Australia almost eliminated the disease. According to the World Health Organization in 1980, prior to widespread vaccination, measles was responsible for around 2.6 million deaths each year. In 2013, the number of deaths from measles had fallen to around 145,000 worldwide. There can be no doubt then that vaccinations save lives. Vaccinations save lives by increasing the so-called herd immunity. Herd immunity means that, when immunisation rates are low, illnesses such as measles or whooping cough can be much more easily spread. In a community where a large number of people are immune as a result of vaccines, the chain of infection can be stopped—the greater the number of people who are immune, the smaller the probability that those who are not immune will come into contact with the infection. The good news is that immunisation rates are improving. Since No Jab, No Pay commenced in 2015, around 200,000 families have taken action to ensure they meet immunisation requirements. Victoria has achieved its best ever immunisation coverage ,with 94.9 per cent of five-year-olds up to date with their vaccinations. The increase followed the Victorian government's No Jab, No Play law, which bans unvaccinated children from attending child care and kindergarten. In addition to supporting this legislation, I commend the Andrews Labor government in Victoria and, in particular, the health minister, Jill Hennessy, for her leadership in this policy area. This policy approach is working and is improving immunisation rates, but we can't be complacent. In 2014, the World Health Organization said that Australia had eliminated measles. Australia is one of the first countries in the Western Pacific to do so. But unfortunately, late last year, we saw an outbreak of measles in Melbourne. Back in April 2017, we also saw an outbreak of measles in Western Sydney. A total of 28 people in New South Wales and 18 people in Victoria were diagnosed with measles as at November 2017. So the issue is still very relevant here today. As we understand it, the cases in New South Wales originated from infectious people who contracted the virus overseas and brought it back to Australia. However, falling immunisation rates risk exposing Australians to these outbreaks. Falling immunisation rates increase the risk of outbreaks of preventable diseases and threaten the health of the most vulnerable members of our communities, especially newborn babies. This is very important. High rates of immunisations are vital to people for whom a vaccine may not produce a strong immune response. These vulnerable people in our community are generally protected from preventable diseases by herd immunity. Large vaccinated populations protect those who are weak or susceptible to disease. That's why it's important that we maintain and encourage high rates of immunisation across the country. Our responsibility as policymakers is to support policies that are designed to improve immunisation rates and make the community safer. That's why Labor will support the No Jab, No Pay policy in this legislation and the amendments to it. Currently, parents who do not keep their child's immunisations up to date are not eligible to receive the family tax benefit part A end-of-year supplement. The family tax benefit part A supplement is paid at $737 a child for families with incomes below $80,000 a year. This bill amends the No Jab No Pay rules to, instead, withhold approximately $28 a fortnight from family tax benefit part A for families whose child does not meet the immunisation requirements instead of withholding the supplement. This schedule would come into effect on 1 July 2018. Under the new rules, fortnightly payments would be reduced from the time that the child's immunisations become overdue. When a child's vaccinations are overdue, the family would be notified and a 63-day grace period would apply for the child to receive the vaccination or for a valid medical exemption to be obtained. If the vaccination is not caught up within the 63-day period or a valid exemption is not obtained, the fortnightly reductions will begin from the beginning of the grace period. This change is required as the existing rules do not apply to families with an annual income in excess of $80,000 a year as they're no longer eligible to receive the family tax benefit part A end-of-year supplement. So, as I say, this is a measure that Labor supports. I move to schedule 1, part 1: changes to the length-of-interim-care period. This is a separate part of the legislation to do with child support. Currently, the amount of child support and family tax benefit payable is assessed with regard to the paying parent's taxable income and the amount of time they spend caring for the child or children. Sometimes one parent is providing more care than is provided for under a court order or agreed care arrangement. In this instance, the other parent may be aggrieved because they're not getting as much opportunity to care as they want or believe they're entitled to and they're paying more child support than they feel they should. A registrar can make a care arrangement, which is an interim determination based on 'a written agreement, parenting plan or court order' rather than on the actual care. That arrangement generally runs for an interim period of 14 weeks. In special circumstances, it can be extended up to 26 weeks. The amount of child support paid during that interim period is based on the agreed care or court order, not the actual care, provided that the paying parent is taking reasonable steps to seek compliance with the parenting arrangement. This option of an interim period is intended to give both parents time to resolve the dispute over care. After the interim period elapses, the child support assessment changes to reflect actual care. In 2015, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs tabled the report of their inquiry into the child support program called From conflict to cooperation. The committee made 22 recommendations, all of which Labor supported. The committee heard evidence that 14 weeks is shorter than the normal length of time that it would take parties to resolve their dispute over care, given the length of time it takes for dispute resolution to commence or legal proceedings to be resolved. The proposal in part 1 of this schedule is to change the length of interim periods. For disputes about care where there is a pre-existing court order, the interim period would be up to 52 weeks if a disputed care change occurs within the first year of the court order, or up to 26 weeks for older court orders if the person with increased care does not continuously take reasonable action to participate in family dispute resolution through the maximum 26-week interim period, or between 14 and 26 weeks for older court orders where the person with increased care continuously takes reasonable action to participate in family dispute resolution. In practice, this seems likely to usually be 26 weeks, as the child support inquiry heard evidence from the Attorney-General's Department that the average time between contacting a family relationship centre and the first dispute resolution session is approximately 12 weeks. For disputes about care where there is a non-enforceable agreement of a parenting plan, not a court order, the maximum interim period will be 14 weeks. This will be reduced to a minimum of four weeks if the disputed care change occurs after the first year of the agreement or plan and the person with decreased care continuously takes reasonable action to participate in family dispute resolution. The interim period ends if the person with reduced care stops seeking to enforce the order, agreement or plan. It also ends if a new care arrangement begins to apply or if the existing one stops applying. Currently, an exemption from participating in dispute resolution processes is available in situations where there's been family violence. These exemptions will continue to be available. I will now move to part 2 of schedule 1, changes to tax assessments. Currently, the amount of child support paid is calculated on the basis that the individual's tax assessment for a given year is correct, and it cannot be recalculated if the tax assessment is shown to be incorrect unless special circumstances exist, such as tax evasion or fraud. This is problematic where payer parents are obligated to pay an amount of child support that is artificially high and unaffordable or, alternatively, an insufficient amount of child support as a result of their tax return being incorrect. This part of the bill allows for the amount of child support to be recalculated based on an amended tax return. In circumstances where an amended tax assessment results in a higher adjustable taxable income, the higher adjustable taxable income would be applied retrospectively to the paying parent's child support obligation over the course of the year. If the amended tax assessment results in a lower adjusted taxable income, this would also be applied retrospectively if the paying parent applied for the amendment of the tax assessment either before the lodgement of that year's tax return fell due or within 28 days of becoming aware of the issue with the tax assessment, unless special circumstances exist. This reduces the amount of any potential overpayment that could be claimed from a payee by requiring that action be taken quickly on behalf of the payer. Nevertheless, we have concerns that this could lead to child support payees unexpectedly receiving a potentially large debt, having received payments and spent the money in good faith, trusting that the information that was provided to the tax office was accurate. Child support recipients are often on very low incomes and are unlikely to be able to service a debt, particularly where it has arisen through no fault of their own. We have raised this concern with both the former Minister for Social Services and the new minister, and, as I indicated earlier, the minister is considering the matter. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 21 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Closing the Gap 21 Reference to Federation Chamber 28 12:48 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 29 BILLS Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017 29

Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017

Second Reading 29 12:49 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga Just to briefly conclude my speech from before the Prime Minister's statement, I want to turn to schedule 1, part 3. Since 1 July 2008, parents entering into a binding child support agreement have been required to receive legal advice. Since that time, a court may only set aside a binding child support agreement where there are exceptional circumstances, and a failure to change the agreement will result in financial hardship. Parents who entered into binding child support agreements before 1 July 2008 did not have to have received legal advice but must now meet this requirement before the court can consider varying their child support agreement. This part makes it easier for agreements entered into before 1 July 2008 to be set aside or varied by courts. In addition, this part also allows for child support agreements to be terminated or suspended if the payee ceases to be an eligible carer. Currently, the payer is required to apply to the court for a termination or suspension of the agreement in this circumstance. Turning to schedule 1 part 4, collection of overpayments, currently an overpayment of child support can only be recovered if the person who received the overpayment agrees to return the sum or if a court makes an order that the money should be repaid. The Child Support Agency cannot collect an overpayment from a recipient without a court order. This part alters the legislation so the Child Support Agency can collect overpayments on behalf of payers in the same way that it can collect arrears on behalf of payees. According to data provided at Senate estimates, approximately 86 per cent of child support recipients are female and 56 per cent of child support recipients also receive an income support payment from either Centrelink or the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Data provided at Senate estimates also shows the child support recipients have very low median incomes, ranging from around $22,195 in Tasmania to $42,225 in the ACT. Therefore, it's likely that those who are negatively affected by the collection of overpayments will be women who are already economically vulnerable. In contrast, almost one quarter—24 per cent—of active child support cases have arrears owing. The average amount of arrears is $5,800. These figures do not take into account any cases where the child is now over 18 but the paying parent still has arrears owing or any private collect arrangements where parents organise payment of child support between themselves. The implementation of this measure will need to be monitored to make sure that it does not further exacerbate inequities between payers and payees in the child support system. The changes to this bill only apply to overpayments which arise after the commencement of the act. In summary, Labor strongly support the No Jab, No Pay policy. We do support changes to improve immunisation rates in the community, and that's why we support the amendments to No Jab, No Pay, as set out in this bill. However, we do have some concerns about the changes relating to amended tax assessments. We're concerned that child support recipients who have received child support payments in good faith will unfairly owe debts. That's why I've made representations to both the former minister and the new minister about this issue. We remain hopeful that in the Senate a compromise on the contentious amendment can be reached. I commend the bill to the House. 12:53 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley I'm very pleased today to speak on the Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017. This is particularly the case as a number of my constituents in Dunkley will be affected by these changes. It is an unfortunate reality that children are often stuck in the middle, not receiving full support from both of their biological when splits in families occur. It is not fair to expect parents to stay together in unhappy or what may be violent or dangerous situations. The welfare of the children in any family situation must take precedence wherever possible. Our child support system in general is a good one. The premise that financial support from one parent assists in supplementing the custody and care of the other parent is fair. It works towards establishing a more stable environment for the children than otherwise. We have a responsibility in this place to ensure that safety nets and institutional measures are in place to ensure that no child slips through the cracks. The primary concern of all parents should be to ensure that their children have the greatest support, and where possible stability, to enable them to grow and learn in an environment that is conducive to their needs and aspirations—something I know well, having my own two-year-old daughter, as does my wife. However, regrettably, this is not always the case. I'm absolutely a believer in small government. But the government is also in place to provide a safety net for those who are unable to provide for themselves and to provide opportunities for those who commit such time and dedication to care for children to ensure that they receive assistance from those who have a shared responsibility in also doing so. It is crucial to ensure that our child support institutions and legislation do that and can be implemented to secure the best outcomes for parents and children. This legislation fills critical holes in existing legislation by making several amendments. Firstly, regarding child support amendments, it introduces a range of improvements to the processes and time periods over which changes to children's care arrangements are made. The extension of the interim period that applies for recently established court-ordered care arrangements should see positive changes to the transition of arrangements, providing incentives for the parent to increase their share of care of the children to participate and take an active role in family dispute resolution. Most parents who are involved in child support arrangements behave responsibly, but I have seen from discussions with a number of constituents that it is easier to get caught up in how things affect the individual and not just the child. It would be a positive outcome to bring all parties to the table wherever possible, and this legislation seeks to achieve better cooperation and thus better care for the children in question. I have a number of examples of where these changes would have made a real difference to a number of my constituents. For example, my office has recently been dealing extensively with a person called Brett, a constituent of mine who lives in Frankston. Every case of family division and child support of course varies from situation to situation and is delicate in that no case is the same as another. However, aspects of Brett's case only emphasise the need for cooperation between the parents in order to achieve the best outcome for the children involved. In particular, an aspect of this legislation that would be of immense benefit to Brett is that it introduces provisions that will terminate or suspend the effect of a child support agreement if the person who was entitled to child support for a child under the agreement ceases to be an eligible carer of the child, when the person's percentage of care for the child falls below 35 per cent. In this example, Brett is the primary carer of four out of six children from his former marriage yet currently has to go through arduous processes through the court to receive child support from his ex-partner, despite being the parent with primary custody. We know that some parents may be in situations where they are unable to care for their child, and this does not penalise them. What we are doing is trying to ease the path for those who take on more responsibility, committing more time to care for their children in their custody, so that they don't then have child support arrangements overturned by courts when they are no longer accurately reflected in the care arrangements. From 1 July this year, for these arrangements, as well as several other situations in which care arrangements change, child support agreements will be more fluid, in a way that more accurately reflects the modern reality, where lifestyles, circumstances, career paths and family arrangements change with many other factors. For agreements made before 1 July 2008 where at least one party did not receive independent legal advice, the agreement can be set aside by a court if it would be unjust and inequitable for the court not to do so. It would be absurd for new arrangements to continue to operate on outdated child support agreements. We want to encourage parents who may previously have had no care arrangements with their children to be able to share the care arrangements. So I'm proud today to be supporting legislative changes that will make child support agreements and care arrangements more fair, more equitable and relevant to parents who commit so much time and financial support for their children. Many of the changes made to previous pieces of legislation through this bill are made with the intention of resolving inconsistencies with the objectives of the Child Support Scheme. I spoke earlier about the importance of child support, something with which I know all members of this House are in agreement. I stress that, through this legislation, we can fill some of these holes and make the scheme more seamless as parties to agreements transition to different stages of their lives. I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the chamber to support this legislation with their votes and keep at the forefront of their mind that these changes, each different measure and requirement, are all with the aim of improving the system, which is there to look after children, who often end up caught in the middle. Another example from my electorate is from a person named Amanda. Amanda is a constituent of mine whom I have been engaged with since June last year. Amanda has been fighting the system for nine years. She experiences financial difficulties and struggles as a single mother yet does not receive sufficient child support payments from her child's father. As is so frequently the case, there are numerous claims and complications in this matter. As it is still unresolved, I will not presume to know all the answers but will continue to do all that I can to see the system improved. It is important to remember that there are always children involved in these situations, and it is their welfare and their support that is at stake when you delve to the heart of the matter. It is for them that we try to make family assistance and child support a more functional and fairer system for all. I sympathise with Amanda's situation and would very much like to see it resolved. Should the changes to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 succeed as laid down in this bill that we are debating today, we will be closer to a fairer and more functional system and may see a number of child support disputes cease as a result. This specific bill is a response to recommendations 8, 12 and 22 from the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs report From conflict to cooperation: Inquiry into the child support program. In responding to the recommendations of the committee, I am glad to be a part of the process to make our child support system more fair, more equitable and, ultimately, more supportive of the children. I look forward to continuing to work with constituents like mine, such as Brett and Amanda, to see their disputes resolved, and hope that through this legislation fewer situations like theirs arise. I primarily wanted to discuss schedule 1 of this bill, as child support is something that is so topical and tends to cause a great deal of stress and therefore draws much attention amongst my constituents in Dunkley. But flying under the radar for those who are unaffected by it on a day-to-day basis are the family tax benefit amendments contained in schedule 2, which I briefly want to address. While the No Jab, No Pay policy pre-dates my time being here, it is something that I am proud to continue to represent. Schedule 2 of this bill changes the structure of penalties for families on income support payments who do not meet the requirements for their children's immunisations. We on this side of the House understand that families on income support are in this position because they are in need of the payments. However, the importance of keeping up to date with immunisations cannot be understated. Immunisation coverage rates for one- to five-year-olds at June 2017 had reached more than 93 per cent, nearing the critical level of 95 per cent needed to provide what's known as herd immunity. It is important that all children who can receive immunisations do so to protect and cover those who can't, so that children who are allergic to vaccine ingredients are still surrounded by children who are immunised, leaving no chance that they may contract an illness that may be debilitating to their health and development. The Turnbull coalition government proposes that, rather than withholding the family tax benefit part A end-of-year supplement, approximately $28 per child will be withheld from their fortnightly family tax benefit part A payment instead to provide a constant emphasis on immunisation requirements rather than risking the need to be silent for 51 weeks of the year. I must stress however that the value of the reduction is the same as is currently imposed on families whose children do not meet immunisation requirements but will operate in a timelier manner than the existing measures. Reducing fortnightly payments rather than withholding the supplement at the end of the year, as is currently the policy, will serve as a regular reminder to parents to have their children's immunisation requirements up to date. We have seen that, since our government introduced the No Jab, No Pay policy on 1 January 2016, immunisation rates across Australia have increased across all three target groups of one-, two- and five-year-olds. Following the introduction of these policies, more than 210,000 families have been incentivised to immunise their children, demonstrating that these compliance measures are indeed effective. There are a number of subtle but important measures in this bill that will, with their implementation, go some distance to improving the health and wellbeing of children and families. One of the Turnbull coalition government's longstanding priorities is to support families. Through this legislation, we are committed to improving financial support in the case of separated families and maintaining resistance to serious illnesses by incentivising families to vaccinate their children where possible. I have thrown my support behind these measures, as previous measures have demonstrated that we still have some distance to go in seeing the child support system and children's health checks achieving the outcomes we would like. But, with the changes contained in this bill, we will be a few steps closer than we were before. 13:05 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017. This bill does two things, and I'll speak to them in turn. It amends the child support program and strengthens the No Jab, No Pay policy. Both of the measures in this bill were announced in the 2017 budget. I'll talk first about the amendments to the child support program. The Child Support Scheme was introduced by the Hawke government in 1988 and was designed to address the difficulties a parent could face when attempting to collect maintenance from the other parent. There were concerns at the time that women and children, particularly, were increasingly facing poverty after family separation. The government was increasingly bearing the cost of raising children when one parent was refusing to contribute to their own child's upkeep. The Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs conducted an inquiry in 2015 to report on the child support program. It was chaired by the member for Dawson and the deputy chair was the member for Newcastle. I was also a member of that committee. At the time of the inquiry, the Department of Social Services said 1.3 million parents were in the program and about 1.1 million children were covered by the scheme. Child support is an emotive topic, as any member of the lower house would attest. This is understandable when the amount of support paid or received is directly linked to the amount of time spent with your children. It is also a gendered issue—90 per cent of receiving parents are female and 90 per cent of paying parents are male, perhaps bespeaking some other cultural barriers and prejudices in our society. The scheme was designed to make it simpler for the caring parent to receive child support from the other parent by giving the responsibility for collection and enforcement to the Australian Taxation Office. The tax office was also given responsibility for assessing the amount of child support to be paid. The responsibility for the administration of the Child Support Scheme has now been shifted to the Department of Social Services and delivery of the scheme to the Department of Human Services. The social policy and legal affairs inquiry found that the Child Support Scheme works well in the majority of cases. I know that, as an MP, we often see people when it is not working. I understand that. The scheme supports the principle that both parents should contribute to raising their children through care and financial support. Assessments should reflect the realistic cost of raising children and a parent's actual capacity to pay. However, the committee made 25 recommendations to strengthen the scheme. This bill implements three of the recommendations of the committee report. Three out of 25 ain't good but, I guess it is better than nothing. As I've said, the amount of child support paid by a parent is calculated with regard to the amount of time the child spends with each parent. The nature of modern work means that parenting arrangements can change and can change quickly and, when they do, they are often contentious. The first of these amendments provides for a greater period of time before a child support assessment is recalculated when there is a dispute about the care of the child. There is currently a 14-week limit imposed on interim determinations. The Family Court, sadly, is bogged down, with most matters taking much longer than 14 weeks to be finalised. Currently, the 14-week limit can mean that a parent's child support assessment may be increased just at the time they are trying to reach an agreement on their parenting arrangements. This amendment increases the interim period while one parent is actively trying to enforce their rights under a parenting order and is participating in dispute resolution processes. The second of these amendments concerns child support agreements entered into between the parents. A binding child support agreement can be made pursuant to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. These agreements are similar in nature to a binding financial agreement made under the Family Law Act. Some might say the binding financial agreements are former Attorney-General George Brandis's only legacy to the Australian legal community—but I wouldn't be that unkind. These agreements require independent legal advice before a party can enter into such an agreement. In turn, they are difficult to set aside. Exceptional circumstances or a significant change in circumstances which have arisen since the agreement was made must be present before an agreement will be set aside. However, there is an anomaly with binding child support agreements made before 1 July 2008. Those agreements were made without independent legal advice. The amendment that provided for independent legal advice was only implemented on 1 July 2008. Those agreements are currently still binding in the same way as binding child support agreements that were made after 1 July 2008 and have the benefit of independent legal advice. It is easy to see how this could disadvantage a party who has entered into a binding child support agreement between 1 July 2008 without having the benefit of legal advice and they now want to have that agreement set aside or amended. This bill will make it easier for parties to binding child support agreements made before July 2008 to have their agreements varied or set aside. The third amendment in this bill that concerns child support is slightly more contentious. The amount of child support paid by a parent is assessed on a formula that uses the income of both parents—that is, each parent's income tax assessments. If a person's tax assessment has been amended, the child support assessment will have been calculated using the income from the original tax assessment but the child support assessment will actually not be varied until the next financial year—quite a time lag. This can lead to the actual child support being paid to the other parent being too high and causing distress to the payer or being too low and causing the parent in receipt of the child support to be under unnecessary financial stress and then obviously children can consequently suffer. This bill will allow a new assessment to be applied retrospectively so that the correct amount would have been paid for the previous year. Labor are concerned that this will lead to very large and unexpected debts for parents. We know the harm financial stress can cause to families. We know how important it is for parents to have some level of budget certainty so they can plan ahead for their families. Labor have raised these concerns about this part of the bill with the Turnbull-Joyce government and we will reserve on this final position on this part of the bill until this is addressed. Having been a member of the committee that inquired into child support in 2015, I am pleased to see some of our recommendations being implemented. I heard in that committee the raw emotion those issues around child support evince in parents. When love turns to hate, sometimes logic and common sense fly out the window. Families who are in the child support assessment scheme often have issues with payments not being made, assessments being too high or assessments being too low. Those families feel the fallout of these problems every day—each time they go to the supermarket, each time they pay the school fees or buy school supplies and each time they get their pay cheque. Australia's Child Support Scheme is good, but it can be strengthened. That is what the committee reported and why we made 25 recommendations. Without carping too much, it is a little disappointing that it has taken over two years for the Turnbull-Joyce government to take any action on the report. The second part of this bill amends and strengthens the No Jab, No Pay policy. I want to say up-front and loudly that I wholeheartedly believe in the importance of childhood immunisation. My mother was a nurse and she made sure that all 10 of her children were fully immunised against preventable diseases. My wife Lea, as an adult and despite being vaccinated as a child, contracted whooping cough when she had young children to cope with as well as a husband that went off to Canberra regularly. Having seen the impact that whooping cough had on Lea, an adult who had some level of immunisation, I can't imagine what it would be like watching your own baby suffering from whooping cough. You wouldn't wish it on your worst enemy. It is important that we do all we can to improve the immunisation levels of all our children. Children are our hopes distilled. We know that vaccination works. It has eradicated diseases already in our own lifetime—polio and smallpox. It might be hard to imagine now, for younger Australians, but Australia faced an epidemic in the middle of the 20th century, recording the highest incidence of poliomyelitis—commonly called polio. Poliomyelitis is an ancient disease, first described in Britain in 1789, that has no cure and can leave its victims with devastating nerve damage, causing paralysis of the arms, legs and diaphragms. Ten thousand mainly young Australians and many children were contracting polio each year. In 1966, which is not that long ago—the year of my birth, in fact—the oral polio vaccine was introduced into Australia. And in 2000 Australia was declared polio free by the World Health Organization. The number of polio cases worldwide has decreased by more than 99 per cent, from 350,000 cases in 1988 to fewer than 420 in 2013. Do not listen to the antivaxxers. We know vaccination works. Measles was claiming 2.6 million deaths each year before there was widespread vaccination available. The World Health Organization announced in 2014 that measles elimination had effectively been achieved by Australia. There is now no local strain of measles circulating in our community. Obviously we still get individual measles cases in the community that have been brought in by people travelling from countries where the disease is still prevalent. But by keeping a high level of vaccination coverage—protecting the herd—we can prevent measles outbreaks from occurring. We know vaccination works. All sensible people who believe in empirical evidence know this for a fact. And we know that the way it works is through herd immunity. High levels of immunity in the Australian community make it difficult for disease to spread from person to person. It is the collective community of our population that is important. And it is the responsibility of all of us to make sure we continue to have that high level of immunity. The No Jab, No Pay policy was supported by Labor. This policy has bipartisan support. We know it works. Since the program commenced in 2015, about 200,000 families have initiated or updated their immunisation coverage. That is great news, but we must maintain our vigilance. The amendments in this bill will strengthen this policy. The current policy provides that parents whose child does not have their immunisation up to date will not be eligible to receive the family tax benefit part A end-of-year supplement. This policy holds no incentive for families whose income is above $80,000, as they don't receive the family tax benefit part A supplement. So, this amendment will be fairer. All families whose child is not fully immunised in accordance with immunisation requirements will have approximately $28 a fortnight withheld from their family tax benefit part A. This new measure will come into effect from 1 July 2018. The new provisions will ensure that families are notified if their child's vaccinations are overdue, and there will be a 63-day grace period. That will ensure that the family is given time to update the child's immunisation. If the vaccinations are not updated within that 63-day grace period the reductions to the fortnightly family tax benefit part A will be imposed from the beginning of the 63-day grace period. This amendment will make the policy fairer. Families who do not keep their child's immunisation up to date will face a financial penalty regardless of whether they earn above or below $80,000. It is hoped that this amendment will also encourage those families who earn over $80,000 and who've so far not updated their child's immunisation to do so. The larger the percentage of immunisation coverage in the community the greater our herd immunity, the fewer disease outbreaks we will have and the more lives that will be saved. Labor believes that all children deserve the opportunity to have the best start in life. Strengthening the immunity of our population so that unprotected babies will not be inflicted with whooping cough or other life-threatening and preventable diseases is just the right thing to do. I would not want my children to become ill because other families did not immunise their children. And I'd hate to think that I had contributed to a baby becoming ill or even, heaven forbid, dying because I did not keep the immunisations of my own children up to date. These are good policy measures, and I support this bill, with the caveat that Labor has concerns about the provisions regarding child support and amended tax assessments. Labor is hopeful that a compromise on that measure can be reached in the Senate. Labor will always support measures that protect our children. I commend the legislation to the House. 13:19 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith Like the other speakers in this debate, I support the overwhelming majority of this bill and I have reservations about one aspect of it which goes to child support and the potential recovery of payments made to payees when a later tax return demonstrates that the assessment ought to have been less than it was. The aspects of this bill that go to the other matters are, indeed, very commendable. It is pleasing that both the opposition and the government are in such furious bipartisanship when it comes to supporting the importance of vaccinations. We've all seen news of the damage that's done by antivaccination campaigns. We've all seen the concerns that doctors and other experts have raised in respect of misinformation and, in fact, disinformation in respect of the effects of vaccinations. It is important to our community, as a whole, that people continue to trust the vaccinations that are offered by medical practitioners and to trust the vaccinations that are supported through the Commonwealth, and I think, sometimes, it's regrettable to see some of the people who are willing to make comments that tend to promote the anti-vaxxer movement. We all know that there's a senator in this parliament who, in the context of the Western Australian election, made some comments supportive of the anti-vaxxer movement. I think that was regrettable, not just because it spread this disinformation but, because when something is uttered by a senator, that tends to give it a cloak of authority and believability—not everyone would agree with that, of course. But when someone in authority speaks it can tend to, unfortunately, have that effect. When those comments were made, I think that they were quite rightly disagreed with and abhorred by people from across the political spectrum, and I was pleased to see that. It is absolutely important that we, in looking at this legislation, support the provisions that promote a pro-vaccination culture. It's important to do that not for the individual children who are vaccinated only—though, of course, it is very important for them to be able to avoid terrible diseases such as polio, as the member for Moreton discussed, and hepatitis and whooping cough—but it's also important for our entire community that we maintain herd immunity. That means that by failing to vaccinate you are not just putting your own children at risk; you are putting at risk the children of others. I want to place on record, though, some concerns about the child support provisions of the legislation and, as other speakers have said, I'm very hopeful that resolution will be able to be reached and compromise will be able to be reached once this bill is in the Senate. The specific concern I have, as I said, arises from the provisions in respect of amended tax assessments. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, child support payments are calculated according to a formula. An important part of calculating child support payments is to look at your income. Child support assessment looks at the income according to your income tax assessment, and there are some serious issues with the use of income tax assessments in respect of child support by some people in the system. Those issues were ventilated during the social policy and legal affairs committee's child support inquiry, of which I was a member in 2014. I've certainly got concerns about stories that I hear of people deliberately failing to put in their income tax return in time, knowing they don't have a debt to the tax office so they won't be fined but that it would materially affect the amount of child support they're required to pay. That is a serious problem and I've raised, both in the social policy and legal affairs committee and the tax and revenue committee, my view that we should be doing more to ensure that people who are payers of child support do submit their tax returns on time. There should be more done to promote compliance amongst people who may not have a debt to the revenue but who do have obligations to their children. But that's not the specific issue that this bill seeks to deal with. This bill seeks to deal with the situation where somebody does put in a tax return and ends up with a changed income tax assessment at some point during the financial year. This bill seeks, at the moment, to allow for that tax return to automatically change the child support amount that's calculated by reference to the formula. That's absolutely fine from my perspective, provided it's prospective. The difficulty arises, of course, when that is retrospectively applied. If you are a payee of child support and you have received money in good faith, spent it on your children's shoes, school fees or food, and you are then told that, through no fault of your own and without your knowledge, you now have a debt because of the retrospective application of a provision around somebody else's income tax return, obviously that's going to be quite challenging—particularly for people in lower income households. If you're a single parent in a low-income household and you are suddenly told that you now have a debt, which could be in the hundreds of dollars, as a consequence of something completely beyond your control—something you did not know was going to happen—that obviously gives rise to some concern. Similarly, if the money hasn't actually been paid—the money hasn't been received and hasn't been spent—the income tax assessment goes in and there's a new amount calculated by reference to the child support formula, it would not be my view that the payee should be able to recover against the payer for the period when the assessment calculation was different. But I am very concerned about a situation where single parents can be left with surprise debts. This is a very sensitive area of policy, of course, and an issue that does require some thought. In my submission, the overriding principle that we should take into account when considering how this legislation should work should be the best interests of the children concerned. In a situation where someone is a child support payee and they're doing the majority of the caring for the children, it's going to be a rare case where the balance of considerations would, in my view, support the creation of a new, surprising debt that the person may have grave difficulty in paying. Whichever way you slice it, there will be some unfairness in this system. If you end up with a lower calculation and you have paid money, it's going to be a situation where it's either unfair to the payer, because they can't recover that money, or unfair to the payee because they thought they were entitled to it and spent it, as I said, on shoes. In a situation where you cannot avoid the prospect of some unfairness, I would encourage us to look to the best interests of the children concerned, with a view to resolving where the unfairness must fall. There are certainly many reasons why you might get an amended income tax return. I certainly do not stand here to say that anyone who gets an amended income tax return deliberately delayed putting in their income tax return, but it is important that we are very careful, in making this area of policy, to take into account the impact on individuals' lives and on households, and that means working together to find a resolution. I'm quite sure it's not beyond us. In fact, the 2014 child support inquiry that I mentioned earlier gave a unanimous report, regardless of the fact that this is a highly controversial and contested area of policy. I obviously thank the member for Dawson, who was the chair of the committee at the time, for his cooperation and bipartisanship in the course of that inquiry. Given that the member for Dawson and I, and other members of the committee, were able to, in a consensus and on a bipartisan basis, find common ground in relation to child support bodes very well for our ability collectively as a parliament to seek to resolve the issues in this legislation once it heads towards the Senate for consideration. I encourage the parties concerned, including the government—and, of course, we will—to ensure that we work cooperatively to seek to resolve these issues. This is important. We are talking about people's lives. We are talking about the lives of single parents, which, frankly, are hard lives to start with. Let's not unnecessarily make them any more difficult. Let's work together to find the best possible solution. 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 35 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Broadband 35 13:30 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Canberrans are tearing their hair out at the delay in the NBN rollout. They're dealing with download and upload speeds of less than one megabit per second. Those who do actually have access to the NBN are also tearing their hair out. They're frustrated with second-rate infrastructure. They're frustrated about the fact that the promises they were given have not been delivered. They're frustrated at the fact that they've been promised oversold capabilities and those haven't been delivered. I have this from a member of the community: 'We presently have an ADSL plan with Telstra running at about 13.38 megabits per second download, 0.81 upload, with no drop-outs. We recently installed a wireless video doorbell. It will not work properly as it needs an upload speed of at least two megabits per second. A friend in Turner has recently been connected to the NBN. She's not rich, and so opted for a basic package, providing her with 11.39 meg download, 0.86 upload. So, after all the time, effort, money and political capital expended on the NBN, her basic NBN service is no better than my existing ADSL service, and it wouldn't properly run a doorbell.' It wouldn't properly run a doorbell! With internet upload speeds delivered on the NBN that can't even operate a doorbell, how are Australian businesses, especially small businesses meant to achieve success? (Time expired) Rowan, Mrs Linda 35 13:31 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate one of my constituents, Mrs Linda Rowan, who received an Order of Australia for services to aged welfare. With 41 years of dedicated work in the Beenleigh region, Mrs Rowan is a long-time servant of the Beenleigh and Districts Senior Citizens Centre. In her 41 years of work, Mrs Rowan has played a major role with the centre, as well as with the local Meals on Wheels. She began working with Meals on Wheels as a volunteer back in 1976 and eventually went on to become their coordinator. In that time she was also appointed the welfare officer for the Beenleigh and Districts Senior Citizens Centre in 1986, a position she held until her retirement in 2016. Although she has not long retired from her role with the centre after 40 years, Mrs Rohan remains committed to serving the local community and still has plenty of time left to volunteer. Linda continues to serve as the honorary treasurer and has returned to volunteering to deliver for Meals on Wheels. I'd like to thank Linda for being such a tremendous figure in the Beenleigh community and thank her for the many years of service that she has contributed. Linda has contributed countless hours to making the Beenleigh and Districts Senior Citizens Centre, which prides itself as one of the best facilities in Queensland for the over-50s, the place it is today. I give my congratulations to Linda and my thanks for the wonderful work she does. (Time expired) Indigenous Affairs 36 13:33 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Tomorrow, Tuesday, 13 February, is the 10th anniversary of the apology to the stolen generation. I remember, 10 years ago, being in front of the Royal Darwin Hospital when then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd came to visit the Timor-Leste President, Jose Ramos-Horta, and the looks on the faces of countrymen and countrywomen—Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, Territorians—out the front of that hospital when they saw Prime Minister Rudd was something to behold. There was genuine thanks and relief that someone had finally said sorry. It has caused me to reflect on some of the priorities of people in my electorate, and when I sat through the Prime Minister's Closing the gap presentation just a little while ago I was underwhelmed, to say the least. Let me just point out a couple of quick things. The response of the government and the Prime Minister to the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory was grossly inadequate. It is easy to call for a royal commission. How about putting your hand in your pocket to help us come up with some solutions? Then there is Senator Scullion's backflip on remote housing. The Northern Territory government is putting in record amounts of funding but, unfortunately, that's not being met by the Commonwealth, which is shameful. It needs to be reviewed. (Time expired) Bonner Electorate: Bonner Seniors Expo 36 13:34 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I'm happy to report that the first Bonner Seniors Expo I hosted last year was a huge success. So many people have told me how much they enjoyed the expo and how much useful information they got out of it. Over 300 locals from across my electorate came along to enjoy the free entertainment and free information sessions and to have a chat with the 55 stallholders who took part. Stallholders included local activity groups, local small businesses and local service providers, including aged-care providers from across my electorate. People said the best part of the expo was the sheer number and variety of stallholders brought together under one roof. There were also information sessions run by the representatives from the Department of Health, Department of Human Services, south Queensland police, Helloworld Travel Wynnum, Tyack Health and more, which many people found very useful. Lastly, can I also thank the wonderful folks at Waterloo Bay Leisure Centre, local stores Juicy Secrets and Bare Traps for their fashion show, students from the Guardian Angels choir for their beautiful performance, and the EACH Zumba group for their entertainment and dance scene and for being up for an encore when the crowd demanded it. I also thank TransitCare for providing free bus trips for people living further away. I'm humbled by the community support for the first Bonner Seniors Expo. I can't wait to bring it back even bigger and better next year. Bendigo Electorate: Chinese Dragon 36 13:36 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Yesterday, 11 February, was a special day for many in the Bendigo community, particularly the Bendigo Chinese Association and the Golden Dragon Museum. Our much loved dragon, Sun Loong, performed for the first time in Melbourne. He usually only comes out at Easter, after a special awakening of the dragon ceremony. But this year, as part of the Chinese New Year, he will be in Melbourne. Yesterday he performed for the very first time for Melbourne people, many of whom have connections to Bendigo. It was a unique occasion for many reasons, not just because it was Sun Loong's first performance in Melbourne or the hundreds of volunteers that travelled down from Bendigo to carry Sun Loong through Melbourne, but also because it is at the same location where his predecessor, Loong, performed at our Federation. Loong, carried by the Bendigo Chinese community, was part of Federation at the Royal Exhibition Building, part of the opening ceremony of this parliament, back in 1901. So it was fitting that Sun Loong got to perform in a place where his predecessor once performed. Our dragons in Bendigo are part of our cultural heritage. We are very proud of our Bendigo Chinese community and the fact they invite us to share this celebration every Easter. I encourage all to get down to Melbourne to meet Sun Loong. Fisher Electorate: Sunshine Coast Casino 37 13:37 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher The Sunshine Coast Council has expressed an interest in establishing a casino in its Maroochydore CBD development. Media reports suggest that meetings with overseas gambling corporations have already taken place. Establishing a casino on the Sunshine Coast would irrevocably alter our community for the worse. A casino would add to the cost of living pressures on our hardworking families, hollow out the local economy, increase crime and antisocial behaviour, and drive up drug and alcohol abuse. We have built a unique and relaxed family-friendly environment on the coast, which is envied all over the world, and I am determined to fight at every stage to preserve it. I have therefore started a petition calling on the council to abandon their plans to establish a casino in SunCentral. I held 14 listening posts around my electorate at the end of January. I was overwhelmed by the number of people who came to me and told me how strongly they oppose this development. To date, thousands of people in Fisher and beyond have already signed my petition. This is the perfect time to stop a casino in its tracks before the process has gone too far. I therefore ask the people of the Sunshine Coast and anyone else in this country to join thousands of others and visit the 'My Work for Fisher' page of my website to sign my petition today; or they can call my office for further details. North Queensland: Dams 37 13:39 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy There are two competing—people don't realise they are competing—proposals for delivering water to Townsville and developing North Queensland. One is to raise the Burdekin Falls Dam. The state government is promoting the raising of Burdekin Falls Dam because it stops all development over 30 per cent of North Queensland. All of the water from the great Burdekin River—the No. 3 river in Australia—covering 30 per cent, maybe 40 per cent, of the North Queensland surface area will be used to produce electricity for a few hours a day, and a very small amount of electricity at that. In contrast, Hells Gate will provide baseload power to carry the entire North Queensland grid now and forever, which is something we've been fighting for for 60 years. Secondly, there is the cost to Townsville. The length of the pipeline to the Paluma existing pipeline is 35 kilometres. The distance to Burdekin Falls is 95 kilometres—three times the cost. Hells Gate is 1,200 feet up, so the water is delivered through hydroelectric generators to Townsville. Turn on the tap and you make money. Turn on the tap and, if it comes from Burdekin Falls, you have to pay money because you have to pump it against— (Time expired) Agriculture 37 13:40 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright Agriculture touches the lives of all Australians through the food we eat, the natural fibres that we wear and the economic prosperity that we all enjoy. If agriculture exporting were an Olympic sport, Australia would be at the top of the medal tally. According to the Menzies Research Centre, we'd take: gold for beef exports, with 13.5 per cent of total exported beef, ahead of United States and Brazil; gold for barley exports, ahead of Russia and the Ukraine; and gold again for wool exports, ahead of New Zealand and Uruguay. Australia would step onto the podium for sugar, cotton, oats, almonds, butter and milk powder products. Our farmers are well and truly punching above their weight on the world stage. Australia has more world-class farmers per capita than any other nation on this planet and they achieve that despite many struggling due to drought and Labor's draconian vegetation management laws in Queensland, coupled with market volatility. Australia's agricultural industry deserves the sincerest thanks for the remarkable contribution it makes to our nation. I would like to thank the many farmers in my electorate of Wright in particular. Our region is home to so many wonderful producers, from dairy farmers to graziers to vegetable growers and processors, each deserving their own gold medal. Together they support our local businesses, our local employment, our local services, our local hospitals, our local schools and our local public transport, all as a result of the vibrant rural and regional communities that are in my electorate today. Herbert Electorate: Land 400 37 13:42 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I stand here today to fight for Queensland jobs and to make it loud and clear in Canberra. Queensland wants the Land 400 contract and we are ready for it. Land 400 would not only mean jobs in manufacturing but sustainable jobs in maintenance. I have met with numerous stakeholders and local veterans on the ground and everyone in Herbert has their eye on the prize of the Defence maintenance contract. Trust me, I will be a dog with a bone until we get it. Land 400 must go to Queensland and the maintenance contracts must go to Townsville. We are the largest garrison city in Australia. Not only will I be fighting for the maintenance contract but I will also be ensuring that, as part of that program, there are employment opportunities for our transitioning veterans. This transitioning policy will be pivotal to Herbert veterans and I will fight to ensure that it is delivered. I call on the Turnbull government to deliver the Land 400 contract to Queensland and the Defence maintenance contract to Herbert. O'Connor Electorate: Cashless Debit Card 38 13:43 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to give a warm welcome to parliament to two incredibly strong and capable Indigenous women from my electorate of O'Connor. Shire Councillor Betty Logan and Amanda Bennell, up in the gallery today, have travelled all the way from the Goldfields town of Coolgardie to be here for some of the important events this week. They are joined by Brian Champion Jr. Welcome, Brian. These amazing women were, only moments ago, acknowledged by the Prime Minister for their heartfelt representations towards bringing the cashless debit card to our Goldfields. Betty is a highly respected Ngadju woman. She has had a long and distinguished career as a nurse and, although now in well-deserved retirement, continues to fight for better health and welfare outcomes for her community. Amanda is an incredible young woman. Once a troubled teenager, like many, she put that behind her to forge a new career, serving her community, working with troubled children and adults and being a positive role model for the younger generation. Amanda and her Aunty Betty in their spare time take kids out onto country, teaching them bush craft, language and recorrecting them with their Aboriginal culture. But today what I want to thank these women for is their courage and determination in standing up for the cashless debit card, which they believe is right for their community—reducing the alcohol- and drug-fuelled harm they see destroying families; getting kids off the streets and into homes where they should feel safe and protected; money being spent on the essentials of life—food, clothes, shelter and transport; and, finally, hope for a brighter future for the most vulnerable in their community. Amanda and Betty, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Paterson Electorate 38 13:45 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson As we head into question time, for most people around the country the most important query on a Monday is, 'How was your weekend?' I hope everyone had a good one. I had a fantastic weekend in my electorate of Paterson. I had the great pleasure of attending three fabulous community events. On Friday night, I attended the 10th anniversary of and the launch of the 2018 program for the Cessnock Performing Arts Centre. Deputy Speaker Coulton, I'm sure you've heard of the town of Cessnock, but I wager not in conjunction with the impending performance of Madame Butterfly by the Melbourne Ballet Company. We're all looking forward to it. On Saturday evening, I had the honour of meeting five young women who have made the final of Maitland's historic Hunter River Agricultural and Horticultural Society's annual Miss Maitland competition. Don't be fooled by the formal title of this event, which has been an institution in Maitland for 156 years. This is no arcane beauty pageant. These young women are strong, they are sharp and they are agriculture ambassadors. My Saturday evening was rounded off with a visit to the Riverlights festival, again in Maitland. This central Maitland event attracts thousands of people for culture, colour and cuisine from around the globe, and it culminates with the release of beautiful floating lanterns on the glorious Hunter River. Congratulations, everyone. Taxation 38 13:46 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Today it's time to be honest: the tax system is screwing over young Australians. Instead, it favours well-off, established interests against those trying to get ahead. The federal budget is more than $500 billion in debt, and just about any attempt to fix it has been opposed. It could have been worse; without our saving measures it could have been as bad as $1 trillion. The young and working will have to pay it off. With income tax responsible for half of the federal revenue, it will fall mostly on young and working Australians. Meanwhile, people who can predominantly live off of income from their assets can pay very little tax and get discounts on capital gains from increases in asset values. Sometimes the highest tax they may pay is GST, at 10 per cent. In short: if you work hard to get ahead, you get hit hard; if you live off assets, you don't. Not that tax is alone—opposition to our National Energy Guarantee, which would actually cut greenhouse gas emissions, keep prices down and drive investment into new, awesome technologies, is also opposed. Much like a frog in boiling water, as our debt grows and public spending increases towards an ageing population, it may be many years before young Australians stand up to ask the question, 'Why is the system rigged against us?' Honestly, it's about as subtle as a brain freeze from a frose. Now is the time to stand up. Young Australians need to demand a fairer tax system, where they aren't the only ones carrying the burden to cover the cost of Australia. Broadband 38 13:48 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith In November, my electorate, like the rest of the country, got the surprising news that there would be a pause in the HFC rollout in the National Broadband Network. It was a surprise for everyone, really, because the NBN's chief engineer had been at a Senate hearing very recently prior to that and was talking about interference and HFC but made no mention of this impending pause. Of course, I asked the NBN what this would mean for my electorate, and they said, 'Where places are ready for service, there will be no new orders.' They thought it would be about six months. If you're ready for service, it's a six-month delay. In the areas where it's not ready for service, they will be delayed as well. Perhaps this is a blessing in disguise, considering how terrible this government's National Broadband Network policy has been. The introduction of HFC has been a particular concern for people in my electorate—the very, very few of them who've actually been able to get a connection to the NBN so far. We had a crisis meeting about the state of the NBN last year, and so many people came to tell us stories about their problems with the NBN. It wasn't just the speed issues; it was the reliability issues. One constituent said that he worked online a lot of time marking academic papers and was so frustrated by the internet repeatedly dropping out. Unfortunately, that's not surprising. In August, the Senate heard that HFC cabling had 50 times more network downtime than fibre connections on the NBN. This NBN is a joke. It needs to be fixed. This government needs to do something about it. Country Fire Authority: Volunteers 39 13:49 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe February 16 this year will mark the 25th anniversary of the Ash Wednesday bushfires which devastated parts of Victoria, especially in my electorate of La Trobe, and of South Australia. So I just want to acknowledge the great work of our CFA volunteers who this year, as always, have been exceptionally vigilant. The great news is: we have not had a major bushfire in Victoria, including in my electorate of La Trobe. I would like to showcase some of our brigades—in particular, the Sassafras-Ferny Creek brigade, which has been a great advocate, not only ensuring the safety of residents in La Trobe and especially in Ferny Creek and Sassafras, but also lobbying to ensure we resolve the car-parking issue down at the base of the 1,000 Steps walk, with the captain of the Ferny Creek CFA, John Schurink, and Jeff Harboard as the first lieutenant and Sarah Krumins as the secretary. I thank all the committee members and all the volunteers who go out each Wednesday and Sunday to train, just waiting for that event. They also attend between 80 and 100 call-outs each year. So, again, I thank all the CFAs in La Trobe, but also Victoria- and Australia-wide, for the great service they do to our country in making us safer in the fire season. (Time expired) Penrith Community Kitchen Christmas 39 13:51 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay I've come in here today to talk about Gai Hawthorn, an absolute living legend in my electorate of Lindsay, and to say thank you to her for organising the 10th Penrith Community Kitchen Christmas which happened in December. This Christmas party involves all people in my electorate who are marginalised, don't have a family to call their own or just need some companionship and friendship over the time of the year that the rest of us are generally celebrating with our families. Of course, Gai didn't do it on her own. I'd like to thank the Penrith Rotary Club, Penrith RSL, Abcoe, Panthers, Outback Steakhouse, Hog's Breath, our new cafe, Mr Watkin's bar, and also Cafe Fred, for providing the food that was served at the luncheon and the hampers. Over 150 hampers went home with the families who were in attendance, and 300 male and female care packs were also distributed. Toys from the Penrith RSL giving tree and Penrith Rotary, which were donated by the good people of Lindsay, were given to all the children who were there. All items that were left over also went to other great agencies. Thirty volunteers, including me, were there on the day, helping to serve lunch to all those people and provide some friendship, support and socialisation to those members of our community. Our local dance studio also provided some fabulous entertainment and some wonderful songs and Christmas tunes for everybody. I always talk in here about how the greatest strength of my community is my people, and today that is absolutely what I would like to say. Chinese new year 39 13:52 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney This weekend, hundreds of thousands of Australians will join over a billion people around the world in celebrating Chinese new year. The Lunar new year has truly become a global celebration, and Sydney will be no exception. It will, in fact, play host to the largest Chinese new year celebration outside Asia. With what will be a spectacular festival, centred on our harbour and China Town, Chinese new year has become an important part of our visitor economy. It is estimated that some 250,000 people will travel to Australia to celebrate the Lunar new year with family and friends. In my own electorate, events will occur from Luna Park to Lane Cove, and to Chatswood, which has a long tradition of marking Chinese new year with its own very vibrant festival. These events across the North Shore and around Australia have broader significance in reminding us of our success as a multicultural society and the incredible contribution of those who have made Australia home and who come from our own region. Chinese new year 2018 will usher in the Year of the Dog. Those born in this year are reputed to have the traits of loyalty and honour—characteristics which are of course found in this place with such great abundance! While much of our focus will be on the food, fireworks and festivals of the next two weeks, at its core, Chinese new year is a time for families to come together and to strengthen the bonds of kinship. I want to wish all Australians celebrating the Lunar new year a very prosperous 12 months ahead, and, to my own constituents: xin nian kuai le! Gong xi fa cai! Banking and Financial Services 40 13:54 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Today we saw the commencement of the banking royal commission, thanks to the tireless efforts of the Australian Labor Party, who wouldn't relent on this issue until the government succumbed and established a banking royal commission. The Prime Minister resisted it for months and months, saying that we could simply give ASIC greater powers or establish a parliamentary committee and it would do the same job. It wouldn't. So, finally, we have a banking royal commission. We have seen not only the four major banks make about $30 billion in profit last year but also continuous accusations of rorts and rip-offs. Indeed, in my own electorate, I have intervened on many occasions on behalf of residents who believed that they had been hard done by by the banks they were dealing with, which in some cases was leading them to bankruptcy. The banks had the luxury of being protected by the Australian government during the global financial recession years when they needed that support the most. So, quite rightly, they ought to do the right thing by the Australian people. I note that Labor has now also called for the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation to be included in the banking royal commission terms of reference. It's a call that I support. The Australian public need to have confidence in the financial system, and I look forward with interest to the royal commission proceedings and trust that the royal commission will deliver the justice that so many people have long waited for. Bennelong By-Election 40 13:56 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I would like to give part 2 of my serialised speech of thanks to everyone who helped out in the Bennelong by-election. As with all campaigns, we would never have been successful without our wonderful volunteers. I could never name all of you but I'd like to acknowledge just a small few who made a critical difference on the ground—firstly, Helen Russell. When Epping prepoll turned into an arms race for poll position on the doors of the booth, Helen stepped forward to do the graveyard shift, loyally turning up at, frankly, daft times every morning to ensure that we had the best spot. As a result, I got to talk to thousands of people. Thank you, Helen! The great Bob Lawrence: nothing was too hard for Bob, who turned out at every possible opportunity with volunteers, material, advice and a smile. Thank you, Bob. Your presence and your dependability kept many in in the campaign office nearly sane. And the inimitable Daryl McGuire, state member for Wagga Wagga: when the mercury hit 40, other parties melted in the shade, but not Daryl. Daryl, armed with an akubra and a pack of icy poles, rallied the troops to make sure that we did not wilt when the going got damn hot. I cannot thank you three enough. Of course, thank you to everyone who turned up during the campaign to make a difference. Macquarie Electorate: Tennyson Rural Fire Brigade 40 13:57 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie There is a serious case of shed envy happening in the Hawkesbury that I think most of the blokes in this place would identify with. This shed envy is all because of the Tennyson Rural Fire Brigade. The Rural Fire Service yesterday opened its brand-new shed. Tennyson doesn't have a village—the shed is it—and for years the people of Tennyson, which is an agricultural, rural and bushy area, have been making do with very little. They started in a garage, they adapted vehicles and they were thrilled when they got a power point. They have literally pieced it together and, finally yesterday, their $840,000 shed was opened. More than 200 people, is my guess, were there yesterday—a huge gathering for a small community in the Hawkesbury. They now have three truck bays, two water tanks, a workshop, a meeting room, an office and, as we experienced yesterday, a kitchen. The Hawkesbury catering group from the Rural Fire Service should be congratulated for what they managed to produce for these hordes of people yesterday afternoon in the new kitchen. What's really special about Tennyson is that, because people live on their properties and work on their properties, they turn out in droves when the call comes in. These are the sorts of people who make living in my part of the world a possibility. They deserve congratulations. Indian Republic Day, Australia Day 40 13:59 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies Last Saturday night I was delighted to join Dr Gurdip Aurora and members of the Australia India Society to celebrate Indian Republic Day and Australia Day—both of which fall on the same date. In my remarks I was able to recall the famous words of Pandit Nehru, who said of India: The future beckons us. Whither do we go and what be our endeavour? To bring freedom and opportunity to the common man, to the peasants and workers of India; to fight and end poverty and ignorance and disease; to build up a prosperous, democratic and progressive nation, and to create social, economic and political institutions which will ensure justice and fullness of life to every man and woman. They are great aspirations, great sentiments, that both India and Australia enjoy. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 41 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time this week as she's in Kuwait representing Australia at the foreign ministers' meeting of the global coalition to defeat ISIL and the international conference on the reconstruction of Iraq. The Attorney-General will answer questions on her behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 41 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Stolen Generations 41 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. It's 10 years since Kevin Rudd's historic national apology to the stolen generations. It's more than 20 years after the Bringing them home report. Will the Prime Minister join with Labor and commit to establishing a compensation scheme for the few remaining survivors of the stolen generations within Commonwealth jurisdictions? 14:01 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The Leader of the Opposition, when he spoke in response to my tabling of the Closing the gap report, said that he believed there were 150 surviving members of the stolen generations. Our advice is that there are, in fact, up to 500. I just note that point. We noted the commitment that he made. We commissioned some work by the Healing Foundation to inform the government on how best to support surviving victims of the stolen generations and their families. As the honourable member understands, we're committed to doing things with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Australians, not doing things to them. The report is due in April. We will be considering that and the advice of our Indigenous Advisory Council and other Indigenous leaders, as we demonstrated last week at the special gathering. We'll be considering that report and then forming a response. I understand the spirit in which the honourable member made the commitment, but I trust he understands that, as we've seen with refreshing the Closing the Gap targets, it's taking a few months longer than I would've preferred. The important thing is that we do things with Indigenous Australians, not to them—that's been one of the criticisms of the first set of targets. We've taken that on board, and the next set are going to be the result of very careful consultation. Taxation 41 14:03 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how lower business taxes will help create jobs and grow wages for Australians, including in my electorate of Brisbane, and is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:03 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question and note his experience and hard work for small businesses. He understands the importance of small and family businesses, of which there are over 30,000 in his own electorate of Brisbane. These are businesses that are benefitting from our small and medium business tax cuts. They're benefitting right now. They're investing more and they're employing more. That's why we saw 403,000 jobs created last year, a quarter of them in Queensland, in fact, with 42,500 of those 100,000 new jobs in Queensland going to young people. Sixty per cent of the new jobs created last year were taken up by women, and that's why we've got a record level of female participation. The big difference between the government's policies and those of the opposition's on this score is the opposition doesn't have one policy that will encourage one business to invest one dollar or employ one new person. When I make that challenge, they don't even offer one. They feel they don't need to. They seem to overlook the fact that 90 per cent of Australians work in the private sector. The businesses that are benefitting from the tax cuts which the parliament has already approved and which are in operation, and the last tranche of those already approved will start on 1 July for companies with turnovers of up to $50 million—not giants, but overwhelmingly Australian owned family businesses—employ half of the private sector workforce. In fact, it's a little more. That is the big difference. We know that it is the enterprise, the imagination, the commitment and the confidence of private Australian businesses that are creating the jobs and the opportunities Australians need. That's why every policy we have is focused on encouraging that. A year or so ago, the honourable member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, said 2017 was going to be all about jobs, jobs, jobs, but he came up with not one policy that would encourage one job. Mr Husic interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 I see the member for Chifley interjecting there. Jobs are being created in his electorate because of the government's policies. The government is committed to infrastructure, including Western Sydney Airport, which will create tens of thousands of jobs—a project he furiously opposed. They need better representation than that, and what they have from the government is a commitment to creating the opportunity, the investment and the jobs that Australians need. (Time expired) Indigenous Affairs 42 14:06 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton My question is to the Prime Minister. An estimated 17,664 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were living in out-of-home care last year, compared with 9,070 when Kevin Rudd issued the apology to the stolen generations a decade ago. Will the Prime Minister join Labor in convening a national summit on first nations children to urgently address the alarming number of Indigenous children living in out-of-home care away from family, community and culture? (Time expired) 14:07 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. Despite our occasional differences here in the House, I want to pay respect to the honourable member for the extraordinary role model she provides as the first Aboriginal woman elected to the House of Representatives. Of course, sitting opposite is the Minister for Indigenous Health, Ken Wyatt—if I may be forgiven for using his first name—the first Aboriginal man to be elected to the House of Representatives. Again, the opposition has proposed to have a summit on this matter. We obviously consult. We are consulting more thoroughly and comprehensively than ever before. When Chris Sarra said to me—at a football match originally, I might say—that we've got to do things with Indigenous Australians, not to them, it absolutely cut through. He was dead right. That is what we have to do. We need to engage more and consult more, and we've done that. I would just say, in terms of what the honourable member raised, all suggestions are gratefully received. We've just had a special gathering here. I look forward to doing more. The critical thing is to get as much power, authority and accountability, as well informed as possible, as I said in my remarks earlier today, devolved to as local a position as possible—in other words, to make sure the people who are closest to the problems and the challenges are most empowered to deal with them and ensure that the funds, resources and so forth that government provides are best employed. I will consider the honourable member's question. I want to thank her for the spirit in which she asked it. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 42 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Taxation 42 14:09 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the government's actions to ease the tax burden on Australian business and how it is helping to drive jobs and growth in the Australian economy? How does this compare with alternative approaches? 14:09 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Forde for his question. This side of the House believes in a lower tax burden on the Australian economy. That's why we're committed to ensuring that the tax burden doesn't rise above 23.9 per cent of the economy over the medium term. We're committed to that. The opposition is opposed to that. They will allow taxes to rise endlessly, as they propose to do. But, when it comes to corporate tax, our position is very straightforward. It's a very simple proposition: if you want businesses to pay workers more, you don't force them to pay the government more. It's pretty simple. If you want businesses to spend more on employing more Australians, you don't force them to spend more on higher taxes being paid to the government. If you want businesses to reinvest their earnings in their businesses so they can grow, expand and earn consistently higher profits so they can pay their workers more, you don't force them to hand over more of their earnings to the government in higher taxes. That's not a theory; that's just common sense. It is common sense that doesn't escape those on this side of the House, or the member for Forde in particular, but has completely escaped the opposition, who have lost their compass when it comes to managing the economy. They're stumbling around in this wilderness of economic policy, in a place where, many years ago, they used to have, in Hawke and Keating, what they referred to as their giants. They wouldn't be recognised in the Labor Party these days. The Labor Party is about as useful to the economic debate in these times as a pig-shearing competition—lots of squealing and no wool! That's the contribution that has been made by the Labor Party when it comes to these issues. In trying to get these simple points across, the companies themselves have made it very clear. Incoming Woodside chairman and departing Wesfarmers chief executive, Richard Goyder, stated: … I don't think business are going to have any option but to use some of the benefits of any tax reduction into paying more for people. Business is making it very clear. BHP's CEO Andrew Mackenzie has said, 'We would invest more'. He said that if the Senate agreed: … to reduce the corporate tax rate, it would make a strong contribution to Australian economic growth … you could see changes in a matter of months. The Labor Party is standing between a wage rise and Australian workers. It is the Labor Party's policy to force governments to pay more rather than let those same companies pay their employees more. They have lost their economic compass. They have lost their way. I suggest they watch the Hawke retrospective. They might learn a thing or two about what Labor's economic policy used to be and no longer resembles. Ministerial Staff 43 14:12 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. Under section 12 of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act, the Prime Minister alone can approve the allocation of staff to a member or senator. Was the Prime Minister or his office involved in approving the creation of a new position last year in either the office of Minister Canavan or the office of the then Nationals Whip? 14:13 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. I'm advised that the Nationals are provided with a number of personal staff positions as a share of the government's overall staffing pool. The distribution of those staff members between Nationals offices is a matter for the National Party. I'm further advised that at no time did the Nationals fill all vacant staffing positions. Now, as for the staffing moves between the offices the honourable member referred to, the Deputy Prime Minister addressed this in a statement on 10 February in which he said that he had not discussed Ms Campion's employment with me or my office. He confirmed that the Nationals were responsible for decisions relating to staffing in the offices of Nationals members—as I just said—and that the Prime Minister's office has an administrative role in informing the Department of Finance of changes. Public Service 43 14:14 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Department of Human Services ICT jobs are being shed in Hobart despite an assurance from the government that this would not occur. Indeed, I'm told that whenever an ICT specialist moves to another role the department doesn't refill the position and staff are being told that at the end of their current assignments they'll be deployed elsewhere. In other words, the government is reneging on its promise by stealth. Prime Minister, will you commit to stop the shedding of Hobart ICT jobs and give an assurance more broadly that the government will maintain at least the current number of Public Service jobs in Hobart? 14:15 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. The government recognises the importance of a strong and responsive Public Service. Ultimately the role of the Public Service is to deliver services for the public as efficiently as possible. That's why we're constantly looking for ways to improve the quality of services delivered by the Public Service, including through our commitment to digital transformation. In relation to the Department of Human Services's Hobart ICT staff, I'm advised that these employees are currently responsible for supporting the work of the National Disability Insurance Agency, including help desk work. As to the member's assertion that staff would be redeployed elsewhere after their current assignments, I can assure the member for Denison that the minister's department, the Department of Human Services, will continue to offer these employees a position within that department, including opportunities for being positioned in Hobart, ensuring that people can stay in their home town. I'd also add that the staffing profile of the Department of Human Services in Tasmania is substantial, at 1,904 employees across the state, according to its last annual report. And the government, as the honourable member I'm sure agrees, is absolutely committed to ensuring that all Tasmanians get the services they need. I just note to the honourable member, before I conclude, that last year 7,700 new jobs were created in Tasmania. Tasmania is seeing strong economic growth— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Denison on a point of order. Mr Wilkie C2T Yes, on relevance: the question had two parts. The second was to do with whether any broader assurance could be given about the number of Public Service jobs in Hobart. The SPEAKER 00APG The question did have two parts, but the Prime Minister's completely in order. He's able to address them in whichever way he wishes. Mr TURNBULL 885 So, 7,700 new jobs in Tasmania is of the greatest relevance to the families in Tasmania, one of whose members has won one of those jobs. I would note, in conclusion, that Tasmania is seeing strong economic growth, and it's seeing it in large part based on the trade deals negotiated by the coalition, particularly the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. It will be a big beneficiary of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP-11, and I'm sure will benefit from the free trade agreement with Peru that we are about to sign with the honourable minister who's in the public gallery. Finally, I would note that there are 49,800 small and medium businesses in Tasmania benefiting from the government's tax cuts to small and medium businesses, overwhelmingly Australian-owned, overwhelmingly family businesses. Water Infrastructure 44 14:18 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the government's commitment to building water infrastructure in central Queensland and how it will generate jobs for hardworking Australians in my electorate of Capricornia? Is he aware of any alternative policies? 14:18 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for Capricornia for the question. Ultimately, we know how important Rookwood Weir is. It was great to have Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk down the other day to confirm that they, too, now believe in Rookwood Weir. This is a great step forward. We know that over the course of time this will bring billions of dollars more revenue back to Central Queensland and employ thousands more people. It's part of the nation's overall water strategy, which is also present in Tasmania, where we are seeing substantial water infrastructure built under the Hodgman government in combination with the federal government. It's also part of the same water infrastructure which is building the Macalister irrigation pipeline for the dairy area as well as the Wimmera Mallee Pipeline, which is of great assistance to the member for Mallee. We want to continue this water infrastructure program. In Queensland alone, we have substantial feasibility studies underway and we are making sure that we expand the capacity of the nation to generate further wealth from dams and water infrastructure. This government, with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, has its focus on water infrastructure. We are fully aware that dams are the essence of how we actually drive the economy forward. You can see in places such as St George, where I lived for quite some time, in the member for Maranoa's seat, how a dry acre which was worth between $200 or $300 an acre went up to around $12,000 to $13,000 an acre with the addition of water. This shows how you can grow an economy with the same stock of land, but it requires a government that is not scared of building water infrastructure. In this nation we will be taking further water infrastructure— Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Moreton! Mr JOYCE E5D as the megalitre-per-person requirements increase and the megalitre storage per person reduces. We have, in this nation, lived off the back of water infrastructure of people in the past who had the vision and foresight to build it—people such as Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. When he built Wivenhoe Dam, everybody said it was too big; now they say it's too small. We will continue to drive further water infrastructure in places such as North Queensland, and there are a number of programs on the table as we speak. We will continue in this process because we know that is how you generate jobs and that is how you build wealth. That is something that I think is an exceptional part of the vision of this nation's government. Ministerial Staff 44 14:21 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the minister representing the Special Minister of State. I refer to the Prime Minister's answer just now. Which minister or office in the government approved the creation of a new position last year in either the office of Minister Canavan or the office of the then Nationals whip? Will the government release the documents relating to the creation of those positions? 14:21 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I refer the member to the Prime Minister's response because he made it very clear that these are matters dealt with by the National Party. Thank you. Defence Export Strategy 44 14:22 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the Minister update the House on the government's Defence Export Strategy and the opportunities which are available in the United Kingdom? How does the government's commitment to trade and other measures help grow the economy, wages and jobs? 14:22 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Fisher for his question. Today and last night I had the opportunity to meet with the UK Secretary of Defence, Gavin Williamson. Our defence industry relationship with the United Kingdom has improved markedly in the last couple of years. We've initiated the Australia/United Kingdom Defence Industry Dialogue for the first time. I had the first couple of meetings, and it will meet for a third time in the first half of this year. There are real opportunities for Australian businesses to export their defence platforms into the United Kingdom. There are a few examples that are well known to members, such as: the Thales Australia's Bushmaster, which is currently bidding for a tender into the UK but has been purchased by the UK before—in the member for Bendigo's electorate; or CEA's phased array radar, produced here in Canberra, which is being evaluated for the United Kingdom's type 31E platform for frigates; or BAE and the Defence Science and Technology Group's Nulka, an anti-ship missile decoy which has passed a billion dollars worth of value for exports from Australia around the world. There are smaller companies, too. In fact, in the member for Fisher's electorate, Praesidium Global is currently trying to break into the UK market with an unmanned ground vehicle for Defence personnel out in the field. The Defence Export Strategy that the Prime Minister and I launched in January is just one of the ways that we are assisting Australian businesses trying to break into the defence exports market. Another one, of course, is the reduction of the company tax rate. It is a very important economic measure that will drive jobs, higher wages, investment and growth in the economy. It wasn't so long ago that the Leader of the Opposition was, in fact, in favour of company tax cuts. In 2011, he was the Assistant Treasurer in the Gillard government. In March 2011 he gave a speech to ACOSS's national conference. In it, he said: … lowering the corporate rate for smaller businesses only (as the Greens propose)— so that was when he wanted to have different policies to the Greens, as opposed to now— creates an artificial incentive for someone to downsize. Opposition members interjecting— Mr PYNE 9V5 Again, someone from the Labor Party calls out 'boring'. It is amazing, as the Treasurer said before, that the legacy of the Hawke-Keating government was to have economic credibility, to put behind them the Whitlam legacy, and the modus operandi of this opposition is not to care about economic credibility whatsoever. They have embraced Chavez and Guevara and they've rejected Hawke and Keating. Ministerial Staff 45 14:25 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. I refer to the Treasurer's answer just now in which he stated that the National Party approved the creation of a new position last year in either the office of Minister Canavan or the office of the National's whip. I ask the Treasurer which National Party minister he was referring to and, if he doesn't know, will he find out and report back to the House before the end of question time? Mrs Sudmalis interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gilmore will cease interjecting. The Treasurer has the call. 14:26 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook First of all, I made no such suggestion about an additional position. That was the assertion made by the member. That is not something I have commented on, and nor does the government go along with the assertion that the member has put forward. These matters are addressed by the Leader of the National Party. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I regularly warn the member for Bruce. I'm not going to have him continually interject. He can leave under 94(a). That will solve that problem. The member for Canning has the call. The member for Bruce then left the chamber . National Security 45 14:26 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to keep Australians safe? Why is it important that we have a consistent approach to national security? 14:27 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge the work that he does in sharing the committee on intelligence and security in this parliament. He does great bipartisan work with some of those opposite, and I acknowledge the work of that committee. As all Australians saw in the news last week, there was a terrible incident that took place in Melbourne. Sadly, it's not the first terrorist-related incident to take place in Melbourne or in our country. A 24-year-old woman has been charged with a terrorism offence following a stabbing at Mill Park. Whilst those matters will properly be investigated, and that matter is before the court, in a general sense, it allows us an opportunity to pause and reflect on the influence, particularly down the line into the minds of young people, ISIL has not just in our country but around the world, and we need to recognise this scourge is with us and with us for a long period of time. The Department of Home Affairs—the construct put together by the Prime Minister before Christmas—allows all of our intelligence and security agencies to come together to work in the most effective fashion and to work very closely with our state colleagues. I want to acknowledge the work of the Victorian Joint Counter Terrorism Team for their dedication not only last week but around the clock in trying to keep Victorians safe. They work very closely with the Australian Federal Police, with ASIO and with our other agencies to make sure that we can give ourselves the best chance of defeating the scourge of terrorism. It's worth pointing out to the House that, since 12 September 2014, when the national terrorism threat level was raised to 'probable', 85 people have been charged as a result of 36 counterterrorism related operations around the country. There have, sadly, tragically, been six attacks and 14 major counterterrorism disruption operations in response to potential planning in this country. I want to praise the work of all of our federal and state agencies. The government has committed a record amount of funding into the intelligence and security agencies, and we will continue to do everything within our power to make sure that we can keep Australians safe, particularly those that would gather in places such as shopping centres and in movie theatres, as we've seen in incidents around the world. There is a lot of work that goes on around the clock that Australians aren't aware of. That work keeps us safe. This government will always continue to support that work so that we can have every effort in keeping the Australian public safe. Deputy Prime Minister 46 14:29 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Next week, the Prime Minister will be overseas. Will the Deputy Prime Minister be Acting Prime Minister in his absence? Does the Prime Minister still retain confidence in his Deputy Prime Minister? 14:30 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Yes, in response to both questions. Trade 46 14:30 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister outline to the House the benefits of the coalition government's trade agenda and what our agreements mean for the nation's economic growth and the creation of jobs for hardworking Australians? Is the minister aware of any risks to those benefits? 14:30 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. She is yet another member of the coalition that is resolutely focused on creating export opportunities for Australian businesses, resolutely focused on boosting Australia's economic growth and resolutely focused on creating employment opportunities for Australians; all delivered through this coalition government's strong commitment to opening up markets globally and to making sure that we create the best possible opportunities, in particular, for Australia's small- to medium-sized enterprises. I also want to welcome Minister Ferreyros; it's great to have you joining us in the public gallery. Minister Ferreyros and I were very pleased to be able sign the Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement this morning. This has been one of the fastest-concluded FTA agreements in Australia's history. Today, we are, as a result of this deal, ensuring that Australian businesses have access to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. Peru, with its 31 million people, has had an average annual growth rate of 5.9 per cent over the last 10 years and much higher standards of living. That's what we'll be able to tap into together in a deal that's going to be good for Australia and good for Peru. It is, of course, building on the work of the coalition with respect to what we did with the North Asian powerhouse economies of China, Korea and Japan—again, all agreements driving employment growth and economic growth here in this country. And let's never forget that it was the Australian Labor Party that stood opposed to the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. It was the Australian Labor Party that condoned the disgraceful multimillion-dollar campaign from the trade union movement against the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. This deal that we've now put in place with Peru—and likewise with the TPP 11—we're doing despite the Australian Labor Party. You know, the problem is—and we've seen evidence time and time again—that this Leader of the Opposition says one thing to one audience and a different thing to another audience. I was reading the Daily Telegraph and I saw this headline from last year: '"I'm at war with business": Shorten'. He went along to the BCA and was talking to the BCA about their candidate in Batman. He was asked about Ged Kearney, and this is what he said about Ged Kearney—he said not to worry about her, 'she's hopeless.' That was his remark about Ged Kearney: 'She's hopeless.' When he talks to the BCA he says that their candidate in Batman is 'hopeless', but when he's out there in Batman he'll say, 'Don't worry about what I said in the Business Council; get right behind Ged Kearney, she's got a great, bold vision for Australia!' The fact is, the Australian people have the measure of this man. They know that what he says in the boardrooms is very different to what he says in the electorates. We know the truth. The truth is what he says about Ged Kearney. She is hopeless, and he's a hopeless Leader of the Opposition. Victoria: Infrastructure 47 14:33 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Victoria is the fastest-growing state in the nation. It is home to one in four Australians. Why is Victoria only receiving 9.7 per cent of the federal infrastructure budget in 2017-18? 14:34 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member, the Leader of the Opposition, for his question. It was interesting this morning when we were going through the briefing on Victoria. It's always such a shame that, when $1.5 billion was offered to Victoria, they rejected it. On the road east from Melbourne, where this money was supposed to be spent, they decided not to spend it. Instead, they chose to spend it on the Monash Freeway. Of course, expenditure on the Monash Freeway was not actually in the terms and conditions. So, when we have a government in Victoria that wishes to negotiate with us in a proper form and in good faith for what is in the initial agreement, then we will have much better capacity to deliver the infrastructure that's required. Whilst we are on the subject, I think it's very important to discuss other major infrastructure projects for Victoria, such as the Inland Rail, which is a corridor of commerce running from Melbourne—which is definitely in Victoria—through Wodonga and up to Brisbane. You'd think, for such a major piece of infrastructure as that—for which a huge beneficiary would be Victoria—that the Australian Labor Party, led by the good member for Maribyrnong, would put money on the table. But, of course, they haven't. They don't believe in the Inland Rail. They've put no money on the table for the Inland Rail. To say that it is a 'useful idea' is as far as they have gone. Well, there are many useful ideas, but it's not a useful idea that's going to actually pay the check for it. You have no money on the table for Inland Rail. You have no vision for our nation. You are going to take money for the dams process off the table. And I can see the new leader of the Labor Party coming in— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Has the Deputy Prime Minister concluded his answer? He has. We're going to the next question. The member for Grey has the call. South Australia: Energy 47 14:36 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on the action the government is taking to improve energy affordability and reliability so that local South Australian businesses in my electorate, like the Portside Tavern in Port Pirie, can grow and create more jobs? 14:36 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Grey for his question. I know that he, like the members from South Australia on this side of the House—the member for Barker, the member for Boothby, the member for Sturt—are concerned about the rising cost of power bills in South Australia. Indeed, the member for Grey has some of the state's biggest employers in his electorate. He has Arrium, BHP and Nyrstar. But it's not just the big employers that are affected by the higher prices; it's also some of the medium sized employers, like the Portside Tavern in Port Pirie. They say that if their power prices were more reasonable they could employ two more people. That means two more bartenders. That means two more cleaners. That means two more chefs. The South Australian Labor Party is denying new jobs to the people of South Australia by the fact of their reckless energy policy. That's why the Turnbull government has intervened in the gas market to ensure that we get more supply and get prices down. That's why we've taken steps, through the parliament, to pass a bill abolishing the limited merits review, which will stop the networks gaming the system. We've got a better deal from the retailers for millions of Australians. We're investing in storage, like the Cultana project in the Upper Spencer Gulf in the member's electorate and a 30-megawatt battery on the Yorke Peninsula. It's why we've accepted the advice of the Energy Security Board for the National Energy Guarantee, which will see an average household $300 a year better off than they would be under the Labor Party's emissions intensity scheme and wholesale prices down by some 23 per cent. I'm asked whether I'm aware of any alternative approaches. We know that, in South Australia, Premier Weatherill conducted a big, dangerous experiment, and we know that, when the lights went out, the member for Port Adelaide called it 'a hiccup'. A hiccup! BHP lost over $100 million, and that was a hiccup according to the member for Port Adelaide. We know that South Australians, like those at the Portside Tavern, are paying on average 20 per cent more for their power than those in other states, and we know that, when it comes to the hot summer months, South Australia relies more than ever on that connection cord to coal-fired power from Victoria. We know that, just in case they need to keep the lights on, they've had to wheel in expensive, polluting diesel generators that use up to 80,000 litres an hour. If that wasn't bad enough, the Leader of the Opposition, who vacates the chair when it gets a bit too tough for him, wants to take the South Australian experiment national, with a 50 per cent renewable energy target and a reckless 45 per cent emissions target. Don't look at what Labor says; look at what Labor does—higher power prices inspire Labor's name. (Time expired) Tasmania: Infrastructure 48 14:40 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure. I refer to the government's own budget papers which show that federal infrastructure investment in Tasmania will fall from $174 million this financial year to $53 million in 2019-20. Is this a reflection of the fact that not a single new federally-funded major infrastructure project has been commenced under either the Abbott or the Turnbull-Joyce governments? 14:40 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member, the member for Grayndler, for his question. It is always a great honour to get a question from the member for Grayndler. He is no doubt very good at his job. He's across his brief. I think he has great prospects in the near future within the Labor Party! I welcome that I get many questions from him. I think it's very proper that the Australian people see how the member for Grayndler performs. But it's interesting: he says there was no federal investment in capital infrastructure. I was down there only recently, seeing the dams and the water infrastructure that we are building. And I look forward to Premier Hodgman building further water infrastructure in Tasmania, and that's most definitely capital infrastructure, and it's most definitely in Tasmania. Also, on the Midland Highway, we are currently expending money, and I know that the people of Tasmania— Ms Collins interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Franklin is warned! Mr JOYCE E5D are looking forward to further growth in that. We are very aware of the capital requirements of Tasmania—the capital requirements of the Bass Highway and the Midlands Highway and of the water infrastructure projects—because we are a government that builds infrastructure. We are a government that builds substantial infrastructure. And we're currently at work on Badgerys Creek and on Inland Rail. These things are vitally important. We have a vision. We'll make sure that we have a sealed road that goes from the top of Cape York to the bottom of the mainland and then through, bisecting, Tasmania. This is the sort of vision you have. We are not the philosophers on a log. We are the people who believe in infrastructure. I look forward to many questions from the future leader of the Labor Party. The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister has concluded his answer. The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. South Australia: Health Care 48 14:42 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Health. Would the minister outline to the House how the coalition government is supporting the health of South Australians, including those in my electorate of Boothby? Is the minister aware of any threats that may jeopardise the delivery of services for patients? 14:43 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Boothby, who is a passionate advocate for the Flinders Medical Centre in her electorate, as a graduate of Flinders University but also as somebody who, shortly after coming into this place, saw the tragedy of the state-wide blackout and the impact of that on the Flinders Medical Centre. I just remind the House of the headline in the Adelaide Advertiser at the time: '50 embryos belonging to 12 families lost in "absolute tragedy" at Flinders Medical Centre during state-wide blackout'. Fortunately, there have been some very strong developments in health, which will benefit the people of South Australia, in recent months: (1) we've been able to contribute $110 million for youth mental health around the country, but, in particular, that will assist in South Australia; (2) record-high GP billing rates in every state and territory, including an additional 22,000 GP services for the people of Boothby; (3) a new quad-strain meningococcal vaccine which will help with at least 15,000 children every year in South Australia. Also, significantly, the Commonwealth has contributed, since this government has come in, a 26 per cent increase in funding to South Australia's hospitals. Still, this compares with the South Australian government's six per cent increase over that same period of time—26 per cent under us; six per cent under South Australian Labor. And what is very interesting is that in the last year the SA government actually reduced funding to their own hospitals by $7 million. They've actually reduced funding to their own hospitals. So, I was asked whether there are any threats to the healthcare system in South Australia. They are (1) the South Australian government, (2) the South Australian government and (3) the South Australian government, because what else has happened? The second thing is that not only did Flinders Medical Centre lose power but, only just over a week ago, the Royal Adelaide Hospital lost power at the hands of the South Australian government's own actions. We saw the lights go out during an operation on a 97-year-old because they couldn't keep the lights on; they couldn't keep the power going. It was the president of the South Australian AMA who was operating at the time and who said that this was unacceptable and that patients could die. That is what is happening in South Australia: cuts to funding and the lights going out. And last Friday, whilst Western Australia signed up to a Commonwealth hospitals agreement, Jay Weatherill turned his back on $1.5 billion. They've sold out the patients of South Australia, they can't keep the lights on, they've cut their own funding and they've turned their back on Commonwealth funding. Infrastructure 49 14:46 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Why is federal infrastructure funding for South Australia just $95 million in 2020-21, or just two per cent of the federal infrastructure budget? Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. 14:46 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for her question, and might I say, let's start with the Osborne shipyard. I think that's about $1½ billion they're spending there. In fact, South Australia— Ms Rishworth interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Kingston. Mr JOYCE E5D has been the recipient, under this government, of one of the greatest forms of largesse that South Australia's ever got, whether it's the Offshore Patrol Vessels— Ms Rishworth interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Kingston is warned. Mr JOYCE E5D the frigates, the submarines, Osborne, Defence—there is myriad investment happening to South Australia. And might I commend the member for Sturt for his incredible advocacy for South Australia. In fact, you can hardly shut him up about South Australia! He's unstoppable about South Australia. It's that sort of advocacy that's brought forward this investment. When we look at other things—I know that currently they're talking about the Strzelecki Track, and we see that there's investment in the North-South highway within Adelaide—for South Australia it has been a boom time of investment under this government. There is money flowing out of Canberra, dripping out of Canberra, running into South Australia, whether it's investment in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—remember the $13 billion investment there—and the Manager of Opposition Business is actually putting that in jeopardy. You should have a yarn to him about that investment in South Australia and where that goes if you reject the Northern Basin Review. So, South Australia has been anything but left out by this federal government. Economy 49 14:48 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister update the House on the importance of creating economic conditions that help grow the economy and reduce the tax burden on hardworking Australians? And is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that pose a threat to the prosperity of hardworking Australians exemplified by the good people of Goldstein? 14:48 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for his question. The member, like the government, knows that the best way to improve the prosperity of all Australians is to foster economic conditions that allow businesses to grow, to invest, and to create new jobs. That's why the government has already cut taxes for small and medium-size businesses, employing over half of Australia's private sector workforce. That includes more than 22,000 businesses in the member's own electorate of Goldstein. That's why the government is committed to reducing the company tax rate to 25 per cent across the board. That's why the government is committed to reducing personal income tax for middle-income Australians, having already legislated relief for more than three million Australians. And that is why the government has presided over the creation of more than a million jobs since we came to power. By contrast, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, and the Labor Party are intent on taxing the life out of the Australian economy by taxing it to the tune of more than $164 billion. Of course, we all know that the Leader of the Opposition holds a special place in his heart for the radical left Leader of the Opposition in the UK—none other than Jeremy Corbyn. We heard it in his 'come to Jeremy' moment at the National Press Club recently, where he appropriated, almost word for word, the divisive, left-behind rhetoric used by his UK counterpart. Voters in the UK ultimately saw through this tactic and, of course, Jeremy Corbyn was not successful—something that I'm sure will not be lost on those opposite. Nevertheless, it leads one to wonder: what other radical Corbyn proposals will the Leader of the Opposition seek to pilfer next? We're familiar with his resistance to reducing the company tax rate. Perhaps he'll go full-Corbyn and look to increase the company tax rate by more than a third, as has been threatened in the UK. Perhaps he's partial to the proposal put forward by Corbyn acolyte and UK Labour MP Chris Williamson, who'd like to see a doubling of taxes on properties of over $500,000. Maybe he's also taken with Mr Corbyn's other bright idea: introducing the highest rate of income tax at half of its current threshold—moving the threshold from 150,000 pounds to 80,000 pounds. The Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party are a threat to people's jobs, they're a threat to people's businesses and they are a threat to people's economic opportunities. That is why the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party cannot be trusted. (Time expired) Northern Australia Roads Program 50 14:51 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Why do the budget papers show that, of the $100 million allocated last financial year to the Northern Australia Roads Program, only $12 million was actually invested—an 88 per cent underspend in this area of great need? 14:52 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for his question and note that the infrastructure that is being built in the Northern Territory surrounds our issues in Defence and the defence of our nation. I also note the money that we put on the table, in excess of $100 million, for the Outback Way, which substantially goes through the Northern Territory. And we look forward to working with the Territory Labor government to make sure that we actually get that built. It's a vision of this government that we actually put that money on the table—$100 million as an election promise and also in excess of $20 million for the northern roads project. This is the sort of infrastructure that has a vision for our nation—sealing the third road from east to west across our nation. It is so long in the past. We just had one through Camooweal and one across the Nullarbor, but it is this government that is now sealing the third road. With equity and with grant money, we are investing more in infrastructure than any government prior to us. Pensions and Benefits 50 14:53 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney My question is to the Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Transformation. Will the minister outline to the House how the government has worked to achieve savings of $1.4 billion in welfare payments through its fraud and compliance crackdown? Are there any alternative approaches? 14:53 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I thank the member for North Sydney for that question. He, like everyone on this side of the House, recognises that the welfare system only works and is sustainable when people get what they are entitled to but nothing more. This side of the House respects the Australian taxpayer, and we will not tolerate people defrauding our system. Where people have mistakenly overclaimed, we continue to expect them to repay that money. Because of the focus on compliance on this side of the House, from 1 July 2016 to the end of last year, we achieved savings of $1.4 billion in welfare payments through a fraud and compliance crackdown. Not only are we recouping the money that was paid out to people who weren't entitled, but we are increasing our efforts to remind people of their obligations to keep us up to date of their circumstances so they don't get into debt in the first place. While the majority of people do the right thing, there are those who continue to set out to defraud the system, ripping off Australian families in the process. From 1 July 2016, my department investigated over 1,400 cases of potential welfare fraud and referred over 950 cases to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for further action. In the most serious of those cases, the perpetrators ended up in prison—an example of which being a person who claimed Disability Support Pension that they weren't entitled to of over $160,000, and they were given three years in prison. Under this coalition government, if you're doing the wrong thing, if you're defrauding Australian taxpayers, we will find you, and you will face the consequences of your actions. I've been asked by the member for North Sydney about alternative approaches. Under the Labor government, compliance and integrity of the welfare system was clearly not a priority. The value of debts raised in the last year of the Howard government was $400 million. In the last year of the Rudd-Gillard governments, it was down to $200 million—a reduction of $200 million in the space of those six years. The compliance checks that they conducted when they were in office were 16 per cent of what we conduct today, and the amount recovered through tip-offs from the public was only 25 per cent of what we recover today. We are doing this through increasing our data-matching program, which is six times what it was under the Labor Party. We on this side of the House believe in the integrity of the welfare system. We believe you only get what you're entitled to. But we're the only party in this parliament that does. Deputy Prime Minister 51 14:56 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure. I refer to his answers today in which he has defended Victoria receiving under 10 per cent of federal infrastructure funding by mentioning funds that have been reallocated; argued Inland Rail would benefit Tasmania; defended South Australia receiving two per cent of funds in his portfolio by talking about his colleague's portfolio; and, on the northern roads program being not spent, he referred to the Nullarbor. Isn't the infrastructure minister simply not up to the job that he has been appointed to? (Time expired) Mr Pyne 9V5 A point of order, Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House has the call. Members on my left! The member for Lyons is warned. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, members on the other side of the House are given a fair bit of licence, particularly the people's choice, but how is that a question to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER 00APG I ask the Leader of the House to pause. He's been on perilous ground in not referring to correct titles. I think I've heard enough of his point of order to rule on it. The question is completely in order. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call. 14:58 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I acknowledge the question because he's talking about people not being up to the job. I know he's got someone well and truly in mind who he believes is not up to the job. I think this is a great opportunity for the member for Grayndler to show his wares to the Australian people and to show his wares to the member for Maribyrnong. I know, when you're referring to 'not up to the job', that is actually a curriculum vitae for yourself. I know that you understand more than most that in equity and grant money we are spending vastly more than you did in infrastructure expenditure. I know you know better than most that you had no money on the table for the Inland Rail. And I know that you know more than most that you're going to take money off the table for dams, that you do not believe in infrastructure. But I believe in you, the member for Grayndler. I believe in the member for Grayndler! All of Australia believes in the member for Grayndler. We're in there rooting for the member for Grayndler. Good luck, old mate! DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 51 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 51 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Skilled Migration Program 51 14:59 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley My question is to the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Will the Minister update the House on the government's reforms of the 457 visa class and how these changes are helping to secure jobs for Australian workers? Why is it important to support Australian jobs and Australian skills? 15:00 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I thank the member for Dunkley for his question and his interest in this area. As members would be aware, last year the government announced significant changes to the 457 visa class in order to put Australian workers first when it comes to Australian jobs. So, for example, we've already reduced the number of eligible occupations on the skills shortage list from 651 down to 461 to ensure that overseas workers are only brought in when there are genuine skills needs. We are about to introduce new rules for how jobs must be advertised so that Aussies get the first chance at those jobs. Further, we are investing in the Skilling Australian Fund, which will generate about 300,000 apprenticeships and traineeships going towards areas where there are skills shortages today. I can report that these things are already having an impact, because the most recent data shows the number of 457s granted last year was only 70,000. Compared to the last year of the Labor government, that's almost half the number granted. This is particularly impressive because, while we'd only granted half the number of 457s, we'd massively grown the economy and the number of jobs, as we've heard from the Prime Minister and Treasurer, and equally, the number of people on welfare had also shrunk to its lowest levels in 25 years. It's a great trifecta of more jobs, fewer people on welfare and, consequently, fewer overseas workers needing to come into the country to fill those positions. That's a great trifecta for Australian workers. It's interesting to contrast that with the Labor years. Whereas we created the positive trifecta of more jobs, more Aussies in those jobs and fewer overseas workers coming into the country, the exact opposite occurred under the Labor government. Let's go through each one, starting with the job creation. Believe it or not, in the last year of the Labor government, jobs actually declined, actually went backwards by over 17,000 people. Look at the welfare queues: the welfare queues increased by 250,000 people under the previous Labor governments. While that's happening, how many 457s came in? A record number of 130,000 457s came in—more people on welfare; more overseas workers coming in to take the jobs; and fewer Aussies taking those jobs. Guess who was in charge of that program? None other than the Leader of the Opposition. Payday Lending 52 15:03 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. I refer to reports that a group of government backbenchers, known as the parliamentary friends of payday lending, have enlisted the Treasurer to water down the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services' payday lending legislation. Why is this government protecting unscrupulous operators in the payday lending industry by watering down this important legislation, instead of protecting vulnerable Australians who are already doing it tough? 15:04 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook As the matter falls to my portfolio responsibility, I can inform the member that the report is entirely false. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Mr MORRISON E3L I'm happy to repeat it. As the matter falls within my portfolio responsibilities, I can inform the House that that report is false. Broadband 52 15:04 Mr LAMING ( E0H Bowman ) ( ): My question is to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities, representing the Minister for Communications. Will the Minister update the House as to how the government is working to ensure that the NBN is affordable to consumers and businesses? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 15:04 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I thank the member for Bowman for his question, because he has a strong interest in the National Broadband Network, a strong interest in seeing it delivered and a strong interest in seeing it delivered affordably. That is something that the Labor Party demonstrably have no track record at achieving. In fact, their plan would have seen the total cost of the NBN be some $30 billion more than it is going to be under the coalition's plan—and, of course, that would have fed through to higher prices for consumers. On this side, we are committed to affordability and we are very conscious of cost-of-living issues, and that is one of the reasons why we varied the rollout strategy to make it as affordable as possible. Pleasingly, the NBN has recently made changes to the NBN wholesale pricing structure aimed at improving the services offered to consumers and keeping costs low. The ACCC recently released a report which found that the new wholesale pricing has resulted in a 37 per cent boost to the amount of broadband capacity that internet retailers are delivering to users. I'm asked whether there are any alternative approaches. There would, of course, be the approach that we had from the other side of the chamber, who had six years in charge of the NBN—that's a very long time—and yet, when they left government, barely 300,000 premises around the country were able to connect. Today, the number of premises in areas ready for service is 7,235,000. On the one hand, 300,000; on the other hand, 7,235,000. It's worth focusing for a moment on some of the areas that missed out after Labor's six years of glowing, bold promises about the NBN. In the member for Adelaide's electorate in September 2013, do you know how many premises were connected? A government member: Zero. Mr FLETCHER L6B Zero. In the member for Griffith's electorate, how many premises were connected? Zero. In the member for Jagajaga's electorate, how many premises were connected? Zero. In the member for Hindmarsh's electorate—actually, it was one. One! But there is one other member who briefly had responsibility for the National Broadband Network. In the land of 'Albania', the total number of premises connected in Grayndler was zero. When Labor— (Time expired) Small Amount Credit Contracts 53 15:08 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Two years ago, the government received a report which confirmed that vulnerable Australians already struggling to get by are being ripped off by unscrupulous payday lenders who charge massive interest and leave people in crippling debt they don't have a chance of repaying. Two years on from this report, with vulnerable Australians still being exploited, why has the minister failed to introduce legislation to end dodgy behaviour in this industry? 15:08 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The portfolio matters that the member refers to are actually the responsibility of the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer, who I represent in this House. The matters which the member refers to continue to have the very close attention of government. This government is very concerned about the impacts on people on low incomes, to ensure that they do not get themselves into greater difficulty. But I'll say this to the member: under this government, there are fewer people today of working age who are dependent on welfare than there have been in the last 25 years. That's what we're doing for people who are under financial pressure; we're getting them a job. We're putting them in jobs. Over 400,000 people got a job under this government. Mr Dick interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Oxley is interjecting uncontrollably. If he opens his mouth once more during the Treasurer's answer, he'll be out. Mr MORRISON E3L Under this government, our most disadvantaged Australians are getting the best opportunity they can get, which is a job. A job is what transforms their lives. A job is what pulls them out of poverty. On this side of the House, we believe in a working nation. On that side, they believe in a welfare nation. On this side of the House, we know that Australians want to have the best opportunities and do the right thing by their families and themselves by dragging themselves up and taking opportunities. On that side of the House, they have such a small vision of what Australians can do. On this side of the House, we believe in them. We believe in what Australians want to achieve for themselves and we're going to keep backing them every single day. Eleven hundred jobs a day were created last year under this government, as more and more people went off the welfare queues and onto the wage queues. It's about time the Leader of the Opposition stopped standing in the way of a pay rise for those workers by allowing businesses to invest more in them rather than paying more tax to the government. This is a government that is getting debt under control, getting the balance under control and seeing wages go up. That's what this government is doing. He should support us to create jobs. Mr Turnbull 885 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 53 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:11 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I rise to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Yes, I do. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition may proceed. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Today in question time, the minister for trade referred to a meeting that Senator Wong and I and a number of my staff present had with the Business Council of Australia. The minister quoted a piece written by a newspaper columnist about this meeting, a piece I've kindly called fiction but sources at the Business Council of Australia called a load of baloney. Ged Kearney is a lifelong warrior for workers, and, if she's elected in Batman, we'll be one step closer to getting rid of this rotten government. COMMITTEES 54 COMMITTEES Joint Standing Committee on Treaties 54 Membership 54 15:12 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip, nominating Mr Alexander to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. 15:12 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That Mr Alexander be appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Question agreed to. BILLS 54 BILLS Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay of All Workers) Bill 2017 54

Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay of All Workers) Bill 2017

Report from Committee 54 15:13 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman My statement under standing order 143(c) is in relation to the member for Dawson's private member's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay Of All Workers) Bill 2017, which was referred to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training for an advisory report on 22 June 2017. This bill does a number of things, including amending the Fair Work Act 2009, providing that any determination made by the Fair Work Commission on or after 22 February 2017 is of no effect and ensuring that penalty rates cannot be reduced in any future greenfields or non-greenfields enterprise agreement if an employee is worse off than they would've been under the award by virtue of the fact that the employee works only or mainly on days on which penalty rates were paid. The committee notes that the two unions—United Voice, which represents hospitality workers, and the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association, representing retail workers—challenged the Fair Work Commission's decision, referred to in the bill, in the Federal Court. On 11 October last year, a full panel of five Federal Court judges upheld the commission's decision. Our committee further notes that the Senate Education and Employment References Committee recently reported on matters relating to penalty rates and that the same Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee recently reported on Senator Rhiannon's Fair Work Amendment (Pay Protection) Bill 2017. The committee has considered the bill. We've taken into account the decision of the Federal Court and the work of the Senate education and employment references and legislation committees and we feel that, as there are no issues requiring a formal report, an inquiry into the bill by this committee would not be a productive use of parliamentary resources. On those grounds the committee seeks to discharge its obligation to report on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay Of All Workers) Bill 2017. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the member present a copy of the statement? Mr LAMING E0H Yes, I do. BILLS 54 BILLS Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017 54

Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017

Second Reading 54 15:15 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I am very pleased to rise and speak on this piece of legislation, the Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017. This bill effectively gives effect to two distinct measures that were announced in the 2017 budget. The first is around some of the new arrangements pertaining to No Jab, No Pay and Healthy Start for School. The other component gives effect to the government's response to a 2015 report that was presented to this parliament following an inquiry by the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee. I was Labor's deputy chair during that inquiry. That report was From conflict to cooperation. That was back in 2015. I'm delighted that now, in 2018, three years down the track, we have at least the beginnings of a response to some of the recommendations that were put forward during that very important inquiry into the child support payment system in Australia. Firstly, in relation to the part of this bill that relates to No Jab, No Pay, I think it's important at the outset to state very clearly that Labor has long supported this approach, and we certainly have no concerns regarding that component of the legislation, as indeed the majority of the recommendations around child support that appear in schedule 1 of the bill here. We do—I will come back to this point in more detail after discussing the No Jab, No Pay component—certainly have concerns, as the shadow minister and the member for Jagajaga earlier articulated. Labor's concerns are around the changes relating to amended tax assessments and potential overpayments. The basis of that concern is that child support recipients who have received those child support payments in completely good faith will have already expended those moneys in caring for their children. It is very likely that there could be an unexpected debt that would arise for those parents, who have received that money in good faith and expended it on the care of their children. That is an issue of concern. As the member for Jagajaga made clear earlier on in this debate, that is an issue that we have taken up directly with both the former minister and the current minister. We're awaiting further advice from the minister on our concerns, so we would reserve our final position there, including whether or not we would seek amendments in the Senate. We are seeking further information on the potential impact of those changes. There are some genuine concerns; we just need to have the government's position clarified there and make sure that those potential impacts are well known so that we are making well-informed decisions on this legislation now. I turn now to the first component of the bill concerning No Jab, No Pay. As I said, Labor has absolutely no concerns about lending our support to this component of this bill. We certainly believe that every child in Australia deserves the best start in life possible. We support every effort in this place to better strengthen the immunisation rates in Australia. We on this side of the House absolutely back in the science in this regard. We have spoken out very loudly on many occasions when there have been some in this House and, indeed the other, who have been tempted to be critical of the issues around vaccinations and the good they do in our community. We've made it very clear on each and every occasion that, when it comes to vaccinations, we will always back in the science around the need to have high immunisation rates in Australia. In government, Labor made some important changes to family tax benefits that were designed to increase immunisation rates and, indeed, we went to the 2013 election with some additional amendments. The principles on which the current No Jab, No Pay policy are based have enjoyed bipartisan support in this parliament for many, many years. I think that we should remain very strong advocates. I'm pleased that members opposite have shared the concern around the temptation that some people in the community have to get a bit lax and start questioning the science around vaccinations. In tightening up of some of the efforts to increase immunisation, the legislation is proposing to withhold an amount of $28 a fortnight from the family tax benefit part A to those families that don't meet the immunisation requirements. That's the fundamental change in this legislation. The reduction in family tax benefits on a regular fortnightly basis would, in fact, replace the current system where you withhold the end-of-year tax supplement. Effectively, the change in this legislation is necessary because the abandonment of the end-of-year supplement has necessitated a change in legislation. It's also necessary, because families earning more than $80,000 a year are no longer eligible to receive that end-of-year supplement. That's really the main point I wish to make here. For those families earning more than $80,000 a year, this amendment is absolutely necessary to ensure that they, too, make sure that their children are well covered and vaccinated as well. We know that vaccination remains the very best means we have to halt the spread of infectious diseases in Australia and to keep Australians healthy. We have strong immunisation rates here in Australia, which have contributed to the eradication of many infectious diseases over time. Some children's vaccines were introduced in Australia as far back as 1932, and the death rate from vaccine-preventable diseases has fallen from 99 per cent since the introduction of vaccines. There are no qualms on this side of the House on the need to ensure we have high rates of immunisation. We understand the science; we understand the issues around herd immunity. We know that one of the most effective means of ensuring that everybody hears that message from this parliament loud and clear is to make these necessary changes now so that the No Jab, No Pay changes kick in on 1 July. There is no room for complacency on this issue. We on this side of the House are very happy to back it in. I will just touch finally on some of the matters that came before the committee during the inquiry into the child support program. Indeed, there were 25 recommendations that the committee raised and put to the government. Regrettably, this legislation looks at three of those recommendations. Whilst I certainly welcome the government finally, belatedly, acknowledging some of those required changes, as I said at the beginning, there are some concerns that we still have around some possible unintended consequences of those changes. The first component that I'd like to look at is part 1 of schedule 1 and the proposed changes to the length of interim care periods. These changes seek to deal with the fact that there can be fundamental discrepancies at times between parents where there is a level of actual care that is going on within some of these families, and then there also some care arrangements in place which may or may not reflect the actual care being given. Disputes about care arrangements are, indeed, rife in the disputes more broadly amongst the child support system, but disputes about care arrangements are generally resolved by family law courts. Until this proposition, the Child Support Agency, for example, has not been able to enforce care arrangements. Certainly the inquiry received lots and lots of evidence around the discrepancies, as I said, between actual care provided and agreed care arrangements. Having said that, I would just like to put on the record again that the child support system in Australia—which today involves some 1.3 million parents and has a payment system reaching some 1.1 million children in Australia—is a remarkable system in many ways, but we are dealing, very often, in these cases that this legislation is seeking to address, with people who are caught in, sometimes years of, entrenched conflict, and dealing with very complex issues and sometimes trauma and, indeed, very vulnerable families. That's the nature of a lot of family law in Australia. So there is an arrangement that generally runs for this interim period of about 14 weeks, and these proposed changes to the length of interim care periods are an attempt to seek to address the issue that the 14-week period which is currently in place can, in special circumstances, be extended. But that period of time, 14 weeks, is generally not enough time for disputing parents to resolve their differences and, indeed, to get a just and fair outcome. I think anybody who has had experience of the family law system in Australia would understand that. So I think that the recommendations here, in terms of those changes to interim care, are worthwhile. I would just flag that, currently, there is still an exemption from participating in dispute resolution processes for those people who are experiencing domestic and family violence. I would put on notice here that I believe the government is seeking to change that component. In another, unrelated, inquiry, around family law matters, it has been said that some of the alternative dispute resolution processes would absolutely reach out to people who are victims of family and domestic violence. So I would put us all on alert on that matter. As I said at the outset, we just have some concerns around whether or not the other changes put up here would have some unintended consequences relating to the generation of a debt in a matter where the receiving parent would have had absolutely no capacity to have known that a debt would have been generated. The receiving parent may have spent that money in good faith and may be financially disadvantaged. We seek some government assurances that would not be the case. 15:30 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay I rise to speak on the Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017. I thank the member for Jagajaga for the work that she does in this area. Everybody's children come first, no matter what their circumstances are, no matter what postcode they're born in and no matter what parents they end up with. But it's imperative that we encourage parents to keep their children's wellbeing at the forefront of any discussion when parental payments are being negotiated. It's easily said but much harder to do. We must put the needs of children first and assist separated parents to determine how children and their needs will be cared for, and the supportive arrangements around that. Labor supports the bulk of the proposed changes in schedule 1 of this legislation. According to the department, 1.3 million parents contribute to their children's welfare through the child support program. This supports 1.1 million children in this country who, through no fault of their own, are impacted emotionally, financially, physically and in a whole range of other areas. These children do not need their respective parents to make them suffer, and suffer through financial hardship. Our children deserve the very best that we can offer them. Although parents may be separated physically, we know that their children should never be, or are never, far from their minds. But, that said, the responsibility of caring for and supporting their development is not only emotional but also financial. And this is where it starts to get a bit tricky. All parents enter into the parental contract at the start, during the child's conception, and should always be there throughout that child's life. It's a lifetime commitment that will continue long after the children become adults. The Child Support Scheme ensures that parents who do not live with their children because of separation do what's right and make financial contributions towards that child's upbringing. Whilst some may say that the Child Support Scheme is based on the principles of parental responsibility for the financial wellbeing of the child, the reality is that financial responsibility should always be at the forefront of raising children in separated families. We know that the rates of poverty are much higher in separated families, and it is everybody's responsibility to ensure that this doesn't happen. This is a responsibility that is shared and is not abrogated by separation. We need to allow for adequate support for children based on the payers' income, self-support amount and the percentage of that income assessed on the basis of a fair amount that any parent would contribute in an intact family. We recognise that everybody's financial circumstances differ, and we take into account the parents' financial position and also the percentage of care. Again, the best interests of the child or children involved must be paramount. Labor recognises that child support payments and the system are not perfect. They are absolutely far from perfect. But the system provides a framework to administer and transfer child support payments based on formulated assessment and agreement or court-ordered register with the Child Support Agency. On this side, I guess that we would hope that people—adults—in this situation would be able to work out those payments in the best interests of their children, without the need for Child Support or the Family Court to intervene. But we know that that's just not the case. We know that a huge number of families end up on the wrong side of this argument, and it is a great shame on this country—and a bad reflection on those parents involved—that they do not do the right thing by their children. Their children become collateral damage, and it is left to us to decide and determine the outcomes. The Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs conducted the inquiry into the child support program and delivered their report From conflict to cooperation in June 2015. That was before my time here, but I thank them for their work, having read over it. It is a shame to see that only three of the 25 recommendations made by that committee have actually been implemented or are being looked at being implemented, almost three years down the track, when we do have those families in conflict and those children that are relying on us to make those decisions for them because the grown-ups in their lives just can't do it. I think that that is a poor response. Labor agreed with the recommendations from the report, including the recommendation that: … the Australian Government review the Child Support Program to ensure the adequacy of calculated amounts and equity of the program for both payers and payees … Our difficulty is with the equity of the possibly punitive measures that could impact adversely on recipients of deemed overpayments that would cause a debt to be made to the other parent. That obviously has the potential to impact more women than men who have a debt and where repayments are to be made through no fault of their own. The inquiry's recommendations into the child support program stated: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government amend legislation to enable a greater period of time before determining when to adjust the amount of child support payable in interim care determinations. The Committee considers that the current fourteen week period, after which Department of Human Services changes the child support payable to reflect the care taking place at that time, does not provide sufficient time for relevant legal proceedings to be completed or for prior agreed arrangements to be enforced by a court or for revised arrangements to be agreed upon. The best interests of the child must be paramount in any amendment made. Interim care arrangements must be designed to allow parents the time to sort out the care arrangements and resolve disputes over care. This involves more families that are affected by family violence than not. Fourteen weeks is not always long enough to resolve disputes over care that may be required through dispute resolution or legal proceedings, which are impacted by the Family Court. The current Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs handed down a report at the end of last year saying the same thing: the delays in the Family Court system are impacting parents' ability to raise their children and support them financially. Labor supports the amendments to the interim periods to make the system much more flexible than it is now in order to meet the needs of children and parents who are sharing custody and those in high-conflict situations. As the shadow minister Jenny Macklin said, we are concerned that child support recipients who have received child support payments in good faith will unexpectedly owe debts, having already spent the money on care for their child. Child support payments are not for parents to do what they will with. They generally support keeping a roof over a child's head and food on the table, as well as the provision of school uniforms and the ability to go on school excursions. They are not for parents to do what they will with. Anybody who thinks that's what happens in a single-parent household is certainly mistaken and needs to take a look into what it is like to raise children in a single-parent family. The child support assessments can be varied in the next financial year if an income tax assessment is incorrect. The inadequacies of the childcare payment system need to be addressed and, in particular, this section of the bill needs to be further investigated for the potential impacts of the changes. Retrospective assessments and adjustments could create large and unexpected debts for parents. This is problematic. It absolutely places further psychological and financial burdens on people struggling already to cope with the breakdown of any relationship, and it creates a burden on recipients of child support payments. Until this is addressed, we have advised the government that we will reserve our final position on this bill. There needs to be a method to collect overpayments—absolutely—but there is the concern that these proposed changes will adversely affect the payee and create a debt where money received has been spent in good faith. It is designed to place a burden of guilt on the primary carer—male or female—who will, on top of everything else, need to second-guess their former partner's previous and current financial circumstances. People need certainty, not disruption, and less financial hardship. Any changes to the child support program need to reflect the sensitivity of cases where domestic and family violence is involved. This is especially relevant to the psychological impacts and also where the abuse has been financial. We are now doing a much better job as a society in recognising all types of family violence, and this needs to also be reflected in the policies we're making. The child support program must not be an ongoing tool for further abuse. The Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs have looked into the same and we know it is currently happening to many families across this country. Also in the Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017 is the immunisation part to consider. I believe immunisations are absolutely effective and they save lives. It's estimated that vaccines currently save three million lives each year worldwide. We know that before vaccines were discovered—long before I was a twinkle in my mother's eye—infectious diseases killed many, many adults and children worldwide. The programs that we have now provide for a safe and efficient way to prevent the spread of many, many diseases that cause serious illness, hospitalisation and, occasionally, death. Major vaccination campaigns in the 1960s and 1970s saw diseases like tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough almost eradicated in this country. Due to the miracle of vaccinations, it is now extremely rare to die from these diseases. Vaccinations safeguard the health of our kids, which is important to all of us—and, if it's not, it should be. Labor support the No Jab, No Play component of the legislation. We know that immunisation programs are best for our kids to ensure their safety and stop the spread of communicable diseases like polio, smallpox and measles. If enough people in the community are immunised, the infection can no longer be spread from person to person and we can kill off the disease altogether—for example, as in the case of smallpox. Smallpox was officially declared eradicated in 1980—also the year I was born—after a concerted campaign of surveillance and vaccination led by the World Health Organization. I am incredibly grateful that they stamped that out before I arrived. A similar campaign by the Global Polio Eradication Initiative has succeeded in reducing polio cases, with only a few isolated cases remaining in the developing world. I would also like to place on the record my thanks to Rotary International for the work that they do in eradicating polio. In 2014, the World Health Organization declared that Australia had eliminated measles but not eradicated it. Measles is highly contagious and is spread in the air through coughing or sneezing by someone who is unwell with the disease. Measles can be imported from overseas where the disease is prevalent, which is why it is so important to have the herd immunity effect. We know that sufficient levels of vaccinations create an effective barrier to disease transmission if the disease is found in unvaccinated pockets. Vaccines mean less disease and considerably fewer deaths. Vaccines allow our bodies to produce an immune response without suffering the symptoms of the disease. These immunisations are based on provable science. The benefits to our communities are immeasurable, and their health is our primary concern. Children need to be immunised against hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, pneumococcal, chickenpox and meningococcal C. There are school vaccination programs for a whole bunch of things. I am very proud when my kids come home from school and they've participated in one and got their stamp of approval. But not everyone can be vaccinated. Infants that are too young to be vaccinated rely on the herd immunity effect. This is even more reason for strong vaccination numbers in our community—to protect those kids who are really vulnerable and stop the spread of bacteria and viruses. We have high immunisation rates in this country. I condemned Senator Pauline Hanson at the time, and will continue to do so, for her unfounded comments around immunisations. As a parent, I know that no-one wants to see their child suffer through illness, especially an illness that is preventable through vaccination. I am particularly offended when I hear people link vaccines to autism. As a mother who has raised a child with autism and as a sister who has nursed her comatose sister through meningococcal disease, let me tell you: I would take the autistic child every single day over the one who almost died from a now almost preventable disease through a vaccine. People who spin myths and mistruths about what vaccinations can do to our community ought to be ashamed of themselves. In fact, it is a great shame that we didn't see the Prime Minister take more leadership at the time of Senator Hanson's comments—but I will continue my support for vaccines. Since the beginning of 2016, parents of children under the age of 20 years have been required to have their children assessed as fully immunised for their age to be eligible to receive the family tax benefit part A end-of-year supplement. The bill changes the No Jab, No Pay policy to withhold approximately $28, or $2.02 per day, from family tax benefit part A fortnightly payments instead of withholding the end-of-year supplement where a child does not meet the vaccination requirements. If children are not fully immunised, there is the ability for parents and families to participate in the vaccination catch-up programs. This can easily be organised through the use of their Medicare card at their local healthcare provider. There will be a 63-day grace period to allow families time to catch up. If during this grace period they do not get a medical exemption or they do not participate in the catch-up, their payments will be reduced. Labor continues to support the No Jab, No Pay policy and the amendments proposed. Labor has and always will support families and their children no matter the circumstance, and I am proud to have stood here today and delivered my speech and my support for this. 15:45 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I'll just make a few remarks on a couple of aspects of the Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017 and related matters. And I compliment my friend the member for Lindsay on her remarks and the way she so often manages to weave her personal story in a respectful and insightful way and share that while commenting on matters of public policy. Firstly, in relation to schedule 1, part 1, which makes changes to the length of interim care periods: in one respect this change is, in my view, a step in the right direction, and I want to talk about it a little bit. I'm speaking in particular because a number of constituents in my electorate have over the past 12 to 18 months approached me with their view about the unfair impacts of this current arrangement, limited to 14 to 26 weeks. The current rules provide that where parents are not undertaking care in accordance with the approved care plan they can apply, or the registrar can issue an order, to provide for different amounts of payments for a period of time. However, I'll quote from some of the correspondence from a constituent. I won't name the constituent. It was said to me that it was agreed that she be named the primary carer of her two children and share that caring responsibility with their father. It was determined that, for one child, living arrangements would be shared between both parents, and the other child would be free to live with either parent as per that child's wishes. Unfortunately, despite the care arrangements being agreed to, the other parent consistently demonstrated a refusal to comply with these court orders from the outset. That necessitated, after attempts to informally resolve the matter, my constituent resorting to taking out contravention proceedings as a 'final resort', in her words. At those proceedings the non-custodial parent was formally warned by the court and agreed to abide by the orders. Actually, I shouldn't say 'non-custodial', as it was a case of shared custody—it was the parent on the other side of the dispute. In return, my constituent agreed to halt proceedings because they were simply seeking an agreement to the orders. However, putting that aside, a different policy issue that hopefully can be taken up through some of the inquiries kicking off this year is the inability or difficulty of having court orders actually enforced by anyone but the Family Court and the expense. I'll quote my constituent, who said their distress was: 'further compounded through an administrative policy of the Child Support Agency, which calculates support payments based on actual care. While the intention of this policy is well meaning and designed to correct the payments of non-primary-care parents who consistently fail to take up their care obligations, the policy also catches parents that are victims to the other parent taking the child or the children against the court orders and then have the temerity to seek financial support to do so. So, in effect, there's a perverse financial incentive which some non-primary-care parents seem to take advantage of to actually keep the children for more and then seek money for that.' The only avenue presently available to my constituent to have the parenting arrangement enforced is to litigate matters before the Family Court, which, as everyone knows, is an expensive, time-consuming and emotionally distressing process in itself. The assistant minister, Senator Seselja, eventually wrote back and acknowledged all the facts of the case. There were a number of paragraphs that really repeated my letter back to me, but that was good. He then acknowledged that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs made a recommendation regarding interim care determinations in its report From conflict to cooperation: inquiry into the Child Support Program. The dates are important: that was tabled in the parliament, here in the House of Representatives, on 20 July 2015. He then provided my constituent with a link to a very long report which probably wasn't that helpful, anyway. The guts of it was that the 14-week period the committee considered does not provide sufficient time for mediation or for prior agreed arrangements to be enforced by a court, which makes sense. It's kind of difficult at the moment to get a hearing in the Family Court and get a matter resolved within 14 weeks. Somewhat to my surprise, though, when I corresponded back and said, 'It's all very well that you say you've agreed with this, but when might this actually happen?' I got a further letter from Senator Seselja, who said: 'Don't you worry about that. We'll be doing this and there'll be a start date of 1 January 2018.' To the government's credit, the legislation was introduced in September last year. However, this bill has been yet another victim of the badly managed legislative program and has not gotten through in time. I've got a number of letters from ministers saying that this legislation would be in effect on 1 January, but it's not. Of course, as the member for Griffith would remember, the Prime Minister, when he was at risk of losing control of the House last year, decided to just cancel a week of parliament. It was intimated to the Australian people that there was nothing to do up here except the marriage legislation. Remember, there was nothing to do last year—the House really had no business! The 53 or so bills on the Notice Paper apparently weren't reason enough for us all to come to Canberra and do our jobs. Ms Butler interjecting— Mr HILL 86256 Yes, indeed. Instead, this is yet another one of those bills that we could have been here debating last year and it could have come into effect by 1 January, helping my constituent and many other non-primary-care parents—or primary-care parents, as the case might be—who are in this situation. Shame on the government for taking the weak option of not negotiating a legislative program for that week that could have cleared out some of the work of the parliament. I acknowledge in commenting on this clause that these matters are always subject to compromise. It's a very difficult area of life, law and policy. We're balancing competing rights and intense emotions in setting rules to regulate these disputes. Often there are reasonable people with different perspectives on what is right for their family or children. But there are not always reasonable people. There are people who take advantage of loopholes in legislation—in this case, keeping kids for longer than the care order purely for the purpose of them being able to demand extra money. I hope that the revised periods set out in this bill will address the situation and provide a fairer balance, but time will tell. I suppose if they don't then we may need to revisit the matter again. The second thing I want to raise is the slightly obscure or confusing parts of the bill in relation to changes to the tax assessment and repayment arrangements. I want to put on record to the House one of the more bizarre constituent cases—a different constituent—that I again received late last year, which has been the subject of an unreasonably large amount of correspondence between your predecessor, Minister for Social Services, and the Minister for Human Services and the Assistant Minister for Social Services and myself. It was about a Mr McColl of Wheelers Hill. I can name him here because it was the subject of some quite curious media reports last year. He received a letter from the Department of Human Services' child support agency regarding the recalculation of a historical child support amount. The letter, somewhat to Mr McColl's surprise, advised him that he owed his former wife $2.62 in child support payments for the period between 1 and 30 June 2008. Almost 10 years later, his former wife must have made some minor adjustment to her tax return—nothing to do with him—and out spits a letter saying he owes $2.62. He was particularly surprised to receive this letter considering his son is now 24 years old and is well out of the child support system. I, of course, was concerned that the Department of Human Services was wasting their time and wasting all the paperwork that no doubt goes on in actively recovering small, near-negligible amounts of money from people who've been out the system—$2.62! Goodness knows how much it cost to produce and post that letter. I thought, 'He wants me to take this up.' I said, 'We could let it go,' but he said: 'No, I want you to pursue it. This is completely ridiculous. It's a complete waste of government money.' So I wrote to the then-Minister for Human Services, the member for Aston, and he responded, 'Yes, it's a bit silly'—that's paraphrasing as he really repeated my letter back to me in very bureaucratic tones—'but my department is required by legislation to collect even small amounts of the assessed rate of child support if the receiving parent has elected for it to be collected on their behalf.' I thought, '$2.62—there are no thresholds, no discretion. That sounds a bit silly.' So I wrote back again and said, 'Well, that's all very nice, Minister, but why is there no administrative threshold or decision-maker discretion in regard to the recovery of negligible debts in such circumstances?' It really does seem to be a highly questionable use of public money and resources to pursue such insignificant sums, even nearly a decade after the fact.' They must have scratched their collective heads in their ministerial offices, and I got a letter from a different minister this time—Minister Tudge had said it was a matter for Minister Porter, as the then Minister for Social Services, so we had to write to someone else. This letter contradicted what Minister Tudge had said, and said, 'Well, there is no legislated minimum amount regarding the requirement to pay outstanding child support.' So what Minister Tudge had told me was wrong. He said that he was required to collect it; yet the policy minister for social services, his assistant minister, said that you're actually not, because in limited circumstances the Department of Human Services does have discretion not to pursue recovery of a debt. Then the letter went on to talk about some of the changes which are set out in this bill in relation to care disputes and amended tax assessments. Again, magically, we're back here again—that we're going to have a start date of 1 January this year. That's clearly not going to be met, and changes relating to child support agreements and overpayments will have a start date of 1 July. So I would hope that the legislation does come into effect in a reasonably foreseeable time and that in the department, whether through changes to the legislation or its own policy discretion—which clearly is there, as one minister contradicted the other minister—some common sense will prevail and that there will be some system to stop this nonsense of sending people letters asking for $2.62 of debt incurred 10 years ago. The final set of comments I would make are in relation to No Jab, No Pay. I applaud this measure set out in schedule 2. It ensures there's integrity in the rules to withhold family tax benefit part A from parents who don't keep their child's immunisations up to date. We are so lucky to live in Australia where, because of many decades now of national immunisation, we've forgotten or never known the impact of mass death or disability by vaccine-preventable communicable diseases. Of course, there are enormous public health benefits, and the case is proven. I, for one, have no hesitation in recording loudly and clearly that I accept the scientific evidence that overall vaccinations save lives. As one of the doctors who was quoted last time this came up in the media said unambiguously, 'Babies will die if not vaccinated.' Shame on the government for not rebuking their good friend Senator Hanson for her stupid, dumb, conspiracy driven nonsense last year. As has been said in comments on related bills, vaccinations only work at a population level if you get to about 95 per cent. So you've got to get about 95 per cent of people in the community vaccinated to get what the scientists call herd immunity. Any amount below that and you start seeing outbreaks of the disease again. It's just how the population levels work. Disturbingly, we've seen in recent years in some parts of Australia rates of vaccination fall to around 90 per cent, and we've started to see diseases re-emerge. That is shocking, and it can be stopped. I want to praise Victoria and put on record my gratitude and admiration for the efforts of the Victorian government who in the last week have said that 95.3 per cent of five-year-olds are now fully immunised in Victoria, hitting that herd immunity—the best result in their history. We should praise the Andrews Labor government for getting there. They've taken a strong approach on vaccination. They've brought back the free whooping cough vaccination program for mums and dads in 2015, after it was axed by the former state Liberal government, to protect the youngest Victorians from this deadly disease. I pick that as just one example. So it is important to note that this integrity measure is important. By removing about $28 a fortnight of their family tax benefit, it sends an important signal to parents that they do have to do their vaccinations and there are sanctions through the No Jab, No Pay policy. That complements the Victorian government's No Jab, No Play policies, which are being seen to have such a positive impact and could be recommended to other states that are courageous enough to go down that route. 15:59 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon The Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017 introduces new No Jab, No Pay and Healthy Start for School measures, along with a range of improvements to the Child Support Scheme. The bill will ensure that, from 1 July 2018, children must meet immunisation and health check requirements before their families can assess the full entitlement to family tax benefit part A. The current No Jab, No Pay and Healthy Start for School compliance measures will be abolished and replaced with a new measure linking immunisation and health check requirements to a family's fortnightly rate of family tax benefit part A. The new measure will serve as an immediate incentive and constant reminder for non-compliant parents by reducing their family tax benefit part A payment throughout the year rather than when their family assistance is reconciled at the end of the year. If a child does not meet their immunisation requirements after a 63-day grace period has passed, an amount of around $28 will be reduced from the child's fortnightly rate of family tax benefit part A. The choice made by some families not to vaccinate their children is not supported by public policy or medical research. Nor should such action be supported by taxpayers in the form of family payments. Families who receive income support payments will also be encouraged to ensure that their four-year-old child meets the health check requirement for the Healthy Start for School measure or be subjected to a reduced amount of family tax benefit part A. This is not a cost-saving measure. It replaces and builds on the existing Healthy Start for School policy and the No Jab, No Pay policy, which has already achieved significant increases in child immunisation coverage rates across Australia. The new No Jab, No Pay measure is expected to achieve further increases in immunisation compliance. The bill also introduces a range of child support measures that demonstrate this government's clear commitment to making meaningful improvements to the Child Support Scheme. In the 2017-18 budget the government committed $12.4 million towards the implementation of three priority recommendations from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into the Child Support Scheme. The bill introduces changes in relation to recommendations 8, 12 and 22, which were identified as key areas in which current policies can lead to outcomes that are inconsistent with the objectives of the Child Support Scheme or require parents to go through onerous processes to arrive at the correct outcome. From 1 January 2018, child support and family assistance legislation will be amended to provide better outcomes for parents who are in dispute about their children's care arrangements. Child support legislation will also be changed to allow amended tax assessments to be taken into account for child support purposes in a broader range of circumstances. For disputed care changes that occur within the first year of a court order, this bill will extend the current 14-week interim period that may apply before the actual care of a child is reflected in the child support assessment and for family tax benefit purposes up to 52 weeks. Where a disputed care change occurs after the first year of a court order, the 14-week interim period will be extended to up to 26 weeks if the person with increased care does not take reasonable action to participate in family dispute resolution. For care arrangements in a non-enforceable written agreement or parenting plan, the interim period will remain at 14 weeks where the disputed care change occurs in the first year after the agreement or plan is made. For older agreements and plans, the interim period will also be 14 weeks if the person with increased care does not take action to resolve the dispute. However, where the person with increased care does not take reasonable action to participate in family dispute resolution, a shortened—four-week—interim period may apply. These amendments to the interim period provisions are designed to strengthen incentives to comply with court orders or participate in dispute resolution processes about care. They also introduce a requirement for the person with increased care to participate in family dispute resolution in order to have the current, shorter interim period apply, which appropriately recognises their role in withholding the child by putting the onus on them to take action to try to resolve the care dispute. These provisions will not apply if there are special circumstances in relation to the child, such as where there is evidence of family violence. In regard to amended tax assessments, the legislation does not currently allow an amended tax assessment to be taken into account in a child support assessment unless the amendment was made due to fraud or tax evasion. The government is fixing this issue to allow an amended tax assessment to always be taken into account in a child support assessment if it results in a higher taxable income. Amended tax assessments that result in lower taxable income will also be taken into account if a parent seeks the amended tax return within 28 days of receiving their original tax return, within 28 days of becoming aware of an error in their original tax return or if special circumstances apply. These amendments will allow a parent's true taxable income to be more easily reflected in their child support assessment and will result in more accurate assessments, helping to ensure that separated parents are taking responsibility for the costs of raising their child in line with their capacity to do so. The bill will also amend child support legislation to make it easier and simpler to set aside child support agreements in certain circumstances and to create greater equity in the collection of child support debts and overpayments, to take effect from 1 July 2018. Parents who entered child support agreements prior to 1 July 2008 were not required to seek independent legal advice before entering into the agreement. However, when limited and binding agreement types were introduced into child support legislation on 1 July 2008, these older agreements became transitional binding agreements and have since been governed by the same strict rules that apply to binding agreements, in which both parents must have sought independent legal advice prior to entering the agreement. This bill introduces a separate and less restrictive test for a court to set aside a transitional binding agreement where one of the parties to the agreement did not obtain legal advice. In addition, this bill introduces provisions that will terminate or suspend the effect of a child support agreement if the person who is entitled to child support for a child under the agreement ceases to be an eligible carer of the child—that is, where the person's percentage of care for a child falls below 35 per cent. This will ensure that a person who is no longer caring for a child will not be entitled to finances that were intended to meet the needs of that child under a child support agreement. The ability to administratively terminate or suspend an agreement removes the need for a paying parent to apply to a court, enabling changes in circumstances to be more easily reflected in child support assessments. In regard to overpayments of child support, the bill expands the methods available to the Department of Human Services to recover a child support overpayment from a payee to align with the current methods available for recovering child support debts from payers. This amendment simplifies the administration of the scheme by ensuring the government is able to collect child support overpayments in the same way as payer child support debts and ensures money owed by either parent is treated in a similar manner. The bill also expands the basis upon which an overpayment is recoverable to ensure that all backdated reductions to a child support assessment, which had previously been collected by DHS on behalf of the payee, will be recoverable by DHS. Additionally, new backdating provisions will provide a fairer basis for retrospectively creating a child support overpayment or arrears. These changes will increase the fairness of the child support scheme by ensuring that payees with overpaid child support are treated in the same way as payers with debts and by improving the backdating provisions for certain changes in circumstances. The child support legislative changes contained in this bill will help to ensure correct outcomes and improve the administration in around 90,000 to 100,000 child support cases each year. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Consideration in Detail 62 16:10 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I present an addendum to the explanatory memorandum and a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I seek leave of the House to move as circulated together. Leave granted. Mr TEHAN 210911 I move government amendments (1) to (3): (1)   Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:    9. Schedule 2, Part 3, Division 1   Immediately after the commencement of item 1 of Schedule 19 to the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Act 2016.    10. Schedule 2, Part 3, Division 2   At the same time as the provisions covered by table item 8.    However, the provisions do not commence at all if item 30 of Schedule 1 to the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Act 2017 commences before that time.    11. Schedule 2, Part 3, Division 3.The later of:    (a) immediately after the commencement of the provisions covered by table item 8; and    (b) immediately after the commencement of item 30 of Schedule 1 to the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Act 2017.    (2)   Schedule 2, item 4, page 73 (lines 10 to 14), omit the item. (3)   Schedule 2, page 81 (after line 3), at the end of the Schedule, add:    Part 3—Contingent amendments    Division 1—Amendments contingent on the commencement of the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Act 2016    A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999    23 Subsection 3(1) (subparagraph (b)(i) of the definition of receiving)    Omit “clause 38L”, substitute “clauses 1 and 38L”.    24 Application of amendments    The amendments of the definition of receiving in subsection 3(1) of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 made by this Division apply in relation to working out the rate of family tax benefit for days on or after the commencement of this item.    Division 2—Amendments commencing 1 July 2018    A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999    25 Paragraph 6(1)(b)    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:    (b)   the adult’s FTB child rate in relation to the child is reduced under subclause 7(2) or (3) or 26(3) or (4) of Schedule 1 (see sections 61A and 61B).    26 Application of amendments    (1)   The amendments of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 made by this Division apply in relation to the day (the commencement day) this item commences and later days.    (2)   However, despite the amendments of that Act made by this Division, that Act, as in force before that day, continues to apply in relation to any days that occur before the commencement day.    Division 3—Amendments commencing later    A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999    27 At the end of subsection 6(1)    Add:    ; or (c)   whether the adult’s FTB child rate in relation to the child is reduced under subclause 7(2) or (3) or 26(3) or (4) of Schedule 1 (see sections 61A and 61B).    28 Application of amendments    (1)   The amendments of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 made by this Division apply in relation to the day (the commencement day) this item commences and later days.    (2)   However, despite the amendments of that Act made by this Division, that Act, as in force before that day, continues to apply in relation to any days that occur before the commencement day. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 63 16:11 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. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 64

