2018-02-27 45 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 27 February 2018

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

STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 1 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Publications Committee 1 12:01 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson I want to correct the answer that I gave to a question that I was surprisingly asked yesterday. I inadvertently misled the House. While I thought that the Publications Committee was not meeting again, the committee is meeting this Thursday at 8.30 am. BILLS 1 BILLS Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017 1

Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017

Second Reading 1 12:02 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon Yesterday, in the short time I had to speak on the Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017, I spoke about the policy failure of this government when it comes to agriculture, and this continues to be the case for agricultural policy, particularly in Tasmania. I reiterate my point that I had, on a number of occasions, invited the previous agriculture minister, the member for New England, to come to my electorate to speak to dairy farmers at the height of the dairy crisis, but he failed to do so. But that is not the only example of policy failure and inaction by this government when it comes to the farmers in my electorate. The former agriculture minister liked to blow his trumpet about investments in water infrastructure. That was nothing but a fraud, because every water development and irrigation scheme commenced in Tasmania was under state and federal Labor governments. Labor established Tasmanian Irrigation to build on the work of Tasmanian Labor's water development plan. Tasmanian Irrigation developed schemes as public-private partnerships, working with private landholders to establish how much water is wanted and the cost of building a scheme shared between the public and private sectors. There are now eight operational schemes from tranche 1, from the Midlands to the north and north-west in my electorate. In total, Labor's irrigation program represents a public-private commitment of over $310 million. Tranche 2 schemes have also been completed in the north-east, the southern Central Highlands and Circular Head in my electorate—all under Labor. I recall the irony of the former Deputy Prime Minister, on his one and only visit to Tasmania over the last two years, praising himself for Labor's Southern Highlands scheme. There has been no vision from the former agriculture minister, and only now in the dying days of the state Liberal Hodgman government have they announced tranche 3. The Liberal Premier, Will Hodgman, has been aided and abetted by his federal colleagues and has done nothing over the past four years in government. This government can't even get it right when it comes to supporting Tasmania's horticultural industry. They have failed to open up markets for export, have imposed a systemic failure when it comes to securing labour, and in recent weeks at a state and federal level they have been exposed as biosecurity failures. Economic opportunity for Tasmania, particularly in my electorate—and also I note in a number of National Party seats—exists through the expansion of the blueberry industry. Demand for Tasmanian and Australian blueberries continues to grow at a rapid rate. China is one of the fastest-growing blueberry markets in the world, yet Australian farmers cannot access that market, because the Australian government has not established an export protocol with the Chinese government. Instead of eating Australian blueberries, Chinese shoppers are eating blueberries from Canada, Chile, Peru and Argentina. While this government has been sitting on its hands, these countries have all signed export protocols with the Chinese government for the export of blueberries. Tasmanian and Australian farmers are missing out, and Tasmanian and Australian regional jobs are not there because of the failure of this government. I'm unsure if this government's inaction on blueberries is deliberate or just pure incompetence. Perhaps it is deliberate, because this government continues to fail our farmers, who are unable to secure enough labour to harvest their crops. In Tasmania, there is genuine concern from fruitgrowers that there will not be enough labour to harvest autumn product, and the apples are coming into season in just a few weeks time. While the industry has just managed with the summer harvest, a much larger workforce is required for the late summer and autumn harvest of apples and pears. Industry has told me a combination of issues highlighted by the backpacker tax and changes to the 88-day second visa requirements are now seeing the prospect of fruit falling to the ground. There are other issues, such as exploitation by unscrupulous labour hire bosses, strict picking versus select picking, and inconsistent piece rates. This government has also overseen a breakdown between regional job providers and industry. There is no consistent way in which a farmer can secure labour. Yet what is the solution of the Tasmanian state and federal governments? Nothing but deafening silence. I have touched on some of the government's failings when it comes to supporting Tasmanian farmers, but I have left the worst till last. Under the conservatives, Tasmania has seen Norwegian salmon on supermarket shelves, blueberry rust, myrtle rust, Pacific oyster mortality syndrome and now a fruit fly catastrophe. What started out with a fruit fly being detected on Flinders Island has spread to fruit fly being discovered around the Devonport area, which is my home town, and also in George Town on mainland Tasmania. Even worse, a shipment of fruit for retail sale containing fruit fly arrived in Tasmania and sat on supermarket shelves. Growers have been forced to dump their product and are now experiencing significant additional costs to fumigate their product. Some have given up trying to save those crops that have a short shelf life. As part of its protocol, the highly valuable Chinese market is refusing to take fruit from the control zones. Taiwan has also locked out Tasmanian fruit. Farmers are being forced to sell their product into other markets and are receiving half the price they would if they could export to China. These are just some of the examples of devastation local producers have suffered because of this biosecurity failure. Worse, the Tasmanian brand is being damaged and Tasmania's fruit-fly-free status has potentially been compromised because of systemic failures by this government and the Tasmanian state Liberal government. By any measure, there has been a biosecurity breakdown at the state and federal levels. At the state level, we know the Liberal Premier, Will Hodgman, cut $1 million from Biosecurity Tasmania in his first budget. So deep were his cuts they have put the hardworking staff from Biosecurity Tasmania under extreme pressure. Just imagine what they're going through now, dealing with this fruit fly catastrophe. Corners have been cut, and even in the current emergency we still have people arriving by sea and air without any checks. This is despite a promise by Will Hodgman's government in 2015 that every flight in and out of Hobart and Launceston would be met by sniffer dogs. You can hardly fulfil that promise when you cut the budget. Documents obtained under the right to information show this cut contributed to a $1.9 million budget deficit in Biosecurity Tasmania as of August 2015. It is alarming that the discussion points from this meeting state: Biosecurity Tasmania has already been severely cut in the past and there is little room for further cuts without severely impacting on program areas. The same points also state: Demands from programs exceed Biosecurity capacity so prioritisation and a reduction of program activity will need to be undertaken. No wonder we have fruit fly in Tasmania now. The state Liberals' incompetence is also matched by a failure to act by this Prime Minister and his former agriculture minister. This government abolished the Standing Council on Primary Industries. It has failed to respond to the recommendations of the Plant Biosecurity CRC fruit fly report and the Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity review. It also attempted to abolish the position of Inspector-General of Biosecurity—a move Labor successfully blocked. Now this is not playing politics with fruit fly in Tasmania; this is devastating the local economies in my electorate and the jobs and the businesses there that are supplying export markets with fruit. This government and the state government are sitting by and doing nothing. In a litany of biosecurity failures we have also learnt, from a leaked Tasmanian government question time brief, that the federal government has also cut Tasmania's biosecurity funding. The brief states: There have been some staff reductions across the large organisation that is Biosecurity Tasmania, primarily due to reductions in Federal funding for providing Commonwealth biosecurity services. There you have it: a failure to act on a national stage at the same time cutting Tasmania's biosecurity funding. This is at a time when visitor numbers to Tasmania have been increasing exponentially. The question time brief was silent on their action. What did the Tasmanian Liberals do to stand up for Tasmania in Canberra? Nothing; not a thing. The Tasmanian Liberal Premier always has been and always will be too weak to stand up for my state. I did, however, note the irony last week when the Tasmanian agriculture minister tried to abrogate any responsibility for this fruit fly catastrophe. During a media conference he chose to blame this government with the words, 'This seems to be a national system breakdown.' The Tasmanian government is now blaming the coalition federal government for a biosecurity breakdown that is having a tremendous impact on my state. So who is actually responsible? Is it Mr Rockliff, the current Deputy Premier of Tasmania, or the former Deputy Prime Minister? This side of the House knows it's a combined responsibility. Unlike state and federal conservatives, Labor has responded. State and federal Labor have made a $5.7 million commitment to boost Tasmania's biosecurity actions—a commitment welcomed by the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association's CEO Peter Skillern. Mr Skillern said: This commitment demonstrates a recognition of the importance of agriculture to the State, and its heavy reliance on a well-resourced biosecurity system. He said that further commitment to focus on prevention and preparedness—which has been lacking because of these cuts—was to be highly commended. He said: Markets must be assured that the Tasmanian biosecurity system is second to none and of a world-class standard. There is no doubt that this government has been failing Tasmanian farmers. It failed them on dairy. It is failing them on export opportunities. It is failing them on water development. It is failing them on securing enough labour. And it is failing them on biosecurity. Tasmanian farmers deserve so much more than what the state Liberal and federal Liberal-National governments have to offer. I do hope that the member for Maranoa takes up my offer that I did extend to the former agriculture minister to come to my state, see what we can do here and actually listen to the farmers, because the Tasmanian farmers do matter. 12:14 Mr JOYCE E5D New England (   This is the first time I have spoken from the back bench since being in the Senate. It's very important to rise on the Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017. To be honest, the country-of-origin labelling system was something that I fought for for quite some time. It was seminal in making sure that our nation clearly understands where products come from and what proportion comes from where. In the past, under a Labor government, we had an anomaly where labels would say 'Made of Australian and imported ingredients', 'Made in Australia', 'Product of Australia', and the whole thing was completely and utterly confusing, and I would say in many instances misleading. It had been the case for quite some time that we wanted a labelling system that clearly told the Australian people what came from the Australian farm. It is their right to buy something that comes from somewhere else if they wish to—no-one is denying that—but it is also their right to have the capacity to buy, with their money, product from their nation. This underpins what we are doing to support Australian jobs, to make sure that people can say, 'Well, I can buy tomatoes from Italy,' and that's fair enough, 'or I can buy tomatoes that actually support Australian jobs, and if there's 30c or 40c difference in the price of the can, that is not an issue for me, because my respect for my nation and my desire to support my nation warrants me paying the extra money so that I can have that product.' At the time, with the industry minister, the then member for Groom, Ian Macfarlane, we went to work on how we could do this. We had the green triangle with the gold kangaroo to show clearly that a product was made in Australia. Then there was a bar that clearly indicated the proportion of the product that came from Australia. I do get a great sense of pride in the work done by this parliament and this side of the House, and also through my own endeavours, when