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017

Explanatory Memorandum 64 16:12 Mrs ANDREWS ( 230886 McPherson — ) ( ): I present for the information of members an addendum to the explanatory memorandum for the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Operational Efficiency) Bill 2017 64

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Operational Efficiency) Bill 2017

Second Reading 64 16:12 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter This is a really important bill, not so much standing alone, but the issues it goes to are of critical importance to the agriculture sector in particular. Yes, I'm a bit surprised when I have a look at the speakers list to see so little interest from those on the other side—indeed, no interest from those who represent the National Party in this place. I have my own theories about why they are not in here to defend or advocate for this bill. In fact, I have a number of theories, but one of them is the broad recognition on the other side of the chamber of the folly that is the forced relocation of the regulator responsible for implementing and enforcing these regulations, the APVMA, to Armidale in the electorate of New England. Because this bill not only goes to farm productivity and profitability, as important as they are, it goes to the heart of our prospects on export markets; it goes to the interests of every owner of a companion animal in this country; and, indeed, it goes all the way to human health. I'll be interested to hear from the member for Macarthur, Dr Mike Freelander, during his contribution to this debate, because he has a strong interest, given his profession, in human health and all the technicalities that go with that. This regulator, amongst other things, regulates the crop sprays that are used on the food we eventually consume. Few areas of public policy can be more important than that but, alas, the National Party are on the run because they know that the forced relocation of the APVMA is a boondoggle, a pork-barrelling exercise that will probably ultimately fail and will cost the taxpayer a very significant amount of money. This bill, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Operational Efficiency) Bill 2017, seeks to make minor technical amendments to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 and the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Products (Collection of Levy) Act 1994. The explanatory memorandum states that the amendments will realise operational efficiencies, reduce unnecessary regulation, clarify ambiguities and remove redundant provisions. The government argues that the bill: reduces the regulatory burden on industry by simplifying reporting requirements for annual returns; reduces the administrative burden on the APVMA and industry by increasing the flexibility of the APVMA to manage errors in an application at the preliminary assessment stage; reduces the regulatory burden by enabling the APVMA to grant part of a variation application under section 27 of the Schedule to the Code Act … enables a person to apply to vary the relevant particulars or conditions of a label approval that is suspended, to the extent that the variation relates to the grounds for suspension; establishes civil pecuniary penalties for contraventions of provisions relating to providing false or misleading information in the Agvet Code and the Administration Act; amends the notification requirements in section 8E of the Agvet Code so that the APVMA and FSANZ will have the flexibility to agree on appropriate timeframes for notifications; amends the definition of expiry date in the Agvet Code to mean the date after which a chemical product ‘must not’ be used; and makes minor and technical amendments to the Administration Act and the Agvet Code, including the repeal of redundant provisions. I can indicate to the House that the opposition will be supporting the bill but notes that this legislation should have been implemented three years ago. The government has been slow to implement necessary reforms which were expected by industry stakeholders following the introduction of significant legislative reforms introduced by the former Labor government in 2013 to improve the efficiency of the APVMA. Labor's reforms saw promising signs of increased performance by the regulator emerge in 2016. Time frame performance for assessing pesticides applications within statutory time frames reached 83 per cent in the 2016 September quarter. That was a significant improvement. However, with the ongoing negative impact of the APVMA relocation by the Turnbull government, these promising signs have been rapidly deteriorating. The APVMA reached only 30 per cent of its work within the statutory time frames for crop protection in the March 2017 quarter, 24 per cent in the June quarter and 36 per cent in the September quarter of 2017. This fall in performance can only be attributed to the member for New England's forced relocation of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. The recent performance figures have improved slightly but are still not at the high of the time frames reached in the 2016 September quarter. I suggest that that slight improvement has been due to a scramble by the minister and the very hardworking team under pressure working under him to try to lift those figures in the face of the widespread criticism of the forced relocation of the APVMA. Industry stakeholders are seeking to have this bill passed as soon as possible, yet the bill could have been put forward much earlier than 25 October 2017 and certainly could have been debated earlier than now, February 2018. Further, since its election the Turnbull government has failed to identify or deliver any legislative reform options that would result in any quantifiable ongoing efficiency dividend for the regulator. The former agriculture minister, the member for New England, has been all talk and no action on this front. Further legislative operational efficacies need to be implemented. An example of the all talk no action is the 2015 failed agricultural white paper, which indicated that the government would further streamline the approvals of ag and veterinary chemicals by reducing industry and user costs by around $68 million to improve timely access to productivity-enhancing chemicals whilst still ensuring appropriate safeguards. Three years on and we are only just debating this legislation in the House. The bill consists of necessary minor technical amendments to assist in streamlining APVMA operations. Such amendments are to be expected following the introduction of the significant legislative reforms introduced by the former Labor government. The legislative amendments presented in the bill by the current government are three years later than they are required. This unnecessary delay highlights the lack of urgency, seen again by members on the other side today, and a lack of focus by the Deputy Prime Minister and the former minister in this portfolio. However, criticisms of the department of late are absolutely not warranted. We have a government constantly seeking to blame others. They have been working in the most difficult of circumstances, and I should say both those in the parliament and those working within the APVMA. They have been doing their very best in this very, very difficult situation, working under a completely distracted minister of the day. Since deciding to relocate the regulator to Armidale in his own electorate, the former minister has failed to identify or deliver any legislative reform that would result in any quantifying ongoing efficiency dividend, as I've said. Agricultural chemicals are a cost-effective, efficient, essential and sustainable option for farmers to use to control pests, weeds and diseases, and as such they represent a core input for modern farming systems. A streamlined, effective regulator capable of delivering more timely risk assessment approvals and registrations in a safe way is absolutely essential. This is why I will be moving a second reading amendment to further broaden this debate to allow members to reflect more broadly on the impacts of that relocation. I look forward to the member for Grey making a contribution at that level and on that topic. If we go back to the beginning, when the Deputy Prime Minister first announced his forced relocation of the APVMA to his own electorate, he did so without any understanding, in my view, as to what the impact on the sector, or sectors plural, would be. In fact I have a theory that the Deputy Prime Minister didn't really understand what the APVMA did when he first announced the relocation of the APVMA, because if he'd had an understanding of what the APVMA did and how it interfaced with its clients and stakeholders—industry and to a much lesser extent farmers—he would never have proceeded with his shocking boondoggle. On 10 February 2016 Minister Joyce actually said: Moving the APVMA would allow it to have a closer interaction with the people who actually use agricultural and veterinary chemicals, as well as build a centre of excellence in the research of agricultural issues. The APVMA rarely interfaces with farmers. This is another spin line from the Deputy Prime Minister in a blatant attempt to both justify this relocation and to appeal to his base, to appeal to votes in rural and regional Australia. The main clients and the people who mainly interface with the APVMA are the big industrial manufacturers that produce the chemical sprays, for example, and the animal health medicines—another good example—for farmers and owners of companion animals alike. These are companies which operate in global markets. For them, Australia is a relatively small market, and we are very fortunate, as a country and as a farm sector, that they maintain an interest in the Australian market because, without their ongoing involvement, farm productivity would rapidly decline further, as would, of course, sustainable profitability. In the future, of course, if the Deputy Prime Minister is successful in driving this relocation to Armidale, people coming from Washington, or any overseas global centre, to Canberra to talk to the regulator will now have to fly to a capital city and then to Armidale. As the opposition spokesperson on agriculture, I regularly interface with the APVMA when there's a concern in the community about the efficacy of a product, the safety of a product or there's an issue about how the regulator has dealt with the product. I like to get a briefing from the APVMA, and they come up to the hill and meet in my office—I always appreciate that—and take me through the issues, put to rest some of the community concerns, explain the situation and maybe tell me how they intend to respond to the current controversy. In future, they'll be coming to visit me in Canberra from Armidale if the Deputy Prime Minister has his way. But I will return to that because I suspect he won't have his way in the end. I've certainly come to the conclusion that this forced relocation will not work because it can't work, and the minister was scrambling before he left the portfolio. Here's my challenge to the new minister: ignore the member for New England, you owe nothing to the member for New England and you gain no advantage in the APVMA going to New England. Please—and it's a genuine appeal—have another look at this boondoggle, have another look at this pork-barrelling exercise and make your own assessment about the adverse impact it's having on the agricultural sector. Because what the member for New England was doing before he left the portfolio—and I always said that he'd wreck the show and then walk away, and I think I've been proven to be quite prophetic in that sense—was putting in alternative arrangements so that he could say he had moved the APVMA to Armidale when he hadn't moved the APVMA to Armidale at all. For example, a new digital strategy was put in to allow staff to work remotely, and there was an allocation of space in the Department of Agriculture so APVMA could sit there and undertake the work of the APVMA. I don't know how that's going to fit with his general policy order, because it seems to be in conflict with it. But there is no doubt that the then minister was scrambling to do things to make it work in the face of controversy, criticism and an inability to make it work. He talks about the centre of excellence. There are two things: I thought I would visit the APVMA while I was in Armidale campaigning in the New England by-election. Dr Freelander interjecting— Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 I thank the member for Macarthur for his interjection, and I look forward to his contribution again. They were only in McDonald's for a short time, I accept, but since then they've been in the Centrelink office in Armidale. I thought while I was there I would go and check this out to see how it's all going because I'd heard rumours there was a piece of paper on the front window saying that the APVMA had relocated to Armidale but there wasn't much activity going on in there. I wandered into the Centrelink office and, as I walked in the door, I noticed—it wasn't a piece of paper, I must admit; it was far more sophisticated—a bit of plastic, maybe a foot square, with 'Commonwealth Government, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority' on it. I thought there's a pretty good start, maybe I was wrong; it looks pretty official. I walked into what was a very, very significant Centrelink office with people everywhere. I scanned the room, looking for some sign of the existence of an APVMA officer but there were none to be seen. I approached the woman at the front counter, hoping she wouldn't recognise me, by the way—obviously my star hasn't hit dizzy heights. She did not, and I asked, 'Could you tell me how I'd go about making contact with someone from the APVMA?' She just gave me a blank look. I said, 'You know, the pesticides authority.' She said, 'Excuse me?' 'I said, 'I just want to know how I go about making contact with someone from the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority.' After a long pause, she said, with a distressed face, 'I think there's a phone number on the front window.' I thought: 'A phone number on the front window? I must have missed that.' I observed there was a sign posted on the window, so I went out. I said, 'There's no phone number.' There's not much happening at Centrelink in Armidale, I can tell you. I also engaged with a number of people about the idea of an agriculture centre of excellence. The member for New England was trying to say that this doesn't have to be in Canberra; Armidale was going to be the interface with farmers. We know that doesn't happen. They're going to be part of a bigger plan, but, no matter whom I asked up there—and I spoke to leaders in the community of all sorts, such as from industry and local government—no-one had seen any sign of a plan for an agriculture centre of excellence. So all that can be discarded. We said at the beginning, when we opposed the crazy idea of the relocation, that at least there would have to be a cost-benefit analysis. Surely, if you're going into this, you have to economically assess this thing and try to model and calibrate the impact? The Deputy Prime Minister refused. My advice is that the Prime Minister's office intervened eventually and said: 'You can't just keep winging this. You'll have to do a cost-benefit analysis.' So a cost-benefit analysis was commissioned and what do you think happened? There was a damning criticism at great expense. I won't quote the number because I might get it wrong, but the cost-benefit analysis was that it was an expensive exercise. Initially, they wouldn't release it. Again, under political pressure they were left with no choice. The cost-benefit analysis said the economic cost was $23.19 million, having excluded any potential cost to industry arising from the risk to the agricultural sector. The Deputy Prime Minister hadn't made any attempt to take the cost of the exercise into account: the cost to the chemical industry or, indeed—and this is not me talking—the cost to Australia's trading reputation. The people in our export markets want to know that we have a regime in place that protects human health. That was one thing. They said: To effectively undertake the move of the APVMA and adopt relevant risk mitigation strategies, the cash cost to the government could be significantly higher than the estimated economic cost of $23.19 million. One of the additional costs was the digital strategy that they were forced to admit. I note that a digital strategy may have been needed, in part, as we moved further into the 21st century, so you'd expect that, but there is no doubt that this was largely embraced as a way of trying to demonstrate that the relocation had been successful. Again, the government refused, despite our best attempts, to tell us what the cost of the digital strategy is and were unable to tell the consultant who undertook the CBA what the cost would be. I've heard $20 million, I've heard $40 million and I've heard $60 million—nearly three times the initial cost estimated. How much are we going to spend on this relocation that's going to so challenge our agricultural sector—maybe $100 million of taxpayers' money to shore up the member for New England's vote in Armidale? That's what this exercise is about—no more and no less. The most significant risk identified through the analysis relates to the ability of the APVMA to relocate—that is, to recruit and move staff. Highly qualified, professional scientists and regulatory lawyers have been leaving the APVMA. This is why the performance has fallen so dramatically. It is all right for the member for New England to boast about housing prices in Armidale, but, if your spouse is another working professional in Canberra or you have kids in Canberra schools, it is very, very difficult to make that move. The last I heard was that they were offering big dollars—I've forgotten the amount. There were substantive relocation offers and I think there's been limited uptake. Again, these are additional costs. Another key concern of the various stakeholders was the effect the relocation may have on the approval of new chemicals for use. Stakeholders are concerned that delays to the approval of new chemicals will arise as a result of the loss of staff, the disruption to business and/or the impact of the APVMA's current reform agenda. And I'd point out here that timing is everything with some of these chemical products for our farmers. To remain competitive they need to secure these chemicals in a timely way. Based on conservative estimates for a one-year delay in the approval of new products, the potential impact on the agriculture sector for crops alone could be between $64 million and $193 million per annum—not my assessment, not my words, but the words of those undertaking the government commissioned cost-benefit analysis of this relocation. But it wasn't only the cost-benefit analysis that warned the Deputy Prime Minister of his ill-thought-out pork barrel. The former CEO of the APVMA—the highly regarded and now departed Kareena Arthy—stressed the negative impact that the relocation would have on the authority when she wrote a letter to Minister Joyce on 31 July2015 stating: 'The most significant challenge highlighted by the outcomes of the staff survey'—which she had undertaken—'is that around three-quarters of regulatory scientists would probably not move if the APVMA relocated. Only seven regulatory scientists have indicated a willingness to move. Even if all scientists who have indicated they may consider moving agree to move, there would be only 19 regulatory scientists with knowledge of how to access registration applications and undertake underlying scientific assessments.' This brings me back to another ruse by the Deputy Prime Minister. He said he was going to train people at UNE in Armidale to do this work. Now, you don't complete your undergrad and go to the APVMA and start dealing with these very complex issues. It take years of postgraduate and in-house training—I think Kareena Arthy might have suggested seven, on average—for a person to secure the technical capability to do this work proficiently. Obviously that's not going to happen as undergraduates leave UNE. And I'm told, by the way, that the UNE course is struggling very substantially because it can't get students, and the government hasn't made any contribution to the university to make this thing work. So they're struggling with course work. They're struggling for students. I could go on to quote Kareena Arthy, but I'm going to run out of time. I can tell you that she made very significant criticisms of this before she left the organisation—or was effectively forced to leave the organisation, because she knew that the organisation was effectively going to collapse and she wasn't prepared to stand and try to fight the minister any longer and try to make something work that just couldn't possibly work, and all the consequences that come with that. Again, the reality is that the APVMA recently indicated in its business model that: The construction of the new business models for Armidale should be regarded as a high priority and delivered by a full-time team headed by a senior executive with a direct reporting line to the CEO. In order to insulate the team from the day-to-day and operational pressures of a busy regulator … These are all indicating the problems that are being encountered. They go on: The maintenance of a sufficient internal scientific capability will require vigorous efforts to retain and recruit appropriately skilled regulatory scientists. This will require active management of staff relocations including incentives for staff to relocate and an accelerated recruitment program. The APVMA should also consider targeting staff from overseas pesticide and veterinary chemical regulators, either on permanent appointment or on secondment. So there you go. This is what it's come to. The situation is so bad that they're not going to be employing Australian scientists and regulatory lawyers anymore, because they've all flown the coop—understandably. They're all highly qualified people. They won't have any difficulty at all securing alternative employment. Now we're going overseas to secure the people we need to perform the task of regulator in this country. So up to $100 million of taxpayers' money, a collapse in the capacity of the APVMA, and so many staff have left we're now going to have to employ overseas people to do the jobs of those who are leaving—simply because, as I said earlier, you cannot train people to do these jobs in the time forced upon us by the forced relocation. The cost to the taxpayer, the cost to the agricultural sector, the potential cost to every person in this country who relies on their vet to administer veterinary medicines to their animals, the cost on our export markets, the potential costs to human health, which I'm sure the member for Macarthur will make significant reference to—they are very, very significant. Again, it's not just me saying it; it's not just the opposition saying it. It's the chemical companies and the peak organisations that represent them. It's the peak organisations that represent veterinary medicines. It's the farmer on the ground and the National Farmers' Federation. I think I can say this pretty confidently, though I haven't ticked them off: it takes a special sort of talent to have every farm organisation in the country oppose a measure taken by a National Party agriculture minister. What it indicates is the extent to which the member for New England was prepared to go to shore up his political position. Some will say: 'Oh, that's ridiculous. The member for New England won his seat easily in the by-election.' Well, we know that was a slightly different dynamic, a different equation—an unusual situation where the sitting member was running again in a by-election, something we've rarely, if ever, seen before. It was a local member, as we saw in Bennelong too, securing a sympathy vote because of the unfairness, as they saw it, in the constitutional arrangements et cetera. But we know the real truth is that the member for New England did relatively poorly in Armidale and was outgunned by the former member for New England, Tony Windsor, in that election. Of course, he did much better in Tamworth. We know Tamworth is his strong base and Armidale's a more progressive university town, where he doesn't do so well. The member for New England had a brilliant plan up his sleeve—he'll just move an agency! He must've rolled a few dice, spotted the APVMA and, obviously not really understanding what it does, decided he'd move that. And the rest is history. Let's hope we can tidy up the act. He's moved on from the portfolio now. Last week we started to tidy up the mess he'd left behind. We started last week with that other boondoggle called the Regional Investment Corporation. It's a shocking piece of public policy too, but at least we've now secured some amendments to improve the governance around that new entity. But I again appeal to new Minister Littleproud to take a look at this and, on a bipartisan basis, say: 'I understand this is a mess. It needs to be fixed.' I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that since the former Agriculture Minister decided to force the relocation of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) to Armidale in his own electorate, the Authority has suffered critical staff loses and declines in operational efficiency". The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM Is the amendment seconded? Dr Freelander 265979 Yes, the amendment is seconded and I reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter 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'll state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 16:43 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I will come to the amendment later on. I note that the last two-thirds of the member for Hunter's speech was about the amendment rather than the legislation before us. In the first place, I will address the legislation before us, and I note that the member for Hunter and his team support that legislation. I want to use this as an opportunity to speak to the public about their perceptions, in our modern society, about chemicals in farming and the tools that we use to produce food and protect ourselves. They have a bad rap. A friend of mine, who was a secondary high school teacher, once said to me, 'Name me something that's not made out of chemicals.' Of course, everything's made out of chemicals, but somehow they seem to carry a nasty connotation as if somehow they are inherently dangerous. And some are, and many of those occur naturally. Take the oleander plant, deadly nightshade or the beautiful black bean—or, as it is otherwise known, the Moreton Bay chestnut. There is an almost endless list, yet somehow, in the eyes of some of the public, they are not seen as chemicals. In fact, the only things they generally seem to think are chemicals are those which are produced by multinational companies and sold on a commercial basis and which benefit our health, protect us from vermin, keep our swimming pools safe, and benefit our farmers and, ultimately, the communities in which the farmers live. The Australian economy is large and diverse, but it still relies on a very profitable ag sector, and we are exporters. That's what agriculture does in Australia. We feed this nation, but predominantly we are exporters. Australia's farmers provide export income, which, to the economy, is the most important form of income, because export income is fresh money which is coming into the system and is being recycled. Ultimately, it is our export income that pays for our imports. It is in everyone's interests that Australian farmers have access to the right tools. We—and, by 'we', I mean farmers—have stayed in business by sitting at the cutting edge of agricultural technology, and it must continue. There are myriad advances in farming technologies: mechanical technology, intellectual technology, artificial intelligence, satellite guidance systems, new and more efficient cultivars, and new tillage practice, which has largely been leveraged through new and efficient chemicals. In fact, the biggest revolution has been the no-till, or zero tillage, change to agriculture, built on the basis of new and efficient chemicals. It has all but stopped soil erosion and has lifted production levels dramatically, increased quality and improved our economic outlook. However, in world terms, Australia is a small market for chemical producers and those who manufacture chemicals—and the member for Hunter touched on this. It's not always worth the while of the developers and owners of that intellectual property to go through the expensive procedure of registering new chemicals on the Australian market. If our registration procedure costs millions of dollars per item to prove science which has already been proven in other jurisdictions and the market for a new specialist chemical is only in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, it is pretty obvious that Australian farmers will miss out; the manufacturers of those chemicals will choose not to register them in Australia. That is why we must keep the APVMA incredibly efficient. We must improve its efficiency, we must improve its time lines, but, in particular, we must keep the costs down for those who wish to register new chemicals in our market. I will give an example from my industry—and, before anyone gets too excited about a great new breakthrough in chemicals, this is a hypothetical example. Let's say there is a highly selective new insecticide available for Australian plague locusts. We have quite a few good ones on the market right now, but let's say there is a new chemical that is more specific, in that it harms no other organisms. Of course, one of the problems with insecticides is that, when you spray them, generally there is collateral damage. For instance, we, as farmers, are warned to keep the insecticides we use for plague locusts out of the waterways because they are lethal to things like frogs. So we do that, but I make the case that, should there be a new chemical that would alleviate this issue, we would absolutely want and need that chemical in Australia. But one of the things about the nature of plague locusts is that we have a plague every five to seven years, so that market is unlikely ever to be of sufficient size for a manufacturer to jump through expensive regulatory hoops to participate in the market. In that case, the only parties to suffer would be the environment, because it will continue to suffer collateral damage, and the land users, because the land users need access to the best technologies to best protect their crops so they can market them into the international market and provide export income for Australia. This legislation is a step in the right direction, reducing some of the unnecessary regulatory burdens. It will reduce the effort of those wanting to register a new product and reduce at least some of the cost. But, importantly, it will not water down the standards, because we never should. It also simplifies and aligns reporting procedures for quantity sales for levy purposes and on active constituent quantities. Anything that protects the integrity of the process but offers reduced regulatory burden is a good thing. In the longer term, I strongly believe that we need to make our system even more flexible and, for instance, accept more of the proven science from major markets in the world, those being predominantly the US and the EU, which are already seen as world leaders in this space. Quite frankly, if you've passed through their regulatory process and have approval to use a chemical, it seems highly likely that it would be quite safe to use in Australia. But to hasten doesn't mean that we automatically add products to our list just because they've been approved overseas. We simply accept the underlying science and make our own decisions based on that science. So we need to keep alert. We need to be ready to make changes to legislation. As I said, this legislation is good, but we should never be satisfied in this area with a set-and-forget mode. We must be agile and ready for change at any time. I come now to the amendment proposed by the member for Hunter. He launched a fairly wide attack on the relocation of the APVMA to Armidale and confidently predicted that the exercise will fail. Maybe he will be proved right—maybe he will. But maybe he won't. Maybe it's worth considering that in, I think, 1992, the New South Wales government relocated the Department of Agriculture to Orange. I was recently in Orange as part of the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation, and we had a look at the New South Wales Department of Agriculture in Orange. It is an integral part of that community. It has led to an enormous amount of investment in the Orange area and a large number of spin-offs for the communities surrounding it. It was probably the highlight of what we, on that special select committee, saw as we toured around Australia looking for examples of how decentralisation can work. I wasn't paying such close attention in 1992 when the agency was relocated, but I'll lay London to a brick that there were plenty of complaints about it and plenty of predictions that it would fail and plenty of employees who said that they wouldn't go there—which almost certainly would have led to short-term issues as those things were sorted out. But, as with the APVMA, when people come to work for the APVMA from now on they'll know where they're going, whereas, when you're trying to relocate a population, it doesn't matter whether they're working in the ag-vet industry, or working as car makers or as nurses—it doesn't matter what they do—people have family connections wherever they live. And so relocating workforces is always difficult and leads to a certain amount of recruitment. But that doesn't mean to say that we shouldn't have the initiative and the intestinal fortitude to have a go. As I said, I don't know whether this will be an outstanding success in the long term, but I point to that previous exercise of the New South Wales parliament when they decided to relocate Agriculture to Orange, and it looks, to me, like an outstanding success. So I think we should bear that in mind as we consider this move of the APVMA. 16:53 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur This bill, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Operational Efficiency) Bill 2017, may seem an innocuous, minor and technical piece of legislation, but it is, in fact, very important, as it deals with an organisation, the APVMA, which is involved at its very heart with the fundamentals of Australian agriculture and which at present is undergoing an extremely traumatic and damaging process—that is, the move of the APVMA from Canberra to Armidale—at the whim of a minister, the member for New England, so besotted with his own power that he's prepared to fundamentally damage a major Australian scientific institution at his own behest for no particular good reason. The APVMA was established in 1993 as a uniform authority and testing organisation for the multitude of chemicals, pesticides, antibiotics and other veterinary medicines used in agriculture and in veterinary medicine. This was required because of the rapid expansion in the number of chemicals, pesticides and antibiotics becoming available, the ongoing concerns about insect and weed resistance to common chemicals and the damaging environmental effects these chemicals can cause. There's also been—and this is very important to me—rapidly emerging antibiotic resistance to common pathological bacteria, such as staphylococcus, streptococcus and some of the Gram-negative bacteria responsible for many human illnesses, and the effect that antibiotics used in agriculture and veterinary medicine may have on this. This affects clinical practice by our doctors and our hospitals and is an ongoing and increasing concern as our world becomes more and more globalised and these organisms quickly spread from country to country. In fact, the Australian Veterinary Association calls antimicrobial resistance a global animal and human health emergency. For example, we are already seeing multidrug-resistant human diseases such as tuberculosis spreading from South-East Asia to Australia. Antimicrobial resistance is now seen as a health emergency by many scientific organisations, such as the Australian Veterinary Association. What is little known, however, is that over 70 per cent of antibiotics used in Australia are used in agricultural and veterinary medicine—much more than is used in human medicine. The use of these antibiotics may have significant environmental effects and significant effects on human health. You need to be very careful about introducing new groups of antibiotics into our environment because of the development of antimicrobial resistance. The Australian Veterinary Association has recently produced significant data about the use and abuse of antibiotics in veterinary and agricultural practice. The APVMA is responsible for approving and testing these chemicals and antibiotics and has always had bipartisan support. There has been some concern about the slow approval process, but under the previous CEO, Kareena Arthy, there was rapidly improving efficiency since she started in 2013, with record efficiencies and record numbers of chemicals and pesticides approved in 2016. With the move of the APVMA from Canberra to Armidale, there has been much comment. None of the scientific organisations that I've spoken to feel that this has been an appropriate and transparent process. Lately, much has been written about the Deputy Prime Minister, and I don't want to add to his recent difficulties. Of much more significance to me is the forced transfer of the APVMA to Armidale because of its enormous cost, its devastating effect on operational efficiency and the enormous loss of scientific expertise and the ability of the APVMA to interact with other scientific institutions, such as the Australian National University. The cost estimate has been variously said to be between $30 and $40 million and, more recently, over $60 million. It's estimated that about half of the staff will not make the transition to Armidale, including some of the most senior scientists, in spite of massive financial inducements for staff to move. No adequate reasons for the move have been given. The government's response has been to hire a public relations firm—I believe by the name of Seftons—to deal with media inquiries and to not provide any information about the suggestions of other scientific organisations about the move. In fact, many in the scientific community have condemned the move, including the Australian Veterinary Association. The only person I can find on record defending Mr Joyce's decision to suddenly come up with this idea to move the APVMA to his own electorate is TV personality Don Burke. That's right! The only person who's approved this move in public is TV personality Don Burke. It's recently been suggested that the APVMA may have to hire staff from overseas on 457 visas to fill the vacancies. There has been absolutely no transparency even in the numbers or type of staff who are making the transfer or into the inducements offered. We know that no preparation has been made for an appropriate office for the staff. There has been little transparency in preparing the legislation. There are still multiple reviews of the present legislation to come in the next few weeks. The time for public comment was severely limited. Multiple measures, including those relating to the APVMA's handling of confidential commercial information, have not been given to us. And, most importantly, the consideration of anti-microbial resistance has been omitted from the final bill prior to its presentation to parliament. This bill has also been significantly delayed in its presentation to parliament for reasons that we do not understand. We get very little from the Deputy Prime Minister, the previous minister for agriculture, when questioned about the move. He blusters and yells about completely irrelevant topics. It is very hard to hold him to account as he doesn't seem to understand the science behind the APVMA and its importance to not only Australian agriculture but also Australian human health. This has been an exercise in pork-barrelling for no particularly good reason. I would ask the new minister for agriculture, Mr Littleproud, to seriously reconsider this unscientific, damaging and particularly poor understanding of the importance— Mr Littleproud interjecting— Dr FREELANDER 265979 I'm glad that he has some comment, because he doesn't seem to have any understanding of the importance of the APVMA. This is a further example of the government's terrible attacks on science and scientific thought, and of governmental transparency of this government. I wish the new minister for agriculture well. I have no reason not to want him to perform well. Agriculture is still part of my electorate and a significant contributor, but this particular move has been so damaging, so opaque, so poorly thought out and so poorly understood by members of the government that it is time for a review. I would counsel the new minister to seriously consider that. We've had enough of the polycythaemic proconsul—his predecessor—blustering about this, but we do need some answers and some transparency. This is a very important scientific institution and one that is at risk of being destroyed by a member of the government who is too preoccupied with his own self rather than the best interests of Australian agriculture. As I've said, it is very important for human health that the APVMA functions to the best of its ability. It's important to note the APVMA's new CEO, Chris Parker, has confirmed a big slump in the rate of approvals and has ordered a root-cause analysis and review of the reasons why. Mr Joyce, the Deputy Prime Minister, has acted with colossal arrogance in the forced removal of the APVMA to Armidale with very little stakeholder consultation and without really understanding the importance of a scientific organisation built up over decades. The great shame that we have is that that body of thought, that body of scientific knowledge, is being destroyed in a very short period of time and will take decades to redevelop. It's anti-science, not in the best interests of Australian agriculture, not in the best interests of Australian veterinary medicine and not in the best interests of human health. This money, the $40 million or so, could have been much better spent. In fact, the Australian Veterinary Association, in its pre-budget submissions, mentioned some very important areas where this money could have been better spent, such as developing proper guidelines for antibiotic use in agriculture and veterinary medicine; better surveillance systems for disease investigation in agriculture and veterinary medicine; making available adequate funds for emergency response training for veterinary practitioners and agricultural scientists; and improved veterinary student training in the use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. All these efforts would cost far less than the amount of money that is being used for this destructive and inappropriate transfer of the APVMA to Armidale. The government has been asked to work with stakeholders, such as the Australian Veterinary Association and some of the bigger chemical companies, to try to develop proper guidelines and other efficiencies in the work of the APVMA. Surely the effort and time would have been much better spent on developing these proper practices rather than on this very destructive move. Labor supports the bill, but we note that there are many other things that could be done to improve the operating practices of the APVMA. There has been very little transparency, I would reiterate, in what is happening with the APVMA and even with this legislation. There are a number of issues that still need to be addressed, such as the development of antimicrobial resistance in some of these antibiotics. The Deputy Prime Minister has ignored advice in what he has done and has treated the APVMA and its staff, and indeed the parliament, contemptuously. There has been little understanding of the science. The move is quite clearly anti-science. The move has been lacking in understanding of the importance of our scientific institutions. So, whilst we support this legislation, we implore the new minister for agriculture to take some time to review the situation—to review it coldly, in the cold light of day—and strongly consider changing the very destructive practice of his predecessor. 17:07 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Operational Efficiency) Bill 2017 aims to streamline industry reporting and support the operational efficiency of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA. These simple, noncontroversial improvements will support the efficiency of the APVMA and reduce some unnecessarily regulatory burden on the agvet chemical industry. The bill simplifies reporting requirements for chemical products so that these requirements are now based on the quantity and value of product sales. This simplifies the reporting process and significantly reduces reporting costs for industry, while ensuring Australia has the information available to meet our international reporting obligations and policy development needs. The bill also includes measures that will support the administrative efficiency of the APVMA and help improve the handling time for applications. These measures will increase the APVMA's flexibility in dealing with errors in applications and altering applications and promote quicker access to safe and effective chemical products. The bill also removes an administrative barrier that currently prevents the holder from addressing the reasons for a product label suspension. This will allow such a suspension to be revoked if the holder can address the reasons for the suspension. The bill includes civil penalty provisions for providing false or misleading information. These provisions provide a broader suite of sanctions than are currently available to the APVMA for dealing with false or misleading information. This will provide the APVMA with the necessary tools to proportionately respond to any false or misleading information it receives. Further measures in the bill will clarify the meaning of the expiry date for a chemical product, deal with the same ambiguities and remove some of the redundant provisions in agvet chemical legislation. Stakeholders support the measures in the bill which will deliver benefits to industry and the regulator. In addition, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills had no comment on this bill, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has advised that the bill does not raise human rights concerns. Collectively, the measures in the bill will reduce the regulatory burden on industry and improve the efficiency of the regulator while ensuring that safe and effective agvet chemicals continue to be available to the community. The government announced in April 2017 that it would undertake a review of the whole agvet chemical legislative framework. In the meantime, the simple and non-controversial changes in the bill will improve efficiency and increase the speed with which farmers and other chemical users can get access to safe and effective chemicals. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Hunter has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' 'be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Hunter be agreed to.

The House divided. [17:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 67 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC 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 Marles, RD Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 75 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J 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 Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 74 17:22 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017 74

Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Second Reading 74 17:22 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon The Labor Party will support this legislation through the House and through the other house. It is very sensible legislation and, indeed, much that goes into this legislation is the result of processes begun by the previous Labor government. We recognise the fact that this government has continued that work. This bill strengthens APRA's management powers in both preventing and responding to a financial crisis. Of course, everybody knows a financial crisis is unlikely, or is very much the exception. But it is also the case that we should make sure that our regulatory practices are best practice, up to date and maximise the chances of avoiding a crisis in the first place and responding rapidly and appropriately, should such a crisis emerge. The bill will provide APRA with clear powers to ensure that regulated entities are better prepared for a financial stress event. It will also strengthen APRA's powers relevant to the resolution of a regulated entity in distress. APRA's existing crisis resolution powers enable it to take control of a failing bank or insurer when needed. Often, however, banks and insurers are part of a complex financial group and deal with many contractual arrangements The bill will enable APRA to take control of groups of entities so that it has the power to resolve a distressed regulated entity or group quickly and effectively. Of course, it is just over 10 years since the onset of the global financial crisis in which our regulatory framework was tested. Indeed, it was around this time 10 years ago that the UK government nationalised Northern Rock and it was in March 2008 that the world's fifth largest investment bank, Bear Stearns, collapsed and was taken over by JPMorgan. By 2008, of course, the Rudd Labor government had announced the introduction of a financial claims scheme, and the bank guaranteed to provide certainty and protection to Australian banking customers—a time I remember well and I know the member for Rankin remembers exceptionally well; it was a very important time for economic decision-making in our history. Only a few months later, in September 2008, the US government bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. These were indeed extraordinary times. Labor announced the guarantee scheme for large deposits and wholesale funding in October 2008 to support confidence and to assist banks, building societies and credit unions. This followed developments in international wholesale funding markets which were restricting the ability of financial institutions to access funding, with potentially serious implications for liquidity and lending activity. So the results of the decisions taken by the Rudd Labor government at that time—by the then Prime Minister and then Treasurer, the member for Lilley—speak for themselves. These measures were significant in Australia's being one of only three advanced economies to avoid recession over that period. Perhaps most tellingly, between 2007 and 2012 Australia's increase in GDP per capita exceeded that of any other G20 nation by more than 80 per cent. Let's just think about that fact for a minute: our increase in GDP per capita exceeded that of any other G20 nation by a full 80 per cent, all as a result of these measures and other stimulus measures that the government took. Between December 2007 and March 2013 employment rose by 8.8 per cent, despite the global financial crisis. This contrasted with significantly weaker employment outcomes in other advanced economies, including net job losses in the United States, Japan, France and Italy. Thanks to the response of the Labor government, Australia again avoided recession. The capital and skills destruction that was avoided in Australia was key to ensuring higher levels of growth in the years following the crisis. And, as we know, a recession has intergenerational impacts; it's not just the cost paid at that time. A recession has intergenerational impacts. Young people in particular are thrown onto the scrap heap of unemployment and find it very difficult to get back into the labour market. And of course it is the case that the institutional frameworks that were put in place prior to the crisis served Australia well, most particularly the prudential regulation regime overseen by APRA. This regulatory framework, which existed and still exists, of the RBA, APRA and ASIC, and their clear responsibilities, has been very important. But of course it is important to appropriately refresh our regulatory structures from time to time. In government, Labor recognised the need to continuously engage with the financial regulators, particularly APRA and ASIC, to identify ways to strengthen further the regulatory framework that protects depositors, policyholders and other consumers of financial services. We knew that in order to keep our financial sector strong and resilient in the face of any further external shocks it was necessary to maintain vigilance. Therefore we kicked off some of the work that has led to the bill we have before us today: the 2011 consultation paper on the financial claims scheme and the 2012 consultation paper on strengthening APRA's crisis management powers, which canvassed a range of proposals that sought to address gaps in the framework, such as powers to address a distressed foreign bank in Australia, the ability to require restructuring of regulated entities to facilitate resolution and efficiencies in powers to resolve group distress. Later of course, in 2014, the Murray financial system inquiry recommended that the government complete the process for strengthening APRA's crisis management powers. The experience of other countries during the global financial crisis demonstrated that, when complex financial groups enter distress, failure to resolve these entities in an orderly fashion can lead to severe, adverse economic consequences. The disorderly failure of a significant financial institution in Australia could of course have severe impacts on our financial system and our economy more broadly. So this bill is ensuring that APRA has effective powers to resolve a failing entity expeditiously in ways to protect the interests of depositors and policyholders and to maintain financial system stability. Accordingly, it has our support. We support the regulators. I've made public comments recently that I'm concerned about some of the blurring of responsibilities between our regulators and that our framework has worked very well but, more latterly, some of the responsibilities between ASIC, the RBA and APRA have become more blurred. I've pointed out, for example, that it was arguable that the BEAR powers should have been given to ASIC and that macroprudential regulation has many hallmarks of monetary policy rather than prudential regulation—it's more about the macroeconomy than it is about the health of any one institution. These are matters that of course we will continue to monitor and ensure that we have appropriate responses for should we form the next government. But in the meantime we're more than happy to support this bill's passage through both houses of parliament and to see its expeditious enactment. I commend the bill to the House. 17:30 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin It's a pleasure to follow the member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer, as we talk about the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017. This bill, like so many other things we do in this House, is a response to what was the defining moment in the economy, really, for all of our lifetimes in this building, the global financial crisis. There has not been in this country, or indeed around the world in the global economy, a more consequential event than the global financial crisis. You have to go all the way back to the Great Depression to find an economic event, which was as devastating for economies right around the world, as we saw during the global financial crisis. As the member for McMahon said, we're now at the 10-year anniversary of the acceleration of the global financial crisis. That means that the GFC is far enough away that we've got the capacity to reflect from some distance and to learn the lessons of that period, but it's close enough for so many people here and in businesses and communities around Australia to remember well just how extraordinary, how serious, how devastating and how enormous the global economic tsunami was that countries were forced to deal with. As I said, it was the sharpest synchronised downturn in the global economy since the Great Depression. World markets went into turmoil, unemployment queues grew massively across the developed world—though thankfully not here—and people were lining up outside of banks to get their cash out to hide it under their beds. There were all kinds of drastic actions taken not just on Wall Street but on Main Streets in all of the developed economies and beyond. So many of them, frankly, tanked during that period. Some of the biggest economies in the world tanked; they went off a cliff. It gives me a lot of pride to say that Labor's response to the GFC shielded Australians from the very worst of those impacts. I want to pay tribute to a number of our predecessors in this place, and indeed a number of our colleagues in this place, whose actions, decisions, hard work, determination and intellect applied to this most serious policy challenge did so much to help Australia through the crisis. With the announcement on Saturday that the member for Lilley doesn't intend to recontest the next federal election, I think that now is the time for a proper appraisal of the role that he played in that remarkable period of economic policymaking in conjunction with Prime Minister Rudd, Julia Gillard, Lindsay Tanner, the member for Jagajaga, Senator Wong in the other place, the member for McMahon as the Assistant Treasurer and a whole range of colleagues—so many people working with the member for Lilley that did such good for this country. I think we really owe them a debt of gratitude. We had thousands of people saved from the economic and employment scrap heap. We were one of only two OECD countries to avoid recession, a pretty remarkable feat of 30-plus OECD countries. Almost all of them hit the fence economically, but Australia still grew—a really remarkable achievement of this parliament and the former government. As the member for McMahon said, we avoided the capital and skills destruction which other nations have gone through and are still recovering from which happened in the recession of the early nineties. We had this hollowing out of our workforce; people lost their jobs and couldn't properly get back in. We avoided that by working together in this place—the Australian Labor Party, the government of Kevin Rudd working with those other colleagues. It's really quite a remarkable thing. From time to time, our critics, whether they be in this place or in the editorial pages of some of the newspapers, have tried to rewrite the history of that period. I think it's important, 10 years later, that the history is written correctly. Sometimes, when one or another of the government's cheerleaders get into the member for Lilley or me or others about our performance during that period, I think I'd rather take the word of Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, who said of Labor's policies that they were: … probably, the best designed stimulus package of any of the countries, advanced industrial countries, both in size and in design, timing and how it was spent … Joseph Stiglitz, arguably one of the three or four most respected and well-regarded economists on the planet, looked at Labor's response to the global financial crisis and said it was the best in the world. I think that's a pretty stunning endorsement. The member for Lilley, the former Treasurer, has also been awarded and lauded around the world for his role in that period. When we think about the history of that period 10 years ago, let's properly set the historical record straight. It was a remarkable achievement, and we are proud of it. Even if you don't want to take Joseph Stiglitz's word for it, you can look at some of the facts. These aren't opinions; these are facts. There were 200,000 people saved from unemployment queues. Despite the GFC, employment rose by 8.8 per cent between 2007 and March 2013. Other advanced economies were shedding jobs while we were adding jobs. Our post-crisis employment participation exceeded levels in other advanced economies like Britain and the US. The other stat that I like to recall is that, at the start of the crisis, both the US and Australia had effectively the same unemployment rate—about five per cent. The American unemployment rate rose to something like 10 per cent. The Australian unemployment rate was half that. That is really a demonstration of the remarkable policy success that we had here. It was not just the government, of course. Businesses did the right thing. They hung onto their workers. They appreciated that they didn't want to shed the skills they would need to prosper once the economy recovered. It was a team effort, but something quite remarkable. As the member for McMahon reminded us just a moment ago, between 2007 and 2012 Australia's increase in GDP per capita, which is probably the best measure, exceeded that of any other G20 nation by more than 80 per cent—which is a remarkable thing to think about—and we avoided that skills and capital destruction. I think it's fair to say that other countries did not fare so well. They didn't apply the same well-designed stimulus and they paid the consequences. Some of them are still paying the consequences, even though the global economy has recovered substantially. The global economy is probably in the best nick now that it has been in for 10 years, but a lot of countries still have to deal with that skills and capital destruction that the GFC brought. That's a long way of getting to the bill before us today, but this bill is really of a piece with those efforts. It's about enhancing prudential arrangements and consumer protections. We started the process of this legislation when in government and, as the member for McMahon said, we will be supporting it. We're pleased to see it proposed in the parliament. We're very happy to support it. We're very enthusiastic in our support for this bill because it strengthens APRA's management powers to both prevent and respond to another financial crisis, should we come across one. It will provide APRA with clear powers to ensure that regulated entities are better prepared for financial stress and allow APRA to intervene and help with distressed entities or groups quickly and effectively, which is very important. More specifically, it will enhance APRA's statutory and judicial management regimes to ensure their effective operation in a crisis, enhance the scope and efficacy of APRA's existing directions powers, improve its ability to implement a transfer under the transfer act, ensure the effective conversion and write-off of capital instruments to which the conversion and write-off provisions in APRA's prudential standards apply, and enhance stay provisions and ensure that the exercise of APRA's powers doesn't trigger certain rights in the contracts of relevant entities within the same group. There are a range of other measures as well, including enhancing and simplifying some of APRA's other powers. These measures have been developed over a long period. In 2012, the Labor government released a consultation paper that canvassed a range of proposals to strengthen APRA's crisis management powers, and that was part of the effort that has led to this bill today. The Liberal government then put the consultation process on hold, pending the outcome of the 2014 financial systems inquiry. That inquiry recommended that government complete the process to strengthen APRA's crisis management powers. This bill implements those changes, and we're pleased to see it do so. Our institutional frameworks, our regulators and our prudential regulatory regime, overseen by APRA, served us really well during the global financial crisis—that's another important part of the story—but some gaps did become evident. As I said at the beginning, with the distance of 10 years now, it's far enough away that we can learn the lessons but close enough that we can remember well the impacts. The experience in other countries highlighted the need for robust crisis resolution powers. I will give some examples. We remember February 2008 when the UK government nationalised Northern Rock bank. We remember March 2008, when the world's fifth largest investment bank, Bear Stearns, collapsed and was taken over by JPMorgan. We remember September 2008, when the US government bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The one that really sticks in my mind from that period was the night that Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. I think the world economy really crossed a psychological threshold when Lehman Brothers hit the fence on, I think, 15 September 2008. I think that really turbocharged the crisis from something that was a serious problem into something that was a catastrophic problem for people to deal with. I have gone through some of the effects of the stimulus on the real economy, on the financial side. By June 2008, Labor introduced the financial claims scheme and bank guarantee that the member for McMahon mentioned. That was to provide certainty and protection to customers. It seemed a big deal at the time. In hindsight, it was a very wise thing to have done. In October 2008, the government announced the guarantee scheme for large deposits and wholesale funding to support confidence and assist the banks, building societies and credit unions. A few days later we followed that up with the first stimulus package of $10.4 billion and then, in February the following year, there was the big one—the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Together, those financial changes, combined with the stimulus to the real economy, had the extraordinary impact that I mentioned just a few moments ago. This bill extends what I think any objective observer would consider to be a very effective Australian response to the global financial crisis and those initial prudential reforms and consumer protections that were put in place. Labor will be supporting the bill, as I said, because it's all about Australian regulators having the appropriate powers to minimise the likelihood of a financial crisis and so that, in the event we do have a crisis, we have the power to address it. It is absolutely critical that our institutions, our regulators and our arrangements can protect Australian depositors, policyholders and superannuation beneficiaries and protect the stability of the financial system. We hope that in our lifetimes we never see the kind of economic and social devastation that we saw around the world during the global financial crisis, but hoping that that won't happen is not a policy. We need to make sure that we get the arrangements exactly right. I commend the government for this bill. We support it enthusiastically. 17:43 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I rise to support the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017. It was interesting listening to speakers on the opposite side of the chamber looking back at the history of the global financial crisis with rose-coloured glasses and giving themselves a pat on the back about how they averted a recession, whereas many hardworking Australians will remember it as the time of those opposite talking about 'Rudd money' and billions of dollars being handed out to not very much economic effect and not the glorious time in Australia's economic history that those opposite are now painting it to be. This is an important bill which will strengthen our financial system and, therefore, our economy. The experience of other countries during the global financial crisis demonstrated that, when financial groups enter distress, failure to resolve these entities can lead to severe economic consequences and that it has to be done in an orderly and controlled way. The US experience, in particular, was very instructive. During critical moments in their attempts to resolve complex entities such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, the US government was impeded by resolution powers being inadequate or uncertain, and that just fed into the whole crisis. There was a similar story in the UK, which experienced a crisis of its own and had to deal with inadequate powers of resolution with respect to certain entities. So, to achieve the best chance of effective resolution in these situations, it's essential for regulators to have access to flexible, timely and robust resolution powers. Whilst we disagree on the history of the aftermath of the global financial crisis in Australia, I think that at least we do agree that this bill is both timely and needed. Strong resolution powers need to be balanced with adequate compensation measures for stakeholders who are disadvantaged by the exercise of these powers. If the exercise of any of APRA's resolutions powers leads to acquiring of rights other than on legal terms, the legal framework requires compensation. This strikes the appropriate balance. A review conducted by the Council of Financial Regulators examined the adequacy of Australia's resolution powers. This review took into account domestic and international developments such as the work of the Financial Stability Board, or FSB. This review found that, while APRA has a reasonable set of existing tools, significant gaps existed—in particular, the ability to resolve distressed groups; secondly, the ability to require restructuring of a regulated entity to facilitate a resolution; and thirdly, the ability to address a foreign bank branch in Australia. Proposals to address these gaps were outlined in detail when the government's December 2012 consultation paper was released entitled Strengthening APRA's crisis management powers. Crisis resolution is the process by which APRA manages or responds to situations in which the ongoing viability of a bank or insurer is in jeopardy. The global financial crisis clearly demonstrated that it's particularly difficult to ensure the effective resolution of a failing entity that is part of a wider group of companies. The structures of financial groups can be complex, involving numerous business lines and support services linked through different ownership and contractual arrangements. It may not be clear how different members of the group are linked and what critical interdependencies operate within that group. The ongoing provision of critical intragroup services is therefore vital to achieving effective resolution and outcomes in these situations. Understanding the position of a failing regulated entity, disentangling its affairs from those of the rest of the group and ensuring it can be resolved quickly, effectively and expeditiously present considerable challenges. In the absence of effective group resolution powers it may be particularly difficult to resolve a distressed regulated entity or group quickly at all. This bill will ensure that Australian financial regulation is suitably keeping stead with development in international standards in resolution. The Australian government is committed to ensuring that, should a crisis strike a bank or insurer, the impact on the Australian economy and taxpayer is minimised and will be minimised, and that APRA is required to protect the interests of depositors and insurance policy holders and the stability of the financial system. I commend this resolution. I commend the bill to the House because I think it will greatly add to the confidence that the Australian public and the international community has in the Australian financial system. That can only be a good thing. Nobody wants to see another global financial crisis. But, if the experience of years gone by has told us anything, it tells us that trouble can strike again, and it can strike at unexpected times. So the time to prepare for crisis and trouble in the financial sector and the global economy is now. I think the government is right to be taking this action. It is a responsible action. It's the right thing to do. It has very strong support across various sectors. I commend this bill to the House. 17:50 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I thank the member for Calare. Indeed, I thank all of those members who've contributed to this debate today. The landmark reforms contained within the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017 will protect Australians and Australia's financial system for generations to come. While Australia avoided the worst effects of the great recession that followed the global financial crisis, we can't just rest on our laurels. We're beneficiaries of the robust economic management and effective regulatory reform undertaken by the Howard government, but we can never be complacent. Successive reviews, including the coalition government's Murray Financial System Inquiry, have made the case that our crisis management powers need to be strengthened. We must strengthen crisis management powers when the financial system is healthy. Now is the time to do this. The international experience from the global financial crisis demonstrated that regulators need powerful, flexible and timely tools to resolve financial institutions in distress. Even though APRA has a reasonable toolkit to deal with these crises, there are deficiencies that need to be addressed to ensure the right tools are available to deal with these crises. The bill has two core themes: resolution planning and resolution powers. APRA needs to be prepared for and manage a crisis that could occur in many different ways. Firstly, resolution planning refers to the process of banks and insurers working with APRA to ensure they are ready for stress events. APRA already puts considerable effort into resolution planning, but the legislative framework does not give APRA clear powers to make prudential standards for resolution. We are addressing this gap. These amendments will substantially reduce the wider financial system impact and cost to the taxpayer of a stress event. They put APRA in a position to address barriers to the orderly resolution of an entity. Secondly, resolution powers are the tools that APRA can use to deal with a distressed institution, including its corporate group entities. The bill strengthens APRA's toolkit by making amendments to: enhance APRA's statutory and judicial management regimes to ensure their effective operation in a crisis involving a bank or insurer and their group companies; enhance the scope and efficacy of APRA's existing directions powers, which require banks and insurers to address prudential issues; improve APRA's ability to implement a compulsory transfer of business of a regulated entity; ensure the effective conversion and write-off of capital instruments to which the conversion and write-off provisions in APRA's prudential standards apply; enhance stay provisions and ensure that the exercise of APRA's powers don't trigger certain rights in the contracts of relevant entities within the same group; enhance APRA's ability to respond when an Australian branch of a foreign bank may be in distress; enhance the efficiency and operation of the FCS and ensure that it supports the crisis resolution framework; and enhance and simplify APRA's powers in relation to the wind-up or external administration of regulated entities under the industry acts, and other related matters. These amendments will significantly strengthen APRA's capabilities as a resolution authority, accompanying its traditional role as a prudential supervisor. They will ensure that Australia keeps up with international best practice for crisis management. While the government does not wish to see the day that these powers ever need to be used, we're taking the responsible course of action to safeguard the financial system for the wellbeing of the Australian people. I therefore commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 79 17:55 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 79

Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017

Consideration in Detail 79 17:55 The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The question is that the amendments be agreed to. 17:55 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I have four minutes in continuation, so I might just recap where I got to in that brilliant one-minute speech, just in case those listening at home have forgotten. The proposition which sits behind the amendments is simple: if there's an Australian who can do the job, they should get the job, and you should only be able to access the temporary skilled migration system if there's no suitable Australian who can do the job. That shouldn't be radical, but what the government is saying in its legislation as put forward is: 'Trust us. If you pass this bill, then we'll introduce an instrument.' As we've said to the minister, 'Show us your instrument. If you want us to believe that you're going to have proper rules for proper labour market testing then get out your instrument and put it on the table.' We don't know what it's like, we don't know what's in it and we don't know what the rules are. Right now, there is nothing in this bill to prevent the minister from writing some rules that say, 'It's okay to have an ad on Facebook for five minutes between midnight and 1 am targeted at Mildura.' That's not proper labour testing, but it's not ruled out in this bill. The shadow minister's amendments are moderate, reasoned and not over the top, just like the shadow minister. They provide for sensible, minimum requirements for advertising—things like: The period— of advertising— must not start earlier than 4 months before the nomination is received by the Minister. That means that the employer can't just say: 'About five years ago, I advertised for a job like that. We didn't get anyone. Five years on, it's probably still the same. I'll just get a temporary migrant. Why not accept that?' Why not show us the instrument and say, 'This is what we propose.' Then we can have a debate and say: 'Okay, that sounds all right. Maybe it's reasonable.' A requirement in amendment (2) is: The Minister must not make a determination ... unless the Minister is reasonably satisfied that any advertising of the position undertaken in the determined manner: ... that a significant proportion of suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents would be likely to be informed about the position ... I go back to the example of putting a dodgy ad in the paper for a week in an obscure regional newspaper and saying that it satisfies labour market testing. Clearly, if you at least put this in as a sensible threshold minimum, you'd be forced, under the amendment, to ensure that Australian citizens and permanent residents are likely to be informed about the position. Secondly—and this is important; we've seen examples of it—amendment (2) says that job ads 'set out any skills or experience requirements that are appropriate to the position'. I've spoken before on examples in the shipping industry, in relation to 400 visas. The shadow minister and I looked through folders of evidence in relation to this. Minister Dutton has received numerous letters, which have never received adequate responses, that jobs are being advertised in the shipping industry requiring levels of skill far above what is actually needed to do the job. Magically, they could say, 'We didn't find anyone, so we'll get some temporary migrants whom we can pay a bit less.' They're vulnerable to exploitation and it locks out Australian workers. Importantly, the shadow minister's amendment provides that jobs must be advertised for a period of at least four weeks. If you're going to go to all the trouble of using the skilled migration system to sponsor a temporary migrant, it doesn't sound unreasonable to me that you'd be required to advertise the job for, at a minimum, four weeks. These rules as proposed in the amendments are not fully prescriptive; they set a few basic minimum standards. An honourable member interjecting— Mr HILL 86256 I hear some comments from afar, somewhere over there, about running a business. The reason we don't trust the government and we can't trust the government on this is that there seems to be a last-minute, road-to-Damascus conversion on labour-market testing. At least St Paul believed it. We get an insight into what the government really thinks from their good friends at ACCI, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They say in their submission—and at least they're honest, unlike the government—that labour-market testing is 'akin to asking employers to walk through wet cement'. They say that it is time-consuming to even advertise, when the employer knows through past experience—sometime in the past in recent years—that there's no-one available. So ACCI's submission says honestly: 'Abolish all labour-market testing. Just get rid of it.' At least that's honest. It's bad policy, but at least it's honest. We urge the government to accept the amendments. They don't impose anything that's unreasonable and they allow the minister to colour his instrument however he likes. 18:00 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt In April last year, the Prime Minister told ABC's Sabra Lane that Australian jobs are for Australians, first and foremost. In that interview, he heralded this bill and he said that this would deliver on that promise—that commitment for employers to conduct and provide evidence of labour-market testing. As it actually turns out, as the member for Bruce so eloquently said, this legislation doesn't do that at all. What the government is doing with this piece of legislation is it's walking into this parliament and saying, 'Trust us.' And I'm sure, when the people of Australia hear those words from this government, they shudder in their boots. I can say from my experience in my short term in this House that when I hear this government say 'Trust us', I know that it's usually followed, around three to six months later, by my having to consider some amending legislation to fix the problem they created with the first piece of legislation. This government has form when it comes to the idea of 'Trust us.' Here, what they want to do is say that, when it comes to labour-market testing, we'll hand it all over to the minister responsible, instead of making sure that this parliament guarantees that we have a proper labour-market testing regime to ensure that Australian jobs are first and foremost for Australians. So, instead of taking the approach that we would like them to do, they want to give this to the minister. When we look at the track record of this minister, when it comes to this minister saying 'Trust us,' let's just see what the stats show. Interestingly, we have a bit of a tension here within the government. We have the employment department, which is responsible for job vacancies and skills shortage research, saying just 28 occupations are on the list of major skills shortages that it's identified. But then when we turn to the immigration department, there's a list of over 450 occupations where you can come in on a skilled migration visa for apparent 'skills shortages'. When this government has almost multiplied this by a factor of 10—more than 10, almost 20—the number of jobs that are available when compared to those that there's an actual shortage in, how on earth can we trust the minister to deliver a delegated piece of legislation that we can rely on, that we can have confidence in, that is actually going to make sure that Australian jobs go to Australians first? The difference here is quite critical to people in my electorate, as it is to people across Western Australia and the nation. You can't trust the Turnbull government when it comes to genuine labour-market testing. You can only trust Labor to deliver on actual labour-market testing. If we look at the testimony given by the ACTU, they said, I think, 'Quite frankly, given the government's history on labour-market testing, why would you trust this government to implement a serious regime of labour-market testing? We just don't.' Well, neither do we in the Labor Party, and it's why the Leader of the Opposition introduced a private member's bill dealing with just this issue—to introduce more rigorous requirements for labour-market testing so that we could have it incorporated into the legislation of the country. Those amendments would make sure that there was an actual minimum period of advertising time—that this was conducted no more than four months before the job was going to be filled by a skilled visa; that it was targeted so that we were not just letting laissez faire immigration happen on different types of occupations. But, instead, the government doesn't want to go down that route. Who knows why? It's a very interesting problem for the government to create for itself. If it was so signed up to making sure that it protects Australian jobs, why not actually put it into Australian legislation? But, no. Not only have they done that, of course; this just compounds all of the failures of the government when it comes to protecting Australian jobs and Australian incomes. Instead, what they want to do is let a whole heap of people come in and undermine the wages of Australians in their Australian jobs and, at the same time, you are taking away their penalty rate protections as well. I'm sure the people of Australia feel just so confident at home every day knowing that the government are looking after their jobs in such a way that they stand up and say to the people of Australia: 'It's okay. Just trust us.' When the people of Australia look at the form of the government, there is absolutely no way that when it comes to skilled migration and labour market testing that they are going to trust the government or the minister responsible. Labor will fight hard. We will fight to make sure that there is strict labour market testing because, I can tell you, out there, in the real world, people are concerned about this. The member for Swan talked about small business. Only just the other weekend, when I was out doorknocking to the good people of Canning Vale, did a small business owner in construction raise with me his concerns about people who are coming into Australia without the adequate skill requirements and undermining Australian jobs on building and construction sites. That's what this government is delivering. Shame. 18:06 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I am fed up with the Turnbull government's relentless attacks on Australian workers. This is a government for overseas workers, not locals. This is a government for the casualisation of work, not secure jobs. This is a government hell-bent on eroding workers' rights over a quality job. This is a government that does not care about Australian workers but cares for big business. The Turnbull government has voted five times in this place to give big business a $65 billion tax cut but will not lift a finger to protect workers. This is demonstrated by the Oaky North miners' situation. Last week, I met with the CFMEU Oakey North miners, and the absolutely abhorrent treatment that they have received, and are receiving, from Swiss based Glencore is disgusting. This company was revealed in the Paradise Papers as having a tax-dodging swap financing scheme that has been the subject of scrutiny by the Australian tax office. This same company, Glencore, has now locked out the miners at Oaky North for more than 210 days. Let me be very clear: these men and women are not on strike; they want to work. These men and women are being treated in a disgusting and disrespectful manner by Glencore because they are fighting against casualisation and for better and fairer conditions. This lockout is a smear on the Turnbull government. It shows that this government is not fair dinkum when it comes to standing up for workers. It shows that this government cannot be trusted when it comes to secure, quality and well-paid jobs. This bill proves this government cannot be trusted to protect Australian jobs. Unlike the Turnbull government, Labor believes in genuine labour market testing for employers nominating overseas workers. Labour market testing requires employers wishing to bring in overseas workers to test the local labour market first. This is to make sure that there are no suitably qualified and experienced local workers available to fill the vacant positions prior to bringing in overseas workers—common sense, one might say. In my electorate of Herbert, we are experiencing 9.1 per cent unemployment. We want all of those local jobs because we are in desperate need. But the Turnbull government clearly doesn't care about local jobs for Herbert, because this bill doesn't legislate for strict labour market testing conditions. The Turnbull government's bill asks Australians to trust that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, will do the right thing via a legislative instrument. Surely this government must be kidding? It's got to be a joke, because I don't think there's a person in Australia who trusts the minister for immigration, Peter Dutton, on anything. It is only Labor that will stand up to these worker bullies, and it is only Labor that will fight for local quality jobs. Labor's amendments will ensure labour market testing: is advertised for a minimum of four weeks—this is not too much to ask; has been conducted no more than four months before the nomination of a worker on a skilled visa; be targeted in such a way that a significant proportion of suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents would be likely to be informed about the position; and excludes unrealistic and unwarranted skills and experience requirements for vacant positions with the effect of excluding otherwise suitable Australian applicants. These are the strict protections that Australian workers need and deserve to ensure local jobs. One would think that an Australian government would be hell-bent on legislating to back Australian workers. This bill does nothing to reassure the confidence of Australian citizens that that is the case. 18:10 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I'd have to say, as I said in my contribution to the substantive debate on the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, the biggest challenge facing Australia's digital economy and our tech sector is access to talent. The skills shortage is the biggest issue confronting the digital economy in this country right now. And this is not a new thing. This is not something that has just occurred. This has been a problem for a while. We've even had the need for and the challenge as to skills stressed or highlighted in a report released just a few weeks ago: the report Australia 2030: prosperity through innovation, done by Innovation and Science Australia. I'm holding the report up just to show those opposite, because this report is going to be forgotten. It will join the many other reports that have been prepared in this country that talk about the need not only to promote innovation but also to do something about it—and those opposite like to equate innovation with report preparation but not actually do anything about it. This report says, in the executive summary: Despite present fears about automation eradicating jobs, by 2030 a shortage of workers is a more likely problem than a shortage of jobs. Another report, released in 2016 by the now Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Tomorrow's digitally enabled workforce,isgathering dust. No action is being taken to address skills requirements in this country. We can go back to 2013 and the ICT workforce study that highlighted the skills shortages affecting the digital economy sector—a massive issue. Now we've had this situation, where there are not enough skills, last for years. We've seen cuts to schooling, vocational education and tertiary education. And what did the government do all of a sudden last year? They decided they were going to cut the only other avenue that the sector had. All of a sudden, out of the blue, without consultation, they cut the local sector's access to overseas talent to help meet its needs. I noted the interjection by the member for Swan saying, 'You've never run a business!'—those opposite supposedly knowing what works in a business and what doesn't. Yet what happened when the local tech sector, Member for Swan, had the temerity to raise its concerns about the fact that the government's 457 changes will affect the tech sector? What happened? We had the Minister for Immigration, Peter Dutton, ask of one firm, Atlassian, which the assistant minister would be well aware of, in an interview: How many young Australians are they employing? Are they going into schools looking for young kids to come and work in jobs? Are they employing mature aged workers … One of the founders of that firm tweeted: Wow... did I just get trolled by a govt minister as being un-Australian? Atlassian, the firm which hires local graduates; Atlassian, which provides local scholarships; Atlassian, which actively hires Australians and is an unquestionable Australian success story was being trolled by the immigration minister because these changes brought in all of a sudden had caught the entire tech sector off-guard. It is not good enough to not invest in local skills and local workers' ability to fill tech jobs, and then, all of a sudden, to clamp access to overseas talent. And bear in mind, too, with the tech sector, that they'll provide a lot of employment opportunity for locals, but they also actually need to blend in overseas talent. There will always be a degree of overseas hiring, because there are things that are being done in different parts of the world where you want to bring those skills in and wash them in with local talent to improve local business. That is going to be a reality. But those opposite made this sudden change. I would be very interested to hear from the minister responsible: what has been done to listen to the concerns of the tech sector? The government say that they've been consulting with the tech sector and claim that they've been listening. I'd be very interested to hear what they have done in a tangible, concrete way (1) to recognise the concerns, and (2) to respond after this shambles that we have had to live through in the last year where the government said there wasn't a need for extra skills and that they had to reform 457s, then all of a sudden scrambled to respond. It's not good enough. The local sector deserves better treatment from those who supposedly—like the member for Swan suggests—'know business' better than we do and yet do all these terrible things to the Australian sector, Australian jobs and the ability to grow firms in this country. 18:15 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017. We heard today in question time from the minister that there's nothing to see, that this government is getting on with the job with labour market testing. It was an opportunity for the minister to outline what is in the instrument. It was a chance, here in our question time, to answer some of the questions that people on this side have raised. But, no—it is still, again, lots of spin but no detail. We still have no detail from this government and this minister of what they will do in regard to labour market testing. They say it will be mandatory. But what is it? Again, they could have done some homework over the weekend. We raised these issues last week. We've raised them every time this bill has been before us. What is this government's commitment to labour market testing? Genuine labour market testing, in the amendments that we have before us, is the only way that we will know and Australian workers will know that local jobs will be for locals first—that Australians with the skills in an area will be offered a job first. We heard from the member for Herbert, who actually stood up and said loudly and clearly that in her area there is higher unemployment than there is in other areas of Australia. She is right. There is a problem in Townsville in areas like hospitality, where they would much rather the big hotel chains bring in 457 visas than offer local jobs first. There is a network that is working between the hotel chains, between their training providers. They recruit international students over here. Once they've finished as international students, they sign them up on 457 visas so that they can work in the hotel industry. The two years experience they got was as an international student. It is part of the same organisation, locking local young people with the skills out of having those jobs. Somebody just mentioned Adani in the mining sector. That's fewer than 1,000 jobs. What about the jobs we already have in the mining sector? What about guaranteeing that those jobs will be for local people? The minister also said that it stopped at about 70,000. What he doesn't recognise is the mining boom we had back in 2011-12. He doesn't actually acknowledge that there's also been gross exploitation of people who've been here on 457 visas. Perhaps the fact that we have trashed our reputation because of our treatment of temporary workers in this country is causing fewer and fewer of them to apply to come here. We talk about countries like the Philippines, who now have black bans and have said, 'Don't work in Australia in construction, because you're likely to be exploited by Australian construction companies.' The exploitation of temporary workers has also not been addressed by this government. Another thing that has also seen a drop in 457 visas, which this government will not acknowledge, is how many unions have actually put in their collective agreements a limited use of 457 visas and conditions that they must recruit locally first. Unions are doing the labour market testing for the government because it's failed. The meatworks industry is another one. This government has failed to match unemployed Australian meat workers with the jobs that exist in this country. It should. That is why this government should show us what's in the instrument. Tell us how you're going to do labour market testing. Young Australians want to know how this government will guarantee young Australians for Australian jobs first. They should show us the instrument before expecting us to blindly support them in this bill. They should support Labor's amendments because they've failed to come up with their own. They keep talking about young Australians wanting jobs. They keep talking about how they're going to help secure well-paying jobs. Well, how? How are you going to do that? Get beyond the rhetoric and actually put something concrete in front of us. It doesn't matter whether it's the meat industry, the hospitality industry, the mining industry or the construction industry. These are all still industries on the skills shortage list; yet there are young people wanting those jobs. They boast about the fact that they've taken goat herders and goat farmers off the list. That's not where we have a skills shortage in this country, and they're not the industries that people want to work in in this country. We're not about to have an explosion in goat farming in this country. Where we do have work is in the mining industry, the hospitality industry, the meat industry and the construction industry. They're the secure jobs that Australians want. And only with genuine labour-market testing can we guarantee that they get the first opportunity to work in these industries. I urge those opposite to support the Labor amendments that are before us in this House. 18:20 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons It gives me great pleasure to be able to rise in defence of Australian workers and Australian jobs. This government clearly has no commitment to Australian workers working in Australian jobs. Throughout this debate—in fact, throughout the last week in parliament—the subtext of this government has been all about lowering the costs of Australian workers' wages and lowering costs for business. It sees Australian workers, and paying Australian workers a decent wage, as an impediment to business growth. I reject that. I think Australian workers are worth every dollar that is invested in them, because it's Australian workers who provide the profits that employers make and the livelihoods that employers enjoy. This debate is increasingly about those of us who believe that Australians should get first go at Australian jobs versus those opposite, who want to pave the way for cheap labour to come in from overseas. We acknowledge that there is a place for people coming from overseas to take on jobs when there are no Australians available to do those jobs. We acknowledge that, on occasion, we need people from overseas to take jobs. But there are hundreds of thousands of Australians available to take on jobs right now who are not getting jobs, because this government will not put in place the mechanisms that encourage employers to employ Australians. What are we asking for here? We are simply asking this government to put in place a decent and workable labour-market testing instrument and then to show us what that instrument is. The government says: 'Trust us. Trust the minister. The minister will get this right. He's a good bloke.' Well, over the four or five years of this government, there's been nothing but broken promises. You've broken promises on education, not a dollar difference—broken. You've broken promises on health; you've cut the health budget—broken. Two years ago, the Prime Minister said: 'We've learnt our lesson. We know there's an issue with the Medicare rebate freeze. Maybe we should do something about that.' Two years later, it's still in place—no action. Debt has more than doubled under this government, when there was apparently a debt and deficit emergency just a few years ago. This government breaks every promise that it makes. It can't be trusted on labour-market testing and it can't be trusted to do what it says it will do. It needs to be in the legislation, in black and white, that Australians get first dibs at Australian jobs and that jobs are advertised for four weeks. We don't want employers thinking: 'We'll just pretend to advertise or maybe make the conditions too hard. We'll write in a few extra conditions—you've got to be a brain surgeon in order to be a meatworker.' We don't employers advertising overseas and flooding the market with overseas workers. If you need a meatworker, what is wrong with advertising for four weeks in an Australian newspaper or on seek.com.au for an Australian meatworker with the required qualifications? A job shouldn't be just for a short-term five minutes. We need Australian workers in long-term jobs. If you're looking to invest in somebody, is it really too much to ask that you invest in four weeks of advertisements to get the right person—the right Australian—for the job? If, at the end of those four weeks, you haven't got the replies in, if nobody's presented themselves, then by all means you can put yourself forward for bringing in overseas employees. We are not asking for anything onerous here. We are simply asking this government to put Australian workers first for Australian jobs. Part of the reason that we're here is that this government has defunded skills and education training in this country. TAFE has been gutted. Trades and training centres have been stopped. One of the first decisions this government made was to stop trade training centres. Trade training centres were a Howard government initiative, which Labor kept—we thought it was a good idea. This government came in in 2013 and necked it—all of that hospitality training and skills training out the window. All that Labor is asking for is for this government to show proper regard for labour market testing in this country, have four weeks of advertisements and make sure that Australians come first when it comes to Australian jobs. 18:25 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton This request of the Labor Party shows that we fundamentally value Australian employment. Deputy Speaker Vasta, as you know, my electorate is a very multicultural one. I want to put it on the record up-front that there's a significant difference between xenophobia, cultivating fear, and a little bit of economic nationalism. We are a trading nation. I know, and most sensible Australians know, that we will only achieve a higher standard of living by trading in goods, services, commodities and the like. That means that we have to reach out to Asia and the rest of the world wherever we can. That means, on occasion, if there is a skills shortage in a sector of the labour market or a geographic area, we might turn to overseas workers and bring them in so that endeavours or industry can do well. However, as previous speakers have said, we turn to overseas workers as a last resort. The local labour market must be spoken to first. The local labour market, if appropriately qualified, should be turned to first. We hear from the Turnbull-Joyce government that they should be trusted to do the right thing, that they will protect labour market testing. However, here we are in the fifth year of the Turnbull-Joyce coalition government and we know that they cannot be trusted when it comes to looking after Australian workers. We are asking that there be a minimum of four weeks where people in the local area—or a broader area, if need be—are given the opportunity to apply. Gone are the days of the CES and one noticeboard where you have to turn up to find the job. Nowadays, with electronic media and national newspapers, jobs can be advertised around the world. But we are saying that the local jobs that will be made available for Aussies should have their advertising conducted no more than four months before the nomination of a worker on a skilled visa so that the employer, if they have had to turn to bringing in overseas workers as a last resort, has certainly tested the local market. I know—and I say this from my position as the MP for Moreton with my office in Sunnybank—that within 500 metres of my office there are over 100 restaurants. It is some of the best food—Asian food, particularly—in Queensland. Deputy Speaker Vasta, I'll take that nod from you as assent to that. As you know, it is a great community. And there are certain skills when it comes to some Asian cuisine. On occasion, some of those restaurants have had to bring in someone from another country. They're not necessarily skills that you could pick up at the local TAFE, even if our local TAFEs hadn't been gutted over the last few years. My focus, the Labor Party's focus and every sensible Australian government's focus should be on giving Australian applicants a chance to take these jobs. We need to make sure that there aren't unrealistic and unwarranted skills that are being attached to jobs as a sneaky, back-door way to exclude Australians. As I said up-front, this is not about xenophobia; it's about showing a little bit of economic nationalism and making sure that we put Australian people in these jobs first. I've mentioned the retail industry when it comes to chefs, but I've also seen it in the construction industry. We've seen people brought in from overseas to do jobs that should be done by Australians. I do acknowledge that the minister and the coalition government have decreased the number of jobs on the list by nearly 200. I think that there were some jobs on that list that were quite ridiculous, really. So I do commend the minister for that, but I would ask him to come back to the fundamental point that we're making here about labour market testing. We must get the balance right. We must give appropriately skilled Australians a chance to have a job, a job with fair pay, rather than having their wages and conditions undercut by people who are coming in. Overseas workers should be turned to as a last resort, not as a first resort by employers who are trying to undermine the process. 18:30 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Labour market testing puts local workers first. It makes employers prove there are no local workers. They can then fill jobs with overseas workers. We're not against people bringing in skill, talent and ability from overseas to enhance our economy. But what we're about here is making sure that, with these much-hyped changes, the 457 visa scheme is actually remedied. What the government did back in April last year was rebadge the 457 visas, giving them a new name. Only eight per cent of 457 visas granted under the current government were actually affected by the changes. They cracked down on goatherds and antique dealers, while cooks, bricklayers and cafe managers—jobs which could easily be filled by local workers—are still available to overseas workers. At least 18 occupations that hadn't had a visa issued in the last 10 years and 46 that hadn't had a visa issued in the last year were removed from the list. There are no speed limits for over 400 occupations, and what the government did was add them back. Why is this important? It's really important because, in relation to the particular announcement that we saw in April last year, which is really the subject of the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 before the chamber, the government said, 'We're going to provide a legislative instrument that provides labour market testing.' This would be the first time ever in my experience—and certainly the first time in this place in the last decade—that the coalition has supported labour market testing. They can do it by legislative instrument, but it's not disallowable, of course. To be determined by legislative instrument, they can include the language used for advertising, the method of advertising, the time at which the advertisement must take place prior to nomination—and they could pick up the four months that we've put in our amendment—and the duration of the advertising. We looked at this matter in the inquiry of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, which reported on Friday. Labor senators were gravely concerned that the revenue raised by this particular piece of legislation was insufficient to meet the obligations that would succeed the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform. What the government have said is that they're going to raise $1.2 billion and throw in another $261 million to make sure they've got this Skilling Australians Fund. But what they're actually saying is, 'We're going the rely on that and on the overseas workers to provide the funding to make sure we've got enough money to get over the $2.8 billion of skills and training funding we've cut.' They're saying they've reduced 457 visas, but they're expecting to bring in lots more, because they need to increase the fees—and they're doing so; they're increasing the levies and nominations fees—to make sure they've got the money for this fund, which will have a shortfall. That's the contradiction in the government's position. In question time today, the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs said: … to ensure that overseas workers are only brought when there are genuine skills needs. We are about to introduce new rules for how jobs must be advertised so that Aussies get the first chance at the jobs. What are the new rules? They announced this in April last year. The Minister for Home Affairs has clearly handballed the portfolio to the poor old Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, and what's he doing? Why has he got skills and this sort of stuff in his portfolio in the first place? By the way, I'd like to see his charter letter for it in due course. If either minister were serious about Aussies getting the first chance at local jobs, they'd vote for the amendments. What about the member for Dawson, who wrote on his Facebook page on 15 November 2016: 'The unemployment rate through Central and North Queensland is higher than the national average. As such, there's no need for the issuance of any 457 foreign worker visas in our region.' I wonder whether he'll vote with us tonight. Will he support Labor's amendment and stand up for proper labour market testing, although I doubt the honourable member's ability to act as a labour-market-testing body himself, which he put himself up for on 15 November 2016? If he were serious about ensuring Australian workers got the first shot at jobs in Central and North Queensland he'd vote for these amendments. How about the member for Dawson's North Queensland and Central Queensland colleagues, the member for Capricornia and the member for Flynn? I wonder whether they'll vote for these amendments. Will they stand up for local workers having the first shot at local jobs by enshrining labour market testing in legislation? You can't trust the Turnbull government to support labour market testing. They've never supported it, and they won't tonight. It goes to show that they have no commitment to local jobs. 18:35 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce We are obviously going to have to keep going over this. But, to be fair to the minister, he's new to the portfolio. He got a hospital pass from the Minister for Home Affairs and he's still trying to figure it out. But we'll keep going over it and hopefully it will sink in. Because of your government's track record, we're concerned that you don't mean this about labour market testing. Why would that be the case, I wonder. Well, when Labor was in government in July 2013 we legislated for proper rules for labour market testing. The government changed, and what happened? They watered down those rules. At every turn you voted against proper labour market testing, which is to require Australians to be given a fair crack at a job before you offer it to a migrant worker. It's not a difficult proposition. In response, this bill removes all of the protections currently there to require labour market testing. So, if we pass this bill, it removes all the safeguards in the legislation. And you say, 'Don't worry; we're going to have an instrument—and it's going to be a great instrument!' We don't know whether it's a big, fat, robust instrument that will have all the matters covered off', will do the job and fix the problem. We don't know that. It might be a skinny little instrument with just one or two requirements which mean nothing in the real world. We just don't know. Mr Neumann interjecting— Mr HILL 86256 Even worse, as I heard the shadow minister say, it's not disallowable. So, if we don't want this instrument and the parliament sees it and goes: 'We don't want this thing; it doesn't do the job,' we can't even disallow it, which is the normal practice when tabling delegated legislation and putting it before the parliament. Of course, that's not a new thing. The other reason we don't trust you, Minister—this is important even though it's not your portfolio—goes to your government's track record and your government's habit of exempting labour market testing in all of your trade agreements. We have myriad examples of this. We raised concerns about it. We eventually backed it, but we raised concerns about the way that labour market testing provisions were written into the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The recently updated Singapore free trade agreement provided further labour market testing exemptions, so that companies can just bring in services workers willy-nilly instead of testing the local market. We've raised the same concerns about the next version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP—or TPPPP, or whatever it's called at the moment—where, again, you're proposing to exempt labour market testing and not require companies to offer jobs to Australian workers first. So it's not surprising that we stand here trying to speak slowly and make the point to the government that there's a big say/do gap. We don't trust that your instrument, when it's finally revealed and put on the table, will do the job to protect Australian workers. It is important to say that our concern for this is genuine. It is not driven by a xenophobic anti-migrant sentiment. You're not going to find people on this side of the House running the line of your dear friend Senator Hanson and saying, 'We should stop all migration,' or saying, as the member for Warringah would say, 'We should just cut migration'—because, QED, that will somehow fix the economy and improve the opportunities for Australians to get jobs. The truth is that a well-targeted migration program is good for the economy. If we bring in the right skilled workers who add value to a business, the evidence out there is clear that it helps grow local jobs and creates more opportunities for Australians. Indeed, I was pleased to see that the government acknowledged this in a report recently tabled on migrant settlement outcomes, where it made it clear that there are positive economic outcomes from well-targeted migration programs. However, we also know through evidence, but also from being in our electorates—I picked this up doorknocking numerous times around the suburbs of Dandenong and Glen Waverley—that IT workers cannot secure work in Australian IT companies because they apply, or they don't apply, and they're usurped by sponsored workers from overseas who undercut them on wages and conditions and, of course, as we know, they are vulnerable to exploitation. So these are not anti-migrant amendments; they're sensible safeguards to provide at least the minimum level of assurance that your instrument, when it's revealed, is not going to be some skinny little thing that doesn't do the job but it's going to be robust and to protect Australian workers. 18:40 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston Everybody on this side of the House knows that you shouldn't take what Labor says for granted. Instead, you have to look at what they actually do because, if you sat here in this chamber today listening to what they were saying, you would think that they have always been vigorous protectors of Australians getting Australian jobs and that, when they were in government, they would have issued almost zero 457 visas. That's what you would think listening to the rhetoric from those opposite. What we know on this side of the House is: look at what they do; don't listen to what they say. What did they actually do in relation to 457s when they were in government? What they did was issue record numbers of 457s. The numbers peaked in 2012, with 130,000 457s granted in that particular year. The extraordinary thing about that particular year was: at the same time that they were issuing record numbers of 457s for overseas workers to come here and work in this country, do you know what was happening to the job market generally? The job market was in decline. Do you know what was happening to the unemployment queues at the same time? The unemployment queues were going up. So there were fewer jobs overall and there were more and more Australians on welfare—but who were getting more jobs? The overseas workers were getting more jobs in this country at record numbers during that time. That is the extraordinary thing about the Labor Party when they were in government. We are not going to stand here and take lectures from the Labor Party in relation to prioritising Australian jobs for Australian workers because we are happy to look at our record, and I encourage those listening to the parliament to look at our record in relation to prioritising Australians for Australian jobs. Let's compare and contrast. We've just discussed what the Labor record was, and that Labor record was a declining number of jobs, more people on the welfare queues but more overseas people taking Australian jobs. That was their record. Let's have a look at our record, in the last 12 months even. In the last 12 months on the jobs front, 400,000 jobs were created—a record number of jobs were created in this economy. Let's look at the welfare queues. We've got the lowest proportion of working-age people on income support payments in 25 years—the lowest proportion. And now let's look at the number of 457s which were issued: the number was almost half the peak under the Labor government. So the trifecta on this side of the House is: more jobs overall created for the economy; more Australians off welfare and taking those jobs; and fewer overseas workers coming into the country. The skills gaps aren't there because Australians have been taking those particular positions. The contrast with the Labor Party is absolutely stark. We are very proud of our record in relation to prioritising Australians for Australian jobs. We are very proud of our record at job creation—record numbers of jobs are being created. We're not going to take lectures from the Labor Party in relation to this. I, again, emphasise to those people who are in the galleries today or who are listening in on the radio, to look at what the Labor Party does. Don't listen to what they say, because their record is atrocious. 18:44 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo That was an opportunity for the minister to outline what's in the instrument, but again he has failed. Perhaps it's because he's the Minister for Citizenship and Multiculturalism Affairs and not the minister who will actually be responsible for the instrument. Where is the minister responsible for the instrument, the Minister for Home Affairs? Why isn't he in here defending the legislation? Perhaps because he and the rest of his government don't know what's in the instrument. This is the critical point. We are saying on this side we need to define labour market testing. What the minister is referring to, the increase in 457 visas, is the exact reason why Labor in government introduced labour market testing, which every single person on the government side, when they were in opposition, voted against. We know they don't like labour market testing. We know they don't like telling business that they have to hire Australians first. And why do we know that? Because every single time that this side of the House has put up labour market testing they have voted against it—when we were in government; when we pushed for it to be in the China free trade agreement; and when we pushed for it to be in every free trade agreement. Every time we put it up as an amendment or as a private member's bill, this government votes against it. The minister also failed to explain how many 457 visa holders we will need to enter this country to raise the $1.2 billion for their training fund. They've got an expectation to raise $1.2 billion in a training fund. How many visa holders will they have to bring in to reach that target? So rather than directly funding skills and training, they're actually saying, 'This is our goal. We're going to have to bring all these extra people in to reach the goal.' It just doesn't make sense. We are in desperate need of extra training funds in this country, because this government has cut funding. Now they're saying to our TAFEs and to the TAFE sector that the best way to get funding into the TAFE sector is by increasing the number of 457 visas. You couldn't make this stuff up. This is at a time when we don't have labour market testing for a whole range of other visas. We know the stats: over a million people have entered this country on a temporary arrangement and have work rights. The 400 visas, the 462 visas, the 417 visas and international students can all work in this country in industries directly competing for jobs against young Australians or other Australians. I've met nurses and social workers who are here on the backpacker visa. A social worker works in community and child protection for six months and moves on to the next employer. It is ludicrous what is happening in the temporary skilled migration space. Yet what we are not seeing from this government is a genuine commitment. Instead, they are standing here and saying 'Just trust us', when the minister responsible for defining the instrument won't even turn up. We heard again in question time today, 'We have plans to.' That's not good enough. How are you going to do labour market testing. In this legislation, if it's weak, if it's the skinny instrument, if it doesn't go anywhere near to matching up to what needs to be done to give Australians jobseekers and Australian workers security that the demands that they have will be considered first, it cannot be disallowed by the Senate. So nervous are they that the Senate will reject their version of labour market testing that they won't even allow this place to reject it. I urge those opposite: do not do what you've always done and push labour market testing to the side. We know we cannot trust companies to employ Australians first, just like we cannot trust companies to give Australians a pay rise just because they're making record profits. This government is delusional when it comes to big business. They seem to believe that big business will hand over money, hand over profits, give it away in high wages. There is no evidence of that. That they will employ Australians just because they should—well, they don't. We must have strong labour market testing to guarantee every skilled worker, whether they be in mining industry, an engineer, a nurse, or they work in IT or in any number of skilled professions who have been locked out of jobs; whether they be in our maritime industry, another industry where we are rife with 457 visas taking away jobs from local people. What is in your labour market testing? Come clean and tell us what's going on or support Labor's amendments. Finally protect Australian jobs and make sure Australians get access to Australian jobs first. 18:49 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I hear the minister saying, 'Spare us,' so I take that as a sign of optimism that the penetrating points from this side of the House in this debate on the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 are finally getting through to the minister. I'll go back to something the minister said, because he kind of popped up and read out a whole bunch of statistics. That was all really lovely. He obviously got Minister Dutton's notes from question time, which pop up every now and again. He didn't say CFMEU or Chiquita Mushrooms, but maybe that will come in the next contribution. The minister said, 'Don't look at what the Labor Party says; look at what they do.' Let's apply the same say/do test to the government, to the Liberal Party, and then we might start to understand why we're still going on about this. We'll keep making the point until, I predict, one of two things will happen. The first is that the government will see sense, and they'll say: 'We've been persuaded. People don't trust us on this matter. They want to see the instrument. We'll give them the instrument. We'll table it here in the parliament and allow people to make their own assessments of whether it's adequate for the job or not.' We may be delighted—it's true, we may be delighted—when we see it. We may say: 'Goodness me, they've really thought this through. Maybe we're wrong. They've had the conversion. They've been persuaded. They've accepted the principle that Australians should have the first crack at getting jobs before we offer them to temporary migrant workers.' Maybe that will be the case. We'll think: 'Goodness, they've covered off minimum advertising periods. Well done, Government.' We'll think, 'Goodness me, they've really got it.' You actually have to have had advertised a job and tested the market within the last few months. Something that happened a few years ago is not relevant now. 'Goodness me, well done, Government.' They may have set some requirements that people have offered jobs that can be reasonably seen and applied for by all Australians, not just popped in the back of a trade journal that's circulated in one obscure town in a state, for instance. We may be delighted, but of course we may be horrified or underwhelmed by this instrument. As we've said, if we don't want this instrument, if we don't think it will require employers in a meaningful way to offer jobs to Australians before we reach over and use the temporary migration system then there's nothing the parliament can do about it. There's a general default convention that these kinds of instruments can be disallowed by either house of parliament. That's the normal practice. For my sins, I spent quite some time over January reading about practice. I have been through 604 of the 777 substantive pages. There are a few chapters to go. I wouldn't say I've absorbed it all. There's a lot there and it's quite dense—a bit like the government on this point. But if we don't like the instrument, if it's not going to protect Australian workers, there's nothing we can do. It's too late. Yet again, the government goes, 'Trust us!' When we look at their record on the say/do gap, they vote against proper labour market testing every time. That's not a basis to trust them, is it? When you look at their record, they've opposed it every time. When we have a look at their record of trade agreements, as we've said, at every turn they seem to provide more and more loopholes and exemptions so that companies will no longer be required to do things, so who knows what's in the rules? From the government's point of view: 'Who cares what's in the rules? We'll just keep signing up to trade agreements without any independent, proper scrutiny to get around all these rules in this instrument'—this magical, mythical instrument that no-one's seen. The amendments could have gone further. I made the point before, and we'll start to illustrate that now. They're modest. They're sensible. There's a lot more that we could've put in there and, indeed, there's a lot more in Labor policy. It could've been a lot harder for the government to accept, but we're trying to be sensible about this and put forward amendments which the government should see its way clear and be capable of agreeing to. They may need to swallow their pride. Minister Tudge has been sent in here on some hospital-pass mission. He may have to go back to his superior, Minister Dutton, wherever he is in Home Affairs, and get some instructions. He may need to go back and say: 'There's been robust debate, and our instrument is not going to cut it. We should accept the Labor Party's amendments and do the right thing by Australian workers.' 18:55 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I love business. I come from a business background. I was my own sole trader for some time, and before that I worked in private enterprise for many years. I love business. But I understand that business will always do what it can to minimise its costs and maximise its profits. That's its role. If you own a company, you want to maximise your profits. You're in a competitive world. You're trying to outcompete your rivals and make as much as you can. Indeed, corporations are required to act in the best interests of their shareholders. They're not required to look after the interests of the community. They are required to look after the interests of the shareholders. So, whenever they can, they'll pay wages as low as they can. We see this overseas. We see it in the United States with Walmart, which pays wages so low that even full-time workers can't survive without food stamps from the federal government. We see it in factories in developing countries that pay cents on the hour, and these factories are owned by some of the wealthiest corporations in the world. This happens because government regulation is not as strong as it needs to be to protect those workers. All that stands between Australian workers and scraping the bottom of the barrel is Australian government regulation. This is where labour market testing comes in. Without proper labour market testing, Australian workers can have no confidence that this government will look after their best interests when it comes to foreign workers coming into Australia when they're not required. We've said previously—and we stand by the fact—that we know there is a place for foreign workers when Australian workers are not available for that work. What we need is an instrument and a mechanism—a legislative promise that Australian workers will be guaranteed work in Australia first and foremost. But we have no confidence that this government is doing that. It's refusing to show the parliament, refusing to show the Australian public, the instrument by which it makes this promise. How can we trust it? We've said previously that we know that on past performance this government cannot be trusted at its word. We need to see the detail. Mr Tudge M2Y I thought that was the end. Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 It's a pause. It's a dramatic pause, Minister. Youth unemployment in my electorate is very high. Across districts of my electorate, youth unemployment is around 20 to 24 per cent. I know there are a lot of young people in my electorate who would love the opportunity to work in hospitality as chefs or cooks or across a range of industries without having to compete against workers coming in unnecessarily from overseas. The government needs to be transparent about this. Labor are not asking for anything that is unworkable. We're not asking for something that's pie in the sky. All we're asking this government to do is put Australian workers first and guarantee that Australian workers will be put first, not just say, 'Oh, trust us'. On past form we know that this government cannot be trusted. 18:58 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Winston Churchill said that there's nothing more important in the education of a politician than fighting elections. Well, I would say that there's nothing more important for a conservative or Liberal-Nationals minister than listening to Labor speakers talk about labour market testing. It's really important. Mr Tudge interjecting— Mr NEUMANN HVO It's really important for the education of the minister at the table. I notice he's only defended his position by the talking points. He hasn't really told us anything about the instrument—no parameters about what the government will do, when they'll do it and what particulars they'll put in the instrument or not. So, what are the consequences of the vote we're about to undertake? If Labor are successful and if the government has the road-to-Damascus conversion experience we've talked about and, for the first time in decades, actually votes for labour market testing tonight, we'll have it in the bill—proper labour market testing, picking up what Labor put in our bill on putting Australians workers first that the Leader of the Opposition introduced in 2016. If we do that, that's what will happen: proper labour market testing. Then, of course, the provision in relation to the minister's discretion in relation to a legislative instrument becomes completely redundant. If the minister were fair dinkum when he announced his changes back in April last year, he would, at some stage, have undertaken consultation with, for instance, the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration—and we would have had evidence before the House today. I have not heard words to that effect from those opposite or from the minister in any contribution that he's made tonight or last week. There's no evidence at all that the government has consulted the body that's been established to advise in relation to skilled migration. Indeed, so lacking was the consultation in relation to this that the Labor candidate for Batman—a very senior person in the ACTU—resigned from the council, because the government was not consulting whatsoever in relation to these changes. We're not opposed in principle to charging employers a levy for temporary and permanent skilled visas; we think that that is reasonable in the circumstances. But we strongly oppose the lack of a guarantee for stable funding for the Skilling Australians Fund that this government's creating. What the government hasn't picked up—and the member for Bendigo was right—is how many 457 visas, and how many under the temporary and permanent skilled visa that they're going to bring in in March this year, are going to come in? How many people are going to be required to raise $1.2 billion? The minister at the table, Mr Tudge, has been bragging and boasting tonight about a reduction in 457 visas, but if that keeps going there could be a huge shortfall, and we know that he's put in $261 million more in relation to it. We don't even have the responsible minister, the member for Dickson, here to justify it. He has not defended these issues in any way at all. We don't even know whether the minister at the table actually has carriage of this in his charter. I'd be surprised—he's dealing with multiculturalism and citizenship—if he actually has skilled migration and this visa as well. I'd be very surprised if this is part of his portfolio. What we're trying to do tonight is something that the coalition has refused to do. I can remember the very last thing that the member for Gorton had to do when we were trying to bring in proper labour market testing under the Rudd government. We had to go to the crossbench, because those opposite—in opposition—opposed us every step of the way. They claimed, in relation to this, that we had undertaken—there were some terrible things said about our motivations in relation to this issue, when all that we were trying to do was support local jobs and put local workers first. The now Treasurer—then spokesperson for immigration—opposed the member for Gorton, the responsible minister, uphill and down dale. Tonight, the government has a chance. Tonight, we'd like to see the Liberal and National parties, for the first time in decades, actually vote for labour market testing. It would be good if they could and would. They should have a look at the recommendations that the Labor senators put in the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry report which they handed down on Friday. But they haven't responded to that and none of the contributions we've heard from those opposite—mind you, there's only one minister who's talking in this consideration detail—have talked about the report. They've completely ignored it, which gives us absolutely no confidence in the mythical legislative instrument that the responsible minister claims he's going to enact. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Blair be agreed to.

The House divided. [19:08]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 68 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC 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 Katter, RC Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD 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) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 76 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J 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 Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C 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 Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.

 Third Reading 91 19:12 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 91 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 91 19:13 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That leave of absence from today for the remainder of this week be given to Ms McBride, the member for Dobell, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. BILLS 92 BILLS Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 92

Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017

Second Reading 92 Third Reading 92 19:16 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Investigation and Prosecution Measures Bill 2017 92

Investigation and Prosecution Measures Bill 2017

Second Reading 92 19:17 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs Labor supports the Investigation and Prosecution Measures Bill 2017. This bill has two purposes. First, schedule 1 of the bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 and the Surveillance Devices Act 2004. These amendments are consequential on the restructuring of the Independent Commission Against Corruption of the state of New South Wales, which took place in 2016. Second, schedule 2 of the bill introduces amendments into the Director of Public Prosecutions Act to extend the functions, powers and duties of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to cover the laws of Norfolk Island. These reforms are uncontroversial and welcome. In 2016 the New South Wales parliament passed the Independent Commission Against Corruption Amendment Act 2016. The passage of this act allowed for the restructure of the New South Wales ICAC, including by introducing a new structure, which comprises a chief commissioner and two part-time commissioners, along with additional assistant commissioners if required. All these arrangements are now in force, with the necessary amendments to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 having been made. It's a self-evident consequence of these new arrangements that there's a need for amendments to the relevant Commonwealth statutes, which allow for continued cooperation between jurisdictions. This bill, in relation to the Telecommunications Interception and Access Act 1979 and the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, maintains the correct references to the New South Wales ICAC. It's also, I can say in passing, a demonstration of this parliament maintaining direct control over which agencies are to be given access without warrants to telecommunications data rather than leaving this matter to regulations made by the Attorney-General. As Deputy Speaker Hastie would know from his role as the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, this was quite a vexed question when the data retention or access to retained data legislation was passed through the parliament. At the time that the legislation was passed, the number of agencies who had access to telecommunications data had reached a number somewhat over 80, and one of the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, if the data-retention scheme was to go forward, was that not only should that number be very substantially reduced but that, in future, it was a matter to be dealt with by this parliament directly, rather than leaving it to be dealt with by the Attorney-General. The government accepted that recommendation of the PJCIS, and that came into force. What we see here in this bill, in relation to the restructuring of the New South Wales ICAC, is a manifestation of exactly that recommendation and the form that the legislation now takes so that, in every case, even if it's simply a restructure of a particular state agency that is given access to data, it will nevertheless come to the parliament rather than being dealt with by regulation by the Attorney-General. Just on the restructured New South Wales ICAC, it's well-known in this House that the now restructured New South Wales ICAC was established in 1988. Its principal function is to investigate alleged corruption at state and local government levels in New South Wales. It covers New South Wales parliamentarians, local councillors, public servants, staff of universities and employees of state-owned corporations. It's served the people of New South Wales well and, in doing so, has contributed to the maintenance of trust in public institutions in the state. Everyone in this place, I would hope, would agree that Australians have a right to feel confident that their government, at the national level, is open, transparent and free from corruption. Corruption has no place in Australia at any level of government, and governments should do everything they can to prevent it. However, in recent years, following a number of scandals under the Abbott and Turnbull governments, there's been a diminution of public faith in our Commonwealth institutions. That's why a Shorten Labor government will establish a national integrity commission, a new federal anti-corruption body tasked with investigating allegations of serious corruption, stamping it out wherever it's found, and educating the community about public-sector integrity. Labor's national integrity commission will help to ensure the highest levels of public administration, and help to restore, I would hope, Australians' trust in politics and the public sector. Every state and territory has now established, or is in the process of establishing, anti-corruption bodies. The New South Wales ICAC—which is the object of this legislation—has been operating now for three decades. I think all Australians agree that it's time we held our Commonwealth public officials to the same standard that state public officials and territory public officials are being held, and that we created a single broad based body to prevent corruption. The Leader of the Opposition has already said that Labor is ready to join with the government, and any other interested party, to begin work on a national integrity commission straightaway. I reiterate that invitation now. I believe that good government means open and transparent government, and good government means that we govern with the trust of the people that we serve. I commend the bill to the House. 19:23 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra For many years, I've advocated for reform on Norfolk Island. As the island community's federal representative here in parliament, I've been active in ensuring the reform agenda is implemented. I have been a strong advocate for reform on Norfolk Island because I want equity for Norfolk Island, I want fairness for Norfolk Island and I want the human rights of everyone on Norfolk Island to be respected and ensured. That's why it's vitally important that we implement this reform agenda. It's vitally important that it's implemented by the federal government, that it's implemented by the New South Wales government and that it's implemented by the Norfolk Island Regional Council and, even to some extent, by the community. The reform agenda is significant in both size and content. Overall, 115 different pieces of legislation were amended in 2015 to enable the changes necessary to ensure Norfolk Island citizens would receive the same treatment as mainland Australians when it comes to social services, education, protections and a range of other areas. A number of Australians don't know the fact that, until these reforms were introduced, until Norfolk Island began the steps to integrate into the Australian system, Norfolk Islanders didn't pay any tax, but they also didn't have a universal health system. Yes, they had a private health system, but it was very quirky and you had to spend quite a bit of money before you actually got any rebate. Yes, they had a pension system, but again it was kind of quirky and there was no equity in who got and didn't get it. Fortunately, now, Norfolk Islanders are now integrated into the Australian system in many ways. There are still a number of steps that need to be taken to ensure complete integration. But they now receive PBS benefits. They now receive access to Medicare. They now receive the age pension. They now receive Newstart. They now receive the benefits that all Australians enjoy that, due to history and the changes that were made in the late-seventies, unfortunately Norfolk Islanders did not enjoy. They now enjoy those same opportunities and benefits that mainland Australians do. These legislative changes that began in 2015 initially aligned Norfolk Island's laws with those of New South Wales as part of this integration process. The bill we're discussing today, the Investigation and Prosecution Measures Bill 2017, is another step in this reform agenda, another step towards greater equity on Norfolk Island, another step towards greater fairness on Norfolk Island and another step in ensuring the human rights of all those on Norfolk Island. The bill aligns the legal framework of Norfolk Island with the Commonwealth and expands the functions of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in Norfolk Island. The bill should have far-reaching benefits for the community. In fact, the former Norfolk Island administrator, Gary Hardgrave, is on the record as saying he did a jig when he heard this was coming. The former administrator was a very, very strong advocate of protections and the alignment of legislative frameworks on Norfolk Island with the broader Commonwealth legislation. He was a very strong advocate of protections, particularly child protections. I recently caught up with the former administrator and we had lengthy conversations on the need for legislation of this nature and additional legislation to be introduced. When I contacted the former administrator about this bill, he said: 'The changes are welcomed by most on the island. It will remove any suggestions of corruption, as there have been suggestions and evidence of in the past. It strengthens the Norfolk Island judicial system, and the government should push hard to have the same legal framework on the island as exists in every other small town in the country.' The bill will ensure the Australian Federal Police, Border Force and other national security agents are equipped to ensure the Norfolk Island community is safe and protected in the future. It will also help the Attorney-General's Department gain an insight into the current judicial system and laws on the island and come to grips with the need to implement comprehensive legislative reform as a matter of priority. This bill will no doubt lead—and it should lead—to a full legislative reform agenda being developed for Norfolk Island. Bringing independent and professional technical expertise into the area of prosecution will benefit island residents who now have every right to expect comparable service delivery and equal protection under the law. This bill gives us pause as we realise the reform agenda for Norfolk Island isn't complete yet, but I'm impressed with the extent of change that has happened on the island so far. Now everyone on the island has access to the PBS, Medicare and Centrelink services. There've been upgrades to the healthcare arrangements and the island is currently in its second year of tax reforms, so people are starting to get tax returns. Superannuation has been introduced. Whilst some significant steps have been made, there's still some way to go and there are still issues when it comes to childcare regulations and rebates. The Commonwealth has an ongoing responsibility to the Australian citizens of Norfolk Island. I've mentioned those changes in areas that we, on the mainland, take for granted. I genuinely believe reform is having a beneficial impact on all Norfolk Islanders and will protect the human rights and welfare of all the residents through access to opportunity, equality, fairness and, with the implementation of this bill, justice. This amendment is an essential and welcome step in ensuring that a modern standard of service and protection is delivered to Norfolk Island. (Time expired) ADJOURNMENT 94 ADJOURNMENT Mining Industry 94 19:30 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo We hear constantly that mining is a big employer of Australians. It is. It is one of our largest industries in terms of directly employing people. It's not the largest. Many may not realise that in my own electorate of Bendigo we still have a lot of miners. We are going through another gold rush in Bendigo. Recent mining has discovered a new seam in our Fosterville goldmine, as well as in our Costerfield goldmine. The Forestville goldmine, in the midst of this gold rush, found more than a billion dollars worth of gold late last year, and we continue to find this high grade of gold. During a recent visit, they looked at a gold shaking table and said that, with good, old-fashioned shaking with water, they can see the gold. It's not that they have to put it through any particular process; it's gold that you can see. They were taking $1 million a day in gold off that table. They've increased their employment to 500. Of those in employment in 2017, 82 per cent reside in Greater Bendigo. They say that they live in the greatest mining town in Australia. It's true; there are not many mineworkers who could say that they live in a regional city with 100,000 people, great shops, great community, great sporting clubs, great schools and yet they work in mining. Ten per cent of their personnel are women, and about the same are apprentices. You could say that, in many ways, the goldmining company that the Fosterville goldmine is part of, Kirkland Lake Gold, is a good, old-fashioned mining company. They directly employ their workforce. They invest in the community. They make sure that people have the opportunity to live close to the mine. Some of the workers have chosen to live in Ballarat. They commute and stay in Bendigo during the week, but it's their choice. It is a very small minority. The mining company supports the community through sponsorship. It has a good working relationship with local suppliers. Last year alone, $55 million in wages went back to the Bendigo community. That's the commitment and good influence that mining can have. Unfortunately, that is not the same—in fact, it is rare—for our large mining industry here in Australia. We know that mining is again going through a boom. In 2017, the Minerals Council of Australia announced that 53 per cent of total export revenue from goods and services came from mining. That is $207 billion. The value of coal exports was up 35 per cent on the previous year. There were record gold exports. It was another strong year for gold, which generated $18.3 billion in revenue. Most of that came from Bendigo, I note. Yet, despite the booms and the increasing profits, what we are not seeing from the majority of multinational mining companies is commitment to community. Gone are the days where they directly employed their workers. Gone are the days where they allowed them to live in a community and build community. An example of how the mining companies have really let down Australian workers and Australian community is Oaky North and the people of Tieri. It was heartbreaking to meet those mineworkers last week here in Canberra and hear them tell their stories. The hairdresser has closed. The local food store has shut down. They're losing their sporting teams. The number of kids going to their local school is reduced. Why? It's because the mining company prefers a fly-in fly-out and drive-in drive-out workforce. But, even worse, they've locked out their workers. So determined are they to break the community, they've locked out their workforce. Fly-in fly-out is a problem. We see it increasingly—the way in which companies prefer easy-to-hire, easy-to-fire, fly-in fly-out workers. I've had wives and partners contact me about the impact that this is having on their families. If we're always going to be a mining nation, if we're always going to rely on export mining, then let's encourage our mining companies to invest in building Australian communities and Australian jobs. Capricornia Electorate: Infrastructure 95 19:35 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia This month has been one of great pride for me. Representing the fine people of Capricornia is always a great privilege, and this month has shown me how important this role is. Over the past month I've had the pleasure of travelling through much of the electorate, travelling the highways and byways, taking in the visual splendour and diversity of this great electorate in the heart of Queensland. I have recently visited a good part of this immense, 91,000-square-kilometre electorate and dropped in on countless townships and communities—communities like Moranbah, Dysart, Nebo, Eton, Walkerston, Racecourse, Sarina, Flaggy Rock, Sarina Beach, Marlborough, Yamba, and of course Rockhampton and the beautiful Capricorn Coast. As I travelled around the electorate, it was quite clear that, after such a bleak couple of years post the mining boom, green shoots are appearing in the economies around the region. Right across the region, Central Queenslanders are doing what Central Queenslanders do best—getting on with the job. What is also evident is that there is a real role for government to play in delivering infrastructure and reducing red tape so that we can continue to see local businesses getting on with it—making money, building their business and employing people. We have had a recent success with the state government finally getting on board with funding for the Rookwood Weir project near Rockhampton. This project, once complete, will allow our local economy to grow to the tune of $1 billion. That's essentially a doubling of Central Queensland's agricultural output. I'll let that sink in for a minute. That's right—the beef capital of Australia could become even more beefy! The prospect for developing feedlots, irrigated pastures and even greater meat-processing facilities means a great many more jobs in the beef industry alone, while horticultural crops like mangoes, macadamias and lychees are the kinds of labour-intensive crops that will greatly benefit the region's broader economy. More workers travelling to the region for the different picking seasons will provide the basis for a much-expanded tourism sector, again flowing on to the hotels, motels, restaurants, bars and tour operators of the entire Capricorn Coast region. The flow-on effects—pun intended—from this one wall across one of Queensland's great rivers are immense. It is just so pleasing to finally have the state government front up and stump up for this vital project. Since May 2016 I have been fighting to get the state government on board, and, while I have failed to provide the balance of the funding needed, I am confident in my ability to lobby for the remaining $36 million. At the end of the day, this project is bigger than politics. It's about the people of Central Queensland being given a chance to create something that will serve us for generations to come, providing a corridor of commerce along the lower reaches of the Fitzroy, flowing right into the major centres of Rockhampton and the Capricorn Coast. While it has been a long road to this point, I firmly believe that the feeling when we see the first sod turned and the first load of cement poured will be as sweet as any event in my political career. That is essentially what it's all about in this game—finding something your community needs and fighting tooth and nail until it becomes a reality. To be able to get to this point where we have significant government backing for this project is incredibly vindicating, but I haven't finished yet. We have $308 million now on the table—$132 million in federal funds and a $176 million state commitment. But we are still $34 million shy of the total cost, according to the Building Queensland business case. I will continue my fight to secure this shortfall and I will not rest until Rookwood Weir is built. With infrastructure like Rookwood Weir, and with expanding free trade agreements and reducing red tape, Central Queenslanders have a lot to look forward to. Domestic and Family Violence 95 19:39 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Each year, I rise in this parliament to honour the lives of women who have died in the past year through acts of violence by someone known to them. Tonight, I stand to remember and pay my respects to the 49 women who died last year at the hands of someone they knew. This equates to almost one violent death every week in 2017. Regretfully, the actual number is likely to be much higher, as the list is limited to deaths that have been publicly reported. Before I acknowledge each woman who is no longer with us, I want to acknowledge the researchers from Destroy the Joint who do the heartbreaking and difficult work of maintaining the Counting Dead Women Register, where this information is recorded. Violence against women remains entrenched in Australian society. This register provides a record of this tragic legacy as an enduring reminder of the need for us to redouble our efforts to stop violence against women and children. In Australia in 2017 we lost the following women: Christine D'Cruz, aged 19; Alicia Little, aged 41; Pauline Farrugia, aged 67; Georgia Karatzas, aged 68; Kim Cobby, aged 51; Shirley Page, aged 72; Hee Kyung Choi, aged 34; Sarah Brown, aged 34; Blair Dalton, aged 35; Lannell Latta, aged 50; Hoa Thi Huynh, aged 44; Marilyn Burdon, aged 70; Allecha Boyd, aged 27; Tanja Ebert, aged 23; Donna Steele, aged 42; Margaret McCullough, aged 76; Jennifer Borchardt, aged 49; Rebecca Gascoigne, aged 35; Ozlem Karakoc, aged 34; Olivia Hailstone, aged 38; Raichele Galea, aged 44; Margaret Mitchell, aged 81; Patricia Phillip, aged 84, and her daughter, Sherril Pountney, aged 63; Linda Connors, aged 55; Mauryeen Kenny, aged 69; Ora Holt, aged 39; Ivanka Kraisnik, aged 78; Helen Dansie, aged 67; China Crawford, aged 32; Harjit Kaur, aged 56; Donna Green, aged 55; Tanya Burmeister, aged 32, and her daughter, Zoe Burmeister, aged 15; Khondkar Faihi Elahi, aged 29; Theresa Bradford, aged 40; Leonie Ivanoff, aged 74; Amelie Ura Tapaki, aged 64; and another 11 unnamed women. The terrible reality is that one in four women experience intimate partner violence, and one woman every week is killed at the hands of a partner or ex-partner. Each of these deaths is a tragedy, and each death should further galvanise us to do whatever is necessary to end this scourge in our nation. 2018 is little more than a month old, but already eight women have lost their lives as a result of domestic and family violence. We simply must turn this around. I can think of no more pressing priority for this nation and this parliament. I don't want to stand here every year reciting the names of women who have been killed as a result of family and domestic violence, but I will because each and every one of them must be honoured and their deaths cannot be in vain. We have to stop violence against women and children, and we need to do it now. Berowra Electorate: Stronger Communities Program 96 19:44 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra One of the most rewarding aspects of my job as member for Berowra is creating community change with real results. That's why I've been so proud of this government's Stronger Communities Program, which supports the local organisations that enrich our lives. This program contributes to projects that are delivered in the short term, with impressive impacts that the community will see for themselves over the coming months. My job in this place, first and foremost, is to represent the people of Berowra and my duty is to deliver for them. It's given me great pride to be able to do so by boosting the organisations that better Berowra every single day. Nineteen different community organisations in my electorate have shared around $150,000 in government grants, allowing them to strengthen the services they provide to our community. I'd like to take this opportunity not just to shine a spotlight on what I'm delivering for Berowra but to celebrate the organisations that often go unsung. Scouts provide a fantastic environment for our boys and girls to learn leadership skills and grow through adventure and challenge. I am particularly proud to support multiple scout groups as they mentor the leaders of tomorrow. West Pennant Hills Scout Group received a $10,000 grant for their new roof, replacing their cracked covering, which dates back over 50 years. Cherrybrook Scout Group was granted $8,000 for a hall extension so they could keep up with demand for their excellent programs. Normanhurst Scout Group also received $8,000 for the renovation of their ageing kitchen, helping them to better cater for our community. The Asquith Scout Group was thrilled with their $8,000 grant, which allows them to increase accessibility through a disability grant. Finally, the Mt Colah-Mt Kuring-gai Scout Group received $2,500 for new shelving, helping them to properly store the equipment they work so hard to acquire through fundraising. In total, five Scout groups will grow thanks to this funding. Scout troop leaders like Kevin Pidd and Justin Kingston exemplify Australia's fine tradition of service through their volunteer leadership. Sporting organisations also play a big role, not just in keeping us active but in strengthening our local identity through the bonds formed by teamwork and competition. Beecroft Bowling and Recreation Club has benefited from $5,000 for recarpeting. The club has a history dating back more than 100 years, and maintenance projects ensure it has a viable and vibrant future. Cheltenham Recreation Club is celebrating the new corrugated roof on their croquet clubhouse, thanks to a $9,000 grant. Their president, Lesley Tregoning, told me the funding has been a godsend as their roof has been leaking onto their equipment. Cherrybrook's Greenway Giants have received $5,000 so they can upgrade their ride-on mower, which maintains their baseball diamond. The Centre at Dural is the go-to destination for futsal in Sydney, and a $14,000 grant will allow them to renovate their decades-old kitchen and better cater for the thousands using their facilities every week. The Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Sailing Club is grateful for the $12,000 grant which will see them upgrade their Brooklyn clubhouse. I'm looking forward to sailing with them in March. The Hornsby Berowra Junior AFL Club benefitted from $4,000 in funding for the much needed improvement of their canteen. Two parents-and-citizens groups were passionate advocates for their schools and are deserving of funding: The Normanhurst West Public School P&C were granted $5,000 for new all-weather covering that will keep kids sun-safe and active. The Arcadia Public School P&C are installing new flyscreens and roller blinds on their canteen to improve their food preparation environment, thanks to a $3,000 grant. Berowra owes a debt to its volunteers, and helping them help others is a rewarding experience. Hawkesbury River Rescue are currently acquiring new equipment, like heat-seeking radars, thanks to a $17,000 grant, with volunteers like Chris Haywood and Ben Severs being among the many who patrol Berowra's waterways and keep us safe. Wisemans Ferry Community Men's Shed, led by Adrian Acheson, are in the market for a community bus after receiving $10,000 to keep their isolated and elderly residents on the move. The Berowra Rural Fire Brigade received $7,000 so they could increase their storage capacity and be better equipped in the event of an emergency. Studio ARTES, led by Deb Sazdanoff in Hornsby, is an incredible and inclusive facility for people with disability, and a $14,000 grant will help them upgrade their exhibition space and showcase the talents of the amazing young people who perform there. Finally, I'd like to thank the Berowra Stronger Communities Committee who administer the grants in our area. Chaired by the Honourable Chris Miles, its members were Rebel Talbert, Mike de Beer, Justine Slapp, Ken Shadie, Saleshni Lala, Felix Lam and Jennifer Finlayson. Berowra is a beautiful electorate, offering stunning scenery, brilliant bushlands and wonderful waterways, but nothing compares to its people and the organisations they support. Blaxland Electorate: National Disability Insurance Scheme 97 19:49 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Tonight I want to talk about a beautiful little girl named Georgia who lives in my electorate. Georgia is nine and she has multiple disabilities. She has autism, epilepsy and profound global development delay. Georgia can't dress herself, brush her teeth or comb her hair and she can't shower on her own. She has to wear a nappy 24 hours a day. She also has to wear a onesie—otherwise she'll put her hands in her nappy and smear faeces around the house. Georgia can't speak. That often means she gets incredibly distressed and can be inconsolable for hours. Georgia is the sort of little girl the National Disability Insurance Scheme that we set up here was designed to help. She has now been supported by the NDIS for a bit over a year. Last year she achieved a major goal: she can now feed herself. The NDIS provided funding for a support person who came in a couple of times a week and helped Georgia to do this. It requires repetition, consistency and reinforcement, and it has worked. It's the NDIS in action. This year Georgia's mum has two more goals for her. First, to be able to go to the toilet on her own. Second, to be able to communicate. The NDIS asked Georgia's mum to get evidence of what Georgia needs to achieve these goals, and she's done that. She got these two reports: a report from a speech pathologist and a report from an occupational therapist. Those reports say that to communicate Georgia needs an assistive technology device and a weekly session with a speech pathologist to learn how to use the device and to learn new words. To go to the toilet on her own, Georgia needs a program similar to the one that helped her to learn to eat: a support worker to come in for two hours a day, two times a week. Those reports were given to the NDIS late last year. Two weeks ago Georgia's mum met with the NDIS team in Bankstown and went through these reports. That night she went home and clicked on the NDIS website to see if Georgia's plan had been updated. It had—but the funding hadn't been increased. In fact, it had been cut by 70 per cent. A 70 per cent cut—it's extraordinary. The way that the NDIS is structured is that there's money in the plan to buy the communication device but not to teach Georgia how to use it. There's funding in the plan for nappies but not enough to get a support person to teach Georgia how to go to the toilet. It's short-sighted stupidity. Just in financial terms alone it doesn't make sense. A bigger investment now will mean Georgia will need less support in the years to come. I ask you to imagine for a second what Georgia's mum is going through at the moment. Georgia's mum is a superwoman. She is a single mum. She's raising two kids on her own, one with a significant and permanent disability, and she also holds down a job. She works four days a week. She is the sort of person we should be doing our very best to help. Decisions like this are only making her life and her family's life harder. What makes this worse and what makes it more worrying for me is that it's not a one-off case. It seems to be happening a lot, particularly at the Bankstown NDIS office. Last year I raised a similar case, the case of Michael, a 14-year-old boy from Bankstown. He has severe global delay and autism as well as cerebral palsy. He had to have a hip operation last year, and now he needs a standing frame to teach him to walk again. The NDIS are refusing to provide it because they say he can only use the standing frame for half an hour per day. His parents disagree. They say he can use it for an hour. Last year I asked the former Minister for Social Services for an independent review. I'm glad to say that's now happening. What I'm asking for tonight is the same for Georgia. So I ask the new minister: please intervene here, reverse the cut and order an independent review to make sure she gets the funding and resources that she needs to do the things that her mum and her therapists hope for her—to be able to go to the toilet on her own; to be able to communicate; to be able to tell her mum what she wants to eat or drink; and maybe even one day to tell her that she loves her. It's not a one-off case. I have others, and I will keep raising them here until we get this right, until these precious kids and their parents get the help that we intended and that they deserve. The NDIS is such a great initiative, full of so much promise, but it has to deliver for people like Georgia and her mum. Farrer Electorate: Cross-Border Issues 98 19:54 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I rise tonight to highlight what remains one of the most important issues facing many communities I represent along the New South Wales border with Victoria. Places like Wentworth-Mildura, Euston-Robinvale, Murray Downs and Swan Hill, Moama-Echuca, Mulwala with Yarrawonga and the main city in electorate, Albury, which has a long association with Wodonga in Victoria. All of these are what could be termed cross-border communities. While each is unique in that they sit in one state or the other and belong to a separate New South Wales or Victorian local government area, they are also unique in relying on each other to grow and prosper. When I use the term 'community', this is largely from a perspective of the people who live in these areas. In so many ways, our system of government in Australia is blindly making it harder for them to get ahead. Whether it is the vital role played by our emergency services and police on either side of the Murray, through to different transport rules and regulations, separate TAFE qualifications for our tradies, Responsible Service of Alcohol certificates, taxi licences—the list goes on and on. The Master Builders Association recently wrote a lengthy report on the difficulties they face in trying to do business on one side of the border or the other—and this 196-page document is just a summary of the issues. Just recently we've seen the introduction of a container recycling deposit scheme in New South Wales but not in Victoria. Yet Victoria is moving to ban plastic single-use shopping bags this year, but this will not be law in New South Wales. Then there is the celebrated case from a few years back where a good Samaritan discovered an injured koala on the side of the road on Victoria's side of the border, drove him back to their home in New South Wales only to find they could not drop the animal into an animal welfare shelter because it was found in another state. You might think from these examples the problem might be a bridge too far. So where do we go from here? We have seen some progress in the field of health. In Albury-Wodonga, we now have a separate single health system operating hospitals in both cities, as well as other health campuses and facilities in both states. Under Federation, a merged service needs to be administered by one state or the other and so it fell to Victoria: Albury-Wodonga Health is a division of the Victorian Department of Health. The boundaries of our government's recently developed Primary Health Networks follow state lines, yet because of the unique situation at Albury-Wodonga Health, the Victorian-based Murray Primary Health Network now traverses the border into New South Wales. There are other loose cross-border health arrangements down river as well, helping coordinate patients wherever primary and secondary services are located. The local headspace centres have followed suit. Why does this occur? And, more importantly, why does it work? It's because in the real world people work to solve problems rather than create them. These real people don't actually go about making the border of New South Wales and Victoria a problem. They don't have to. We created the problem for them! In that summary report of 196 pages the Master Builders point to the establishment of a Cross Border Commissioner in New South Wales in 2012. They argue the New South Wales commissioner actually does good work, but his progress is slow because—you guessed it!—Victoria doesn't have a similar cross-border commissioner to work with—at least not yet. I am delighted to see my coalition colleagues in the state of Victoria have pledged to create such a role if they are elected later this year. Do we need to wait? No, the current Victorian government could introduce such a position tomorrow. Or we could take a leaf out of the book of Albury and Wodonga councils, which have recently ratified a joint 'one community' approach to developing their interstate interests. I want to thank the previous minister for cities, the member for Hume, who met with the mayors late last year and expressed admiration for the two cities in working as one to benefit the whole region. I hope to work with the new minister, the Member for Bradfield, in progressing some important proposals in the coming months. The main impediment for future Albury-Wodonga development getting the nod from the Commonwealth is, rather ironically, that both cities must also receive support for their ideas from their respective state governments. I do urge both New South Wales and Victoria to recognise their respective borders, as they have done since 1855 and we have done since Federation. Just because something is happening on the border, New South Wales shouldn't be referring the problem to Victoria, and Victoria shouldn't be referring the problem to New South Wales, as so often happens. But I also urge them to recognise the border as a line on a map, rather than a roadblock to better progress for my communities at the edge of these two great states. House adjourned at 19:59 NOTICES 99 NOTICES

Monday, 12 February 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) took the chair at 10:29.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 101 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Blair Electorate: Broadband 101 10:29 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair My electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland is over 6,400 square kilometres and takes in most of Ipswich and all of the Somerset region to the north and west—country towns such as Kilcoy, Toogoolawah, Moore, Coominya, Esk, Lowood, Fernvale and Minden. I do mobile offices across this region on a regular basis. Most of the small towns in this region are supporting primary industries across the area. These towns and the people in these towns are resilient. They face hardships like the floods of 2011 and 2013, and like droughts. And there are the severe storms which racked Fernvale in the last few years. The people and businesses in the Somerset region have been delivered a delayed, substandard fibre-to-the-node national broadband technology. As I travel around the region, I get complaints again and again. Recently in Coominya and Lowood, I was inundated by constituents who were lined up to speak to me about this issue. I hear from businesses that they are falling behind because they can't get access to the technology they need. And there are more businesses in these country towns that are not in their high streets; they're people in their places of residence running businesses from home. Elderly residents with serious and ongoing medical conditions can't get access to online health services consistently. People are often isolated from their families. These country towns are isolated when there are floods. Also, the children in the Somerset region deserve every opportunity—the same as kids in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane—in terms of their education. They need access to digital technology in classrooms and online resources made possible with reliable broadband connections, and that's simply not happening. The multi-technology mix has increased in cost from $29.5 billion to $49 billion. There is more exposure to wireless competition and there will be higher costs over the lifetime of the NBN. It delivers slower speeds. There's less reliable service. Consumer complaints to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman have hit record highs, and we've had the NBN executives confirm recently that the 30-year business case doesn't set aside any funding for upgrading the copper network, which gets flooded and damaged during floods. We saw that in 2011 and 2013. This multi-technology mix is a real mess. It is a complete shemozzle. It's affecting businesses, farmers, children and agribusiness in the Somerset region. I'm doing what my constituents want me to do. They asked me to raise this issue in parliament. I'm doing it today in relation to this matter. We've also seen the HFC rollout to two million premises halted because of four years of cost blowouts and delays. The technology doesn't work reliably. This is a complete disaster and the government should look again at what they should be doing. Forrest Electorate: Surf Life Saving Australia 101 10:32 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I want to thank every volunteer surf lifesaver who is active over the summer and during the year for us in Australia. Surf Life Saving Australia is Australia's peak coastal water safety, drowning prevention and rescue authority. It has 168,823 volunteer members and 311 affiliated surf lifesaving clubs. It is the largest volunteer movement of its kind in Australia. They have saved over 650,000 lives. In 2016-17 active members were involved in 10,800 rescues, 108,044 first-aid treatments and nearly four million preventive actions. What a fantastic amount of work for the volunteers in over 1.35 million patrol hours. This is just a massive volunteer effort right around Australia. It's a unique not-for-profit community cause and it exists through community donations, fundraising, corporate sponsorship and government grants. There are also 59,662 little nippers. They've also concluded 850 helicopter missions. They save lives; they help create a great Australia and build better communities. The people involved with these clubs are amazing people. We have over 11,500 beaches along 36,000 kilometres of coastline, and we receive 100 million visitations at these beaches annually. It's a huge job done by Surf Life Saving Australia. They are absolutely committed to reducing the coastal drowning toll. They are involved in emergency response. I want to mention the ones in my electorate: the Binningup Surf Life Saving Club, the Busselton Surf Life Saving Club, the City of Bunbury Surf Life Saving Club, which was also an Australian surf lifesaving club of the year a few years ago, the Dalyellup Beach Surf Life Saving Club and the Smiths Beach Surf Life Saving Club as well. They do an extraordinary job out in my community, as they do right around Australia. I encourage everyone to have a look at the work that Surf Life Saving Australia has done and the national facts around rips, which are the number one hazard on our coastline. Have a look at how to identify a rip. We know that the majority of young men—between 16 and 39—who are involved in drowning are likely to drown in a rip. So this is a very good reason for people to know about how to identify a rip. I know that these clubs will make the most of the $5,000 federal government equipment grants for their work. Tasmania: Health Care 102 10:35 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons On the weekend, the Tasmanian Liberals finally released their public health policy for the March 3 election. The big headline number, $757 million, captured the attention of journalists, who went on to dutifully report the Liberal government's flashy spin. Meanwhile, Labor got to work on the detail, and what we found was a con job. The Liberals promise 298 new beds, but only a handful are to be delivered in the next four years. That was not made clear in the announcements; Tasmanians will have to wait until the term after the next to see the promise kept in full. Not only will the Liberals have to try to win this election, they'll have to try to win the next one as well to see their promise kept. It means that a child who started primary school last week will be in high school before those 298 beds are delivered, and that's assuming they don't break their promise in the meantime. It's a meaningless promise. As part of the meaningless promise, the Liberals say they will recruit 158 doctors over the next six years. On average, that's two doctors a month, or 13 every six months. Right now, it's taken them six months to replace just one specialist. What a joke! What an absolute snow job. To get an idea of what the Liberals would do with health in the future, let's look at what they've done over the past four years. They've cut $210 million from public health, and ambulance ramping is out of control; it's diabolical. Nearly one in five patients waited in a ramp ambulance for more than 30 minutes last year compared to one in 20 just the previous year. When you combine the health cuts of the Hodgman government with the health cuts of the Abbott and Turnbull governments, it's clear Tasmanians are suffering when it comes to health under the Liberals. The Medicare rebate freeze remains in place, costing Tasmanians more every time they pay their doctor's bill. In comparison to all this disaster we have Rebecca White and the Tasmanian Labor team. Rebecca White has a $560 million plan for Tasmania's health system which will be invested in the next two years, not the next two election cycles. Labor's plan will create more beds, increase investment in mental health and provide more assistance for new mums and babies. Five hundred more—500 more!—health workers will be recruited across Tasmania's health system with a focus on integrating preventive and acute patient care. Rebecca White and her team will also negotiate to repair the damage done by the federal government cuts since the Liberals came to power in 2013. Tangney Electorate: Fuel 102 10:38 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney In my electorate of Tangney a number of concerned constituents have come forward regarding the fuel price in Perth. Australian consumers have always been sensitive to movement in petrol prices, especially when movements can be large and unexplainable. Australia has some of the most expensive petrol in the world. On a like-for-like basis, Australian petroleum statistics indicated in 2017 that our fuel is the seventh dearest amongst 27 of the world's developed countries. In my electorate of Tangney, and in wider metropolitan Perth, there is a consistent petrol price cycle. In some instances, it can lead to significant price rises from Monday, the cheapest day, to Tuesday, the most expensive. These pricing strategies mean that consumers must pay particular attention to the tools we have to ensure we're getting a fair deal. FuelWatch is one such tool. A service unique to Western Australia, FuelWatch monitors fuel prices in the whole metropolitan area and 80 per cent of regional fuel retailers. While FuelWatch does to some extent empower the consumer to some extent, I emphasise with constituents that it is difficult to understand how, from day to day, seemingly from street to street, there can be so much variation in fuel prices, seemingly from a lack of competition. I wrote to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission regarding petrol pricing and received their reply—that price cycles are not evidence of a lack of retail competition. According to their inquiries, including a comprehensive 2017 report, it is up to the consumer to simply buy at the bottom of the cycle to minimise costs. Some of my constituents have spoken of widespread collusion and conspiracy, the sort of anticompetitive behaviour we cannot stand for. However, in WA, this is really a case of parallel pricing occurring where a similar product is sold at prices that are highly visible. Essentially, retail fuel companies can see a competitor's price, making it easier to predict a competitor's price through FuelWatch and minimise their own prices. The fuel market, as a result of FuelWatch, is certainly transparent, perhaps even too transparent. I believe there needs to be further inquiry to understand the full implications of market transparency on fuel prices. A 2017 paper from the OECD competition committee discussed the impact of transparency measures introduced in Germany. The paper warned that, when there is an increase in transparency in concentrated markets with the same goods, the risk of tactical collusion may also increase. The paper from the OECD notes that in Germany there has been an increase in fuel prices since the introduction of their fuel price transparency scheme in 2013. I have therefore written to the minister asking him to consider an inquiry into petrol prices to give the Australian public confidence in market transparency and protect consumers from any anticompetitive behaviour. Transparency in markets is only beneficial if it leads to consumers getting a better deal at the checkout and the petrol pump. Holt Electorate: Community Spirit and Leadership Awards 103 10:41 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt Last year, in December 2017, I was proud to present 43 students from 39 local schools with the 2017 Holt Community Spirit and Leadership Awards, held at the Cranbourne Community Theatre. These awards recognised the outstanding contribution made by students, and the difference that their hard work and their dedication made to the schools and to the broader community. I'd like to read their names into the parliamentary record so we have a permanent record of those that we honoured at these community spirit and leadership awards. These young students were: Emily Franklin, Shaylah Portelli-Moore, Sean McKigney, Arien Pateras, Adithya Prateep, Elli-Dion Martin, Jashan Jangra, Aliyah Jewel, Mahonri Akaiti, Indi Ogilvie, Jade Jolicoeur, Jessica Nikitina-Li, Maya and Sarah Ghassali, Jade Greenwood, James McBride, Sophia Cabador, Eddie Vusic, Daniel Schmidt, Aarya Daware, Merric Gardner, Fareshta Karimi, Autumn Reihana, Rangi Kimibra, Hailey Chapman, Aidan Illig, Avani Singh, Sorei Soth, Elisa Karaim, Ava Harrison, Dean Krikas, Bonny Cortese, Callum Browning, Keya Dogra, Alessia Alifano, Adrian Fernandesz, Aadi Sachdeva, Mitchell Tharle, Lisa Lei, Keertan Vinu, Sarah Kis, William Zhang and Luis Herera—a lot of names there. I wish I could describe, though, having read those names, the achievements and the contributions that these young students made. One of the reasons I initiated these awards is that we hear so much about what our young people do that is wrong. I wanted to celebrate in our community the contributions that young people make in their community that are right, and that often doesn't get mentioned in the mainstream community papers. But we had a lot of support there from the school community—as I said, through 39 local schools. There was enormous pride from the parents, from the teachers and from the friends of the students that were nominated and honoured. It is an award that's been going from strength to strength for 16 years. I'm very proud of our young people, and I hope that those whose names I just read into the Hansard remember this, because they will be remembered. Mental Health 103 10:44 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher In September 2017 I was asked to take part in a parliamentary field trip to the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands and Canada to explore best practice in improving mental health. I focused in particular on veterans and emergency service workers—on mental health, suicide prevention and eating disorders. One of the things that repeatedly struck me was the devastating impact that cyber abuse and online bullying can have across all mental health issues. For young people struggling with bullying, depression and social isolation, the online world can leave them no respite from their suffering. Today, the internet has no off button. Mobile phones and constant connectivity can mean that the bullying never stops. Comments can be anonymous and brutal and the isolation unrelenting. At its worst, vulnerable young people can end up being encouraged to take their own lives. With eating disorders, a different though no less dark side of the internet is on display. There are a plethora of websites and forums in which sufferers and enablers share information on how to lose weight in a very unhealthy manner, putting their lives at greater risk. These sites offer those suffering from eating disorders tips and tricks. They discourage treatment and normalise a serious mental health disorder. We must do more to protect vulnerable people, and particularly children, online. Towards the end of last year I met with the Prime Minister to tell him about the lessons and ideas I gathered from my field trip. He was particularly keen to hear what I had learnt in relation to the impact of online interactions on mental health and what is being done overseas to improve e-safety. He made clear then, as he often has, that he is committed to making a difference in this area. As a result of that conversation in January, I had the opportunity to meet with DIGI, a group of global online businesses, to speak to them about the ideas for change that I believe could make an important difference. This group includes representatives of Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Yahoo and others. I'm grateful to the Prime Minister, to the eSafety Commissioner, to the national cyber security advisor, Alastair MacGibbon, and to the DIGI secretariat for setting up this meeting. We had a constructive discussion and I look forward to meeting with this group again in the near future. Next Monday evening the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, has agreed to visit my electorate of Fisher to join me in leading a local forum on protecting our children online. If any local residents—in particular, parents or grandparents—are interested in attending this session, I encourage them to visit the events page of my website today for details. Perth Electorate: Optus Stadium Infrastructure 104 10:47 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth It has been my privilege to attend a number of events at Perth's new stadium—or the 'craypot' as it is becoming affectionately known—since it opened this summer. Notwithstanding a streaker and Australia's loss to England in the one-day international, the facility is absolutely magnificent, world class and second to none. I encourage all Australians and overseas visitors to come and visit the craypot. It is a tribute to both the McGowan Labor government and also the previous government in relation to the world-class standard set both in terms of the cultural infrastructure and as a viewing venue for sports. Like most of these things, there are some kinks to be ironed out. Tremendous work is being put in to make sure that that is being achieved: managing the traffic flow in and out of the facility, and facilitating getting a cold beer and a hot pie. For those who don't know, the stadium is not in my electorate but is directly across the Swan River. That's where it becomes relevant to the federal electorate of Perth. As many in this place will know, the planned footbridge from East Perth over to the stadium has not yet been completed. Whilst it was very impressive to see some enterprising young men and women with their tinnies ferrying people from one side of the river to the other, my sense is that's not a sustainable, long-term solution. The footbridge was due to be delivered in June 2016, but the overseas contractor failed to meet deadlines. I'm pleased to say that, as part of a McGowan Labor government initiative of increased local content, it is now being built at home. However, both now and into the future, we are seeing a knock-on effect on some of my constituents in East Perth, Mt Lawley and Maylands of being inundated with an influx of punters who are parking in suburbs of my electorate and then heading over to the stadium. It's happening already and it's likely to get worse as the footbridge gets up and running—pardon the pun—but there is a solution. It's all well and good to identify problems but we also need to work on solutions. There was a similar problem around Perth oval in Highgate in my electorate, but parking permits on match days solved those local traffic problems. Basically, signs are updated every few months with prohibited parking bays to make sure locals don't miss out. The City of Vincent should be commended on such an approach. Today, we start the conversation at all levels of government—City of Vincent, Bayswater, City of Perth, my state colleague Simon Millman and myself—to make sure that locals are not impacted by this thriving and magnificent stadium venue. Fairfax Electorate: Youth in Philanthropy 104 10:51 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Last Friday, I was privileged to attend a Youth in Philanthropy conference at the University of the Sunshine Coast. I commend the young leaders who participated in the event. Thirty-four students in total, ranging from 10 to 17 years of age from seven different schools across the Buderim catchment—young leaders, each and every one of them—will this morning go back to their respective schools to undertake a philanthropic project of their choice. At times, I bemoan the fact that the pendulum in our society has swung too far in favour of individual rights without a commensurate degree of individual responsibility, and the fact that, as a society, we don't speak as readily as we once did about the importance of one's character and how it finds expression in one's contribution to their local community. This is what makes events like last Friday so inspiring. What gives me great hope for our future is witnessing young Australians who are leaders among their peers recognise that, as leaders, the weight of their responsibility is heavier than the weight of their rights. When a generation of such leaders demonstrate a commitment to that principle by serving others, philanthropically or otherwise, in not just words but most importantly in actions, then we will see that pendulum of society swing back into balance, into the sensible centre, such is the importance of leadership. The imbalance of rights and responsibility that pervades our society today has become a cultural issue. There's only one thing that can ever change culture and that is leadership. I believe the leaders of tomorrow, our younger generation, have what it takes in this regard but they still need encouragement and mentorship and they need the opportunity to lead. That's what groups like the Buderim Foundation's youth committee provide by organising events such as last Friday's. It's what the University of the Sunshine Coast and community groups like SunnyKids actively support by assisting with such events. It's what schools on the Sunshine Coast teach, not only at their own campuses but through participating, in the case of Matthew Flinders and Sunshine Coast Grammar School, and through helping to facilitate events such as last Friday's. Youth in Philanthropy is leadership in action. I, for one, am enormously confident that our future is in good hands. Molan, Senator Jim 105 10:54 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Last week, Senator Molan was condemned for displaying extremely horrible judgement by showing material from the abhorrent Neo-Nazi group Britain First. It was right that he was criticised and held accountable for his poor decisions; it was right to criticise the Prime Minister for not disciplining his most junior backbencher for not apologising, when even President Trump apologised for sharing similar videos. However, the attacks on Senator Molan's record as a soldier and the imputation that he committed war crimes, by the member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, and Senator Di Natale, were utterly disgraceful. Either these members of the Greens political party made these statements of moral outrage born of ignorance of Fallujah or, worse, they knew the facts yet still confected a moral outrage in order to launch a base political attack. Either way, the outcome is the same. They not only impugn the record of Senator Molan's military service to this country but, equally, deride the service of thousands of veterans and current serving men and women in the ADF. They also debase themselves in the process. I have been here a short time but have learned in this place that we have a choice: to use our privilege to genuinely represent our constituency in their best interests and serve the national interest or spend our privilege simply scoring cheap political points to excoriate our opponents for purely short-term political benefit. In 2004, Fallujah was occupied by the Al Qaeda in Iraq terrorists and Ba'athist insurgents. These terrorist groups killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. They targeted people because of their sectarian or ethnic background, and they targeted innocent women and children. How do I know this? Because I was there. I was in Iraq during 2003 and 2004 serving with the Coalition Provisional Authority. I was there in early 2004 during the first siege of Fallujah in the discussions with Generals Sanchez and Conway and Ambassador Bremer around saving civilian lives and the opening up of humanitarian corridors facilitated by the Red Crescent to allow 70,000 civilians to escape Fallujah. Let me state it simply for the Greens. There is no moral equivalence between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Al Qaeda in Iraq, who sat there and planned to maximise the deaths of innocent civilians, deliberately targeting women and children for death, and coalition forces, who were required to act within the international laws of armed conflict and, as I saw firsthand, made all efforts to minimise civilian casualties in all military operational planning. I fear it goes beyond spurious moral equivalence arguments for the Greens. They have devolved into a moral blindness in the relentless hunt for cheap political points. But this is not new. During the 2016 election campaign, Greens party activists went door to door in my electorate and told constituents that, because I had been in Iraq, I was a war criminal. At first I dismissed this as the pathetic over-exuberance of some Greens extremists, until it was confirmed that it was part of their scripts. Many constituents told me that they were disgusted by the things they were being told. I served in Iraq as a public servant for the Australian Department of Defence, and I worked to rebuild the Iraqi public service and the Iraqi security forces following the removal of Saddam's regime. While I believed that the Iraq war was a strategic and humanitarian disaster, I did my duty serving my country, and I believed that, once the coalition forces, including Australia, had removed Saddam's regime, we had a humanitarian and moral responsibility to rebuild that shattered country, which is what I worked towards. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I thank the honourable member for his contribution and his dedication to our nation. Tennis 105 10:57 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I start by congratulating Australia's fabulous Fed Cup team, which triumphed in the rubber against Ukraine on the weekend in Canberra, particularly Queenslander Ash Barty, birthday girl Casey Dellacqua and the dashing Daria Gavrilova. What a spectacular summer of tennis we have all experienced! Again this year, Australians—indeed, the world—have been in awe of the sportsmanship and competitiveness of our elite tennis players. Closer to my sporting electorate of Ryan, a full house of 100,000 spectators enjoyed the sights and sounds of the Brisbane International at the beginning of January. The BI was another resounding success. Thanks must go to all those who worked behind the scenes as well as all the ballkids—without them those tournaments just would not function. During the Brisbane International, I had the opportunity to join a site tour of the Queensland Tennis Centre's facilities with members of the Players with an Intellectual Disability state tennis training squad. These amazing young men and women continue to achieve new goals. In particular, I make special mention of Archie Graham of Ipswich, currently world number 1 and recipient of the John Newcombe award. Tennis is a sport of inclusion and does not discriminate. This was especially demonstrated during the record turnout for the come-and-try event for local would-be wheelchair tennis players. I thank all those players, coaches and carers who gave up their time to make the day so special, including our own patron for the International Day of People with Disability, Dylan Alcott. This was followed by an exhibition match on centre court which included a running commentary by Dylan. How good was that! In Queensland, there are more than 45,000 registered tennis club members and 86,000 ANZ Tennis Hot Shots and Fitbit Cardio Tennis participants. The ANZ Tennis Hot Shots program has continued to attract more children to this ageless sport. The program introduces primary school children to tennis, using modified rules and equipment. Tennis Hot Shots encourages fitness, socialising and all-round entertainment, and I could not think of a better sport for this than tennis. Those participating in the current cohort of Hot Shots may very well be the next Evonne Goolagong-Cawley or Rod Laver. It is wonderful to see the growing profile of tennis throughout Queensland. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Tennis Queensland, including President, Mark Bloomfield, Mark Handley, Elia Hill and their hardworking teams for the success of this major event. The following week, many of them backed up for the Australian Open, and less than two weeks later everyone was back in Brisbane for the first Davis Cup tie of the year against Germany. I was pleased that the federal government was able to support a three-day Davis Cup inclusive workshop, forum and wonderful workshops for multicultural and Indigenous children as well. No matter where you are in the world or what language you speak, pick up a tennis racket and you are bound to meet friends who share your common bond. 11:00 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 106 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement 106 11:01 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I move: That this House: (1) acknowledges the importance of open trade and investment policies in growing the Australian economy and creating local jobs; (2) commends the Government for leading efforts to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership 11 nation (TPP-11) agreement; (3) welcomes the recent conclusion of this landmark deal which will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs in a trade zone with a combined GDP of AUD $13.7 trillion; (4) notes the significant opportunities offered by new trade agreements with Canada and Mexico and greater market access to Japan, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei; (5) recognises the importance of the agreement for Australia's farmers, manufacturers and service providers in increasing their competitiveness in overseas markets; (6) notes indicative modelling by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which found that the TPP-11 agreement would boost Australia's national income by 0.5 per cent and exports by 4 per cent; and (7) encourages the Parliament to work co-operatively to ratify the TPP-11 agreement so that Australian exporters can take advantage of the many benefits it delivers. 11:01 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Is the motion seconded? Mr Pitt 148150 I second the motion. Mr VAN MANEN 188315 The value of this motion is that we're seeking to once again share with the House and acknowledge the importance of open trade and investment policies in a growing Australian economy. Importantly, this is about the opportunity to create local jobs. This private member's motion seeks to commend the government for leading efforts to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership 11-nation agreement, TPP 11. It welcomes the recent conclusion of this landmark deal, which will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs in a trade zone with a combined GDP of A$13.7 trillion. It notes the significant opportunities offered by the new trade agreements with Canada and Mexico, and the greater market access to Japan, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei. It recognises the importance of the agreement for Australia's farmers, manufacturers and exporters, and also, importantly, our service providers, who we're seeing being increasingly competitive overseas. It was my pleasure to speak in the House last week about the anniversary of the Australia-Japan trade agreement, which was 60 years old last year. It was about the positive impact that these trade agreements have had on the local economy and, in particular, on businesses in my electorate of Forde. I have no doubt that in the near future we'll be sharing a similar story of how this TPP has delivered on its commitment to create significant opportunities for Australian farmers, manufacturers and service industries. The comprehensive and progressive agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement will create significant export opportunities for Australian businesses. I'd like to commend my colleague, the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Steven Ciobo, on his tremendous efforts in the negotiations to deliver the TPP. I also note the former assistant trade minister, the member for Hinkler, Keith Pitt, who is here and who, no doubt, had plenty to do with this as well. The existing free trade agreements have already created new jobs and opportunities for businesses in my electorate of Forde, particularly in the areas of manufacturing and export, in particular, for one of the large businesses in my electorate, Teys, and their export of chilled and frozen meat products to Japan. The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, as I noted earlier, will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs. What we see is that these opportunities are already providing work for people in my electorate of Ford on a daily basis. As I shared last week, Frosty Boy, whose powdered milk products go into frozen ice-creams around the world, employ over 150 people. I was there recently and they were testing new products for new markets. They have a laboratory there that ensures that the products that they bring to market in various places around the world meet the tastes of those particular markets. So, not only is it driving export opportunities and job opportunities, but it's also leading to innovation in the products that are being offered as well. Now, sadly, when we look at those across the chamber, we see that those across the chamber have no plans to support Australian business. They declared the trade agreement dead and wanted to walk away from the opportunity that would see so many of our farmers and industries flourish. If those opposite got their way, and the Leader of the Opposition was the Prime Minister, they'd see Australia excluded from this historic agreement and deny our farmers, manufacturers and other businesses terrific opportunities. In 2016-17, nearly a quarter of Australia's total exports, worth around $88 billion, went to countries that now are part of the TPP. And now, thanks to the significant increase in market access the TPP provides, Australian exporters and Australian people can expect to see this figure grow significantly. And this is the important bit: it is about creating opportunity for Australian businesses to provide local jobs for Australians that create wealth and opportunity for the current generation and the generations to come. I commend the TPP to the House. 11:06 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman Whether in government or opposition, the Australian Labor Party believes in transparency. We believe in transparency; we believe in accountability. However, the Prime Minister and his government's arrogant handling of the new Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership shows that they do not hold these values. Rather than an open, consultative process, this government has been working on this deal in the shadows—avoiding scrutiny and refusing to share any independent economic modelling with the parliament. What they're doing is marking their own homework, and it's just not good enough. What we need is someone to actually pull out the red pen. Independent analysis has been called for by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It's been called for by the Productivity Commission, and even the Treasurer's own Harper review. Independent modelling and analysis was even called on by Liberal MPs who examined the original TPP. But it's funny how things change. The Turnbull government's 'trust me, I know better than you' attitude is out of touch. Labor will judge any deal on its own merits, of course. If this new CPTPP is good for Australia, if it's good for Australian jobs, then, of course, we'll support it—if it's good. However, there are some parts of the original agreement which we, on this side, have urged the government to renegotiate in the new CPTPP—like the inclusion of the ISDS mechanism, or the removal of labour market testing for six countries. We simply don't know the details of this agreement, and we won't until the Turnbull government shows some transparency and holds themselves to account to the Australian parliament. All we know is that without the involvement of the US, this deal will be radically different to the original TPP. Australia is a trading nation. About one in five Australians work in a job that's linked to trade, so we need to consider these agreements carefully. We need to see the detail. Rightfully so, Australians are sceptical about the benefits of trade, and we need to be able to provide them with evidence. They need to know what the details are. Will it create jobs in Australia? Australians need to be assured that local workers get first priority—first priority for Australian jobs. They shouldn't be waivered away through free trade agreements like the conservative governments have done with ChAFTA, or Korea and Japan, and the original TPP agreement. This isn't protectionism. This is just common sense. It's common sense when there are people all over the country struggling to get by, struggling to find work, especially in regions like mine in Longman or further up north in places like Townsville. We've got people who have been let down by this government. They've been let down time and time again, so they have every single right to be sceptical about a deal until we actually see what's contained in this agreement. People in Australia don't want to see Australian jobs sent overseas. We've seen this already happen, with the government outsourcing countless Centrelink call centre jobs to Serco. We know that people in Australia don't want to see foreign workers flying in and doing the work that could have been done by Aussies, by hardworking people in regions, in places all over the country. They don't want to see a foreign worker flying in and taking a job that they can do. So, until this government steps out of the shadows and holds a proper conversation about this trade deal, well, we just don't know. Labor is completely committed to Australian trade. We're also committed to Australian jobs. So we're very, very willing to join in on any agreement that does right by this country. We're willing to join in on any agreement that does right by the workers of this country and by people who are still looking for work in this country. We just need to see the facts and the figures. When we do that, then we can make the decision. We can't do that until the independent modelling has been done and everybody is able to see the details of this agreement. 11:11 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I congratulate Minister Ciobo for signing off on the TPP after many years of negotiation. And they said it couldn't be done. But here we are; we're moving forward. It will be assessed by the JSCOT and hopefully ratified by the parliament later in the year. We've got form. We had already signed deals with Japan, South Korea and China, and I think it is appropriate to reflect on just how successful those deals have been and just how successful the TPP will be once it is signed and in place. If we look at those agreements, we can see that, in recent years, agriculture in this country has expanded enormously. They are going pretty damn well, to be honest. They're having a great time of it. They are a shining star of our economy. In fact, they produced over $60 billion worth of farmgate production, and $48 billion of that was exported. Can we imagine what will happen to regional Australia if we do not continue to open up new trade routes and new opportunities, new areas that our growth products can move into, with the capacity to increase manufacturing, particularly in regional areas, to value-add, to fix the logistics chain? All these things do one thing and one thing only—that is, build the Australian economy. If we build the Australian economy, we will continue to build jobs, particularly in regional areas, and it's pretty straightforward. As the member for Longman said, one in five people in this nation are employed because of trade. More trade for Australia means more jobs, and, the faster we can provide better opportunities to Australian producers, the better off we will be, particularly in regional areas. There is only one interest in this agreement, and that is the national interest. There is no other consideration. We as the parliament must act in the national interest, and we should do that as quickly as possible. This deal has taken some time to put together. Everyone is aware of some of the challenges, particularly around countries which decided they didn't want to be a part of the TPP, but we have managed to put together a deal which is in this nation's interest, and we should act on it. All of us here are always interested in what happens in our electorates; I'm sure you are, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, as the member for Wright, being an agricultural producer yourself. My region in Hinkler between Bundaberg and Hervey Bay is now the biggest producer of macadamia nuts in this country. As someone who was born there and has lived there most of my life and been involved in agriculture for a long time I have to say that, when it kicked off, I was very surprised by the work that was undertaken. It was expensive; there were long-term returns. But it has been an absolute boon for our region, and nearly all of that product is exported. We are a nation of just 24 million people. We cannot consume everything that we produce. In fact, I know that any number of our organisations locally are exporting macadamia nuts, particularly to China and South Korea. Right now, they're going pretty well—they're going very, very well. South Korea is a great opportunity, and the further that we can expand our trade routes and opportunities, the less risk there is to this country. From when I grew up. as a tradesperson, it's what's called belt-and-braces policies. It means that you ensure that you have more than one opportunity, more than one location to send your product to, more than one place you can be shut out of and of course that can shut your business. So the TPP is a great opportunity. It is a boon. It will deliver 18 new free trade agreements between the TPP 11 parties. For Australia, that means new trade agreements with Canada, Mexico and greater market access for Japan, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei. In my region, that includes sugar. Sugar has been an absolute basket case in world trade for many years, as we all recognise. But we now have further opportunities for the sugar industry in South Korea and Japan, and this will increase those opportunities in Japan, and also, particularly, if we can get it into Mexico. It is an absolute boon for our sugar growers. As someone who actually grew up in the sugar industry, who spent their entire life in it—through harvesting contracts, milling operations and right through to management—I know these are opportunities for our regional people right up the North Queensland coast. I certainly look forward to those opportunities coming to fruition, because nearly one-quarter of all of Australia's total exports, worth nearly $88 billion, goes to the TPP 11 countries. We need to ensure that we continue to trade with those nations and we need to ensure that our producers have the best forward-facing price that we can possibly provide for them. That is why we do trade negotiations. That is why we have trade agreements. That is why we have so many people from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade out in these countries, ensuring they act in this country's interest. So we should ensure that the TPP 11 is ratified and that the JSCOT sign off on it. It is a strong deal, it is in the national interest and I absolutely support it. I thank the member for Forde for putting forward this motion for consideration. 11:16 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I read the motion and I listened to the mover's speech. No wonder he ran away—he made his speech and then ran out the door: this is completely absurd. We're debating a motion and the proposed benefits of a trade agreement that no-one has seen. We need to get that fact clear at the outset. No-one has seen this agreement. We've got speculation and we've got random facts in the motion. I don't know what the assumptions are. We don't know who the winners and losers are. There are always winners and there are always losers in a trade deal. So table it. If the government were serious about wanting us to understand and evaluate the benefits of this trade deal, they'd come in here and put it on table. But it's a complete load of nonsense to have a self-congratulatory motion on a secret deal. Now, it may be the world's best deal; it may be the world's best deal and it will blow you out of the water. It may be the world's worst deal, but no-one would know. But, 'Trust us; we're the government,' says the government member. 'We'll just put a few little facts in the motion and then run out of the room.' He's probably gone to edit or check his Wikipedia page and check that this motion never appears in it! Labor support an open economy; we do. Trade is good for Australia, and one-fifth of Australia's workers are in jobs that are linked to trade. Trade creates jobs and prosperity for us; that's the structure of our economy. But we hear this complete nonsense over and over again that Labor opposes trade deals: 'Labor, you oppose trade deals.' Then we hear we've betrayed the Hawke and Keating legacy. They are getting very jealous of the Hawke and Keating legacy because they can't point to much that John Howard did in 11 years, except replace a bunch of sales taxes with the GST and sit back for 10 years. The truth is that Labor in opposition have never opposed a trade deal. So despite all the rubbish we hear—'You're blocking the trade deal; you're all terrible'—we've never opposed or blocked a trade deal once we'd seen the detail and gone through it. We hear about CHAFTA. Apparently we stopped the China free trade agreement, which is complete nonsense. We asked a bunch of questions and we forced some improvements to that deal before it was signed. That is our job as an opposition and, indeed, it's the job of every member in this place who takes their responsibilities seriously—to actually look at the detail. So what we're being asked to do here is: 'Let's go by the vibe of the deal. It's a really cool deal, man. Toke on this deal; it's going to be really awesome!' Let me bombard you with a few random facts. What is the government scared of and what are they hiding? There will be, as I said, winners and losers. There were through the Hawke and Keating era. Overall, undoubtedly, Australia's economy grew, and our prosperity and national wealth grew as a result of the economic reforms. But there were losers. There were people who lost their jobs and there were businesses that closed and were forced out of business because they couldn't compete. And so we've said that a proper, principled position is to expose trade deals to independent scrutiny and independent economic modelling, for two key reasons. The first is that this is good practice. At the moment, we have a situation where the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade bureaucrats who run around and negotiate these deals are then marking their own homework. They go and negotiate the deal and say: 'This is the best we can get. Now we'll run some figures and say, "Look what a good deal it is."' That's not good public policy and not good practice. You expose the assumptions underpinning the deal to independent scrutiny so you can form a view. The second reason, of course, is to build community confidence. There's enormous scepticism and concern about trade deals, particularly as the nature of the media and human psychology is to focus on loss. So we focus on the losers without giving a balanced perspective too often. Independent economic modelling and scrutiny would, I believe, help build community confidence and help the government understand where it needs to help out and assist people to transition. Of course, it's not just Labor that's saying this but the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Interestingly, the Treasurer's own Harper review said: Trade negotiations should be informed by an independent and transparent analysis of the costs and benefits … Indeed, repeatedly, Liberal MPs who examined the original TPP recommended: … the Australian Government consider implementing a process through which independent modelling and analysis of a proposed trade agreement is undertaken by the Productivity Commission … That's Labor's policy. The member for Warringah, when Prime Minister, commissioned independent modelling of Australia's agreement with Korea, and that was supported and people felt confident. So I do not understand what the government has to hide, and it's a complete nonsense to bring this motion in prematurely. The ideal trade agreement is with the Asia-Pacific, and it would include India, China, the US and others. We'd see increased growth and interdependence, and that, of course, would contribute to regional peace and stability. But in the meantime we should get some independent economic modelling and be honest and up-front about it, and when this deal is released and we go through it, then we'll back it. Our record does support that. We have backed, ultimately, the trade deals put forward, but only when we've seen the detail. No-one would accept the complete nonsense that's thrown at us that, somehow, we should sign up to something we haven't seen. That would not be doing our job well by the Australian people. 11:21 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax The Labor member who just spoke loved to make the comment that Labor always backs FTAs. The only thing Labor has ever had the capacity to do with free trade agreements is back them, and here is why: not once in our history as a country has the Labor Party ever instigated, done end to end and closed a free trade agreement. Not once in its history has it done that. Yet it has the gall to stand in this place and try to lecture the coalition government on FTAs. Today we've heard from the Labor speakers that the great crime, apparently, is that they haven't seen the final text of the FTA document. If they'd ever gone through the process, they would know that the text is never made fully available until it is translated into its various languages. If they'd ever had that experience, they might know what they were talking about. Did they ever release any economic modelling for the three FTAs that they were involved in signing in government? No. They reek with hypocrisy. I am very proud to be standing here today in support of this motion put by the member for Forde. From the first decades of the New South Wales colony and John Macarthur to the TPP 11—which will be signed in Chile, we hope, on 8 March this year—Australia's reliance on trade has been unquestionable. We produce amazing goods and services, and this government has been supporting our businesses to ensure we are competitive within the global economy. When it comes to ensuring that we knock off any tariff or non-tariff barriers, the apex of any such achievement, and the best and most sustainable outcome is an international trade agreement—a free trade agreement. Under the Turnbull government and, indeed, under the Abbott government, we have achieved historic FTAs, with Japan, Korea, China and Peru. The last, coincidentally being signed today, will remove 99 per cent of tariffs on Australian imports into the rapidly expanding Peruvian economy. How can that be anything but good for the Australian worker and for Australian businesses? Now we have the TPP 11, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership which brings together 11 Pacific rim nations in a network of 18 new free trade agreements. Both the size and the promise of this deal are breathtaking. As the member for Forde's motion notes, the TPP 11 is set to eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs across a truly immense trading zone, with a combined GDP of some A$13.7 trillion. The direct benefit to the Australian farmers, producers, manufacturers and service providers in improved market access and a sustained boost to exports is significant, with modelling finding that the TPP 11 would lift Australia's national income by 0.5 per cent or more than $15 billion while boosting exports by four per cent, which equates to more than $30 billion in additional exports. It was the leadership and determination of the Turnbull government, led by our trade minister, together with the government of Japan in particular, which worked so hard to keep negotiations alive following the decision of President Trump to withdraw, and finally got this deal over the line with all 11 nations still on board. The TPP 11 is clearly an outstanding win for Australian businesses and jobs, and the Turnbull government deserves to be congratulated. But tellingly, this is a win that would have been missed completely if Labor had won the last election or if the government had been so desperate for guidance that we actually took the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, who, you'll recall, publicly declared on several occasions that the Trans-Pacific Partnership was 'dead'—dead. Really? That would mean $30 billion in additional exports just tossed away by the Labor Party. That would be an appalling judgement. Thank God for the coalition. 11:26 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I have seldom, in this entire parliament, heard so much complete and utter drivel. You come in here and you present facts. What are the facts about our free-trade deals? The last one was with the United States. They wanted pharmaceuticals and they wanted phytosanitary quarantine removed. That was what they wanted. According to The Australian Financial Review, the Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian newspapers, we wanted dairy, beef and sugar. Did they get what they wanted? Yes. They got an open-door policy virtually for pharmaceuticals and for phytosanitary requirements quarantined. We have a board now which consists of half United States and half Australia. So they have 50 per cent control over our quarantine protection; not that there was any quarantine protection to start with, so I don't suppose we gave anything away. We pleaded with them not to allow the prawns in. If you allow prawns in, you will get white spot. Well, we got white spot. We got citrus canker. We got Panama disease. We got black sigatoka. We got papaya fruit fly. Our phytosanitary requirements are an absolute joke. What did the free-trade deal do for us? It gave away the entire coal seam gas reserves of this nation; $23 billion a year was given away. We gave it away for six cents a gigajoule and we bought it back for $16 a gigajoule. In fact, it is cheaper to buy Australian gas in Tokyo and bring it back to Australia than to actually buy it in Australia. That was a magnificent free-trade deal. We freed up the wool industry–oh, what a magical achievement; it is now costing the nation $16 billion a year. Ethanol: 'Oh, we must have a level playing field; we must have a free market.' So, whilst Brazil produces ethanol and provides a $4 billion cross subsidy to its sugar industry, we're 'free trading', so we import $23 billion worth of petrol every year instead of producing one litre of petrol of our own, which, of course, we could do tomorrow with ethanol. Oh, and we wiped out the entire manufacturing industry of Australia. The car industry alone was $25 billion a year. Just in coal seam gas, wool, ethanol and motor vehicles, we have lost $40, $50, $60, $70 billion in just five items. In the last free trade deal that we did, what did we get for dairy? We got the equivalent of an ice cream a week. That was the benefit for the Australian dairymen. That's what we got. For beef it was, 'In 10 years time, we might open it up and have a free industry.' That's four administrations you'll go through before you get a freeing-up of the industry. For sugar, we were wiped like a dirty rag. So that was our success story on this wonderful free trade agreement. America's success story was marvellous. We see crawling, drivelling, sycophants. They belong to the colonial era. All they want to do is race out there and say, 'Oh, teacher, I'm the good boy in the class. I'm the one doing the right thing. I free up trade!' We all signed an agreement to reduce our protection and support levels by 30 per cent when we signed the agricultural free trade agreements. Every country on earth kept them just about where they were, except for two countries: Australia and New Zealand. They abolished all of their protection completely. It's very simple: you're sending your gladiator into the arena without a helmet and without a shield. He's still got his sword but he's got no helmet or shield. He says, 'Hold on a minute, mate. My adversary's got a helmet and a shield.' 'Oh, yeah, but if you fight without a helmet and shield, it'll make you tough'. No, it won't. It'll make you dead. That's where we lie at the present moment: with no manufacturing base, without any petrol and without any possibility of competing on a level playing field now or in the future. What drivel we have heard. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 111 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Leadership and Gender Diversity 111 11:32 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) among 15 rural research and development corporations which receive statutory levies partly matched by the Commonwealth, the representation of women is no higher than 44 per cent, is as low as 11 per cent, and averages 26 per cent; (b) the Australian Institute of Company Directors (Institute) says its quest for 30 per cent female representation across ASX 200 boards by 2018 has stalled; (c) the Institute's latest gender diversity report shows that as of 31 August 2017 there were 25.4 per cent female directors, only marginally higher than the 25.3 per cent reached at the end of 2016; (d) at the time of the publication of the Institute's latest gender diversity report, 11 ASX 200 companies had no women on their boards; and (e) the Institute says that the Government may be forced to intervene with quotas to force companies to appoint more female directors; (2) acknowledges the Diversity in Agriculture Leadership Program (Program) initiative launched by the National Farmers' Federation and AACo on 15 October 2017, which asks organisations to commit to auditing the gender diversity within their leadership teams and pledge to make 'meaningful change' towards achieving enhanced gender equality; and (3) calls on the: (a) Government to support the Program and similar initiatives to ensure that companies appoint more female directors; and (b) Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources to outline to the Parliament a plan to increase the representation of women to a minimum of 30 per cent on all agricultural boards over which the Government has some level of influence, including rural research and development corporations, agricultural committees, panels and councils. Colleagues, International Women's Day is on 8 March. The National Rural Women's Coalition, which is made up of the ALGWA, Australian Women in Agriculture, the Country Women's Association of Australia, the National Rural Health Alliance and the Women's Industry Network Seafood Community are all visiting parliament this week. This year the theme for the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women meeting in New York is 'Challenges and opportunities in achieving gender equality and the empowerment of rural women and girls'. We have had new ministers for agriculture, new ministers for the status of women and new ministers for regional Australia. I think it is timely today to remind the parliament about the importance of a proactive approach to ensuring gender equality on all boards. Today I would particularly like to talk about agriculture boards as they relate to the power the government has. In my speech today, I'm going to be talking about the 15 rural research and development corporations which receive statutory levies, partly matched by the Commonwealth, where the representation of women is very low. I'm going to be talking about the Australian Institute of Company Directors, which says its quest is for 30 per cent female representation across all ASX 200 boards. Their aim is to achieve that by 2018, but that has stalled. I'm talking about the importance of diversity at a time when we are at the crux, I suppose, of going forward with gender equality. Today I would particularly like to focus on rural and regional Australia in the bigger picture. Rural and regional Australia is the backbone of this nation—truly. The Regional Australia Institute tells us that the regions are responsible for one-third of total employment in this country, just over one-third of our economic output, about two-thirds of our exports by value, and our regional capitals are home to about one-quarter of all Australians. So there's nothing insignificant about rural and regional Australia. Of all that work done in rural and regional Australia, agriculture—together with mining, but today I'm focusing on agriculture—is the hub. Before I was a politician, I had the real pleasure of being involved in the national organisation called Australian Women in Agriculture. I was one of the founding directors and later on became president. The aim of that organisation was to raise the status of women in agriculture—the scientists, the journalists, the academics, the economists, the educators, the marketers, the international traders, the financiers, the public servants, the CEOs, the agronomists and, of course, the farmers. That was our job, and part of raising the profile was to make sure that representation right across the board was real and that the people who took up positions of power actually represented the experience in the workplace. I'd just like to take a moment to acknowledge some of the leaders in this area from my electorate—Marion Rack, Elaine Patten, Alana Johnson, Dr Rohan O'Hagan, Jill Briggs, Alana Young and Nerada Kerr—and to thank them for their work. Government policy set in 2016 set the target for women holding government board positions at 50 per cent, and, in June 2017, women held 42.7 per cent of government board positions. But in agriculture that's not the story. In agriculture, there are 18 government boards with 114 positions and 39 women in those positions, which is 34 per cent—way short of the target. In preparation for today, I asked the library to do a bit of a deep dive into some of the agricultural statistics we need to be looking at. Across government portfolios of agriculture and water resources, Attorney-General, communication and the arts et cetera, they found that, second to the Attorney-General's, agriculture has the lowest representation of women on boards. For agriculture and water resources there are 18 government boards with 114 positions and there are 39 women, which is 34 per cent. That was just topped at being the worst by the Attorney-General's, which is at 32.6 per cent. What I'm saying today is that we've moved some way. There has been some effort, and slowly there has been an improvement, but it's not nearly enough. In bringing my comments to a close, I call on the government to work closely with the National Farmers' Federation. They've got the Diversity in Agriculture Leadership program. And I call on the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources to outline to parliament on a regular basis what the minister is doing to raise our representation up to 50 per cent in the near future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Is the motion seconded? Ms O'Toole 249908 I second the motion. 11:37 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I'm delighted today to speak to this motion and, more broadly, to support my colleague and neighbour the member for Indi. Whilst the issue of the proportion of women on our boards, both agricultural and non-agricultural, has been the subject of much discussion in this place, particularly amongst the women over many, many years, I have to say that I have moved my own position somewhat since those early days. If I had stood up here 15 years ago, I would have said, 'No, no, no, leave it as it is. Women need to compete on their merit, and they have plenty of merit. Let's just get on with it. The times have to catch up with the increasing proportion of women who are entering the workforce at a variety of different skill levels.' However, having watched the situation for as long as I have, I am moving much more towards the position that the member for Indi has enunciated this morning. I am particularly sympathetic to her description and calls on the government when it comes to the proportion of women on agricultural boards and those boards that have a composition which is at least in part determined by government. If we, through our research and development levies, are supporting an entity, then we have a stake. We may not officially have a stake at the table, but we should have an ability to influence something as important as the composition of the women on those boards—not the appointments, not the individuals, just the broad composition. This debate has moved from nothing at all, to targets. Those targets are often expressed as: 'Well, it would be really good if we could get here. Everyone come on board and let's admit that we aren't where we need to be, and it would be really good if we could get here." I've seen this in the Liberal Party over many years. In fact, my good friend Chantelle Fornari-Orsmond said at the New South Wales Liberal Party's AGM on the weekend—and I'm paraphrasing her here because I didn't actually attend; I've just read reports of what she said—'Can you men stop pretending that you support women in positions of leadership and power in political parties and then doing absolutely nothing about it? Stop coming here to our regular events and just rolling out the lines and then going away and doing what you've always done.' I'm not suggesting, as others of my gender may, that there's a boys' club and there's a conspiracy. I don't actually think any of those things exist, and I certainly don't think they exist on agricultural boards. But I just think there's a lack of momentum and there's a lack of commitment, and if everyone keeps doing what they've been doing then the pace of change, as the member for Indi has outlined, will just be too slow. I think we need some hard targets in there at some point in time. I think we need a commitment that says we actually have to get to these numbers. This is no more important in any section in society than it is in agriculture. What I know, as someone who has lived her life in rural Australia—and, while I would have once described myself as a 'farmer's wife', I would probably now describe myself as having been a farmer for 17 whole years of my life—is what women contribute. I saw firsthand what women contribute in their communities. I represented, as I call them, the 'wonderful women of the west' in outback New South Wales through the Millennium drought. That was 10 years of the most heartbreaking climatic and societal conditions that any family could face. Families broke apart—of course they did—under the strain. Children were sent away to school. Children came back from university because they couldn't bear to see their parents unable to work the farm and unable to support the cost of keeping them in their education. There was untold pain and distress. But it was the women who kept things together. The women never took a top-down approach to life and the future; it was the women who always did everything from the grassroots up. They kept their families together, they kept their communities together and they recognised that the holistic approach is the only one that sustains into the future. So we need those women on our boards. We need them making decisions. How dare anyone suggest that somehow they're not capable? We know that they are. The Australian Institute of Company Directors, a very august body, and many members in this place are very supportive of the member for Indi's motion today, as am I. 11:42 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I'm delighted to support this motion brought forward by the member for Indi, and I would like to agree heartily with the statements made by the two previous speakers. As a father of three sons and three daughters, it would be absolutely absurd to think that my sons are more deserving of higher positions in their workplace for no reason other than their gender. However, this concept continues to be a reality in Australian industries, particularly in agricultural industries. I'm someone who clearly remembers when the Whitlam government lobbied the Australian Institute of Company Directors for equal pay. I would have hoped that over 45 years later gender diversity in the workplace would be at a much higher level than it is today. The conversation around female representation in top positions in each industry, especially board director roles, has been had for many decades and yet our progress has been inordinately slow. Change seems to be happening at a snail's pace; in fact, we're seeing progress stall. The Australian Institute of Company Directors' quest for 30 per cent representation for female company directors across ASX 200 boards by 2018 seems highly unlikely to succeed, with only a 0.1 per cent increase in female directors from 25.3 per cent in 2016 to 25.4 per cent in 2017—a pathetically small increase. There's no justifiable reason that we're not seeing consistent increases in gender representation at these levels. It comes down to two things: poor excuses and gender bias. We hear that there aren't enough qualified women, that women are not flexible enough and that women have to look after and bear children and therefore they cannot fully commit to the position. These excuses are very archaic and just don't cut it these days. Only 66 companies in the ASX 200 are meeting or exceeding 30 per cent female representation, while the other 134 are falling short—often way short—and 64 of those companies that are falling short only have one female board member. It is a far cry from gender diversity and gender equality, and for no particularly good reason. There's no reason why women can't be represented, in the same proportion they represent of the general community, on company boards. No-one's seriously suggesting that women are less intelligent, less capable or less able to do the work, yet this bias persists. We just cannot continue at this rate, and I certainly don't want it to continue at this rate for my children and my grandchildren. We cannot continue to allow male-dominated boards to promote only men. Gender diversity is a choice—this is a choice—that companies have to make. Any industry, company or organisation that does not strive for equal gender diversity needs to be put on notice and needs to be put on notice now. I come from a profession, paediatrics, which has embraced gender diversity for decades. Over 50 per cent of practising paediatricians are female, and over 70 per cent of registrars—that is, paediatricians in training—are female. With figures like these, it's no doubt that some of Australia's most famous paediatricians, and hardworking paediatricians, are female: Professor Fiona Stanley; Professor Elizabeth Elliott, who's been very prominent lately in alerting us to the considerable numbers of children with foetal alcohol syndrome disorder; and Professor Ingrid Scheffer, from Melbourne, who's world renowned for her work in the genetics of epilepsy. One of my old mentors, Clair Isbister, pioneered the importance of breastfeeding in the mid 20th century. Dr Audrey Greenberg, my cousin, was one of the first developmental paediatricians in Australia. Dr Genevieve Cummins was one of the first female paediatric surgeons. Dr Verlie Lines was one of the first paediatric anaesthetists in Australia. Paediatrics was one of the first professions that brought in job-sharing with great success. When we see more women at the top of their profession, we see more women promoting the cause of women, and that's a great thing. We need to change. I want to stress that: it is time for change. We can no longer accept the snail's pace of reform. Women make up 50 per cent of the population yet are still held back from top positions on boards in many companies. Gender diversity is an issue that this parliament needs to take seriously. Corporations are receiving government funds; it is time for them to act. 11:47 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm I thank the member for Indi for raising this important issue today. Like the member for Indi and the other members who have spoken on this issue, I believe that gender equality throughout Australia in leadership roles in government and business is crucial to the ongoing success of our nation. Gender equality is a complex and multidimensional issue. I do know that it is when men support men and women, and when women support men and women that the cause for gender equality comes equally from the hearts and minds of both, and we as a society can and will prosper. That is why the Turnbull government is fully committed to supporting and encouraging women into leadership positions. We've set an ambitious but achievable target of women holding 50 per cent of Australian government board positions. I know from my experience in business that the business world, across industries, has always made the business case and understands that diversity delivers success. However, this happens only when real, substantive measurable mechanisms are implemented to increase representation of women in leadership positions—measurable and achievable targets for which leaders demonstrate their accountability. There is more work to do. It is imperative that business and government recognise that the meritocracy argument is flawed, and that the two things that get in the way are often discrimination and unconscious bias. Targets work in business as a way of incentivising people. However, quotas are a necessary element in politics, in my view. I'm pleased to report today that, as of June last year, women had reached 42.7 per cent representation on government boards, and women comprise more than 52 per cent of appointments made in the April to June quarter of 2017. It is a promising trend in the growth of women's representation; however, more substantive measurable mechanisms need to be implemented. Likewise, the statistics on women's representation in the private sector have demonstrated a similarly positive trend, but not a trend that is sufficient to get the fifty-fifty action that we need. According to recent reports by the Australian Institute of Company Directors, women now make up a record high of 26.1 per cent of ASX 200 directorships and women accounted for more than 43 per cent of appointments to manager roles in 2016-17. This positive progress across both the public and private sectors demonstrates the Turnbull government's dedication to tangible change for women in the workplace. Our workplaces and communities function best when they're truly representative of society. That is why it is integral that our government departments, businesses, politics and organisations reflect an equal number of men and women. From a productivity and intergenerational perspective, and given our ageing population, there must be increased participation of women in the workforce and in leadership. As such, the Turnbull government has made it a priority to reduce the workforce participation gap by 25 per cent by 2025 for Australian women. More women in the workforce means more women being made ready for leadership positions. In my experience as a leader of organisations in the private sector for over 20 years, I noted that absence from the workplace due to child bearing, child care or caring for the elderly demanded an increasing need for flexible workplaces and policies specifically designed to help those who want to work or work more and those on the lowest incomes. Our most recent budget had a number of measures to boost women's workforce participation. We know that child care is the most commonly perceived barrier to participation for women in the labour market, so we allocated an additional $2.5 billion for a number of childcare initiatives. We're also investing $430 million to support universal access to preschool and $263 million for the rollout of ParentsNext. The government's commitment to boosting women's participation in the workforce has seen encouraging results. Indeed, since the coalition was elected in 2013, around 570,000 jobs have been created for Australian women. The member for Indi will also be pleased to know that the government is supporting rural and regional women through the Women's Leadership and Development Strategy grants program and the National Women's Rural Coalition. The Turnbull government has also partnered with the National Association of Women in Operations, of which I had firsthand experience when I worked for many years in the manufacturing centre, to provide women's leadership programs. These integral initiatives, coupled with the Turnbull government's ongoing commitment to encouraging quality through aiming to reach our target of 50 per cent representation of women on appointed government boards, will work towards delivering tangible equality for men and women in the workforce and throughout Australia. 11:52 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra In 2015, TheAustralian Financial Review stated: The journey from the kitchen to the boardroom has been a long one for women … Not much has changed, as the member for Indi has highlighted in her motion on leadership and gender diversity. I commend her for moving this motion. The figures the member for Indi quoted are appalling. The quest for greater representation of women on ASX boards has been going on for many years. It has been only in the last decade that we have got some greater transparency, thanks to the wonderful work of Women on Boards and the fact that they started to shine a light on the lack of diversity of women on Australian boards. The fact that in 2018 we are being told by the Australian Institute of Company Directors that the quest for 30 per cent female representation on ASX 200 boards has stalled is absolutely appalling. The fact that, according to the AICD report from last year, there were 25.4 per cent female directors, which is only marginally higher than the 25.3 per cent reached at the end of 2016 is absolutely appalling. The fact that at the time of the publication of the AICD report 11 ASX 200 companies still had no women on their boards is absolutely appalling. Last year Stephen Mayne, a director of the Australian Shareholders Association, who has been a strong advocate of improved governance of publicly listed companies, argued: … that women create necessary balance on boards that ultimately leads to better decision making in the complex world of corporate finance, takeovers and mergers. He says many men are driven by their egos in the middle of a corporate raid, while women think more objectively and strategically. New research from the BankWest Curtin Economics Centre found that increasing women's representation on boards can lower the incidence of company fraud. The study looked at 128 companies and the relationship between women on boards and corporate fraud. I also commend the member for Indi for focusing on the lack of representation of women in the agricultural sector. I too have been advocating for this since last year, since it was highlighted by my sister, who's Australia's first female master of wine and an internationally renowned winemaker. When I saw her last year down in the member's electorate for my annual catch-up, she highlighted to me that women make up 50 per cent of winemaking and viticulture graduates but only comprise 10 per cent of the Australian wine industry workforce. So, even though 50 per cent of graduates coming out are women, they only comprise 10 per cent of the workforce. The lack of representation of women in that multibillion-dollar industry is outrageous. A survey by wine identity Jane Thomson last year revealed 42 per cent of women knew or believed they were being paid less than their male counterparts. Two-thirds of women said they'd experienced sexist behaviour in the workplace and one in four women endured unfair treatment in regards to pregnancy, sick children or maternity leave. A quarter of the respondents believed they did not have equal career opportunities in their workplaces. These are shocking statistics for the wine industry, a multibillion-dollar industry that exports to the world. So I'm calling on the women in the wine community and I'm calling on the wine industry itself to: first, improve the representation of women in industry; second, look at those systemic impediments to women staying in the industry because if you've got 50 per cent attending courses and only 10 per cent actually making it into the workforce, there's something seriously wrong, guys, and you need to fix it; third, establish a target for women as speakers at conferences—this is an issue I faced in the defence industry—panellists, judges and for judging, not just on local wine shows but also on national wine shows and international wine shows. It is not good enough in 2018 for one woman to be a judge on a panel of 10 other judges. That is unacceptable, particularly with the internationally renowned female winemakers we have right over the country. It is simply unacceptable. The wine industry needs to lift its game. I said to the wine industry last year that I was going to be focusing on the lack of diversity in this industry and I am going to continue to maintain a focus on this issue. 11:57 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Agriculture is an industry that has driven Australia's economy to be one of the world's most envied. Since even before the First Fleet, farming has been part of how people manage to survive and thrive in this country. For our early settlers, agriculture in an exotic land posed a range of risks and difficulties. This so-called great southern land was hot and dry, and the earth was not covered with trees but was full of rocks. This was a land untouched by centuries of climate and cultivating that made the homeland of the British Isles not only productive but easy. Even the few experienced farmers from the first transportations were well out of their comfort zones when it came to growing food for a new colony. The old soils of this ancient land were and still are fragile to mechanical disturbance and, due to their age, struggle to hold anywhere near similar levels of moisture and nutrients compared with the young rich soils of the homeland. Fungal rust, hot weather, drought, onslaughts of destructive vermin, and theft by colonial and native alike made farming in these foundation years an incredibly fraught exercise. Through sheer determination, colonial agriculture eventually took hold, leading to one of the great land grabs of modern history. The search for agricultural land and for the trade routes to develop markets and supply chains led to names like Mitchell, Leichhardt, Burke and Wills, and Stuart becoming household names, again, all because of agriculture. This driving force of agriculture continues to this day; and right at the heart of this drive, you will find women. From the earliest days of developing the livestock industries that would become such an enormous part of the Central Queensland economy, women have driven success. What was started by women like Elizabeth Macarthur and Eliza Forlong is today continued by modern women all over the country—women who continue to drive the industries they operate in; women like Josie Angus and Deb McLucas. Josie, with her husband, Blair, operates a vertically integrated beef operation in Central Queensland. The Anguses are passionate about providing the highest quality protein they can, and they provide it to customers around the world. Their branded beef products, Kimberley Red and Sondella, are synonymous with quality and typify the mouth-watering beef that secures Central Queensland's reputation as the beef capital of Australia. An entirely different operation, Deb McLucas's Freckle Farm, is one of innovation and careful holistic management. Deb and her husband, Rob Bauman, have operated Freckle Farm since 2008 and have put an enormous effort into rehabilitating the land. Taking what was a depleted cane farm and developing a sustainable, productive grazing enterprise in the Pioneer Valley, Deb and Rob have developed a reputation for producing highly sought after free-range eggs, pork and beef, trading to local restaurants and markets. There's a passion for their product. Their industry and their constant search for new ways of producing and marketing are a credit to both Josie and Deb, cementing their place in the pantheon of influential women in agriculture. Regardless of what the member for Page may say, Capricornia is home to the undisputed beef capital of Australia. Within this industry, I have acute knowledge of women not only advancing their own businesses but serving to advance their industries and the country. It probably doesn't serve the cliched image of a farmer to remind the House that thousands of women across the country are running multimillion dollar agriculture businesses; some grow beef, some grow sugar, and some consult as nutritionists or veterinarians. They all have skin in the game of life, and they all, each and every one of them, deserve to be considered in discussions around the sector that drives our economy and will continue to do so for thousands of years. As women in this place, both the member for Indi and I are perhaps seen as oddities by some—and the same, I'm sure, is considered of women in other lines of male dominated work. In any business, industry or sector, just as in politics, it is vital to understand and represent all the views and experiences of those within that set of society. The argument as to whether quotas or goals are the be-all and end-all when it comes to how women in agriculture achieve a stronger voice within the industry is a matter of contention. One thing we can all agree on is the immense impact women have had on the sector and will continue to have, wherever the sun shines, the rain falls and people need to eat and clothe themselves. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Relocation of Commonwealth Agencies 116 12:03 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I move: That this House: (1) notes that:    (a) 8 million Australians live outside our capital cities; and       (b) while some regions like the Sunshine Coast are experiencing strong economic growth, others are not enjoying the same levels of economic activity; (2) further notes that: (a) many regions, including the Sunshine Coast, can supply substantially lower office accommodation costs and lower operating costs; (b) regions such as the Sunshine Coast can offer a highly educated workforce, high quality business facilities, first class health and transport infrastructure, as well as innovative start-up communities; (c) regions, including the Sunshine Coast, can offer lifestyle benefits like lower cost housing, short commute times and a family-friendly environment; and (d) research suggests that highly skilled people are taking increasing account of lifestyle factors when choosing their employer; (3) welcomes the Government's pursuit of a policy of decentralisation of public sector agencies, and the recent relocation of some parts of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to Wodonga; and (4) encourages the Government to continue to explore further options for the relocation of Commonwealth agencies to the regions. One-third of Australians live in regional, rural and remote areas and, as this House knows well, they often face challenges in accessing the services and the opportunities which our city cousins take for granted. This government has shown considerable commitment to redressing the balance and delivering for regional Australia. We've seen record investment in regional infrastructure, including the $1.6 billion for the Bruce Highway upgrades to the Sunshine Coast. In my own electorate, we are seeing mobile phone blackspot towers soon to go up at Glass House Mountains, at Beerwah and near Peachester. We are seeing the NBN rolling out with high-speed, fixed wireless technology in many regional areas and we've seen hundreds of projects like $3 million upgrades to the Events Centre at Caloundra under the Building Better Regions Fund. Australia is already receiving some of the dividends of this unswerving commitment in the more than 100,000 new regional jobs created just last year. We often speak about the government's decentralisation agenda in the same terms. However, I don't see it like that. For me, the relocation of government departments is not about what Canberra can do for us but about what our regions can do for the Commonwealth government. It is not about benevolence but about efficiency and a commitment to improving the lives of our public servants. Cost-effective delivery demands low-cost, high-quality facilities. Office accommodation costs on the Sunshine Coast are 41 per cent lower than in the Brisbane CBD, while operating costs are lower than state averages in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Queensland has the lowest basic flat payroll tax of all the states and territories in Australia. Yet, with that, we have high-speed internet in many parts of the coast, and the NBN rollout is due to be completed this year. Cost-effective delivery in the 21st century demands access to an innovative culture and a highly educated workforce. We have the University of the Sunshine Coast Innovation Centre, which has become the heart of a fast-growing innovation ecosystem. The Sunshine Coast has been awarded Google eTown status and has been named a smart 21st century community in three of the past four years. The Thompson Institute in Birtinya is conducting cutting-edge medical research, while companies like HeliMods, Praesidium Global, Eniquest and APAC Infrastructure are creating new high-tech solutions in defence, aviation and telecommunications. In terms of education, 57.4 per cent of the local workforce hold a tertiary qualification—well above the state average. The University of the Sunshine Coast is dynamic and growing, offering new courses like medical science, and new campuses in Gympie and on the Fraser coast. Cost-effective delivery requires good transport links. The Sunshine Coast is already part of the national freight corridor through the Bruce Highway, and I'd like to congratulate my good friend to my right, who has been instrumental in developing Sunshine Coast infrastructure, particularly on the Bruce Highway. We also boast Australia's fastest growing airport, which, by 2020, will service flights from throughout the Asia-Pacific region. As I've already mentioned, the Bruce Highway is currently being upgraded, with a $1.6 billion investment from the federal government. The member for Fairfax and I are also working hard to secure much more funding to upgrade the North Coast rail line. These projects might sound expensive, and, of course, they are, but money invested in the regions is money that truly delivers. Finally, cost-effective delivery today requires that we recruit the most skilled and motivated people for the Public Service. As I've said before, skilled and motivated people in 2018 expect the best business facilities, but they demand the best lifestyle for both them and their families. A Commonwealth agency on the Sunshine Coast would deliver efficiency, cost-effectiveness and high productivity for all Australian people, and I commend that to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Is the motion seconded? Mr Chester IPZ I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 12:08 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley The delivery of this motion was misplaced—misplaced in location, and not by virtue of the fact it's here in the Federation Chamber and not by virtue of the fact that it should have been in the House of Representatives. Really, the member for Fisher should have delivered this speech in the coalition party room, because it's not us he needs to convince; he has to convince the people within the National Party—the ones that have really driven relocation of government departments in this country—and what a proud track record they have, indeed. Look at the incredible way in which the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority of Australia, the APVMA, has been shifted into the Deputy Prime Minister's electorate. Look at the lack of transparency. Look at the controversy that has surrounded it. Look at the way in which it's being done and the fact that, while the member for Fisher might come in here with noble ideals about representing relocations that should happen in different parts of the country—and I share those ideals—we would not for one minute sidle up to the sneaky and disgraceful way in which some departments get moved based on the whim of a Deputy Prime Minister or of senior people in government. There should be a proper way to do this, not the way that it's been managed so far. So don't come in here—if I may say so to the member for Fisher, through the chair—pleading the case for this type of thing to occur. Get it sorted out in your party room and, importantly, get it sorted out in a way that represents value for money and proper process for the Australian taxpayer, not the sloppy, slimy way that the Deputy Prime Minister's management of this has shown. The APVMA has even lost senior members through the way that the government have forced this relocation on that authority. It is disgraceful. Another reason that this motion is misplaced is this: it's one thing to have the ideal to move authorities or government departments like this. It's another to actually put them in places where you've got all the infrastructure support and people with skills to make these things happen in the way in which they should be done. Look at the way that this government have managed regional development—and in that I include Western Sydney. I imagine Deputy Speaker Bird would have criticisms about the way in which things like this happen down in the Illawarra and in other regions, as would the member for Herbert, who is in the chamber. There's never the proper support for infrastructure development in our outer regions where it's needed. Look at Western Sydney. The Western Sydney City Deal was announced in Redfern, not in the heart of Western Sydney. It was announced nearly 40 kilometres away. I pleaded with someone to give the Google Maps app to the Prime Minister and the then assistant minister, Angus Taylor, to make sure that they could make this announcement properly. They announced a City Deal for Western Sydney in Redfern and it didn't include the biggest council in Western Sydney, Blacktown council. These City Deals are supposed to provide for proper infrastructure development, support and planning, and to make sure that we're doing things right. And yet this government can't even do that. There are big infrastructure plays, like the M9, that should link up Western Sydney and the growth areas of Western Sydney down to the Illawarra and provide the parallel infrastructure to the M7, but nothing was talked about there. If it's a media announcement and the glitz associated with a City Deal in Western Sydney that's announced outside of Western Sydney, and doesn't include the council, they're all for it. If it's the hard planning to make sure that the people are there and that they have the infrastructure to support them, it's in the too-hard basket. You need to have the skilled people and the infrastructure around to support the kinds of things that are being put forward by the member for Fisher today. They can't just be plonked in. There is no depth of thought or longer term planning by those opposite. All this is is a publicity stunt to be able to go back to the electorate and say, 'I spoke up for our region.' But, within the government, that's all that ever comes. It's this wide open series of announcements that are so shallow. It is disgraceful that the parliament's time should be taken up on something where they should be pleading internally within their party room to get things done, because it's the Nationals who call the shots, not the Liberals, on these types of things. And there endeth the rant! 12:09 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland And what a rant it was! I congratulate the member for Fisher for his motion. He knows, and all members on this side of the House know, that the biggest issue in our regional communities is jobs—long-term, sustainable jobs. This government has a proud track record there; in the last 12 months, more than 400,000 jobs were created around Australia and 100,000 of those were in our regional communities. These are long-term sustainable jobs that we want to see growing in our regional areas. The member for Fisher also understands that, when it comes to providing jobs in regional areas, making sure that we have the supporting infrastructure and the service delivery in place is critical for people's ongoing enjoyment of our regional communities. The decentralisation agenda being pursued by this government should not be seen somehow as a punishment of public servants but, much rather, should be seen as a huge opportunity. So I'd say in making those opening comments that the issue of connectivity is the one that perhaps is critical to the future growth of our regional areas. I wish we had a better word than 'connectivity'; it sounds like a very bureaucratic term. But when we're talking about connectivity, we're simply talking about the capacity to connect regional areas to each other, to our capital cities and to the world. If we're going to maximise advantage from things like the free trade agreements that have been negotiated, we need to make sure our regional communities are well connected. So, we're talking about investment in better road, rail, airport and seaport infrastructure, but also connectivity in terms of better telecommunications links. I'm pleased to say that over the last several years there's been significant investment in better road and rail infrastructure around regional Australia. Also, with the rollout of the Mobile Black Spot Program and the rollout of the NBN, we're seen better connectivity in terms of telecommunications links. Having said that, I acknowledge that there is still more work to be done. In fact, that's why we all come to this place: we come to this place to champion the cause of our own communities. The member for Fisher is, I'd have to say, an outstanding champion for his region. There's hardly a member I can recall who came to my ministerial office more regularly than the member for Fisher when he was seeking money for his region. Perhaps the member for Hinkler was on an equal footing with him in demanding resources for regional Queensland. But that's their job; they're there to be champions for their communities, and when I was the minister they made sure that I was aware of any shortfalls in their areas. In relation to decentralisation more generally, it's not just about decentralisation of public servants. I think there are huge opportunities for us to work with the corporate sector to highlight the opportunities for them to relocate their operations outside the capital cities. Some of the economic drivers for that—particularly in South-East Queensland, Sydney and Melbourne—will be the increased land value in those urban areas, which will make it attractive for active reuse of a current site to help fund the move to a regional location where we have a workforce available and where we have good infrastructure in place. One of the advantages that regional communities offer is a more stable workforce. People in regional areas tend to move less. They tend to want to be in those communities. They appreciate the lifestyle that's on offer, whether that be in the member for Hinkler's electorate, the member for Fisher's electorate or my own electorate of Gippsland. There are people who choose those electorates for a very good reason: it's where their families are and they want a long-term future for them. So I think there's a real opportunity for the federal, state and local governments to be working more cooperatively to sell the message to corporate Australia about the opportunity to relocate their operations—or at least part of their operations—to a regional setting. We have seen it in my electorate with the Patties Foods success story in Bairnsdale. Patties Foods, a small family owned company, purchased Simplot—famous for the Four'N Twenty brand—and moved the whole operation out of Melbourne to Bairnsdale. That was a remarkable achievement for a company that started in the order of 50 years ago with a mum-and-dad operation and a small bakery in Lakes Entrance. It now employs 550 people in regional Victoria. So, in making those comments, I pay due credit to the Rijs family and the work they've done in helping to generate an enormous amount of wealth and economic activity in the Gippsland region. But the challenge for us, as members in this place who are supporters of regional areas, is to make sure we're doing our bit. Sure, we can come here and lobby ministers for additional funding to support infrastructure and services, but I think the challenge for us is to be relentlessly optimistic and positive about the future of our regional areas. If we can sell the message of opportunity in regional areas—and help promote the opportunities for people to grow up in a regional community, perhaps learn new skills, and then return to that area—I think we would be doing a great service to our regions. I'm one who believes that regional Australia is a great place to live, it's a great place to work, it's a great place to visit and it's a great place to raise a family. They're the active choices that we made as a couple. In closing, I think the member for Fisher is on the right track, and I'll support him in all his efforts to make sure that we're supporting decentralisation of jobs throughout our nation. 12:18 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert The member for Fisher has some nerve to stand in this place and move this motion. Whilst I support decentralisation, as a fighter for the north there are three huge problems that I see with this motion. Firstly, the member for Fisher is a member of a government that has been taking a sledgehammer to our public sector jobs in the north. To stand here in this place and say you are wanting APS jobs, whilst your government has made massive cuts in the north, is the epitome of hypocrisy and absolute grandstanding. Not only are the member for Fisher's words empty in this motion but so are those of the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce. All of his talk of decentralisation has been just that—talk. That was evidenced in last year's budget, where not one cent was allocated towards government services being decentralised. The Turnbull government's budget has highlighted the absolute hypocrisy of the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, and his regional jobs plan. The Deputy Prime Minister has misled regional Queenslanders with his decentralisation plan, as it is fiction. Regional Queenslanders are doing it tough, and we are fed up with this government's big talk and lack of action. This motion states that the Sunshine Coast is regional. The Sunshine Coast is in what we in the north call 'the golden triangle'—South-East Queensland. My electorate of Herbert is in the real regional part of Queensland. I was born, bred and raised outside the golden triangle of Brisbane, the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast. Trust me, real regional Queenslanders have a huge problem with the member for Fisher saying that a city only an hour's drive away from Brisbane is equivalent to my home town of Townsville, which is a 19-hour drive from Brisbane. We need to get real on this issue. The Turnbull government has taken a sledgehammer to regional public sector jobs. In a city where unemployment is 9.1 per cent and youth unemployment is 20 per cent, the Turnbull government is still continuing to slice and dice jobs in Townsville. Here is the history of the Abbott-Turnbull government job cuts in Townsville: Townsville has 50 fewer Defence staff as of June 2017 than it had in December 2012. The consolidation of the Townsville tax office in 2014 saw 110 jobs cut from Townsville. Over the last few years, 19 jobs have been cut from the CSIRO in Townsville, with five more expected to go. Regional Queensland Customs staffing has been cut by 50 per cent, with 30 fewer jobs from Gladstone to Thursday Island, and Townsville was one of the hardest hit. The government's change in process in the second division will see up to 10 Townsville APS Defence support staff leave their jobs. The Townsville office for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority closed, forcing five of our local veterans out of a job and ending any sort of a career transition pathway for local veterans and ex-service personnel. And, just last week, we heard the announcement of the relocation of the Royal Australian Air Force's 38 Squadron, Beechcraft King Air fleet, which will move from Townsville to East Sale, Victoria, which is another 40 jobs lost to Townsville. This is the track record thus far regarding the Turnbull government and jobs in Townsville. In real regional Queensland, the Turnbull government equals job cuts. Enough is enough, and I will fight against these cuts. I want jobs for Townsville—quality, secure jobs—not the cuts, privatisation and casualisation that the Turnbull government is delivering. Townsville needs secure quality jobs, not cuts, lies and empty promises from this government. Our public sector is under threat from this LNP-Turnbull government. Our public sector was once a thriving industry but is now being decimated under this government, and the only thing that will stop the Turnbull government from making further cuts to our public sector is if we stand up and fight back. I call on the Turnbull government to end these harsh cuts and, instead, reinstate the jobs they have cut from North Queensland's public sector. It's a bit rich to stand in this place and spruik the wonders of decentralisation that will create regional jobs when this government has savaged jobs in regional Queensland. It is hypocrisy at best. When you live in Mount Isa, when you live in Cloncurry, when you live in Charters Towers, when you live in Townsville, Mackay, Cairns—anything above the tropic of Capricornia—you are talking about regional Queensland at its best, and the job cuts in that area have been nothing short of absolute disaster for those communities. 12:23 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler It's my great pleasure to rise in support of the member for Fisher and the motion he put forward this morning. I want to take a moment to outline my electorate in Central Queensland. Between the cities of Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, it's around 3½ thousand square kilometres. But the region itself, the statistical region of Wide Bay is around 270,000 in terms of the population. Unfortunately, we have some very poor statistics which we need to address urgently. In fact, the most recent state of the nation report from the Local Government Association for the state of the regions indicated that the unemployment rate, which is adjusted, the NIEIR rate, is around 16.7 per cent, which is the highest in the nation. Now that rate takes out those people who would be on the DSP, for example. It is a different statistical measure. Unfortunately, we have youth unemployment at 23 per cent. Once again, we have the lowest per capita income in this nation at just $34,000 a year, and that has been the case for some 20 years. My job as the federal member is to ensure that we continue to build the economy, and the decentralisation program put forward by this government is a great opportunity for us. It is a great opportunity for us! I congratulate both the Bundaberg Regional Council and the Fraser Coast Regional Council for putting forward their submissions and calling for decentralised agencies in our region. I think we should be very frank in this discussion. The reality is that people are siloing to the cities, and the reason for that is very straightforward. It's because they can. In a digital world, a world where you can do your work from any location that you choose, unfortunately, the road that's been upgraded in the regional area tends to be the road out of town. We need to act. We do need a policy which will place highly paid, highly skilled and highly valued jobs back into our regions on top of our great strengths around agriculture and, of course, tourism and manufacturing. It is about opportunity. This is the opportunity for local youth to go to a local university and to know that there is an opportunity for them to have a highly paid job and a career which will progress, particularly within the Australian Public Service. There is no reason that we can't have many of these agencies relocated into the regions, and, in fact, it's already happened in a number of areas. I note the APVMA's move to Armidale. The Regional Investment Corporation is going to Orange. AgriFutures Australia went to Charles Sturt University at Wagga Wagga in 2015. The Grains Research and Development Corporation is going to Toowoomba, Dubbo, Adelaide and Perth. The FRDC is going to Adelaide. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority is going to Toowoomba, Albury-Wodonga and Adelaide. Unfortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, I haven't read anywhere that says 'Bundaberg' or 'Hervey Bay'. So, as a passionate advocate—as I'm sure you'd understand, and I'm sure you would be the same—I am looking forward to those opportunities, because they create long-term, well-paid, highly skilled jobs in regional areas, which are absolutely desperate for them. Imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, that your children—I'm only assuming—had an opportunity to go to a local university that runs a course which is relevant to a large employer just down the road. Those opportunities certainly occur for people here in Canberra and in other locations where there are large opportunities with the Public Service. In fact, they deserve those opportunities. In regional Australia, they should get the same chance as children who are born in Canberra or anywhere else. We have the chance to make those changes, because the reality is, in the modern world, you absolutely can work anywhere. We are not talking about organisations which pack out a million widgets that need to be transported from a regional centre to somewhere else. We are genuinely talking about highly skilled Public Service positions. It's an opportunity for people. We live in some of the greatest parts of this country. In my own electorate, we have an average temperature of 25 degrees. You can get a house near the beach for just over $200,000. You can take your kids to the coast or to the national park. You can have a fantastic lifestyle, but you need to have the work to go with it to support those people, and this is an opportunity for us and for them. I think we should absolutely look at this, not through rose-coloured glasses but in a considered manner, to determine what the best opportunities are, where the synergies are and where we can match the departments. The reality is, with transport costs as they are, looking at my own centres in Hervey Bay, you can fly directly to Sydney from Hervey Bay. There is one flight a day on a 717 or with another provider—without naming providers. I think people should take those opportunities up now, because without them how do we ensure that our people continue to have that growth opportunity and jobs which are well paid? As taxpayers—as all taxpayers should be—they are entitled to those opportunities, just as those who were born somewhere else or choose to live somewhere else are. I support the member for Fisher's motion, with one exception. Where he mentions the Sunshine Coast, can we put 'Hinkler' in that place? 12:28 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman I'd also like to thank the member for Fisher, who is my electoral neighbour, of course, for moving this motion, which highlights just how great the regions north of Brisbane are. The electorate of Longman, which I love, is a really friendly and hardworking community of people. I love their strength. I love their diversity. I love the beaches of Bribie and I love the leafy green suburbs of Narangba. But, while state Labor has been helping grow our region, delivering infrastructure and jobs through investments like the $253 million to the Caboolture Hospital and the $6 million Moreton Bay Advancing Regional Innovation Program, we can't pretend that the federal government has shown us much support at all. While the member for Fisher's motion reads like a bit of a tourism ad for the Sunshine Coast, I have to say there is absolutely zero substance to this motion. There is zero substance and zero policy that will help either the Sunshine Coast or my region of Moreton Bay—because that's what this government is: zero policy, zero action and zero integrity. Member for Fisher, integrity would be standing up for the many older Australians living on the Sunshine Coast who are waiting for their home care package. Member for Fisher, do you know how many people are waiting in your region? There are 1,074 people waiting for their package in your region, and that's not just limited to the Sunshine Coast, of course. In my local area of Caboolture, 860 older Australians are also waiting for their aged-care package. Ideally, there wouldn't be even one person waiting for their package, but under this government the numbers just continue to rise. If the government spent more time working to get these people what they deserve, then our regions would be doing far, far better, but the honest reality is that they're not. They're not, and it's vulnerable seniors of the Sunshine Coast and the Moreton Bay region who have to suffer because of this government's inaction. Try putting that into your tourism ad, Member for Fisher. I note that the member for Fisher also sees potential in our regions as potential sites for decentralisation. In theory, I completely agree with him. Take Caboolture, for example. There is a beautiful area with huge potential for growth, it's not too far from Brisbane's CBD and it sits right on the train line. But, as much as it pains me to say it, we aren't quite ready for a huge expansion. The infrastructure just isn't there yet. Again, I commend the work of both the state and the local governments in our area, but the stalling and delays by this federal government are causing our region to suffer. Last budget, our local federal LNP members—including the member for Fisher and adding the members for Dickson and Petrie—jumped to their feet when the government was announcing and praising the allocation of money towards the Bruce Highway upgrade from the Pine Rivers Bridge to Caloundra. Of course we welcome this funding—absolutely. But I've had constituents tell me that they've been promised these upgrades for years, and the constant delays have seen them all but abandon any hope. Now, though, their hopes have been revitalised with this announcement in the budget. Like I said, we welcome any funding that is provided to the area, particularly for infrastructure upgrades around the Bruce Highway. There is still one thing that people who come and speak to me are certain of. They're certain that there'll be further delays under this government, delays in things like accessing an NBN connection. Go and ask the people in Narangba; they've now been told it will be 2020 before they get their NBN connection. There are delays in securing an aged-care package; there's a delay you don't want to live with. What about the delay in closing the gap for the Gabi people in my region? And what about delays in making changes to peoples' lives that would deliver a wage growth instead of a company profit growth? The people in the outer regions of Brisbane have a lot of questions for this government, questions that won't be answered by a motion moved by the member for Fisher. These delays mean that some people are waiting for their livelihoods, but there are some people who are waiting for their lives. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The time allotted for this debate has expired. There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Universities Funding 122 12:33 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith I move: That this House: (1) notes that:    (a) the government’s short-sighted $2.2 billion in cuts to universities are equivalent to more than 9,500 Australians missing out on a university place in 2018, and again in 2019;    (b) across the country this month, students will be attending university, with orientation periods beginning, and that these students are faced with more uncertainty about how the cuts will affect their student experience; and    (c) the government’s short-sighted cuts will hurt regional and outer metropolitan universities and their students the most; and (2) calls on the government to reverse its short-sighted, unfair cuts to universities, which are closing the door of opportunity to thousands of Australians. We've seen from this government nothing but attacks on young people and attacks on our nation's future. Unfortunately, the recent cuts to university funding are consistent with that theme. We live now at a time of increasing and significant inequality in wealth and incomes in our nation. If we seek to deal with the fact that, for example, the lion's share of the national income goes to profits at the expense of wages, if we seek to deal with the fact that social mobility is at risk of lessening, if we seek to deal with the fact that wages growth is the slowest it's been since we started keeping the wages price index in 1997, if we seek to deal with the worsening inequality that our nation is currently facing, we know that one of the means, if not the best means, to deal with that inequality is education. Education, as Thomas Piketty said in his book Capital, is a great force for convergence, rather than divergence, and it's important to us as a nation that we do take action in relation to that growing inequality. It's also important to recognise that universities and funding for education make a contribution to the question of inequality, which is deeply important because of the impacts that widening inequality have, not just on the lifestyles of the individuals concerned but on the economic life of the nation. Education is also important because we are at a time of rapid change in relation to the nature of work. I'm not a pessimist about what that may mean, but if we want to be able to take advantage of the possibilities for the future and if we want young people to be able to have the skills and the knowledge that they will need for the jobs of the future, then that means a real focus on education, not exclusively on higher education, of course, but this motion is about higher education so I'll go to that. There are good, sound, solid economic reasons to focus on having appropriate funding for higher education and for education generally. In addition to the domestic reasons, we should not forget the issue of trade. International education together with international tourism are our key services exports. They are incredibly important not just in terms of services exports but in terms of exports more broadly. We absolutely should be seeking to encourage our universities to strive to be world class. We should do that not only for the domestic benefits but for their assistance in attracting international students. We need to attract more international students. Our competitor countries in the region are funding their publicly funded universities to a greater degree. They're putting more public funding behind universities. While this is happening—while we have increasing inequality, while we have some very concerning economic indicators and while our competitor nations are putting money into higher education—what's Australia doing? I'm sad to say that the Turnbull government are cutting funding to universities. It's their third chop at it. When they were first elected it was a 20 per cent cut and full fee deregulation, which would have seen $100,000 degrees. Happily, we were able to stop that. Then in their next iteration, last year, they wanted to hike up fees by 7.5 per cent, have a commensurate cut in university funding, have a further cut to university funding and then drop the HECS repayment threshold down to about $45,000. We saw that one off as well, not just us, of course, but the community, stakeholders, students, families—just people who were worried about whether their kids would be able to get a higher education. This idea of increasing university fees at a time when Australian households are facing record household debt and so loading them up with more debt is a very silly one. It's not just silly for those individuals. What will be the effect on national consumption if we are asking people to carry more debt into their 20s and 30s and beyond? It's a bad idea, it was bad policy and I'm glad we were able to see it off. I do regret to say that the government are now cutting $2.2 billion from higher education. They're freezing levels for 2018 and 2019. Mr Wallace interjecting— Ms BUTLER 248006 I hear the member for Fisher saying, 'Rubbish.' It's not rubbish. Maybe he ought to go and crack a book some time and see what's being said by the sector and by families in his electorate who are worried about whether their children will be able to get a university degree. Universities Australia have estimated that 9½ thousand people this year and 9½ thousand people next year will be affected by these cuts. It's only the beginning and the government should be ashamed. 12:38 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT I need a seconder for the motion. Ms Lamb 265975 I second the motion. 12:38 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I'm grateful to the member for Griffith for the opportunity to set the record straight on university funding as well as to tell the chamber about the exceptional university which I have in the electorate of Fisher and what it is achieving with the support of the Turnbull government. What marks out the University of the Sunshine Coast, in particular, is its relentless pursuit of innovation. Under the leadership of its dynamic vice-chancellor, Greg Hill, USC is continuously looking for new ways to grow and lead. The member for Griffith will have seen some of this when she visited USC's panoramic three-dimensional visualisation and virtual reality site, CAVE, just last year. Unfortunately, she's left us now. The team at USC founded the University of the Sunshine Coast innovation centre which has become the heart of a fast-growing commercial innovation community. In part due to this facility, the Sunshine Coast has been awarded Google eTown status, and has been named a Smart21 community in three of the past four years. I'm delighted to say that I have been able to play my part in supporting USC's growth and innovation with funding from the Turnbull government. Last year, we delivered $5 million for the Thompson Institute at USC. This funding went to treatment and research into suicide prevention, dementia and youth mental health, and will ensure that the Sunshine Coast remains at the cutting edge of these fields for years to come. I'm continuing to work with USC and the Thompson Institute to explore funding opportunities for groundbreaking research into PTSD suffered by veterans and emergency service workers. I have also worked closely with USC to take advantage of the government's $200 billion defence capability investment. Not only have USC already won a $2.85 million contract to conduct research into runway pavements for the Department of Defence but they have worked closely with me as part of the Fisher Defence Industry Initiative to look at ways in which they can win more and collaborate with our growing local defence industry sector. USC is growing fast and servicing new regional areas. The Turnbull government has also lent a hand here as well, with a $120 million concessional loan to build a new, 10,000-student campus in Petrie. However, none of this would have been possible without the Turnbull government's ongoing commitment to tertiary education and the record levels of funding we have provided to universities. Right now, the Turnbull government is providing record total funding for universities—that is, $17.2 billion in 2017. Labor, with its typical disregard for the truth, is suggesting in this motion and elsewhere that in the future the Turnbull government will cut this funding. You can only cry wolf so many times. This is simply not true. Between 2017 and 2021, direct funding for teaching and research will grow by eight per cent, from $10.7 billion this year to $11.5 billion. This is yet another iteration of Labor's disgraceful and untruthful 'Mediscare' campaign. If universities maintain their current enrolment rates, health expenditure will go up from $6.4 billion to $7.4 billion, meaning total funding will increase by 11 per cent. The Turnbull government is particularly committed to regional universities. We've invested more than half a billion dollars in the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program to help regional students access university. We've allocated a further $24 million to support regional students to undertake STEM degrees, as well as $285 million in regional loading and $15 million for eight new regional university hubs. This motion also falsely suggests that students will face additional uncertainty. The truth is quite the opposite. Under the government's reforms, students will now have certainty that their student fees will not rise. They will have certainty that the Commonwealth will continue to pay for more than half of the cost of their degrees, as well as providing generous loan terms to pay for the rest. These reforms give young people the certainty that university funding is sustainable and that they will not need to pay one dollar up-front for a university education in the years to come. In all reform processes, there are individual complexities that arise; in the case of USC's large-scale and ongoing regional expansion, I know that constructive discussions are taking place to ensure that the reforms have their intended effect. However, what we've seen today is that on university funding, as on schools funding and Medicare, Labor time and again are distorting the truth for their own political ends. The University of the Sunshine Coast is a fantastic university and this government will continue to support it. 12:44 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler As many students are returning to university or embarking on their first experience in higher education, the member for Griffith is right in that we should reflect on this government's $2.2 billion cuts to universities, cuts which this government is now implementing through a two-year freeze on Commonwealth grant funding for teaching and learning. Put these cuts in perspective. They're the equivalent of 9,500 young Australians missing out on university placements during 2018-19. Adding to this far-reaching impact on our universities is the government's mid-year budget announcement, which is set to cost the Western Sydney University an estimated $5.7 million this year alone. This means they'll have very little left to continue their longstanding support for business and start-ups across Western Sydney. These cuts leave many students with uncertainty. Professor Margaret Gardner, the chair of Universities Australia, correctly described the cuts as: … a “double whammy” on students—both by lifting fees and eroding funding for courses, student learning and student support. Nonetheless, we have the Turnbull government claiming that these cuts are 'sustainable' and 'student focused'. By the way, this is the same rhetoric that this government tried to have us believe when it attempted to legislate the original cuts to universities. Those measures, as we all know, were rejected by the Senate, and rejected for good reason: it's bad policy. The government is relentless in its attack on universities and continues the attack now through the back door. Barney Glover, the vice-chancellor and president of Western Sydney University, succinctly summed up the ramifications by stating that these changes the government is proposing constitute a significant risk to the sustainability, quality and competitiveness of Australian universities. Of course, you can't expect those opposite to understand the impact of these cuts. After all, they're the same bunch who cut $17 billion from our schools and almost $650 million from our TAFE colleges, and now they're doing the same to our universities. All the while, they're so committed to handing out $65 billion in tax cuts to millionaires, big business and the top end of town. I have a piece of advice for those opposite: if you can't afford the tax cuts, don't do it. And don't do it at the expense of our future generations. The unfairness of these cuts is plain. The government keeps proving that they can't be trusted when it comes to important investments for our nation. An investment in education is an investment for our future. It's an investment in the nation's future. There is probably no greater investment that could be made by government. The government says universities understand and are compliant with their approach. Just for the record, they're not terribly impressed. Peter Hoj, chair of the Group of Eight, said they've now reached a tipping point. He said the government was treating the sector like a 'cash cow to be milked for budget cuts' rather than a means to improve the career opportunities of young people. These measures will no doubt have a significant impact on the most disadvantaged in our society. For many in my electorate of Fowler, these cuts will be critical. As Professor Barney Glover noted, the cuts may have an unintended impost on, for example, mature age students, Indigenous students, and individuals with interrupted career paths or reduced employment due to childminding and other life events. I know what tertiary education means to communities like mine. My electorate in Western Sydney, as you know, is not a rich community. As a matter of fact, it has significant pockets of disadvantage. My electorate is made up disproportionately of migrants and refugees. Tertiary education to them is very important. They see its value not just as a source of knowledge but as a pathway to changing their lives for the better. These cuts are unfair. They are not good for our universities. They're not good for our students. They're not good for our economy and they're certainly not good for the future prosperity of our nation. 12:49 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I reject the motion put forward by the member for Griffith and the numerous negative assertions she has made. It's a political stunt; she couldn't even be bothered to stick around for the motion and listen to every speaker. She left early, as did the member for Longman, who seconded the motion, yet there are some great opportunities in the Moreton Bay region that will directly affect the member for Longman's constituents. She couldn't be bothered to stick around either. In 2013, funding for the higher education sector was $14.9 billion. This year it's $17.5 billion. That's a $2.6 billion increase from when I was elected in 2013. That's not a cut; that's a $2.6 billion increase. This is a problem with Australian politics today and what we're seeing from many people opposite: campaigns built around untruths. The Australian public are seeing through this. Universities across Australia have seen a 71 per cent gross increase since 2009. In my region and the member for Fairfax's region, the University of the Sunshine Coast has seen a 150 per cent increase. We live in a country full of opportunities, and any Australian wanting to study at university can. The only reason the government is making some changes now is that legislation that would have seen benefits to young people right across this country was rejected by Labor, the Greens and the Nick Xenophon Team. The biggest lie in the campaign that we've heard from some members opposite is that we'd see an increase in costs for young people studying. We hear that somehow there are going to be $100,000 degrees. But everyone in this place knows—and for everyone listening—the government pay 60 per cent of the cost, so why on earth would we want education funding costs for universities to go up? If we have to pay $60,000 of a degree and a student pays $40,000, why would we want a $100,000 degree? No-one's been able to answer that, of course. Our changes to the higher education system were not taken lightly. We received 1,200 submissions from higher education institutions and peak bodies and representation from industries, professionals and individuals. Even Labor's own education shadow minister admitted there was a problem, and back in 2013 they announced $6.6 billion of cuts—if you take their line in relation to this—to higher education and research. At the time, former Prime Minister Gillard announced some changes and Maxine McKew was critical of that, as was the headline in 2013, 'Labor to fight higher education cuts proposed by Labor: Kim Carr'. But that's enough negativity; let's get onto what's happening locally in the electorate of Petrie and in the member for Dickson's area. I want to thank the Minister for Home Affairs, the member for Dickson, because we've both been fighting for young people in our own electorates. In my electorate at the moment there is no university. I don't have any university at all in my electorate, but we will ensure that the University of the Sunshine Coast will build a new university at the old Petrie paper mill, which will start in 2020. We were able to secure a $35 million grant to help get the Moreton Bay university established through the council—to get ground works and everything happening. They are happening right now, as I speak. We were also able to secure a loan of $121 million for the University of the Sunshine Coast to get those buildings underway. This morning I met with a representative at the University of the Sunshine Coast, who said some very kind words in relation to what we're doing for universities and young people in our electorates. We have seen base funding for Commonwealth supported places at the University of the Sunshine Coast increase by 152 per cent, which I mentioned earlier. As a father of three young sons, who are 15, 13 and 11, I'm passionate about making sure that the education system is sustainable long into the future. These changes are doing that. In regional areas, we've seen over half a billion dollars for the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program over the forward estimates to help regional students access university, and it goes on. I'm very pleased to be able to talk on this. I look forward to the University of the Sunshine Coast opening our new campus in Moreton Bay in 2020. It will provide great opportunities for young people in my electorate. 12:54 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Griffith. In doing so, I want to reflect on a speech I made during the debate on the higher education reform package in September last year. In that speech, I quoted the Prime Minister, who, in his first statement as leader of this country, identified that the Australia of the future has to be agile and innovative. I was pleased when the government decided not to pursue its reform package in the Senate after I and my Nick Xenophon Team colleagues publicly announced that we wouldn't be supporting the package until there was a comprehensive root-and-branch review into the post-secondary education system. Of course, that pleasure turned to dismay on 18 December, when $2.2 billion worth of cuts were announced in MYEFO. We've already seen regional universities coming out and saying they're feeling the brunt of those cuts. These new cuts are far-reaching. They have placed an effective cap on student places. I'm on the record as saying that I believe the demand-driven system has led to perverse outcomes for vocational education and training. But to put a cap on student places without a thorough review about how best to position our education sector shows that these cuts are not about promoting sustainability or protecting the future of education in this country. These cuts are simply hacks, and they are hacks to please the Treasurer, with no comprehensive plan for the future. For a government that prides itself on its innovation agenda, cutting university funding to manage the bottom line is not acceptable, and it's very short-sighted. Let's not forget that both the former, Labor government and the current government have cut a total of $3.4 billion from the university sector in recent years. The impact of university cuts has hit home for me, particularly in my home state of South Australia, because it's undergoing a period of economic transformation. If university research is the cornerstone of innovation, then cuts to universities threaten their capacity to continue to innovate. In South Australia, we cannot afford to take that risk. I recently visited the Flinders University Tonsley campus at the Tonsley innovation centre. That campus houses their New Venture Institute, NVI, which operates as an incubator for start-up businesses. Since its inception in 2013, 232 start-ups have gone through the program, employing more than 60 people. Not all of these start-ups will succeed, but it only takes a few brilliant ideas to take off for the investment to be repaid several times over, and cuts to university funding threaten this potential. While at the NVI, I met with two women who created start-ups that are operating throughout my electorate. One of those businesses, Lateral Vision, uses virtual technology programs to deliver web based virtual tours which can be utilised for education purposes. The other business, VENYU, is a platform where people can easily search for available wedding venues using set criteria, saving time and money spent travelling to different locations, through the NVI. These two businesses are collaborating, and Lateral Vision is now providing VENYU with virtual tours of wedding locations, making it easier for couples to make wedding plans and creating a truly sustainable business. These are small examples of some of the good-news stories coming out of Australian universities, and these stories cannot happen without significant investment in our university sector. The Tonsley campus also houses the Medical Device Partnering Program, which supports early stage innovation and technology developments for medical devices. The MDPP receives no federal government funding and only limited amounts of state government funding, and the university put their own money in, which means they have to turn away medical professionals and members of the community who come forward with great ideas—ideas that save lives and save millions of dollars in unnecessary health spending because they reduce bed stays. Even small increases in funding would lead to tangible benefits in the community. How ridiculous and how short-sighted to cut universities. How can this government claim that they support innovation when they continue to attack and hack the higher education sector? I echo the call of the member for Griffith to reverse the MYEFO cuts to the university sector and I ask the government to undertake a comprehensive review of the post-secondary education system, with a particular emphasis on regional universities, so that a clear path forward can be forged that includes universities, vocational education and apprenticeships. Only by including all sectors can we ensure a bright, sustainable future for future generations, and a better nation. 12:59 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra This government has a record of ensuring Australia's higher education system is economically sustainable and provides opportunities for those who are qualified to attend. It's very easy for those opposite to criticise the pragmatic pursuit of sustainable higher education funding. It was Labor who, after all, left us with a legacy of debt and deficit, so it's perhaps unsurprising that they never seriously sought to work with us to clean up their mess. Instead, all we get are motions like the one we've got today, motions that ignore some basic facts. In the face of this, I'm happy to stand here and deliver some hard truths to those opposite. This motion accuses the government of closing the door of opportunity to thousands of Australians. It's a fiction. When Labor left government, there were approximately 1.1 million students enrolled in higher education. That number has increased today to 1.5 million. Some 400,000 more people have walked through the doors of our higher education institutions, which very much remain open despite Labor suggesting otherwise. This motion also makes the highly imaginative suggestion that orientation weeks will somehow be dominated by fear instead of festivity because of uncertainty about funding: another fabrication. The government has been very clear about our intentions, ensuring certainty for both the sector and for students. Within the existing legislation, which was, I might add, framed by a Labor government, the coalition is maintaining Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding for bachelor degree courses at 2017 funding levels for 2018 and 2019. From 2020, increases to the Commonwealth Grant Scheme will be responsibly and sustainably linked to performance and national growth. This is not smoke and mirrors. We've set out a clear and certain funding model for future years so that the sector can plan and perform accordingly. The member for Griffith moved this motion, and I note that last week her website pushed a petition that argues that Australian students and families should not be asked to miss out on a university education—yet another falsehood. Nobody is being asked to miss out on a university education. While the government is capping the amount of funding growth a university can access for this year and next, we are not capping the number of Commonwealth supported places that a university can provide. This means that universities can and will continue to enrol as many students in Commonwealth supported bachelor places as they choose. There are the same opportunities for students and new opportunities for university bureaucracies to get their houses in order. Analysis by Deloitte has found that universities only use 85 per cent of their Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding, meaning that they can draw down on 15 per cent of funding they previously diverted to other purposes—like the $1.7 billion the sector spent on marketing over the past seven years. What should really concern those opposite isn't the pursuit of political pointscoring. What should concern those opposite is the security and sustainability of the system so that no student ever has to miss out. The government has faced up to the task of putting higher education costs on a responsible path for the future. We owe it not just to the students of today but to the students of tomorrow too. Australia has some of the world's leading higher education institutions and we must ensure that their cost and quality are sustainable for those future students. Despite giving Labor and the Greens the opportunity to put the system on a sustainable basis over many years, they've been unwilling to work with the government. Labor preferred to turn a blind eye to the challenges confronting both higher education and the federal budget. Again, if I were a member of the party that presided over the fastest deterioration of Australia's debt position in modern history, I'd be happy to turn a blind eye too. I say 'tempted', because while continuing down an unsustainable path may indeed be easier politically, this government has never rejected its responsibilities to the students of today and tomorrow. Higher education funding is at record highs of more than $17 billion annually. Coupled with this, funding for teaching and learning has increased 71 per cent since 2009. But, for all this growth, we must be focused on the outcomes, driving universities to focus on the needs of students. Coinciding with record funding growth, university completion rates have, sadly, fallen to 66 per cent, while short-term employment outcomes are down more than 10 points to 70 per cent. By linking future funding from 2020 to performance outcomes, universities will be encouraged to address these results. An incentivised funding model encourages improved performance, student retention and boosted graduate employment outcomes. The government is ensuring that students are fostered by a system that wants to produce successful and employable graduates. This will encourage universities to spend taxpayer money efficiently. Labor proposed higher education savings of $6.6 billion in their last years of government, including an efficiency dividend. As for this government, we'll continue delivering a better budget position, better value for taxpayers and a better higher education system. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 127 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS South Australia and Commonwealth Funding 127 13:04 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I move: That this House: (1) notes that:    (a) the Government has delayed release of the Productivity Commission's review of the GST distribution until after the South Australian state election on 17 March 2018;    (b) the Productivity Commission's draft report recommended changes to the distribution of GST revenue that would see South Australia lose up to $557 million in the first year alone;    (c) South Australia did not receive one new dollar of infrastructure funding in the 2017-18 budget;    (d) education funding to South Australia has been cut by $210 million by the Government; and    (e) the Government’s failure to support Holden has resulted in thousands of job losses in South Australia; and (2) calls on the Government to provide South Australia with its fair share of Commonwealth funding and to release the Productivity Commission’s report prior to 17 March. South Australia currently has 11 seats in federal parliament. Four of them are held by the Liberal Party. Those four are held by margins of five per cent or less. There's a very logical reason for that and a clear reason understood by South Australian voters, and that is that South Australia, under the Turnbull government and previously the Abbott government, has been dudded. It's as simple as that, and that's why voters in South Australia do not vote for very many members of the coalition in this place. They have been dudded with respect to the River Murray. They've been dudded with respect to the GST share of funding. They've been dudded with respect to the infrastructure spending for South Australia. Earlier today, we had a debate about the $210 million cut from education funding in South Australia as well. Then, when you look at the submarine contract, you can see that it was a debacle from the outset, and it still is. The simple reality is that federal Liberal members from South Australia cannot be trusted to defend the interests of South Australians, and the voters know that and their vote is reflected in the number of members here in this place. Let me turn to infrastructure funding for a moment. When the coalition government came to office some five years ago, they announced an infrastructure plan of about $50 billion. Of that, $2 billion was going to go to South Australia. That is four per cent of the total funds. South Australia has seven per cent plus of the population and over 11 per cent of the national roads, but it was going to get four per cent of the infrastructure funds. But, to make matters worse, the federal government then dropped the supplementary road funding that South Australia had been receiving for 20 years under both sides of politics. They dropped it altogether—$20 million or thereabouts each year. A government member interjecting— Mr ZAPPIA HWB Yes, it's been reinstated, after years, because they knew that the heat was on them. But they had dropped that as well. And then last year we saw not one new infrastructure dollar being directed to South Australia. Federal members come into this place and say, 'That's the state government's fault because they didn't put any proposals up.' Yet the same state federal members will come into this place and take credit for works to do with infrastructure that they supposedly got without the state government. I say to them: you can't have it both ways. Either you stand up for South Australia or you don't. If you're good enough to get money when you want to claim credit for it, then you should have done so last year as well. It gets worse than that, as we know. GMH is a classic, iconic South Australian company, established by the longest-serving Liberal Premier in South Australia, Thomas Playford, who did great things for South Australia. After 60-odd years, under this government, which turned its back on the car workers, we saw the car workers lose their jobs, but it also affected all of the other associated industries and the general community and the economy of that area of South Australia because there were so many other businesses that relied on it. I suspect Thomas Playford would be turning in his grave if he was aware of what was going on in South Australia and the things that he established being turned around by this government. We then go to the education funding. I don't want to repeat the debate we had in the other chamber this morning, because that was had in the other chamber, but $210 million is going to be taken away from South Australian schools as a result of this government reneging on a previous agreement that was in place under Labor and the state government. But we then turn to the GST debate and we get to a situation where we are likely to lose over $500 million in GST funding because this government is possibly going to change the formula. I notice that the South Australian Libs—the federal Liberals—have come out and said, 'We'll stand up for South Australia.' Well, if you're going to stand up for South Australia, why doesn't the federal government come out before the next state election and make it clear that there will be no cuts? But they won't. They'll wait until after the state election, both here and in Tasmania. Lastly, I turn to the River Murray, because the member for Barker is sitting right there. The member for Barker got up in parliament last week and asked a question questioning Labor's stand on a disallowance motion that would have meant more water for South Australia. The member for Barker, who represents the Riverland fruit growers, came into the parliament and criticised Labor's position in standing up for more water for South Australian growers. South Australians are not fools and they won't be fooled by this government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Is the motion seconded? Mr Champion HW9 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 13:10 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I'm very pleased that the member for Makin has begun the new year energised about his role in this parliament. I thought it was particularly unfair at the end of last year when TheAdvertiser assessed him as having achieved an 'F' over the last 12 months for his efforts in this place. I thought that was particularly unfair! But he has turned the page, and good on him. He's going to come in here and fight for the people of Makin, and so he should. While we're talking about fighting for the people of our electorates, can I just mention, as he did, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Make no mistake, we are at a critical phase in relation to this plan. The fact is that Labor, the Greens and the Nick Xenophon Team are going to open the gate. They're going to open the gate to the Victorian Labor government—I should say the New South Wales Liberal government too—to rip the plan up. After all that work that Tony Burke did that I've given him credit for, they want to rip the plan up. This will happen. I hope it doesn't, but, if it does, I'll say, 'Ladies and gentlemen, I told you so.' Let's talk about infrastructure for a minute, and I know the member for Boothby and the member for Grey are particularly interested in infrastructure in South Australia. The member for Makin must have been reading my speech notes, because, quite frankly, he's hit the nail right on the head. The reason we're not getting infrastructure projects delivered from the federal government into South Australia is that we've got a South Australian state government that doesn't want the money. Those opposite will say, 'Oh, rubbish,' but I think it's right because, if they receive this money for infrastructure projects, they give up GST, and, you see, their ability to spend GST money on pet projects, in marginal seats, to prop up Jay in South Australia is critical. Make no mistake, we're hearing a lot about South Australia in this place at the moment. Why is that? Because they want 20 years of a failed Labor government. Sixteen years was bad enough, but they want to give us two decades. I don't want to talk in generalities. I want to give you a specific. I want to drill right down to the bitumen on the road and give you an example. The member for Boothby and the member for Grey know I have banged on about the Penola bypass for as long as I've been in this place. It was a road that was half-built by the SA Labor government. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Order! The member for Wakefield will have his opportunity. Mr PASIN 240756 For too long in this place have I banged on about the Penola bypass, because the state Labor government built half of it. It was the equivalent of building half a house. It sits there, and it ends. We've even had an occasion when someone from interstate thought for sure that the road continued, so they continued into a paddock and had a rather serious accident. In any event, it is a half-built road. I managed to put $9 million on the table for a state road; I sat it on the table. It's been on the table for years. The state infrastructure minister, Mulligan, when our community heralded the arrival of this $9 million contribution, said, 'That's great, but, nah, we don't want it.' They didn't want to complete a road that's half-complete. They didn't want to finish it. When I asked why, they said there would be GST implications—'We'd have to give up GST.' What that meant was that they didn't complete the Penola bypass. They had to give the money back to the federal government so that the state could maintain its GST payments. Look, I get it. You're about pet projects in marginal seats in Adelaide. But then, thanks to the efforts of the member for Boothby, there was a rather significant announcement around the Oaklands Crossing. Stephen Mulligan, to much celebration, lauded the solution at the Oaklands Crossing, and I thought to myself, 'Hang on a minute, the Oaklands Crossing and the Penola bypass have the same assessment for the purposes of GST funding.' So the SA Labor government were prepared to accept $95 million from the federal government to complete the Oaklands crossing, or contribute to it, but they turned their back on $9 million for the people of Penola. If you need an example of what they care about, there it is. They care about marginal seats and pet projects. I'm about standing up for my constituents. I'm about infrastructure programs that matter to them, like the Penola bypass and the $9 million that is there, ready to be used to complete that road. We've got a state Labor government that was prepared to reject that money. They're prepared to accept money for the Oaklands crossing that got the same GST treatment. They care about city constituents in marginal seats. They don't give a toss about people who live in the country. 13:15 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield On 3 January 2018, we realised in South Australia that the Productivity Commission and the Treasurer, who obviously has received this report, have put the torpedoes in the water for GST cuts to South Australia. And what's the reaction we've seen from this government? First of all, it was complete delay. They want to delay until after the state election. They don't want to own up to the fact that the Treasurer, Mr Morrison, has said that the GST allocation system is broken and needs to be fixed, yet they're not prepared to own up to the solution the Treasurer might adopt until after the state election. This is because we're going to get a $557 million cut, which will cost us 2,400 doctors or 5,000 nurses or 5,000 teachers or 4,000 police. This is the impact of this sort of cut—a cut of this magnitude. Of course, when this is reported in the Adelaide Advertiser and when the state Premier, Jay Weatherill, seeks to make this a legitimate issue for the South Australian election, for the opposition leader, for the Liberal Party, what do we get? I'll tell you what we got. We got a great bit of confusion from the South Australian Liberal Party. On 7 February in an Adelaide Advertiser report called 'Hands off our Ca$h', we had cabinet ministers Pyne and Simon Birmingham quelling fears by 'emphatically stating': … the Turnbull government had no policy to change the way the cash was distributed. Mr Pyne said: The Productivity Commission writes reports, the Government makes policy. There is no policy to change the GST mix … However, we know that Mr Morrison has said the system is broken and needs to be fixed, so what we get in that very same story is the member for Boothby saying she's going to fight for 'a fair deal for SA'. That seems to indicate that something's going on in federal cabinet regarding South Australia's GST allocations. Why else would she say that she's going to fight to protect it? Who is she seeking to protect it from if not the federal Treasurer, if not the federal cabinet, if not the Turnbull government? We know she's had much to say about banking reforms, bizarrely being on the side of the banks, unlike most Australians; she's on the side of the banks, not on the side of the people. We then, of course, have the member for Barker, who just spoke. He made a very parochial speech, but, to The Advertiser, he said: Any attempt to undermine this principle will be met with a fierce fight from me and, I would expect, every other South Australian in Federal Parliament … So what we're seeing is the federal government putting on all the mood music. We know Morrison, Cormann and the Prime Minister are putting on all this mood music in Western Australia in a desperate attempt to deal with their political problems over there. The state government have blown their budget. The previous state Liberal government blew their budget and left the incoming Labor government with that problem. And what we find here is a bunch of state Liberal Party backbenchers from South Australia fighting a desperate rearguard action against their own cabinet. This is division over an issue which vitally affects South Australia—that is, our GST allocation. The same article says: Grey MP Rowan Ramsay said the current GST carve-up was not sustainable in the long-term but suggested putting a minimum on the cents in the dollar return … So he's making up his own policy. He's not for cabinet. He's not for the member for Barker and the member for Boothby's policy of protecting South Australia's allocation. He's for his own policy on the run. We know that the member for Grey tends to just say whatever comes into his head at any moment, and it's normally a bit wayward and a bit deranged, and so here we have him making his own statements on horizontal fiscal equalisation. This is the fairest system in the world for allocating these funds. It means that South Australians get a fair go. That's all we want—a fair go—because we need to develop the country. We're developing a vast continent, with small populations often in big parts of it. We need to keep the GST system the way it is, and we certainly need a position of no disadvantage to South Australia. But what we've got is Liberal cabinet ministers and Liberal backbenchers all at sea over their own government's policy. 13:20 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby A strong economy is the key to our nation's growth. It's the reason that our government is backing small business, boosting exports and delivering tax cuts. A strong economy benefits all Australians by creating more and better-paying jobs. A strong economy also means that states do not need to rely on GST revenue to fund essential services. However, in my home state of South Australia that's exactly what is happening and what has to happen, because after 16 consecutive years of Labor government and 16 consecutive years of irresponsible spending the South Australian Labor government can barely keep the lights on. I'm a proud South Australian and I will always fight to ensure that we get our fair share of Commonwealth funding. But I'll tell you what else I'm fighting for: I'm fighting for a change of state government in South Australia so that my wonderful home state and our state economy can get back on track. There is nothing more important than that for my residents in Boothby and for every single South Australian. We need to get rid of the state Labor government, who have failed each and every resident of South Australia. They've failed to protect our most vulnerable elderly residents and our most vulnerable children. They've failed to deliver affordable and reliable power. They've failed to transform health. Instead, they've decided to trash our health system, shutting down the wonderful repatriation community hospital in my electorate and closing 160 hospital beds in the south of Adelaide. State Labor have failed to grow jobs—it's just tragic that we have one of the highest rates of unemployment in the nation—and they've absolutely failed to balance the state budget. I will address some of the specific issues raised in this motion, particularly infrastructure and education. The Turnbull government's commitment to infrastructure in South Australia is undeniable. In the 2017-18 budget our government committed to an overall infrastructure spend of $3.1 billion for South Australia. This is a significant investment in upgrading infrastructure across the state, and a large part of that funding is going to benefit my residents in Boothby significantly. We have committed $496 million, or 80 per cent of the total value of the Darlington upgrade project. This will see traffic flow much more easily along South Road. It's absolutely critical to get my residents and those residents further south to work and to school as quickly and efficiently as possible. Part of this upgrade is our commitment of another $42 million—I was so proud to be the candidate when this commitment was made during the election campaign—to extend the train line from Tonsley up to Flinders Medical Centre and the university. The Flinders Link rail project will transform public transport options for local residents. It will make it so much easier for students coming to Flinders to get to uni, help health professionals at Flinders Medical Centre and help patients to get to Flinders Medical Centre and Flinders hospital more quickly and easily. I was also very proud during my time as a candidate for Boothby to be the first member of parliament to ever commit significant funding to fixing the Oaklands Crossing, which is a 40-year-old problem for my residents. I secured a $40 million commitment towards the Oaklands upgrade and grade separation, and I'm grateful to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities for securing an extra $55 million, so that this project can start now. The state government has also made a commitment and we will see this long-term problem fixed for my local residents. We're also providing record local road funding to my councils. We've invested $7.8 million through Roads to Recovery for councils in Boothby—the cities of Holdfast, Mitcham, Onkaparinga and Marion—and the Black Spot Program is doing things like fixing the Jetty Road rail and road intersection, which has made it a lot safer for both cars and pedestrians. Education was another issue listed in this motion. It is ridiculous to claim that the Turnbull government is cutting funding to education. We are investing an extra $23.4 billion in our schools over the next decade. I spoke on that this morning in the House. We will see average funding per student increase by around 52 per cent. 13:25 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I rise today to speak about the Productivity Commission report, which—no surprise—has been delayed. And why has it been delayed? Because the government are waiting until after the Tasmanian and the South Australian state elections. There must be a reason why they're delaying it, and it doesn't take a genius to work out that reason. Following a $210 million cut to South Australian education and schools alone, which I spoke about in this place last week, we now face the prospect in South Australia of a further drop in state revenue due to federal government pandering. The delay of this Productivity Commission report is just another way for the incompetent Turnbull coalition government to try to win back support in WA, where they're trying to avoid the state poll consequences and also trying to avoid the backlash that the federal government is seeing in a drop in all the Gallup polls and other polls. This is a great example of the typical, incredibly lazy approach from this government, as we've seen in so many areas. They are not promoting good, long-term fiscal policies. Let's look at the facts. The draft report was handed down four months ago. Now we hear that in the draft there is a proposal for the eastern states to see a cut in GST revenue, with Western Australia picking up billions. The voters of South Australia and other states expect more from this government than to just chop and cut away to pander to a particular state where it's floundering in the polls. Voters in South Australia head off to the polls on 17 March, so why shouldn't they have access? Why shouldn't this government be up-front with them so they can see the Liberal Party's vision for the nation, which includes ripping billions of dollars of GST revenue from states like my home state of South Australia? What makes it even more remarkable is that we haven't heard a thing on this from the South Australian Leader of the Opposition, Steven Marshall. Where is he? We haven't heard a thing from him. His opposition, by not standing up to this federal government at all, is so weak. We haven't heard boo from him. Perhaps they're not cutting—we don't know. But at least be up-front and tell us before the state election. Steven Marshall is like a wet towel on the floor with this. In contrast, we see Premier Jay Weatherill fighting tooth and nail on this issue, as he's fought tooth and nail on many other issues. We saw him stand up to this federal government with the submarines. When the Abbott coalition government were basically telling us that we weren't going to get the submarines in South Australia, we saw Jay Weatherill, the Premier, stand up to them and fight until we did get them—unlike the opposition leader. When there are $210 million until in cuts to education, who's out there in South Australia fighting for the South Australian students and schools? It's Jay Weatherill, the Premier. We haven't heard boo from Steven Marshall and the opposition. So we need someone who will stand up and continue to stand up to the federal government's unfair policies. What we'll see is cuts to education, roads, infrastructure, health, Aboriginal affairs, the environment, just to name a few. We will see cuts to jobs programs, which are so important in South Australia—jobs programs designed to help people from GMH and other industries that have shut down. This is an absolute disgrace, and the government must come clean with the South Australian people now. They must come clean today and tell the South Australian people what they're proposing in that Productivity Commission report. If I'm wrong about the WA windfall, why is the federal government delaying the report? It's been out for a long time. Release it if there's nothing to hide. Let the South Australian voters, who are going to an election in a few weeks time, know up-front exactly where they stand and where this federal government stands with South Australia. Don't get me wrong. I love WA; I've visited many times. But it's a little rich to complain about other states taking GST revenue during the mining boom and then complaining about not having enough cash when times are tough. We can't keep moving the goalposts—and they are moving for political purposes. It is about trying to win back votes in WA. People are absolutely sick of this pandering. So let's look at what other states are saying. For example, Victoria, led by the business community, had this to say: It does little to improve the transparency, simplicity, economic efficiency, or equity of the current system … (Time expired) 13:30 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey The member for Makin has actually raised a very important issue: the review by the Productivity Commission of the GST carve-up. Unfortunately, after his initial comments in the motion, he digresses and falls into the trap of the South Australian government. In fact, he follows their lead and links South Australia's long-term underperformance on almost every level to the federal government. It is not a thesis or hypothesis that stacks up. The federal government runs a federal system, and all states are basically treated the same. Yet all the ailments of South Australia and its underperformance seem to be, at least in the Premier's view and in the view of the members opposite, the fault of this federal government. It's been 16 long years of Labor in South Australia. They have misjudged the economics of the day and badly misdirected infrastructure investments, including very expensive opening bridges down at Port Adelaide, the O-Bahn extension and a desalination plant that hasn't been seriously utilised since it was built in 2011. While it has spent the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars on these projects, the state government has ignored the infrastructure that would boost the economy, particularly in the regions. I make the point that South Australia does not have a serious deep-sea port, and it's been holding us back for many years. The government should have invested in this area. The state government's status quo is to blame the Canberra coalition for all its failure and, unfortunately, the member for Makin has joined them. Let me say from the outset that I'm totally committed to the principles of horizontal fiscal equalisation. This country has been built on the premise of equality and equity. It's not possible to support a system where children, our aged or our disabled are treated with less generosity from state to state. That's why I think it is completely correct that the Productivity Commission should review the mechanisms that address horizontal fiscal equalisation. It is the vehicle that delivers social equity across Australia, but currently the GST is meeting the entire scope of that fiscal equalisation, and this is leading to distortions. The member for Barker touched on them when he spoke about the Penola bypass. I, too, after some lobbying efforts, was allocated some amounts of money for South Australia in 2016 to help the state government upgrade some of their infrastructure. In particular, I got $400,000 for an upgrade of the Kulpara to Kadina road, which is an increasingly busy and rough-as-guts bitumen road carrying 2,000 to 3,000 vehicles a day on Upper Yorke Peninsula. It's interesting that the state government are actually paying for works on parts of that road at the moment, but they could have had an extra $400,000 from the federal government. All that was required was a 20 per cent contribution from them, which they rejected because they said it would affect their GST payments. Similarly, I received an $800,000 contribution towards the Tod Highway on Eyre Peninsula. These are very important transport routes. Once again, the state government would have had to come up with 20 per cent, or a little less than $200,000, and they refused the money because it would downgrade their GST allocation. I make the point here that something is wrong. When state governments are rejecting money from other sources because it will affect their GST allocation, clearly the incentives in the system are wrong. I applaud the review by the Productive Commission, and, like others, I look forward to their final report. But I hope they address this issue. In my mind, we will have to look at a system that is somewhat different and that shares the load further outside the GST boundaries. We cannot have member states making decisions because they're worried about losing money from other states. I have some sympathy for the view that the Western Australians put up—that there ought to be a minimum rate that states pay. The suggestion has been 70 per cent; so, if your state contributes a dollar through GST, you are guaranteed at least a 70 per cent return. It's going to take a little time before we get to that position, I believe. I am willing to support that premise but only if it does not disadvantage my state and my issue is addressed in other ways. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Sitting suspe nded from 13:35 to 16 : 00 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 132 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Calwell Electorate: Assyrian Community 132 16:00 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell Last Friday, I had the opportunity to visit St Abdisho's church in Coolaroo in my electorate and to finally meet with His Grace Mar Benyamin Elya, the bishop of the diocese of Victoria and New Zealand, newly appointed last year and finally come to us from Sydney. Bishop Elya heads the spiritual needs of the Assyrian community in Victoria and, in particular, in my electorate, which is a community that's a very large and fast-growing community. In more recent times, with the arrival of a large number of refugees from Syria and Iraq, we have seen members of the local Assyrian community swell up to about 1,500 families. I've had many discussions with the bishop, but one discussion of importance was his desire to establish a school that will service the needs of the Assyrian community in my electorate—a similar school, I understand, exists in New South Wales. The vision for a school to service the needs of the community is very pertinent, especially in this instance because schools, like churches or places of worship, become a significant infrastructure for newly emerging communities. I'm looking forward to working with His Grace on this project. He represents a new generation of religious leaders in Australia. He came here when he was 12 years of age and he's best equipped to meet the needs of that emerging community. Swan Electorate: Lifesaving 133 16:01 Mr IRONS HYM Swan Last month, I teamed up with the Royal Life Saving Society of Western Australia for the launch of their multicultural Swim and Survive course being conducted at the Ascot Kayak Club in my electorate of Swan. Trent and the team from the Royal Life Saving Society WA, Lauren and Jason from the Belmont Oasis Leisure Centre, and swimming students and instructors came down to promote the importance of the Multicultural Swim and Survive on the Swan program, a part of the Respect the River program, which is funded by the federal government. My electorate of Swan is bordered by the Swan River, and the residents and visitors to the area spend much of their time on it, around it and in it. With the warmer months well and truly upon us, it is important that children, adults and tourists as well learn essential swimming and lifesaving skills to ensure that safety is their No. 1 priority. Australia's inland waterways like the Swan River continue to be the leading location for fatal drownings, accounting for 97 deaths in the 2016-17 year, almost one-third of the nation's drowning toll. This included 68 at rivers and creeks and 29 at lakes and dams. In Western Australia, there was a 23 per cent increase in the number of deaths occurring at inland waterways compared to the previous year. This is something we all need to address to ensure our families, friends and neighbours are safe in and around waterways. I commend the Royal Life Saving Society for its tireless efforts in teaching water safety to all Australians and to the constituents of my electorate. Lindsay Electorate: Australia Day Awards 133 16:03 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay I rise to congratulate and pay tribute to the exceptional Lindsay residents who were recognised on the Australia Day honour roll this year. The Order of Australia is the highest national honour awarded to Australian citizens for exceptional service and achievements. I'd like to take the opportunity to recognise the amazing Lindsay recipients. John Bateman was awarded the OAM for service to local government and to the community of Nepean, recognising his dedication and service to our community serving as the Mayor of Penrith from September 1998 to September 2000. Mr Bateman now gives a lot of his time volunteering for our community and has a strong belief in the benefits of volunteering. He established the Bateman Battersby law bursary, which supports students to undertake legal studies and, is the founder of the Nepean Philanthropists. Neville Barnier was awarded the OAM for service to people with a disability and to the community of Penrith, and this commendation is in recognition of his volunteerism. Neville has been involved in the Australian Foundation for Disability, Afford, for over 30 years and was chairman from 2014 to 2017. He has also supported the Penrith RSL and Homes for Heroes, in the western region. This award is very well deserved, and Neville is a valued member of our community. Finally, I'd like to make mention of another valued member of our wider Lindsay community, Albert Fish from Erskine Park, who was awarded the Order of Australia for service to veterans and their families. Albert has served our community and veterans through his work with the St Mary's RSL sub-branch, the St Mary's Women's Auxiliary and the Vietnam Veterans Association. I thank all three of these gentlemen and congratulate them on their achievements. Corangamite Electorate: Stronger Communities Program 133 16:04 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite The Stronger Communities Program is such an important local program, initiated by the Turnbull government for local communities. Last month it was my pleasure to visit the Apollo Bay Aquatic Centre to announce a $20,000 grant to help fund the installation of new pool heating. This is part of a larger $400,000 project to upgrade and construct an indoor pool by enclosing the pool and heating it all year around, an incredibly important project. I also visited the Kennett River Association, which received $20,000 to construct a wildlife walk at the wonderful Kennett River township. This will also be a great community asset. I want to congratulate the other recipients: the Barwon Heads Fine Music Society, which got $5,000; the Birregurra Preschool, for backyard improvements; Colac scouts, for a new hall roof; the Colac Woodcrafters Guild; the East Belmont Saints Baseball Club, which received $20,000; Fairhaven Surf Lifesaving Club, which received some money to upgrade its nippers amenities area; the Linton & District Men's Shed; the Ocean Grove Tennis Club; the Rokewood Corindhap Football & Netball Club, which received $10,000 for a kitchen rooms upgrade; the Shelford Progress Association; and the Warrion Cricket Club, which received just over $7,000. This is, as I said, an incredibly important program to build stronger communities. I sincerely congratulate all Corangamite groups on their wonderful success. Herbert Electorate: Higher Education 134 16:06 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert This week, thousands of students are attending O-week events as they prepare for their university studies next week. These students are commencing when there is a huge, dark cloud hanging over JCU and CQU, the universities in my electorate, as a result of the completely unnecessary cuts being made by the Turnbull government. The Turnbull government are attacking regional universities and students unfairly with their $2.2 billion cut. In Townsville, this means that $36 million will be cut from James Cook University and $38 million from Central Queensland University. I have received letters from both vice-chancellors, who are incredibly concerned about these cuts. The fact is that these cuts mean job cuts. These cuts will mean fewer courses, fewer lecturers and fewer students having access to higher education in regional Queensland. Regional Australia needs more degree-qualified people and more highly skilled professionals, not cuts. A number of Turnbull government ministers had the luxury of a free university education. Instead of passing on the benefits they received, they're passing on severe cuts. Instead of cutting university funding, how about this government dumps their big business tax? That would be $65 billion saved. They could dump their tax for people on more than $180K a year, and $19 billion would be saved. A crackdown on negative gearing and capital gains tax concession would mean $37 billion saved. That's well more than $100 billion saved. These cuts will be crippling for regional Queensland and Herbert. We want equality of opportunity— (Time expired) Canning Electorate: Murray River Delta Islands 134 16:08 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning I rise today to share the concerns of the delta islands residents in my electorate of Canning. Located in the Shire of Murray, the Murry River delta islands area is a network of low-lying islands and estuaries where the Murray and Serpentine rivers meet the Peel Harbour estuary. In the 1970s and eighties, the estuaries were attacked by algal bloom as a result of nutrient run-off and stagnation. To overcome this problem, a decision was made in the nineties to build a channel between the estuary and ocean at Dawesville. The channel would ensure that nutrient-rich estuary water could flush out to sea, and that the incoming salt water could restrict algae growth. While the Dawesville cut has solved the algae problem, the increased salinity in the estuary has resulted in serious erosion of the riverbanks, particularly in the delta islands area of South Yunderup. After being contacted by a frustrated group of island residents who have been battling this for years, I recently visited the islands to examine the erosion myself. The erosion is significant—much like its effect on local housing prices. Led by Don MacLure, the delta island residents have offered their time and labour to the Shire of Murray to install infrastructure that would solve and slow the effects of erosion. Instead, the shire is focused on combating rising sea levels, which are unlikely to affect the islands until 2070—if, indeed, you accept the modelling. Given the very real threat of erosion, I understand the residents' frustration with the Shire of Murray's priorities. I hope that, under new president David Bolt, the Shire of Murray will use its resources to address the erosion in South Yunderup. The delta islands residents deserve practical solutions. I look forward to working together to deliver them. Werriwa Electorate: Planning 134 16:09 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa The New South Wales Liberal government's treatment of local councils is well documented, and recently councillors in Sydney and Wollongong have had their planning powers removed. In light of this, residents of Horningsea Park in my electorate have a right to be concerned about a proposed development in the suburb of Bringelly by Nulon motor oils which would be 200 metres from their door. Many residents have raised concerns with my office expressing strong opposition. Despite the site being zoned as light industrial, the proposed factory will manufacture and store motor oils and aerosols, using hydrochloric acid and highly combustible liquids. Liverpool council also is opposing the development, saying it will pose a serious risk to the community and the environment. While I strongly support Australian companies creating jobs in Werriwa, zoning laws exist for a reason. I support the local residents and council in their opposition to this development. This type of manufacturing should not be allowed so close to residential properties. The proposal would see the factory built on the edge of the Western Sydney Parklands, which have been described by the Greater Sydney Commission as the lungs of Sydney. I call on the New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment to consider refusing this proposal and to work with the company and the council to find a more suitable space for this development. However, given approvals recently of the intermodal and the concrete recycling plant adjacent to homes in Moorebank, I share the residents' concerns. Ramsey, Mr Fraser, Van Den Bogert, Ms Kayla, Green, Mr Josh, Garlick, Ms Caitlin 135 16:11 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Today I'd like to pay tribute to Fraser Ramsey, who, very sadly, passed away recently. Fraser was an icon. He loved our community, had a great sense of humour, was integrally involved in the cattle industry and loved his horses and working dogs. I, like many, will miss him. My thoughts are with his wife, Laurene; his children, Allen, Susan, Elizabeth and Helen; daughter-in-law, Carol; and sons-in-law, Lindsay and Ronnie, as well as his eight grandchildren and one great-grandchild. Rest in peace, Fraser. I'd like to congratulate three dance students from my community who have received overseas scholarships in ballet from some of the world's best. Kayla Van Den Bogert participated in the Prix de Lausanne ballet competition in Switzerland last month and has received a scholarship for the Royal Ballet School in London. Kayla will also participate in the international finals of the Youth America Grand Prix, to be held in New York in April, along with Josh Green. Josh was recently awarded a scholarship with Stuttgart Ballet in Germany. I'd like also to congratulate Caitlin Garlick, who has received a scholarship to the Princess Grace school in Monaco. These are fantastic achievements by this group of young people from our community, all of whom study at the Karen Ireland Dance Centre. Congratulations! Bounding Plains to Share, Refugees 135 16:12 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner For the last 10 weeks, Canberrans Jackson Bursill and Cassie Cohen have been pounding the pavements down our vast and varied east coast. Jackson and Cassie's Bounding Plains to Share project will take them from Cooktown to Melbourne. They will run 4,000 kilometres in 100 days, with each day marked by local stories of refugees who have enriched Australia after fleeing persecution and conflict overseas. Bounding Plains to Share celebrates people who've made our country a better place, very much in the spirit of the Welcome to Australia movement. Today the two Canberrans set foot on home turf. It was a delight to catch up with them and share stories of running injuries as they rehydrated on the Parliament House lawns. In Canberra, they told the story of Zaki, a Hazara refugee whose older brother was killed by the Taliban and whose father hasn't been heard from since he was detained five years ago. Zaki now lives in Canberra and works at student services at the Australian National University. He enjoys being part of the educational journey students are taking from enrolment through to graduation. In 2015, Zaki received an award for his work integrating communities of asylum seekers and refugees and opening up their educational opportunities. Jackson and Cassie have met people like Zaki at every stage of their journey. If you want to follow their stories or track their journey go to boundingplainstoshare.com. I wish them well in their future running. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 135 16:14 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I am here today to pay tribute to the thousands of survivors of institutional child sexual abuse who courageously spoke out with a determination to seek justice and protect other vulnerable children from having their childhood innocence stolen from them. I want to thank all the survivors for your strength and bravery to share your most painful life stories. I want to thank all those involved in the royal commission for your compassion and professionalism, which revealed this national tragedy. Finally, I want to say how thankful I am to be part of a parliament that brought this hidden pain into the light to ensure it never happens again. Australia's children are our future. Research and personal testimony demonstrate the lifelong trauma and societal cost of childhood abuse. As abolitionist Frederick Douglass said, it is easier to build strong children than repair broken men. Previous policies have failed in the past, but I'm hopeful that our government's dedication to implementing the commission's recommendations will protect the innocence of our future youth, while our commitment to the Commonwealth redress scheme for survivors of institutional childhood sexual abuse recognises the suffering that so many endure. Sadly, there are those among us that harbour evil desires and abuse the power entrusted to them for personal self-gratification. As a father, I will fight with everything within me with this government to ensure we keep as many children as we possibly can safe from harm. Workplace Relations 136 16:15 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin On Saturday I was very pleased to be invited to an important meeting organised by the Community and Public Sector Union. This meeting kicked off a campaign in Melbourne to fight Centrelink privatisation. I was joined there not only by a number of CPSU members and activists but by a very wide range of concerned members of society, concerned about this issue and its impact not just on these workers but on Australia. This is a campaign that we have to recognise has many important dimensions. It's about decent work—decent, secure work for those directly employed by Centrelink, also having regard to the interests of those people presently employed in labour hire arrangements. It's also about us as members of parliament acknowledging the extraordinary work those people who assist our constituents with Centrelink inquiries do. It's something that I am deeply appreciative of on behalf of the people of Scullin. I was pleased to be at this meeting with so many Melburnians, because this argument about Centrelink, this argument about how our public services are supported, is really an argument about our social compact—how we treat one another, how we should treat one another. This is a campaign that I am proud to support and that I will do all I can to support in this place and in the community. In doing so, can I acknowledge Rupert Evans and Eleanor Kennedy and all those who participated in kicking off a vital campaign. Coal Exports 136 16:17 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I would like to share with the House some good news not only for my constituents but for the constituents of every electorate of Australia. Last week we heard the numbers from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that showed our coal exports had hit record levels for 2017. In fact, they were up by 35 per cent on 2016. Our numbers for last year smashed the 2011 record, up by 20 per cent. What this means is that there are higher royalty payments flowing into the Treasury, there are higher company tax profits paid and there are greater wages for those employees—50,000 of them directly employed. This is great news for our economy. It is the wealth that is created from those coalmines that pays for our schools, that pays for our hospitals, that pays for aged care, that pays for our kids with disabilities and that pays for our pensions. Yet there is so much of an anti-coal attitude that spreads across this parliament from people who do not realise that this is one of our nation's greatest competitive advantages, that it is one of our greatest sources of wealth and that it pays for the things we so desperately need to pay for. It is amazing: those we hear the greatest anti-coal rhetoric from are the very same people that want more government revenue spent on things. If we want more government revenue, we have to encourage— (Time expired) Syria 136 16:18 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Since 20 January this year, the people of Afrin in northern Syria have been under heavy bombardment from Turkish armed forces as part of an incursion into Syria. On 6 February, the UN resident humanitarian coordinator of Syria released a statement condemning the military operations in Afrin which have trapped civilians. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that, as at the end of January, there had already been 67 civilian deaths and nearly 200 injured as a result of the Turkish air strikes. Air strikes have also destroyed a 3,000-year-old Neo-Hittite temple built around 1300 BC. Turkish officials, including their foreign minister, have stated that the intention of the operation is to rid Afrin of terrorist elements, including ISIS, although there is no ISIS presence in Afrin. The population of Afrin is under a secular administration, the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, with security provided by the SDF, the Syrian Democratic Forces, a Kurdish-led, multiethnic, pro-women's-rights group in Syria. They've been a key ally for the US and Western allies during the Syrian Civil War, playing a major role in the eventual removal of ISIS from its de facto capital of Raqqa. Sadly, despite a relatively positive start to his administration, President Erdogan's rule has, over 3½ years, become increasingly authoritarian, devolving into fear, the persecution of minorities such as Kurds, the breakdown of democratic foundations and the dissolution of human rights. While Australia has had a shared history and an important relationship with Turkey since World War I and while the relationship between our nations is important, the federal government must condemn the Turkish President's incursion into Afrin. I call on the Australian government to make direct representations to the Turkish government, imploring them to halt operations immediately, before there are any more civilian casualties. South-East Queensland: Thunderstorms 136 16:20 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman Severe thunderstorms are just a way of life in South-East Queensland, but yesterday's was a monster, coming through both the Logan and the Redland city council areas with very little warning, taking out 52,000 houses' power supply and taking us back to a pre-Benjamin Franklin era. To see half the city in darkness around dusk last night was a truly chilling experience, with wind-damaged houses, gusts of over 107 kilometres per hour and basically all of the SES on deck. I really do want to thank local SES controller Clare Baker and all of her team for their work in clearing away fallen trees and power lines. In my area, 2,400 dwellings are without power, as are a thousand in Alexandra Hills and the Capalaba area. Living in a leafy part of Brisbane, as I've said, that is what we've come to expect from large storms. Thankfully, no-one was injured or worse. Redland City Council is helping with the clean-up. We're expecting more storms perhaps not today but in future days. These sorts of wind gusts are quite frightening for people living in homes in leafy and bushy areas, but we're confident that, according to Energex, the power will be on for those residents by today. In Queensland, obviously, having prawns in a fridge without any power is not a good thing. There is reimbursement and compensation for those who have been severely affected. In my office, Helen Velissaris and Stephanie Eaton are on the phones to help locals if they'd like to call my office on 3821 0155. Pensions and Benefits 137 16:21 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman In Longman, 27,391 people are of retirement age. These are people who have worked hard their whole lives at workplaces in the community or serving their country, and 20,688 are either pensioners who live on a fixed income or part pensioners. A significant proportion of those people of retirement age are actually our Vietnam veterans, who have served their country, are now serving in their community and quite often are still carrying the scars of the service that they provided to their country. Last week during question time, I welcomed shadow minister Jenny Macklin's question to Minister Dan Tehan when she asked when he planned to lower the deeming rate for part pensioners. What was his reply? The government minister replied: … consider all options that will help Australians get a job. There are 1,100 Australians who are getting a job each day. Get a job—really? Seriously, the government's answer to lowering deeming rates is, 'Get a job'? The good people of Longman have done their fair share. The part pensioners have done their fair share of heavy lifting in this country. They pay their tax, and I suggest that this minister actually thinks about the questions asked of him in question time. Capricornia Electorate: Feedback 137 16:23 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia As representatives of our community, it is vital that we act not only as a conduit for information from Canberra to the electorate but as a similar conduit for the messages from the electorate to Canberra. With this in mind, I put the call out last week to my Facebook followers, asking them what they would like to see raised during this year of parliament. The following responses are a cross-section of the many made on the post. Bruce Sloper said, 'Lobby for a defence manufacturing industry in CQ.' I'm proud to be doing just this. We in CQ play host to the best training facility in the country. With Gladstone's harbour and Rockhampton's airport, CQ is the perfect place to base manufacturing or maintenance for the defence industry. Ken Murphy said, 'Getting the economy going and reducing the dependence on welfare.' Many, like Paula Mills, would like us to push for more water infrastructure and develop the rail line to the Galilee Basin. Stephanie Nicholas wants to see an end to offshore detention. A few respondents wanted to see a resolution to the lockout situation at the Oaky North mine site. Affordable electricity is on the tips of many Central Queenslanders' tongues, and, as the unofficial energy capital of Australia, one can understand why. Paul Naylor, Dazza Wilson, Cindy Bonnell, Yvonne Welch and Colleen Cooling all mentioned energy policy as being hugely important. I am always thrilled to hear from the real people of CQ, and I take these comments seriously. It's clear people want help with their day-to-day costs and to have certainty— (Time expired) Chifley Electorate: Australian Islamic College of Sydney 137 16:25 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I rise to congratulate a fantastic school in my electorate on reaching 20 years of operation. Last November, the Australian Islamic College of Sydney celebrated this milestone with a terrific commemorative function at the Mount Druitt campus. Established in 1997, enrolments have grown from just 30 to over 1,100 students, supported by 100 staff members. It's a state-of-the-art educational institution. It has had many successful achievements along the way. Year after year it has produced outstanding HSC results, and, more recently, it escalated into the top 40 per cent of schools in New South Wales for HSC results. NAPLAN results have also shown great accomplishment, with the college's ranking remaining above the state mean. I love visiting the school. I'm a big fan of the students. They are a terrific reflection on our area and it's always great to attend their presentation assemblies. Of course, it takes a whole school community to get the college this far. Big congrats to everyone involved with the school management, led by principal Dr Imam Ali, the school board and the school council; all the committed teachers, dedicated parents and members of the parents and carers association; and all the hardworking students, past and present, who've been instrumental in the college's success. Congratulations on your milestone and I wish you many more prosperous years. Berowra Electorate: Galston VIEW Club 138 16:26 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I was delighted to recently join the Galston VIEW Club in Berowra to help them celebrate 25 years of service to our community. VIEW stands for Voice, Interest and Education of Women, and there are over 300 community clubs all over the country. This is my first visit to a VIEW club and I received a warm welcome from a passionate group of hardworking women, including some of their original members. Under the inspired leadership of president Marjorie Jarrett, vice-president Jenny Trimboli and secretary Vivian Fitzer, the Galston VIEW Club works to lend a hand across Berowra. Through their fundraising efforts, disadvantaged students have been provided with school supplies and mentorship. One woman supported by their outstanding is Jane. Thanks to Galston VIEW Club, Jane flourished at school and last year graduated with a Bachelor of Education, working in special needs, and she's now teaching in London. The VIEW Club's hard work also extends to practical handicraft. Over winter they knitted knee rugs for Richmond aged-care residents. They're now working on these knitted sleeves, which are creations for dementia patients for play and interaction, calming those patients during times of distress. It was a privilege to be able to speak at the Galston VIEW Club on their 25th anniversary and join the women for a delicious lunch. Berowra is fortunate that we have such passionate, proud and positive women working for the betterment of our community. I congratulate Galston VIEW Club on a quarter of a century of service, and I look forward to visiting them again soon. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Props are ordinarily frowned upon, but I was intrigued—so thank you. Grayndler Electorate: Broadband 138 16:28 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I rise today to report on the results of the NBN survey that I undertook over the summer in my electorate of Grayndler. I did that because there is such frustration about the move from fibre-to-the-premises high-speed broadband to the government's 'fraudband' proposal, a hybrid of copper, HFC cables and fibre to the node. The survey asked residents what they thought about the NBN currently and whether they wanted it. I received more than 3,000 individual responses to that. They included Fergus, who said, 'I want the fibre-to-the-premises NBN that was originally proposed'. Alyssa said, 'I've seen zero improvement since converting, had more daily drop-outs and have no phone or internet at all this week, which won't even get looked at until next Tuesday.' Brett said, 'Don't have NBN, want it, but not in current form—FTTP or nothing.' Sharon said, 'I want the NBN that Labor planned, fibre to the premises, not the shambles that the LNP is foisting on people.' Tina said, 'Very expensive and limited satellite NBN.' Overall, just 11 per cent of customers who had the NBN said they were satisfied with the service. Only Labor will deliver the infrastructure that people need. (Time expired) Whitford, Ms Holly 138 16:29 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I rise to offer my huge congratulations to Sale teenager Holly Whitford, who, at just 19 years of age, has made her debut for the Australian Football League women's team Collingwood. Getting me over my antipathy towards Collingwood, I have to say, is a great achievement for young Holly. She appeared on the weekend in front of a record 41,000 spectators, which is a real credit to the AFL women's game. Unfortunately, they lost to Fremantle, but I'm sure young Holly will have a great and distinguished career in the women's league. Holly is a former Sale Catholic College student. She played footy with Sale City as a young girl growing up, and also with Gippsland Power. She was one of the recipients of our Local Sporting Champions grant a few years ago, which I'm sure helped her as she progressed her sporting career. Holly was draft pick No. 2 in the rookie draft a couple of weeks ago, and her progress from the rookie list through to the senior team in just a fortnight is something she should be very proud of, and I'm sure her family and friends are equally as proud of Holly for that achievement. The Whitford name is well known around the Sale football community. Her uncle John 'Porky' Whitford was a young fellow who I played footy with growing up, and her father, Billy, was a very good footballer as well in Sale. I think he played with Sale and Sale City. The Whitford name is certainly well known in football circles in Sale for the men's game. Now, it's great to see young Holly being a role model for young girls aspiring to play AFL women's football. Infrastructure 139 16:31 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I rise to speak out against the discrimination by the Liberal government against Victoria, which is still being massively short-changed on infrastructure dollars. Melbourne is the fastest-growing city in Australia. Victoria has around 25 per cent of the population and is the fastest-growing state. In the last two years, Victoria contributed 42.9 per cent of the total jobs growth in Australia. Yet, under the Liberals, Victoria is only receiving 9.7 per cent of funding. Under Labor, Victoria received $201 per head; under the Liberals it's fallen to $105 per head, and it's trending downwards to sink to $46 by 2021. What of the other states? Per head, Tasmania manages to get twice Victoria's amount. I don't know if the Deputy Prime Minister would need a map of Tassie to find his way there, but he certainly has absolutely no clue where Victoria is—none. Queensland receives more than triple, and New South Wales is almost quadruple. New South Wales is home to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer. They get 45 per cent. The Prime Minister for Sydney has short-changed Victorians by more than $7½ billion. Sydneysiders enjoy buckets of federal cash propping up their government, and we're being robbed blind. It's about time Victorian Liberal MPs stood up and called this out. A few crumbs off the federal table are not enough, and Puffing Billy is not a form of public transport. Maybe we need the Turnbull-Chesters government. Hinkler Electorate: Bundaberg Netball Association 139 16:32 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to congratulate the Bundaberg Netball Association, who have successfully lobbied to hold the 2018 Primary Schools Cup in September this year. They didn't do it alone. We made a commitment at the 2016 election of $500,000 to help them expand the Bundaberg Super Park so it could attract events just like this. I know what the opposition candidate said at the time: 'This is all not true. It will never be delivered.' Well, here it is. It is built and it is delivered. We have kids out there on those the courts in regional Queensland—in one of my regional centres, Bundaberg. An event of this size will attract more than 1,000 children in years 4 to 6 from around 100 schools. Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, I know that you know what this will do for a regional economy—this is people in hotels and people at restaurants; this is people out shopping and seeing our local tourism facilities and attractions. And, hopefully, they come back, because this is such a wonderful place to live and visit. I congratulate the former president Karen Holloway and the current president Anthony Lewis for their passion and dedication in seeing this project come to fruition. It has been a very long haul. The original netball courts were at a location called Kendall's Flat. They were damaged by floods in 2010. In 2013, they had a trawler parked on the roof of the building following the 2013 floods. This has been a boon for our local community and our local sports people. It's great for young girls in particular. I look forward to the benefits that this will bring to our local economy. Congratulations to the Bundaberg Netball Association. Global Partnership for Education 139 16:34 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton A couple of weeks ago world leaders gathered to renew financial pledges for the Global Partnership for Education, aiming to ensure that every child has access to quality education as a birthright. The final figure reached at this meeting was $2.3 billion. It is certainly a big number and worth commending, but it falls well short of the target set to allow the GPE to reach 870 million children to change their lives and our world for the better. Australia pledged $90 million to the GPE over three years. It saddens me that Australia is becoming less generous with each replenishment. This latest pledge is a far cry from Australia's four-year pledge of $270 million in 2011, which was cut to $140 million in 2014 by the Abbott government. I was proud to be part of the Gillard Labor government when, in 2011, Australia was one of the top two donors to the GPE. In 2018, we, a very wealthy country, will likely drop out of the top 10. Shame. Deep cuts to our aid budget in recent years are having a tangible impact on our support of vital global mechanisms like the GPE. I have said in this parliament before that international aid, especially when it supports education, is the single greatest enabler of our world's next generation. As a former teacher and now as the parent of two school students I see the importance and impact of education firsthand, as well the challenges faced by those who do not have access to quality education. A quality education is not treated as a human right, but it should be. A quality education is not treated as a global investment in preventing entrenched poverty, but it should be. Australia has the capacity to do so much more. Tangney Electorate: Sport 139 16:36 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney We're so close to securing the final part of funding that we need to build the Wilton basketball stadium expansion. We're close to putting the 150 kids who are on the waiting list into teams so they can play sport. We're so close to finishing off the tireless work of the 3,500 players and the 1,100 volunteers who have been trying to build this expansion for at least the last 10 years. The Wilton Basketball Association has an application with the Western Australian state government to secure the final $2 million to double the current four courts that they have. Last year, with the help of many of my colleagues in this place, we secured $5.5 million to fund the expansion. I call on the state Labor government to come to the party and confirm the grant for the remaining part of the funding. I have personally written to the WA sports minister to encourage him to consider the application closely. The application is currently under consideration by the minister. The application is strengthened by the Commonwealth's funding being secured, with funding also guaranteed from the City of Canning and from the association themselves—from their hard work and application of effort. But it's up to the state Labor government in WA to finalise the funding for this vital project in my electorate. With the state government's funding secured, the project's construction can start soon. Perth Electorate: Stronger Communities Program 140 16:37 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth I would like to give a big shout-out to the wonderful group Inglewood on Beaufort, who were responsible for putting together the Great Monster Hunt on the weekend. The Great Monster Hunt is a terrific community based initiative made possible through the Stronger Communities grants process. Inglewood on Beaufort are a voluntary not-for-profit group who have gone to great lengths to make sure Beaufort Street, north of Walcott Street, is thriving as a village-like community. The Great Monster Hunt involved young kids all going into a competition to design their own monsters, which they did at the local library. Having designed their monsters, the top 16 were selected to have monsters then transposed onto adhesive material which was then carefully hidden around the forecourt of the library so kids could go on their own great monster hunt. I took my two girls down, aged six—on Thursday—and two, and they had a great time foraging around, finding these terrific little creatures. Well done to Inglewood on Beaufort for constantly coming up with new and inventive ways to make sure our local communities thrive. We were absolutely delighted to support the City of Stirling with the Stronger Communities grants. It's precisely these sorts of projects that see us go from strength to strength in our local community. Wide Bay Electorate: Aged Care 140 16:39 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay Last Friday, I was very pleased to welcome the Minister for Aged Care to Wide Bay to meet with aged-care providers and listen to their concerns. Minister Wyatt and I met with representatives from Carramar Noosa residential care in Tewantin, Cooinda in Gympie, Gympie residential care, Castra at Murgon, Torbay Lifestyles & Care at Torquay, Zion Lutheran Retirement Village in Gympie and the Central Queensland, Wide Bay, Sunshine Coast PHN. As I said in my maiden speech, the people cared for in aged care are the people who built the schools, built the roads, nursed us, taught us and handed us the lucky country we live in now, and they deserve the best standard of care in their senior years. The service delivered by aged-care providers is essential to ensure that the elderly who are not able to care for themselves live in dignity, comfort and security. We need to ensure their business models are sustainable, so they have the capacity to support people who rely on them for everything. I thank everyone who attended the roundtable for their honest, forthright contributions. Feedback and advice is so critical to the future of the sector. Wide Bay has unbeatable aged-care professionals, but there are challenges of an ageing community in our area. I thank Minister Wyatt for his interest, and I look forward to working closely with him into the future. Moreton Electorate: Broadband 140 16:40 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton In recent months, my office has received phone calls and emails from Moreton locals wanting to know what is going on with this Turnbull-Joyce government NBN. Under the last Labor government, southsiders—in fact, all Australians—could easily go to the NBN's website and find out when the NBN rollout would begin in their suburb. For many Moreton suburbs, that's supposed to have already happened. Even putting aside the substantial delay and blow-out in costs under Prime Minister Turnbull's leadership, there's a more pressing problem for Moreton. Well over three quarters of my electorate was set to receive a technology called hybrid fibre coaxial, which uses old cables built in the 1990s by Telstra and Optus. But here's where it gets crazy. Just like something out of an episode of Veep or The Thick of It, the HFC rollout has been delayed again because it doesn't work. That's right, the second-rate NBN coming to Moreton is being delayed further because Prime Minister Turnbull can't give us a technology that actually works. From Sunnybank to Annerley, Tarragindi to Chelmer and Eight Mile Plains to Oxley, Moreton, a suburban Brisbane electorate, will be trapped in an internet backwater. Prime Minister Turnbull is creating a digital divide in Moreton. Some lucky Brisbane locals, under the last Labor government, already had fibre to the premises rolled out to their suburb. But in Moreton we've got the NBN—the internet network of the future relying on centuries-old copper wire or decades-old cables built by Telstra and Optus. The fact is that under Labor all of Moreton was scheduled to get the world-class fibre-to-the-premises NBN, delivering super-fast internet speeds using fibre optic cable. Molan, Senator Jim 141 16:42 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I had intended to update the chamber on my electorate of Fairfax; however, the actions of the Greens have gotten in the way. Any sober assessment of the Australian Greens would lead most Australians to dismiss their disruptive ways as simply a distraction. Of course, they do routinely frustrate the passage of government reforms, and they do aim to disrupt major development projects, often in communities that need them most. But I guess we can cop some of that because, for the Greens, that's just business as usual. They're blockers, not builders; their radicals, not reformers. We know that. And their Neo-Marxist worldview masquerading often as a social conscience is plain to see too. However, last week, the member for Melbourne and his leader in the Senate plumbed new depths by implying and then accusing former Major General, now Senator, Jim Molan of war crimes—an appalling accusation. This was from the member for Melbourne, a member with form in this area, who once referred to the Minister for Home Affairs as a terrorist. It was a vile insult not only to a courageous and respected leader but to all men and women who have served with him, those we send in our name to endure the stress and brutality of war. Banking and Financial Services 141 16:43 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth 'Once more with feeling', as they say in the classics. I tell you what, it is the blind leading the blind over that side when it comes to reforms to the small amount credit contracts. These are more commonly known as payday loans or rent-to-buy schemes. Hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Australians are being ripped off as a result of a lack of action on behalf of that side over there. What do we hear? In a circumstance where we have bipartisan support to get these things fixed, where we saw draft legislation with bipartisan support, we hear that scurrying, scuttling sound. It sounds to me very much like a crab walk. They reckon that we get organisers coming from the trade union movement. I hear from over the other side the slow but sure sounds of an organisation starting called 'Parliamentary friends of payday lenders'. I just hope that the litany of parliamentary friends does not include those who I see opposite. I'm sure it wouldn't, because these are otherwise upstanding individuals. There is the member Tangney and the member for Wright, but I'm not sure about the member for Berowra or the member for Fisher. The parliamentary friends of payday lenders are on the march. They are determined to make sure that vulnerable Australians are not protected. They are determined to make sure that people are being left behind. What could they do with the stroke of a pen? What could they do right now? They could introduce the legislation that the consumer action legal group have said is okay to protect Australians today. But they are doing nothing. Flynn Electorate: Emergency Services Day 141 16:45 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn Yesterday the Gladstone PCYC held Gladstone's first Emergency Services Day. The event was an enormous success, with an estimated 4,000 members of the public attending. The event had extra features to the traditional emergency services day, with representation from various sporting groups and community organisations. Two highlights of the day were the Queensland fire service's crashed vehicle display, where they demonstrated to the crowd how a person is rescued from a crashed vehicle using the jaws of life, and the mascot race, with the Queensland Police Service's Clancy the Koala taking out honours in the dash for the finish line. The day was an extremely successful combination of community groups gathered together for the one event. These groups were able to engage with the public and promote the benefits of being involved with their various volunteer organisations. I give a sincere vote of thanks to the many groups that made their time available to attend and thank the thousands of members of the public who came along to say g'day to our emergency services personnel, who play such a vital and often thankless role in looking after the community. Thank you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 141 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Order of Australia 141 16:46 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I move: That this House: (1) acknowledges the Order of Australia is the highest national honour award and the pre-eminent way Australians recognise the achievements and service of their fellow citizens; (2) recognises that since being established by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in 1975, there have been more than 500 recipients of Companion of the Order of Australia, almost 3,000 awarded Officers of the Order of Australia, more than 10,000 inducted as Members of the Order of Australia and more than 23,000 honoured as recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia; (3) notes the almost 900 recipients in the General Division of the Order of Australia on Australia Day in 2018, from an array of fields including education, arts, sport, science and social work; and (4) encourages all Members to congratulate recipients from their electorates on this immense achievement. Australia Day honours recipients reflect the best of our country. Australia's honours system allows us to shine a spotlight on our role models. Not only does it give us a chance to say, 'Thank you for your service,' but the recipients serve as a reminder of everything we can and should aspire to be. This Australia Day, I was proud to see Berowra residents being appointed to the Order of Australia. Dr Diana O'Halloran, from Glenorie, was made an officer of the Order of Australia for her contribution to medicine and general practice. Diana's pioneering work in the field of general practice in Western Sydney has included her ongoing advocacy for reform in the provision of accessible, high-quality health care. Judith Horton, from Middle Dural, was appointed to the Order of Australia for her contribution to horticulture and gardening. Judith has been involved in the Australian open gardens scheme, has edited Yates Garden Guide and has helped grow the Galston District Garden Club, which runs the popular Galston Open Gardens Weekend every spring. Berowra's bushland is a fitting home for a woman of Judith's talents. We're lucky to count her as one of our own. Rosalind Carlson, from Arcadia, was recognised for her service to choral music and education. Rosalind's desire to impress a love of music on others has enriched the musical life of both Berowra and our nation. Rosalind wears many hats as an accomplished musical writer, performer and conductor—thus it's only fitting that she now adds Order of Australia recipient to her list of titles. Julie Griffin, from Westleigh, was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for her tremendous service to women in Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai. As a survivor of domestic violence, Julie's passion and drive have seen her involved in the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai domestic violence network for 25 years. Three years ago, she helped launch the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women's Shelter. Julie is a source of great motivation for the many women she works with, and her award is a fitting thankyou to someone who makes a difference. The Rev. Dr David Claydon, from Hornsby Heights, was honoured for his service to the Anglican Church, interfaith relations and refugees. David Claydon, I'm proud to say, has been a family friend for generations. He has been a much-loved Anglican minister in Berowra, and he and his wife Robyn are admired internationally for their work with Christians and for their great humanity. David and Robyn Claydon have travelled to more than 80 countries for their work with an impressive array or organisations, including human rights organisations for the Middle East and Africa. I often speak to David about interfaith and ecumenical works in this place. The recognition of David's work locally, nationally and, indeed, internationally is richly deserved. Unfortunately, David's recovering from major heart surgery. We wish him well for a speedy recovery. Two other Australia Day honourees from my community also deserve special mention. Craig Easy from Hornsby was awarded the Australian Fire Services Medal for his contribution to the Fire & Rescue New South Wales over many years. Our firefighters, like Craig, are the backbone of this nation. And mathematics teacher Eddie Woo, from Cherrybrook Technology High School, was named Australia's Local Hero for his innovative and inclusive teaching methods. His 'Wootube' videos began as a way of keeping a student with cancer engaged and educated during his illness. What began for an intended audience of one has now evolved into an internet sensation, providing thousands of people with the opportunity to further their education and learn a love for maths. Outside my electorate, I would like to make special mention of three other honourees who have personally inspired me. Danny Lamm's contribution to Australia-Israel relations was quite rightly recognised. I worked alongside Danny on the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. I know firsthand how deserving Danny is. Greg Whitby's innovative and passionate work with Catholic Education over many years was recognised. I valued his experience during my work at the Australian Catholic University, and I continue to benefit from his counsel as Director of Education in the Parramatta Diocese. My friend Brian Loughnane worked with every Liberal leader since 1994, and served both as the Victorian and federal director of my party, running outstanding campaign wins in 2004 and 2013. He has a well-deserved international reputation as being an outstanding political strategist. There are two sorts of people who become federal or state director: those for whom it's just a job and those who believe in the cause deeply. Brian is very much in the latter category. Turning 18 on that glorious day when Gough Whitlam was sacked, Brian used to maintain a list of 100 reasons why Billy McMahon was a better Prime Minister than Gough Whitlam. It was a list to which he was adding constantly. Equally at home amongst seasoned campaigners or liberal and conservative intellectuals, Brian understood that the party operates in a broader cultural environment of global ideas and political activism in the liberal and conservative tradition. I was honoured that Brian's last function as federal director was addressing my branch in 2016 and that he came and helped me on my campaign. Brian Loughnane, Officer of the Order of Australia, I salute you. All the people I have mentioned contributed in their own way. So it's right that we as a parliament take time to recognise great Australians who serve our nation in the way that they do. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is the motion seconded? 16:52 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I second the motion. On Australia Day in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, we also honour dedicated and hardworking citizens in a number of ways. In the Hawkesbury, Peter Webb was named Hawkesbury's Citizen of the Year. He has worked tirelessly with the Suicide Prevention & Support Network Western Sydney. He is also involved in the organisation of this Sunday's Hope Walk at Clarendon. His aim has been to break the stigma of mental illness, support people who've considered suicide and provide support to those who've lost someone to suicide. Adam Higgins of Blaxlands Ridge was recognised as Young Citizen of the Year, thanks to his involvement with the Rural Fire Service Cadet Program at Colo High School, where he has served as senior deputy cadet for the last two years. The work to establish Pink Finns earned Jodie Amor the Volunteer of the Year Award. Jodie and her team assist women and their families dealing with cancer. The Blue Datto Foundation, established by the Vassallo family in memory of their son, Philip, was recognised as Community Organisation of the Year. Their educational program, Keeping Safe, has brought driver safety to the forefront of schools across Western Sydney. The Local Hero in the Hawkesbury was Peter Ross, who saved a two-year-old girl from drowning at North Richmond. His efforts in rescuing and performing CPR on this child changed her future and her family's future. Both Jacki-Lynn Griffiths and 10-year-old Lily Spies received the Environmental Award. Ms Griffiths has been rescuing local wildlife for the past 20 years, while Ms Spies's school project on the impact of single-use plastic bags inspired her to take up the issue with local council. The St Matthews Bicentennial Team received the Hawkesbury Cultural Award for their brilliant celebration of the church and its parish. And, as the eye at many local events, Hawkesbury Camera Club were celebrated through the Hawkesbury Community Arts Award. In terms of the Order of Australia medal, my friend former councillor Christine Paine was honoured for her 25 years of passionate and dedicated service as a local Hawkesbury councillor. We all know how much she deserved that award. Each of these citizens and organisations contribute to the strong and vibrant fabric that holds the Hawkesbury community together and reminds us of how lucky we are to be part of that community. On Australia Day, the Blue Mountains recognises its citizens who give of themselves for their community and they award three local citizen of the year awards. Carmel Higgins was named Blue Mountains Citizen of the Year, recognising almost 50 years of service to St Finbar's Netball Club, and the Blue Mountains Netball Association. Carmel began as coach for the club in 1970 and has served in virtually every executive position, including president. Most recently, she was involved in the Walking Netball project, which allows women to continue to play their beloved sport even as their knees grow older. Young Citizen of the Year was Andrew Gunn, in recognition of his service as a youth counsellor. In this role, he's used the Youth Summit Radio program to raise awareness about issues of youth homelessness, abuse, mental health and LGBTQI rights. The Springwood Foundation Day committee has organised the formal celebrations of the town's heritage over the past 20 years. They were awarded the Community Achievement of the Year Award for their efforts in fundraising through this event and contributing to the vibrancy of the local area. Four people in the Blue Mountains received Australia Day honours. Heather Gwilliam of Mount Riverview and Ian Ellis, known as 'Ike', of Springwood, were both awarded the Order of Australia Medal. Ms Gwilliam has been a volunteer with Anglicare Disaster Recovery and Gateway, which provides resources for local families. I certainly benefitted from her leadership during the 2013 bushfires. Ian Ellis, a former Assistant Commissioner of the New South Wales Police Force and a hostage negotiator, was instrumental in the development of alternative approaches for young offenders. They're both to be congratulated. Dr Caroline Bowen of Wentworth Falls was celebrated for her work in speech pathology through the Member of the Order of Australia. This shows just how vital having good speech is, and Dr Bowen has done a lot of work in this area. The Conspicuous Service Cross was awarded to Chaplain (Air Commodore) Kevin Russell for his work in bringing gender and age diversity to the chaplain roles at the RAAF. He doesn't think they should all be white males, and he's gone out of his way to make a difference to the chaplain's program there. These members are some of the many enthused, dedicated and compassionate citizens who have helped make the Blue Mountains the strong community that it is. We celebrate them and we thank them all for their contribution to our community. 16:57 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I thank my good friend the member for Berowra for the opportunity to recognise some of our great Australians this year. This year in the electorate of Fisher, the hard work and bravery of our local emergency services personnel was recognised. Mark Campbell of Moffat Beach received the Australian Fire Services Medal. Mr Campbell has more than 30 years experience in the service and has used that experience to benefit the next generation, training new recruits and experienced firefighters alike. SES Sunshine Coast leader Donald Patterson of Twin Waters and Acting Regional Manager of the Central Region SES, Andrew Wyatt, of Caloundra, also received the Emergency Services Medal for their many years of dedicated service. Along with these great Australians in my electorate of Fisher, we are proud to have the Thompson Institute. I've spoken often in this place about the cutting edge work that is going on there in mental health research and treatment, and about the $5 million that the Turnbull government delivered to support that great work. What I've not spoken about is the man who the Thompson Institute is named after, Roy Thompson. Roy, along with his wife, Nola, are two of the Sunshine Coast's greatest philanthropists. Like many great Australian stories, Roy's began in humble circumstances: in a single-income family with a father working hard in the local gasworks. Things were not much better for the Thompsons in the 1970s, when Roy and Nola brought up their eight children on a modest builder's wage. But in the end Australia rewards hard work, imagination and commitment. Roy went into real estate and he had a great deal of success creating or transforming a host of Sunshine Coast landmarks, like Chifley's Hotel, along the way. The list of the Thompsons' contribution to our community is long, but they have focused their generosity on education. To date, they have donated more than $15 million to the University of the Sunshine Coast alone. Their first donations created 150 bursaries, providing regular financial support for students who otherwise would be unable to finish their degrees. Their donations have been as creative as they are generous. They've provided half of the money for a new multistorey car park for the USC as a means of raising further and ongoing funds for scholarships and bursaries. This car park project is predicted to provide $69 million, benefitting more than 1,000 students in the coming years. Most recently, their $10 million donation for the Thompson Institute, supported by a further $5 million from the federal government, has allowed this cutting-edge facility to be built and to begin treating patients. The facility is now up and running and is just about to take delivery of the next-generation MRI machine which the Thompsons have paid for. This year, the facility is expected to treat 6,000 patients suffering from mental illness as well as making breakthroughs in mental health research. Away from the USC, I can tell the chamber that Roy also provided the land back in the 1980s which allowed the Stella Maris school on the coast to go ahead, and he continues to support Stella Maris's work to this day. I'm delighted to say that, in this year's Australia Day honours Roy was made a Companion of the Order of Australia. On behalf of the people of the Sunshine Coast, I want to congratulate Roy on his well-deserved honour and to thank him again for everything he has done for our community. For each person who's awarded an honour, there are a great many dedicated volunteers, friends, colleagues and family members who make these achievements possible. I also want to do my bit to recognise those unsung heroes. That's why I've created the Fisher Community Awards. I want to help make the southern and central part of the Sunshine Coast the place to be for education, employment and retirement. My community awards recognise individuals and organisations who are leading the way in making that a reality with their contributions. I'm calling for public nominations for each of my nine categories covering students, teachers, education providers, businesses, employees and innovators, senior community groups and senior service providers. I strongly encourage residents of Fisher to get involved by going to my 'Get Involved' page and nominating someone today. 17:02 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I thank the member for Berowra for bringing this motion forward for debate. It provides an opportunity for members to further acknowledge people in our communities who have made a contribution to the greater good. This year's Order of Australia awards have recognised three very worthy recipients in my electorate of Fremantle. Dr Philip House from North Fremantle has been appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for his service to medicine as an ophthalmologist, for his contribution to the work of eye surgery foundations and for his personal efforts in supporting eye health in Timor-Leste. Dr House's research at the University of Western Australia has helped to deliver a better understanding of glaucoma and of the factors that underlie poor eye health in Indigenous communities. Indeed, Dr House is rightly commended for providing eye health services to communities in the Pilbara over more than 25 years. In addition to his academic and clinical work in Australia, he has been a regular visitor to Timor-Leste, where he lends his passion, humanity and expertise in training young local doctors to provide basic eye care. It's almost impossible, I'm sure, to overstate the positive impact of that kind of work. I also take this opportunity to congratulate Victor Paino, the owner of the iconic Fremantle business Sealanes, who has received a Medal of the Order of Australia for his significant and extensive service to the seafood-retailing industry and to the broader community's welfare through his support of charitable organisations. Mr Paino is a third-generation Fremantle fisherman in a city with a proud ongoing tradition of successful and sustainable fishing. He began working in his family's shop as a 15-year-old and soon graduated to driving the truck that transported freshly caught produce from Esperance to Perth. I can tell you that is some kind of drive to do on a regular basis. Victor and his brother, working together, have taken Sealanes from a small business to a veritable seafood empire, but his success has always been premised on giving back to the community, as evidenced, for example, by his work as the founding director of the Fremantle Hospital Medical Research Foundation. Finally, I'm very pleased to acknowledge and celebrate the achievement of Roger Underwood, who has been appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in relation to the extensive and leading work in the areas of forestry and bushfire management. As an historian and writer, Roger Underwood has brought to his work an understanding that our relationship with the land is deeply cultural as well as scientific. Of course, Indigenous Australians have known for thousands of years that fire is a potent tool for land management and regeneration, as well as being a sometimes catastrophic hazard. Mr Underwood's work has drawn upon and illuminated the history of bushfire. He's been an expert on and an influential advocate for sustainable land management for 59 years, following his distinguished career as a forester and then general manager of the WA Department of Conservation and Land Management, as it was then. Mr Underwood founded the volunteer Bushfire Front group in 2003. In a state like ours, in Western Australia, his work has undoubtedly helped to save lives and conserve our natural environment. Today's motion gives me the opportunity to mention the achievement of the 2018 Young Australian of the Year, Samantha Kerr, who is also a Fremantle electorate constituent. She was born in East Freo and was a sporting phenomenon from a young age. She's gone on to become an national and international superstar. When she was 15, Sam was told that despite her skills she couldn't hope to play AFL professionally, because those opportunities simply didn't exist for women. They do now, but didn't then. So she turned her attention to round-ball football and began a journey that has included playing for Perth Glory, Sydney FC and the Chicago Red Stars, becoming, along the way, the all-time leading goal scorer in America's National Women's Soccer League. She is, arguably, the best player in the world, and I would happily make that argument. There's no doubt that Samantha Kerr is a leader within the Matildas and she's a leader and role model within the community. Her skill, athleticism, energy and dedication to the sport are an inspiration, but her character and determination are more impressive still. I'll finish by making the point that the Order of Australia's honours program, like many aspects of Australian life, does need some rebalancing if it's to properly reflect the diverse make-up of our society. Western Australians are consistently under-represented, but that's largely the result, or it appears to be largely the result, of the fact there are just not enough nominees from WA. I also note that across the program only one in three award recipients are women, and that ratio is even worse in relation to nominees. I encourage people in my home state and across Australia to consider the full range of potential award recipients, because I know there are lots of women, and men, who deserve to be recognised for their contributions to the greater good in many areas of our national life. 17:07 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney I'm pleased to inform the House there were a number of Tangney residents and community leaders who were recognised as part of this year's Australia Day honours list within the general division of the Order of Australia. Ardross resident, Commander Philip Leslie Orchard, a retired member of the Royal Australian Navy, was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for significant service to veterans and their families in Western Australia through his administrative roles. Commander Orchard was the chief executive officer of the Western Australian state branch of the Returned and Services League of Australia from 2011 to 2016. He's also been a board member and state secretary of the Western Australia state branch. I thank him for his services and contribution to our veterans and their families and congratulate him on this prestigious honour. I'd also like to congratulate Wenda Packard who was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia. Also an Ardross resident, Wenda has been recognised for his service to aged welfare. She's well known in the community as the founding vice president and chief instructor of Prime Movers, which she has run since 1986. Prime Movers is a not-for-profit organisation which provides physical and cognitive exercises as well as social interaction for seniors. Wenda was previously recognised as the WA Senior of the Year for Sport and Recreation in 2004. I would also like to recognise some of Tangney's business and education leaders. David Flanagan, the chair and chancellor of Murdoch University, which is located in my electorate, was made a Member of the Order of Australia for his significant service to the mining sector for a range of roles in higher education and the community. David is known for his work as a geologist and mining and mineral exploration pioneer in Western Australia. In 2014, David was named the Western Australian of the Year and Western Australian Business Leader of the Year. I join the member for Fremantle in congratulating Philip House who was made a Member of the Order of Australia for his significant service to medicine as an ophthalmologist, and his service to eye surgery foundations and the international community of Timor-Leste. Philip, who is an outstanding ophthalmologist, had the Applecross Eye Clinic in my electorate. He's also known for his extraordinary contribution to outreach services, including 25 years of services to the Pilbara in Western Australia. Finally, I'd like to congratulate someone who was a great mentor to me and who remains a mentor to me today, Brian Loughnane. Brian was made an Officer of the Order of Australia in recognition of his distinguished service to parliament and politics through contributions to public policy and as Federal Director of the Liberal Party of Australia. Brian was born on 11 November 1957 in Geelong, Victoria. After completing his studies at La Trobe University in 1981, the year I was born, Brian worked for Shell Australia. But politics was his true calling and, after being appointed as senior adviser to the Minister for Small Business in the Kennett government, Vin Heffernan, in 1992, Brian held a succession of positions, including as chief of staff to Alexander Downer and later to John Howard in opposition. Following a stint as chief of staff to Howard minister John Moore, Loughnane was state director of the Victorian— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:11 to 17:26 Mr MORTON 265931 As I was saying before the division, following a stint as chief of staff to Howard government minister John Moore, Loughnane was state director of the Victorian division of the Liberal Party from 2000 to 2003. Brian Loughnane was then appointed Federal Director of the Liberal Party and served as campaign director for the coalition parties at the federal election held in 2004, when the coalition returned with an increased majority. Brian was also at the helm for the 2013 coalition win. He retired as Federal Director of the Liberal Party in February 2016. Brian Loughnane and I have worked together, Brian in the role of federal director and me in the role of state director of the WA Liberal Party. As you can imagine, despite our close friendship and mentorship, sometimes those two positions did come with particular points of difference—I would stand up for the best interests of Western Australia and Brian would, quite professionally, run a national campaign. But, through all of that, Brian has been a great mentor to me. He has also been a great mentor to my wife, Asta, who was working at the Liberal Party here in Canberra when I met her. I call Brian, as does Asta, a friend of ours. I'm so pleased that Brian has been honoured in this way. When I spoke to him, he said this honour is recognition of the hard work of many campaigners from the Liberal Party who helped contribute to the success of our party around the nation. 17:27 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I'm delighted to have the opportunity to speak today on the Australian honours system. Although I can think of a few improvements to the system, I am a great supporter of the Australian honours system. I'd like to congratulate all the recipients of this year's Australia Day honours. For any Australian, receiving an award of this magnitude will undoubtedly be one of the proudest moments of their lives, and rightly so. I'm pleased so many have been recognised for their dedication, commitment and achievement in the fields of education, the arts, sport, science and social work. In my own electorate of Brand, I would like to make special mention of Mr Gordon Hall of Secret Harbour, who was awarded the Emergency Services Medal for services to the community dating back to 1993, having served with the WA State Emergency Service, WA volunteer emergency services, the fire and emergency services authority, and the SES Volunteers Association of Western Australia. While this award may have come to him as a surprise, I am sure it is no surprise to the community that Gordon has served with distinction for 25 years. Congratulations, Gordon. I join with the rest of my electorate, the community and the rest of Western Australia in applauding your well-deserved recognition. Gordon was the only person from Brand to be recognised in the 2018 Australia Day Honours, so I will take the opportunity to reflect on the awards system more generally. Of the more than 900 people awarded honours on Australia Day, only a handful of West Australians were recognised—68 out of over 900 recipients. It is disappointing to see WA so unrepresented on the national stage, when I know that there are so many sandgropers who deserve such recognition and who offer services and knowledge that benefit not just their own communities but the rest of Australia. Also disconcerting is a lack of women recognised by the Australian honours system. Just 18 out of the 68 Western Australian awardees were women. Of all the recipients of Australian honours, less than a third are women, and this rate has remained stubbornly in place for some years. There have been efforts made to increase nominations and awards. There have been slight improvements. Progress is glacial. It is incumbent on everyone to nominate those among us who have achieved in their fields, served in the community and made a real difference to the lives of others. I urge Western Australians to become more proactive in nominating people for recognition and to nominate more women; although nominations alone will not necessarily see more women recognised. The Council of the Order of Australia fails to meet the government's aim of 50 per cent of women on boards and perhaps an effort to redress this imbalance might assist. The motion presented by the member for Berowra loyally repeats accurately the words on the website of the Governor-General that the monarch instituted the Australian honours system but, of course, in the Australian constitutional monarchy, as it is in Britain, the Queen acts only on the advice of the Prime Minister who leads the elected government of the day, except for that one time also in 1975. Prior to the Australian honours system, the states and Commonwealth made use of the imperial honours system. Labor governments stopped making nominations to this foreign system in around 1972. The federal Labor government under Prime Minister Gough Whitlam created the Australian honours system, and the Queen in her ceremonial role approved it in the anachronistic way that Her Majesty, her predecessors and successors, by the luck of their birth, are obliged to. The elected Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser retained Whitlam's honours system but in 1976, on the advice of the Fraser Liberal National government—because I bet it wasn't her idea—the Queen created the categories of knights and dames in the Order of Australia. Thankfully, under the elected Labor government of Bob Hawke, the use of imperial awards to recognise Australians ceased, as did the absurd category of knights and dames. Ultimately, conservative governments made way for Labor governments that recognised an Australian honours system awarded to Australians by Australians and which conferred great prestige and honour upon Australian citizens deserving recognition. With our belief in Australians, Labor knew this could be done without the need to turn to Britain. In fact, it took the Queen herself in 1990 via a private secretary Sir William Heseltine to remind Australian governments that perhaps the time had come for Australia to honour its system exclusively with its own honour system. Sir William, I might add, is from Western Australia, born in Wyalkatchem, now retired in York, and was the only private secretary to the Queen who was an Australian. Perhaps if more Australians had had this role, the Queen might have let us know that, as a mature independent country, we could allow ourselves to appoint an Australian as our head of state. And let us not forget who sought to diminish the Australian honours system as recently as 2014 with the reintroduction of Australian knights and dames. Yes, Prime Minister Abbott embarrassed the nation by reintroducing the anachronistic honour of knights and dames and awarded Prince Philip, the Queen's husband and consort, a knighthood. Yes, that actually happened. In his tone-deaf approach, Prime Minister Abbott presented the nation and four great Australians with a very awkward situation that never should have occurred. (Time expired) 17:32 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby Today I would like to congratulate the recipients of the Order of Australia awards in the 2018 Australia Day honours within my electorate of Boothby. I thank my colleague for moving this motion so we may do so. In the Australian honours system, appointments to the Order of Australia confer the highest recognition for outstanding achievement and service. This award is the pre-eminent way Australians recognise the achievements and service of their fellow citizens, and each of these recipients was nominated directly by people within our community. This is testament to the impact the award winners and their services had on our community and the appreciation felt by their peers. This year a number of the South Australian recipients are residents of my electorate of Boothby. I am honoured to be able to congratulate them today and to highlight their contributions to the community, not just in Boothby and South Australia but, indeed, for the nation. I acknowledge the following residents of my community for their outstanding service. Professor John Turnidge was made an Officer of the Order of Australia for his distinguished service to medicine as an infectious disease physician and microbiologist. The professor is particularly recognised for his contribution to the advancement of health policy in the area of antimicrobial resistance and professional medical organisations. Adjunct Professor Charlotte Champion de Crespi was made a Member of the Order of the Australia for her significant service to nursing and to nurse education, particularly in the field of drug and alcohol care and to Indigenous health projects. Dr Mary Harris was made a Member of the Order of Australia for her significant service to community health, specifically to workforce management, administration, policy reform and to medical education. Mrs Anat Kaur Sandhu was made a Member of the Order of Australia for her significant service to the restaurant and catering industry in South Australia and to the community through her support for charitable organisations. Emeritus Professor Grant Townsend was made a Member of the Order of Australia: For significant service to dentistry in the field of craniofacial biology, and to dental education through research, teaching and mentoring roles. Mr Roy Arnold was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to people with a disability. Dr Richard Cockington was awarded a medal in the general division for his distinguished service to medicine as a paediatrician. Mr Stephen Tasker, was awarded an Ambulance Service Medal for distinguished service to his duties and career in the South Australian Ambulance Service. Mr Rhys Roberts was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to the community in a range of roles. I know Mr Roberts and his family well, particularly his wonderful wife, Helen, and I was delighted to see Mr Roberts recognised for his tireless service to our community. He is known to so many people in our area through a variety of roles, whether through Lions or the Blackwood Memorial Hall to name just two. Mr Trevor Whitelaw was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia: For service to veterans and their families, to lawn bowls, and to the environment. I also know Mr Whitelaw, his wife, Jo, and daughter, Stacey, well. Several events that have been particularly special and memorable to me as the member for Boothby have involved Mr Whitelaw. These include the Anzac Day service at Brighton, at which I was privileged to speak last year, and the 50th National RSL Lawn Bowls Carnival, which was held at the Marion Bowling Club in my electorate, and which I was honoured to open and speak at on behalf of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on 29 December 2016. It was also where I famously said, 'I don't mind who wins as long as it's not the Victorians and the Victorians won! Mr Tim Wilson IMW Shame! Ms FLINT 245550 Victoria won, my colleague will be happy to know! I again recognise the contribution of the award recipients from Boothby for their tireless work, unrivalled commitment and personal dedication over many years. Perhaps the Prime Minister summarised their efforts best in his address to the 2018 Australian of the Year Award ceremony when he said: Our Australian of the Year State and Territory recipients are shining examples of our best selves. All of them are outstanding and brilliant achievers and driven to succeed by a determination to help their fellow Australians and make Australia an even, better, brighter place to realise your dreams. Whether through science or philanthropy, medicine or mentoring, their lives have made our lives better. And they are as diverse as the nation they represent. Congratulations again to the newest members of the Order of Australia from my electorate of Boothby. I thank them on behalf of my community for the incredible, tireless service that they have provided to us in my electorate, to South Australia and also to the nation. 17:37 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons My electorate covers more than 30,000 square kilometres, nearly half the landmass of Tasmania. And it encompasses 12 councils. I had 13, but lost two of them in the recent boundary redistribution and gained another one. So Australia Day and its awards have a special significance for me, with plenty of events and ceremonies to attend. This year, I had the pleasure, amongst others, of attending Australia Day breakfasts at Westbury and Chudleigh, both of them in the Meander Valley Council area. I can report faithfully to the House that I attended both breakfasts but only ate at one. I am already losing the battle of the waistline in my electorate, home to so much fruit, dairy, meat, cheese, beer and spirits, without running up the white flag by scoffing two breakfasts! My congratulations to the Deloraine Rotary and the Chudleigh residents' association for these wonderful annual events, which attract hundreds of people each year. On Australia Day we honour people with memberships of the Order of Australia and with various medals. I was delighted to see Shane Gould, who lives in the north-east coastal town of Bicheno, made a Member of the General Division. Shane's swimming achievements are legendary. As a teenager she won gold in Munich in 1972 and she has kept up her competitive swimming throughout her life. In 2003 she broke the world record for the 200-metre individual medley for 45- to 49-year-olds. Shane has been made an AM for her significant service to elite swimming and for her role in developing water safety programs in developing countries. Since moving to Tasmania, Shane has been an active community member as patron of the Devil Island Project since 2007, and founding the Devil of a Swim ocean swimming event in Bicheno in 2010. Sandra Atkins, of Osmaston in the Meander Valley, was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for her service to equestrian sports. The list of Sandra's roles over the years is far too long to list, but what stood out for me was that she and her husband, Owen, bred The Cleaner, which was purchased by trainer Mick Burles for $10,000 and went on to earn more than $1 million in race money. The Cleaner was a great Tasmanian horse bred by two great Tasmanians. Dr Ralph Peters, of New Norfolk, in the south of my electorate, was awarded an OAM for his services to medicine and the community of New Norfolk. He has been a practising GP since 1972 and knows and has treated just about everyone in the Derwent Valley district for 46 years. A life member and fellow of the Australian College of General Practitioners, he has a long association with the local St Matthew's church, including as an organist. That tickles my funny bone—perhaps no-one else's here. A GP who plays organs strikes me as funny and perhaps entirely appropriate. Richard Chugg, of Relbia, in the north of my electorate, just before the Bass wall, was awarded an OAM for service to the community. His community life has included senior roles with Rotary in Evandale and Woolmers Estate in Longford. A justice of the peace since 1986, he was also president of the Liberal Party in Tasmania from 2010 to 2012. We may be on different sides of the political fence, but I do value his service to the democratic process and thank him for his community service. Chris Draffin, of St Helens, on the north-east coast of my electorate, was awarded an Emergency Services Medal. Before moving to Tasmania in 2008, Chris played significant volunteer roles in the Northern Territory Emergency Service. He has kept up his great service as an active member of the Break O'Day SES unit and works tirelessly to improve volunteer recruitment. Australia Day in my electorate is also a day to recognise the invaluable service of so many residents and volunteers. Being a regional electorate, we have volunteers across a vast array of organisations, from ambos, to firies, SES, Lions, Rotary, Country Women's Association and so many in between. Time prevents me naming the winners of the municipal citizens of the year, young citizens of the year and volunteers of the year across my 12 councils, but each and every one of these people deserves our thanks for the incredible work they do in our communities, across Tasmania and, indeed, across Australia. 17:42 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein It brings me great pride to celebrate the incredible achievements of many Goldstein residents who have been acknowledged in the Australia Day honours this year. The Australia Day honours of course are one of the pinnacles of Australian society and recognise people who have sacrificed and exercised charity and community support as well as success. We celebrate all of those things when we give out Australia Day honours and provide awards. There are many in Goldstein who have been acknowledged this year in the awards: Associate Professor Peter Laurence McNicol AM, from Brighton, for his significant service to medicine, particularly in the fields of anaesthesiology, liver transplantation and transfusion medicine; Andrew John Plympton AM, from Brighton as well, for significant service to sports administration through governance roles, particularly to sailing and Australian Rules Football, the greatest code in the nation and the world, including as a board member for the Australian Sports Commission and executive board member for the Australian Olympic Committee; Ms Beryl Francis Campbell Foster OAM, from Brighton East, for her service to women in Victoria, including service to the National Council of Women Victoria, the League of Women's Voters Victoria, the Penguin Club Australia, and as a councillor on the Swan Hill City Council from 1969 to 1972; and Mrs Hatice Basarin OAM, from Hampton, who I know very well, for her long service to the preservation of Australian and Turkish military history, having co-authored a range of publications detailing the history of Australian and Turkish service in World War I. Congratulations, Hatice! Mr Terence Black, from Black Rock, received an OAM for his service to veterans and families, having been secretary of the Beaumaris subbranch of the Returned and Services League of Australia Victorian branch from 2005 to 2015 and a member of the finance aid and audit committee of RSL Victoria from 2010 to 2016; Mr Don Joseph Cullen, from Black Rock, received an OAM for his service to the community through a range of roles, including chairman and founder of the Tibetan Village Project Australia since 2005. Congratulations to Mr Michael Mace OAM from Ormond, for service to community theatre, including in roles with the Victorian Drama League; Mr Mark O'Leary OAM from Ormond, for service to choral music and education, including as founder, director and conductor of Young Voices of Melbourne since 1990; Mr Bruce Langford-Jones OAM from Beaumaris, for service to the building and construction industry and to golf, having served on the Housing Industry Association as a former president, vice-president and board member and as deputy chair of Golf Australia; Professor George Braitberg AM from Caulfield South, for significant service to medical administration and emergency medicine, education, health system design and to the community; Mrs Faye Haskin-Dubrowin OAM from Caulfield South, for service to interfaith relations and the community as the first female president and a member for 20 years of B'nai B'rith Victoria. Congratulations to Mr Vincenzo Princi OAM from Brighton East, for service to football and to the community, including as president of the Hampton Dolphins Football Club since its formation in 2001; Mr David Thomson OAM from Brighton East, for service to education in the great state of Victoria and the community, having been a teacher at Caulfield Grammar School for some 36 years—and being 37 years old I can say that's almost a life sentence!—and a teacher in residence at Victoria University since 2005; and the late Mr John Siddons AO, for distinguished service to manufacturing, particularly to the mechanical and engineering sectors. I met his son Tony only a few days ago. I also want to congratulate the other incredible citizens of Goldstein for their service and I give further congratulations particularly to Sergeant Arran Ferguson, who was announced Bayside Citizen of the Year in recognition of his outstanding commitment to law enforcement. The Glen Eira Citizen of the Year was awarded to Ian Butcher, acknowledging his 35 years of community service, particularly to the Bentleigh RSL where I got to know him. Finally, congratulations to the Glen Eira and Bayside councils' Young Citizens of the Year, Cara Morgan, who is a keen Scouts venturer; and Lital Weizman, an enthusiastic volunteer, particularly in the Sudanese community. Finally, congratulations to Millicent Roper and Stevie-Lou Answerth for their work in developing an inclusive culture at local Bayside schools, particularly focusing on LGBTI issues. To everybody who has been mentioned, congratulations on your wonderful work for our community. 17:47 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle It's with pleasure that I rise to speak on the motion brought before us tonight by the member for Berowra. On 26 January this year, some 900 people from across Australia were honoured with the Order of Australia. They come from all walks of life and have undertaken all sorts of endeavours, but they all share one thing in common, and that is their exceptional contributions to their respective communities or fields of endeavour. In this year's Order of Australia awards, a number of people from my home city of Newcastle were awarded honours, and I'd like to take this opportunity to recognise them here this evening. I will start with Mr Warren Atkins from Merewether, who was granted the Medal of the Order of Australia in the General Division for his service to mathematics education. Mr Atkins has been helping to spark a love of maths in young Australians for decades both as a member of the Faculty of Education at the University of Canberra and as chairman and founding member of the Australian Mathematics Foundation, which he's involved with to this day. One of Mr Atkins' greatest legacies is helping to set up one of the world's largest mathematics competitions, the Australian Mathematics Competition. I know many, many students from Newcastle and across the country who compete in that each and every year. The next recipient is Kay Fordham, who was given the title of Member of the Order of Australia for her longstanding contribution to community health. Ms Fordham is a regular face at the Calvary Mater hospital in Newcastle, where she has built a reputation for kindness, compassion and commitment over her two decades plus of service. She has been a member of the Calvary Mater Newcastle auxiliary for over 21 years and the auxiliary's treasurer since 1999. She has also been a member of the hospital's Community Advisory Council, assisting with community and stakeholder engagement, as well as being a member of the hospital's Heritage Committee. Also on the honours list from the medical field is Sandra Berenger, who recently retired from the John Hunter Hospital and was recognised for her groundbreaking achievements in the field of infectious disease control. Ms Berenger, who is now a Member of the Order of Australia, joined the Royal Newcastle Hospital in 1971. In the 25 years she was there, she pioneered infection control strategies, most notably working on the strategies to respond to and treat AIDS in the 1980s. As a result, she was recruited by the state government to help develop statewide strategies for responding to HIV. Another Novocastrian who received a Member of the Order of Australia award is prominent lawyer Mr Richard Anicich, who was recognised for his service to community, business development, and research and law. As well as being a conjoint professor at the University of Newcastle's law faculty, Mr Anicich has contributed to a number of very important institutions in our region, from the Hunter Business Chamber to the Port of Newcastle, Newcastle Grammar School, Hunter Primary Care and the Hunter Medical Research Institute—institutions that have really helped shape much of both the current and the future fabric of the Newcastle community. Another leading light at the University of Newcastle is Laureate Professor Scott Sloan, who is now an Officer of the Order in the General Division of the Order of Australia. This is the second highest recognition available. Professor Sloan is the director of the university's centre of geotechnical and materials modelling and also leads the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Geotechnical Science and Engineering. Most recently Professor Sloan has been working with his colleague Dr Brett Turner on a patented means of using hemp seeds to treat water contaminated by firefighting foam. This could literally change the lives of people living in Williamtown and surrounding areas, who have of course been living with the severe impacts of ongoing contamination, with no specific end in sight. I'd also like to take this opportunity to recognise Laureate Professor Nicholas Talley, who has been bestowed with the highest honour available, a Companion of the Order in the General Division of the Order of Australia. Professor Talley has had a long and distinguished career at the University of Newcastle and is a global authority on functional gut disorders. With only 35 Companion of the Order of Australia honours being granted, this is testament to Professor Talley's international standing and his incredible achievements in gastroenterological research in particular. 17:52 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong Thank you to my colleague the member for Berowra for raising this important topic. One of the greatest parts of Australia Day is the opportunity it gives us to recognise those in our community who often go unnoticed. There are thousands of such heroes across our country and dozens in Bennelong. Many remain without the appreciation they deserve. But this year we were able to identify a few more of our most worthy locals. I would like to talk about some of them today. Marilyn Singer of Epping is a constituent of Bennelong who received the Order of Australia Medal as part of the 2018 Australia Day honours for her service to people with scleroderma. Scleroderma is an uncommon autoimmune connective tissue disease which is both hard to diagnose and devastating in its effects. Ms Singer has served as the president and secretary of the Scleroderma Association of New South Wales and has over the years devoted herself to the very noble cause of improving the lives of Australians through a commitment to science and health. Dr Friedbert Kohler of Carlingford was another recipient of the Order of Australia Medal, for his service to rehabilitation medicine. Dr Kohler has served, among numerous other roles, as the director of the South Western Sydney Local Health District and has, since 2011, served as the clinical stream director of aged care and rehabilitation services. He has also been a conjoint associate professor at the School of Public Health and Community Medicine at the University of New South Wales since 2009. I am proud to bring attention to the work undertaken by Mrs Singer and Dr Kohler, who have both worked towards making Australia a healthier and happier place. The wellbeing of a nation begins at the individual level, and working to ensure that we learn more about those less common conditions and diseases will guarantee that every Australian can achieve their highest possible quality of life. I'm proud to have these two champions, and those who share their devotion to such noble causes, in the Bennelong community. I would also like to mention Mark Anderson, a constituent of mine from Epping. Mark was awarded the title of Member of the Order of Australia for his significant service to secondary education in New South Wales through administrative and executive roles, and his service to educational standards. His services include his work at the Department of Education as the Director of Public Schools New South Wales, at the Hills School between 2016 and 2017 and also at the New South Wales Board of Studies, where he was a member of the teacher education policy advisory committee. Among numerous other roles, he was the founding college principal of the Sydney Secondary College from 2002 to 2004 and he served as the Principal of Davidson High School for four years between 1997 and 2001. We all understand the importance of education, which is well and truly the life blood of any nation. It is people like Mark who ensure that the education system in our country continues to provide Australian children and adolescents with a rigorous and rounded education. This ensures that they go on to be engaged members of our society with the knowledge and skills to maintain Australia's position. I'm proud to say that, as a member of the Bennelong community, he has received serious recognition for his lifelong commitment to perhaps the most important area, education. Our community is strengthened by the efforts of those like Mark, who display a commitment to ensuring that young Australians receive an education of the highest standard. Finally, I'd like to recognise a posthumous award for a good friend of mine, a famous local and true national hero. Betty Cuthbert has been posthumously awarded the nation's highest honour, a Companion of the Order of Australia for eminent service to the sport of athletics as a fourfold Olympic champion, role model, fundraiser and advocate for research into a cure for multiple sclerosis. The Ermington Flash, as she was known in her youth, sadly, passed away last year, yet she remains Australia's second highest medal winner, after only Ian Thorpe, and is today the only person in history to win Olympic gold in 100-, 200- and 400-metre sprints. These are incredible achievements. It is the selfless devotion to something larger than oneself that greatly enriches our communities but also our nation more broadly. All recipients of these awards deserve recognition and praise for the work they've undertaken. I'm pleased to see these four members of the Bennelong community receive the Order of Australia medal. Congratulations to you all and may your example encourage others in our society to give more to their fellow Australians. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 152 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS International Mother Language Day 152 17:58 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) in 1999, the 30th General Conference of UNESCO proclaimed annual observance of International Mother Language Day (IMLD) on 21 February; and       (b) about 200 different languages are spoken throughout Australia; (2) acknowledges: (a) the significance of preserving Indigenous languages as a link to Indigenous culture and histories and as an expression of identity; (b) the social, cultural and economic benefits of multilingualism to the Australian community; and       (c) that encouraging Australians to learn a language other than English should be a priority for all levels of government; and (3) calls on the Government to observe IMLD on 21 February across Australia and to promote the preservation and protection of all languages used by the people around the world through: (a) promoting the active participation, revitalisation and maintenance of local Indigenous languages; (b) continuing the National Library of Australia's collection of oral history and available alphabets of spoken languages as a means of preserving the multi‑lingual inheritance of the people of Australia; and (c) supporting second language instruction in Australian educational institutions. The 21st of February is United Nations International Mother Language Day. On this day, UNESCO and the United Nations agencies participate in events that promote linguistic and cultural diversity. In Spain, the Linguapax Institute, an organisation devoted to preserving and promoting linguistic diversity, award their prestigious linguistic prize on this day. In particular, in Bangladesh it's a public holiday known as Shaheed Day, where locals celebrate Bangladesh's culture and the Bengali language. They commemorate the service and the life of four students who were killed on 21 February in 1952 while fighting for the right to use their mother language, Bengali. In Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, a monument to these martyrs, known as the Shaheed Minar, stands as testament to their sacrifice for the maintenance of their mother language. I welcome members of the Australian Bangladeshi community to the parliament today for this important motion regarding International Mother Language Day, and I wish all in the Australian Bangladeshi community a happy Shaheed Day on 21 February. I'm very blessed to represent a community that has a very active and passionate Bangladeshi community, and it is something that I'm very, very proud of. Internationally, 6,000 languages exist throughout the world, according to the United Nations, but 43 per cent, almost half of those, are endangered languages. We know that in our own country, where we have the oldest continuing culture in the world in our Indigenous Australians, many of the original Indigenous languages have, unfortunately, disappeared. We are home to the oldest culture in the world, and that culture has spawned a rich history of a multitude of languages spoken for tens of thousands of years. It's important that this parliament acknowledges the significance of preserving Indigenous language as a link to Indigenous culture and history and as an expression of identity. It's also important that we recognise the social, cultural and economic benefit to multiculturalism of Indigenous language, and promote multilingualism in Australia—because that hasn't always been the case. In La Perouse, in the community I represent, I've been told by elders that, when they were at school at La Perouse Public School, they were actively discouraged from speaking their mother language, the native language of the Bidjigal people, and received a rap over the knuckles if they did. As a consequence, there are hardly any people left in that community who speak that native language so rich to Australia's history. We must do more to preserve our mother languages. We also must do more to encourage Australians whose mother language is English to learn a second language, particularly through our schooling system. Many other nations in our area, the Asia Pacific, do promote bilingualism and multilingualism, and we can do more to promote learning another language in our educational institutions. When we learn another language, not only do we learn the words, the vowels, the nouns, the sounds and the grammar but we learn about a people, we learn about their connection to their land and we learn about their history and their culture and the things that are important to them. I wish to congratulate all of those involved in promoting International Mother Language Day here in Australia, and I call on Australian governments to do more in public institutions, particularly public libraries, to set aside areas to ensure that people can research and educate themselves about mother languages. I wish to pay tribute to Nirmal Paul, the chair of the Mother Languages Conservation Movement in Australia, who is with us here today, and to my good friend Azad Alan, who came to see me some weeks ago about this important issue. I want to thank them for educating me about the importance of this day and mother languages. I commend this resolution to the House and wish everyone a happy International Mother Language Day. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Is the motion seconded? Mr Georganas DZY I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 18:03 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong Thank you, Member for Kingsford Smith, for raising this important subject. I'll confess my ignorance; I didn't know that 21 February was International Mother Language Day. However, now that I do, I am happy to support this good cause as one that is very important to my electorate. One of the greatest features of Bennelong is the wide spread of diasporas across our suburbs. Communities from across the globe have come to Bennelong and made a permanent home, with the great benefits of combining different cultures. We have large communities of Italians, Armenians, Koreans, Indians and Chinese. Each of these communities now lives in a hybrid cultural space. They are proud Australians, but they are still closely connected to the culture of their ancestors. As a result, our community is regularly home to celebrations from across the world. It is the merging of these many rich cultures that creates the dynamic and unique flavour that pervades the suburbs of Bennelong. As I say regularly: our diversity is our strength, our greatest asset. This strong diversity is instantly apparent to any visitor to Bennelong, but it can be quantified thanks to the last census. Nearly 22 per cent of all residents speak either Cantonese or Mandarin; a further 9,000 residents speak Korean; just under 3,000 speak Italian; and a similar number speak Arabic. There are also high levels of Armenian and Farsi spoken. In total, 51 per cent of homes in Bennelong speak a language other than English at home. Being able to speak more than one language is a huge asset to individuals. It is in this shrinking world that our cross-border connections are more important than ever. Speaking another language also opens up understanding as well as doors; speaking another language offers explanations of that culture's history, its traditions and its national narrative. It is truly a gateway into another culture. Bilingualism also offers insights into the vocabulary and structure of grammar, as well as improving the capacity of additional languages to be learned in the future. There are links with bilingualism and people who have an increased capacity for lateral thinking and problem-solving. Furthermore, children who learn a second language are more likely to retain the second language as well as speaking those languages with more fluency. This is why bilingual schools are so important. I'm proud to say that I have excellent bilingual schools in the electorate. The Italian Bilingual School in Meadowbank was founded 15 years ago to provide for families, with many immigrants from Italy coming out to Ryde in great numbers in the 1950s. I had the pleasure of visiting the school back in November with Senator Fierravanti-Wells for the unveiling of their new school hall, which the government helped fund with $550,000. Congratulations to the principal, Silvia Onorati, and her team. Ryde Persian School is another wonderful institution which provides language classes to our community. Mrs Forouza Soltani runs this school, which operates as a not-for-profit organisation, teaching Persian to people of all ages and backgrounds. Impressively, the school is currently run by volunteers. Both parents and members of the community have come forward to teach each year. Finally, the Australian Chinese Community Association of New South Wales has been operating the acclaimed ACCA Chinese Language School in Eastwood for over 40 years. It is one of the oldest, largest and most-renowned Chinese language schools in New South Wales, teaching both Mandarin and Cantonese. This community has had great success in finding a balance between integrating into the Australian way of life while retaining important aspects of Chinese culture, fusing the two nations into a unique but strong local identity. The ACCA president, Shirley Chan, and the principal, Phil Xu, have created a wonderful community institution, and to have had it enriching our area through social and educational initiatives for so long is truly a reason to be proud. This is a small snapshot of the schools across Bennelong. There are undoubtedly many more across the electorate that do good work in keeping other languages, like Armenian, Korean and Arabic, current within our suburbs. Sadly, time prevents me from mentioning them all, but I would like to thank everyone and appreciate the work that they do and that is so essential. Local organisations like the Australian Chinese Community Association— (Time expired) 18:08 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh It is with great pride that I rise as well in support of the motion put up by the member for Kingsford Smith, the motion on International Mother Language Day, which is celebrated on 21 February. I would also like to acknowledge our wonderful guests who are here from the Bangladeshi community and other communities, where this particular international day was recognised in accordance with some historic events that took place. We should acknowledge that as well. International Mother Language Day, which began in the year 2000, places a great focus on the benefits of language and the diversity of other tongues and how important that connection is, because language is what connects us to our mothers, our fathers, our grandfathers, our grandmothers, our great-grandfathers and our great-grandmothers—and so goes the chain. The moment you break that language chain is the moment you break that connection with your ancestry, history and everything that makes you who you are. It's so important to celebrate this particular day, especially in a nation like Australia, where we have a wonderful multicultural community. For example, in my electorate of Hindmarsh, over 200 languages are spoken, everything from Hindi to Greek, Italian and Chinese—you name it, it's spoken. It's so wonderful to attend some of those cultural events I attend every weekend, as no doubt most of you in this House do as well. Chinese New Year events are coming up this week. We have Greek festivals, Hindi festivals, Sikh festivals, Deepavali, Indigenous events around the country, the Italian festival, Carnevale, and many Bangladeshi festivals. I take great pride in being able to say a few words in Greek when I attend the Greek festivals or even Italian at the Italian festivals I go to, simple lines like, 'Ciao. Mi chiamo Steve Georganas. Sono il deputato federale Hindmarsh. Grazie per avermi invitato'—very simple—which means, 'Thank you very much for inviting me. My name is Steve Georganas. I'm your federal member of parliament.' You see the joy on people's faces from those two or simple three lines and the connection that you make with people. A second language is something we should acknowledge and something that we should pursue as a nation. We see around the world in Asian countries and in Europe children from a very young age start studying two and three languages to be able to connect with the world. We have one of the greatest gifts in the world, our multicultural communities in Australia, where a lot of people have a second language through their mother tongue. We under-utilise these languages and the connections that they have with people overseas, with business, with families and with communities, and I think this is an area we need to concentrate on as much as we can. For example, in my electorate, we have many schools that still teach Modern Greek because of the big Greek population in the electorate of Hindmarsh. I'm very proud to be able to say that, as a second-generation Australian, I speak fluent Greek. My children, who are third generation, speak very, very good Greek. Now I hear my grandchildren uttering the odd word of Greek, which brings tears to my eyes because it's that connection to their great-grandfather and great-grandmother which is so important and something that we should cherish here in Australia. Also, some of our radio stations, SBS and ABC do great work in Australia as well. SBS has the radio language programs of half an hour or an hour of different languages, seven days a week. In the world that we currently live in with the internet and the electronic media that we have, it is so easy for people who are new arrivals to immerse themselves directly in the nation that they come from and miss out entirely on what's taking place here because of the modern-day access to the internet and to everything else. Connecting with the local community is also very important. I'd like to congratulate SBS for promoting news services in mother tongues, everything from Italian, Spanish, French and German to Bangladeshi, Turkish and Greek—you name it, they do it. We have to promote this, ensure we safeguard it and ensure we do get community news out on local radio. A shining example of an outstanding citizen in my electorate dedicated to mother tongue is Adelaide's Professor Michael Tsianikas, who is the director of Greek language at Flinders University and the Australian Centre for Hellenic Language and Culture. Their program inspires younger generations—third, fourth and fifth generation Greek Australians—to excel and support the Australian Greek community to grow. I'd like to congratulate Professor Michael Tsianikas, Dr Maria Palaktsoglou and Antonis Litinas for their terrific program in Modern Greek at Flinders University. 18:14 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm I rise today to proudly speak to this motion because, in my electorate of Chisholm, over 130 languages other than English are spoken everyday. Indeed, just under half of all households speak a language other than English. People come from China, India, Greece, Italy, Korea, Bangladesh and Japan, to name a few. Chisholm is a fine microcosm of Australia in its reflection of diversity and language, which is so deeply connected to culture. As the member for Hindmarsh just reflected, it only takes a few words of greeting to someone in their mother language and connection is established. Like the member for Hindmarsh, I have had the honour, quite often, of sitting on the stage and you see that connection in the faces when you say a few words in a mother language. As a young child, I attended Greek school in Oakleigh. This was for the prime purpose so that I could speak Greek to my grandmother because, as a family, we only ever spoke English in the home, being second-generation Australian. Learning French through to my senior student years was also an incredible asset in my early career and travels. The ability to speak another language is such an incredible asset, and none more so than in this great country. I'm so incredibly proud that in Chisholm we have the highest number of Mandarin speakers than any other electorate in Australia. Indeed, we have 23,327 constituents who are of Chinese heritage, and thousands of people in Chisholm, be they first, second or third generation Australian speak a language other than English, and it is so important to preserve that skill and ability. On 21 February, we will observe International Mother Language Day. Now in its 18th year, this day serves to promote linguistic and cultural diversity and recognises the importance of being multilingual. Research has proven that learning another language at an early age aids in development and promotes greater reading, writing and numeracy skills, as well as equipping children with important values and knowledge that are passed down through generations. Language is deeply connected to culture, identity and history, and as languages slowly fade out, traditions and memories are at risk of disappearing too. Some parents encourage their children to learn English as their first language in an effort to give them a head start at school; however, this can have the counter risk of distancing the child from their cultural heritage. Certainly, when I go to cultural events in my electorate of Chisholm, often in front of vast audiences of children from different cultures, I always encourage them to hold on to that part of their culture. The Prime Minister highlighted in his Closing the Gap speech today that language is the great connector. He brought attention to the fact that over 600 various dialects actually existed before European settlement for our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Language is the carrier of culture and there are a number of fantastic organisations in my electorate who do wonderful work in promoting languages, and they have made fantastic contributions. Some of these include: the Whitehorse Club, a pillar of the Italian community, whose fantastic events are a highlight of the calendar year; The Monash Chinese Friendship Association, whose tireless volunteers are always showcasing the best of Chinese culture, and I look forward to celebrating Chinese New Year with them and the Asian Business Association of Whitehorse and the broader Chinese community this coming weekend; The Telugu Association do a wonderful job promoting Telugu culture, language and literature, as well as encouraging further integration with the local Chisholm community; and, of course, the Greek Orthodox community of Oakley and Box Hill and districts, who provide excellent support to members of the Greek community. I was only this weekend at the Greek Lonsdale Street festival in the heart of Melbourne representing the Prime Minister together with the minister Kelly O'Dwyer. It was a wonderful event and celebration of Greek culture in Melbourne, which has the highest population of people of Greek heritage next to Athens. I would like to also acknowledge a number of language schools who hold classes in schools across Chisholm. These include: the Australasian Centre of Chinese studies, XJS Coaching School, Mang-Non Vietnamese Language School, MCCC Chinese School, Xin Jin Shan Chinese Language and Culture School, Ariston Greek School, Protypo Greek Centre, Waverly Korean Language School, Thai Education Centre of Victoria and many more. In September last year I had the pleasure of attending the 20th anniversary of the Taiwanese School of Melbourne. It is a fantastic language school that under the leadership of Vincent Liu and Principal Ying Ying Ho, teaches traditions mandarin literature and language as a fun and friendly learning experience. Through language schools, students are able to gain valuable knowledge. Australia is an immigrant nation and International Mother Language Day is an opportunity to reflect on the importance of retaining or learning a mother tongue to ensure languages and cultures continue to thrive both in Australia and globally, promoting greater understanding. 18:19 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I've stood in this chamber many times to speak about the rich and proud diversity that the electorate of Lalor boasts. One of the defining traits of this diversity is the many languages other than English spoken by members of our fast growing community, which, I note, ticked over 250,000 people in the city of Wyndham in the last few weeks. In acknowledgement of International Mother Language Day on 21 February, I want to take a moment to reflect on the wonderful multilingual community I represent and the significance that native language has in the broader Australian community. Firstly, the electorate of Lalor is a place where people from all over the world have come together to create a unique mixture of culture and language, where traditions are accepted, created and cherished. I have said this many times throughout my time as a federal member in this chamber, but it specifically rings true when we talk about the role of languages. Multilingualism brings our community opportunities to gain an appreciation of different cultures. Through language we can gain an understanding of the variety of experiences that make our community the vibrant multicultural place that it proudly is. But it goes further than this. Language gives opportunity to participate in, revitalise and maintain a connection to the mother country from which the language originated. It provides an important and significant link in the ties between culture and history, between culture and place and between traditions of heritage and commitments to our future in our great multicultural democracy. There are abiding images in the schools in my electorate that acknowledge our diversity of heritage and language. In some cases there are maps of the world tracking where children hailed from. In Tarneit Secondary College's central foyer over 50 flags are draped from the ceiling in a stunning statement. We have an obligation to ensure that our children are learning mother tongue languages so that they are kept alive for generations to come. There are many examples of schools and organisations that are already implementing programs which encourage multilingualism, and they ought to be commended for encouraging participation in learning languages. In my electorate we have a strong constituency of native Bangla speakers. For the local Bangladeshi community International Mother Language Day is special. The local Victorian Bangladeshi Community Foundation, led by President Nurul Islam Khan, celebrates their school's teaching of Bangla and acknowledges the impact of the loss of language often used by oppressors to wipe away cultural identity. The local Bangladeshi community know more than many that language is inherently connected to culture and identity. Late last year I spoke in this place of the Victorian School of Languages, a government school under the guidance of Principal Frank Merlino, which is the largest language provider in Victoria and Australia. Since it first opened its doors, the VSL has played a vital role in ensuring that languages are taught to primary and secondary school aged students. Last year, I spoke specifically of how the VSL at Suzanne Cory campus implemented Karen classes for students, and I mention this again. It has been accredited at VCE level, and last year the first classes of VCE students sat the year 12 exam. This is a great achievement, one that is so important for the continuation of languages other than English being taught and passed down from generation to generation. Further, it is pleasing to note that 2018 will see an expansion of the VSL in Lalor. Just this Saturday, VSL ran its first Spanish, Macedonian, Malayalam, Russian and Telugu classes at Point Cook Senior College. These five languages are in addition to the eight languages already run by VSL in Lalor, including Karen, Punjabi, Hindi, Urdu, Chinese, Tamil, Malay and Korean. I would like to give thanks to Ms Yris Becerra Silva, who has assisted in gathering community participation in the implementation of Spanish into VSL at the Point Cook campus. Multilingualism provides social, cultural and economic benefits to our community in Lalor and the broader Australian community. We ought to be encouraging Australians to learn a language other than English, and the work of the VSL in this space is fantastic. I commend the work of the Victorian education department and the Victorian School of Languages in teaching languages other than English, but I note there are always ways to continue to revitalise education, and I would like to see links to Indigenous Australian languages made so that the important Indigenous languages are not lost. I note that in one of the schools in the neighbouring seat of Gorton there is an Indigenous language being taught. In the 18th century there were over 250 Indigenous Australian language groups. Today there are fewer than half that number. More than just used as a literary device of communication, language provides the opportunity to tell story; it provides a sense of identity. The link to this identity is fragile, and we must do everything we can to preserve it, to revitalise it. We must continue to promote active participation in Indigenous language and languages other than English so we can keep these stories and links to place, to past and to our family histories alive. 18:24 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I rise in support of the 30th general conference of UNESCO's proclaimed annual observance of International Mother Language Day on 21 February, and I want to thank the member for Kingsford Smith for bringing this very important day to the attention of this parliament. This year's International Mother Language Day promotes linguistic diversity's contribution to sustainable development. By adopting this as the International Mother Language Day theme for 2018, UNESCO seeks to show that access to education for all is essential for producing sustainable development in the future. It was three years ago that I moved a similar motion in this chamber, calling on the government to observe this very important day of 21 February, and I did so for a number of reasons that are important to me, my heritage and my community, and to my electorate of Calwell. I note that the number of languages spoken in Australia has since increased, especially in my electorate. In 2015, 418 different languages were spoken in Australia and, according to the 2016 census, 425 different languages—each language spoken by at least one person—are now spoken in Australia. Two hundred and sixty-four different languages are spoken in Victoria; that's more than half the national average. More than half of the state average, 148 different languages, are spoken in my electorate of Calwell. The 2016 census also revealed that the top 10 languages in order of most spoken, other than English, in my electorate are Arabic, Turkish, Italian, Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, Greek, Vietnamese, Punjabi, Sinhalese and Urdu. In Victoria, 69.6 per cent of Chaldean speakers, along with 59.7 per cent of Assyrian speakers, 37.8 per cent of Turkish speakers and 19.8 per cent of Arabic speakers all live in my electorate of Calwell. Language is one carrier and source of a person's ethnic and cultural identity. It transports across time and through generations to connect families and communities. Being able to speak your language is a fundamental way for our newly arrived migrants and refugees to settle and integrate into their new home. I know from my own experience and the experiences of my constituents that language plays an important part in maintaining cultural inheritance, therefore I can understand the integral role that mother language plays in preserving, for example, the histories and traditions of our Indigenous Australian communities. Here I want to make mention of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation, who are the Indigenous people in my seat of Calwell. Their Indigenous language is a vital link to their culture, their history and their identity. Unfortunately, the rate of people who can speak an Indigenous language is increasingly diminishing. In the most recent National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, the ABS estimated that 61.8 per cent of people who identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander were not able to speak any of their Indigenous languages, and that only 10.5 per cent were actually able to speak one of those Indigenous languages. The culture and traditions of our Indigenous Australians are our collective treasure and our inheritance, and it is our duty to preserve them. I'm afraid to say that we've failed to do that in this country, and I believe that we must do better before they are well and truly extinct. That's why I'd like to join the member for Kingsford Smith in calling on the government to promote the mother language of our Indigenous people—so that important cultural knowledge and cultural expressions are not lost to us and to our broader multicultural community. Not only this but, given that we live in such a global community, supporting and promoting multilingualism is important for our national growth and our development. Our society is the most diverse it has ever been, and, similarly, the need to communicate with people around the world is more pertinent and more relevant now than it has ever been. With this increased diversity and global connectedness, it is important that our citizens are exposed to a diversity of languages and encouraged to learn a second or a third language. So I to call on the government to further support second-language instruction in Australian schools right across our country. Second-language instruction in schools helps to remove the prejudices and preconceptions our students may have of the cultural differences of their peers, and it gives all of our students access to the cultural resources of the broader community. There is evidence to suggest that multilingual education improves academic performance across many subject areas. Research on students who are taught multilingual programs at school suggest that learning a language is related to increases in academic results in mathematics, science, social studies and literacy. So it's clear that learning a different language will both aid our future leaders to successfully engage with the international community and foster strong relationships within our own Australian community. 18:29 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta Back in the year 2000, I left Australia on a plane and went to Montreal. I joined about 40 other people from the creative sectors to plan how we might lobby UNESCO to develop an instrument that protected cultural diversity. That instrument eventually came into play, but we did that and we worked on that because we, as creative industries, understood the value of thousands of years of human endeavour, of asking the big questions of life, of living your life and of living together and interacting, and the importance to the world of the language and the culture that grew out of those experiences. When you lose one, you lose something which can never be replaced. In recent years there have been times where the world has lost a language every 14 days. It really is that common that we lose languages. I was delighted a few years later, as a member of parliament, to meet the Ekushe Academy, meaning 21 in Bangla, which was celebrating International Mother Language Day on 21 February every year. Can I acknowledge in the House today Nirmal Paul and other delegates from Mother Languages Conservation Movement International who have come to Canberra today to hear this motion put to the House by the member for Kingsford Smith and who have worked so hard to promote this incredibly important concept throughout Australia. I worked with them for quite a few years in the early days of the book fairs, when we were first trying to get a monument up in Ashfield, and they have been remarkable in their commitment to the promotion of mother languages. International Mother Language Day was established in 2000. It's now a source of inspiration for people all around the world to establish their rights of language and culture. The date, 21 February, corresponds to the day in 1952 when students from three different universities were protesting for the recognition of Bangla as one of the two national languages of East Pakistan, essentially protesting for the survival and strength of their language. During the demonstration, four young students were shot dead by police near the Dhaka High Court in the capital of present-day Bangladesh. There is no doubt that we are richer as a nation for the diverse range of people who call Australia home but carry in their hearts the language of another land. International Mother Language Day is a fantastic opportunity for all of us to celebrate that diversity and the riches that it brings to us as a nation. Language is incredibly special. For those of us who speak only one language, like me, we can miss the complexity of our language, because we don't look at it from the perspective of another. I have people in my community who tell me, at the ages of 17 and 18, that there are things they can say in their mother's language that they can't say in English and there are things they can say in English that they can't say in their parents' language. It means they have a capacity to hold a concept in their hands through language that those of us who are monolingual do not have. It's an incredibly special gift that people who preserve and grow the language of their grandparents in this community bring to this country. I can't imagine not being able to speak the same language as my grandson, who's now three, yet I know people, particularly from the Greek and Italian communities, who didn't teach their children enough of their first language, so we have grandparents who can't speak the same language as their grandchildren. That's a tragedy that we must never let happen again in this country. The concepts that we miss out on when we don't speak another language are worth commenting on as well. I am going to speak about Bangla here for a moment, because my friends in the Bangla community who talk about that time of fighting talk about some of the great oratory, some of the great speeches of the time, one in particular by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on 7 March 1971, which they tell me was one of the greatest speeches of all time—and one that I'm never really going to grasp, because I will only ever hear it in English. It was made at the Ramna Race Course Maidan in Dhaka to a gathering of over two million people during a period of increasing tension between East Pakistan and the powerful military establishment of West Pakistan. During the speech, he said this: Our struggle, this time, is a struggle for our freedom, our struggle, this time, is a struggle for our independence. Joy Bangla. It was in fact a struggle for a people who sought to be who they were, who sought to keep their culture and their language alive so that they could be truly who they are. We now have them in Australia and they're now part of us as well. Happy International Mother Language Day to my Bangla community. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 158 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Consular Services 158 18:34 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney I move: That this House: (1) notes the release on 5 October 2017 of the Consular State of Play 2016-17 (State of Play), which provides an overview of the Government's provision of consular assistance to Australians in the last financial year; (2) acknowledges the hard work and dedication of Australian consular officials who have provided high‑quality assistance to Australians in distress in 12,454 cases during 2016-17; (3) notes with concern that a significant number of Australian travellers are travelling overseas without insurance; (4) reiterates the Minister for Foreign Affairs' remarks in launching the State of Play that if travellers cannot afford travel insurance, they cannot afford to travel; (5) acknowledges that the Australian Government will provide consular assistance where possible, while noting there are limits to what it can do to assist Australians in trouble overseas; and (6) calls on Australians to: (a) draw on resources such as Australian Government Smartraveller advice to inform themselves about their destination; and (b) purchase insurance appropriate to their activities and circumstances. Australians are famously avid travellers. Perhaps because of our relative remoteness we are passionate about exploring the world and discovering new cultures, whether it's the 18-year-old on a gap year, the young professional spending time working overseas, someone visiting their ancestral homeland, or an older Australian boarding a cruise ship, the number of Australians travelling is increasing. Our travelling patterns have also changed. Whereas once a major overseas trip would be a once-in-a-lifetime event, now it's a more regular experience. The reasons for this are not hard to establish. Twenty-six years of economic growth has increased our relative affluence and spending power, and simultaneously the cost of travel has fallen dramatically. This is reflected in the price of our perhaps most famous travel route, the kangaroo leg to London. Just under 40 years ago a return economy ticket to London cost $9,400 in today's dollars, which was six times average weekly earnings. Today, the same trip can be undertaken comfortably for under $2,000, at around 1.08 of average weekly earnings. At any point in time, around one million Australians are resident offshore and in 2016-17, Australians undertook 10.7 million trips overseas. In 1980, that figure stood at just over one million. In one niche area, we have seen a massive growth in the number of Australians participating in a cruising holiday—over a million each year. Our propensity for travel is unquestionably a good thing, both for individual Australians and for the nation as a whole. The personal enrichment and expanded knowledge and understanding travel brings is matched by the contribution of those with such experience to workplaces, educational institutions and the community at large. The increasing travelling habits of Australians are not, however, without consequences for the resources of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and, more specifically, its consular services. The Consular State of Play report to which this motion relates documents the extraordinarily large number of cases our missions in 83 nations and our honorary consuls in 51 more face each year. In fact, in 2016-17 DFAT consular offices assisted in 12,454 cases of Australians in trouble overseas. In addition, the Consular Emergency Centre in Canberra responded to 66,000 calls. We can be extraordinarily proud of the work of our DFAT personnel. I know from my experience in meeting the staff of our embassies and consulates that they represent the best traditions of public service and performance, often under considerable pressure, an incredible role for Australia. Those requiring consular assistance experience that service culture. The consular report makes for interesting reading in highlighting the issues Australians face overseas. In the last reporting year, for example, it records that 1,700 Australians fell ill or were hospitalised. 2,500 were reported, at least temporarily, missing. Over 1,600 Australians tragically died while travelling and a similar number were arrested. Where they can, our DFAT staff will offer assistance to Australians in trouble. Unfamiliar language, cultural differences and different legal regimes can magnify problems we could otherwise cope with ourselves at home. For the novice traveller, more senior Australians or even someone with regular experience, knowing that an Australian embassy is able to assist can be a source of considerable relief. The report also sends a salutary reminder about the limitations of the services that Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade can reasonably provide. It is worth reflecting on the obligations and understanding we should all have when we embark on a foreign adventure. First and foremost, Australians should take the time to register with and read the very comprehensive Smart Traveller website. It is our obligation to make sure family and friends know where we are and highly desirable to keep DFAT informed by simply registering when we're in a foreign nation. Similarly, it is our individual responsibility to ensure we have health insurance, with coverage that extends to the nations we visit and the activities we will be undertaking. While 90 per cent of Australians purchase travel insurance, many do not understand the nature of the coverage. And for the increasing number of Australians taking a cruise, it is often not enough to simply rely on ship medical services, as the costs for more serious incidents requiring onshore treatment can be hugely expensive. DFAT sends a simple message: if you can't afford insurance, then you can't afford to travel. While consular services will assist, they cannot cover the cost of overseas medical care and we all need to bear that in mind. It is also worth remembering that Australia cannot intervene in foreign legal processes in another nation, and we shouldn't expect our embassies to do so. We can be proud of the work of our consulate staff, and I commend this motion to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Is the motion seconded? Mr Evans 61378 I second the motion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN I thank the member for Brisbane. I call the member for Canberra. 18:40 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Thank you Deputy Speaker. The 7th of March marks the 11th anniversary of the death of my dear friend Liz O'Neill. Liz was killed in the crash of Garuda Indonesia flight 200 in Jogjakarta in Indonesia. Liz worked in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. She worked to help keep the peace in Bougainville and to provide some comfort to the families in the morgues of Bali in 2002 and again in 2005. In 2004 she was blown off her feet by the bomb that exploded outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta. In 2007 she died in the service of her country when her plane ran off the runway at Jogjakarta. Liz O'Neill was an extraordinary woman and she typifies all the public servants I have known over my decade-long career in public service before I went into my own business and then politics. Public servants are subject to much derision from all quarters of Australian life, and I'm always baffled as to why that is so. They are servants of democracy, people who have chosen a career to serve our nation, to serve others, and this typifies the Public Service I know. Like Liz, they are smart. Like Liz, they are committed. Like Liz, they are highly educated. Like Liz, they are ultimately altruistic. Like Liz, they are keen to make a difference to improve lives. They are keen to serve our nation, be it here or overseas. Liz was keen to serve our nation here, but she was particularly keen to advance that mission for Australia overseas. Liz was unfortunately killed in the line of duty, serving her nation. She was also killed with three other Australians that day. They were Australian public servants and Australian Federal Police officers Mark Scott and Brice Steel, an AusAID official, Allison Sudradjat, and the Australian Financial Review journalist, Morgan Mellish. All these people were servants of democracy. They were serving our nation overseas or they, as Australians, were serving the democratically elected representatives of our nation. Those stories underscore the commitment and altruism, as I mentioned, and the sense of duty to nation by the DFAT officials and particularly consular officials. In my time in DFAT, particularly when I worked on the media desk, I heard some of the stories the consular officials had to face. I remember one that will stay with me forever. Two young Australian women in Africa, in a flea-ridden hotel, were eaten alive by bed bugs. They decided to walk around the little town they were staying in to find somewhere alternative to spend the night and they ended up getting killed, shot while they were wandering the streets. It was an absolutely tragic story. So many consular officials quietly go about their business, like good public servants do, visiting Australians who are in jail for Christmas, baking them Christmas cakes and goodies, looking after Australians after they have got into a pickle in Bali with motorbike accidents and bar incidents. They are extraordinary, committed Australians and I commend them. I commend the member for this motion. Just finally, I, too, want to underscore the fact that if you can't afford insurance then you shouldn't be travelling. That is a vitally important message that too many Australians overlook. Fortunately, we found that take up of travel insurance is high, at over 90 per cent. But there's still some confusion around what it covers and there are still those Australians who go overseas who can afford the trip, the air ticket, the hotel, the taxi ride and the tours, but can't afford the extra for travel insurance. They expect the Australian taxpayer to bail them out when they're in trouble. I saw so many instances of that when I was working at DFAT. So, like the member for North Sydney, I commend all the consular officials serving our nation and Australians overseas. I do encourage Australians to go to smartraveller.gov.au to prepare for overseas travel. It also helps you assess the level of risk in the destination you are travelling to. Most importantly, remember this message: if you can't afford travel insurance, you can't afford to travel overseas. 18:45 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane Over the past year almost six million people passed through the Brisbane international airport. Related to that, Brisbane is getting its second airport runway. It's under construction right now. That's a reflection, partly, of our city's growing economic strength and prosperity, because it shows those expectations that Brisbane has when it comes to increased trade and tourism from right around the world, but especially from our region in the Asia Pacific. It's also a reflection of our city becoming a new world city, and the greater number of international events we're hosting, and it's a reflection of our increased penchant for travel. In short, Australians, and Brisbanites in particular, are travelling overseas in greater numbers and more often than our parents and grandparents did. Judging by the sheer number of calls that my office gets that are inquiries about consular services, especially over the holiday period like that just gone, it's fair to say our consular services are becoming increasingly important. Many Aussie tourists probably wouldn't know where our embassies are, stationed in countries right across the world, and wouldn't even think of those sorts of services until they are in desperate need of them. Nonetheless, as the Consular state of play report for the past financial year shows, our consular services do some important work. We're talking about more than 12,000 consular cases of Australians in trouble overseas and 66,000 calls from Australians in trouble overseas to our Consular Emergency Centre here in Canberra. And then there is what I would call the tragic trifecta of about 5,000 cases split three ways, almost evenly: about 1,700 Australians who fell terribly ill and were hospitalised overseas; about 1,600 Australians who were arrested overseas; and then, most tragic of all, about 1,700 Australians who passed away overseas. By tragic example, I note a terrible story broke just hours ago in the news. These numbers are, I suppose, a small reflection of the important work of our consular personnel, often under trying circumstances. It is also timely to give a reminder of what they can't do. The Australian government does provide that consular assistance wherever it possibly can, but there are limits. While more young Australians, especially, are travelling independently overseas, there is that growing trend of older Australians retiring abroad, particularly where there is a family connection. So we're seeing a surge in cases of people falling ill, especially in the Pacific, which reflects the growing number of cruise passengers that the member for North Sydney spoke about earlier. As he said, many Australians don't think that they need travel insurance when they're on a cruise. They think that the ship's travel doctor will take care of it, or Medicare will cover their expenses. The sad truth is that, in the event of a medical evacuation, lengthy hospital stays or repatriation, it can involve significant additional expenses. It is vital, as the previous speakers have said, for Australian travellers to ensure that they get comprehensive travel insurance before they travel overseas. The previous speakers also spoke about that recent Insurance Council-DFAT survey of Australian travellers and what it found. It found that about nine in 10 Australians travelling overseas have insurance, but it also found that the vast majority of those travelling Australians have no idea what countries are covered in their insurance, no idea what their coverage is when they, say, ride a motorbike overseas, what their coverage might be for mental health conditions, or what their coverage might be for incidents involving alcohol or drug use. So overseas travellers, young and old, need to put time aside to adequately consider the question of travel insurance and the coverage of the policy that they are considering, no matter where they're going or how long they're going for. We heard that often-repeated principle from the previous two speakers: if you can't afford travel insurance, you can't afford to travel. And I want to reiterate our foreign minister's recently expressed concern that this message needs to get through to that last one in 10 people who are travelling overseas. The Australian government doesn't pay for medical treatment overseas. It doesn't pay for medical evacuations to Australia or any third country, or for repatriation of remains on death overseas. Many insurance policies do exclude mental health conditions. I welcome the work of our foreign affairs minister and DFAT to see that travel insurance providers can address some of those mental health related policy exclusions. In conclusion, when I speak to constituents in Brisbane about their travel plans, I try to focus on those two priorities: put more thought into your travel insurance and make sure you've got it, and check out the Smartraveller website. On that website, DFAT publishers up-to-date travel advisories for almost every country and travel updates. 18:50 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I am happy to support this motion. In fact, I'm proud because, like many Australians, I have had the enormous privilege of discovering the wonder of our globe. One of the great and most endearing parts of being an Australian and going overseas is seeing how many Australians choose to go beyond our boundaries to learn, grow and see the world surrounding us. It's one of the great joys to see that people can do it safely and securely, for the most part, and part of it comes back to the knowledge that we have consular services that are there for you. It's always important to understand that, when you're in the worst of situations, the government may be in a position to help, but, equally, you have to take responsibility for your circumstances if you want to be in the best position when you travel overseas. It was encouraging to hear about the 12,454 consular cases that were addressed by our consular services in the recent report Consular state of play 2016-17. Of course, we'd rather not have any cases, but people always lose passports, people will always experience theft and, unfortunately, people will always experience some health conditions while they're overseas. The main thing is to make sure that we can help them as best we can, and our consular services do an excellent job. That is in addition to the good work of the Consular Emergency Centre in Canberra, which assisted 66,000 phone calls involving Australians in trouble overseas. We have to take time to thank the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's consular officers for the work they do and the safety and peace of mind that they bring to families. I have not been in this situation, but I can imagine nothing worse than being in a situation where you don't know the circumstances that a family member is facing overseas. There may be a terrorist attack or the like, but DFAT is there to help and support people. Importantly, the Consular state of play report details the more than 1,700 cases of Australians who had health problems while they were overseas. Nine out of 10 Australians who travel overseas do have health insurance, so it's important to acknowledge that and to congratulate Australians for taking that degree of responsibility, but it's also important to acknowledge that there is one in 10 who do not, and we have to make sure that all of them have a proper understanding about the insurance they get. While the government can provide consular assistance, the consular charter outlines DFAT's limitations of what can be done for Australians when they run into trouble overseas. It is not unending. DFAT is committed to providing equitable, effective, prompt and courteous consular services, but the government cannot pay for medical treatment when people are overseas, or for evacuation to Australia or to a third country, or for the repatriation of remains, may that situation be necessary. That's why insurance matters so much, and every Australian has to make sure they get it, especially when people go on overseas cruises. The two previous speakers, the member for North Sydney and the member for Brisbane, have rightly spoken about the fact that you can't simply rely on ship medical services because, invariably, people will experience problems that go beyond that. So the increasing number of Australians going on overseas cruises still need travel insurance. Take Erica Conway, who was enjoying a cruise off the coast of Vanuatu when a sudden cyclone caused her to fall and break the top of her femur. In need of partial hip replacement, Erica was evacuated to a major hospital in Noumea. It could have been a complete nightmare, but Erica had taken out adequate travel insurance, which allowed the surgery in Noumea to go ahead at no cost. Erica's family was kept up to date, and her son, Simon, was flown from Tasmania to Noumea to be with his mother. Our consular officers provided support and guidance throughout their stay. That claim ultimately cost tens of thousands of dollars. I've been to the United States myself and ended up in a hospital. I needed assistance, and it was not cheap. Similarly, I've been in Switzerland and had to get dental work, and, equally, it was not cheap. But I was able to rely on my travel insurance, so you've heard it from someone who has experience firsthand. Imagine the case of Erica if her policy had not covered the fall due to a technicality? That's why it's so important that DFAT has the Insurance Council of Australia's Survey of Australian's Travel Insurance Behaviour. It found that travel insurance claims remained at about 90 per cent. But, critically, people have to take responsibility for themselves. That's why it's important to get travel insurance and to investigate it properly, but also to make sure people check out and register appropriately with DFAT when they go overseas. And I always encourage people to visit the government's website to get up-to-date information about travel and security arrangements at Smartraveller.gov.au. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN There being no further speakers the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order for the next sitting day. United Nations World Radio Day 162 18:55 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That this House: (1) observes: (a) United Nations World Radio Day (WRD) on 13 February 2018; (b) this year's WRD theme of 'Radio and Sports' which calls on us to:    (i) celebrate the role of radio in promoting Australian sports and the inspiring stories of our high achieving sportspeople and teams;    (ii) support and promote the grassroots sports that anchor us within our communities;    (iii) be inspired by the stories that challenge gender stereotypes; and       (iv) equally cover both men's and women's sports events; (2) recognises the: (a) unique ability of sport to unite and inspire Australians of all backgrounds, and the iconic nature of many Australian sporting events; (b) power of radio to unite, inform and entertain Australians throughout the nation and across commercial, public and community broadcasting; (c) particular importance of publicly funded radio in regional and remote Australia, especially during natural disasters; (d) critical importance of publicly funded radio for our culturally and linguistically diverse communities through the SBS; and       (e) role of community broadcasters in nurturing new Australian talent including sports broadcasters, journalists and producers; (3) acknowledges: (a) the significant disparity between the coverage of men's and women's sports in Australia in radio broadcasting, as well as television, print and online; and       (b) the need to address this disparity to encourage greater participation in women's sports and to recognise the achievements of our women athletes; and (4) calls for: (a) commercial, public and community radio broadcasters to cover more women's sports and to ensure there is a diversity of voices in sports commentary; and (b) greater recognition of the extraordinary achievements of our women's sports teams in the media, including by ensuring equal public funding. Tomorrow, 13 February, marks the United Nations World Radio Day. This year's theme is radio and sports. It's particularly relevant to Australia this year, with its strong focus on more equal coverage of women's sports as well as the promotion of women's voices in sport. In Australia over the last few years we've seen the increasing professionalisation of women's sport, including in the AFLW and women's cricket. And I'm excited about the launch of the new NRL Women's Premiership this year, following the success of the Jillaroos in the Ruby League World Cup. But one of the challenges ahead is to ensure that as women's sport grows they are afforded meaningful air time. The last time the data was analysed, just seven per cent of all sports coverage in Australian media was of women's sport. That does not reflect the make-up of our society or sports participation, nor our aspirations as a modern, egalitarian nation. These imbalances have real consequences. They deny women and girls exposure to sport and the encouragement which comes from them seeing their role models work hard for their success. Fortunately, this is beginning to change. Over the summer you could watch our women's cricket team play in the Ashes or listen on ABC Grandstand. You can also watch the entire season of the AFLW on free-to-air and pay channels. Just yesterday, I watched a remarkable result with Ash Barty and Casey Dellacqua winning the final match to secure the tie in the Federation Cup right here in Canberra, shown live on free-to-air TV. As well as covering the matches, there is also a role for all our broadcasters—commercial, public and community—in helping to ensure that women's voices are not just tolerated but celebrated in sports journalism. In the words of Melbourne broadcaster, Angela Pippos, who has written a book on the subject, the sports media in Australia is still largely, to quote her, 'Pale, male and stale', a sad indictment! One way to change that is to ensure there is a very strong talent pipeline, so this motion also recognises the important role of publicly funded radio, including the ABC, SBS and community radio in supporting up-and-coming talent. It's only been in the last few decades that women were welcomed into sports media. Debbie Spillane was the first full-time female broadcaster to be hired by ABC Sport, and that was just in 1984. She told Mamamia last year that there's a long way to go, saying: Until women are trusted to be the person who describes the action, play by play, ball by ball, then women in sports media will always be second class citizens. I hope that this motion will receive bipartisan support and shine a light on the work of many of our fantastic female sports journalists, presenters, broadcasters and commentators. I also hope that it will help to inspire the next generation to get involved in radio, and consider sports as a viable specialty—whatever their gender. On this World Radio Day we can also acknowledge that radio can connect, inform, entertain and strengthen our communities in other significant ways. The thing about modern life is that mobility is increasingly important. Unlike a television screen, radio can travel with you. While you're doing other tasks, while you're travelling in the car, while you're being involved around the house, the radio can connect you to people, and it can engage community feedback. Just a couple of weeks ago I was interviewed in Melbourne on the community radio station 3KND, which stands for 3 Kool n Deadly. It's Melbourne's first Indigenous owned and managed radio station. As well as discussing politics and current affairs, I also chatted with Charles Pakana about sports and the fantastic connections Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have with sport. There are many fantastic elements of radio and sports. We just need to make sure that they reflect the interests, talents and real achievements of our whole population, not just a few. I hope people enjoy World Radio Day tomorrow and that it helps us to focus on the future ahead. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Is the motion seconded? Ms Chesters 249710 I second the motion. 19:01 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm Community radio is a wonderful Australian tradition, and I'm pleased to report that community radio is alive and strong in Chisholm. 3WBC 94.1 FM is one of more than 400 licensed community radio stations throughout Australia, and its history is deeply rooted in our local community. 3WBC is staffed entirely by wonderful, hardworking volunteers and is broadcast from its home in the Box Hill Town Hall in the heart of Chisholm, with approximately 20 per cent of the program dedicated to ethnic focused content, giving a great insight to 3WBC's ethic and purpose—to provide a voice to the people of Chisholm's vibrant and diverse community. Community radio stations, such as 3WBC, play a unique role in delivering localised content relevant to Melbourne's wonderful eastern suburbs, communicating with people who may have otherwise been isolated from their local communities. I was pleased to join 3WBC in recent times as a guest of Iain Messer and Michael Crichton on their wonderfully informative and enriching programs. This World Radio Day I commend 3WBC on their ongoing dedication to enriching the air waves of Melbourne's east with wonderful stories of our community, great music and intelligent discussions of current affairs. 3WBC also plays a wonderful role in broadcasting the VFL games of the Box Hill Hawks, our wonderful Australian rules football team, and this year 3WBC is celebrating their 11th year providing expert commentary to those listening at home. Sport and radio obviously go hand in hand in Chisholm as the number 1 ticket holders of the Box Hill Hawks. The Women's VFL team and none other than the wonderful presenters of The Outer Sanctum are, in their own words, changing the game on conventional AFL chat. Kate Seear, Nicole Hayes, Alicia Sometimes, Emma Race, Lucy Race and Felicity Race focus on stories and voices rarely heard in the AFL community. The Outer Sanctum, which started as a podcast, is now a weekly fixture during the AFLW season on ABC Grandstand, telling the inspiring stories of women in Australia's most loved sport and pastime Aussie rules football. Wonderful stories, such as the history and work of 3WBC and the trailblazing work of the women of The Outer Sanctum, is why the Turnbull government recognises the importance of the community radio sector and why, last year, we dedicated $6.1 million in funding over two years for the community radio sector to support digital radio services and one-off spectrum reorganisation costs for analogue radio services. This funding is in addition to the $15 million per annum already provided through the community broadcasting program. We've ensured the sustainability of community radio stations, such as 3WCB, by allocating $2.2 million in funding throughout 2017 and 2018 to assist radio community broadcasters affected by the implementation— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 19:04 to 19:18 Ms BANKS 18661 As I mentioned, I have been pleased to join 3WBC in recent times as a guest of Iain Messer on his wonderfully informative and enriching program. This World Radio Day, I commend 3WBC on their ongoing dedication to enriching the airwaves of Melbourne's east with wonderful stories of our community, great music and intelligent discussions. Such wonderful stories, such as the history and work of 3WBC and the trailblazing work of the women of Outer Sanctum, are the reason why the Turnbull government recognise the importance of the community radio sector and why last year we dedicated $6.1 million in funding over two years for the community radio sector. We have ensured the sustainability of community radio stations such as 3WBC by allocating $2.2 million in funding throughout 2017-18 to assist community radio broadcasters affected by the implementation of the Australian Communication and Media Authority's long-term strategy for the 803-960 MHz band. The additional one-off investment supports the ongoing stability of some stations to ensure continued delivery of community radio services to their audiences. The government's investment in the community broadcasting sector allows the continued development of content, training for workers, transmission, infrastructure, online services and the broadcasting of Australian music. I'm pleased to also acknowledge Mr Alexander Hehr OAM, who last year was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for service to the broadcast media, particularly through community radio. Hardworking volunteers, like Alex at Golden Days Radio, and Michael Chrichton and Iain at 3WBC and the wonderful Outer Sanctum team, whose voices reach thousands of Chisholm locals and Melbourne residents, play an integral role in telling stories and binding our communities together. Community radio is here to stay, so I encourage everyone to tune in. 19:19 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Grayndler and congratulate him on bringing forward this motion, because it does address the very important topic of Australian sport and, in particular, calling for more equal representation of women's and men's sport in radio. As was mentioned, quite sadly, women's competitive and amateur sport only makes up seven per cent of media coverage in our country. We need to do better as a nation. We have heard, of course, of the growth in women's professional sport. For a long time, it was just the WNBL that was a national league promoted for women and our netballers, but this year we have seen another successful cricket season, we have seen and started another successful AFLW season, and we have heard that we will soon have a national rugby league competition. However, there is still a massive imbalance between men's and women's sport when it comes to sponsorship and broadcasting. I wish to raise the example of the WNBL, which is close to regional electorates and, in particular, my electorate of Bendigo. It was very unfortunate and quite sad for the WNBL to be axed from the ABC because of disastrous funding cuts. Quite a lot of money was cut from the ABC, and, as a result of that, they axed the broadcasting of the women's soccer and also the WNBL. At the time, the Bendigo Spirit, which is the WNBL team in my part of the world, raised their concerns. They spoke about what would happen to sponsorship. They spoke about the struggle without broadcasting to raise the sponsorship dollars (1) to pay their players more but (2) to invest in the next generation of sports stars and women. That was a big cut delivered to the ABC and to the WNBL by this government, and the team has struggled. What has since happened is this government has given $30 million to Fox Sports—a bit of a backdoor deal about media control—to encourage them to promote more women's sport. There's a lack of documentation in relation to this agreement and a lack of accountability. An FOI application by the ABC established there was no documentation about this gift to Fox Sports. What we have seen is that Fox Sports did pick up coverage of the WNBL and is broadcasting part of the AFL season. However, what Fox Sports has done has bullied the WNBL into a shorter season. When the ABC was involved in broadcasting, we would have been getting close to finals right now, but we're not. The season has already ended. A professional women's league has been cut back because of broadcasting. This government created that problem. They've said loudly and clearly to the WNBL and the AFL Women's League, 'You must both finish before the men's competition starts.' How outrageous is that! We are trying to get towards more equal representation of men's and women's sport, yet the broadcasters are saying to the women's league: 'You must end. The two of you must compete against each other and end before the men's competition starts.' It's quite sad that this is where we're at in 2018, when so many young women are engaging in sport. That is why the support for radio is so critical. I know that, if it wasn't for the broadcasting of the WNBL games and the AFLW games on our local community radio, many of those sports' fans would have missed out on an opportunity to listen in and hear the call of the game. It is so critical that, as a country, we take radio and the broadcasting of women's sport more seriously. Radio continues to be a medium in which all of us engage, whether it's in our car, whether it's working in our gardens, whether you're in the city or the metro. Radio continues to be important, just as important as investing in women's sports and sports broadcasting. 19:24 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Tomorrow marks United Nations World Radio Day, and I commend the member for Grayndler for bringing this motion to the House. World Radio Day began in 2012, and tomorrow will be the organisation's seventh annual event. The theme for 2018 is Radio and Sports, and it will focus on diversity in sports coverage, gender equality in sports coverage and also peace and development through sports coverage. Across Australia, we are encouraged to unite and celebrate not only the role radio plays within our communities but also the role of sport. Radio stations entertain us, they inform us and, when natural disasters strike, they also keep our country communities safe. In country Australia, radio stations form part of the very fabric of our country communities. I just love country radio, and tonight I recognise a local radio station in Calare that has become an institution in the Bathurst area. I speak, of course, of Bathurst Broadcasters, which has been locally owned and operated by Ron and Stephanie Camplin since 1969. Bathurst Broadcasters operate 1503 2BS Gold and 99.3 B-Rock FM, and they are iconic stations in Bathurst, Blayney, Oberon and surrounding district. 2BS has a long and distinguished history. It started broadcasting in Bathurst on 1 January 1937. That's an incredible 81 years ago. On 2 December 1996, B-Rock FM hit the airwaves, and it hasn't looked back for 22 wonderful years. Ron Camplin has been involved in the radio industry for more than 60 years. He is a broadcasting legend. He is the elder statesman of Australian broadcasting, and he's known and respected around Australia. He was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for his services to commercial broadcasting and the local community in 1995. Ron also received the 12th Radio Achievement Award for pursuing FM licences for regional areas, and in 2002 he was inducted into the Commercial Radio Australia Hall of Fame. Stephanie Camplin is also a broadcasting legend. She received an OAM last year for her services to the community and regional broadcasting. Ron and Stephanie's philanthropy has helped make our region the vibrant regional centre that it is today, and I congratulate both Ron and Stephanie on all they have achieved at the station and for our communities, generally. They are a great team. Their passion and dedication is evident at Bathurst Broadcasters, because, together, 2BS and B-Rock have won 65 Commercial Radio Australia awards since 1989. They have a hardworking and devoted team, both on air and off. Bathurst Broadcasters are involved in so many community activities, and I would like to make special mention this evening of their general manager, Phil Cole, and also their receptionist and talk program producer Natalie Pilato. Both Phil and Natalie are vital to the running of Bathurst Broadcasters. At 2BS Gold, special mention goes to the on-air team, including Kerry Peck, also known as Pecky, who hosts the weekday breakfast show—I chat with him every Wednesday morning. I also recognise Sarah Boorer, who hosts Talk of the Town, and the great Christopher Morgan and Dom Ingersole, who host The Hump every Wednesday. Janeen Hosemans and Peter Harrison host the iconic Bangers and Mash show every Friday afternoon—I am also a guest this every fortnight and have cautioned them about playing beach volleyball in the 2BS studio. You will find Harrison Carter on two shows: Homemade Jam and Sunday Acoustic Session. Lastly, I would like to mention Pete Watson, who hosts Saturday Morning Wireless. I recently had the opportunity to co-host the morning show with Pete— An honourable member: Get a job with him! Mr GEE 261393 I wouldn't mind it, but I think Pete might have an issue with it. Thank you for having me. B-Rock FM also has a fantastic on-air team, including Sarah Connor, who hosts the Classic Rock Show and is also on Monday to Friday on Deek and Sconner; Daniel King, who hosts the B-Rock Morning Show; Harrison Carter, who hosts B-Rock Saturday Mornings; Darren Webster, who hosts the Rockshop; and Gabi Bolt, who is on air from 9 am to midday, Monday to Friday. The station is also very supportive of Charles Sturt University, in particular the commercial radio students who study there. Students not only undertake a subject at 2BS and B-Rock but also have the opportunity to complete an internship and volunteer at the station. This provides students with an invaluable learning experience. In 1979, the Buggles released that classic song Video Killed the Radio Star. Radio hasn't faded and the radio stars, including those at Bathurst Broadcasters, continue to shine and make our lives richer. Congratulations to Bathurst Broadcasters and country radio stations just like them. May radio keep going from strength to strength. We thank them, we appreciate them and we acknowledge their service to communities tonight. 19:29 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I too would like to acknowledge the member for Grayndler for putting this motion forward tonight to the chamber. It is no secret that I am an avid lover of sport. I love everything about sport: its ability to teach teamwork, the friendships it develops, the fitness, the discipline and the independence, amongst other things. I have grown up with sport and played it my whole life. Of course, my favourite sport is netball. I love playing it and watching it. Cheering on my beloved Vixens and the Australian Diamonds is a great passion of mine. It is also no secret that I am a strong advocate for women's participation in sport and women's achievements being broadcast for others to enjoy. So, on World Radio Day, I think it is fitting that radio and sports be celebrated this year. It is just common sense that women should be given as much airtime as their male counterparts when playing sport. It is exciting to see that women are now being embraced in sports such as AFL and NRL, and that they are being given airtime for all in the community to watch and listen. Broadcasting women's sport provides young women and girls with the opportunity to see that they too can aspire to be sporting heroes, rather than watching their brothers' aspirations on screen or listening to them on the radio. It is also pleasing that, as the AFL women's competition has grown from strength to strength since its inaugural year last year, so too have the opportunities for women to establish their careers in journalism and commentary. Women should be equally celebrated when it comes to sport—as celebrated as men are—and it is encouraging that, in recent times, women's sport is being embraced by broadcasting networks. Credit where credit is due, it is fantastic to see women's sport being broadcast nationally. However, there is still a significant disparity between the coverage of men's and women's sport in Australia in radio broadcasting as well as on the television and online. So, when the Turnbull government gave a $30 million dollar handout to Fox Sports, it was never about boosting the profile of women's sport. Advocates of women's sports have the right to be frustrated. If the Turnbull government were serious about genuinely boosting the profile of women's sport, they would be offering the same assistance to free-to-air TV and radio networks, and not just Fox Sport. I'm not fooled by this. My Labor colleagues are not fooled. This is just another example of a government that is prepared to shell out to big businesses—in this instance, at the expense of women's engagement in sport. As we heard from the member for Bendigo, the women's basketball league has been asked to truncate their season to fit in with Fox Sports' coverage. This, therefore, is not about the expansion of women's sport. To make matters worse, the Turnbull government is trying to justify their spend by saying that Fox Sports was chosen because they provide approximately 70 per cent of the women's sports coverage currently on television. This is laughable as a justification when you consider the funding cuts to our national broadcaster, cuts that saw absolute cuts to women's sport broadcasting. The member for Bendigo has been on her feet many times talking about just that. This money would have been better spent on free-to-air coverage on radio and television, to maximise the audience for women's sport. One argument given for a lack of live coverage of women's sport is that audiences would be too small. Given that over the weekend a crowd of 41,975 attended to watch the AFL women's game between Freemantle and Collingwood, I think it is safe to say that there is plenty of interest in women's sport. I fondly recall last year when I taped an Essendon football match, which was a strange thing for a mad Bombers fan to do, but the Melbourne Vixens were playing. So I chose to tape Essendon and watch my girls take the court in a great match. Only weeks ago I missed the Australian Open men's final to watch the Australian Diamonds defeat their arch enemy from across the ditch, the Silver Ferns. Times are changing. Women are tuning in to women's sport, and the broadcasting needs to keep up. Unlike the Turnbull government, Labor is committed to ensuring Australians enjoy coverage of premium sporting events on free-to-air television, because equality in sport is non-negotiable. As the member for Grayndler did, I will talk about the voices in sport. We've all spent summers and other times in the car listening to sports on the radio. I look forward to listening to Liz Ellis, Sue Gaudion and Sharelle McMahon, great netball commentators. I look forward to listening to Jillaroos, Opals and Southern Stars matches beamed live into my car as I travel around the state. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation C h amber adjourned at 19:35   Border Security (Question No. 844) 168 844 Mr Georganas DZY asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 26 October 2017: (1) Since 2 March 2015, how many people have been (a) suspected of travelling, or (b) attempting to travel, to conflict zone 'declared areas' from airports around Australia. (2) How many of these travellers were suspected supporters or sympathisers of terrorist organisations. (3) How many of these travellers were (a) able to continue their travel, and (b) prevented from boarding. (4) How many of these travellers have returned from these areas as suspected or confirmed 'foreign fighters', by state and territory Mr Dutton 00AKI The answer to the honourable member's question is: For operational reasons, the specific information requested is not able to be provided. However, since 2 March 2015 Counter Terrorism Units (CTU) have conducted 596,777 real time assessments, and assisted with 680 passenger offloads – for a range of reasons, that includes suspected travel to conflict zones. Since 2012, around 220 Australians have travelled to Syria and/or Iraq to fight with, or support groups involved in the conflict. Around 110 Australians are currently fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. Around 40 people have returned to Australia after traveling to Syria/Iraq and joining groups involved in the conflict, many of whom did so prior to the declared 'caliphate'. Passport cancellations are the responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.   Border Security (Question No. 846) 168 846 Mr Georganas DZY asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 26 October 2017: (1) Since 1 July 2013, (a) how many (i) drug, or (ii) contraband, seizures have occurred at Adelaide Airport, and (b) what was the total street value, and how does this value compare to the other states and territories (as a percentage). (2) Since 1 July 2013, (a) how many cash seizures have occurred at Adelaide Airport, (b) what was the total sum of cash seized, and (c) how does this value compare to the other states and territories (as a percentage). Mr Dutton 00AKI The answer to the honourable member's question is: The Department detects a range of contraband at the border including: major drugs, precursors, New Psychoactive Substances (NPS), Performance and Image Enhancing Drugs (PIEDS), undeclared conventional firearms as well as undeclared tobacco.     The Department does not measure the street value of the drugs it detects at the border. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission's Illicit Drug Data Report 2015-16 contains illicit drug data including value.     Asylum Seekers (Question No. 852) 169 852 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 04 December 2017: What is the Australian Government's response to the statement from the Papua New Guinea (PNG) Minister for Immigration and Border Security on 29 October 2017 that the responsibility for pursuing third country options for the detainees transferred to PNG remains with Australia. Mr Dutton 00AKI The answer to the honourable member's question is: The management of refugees and failed asylum seekers in Papua New Guinea (PNG) is a matter for the Government of PNG. Australia continues to support the Government of PNG to find resettlement options for people found by PNG to be refugees. Asylum Seekers (Question No. 853) 169 853 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 04 December 2017: What is the Government's position on the statement by the spokesperson for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on 3 November 2017, specifically (a) sentence one in paragraph two, (b) sentence one in paragraph three, and (c) sentence one in paragraph five. (see http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22348& LangID=E) Mr Dutton 00AKI The answer to the honourable member's question is: (a) The government of Papua New Guinea (PNG) is responsible for managing arrangements with respect to residents of the former Manus Regional Processing Centre (RPC). PNG has closed the Manus RPC. PNG has completed the processing of RPC residents and there are clear pathways ahead of them. For refugees, accommodation options and services are available at the East Lorengau Refugee Transit Centre (ELRTC) and West Lorengau Haus (WLH). Amenities at these sites include accommodation, modest living allowances to purchase items in the local community, potable water, security (access control), access to cooking and laundry amenities, case management support, and garrison services – including site maintenance and cleaning. For persons found not to be a refugee, accommodation and services are available at Hillside Haus. Amenities at Hillside Haus include dormitory style beds and communal bathrooms, air conditioning, laundry facilities, fencing and security, communal spaces, dedicated sewage facilities, potable water and catered food, case management support, and garrison services – including site maintenance and cleaning. (b) The Government of PNG is responsible for managing regional processing arrangements, assessing the refugee status of unauthorised maritime arrivals transferred to PNG in accordance with PNG domestic law, noting PNG is party to the Refugees Convention. Relevantly, PNG has committed to treating people transferred with dignity and respect and in accordance with relevant human rights standards. (c) The Governments of Nauru and PNG are responsible for managing regional processing arrangements in their countries. Persons residing in Nauru and PNG are subject to their respective domestic laws and processes. The Nauru RPC is an open centre and residents are not detained. Asylum Seekers (Question No. 855) 170 855 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 04 December 2017: (1) What is the Australian Government's rationale for not accepting New Zealand's offer to resettle some of the refugees from Manus Island.(2) Does the Australian Government have a legal basis for preventing the resettlement of refugees to New Zealand.(3) Other than the United States, what third party nations is the Australian Government considering for resettlement. Mr Dutton 00AKI The answer to the honourable member's question is: (1) As the Prime Minister stated on 5 November 2017, the Government appreciates the offer that New Zealand has made, but we are focused on concluding the resettlement arrangement with the United States. (2) New Zealand made the offer to the Australian Government. As I stated on 16 November 2017, any resettlement arrangement between a regional processing country and New Zealand is a matter for their respective governments. (3) It would not be appropriate to disclose details of confidential discussions with other governments. Mobile Black Spot Program (Question No. 857) 170 857 Mr Stephen Jones A9B asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Communications, in writing, on 04 December 2017 (1) How many of the 499 round 1 base stations announced in 2013 under the Mobile Black Spot Program (MBSP) are currently operational.(2) How many of the 429 round 1 base stations announced in 2013 under the MBSP being built by Telstra are currently operational.(3) How many of the 70 round 1 base stations announced in 2013 under the MBSP being built by Optus are currently operational.(4) How many of the 266 round 2 base stations announced in 2015 under the MBSP are currently operational. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As at 29 January 2018, 313 of the 499 round 1 base stations announced in 2015 under the Mobile Black Spot Program are currently operational. (2) As at 29 January 2018, 280 of the 429 round 1 base stations announced in 2015 under the Mobile Black Spot Program being built by Telstra are currently operational. (3) Optus was not awarded any funding under round 1 of the Mobile Black Spot Program. As at 29 January 2018, 33 of the 70 Vodafone round 1 base stations announced in 2015 under the Mobile Black Spot Program being built by Vodafone are currently operational. (4) 71 of the 266 round 2 base stations announced in 2016 under the Mobile Black Spot Program are currently operational.   Mobile Black Spot Program (Question No. 858) 170 858 Mr Stephen Jones A9B asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Communications, in writing, on 04 December 2017: Are there any milestones for the commencement of construction and commencement of operations of base stations built under the Mobile Black Spot Program; if so, what are they. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the member's question is as follows: There are no milestones for the commencement of construction. The Mobile Black Spot Program funding agreements with the mobile network operators (MNOs) have performance targets for the completion of the rollout: Round one – all base stations completed by 30 June 2018. Round two – 228 base stations completed by 30 June 2018, and 38 base stations completed by 31 October 2018. The rollout sequence is being determined by the MNOs based on various factors, including obtaining local government planning approval, landowner agreement where necessary, and access to existing infrastructure, power and backhaul.   Mobile Black Spot Program (Question No. 859) 171 859 Mr Stephen Jones A9B asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Communications, in writing, on 04 December 2017 (1) How many base stations in (a) the ACT, (b) the Northern Territory, (c) NSW, (d) Queensland, (e) South Australia, (f) Tasmania, (g) Victoria, and (h) Western Australia, have been funded under the Mobile Black Spot Program.(2) Where are the above base stations located.(3) Which of the above base stations are operational, and when are the remaining base stations expected to be operational. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Base stations funded under the Mobile Black Spot Program, operational as of 7 February 2018, by State and Territory, are detailed in the table below:     (2) Information about the locations of each of the MBSP base stations is available on the Optus, Telstra and Vodafone websites: Optus: www.optus.com.au/shop/mobile/network/mobile-black-spot-program Telstra: www.telstra.com/blackSpot Vodafone: www.vodafone.com.au/red-wire/vodafone-mobile-black-spot-investment Round 1 and 2 information is also published on the National Map. Links are available via https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do/phone/mobile-services-and-coverage/mobile-black-spot-program under 'Additional information and resources'. The location information for each State and Territory base station funded under the Mobile Black Spot Program is also reproduced in the table on the following page.     (3) See (1) for Mobile Black Spot Program funded base stations currently operational. 727 base stations under the Mobile Black Spot Program are scheduled to be operational by 30 June 2018 and the 38 remaining rounds 1 and 2 base stations operational by the end of October 2018. The actual number operational by these dates is expected to vary subject to the resolution of issues such as planning approvals, environmental issues, land access arrangements etc. Mobile Black Spot Program (Question No. 861) 184 861 Mr Stephen Jones A9B asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Communications, in writing, on 04 December 2017 How many base stations under the Mobile Black Spots Program are expected to be operational by 30 June 2018. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 727 base stations under the Mobile Black Spot Program are scheduled to be operational by 30 June 2018. The actual number operational by this date is expected to vary subject to the resolution of issues such as planning approvals, environmental issues, land access arrangements etc.