I go through the supermarkets now and, more and more often, see that labelling system in place. At the time, people argued that it would be the end of civilisation as we knew it, that it was a disaster. Of course they would say that, because so many of the supermarkets and so many of the producers made a lot of money by getting cheaper imported goods and putting them under the home brand label or such like. People would think that 'home brand' would probably mean that a product had come from home. Well, it had come from the home of the major supermarkets but not from our home, Australia; it had come from places all around the world. They are welcome to sell it; that's their commercial right—we believe in free enterprise—but if there is an alternative it must clearly show what portion comes from Australia. I firmly believe the push-back was because they didn't want people to know that and that our labelling system clearly indicated it. As yet another example of how we stood behind agriculture, I note that we in the coalition, whilst I was the agricultural minister, had the biggest turnaround in agricultural income in the history of our nation. Of course, that was not by reason of the minister; it was by reason of a whole range of factors, most ably assisted by a government that took agriculture very seriously. Under the previous, Labor government and the inept minister that we had, the agriculture department's budget was more than halved. I am yet to be convinced that the Labor Party have a serious policy that they wish to take to the dispatch box in this House and discuss. It is something that they remain in an awkward silence about, because they have no vision for agriculture, and this resonates in regional areas because Labor and the Greens are known to have no vision for agriculture. The Greens are content on trying to basically shut it down and return us all to being hunters and gatherers on the forest floor eating beetles and nuts. That's their vision for the future. Apparently, as long as you can pick it off a tree in the middle of a rainforest, it's all right to eat, but if you have the temerity to go forth and try and develop the land and make sure that we get an efficient form of agriculture, then they have no view of it. We have developed agriculture in a holistic form. The policy that we took forward related not only to our desire for the creation of new dams and water infrastructure. In this respect, I note such things as the Macalister Irrigation District, which payment has gone towards upgrading. I also note the vast amount of work done on water infrastructure in Tasmania, supported by the Commonwealth, which the member who spoke prior to me should have mentioned. That is transforming the central highlands of Tasmania into another centre of agricultural excellence. Our vision for agricultural excellence also extended to creating centres of excellence, such as in Armidale, with the relocation of APVMA, or in Wagga, with AgriFutures, formerly known as RIRDC. Creating these centres of excellence to further assist the development of our agricultural economy is part of our vision for our nation. What I also note is that one of the great problems our nation had when we were competing against America, South America, Russia, Ukraine, Europe was that our intermodal transport capacity for bulk commodities was severely deficient. Over a long period of time we have fought for and attained funding for the Inland Rail. I know, Deputy Speaker Coulton, that you are very aware of this because you and the people in the seat of Parkes will be some of the greatest beneficiaries of that multibillion-dollar investment. It was something that we fought very hard for. Other people in the past talked about it—the member for Grayndler talked about it; I don't know if the member for Hunter talks about much; he hardly ever gets a question—but we actually delivered the funding. That's a vast difference. That is the difference between discussion and delivery, and I think it clearly shows what a difference there is in having an effective government. I put the challenge to the Labor Party: what exactly is your policy on agriculture? What do we say to the people of regional and rural Australia about what is now this nation's fastest growing sector in our GDP? That is what's happened under this government. It is the fastest growing sector in our GDP. I would like to know when the Labor Party are going to rise to the task and say that they also support the government's position on the construction of the Inland Rail so that we have the capacity for greater transport efficiencies and greater cost reductions in the movement of bulk commodities such as wheat, cotton, canola, sorghum—whatever you like. We heard the previous member bring up the biosecurity issue. The Labor Party decimated the agricultural budget. We had to refurbish our investment in biosecurity measures through the $4 billion agricultural white paper. I commend the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources for the work they did in assisting in stopping the further outbreak of Panama race 4 and the white spot outbreak, both of which have been contained if not eliminated. These are great outcomes. The next step in creating a centre of excellence was the vision to make Orange Australia's Chicago, somewhere where the finances that are pertinent to agricultural products can be further expanded. We created the multibillion-dollar Regional Investment Corporation and moved it to Orange. I note that the Labor Party fought against this every step of the way, because the member for Hunter, the shadow minister for agriculture, is led by the nose by the member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer. The shadow Treasurer was completely and utterly disparaging about this vision for Australia, which is something that supports farmers in drought and farmers who have had to deal with the vagaries of the market caused by the issues of Murray Goulburn. We put the Regional Investment Corporation forward for the purpose of doing work in this vital area, and it has the capacity to expand its mandate further. Let's go through them: the Inland Rail, the Regional Investment Corporation, the expansion of dams. The Labor Party wish to take money out of the dams portfolio, not expand it. They want to take it out. They have no vision. They are bereft of the ideals of Curtin and Chifley. They have now become a vacuous hold of people who have had no experience in being on the land. Maybe I'll be corrected, but I can't think of any member in the Labor Party who actually comes from the land. That was not the case in the past. We had people such as Mick Young, who was a former shearer. We actually had people who had got their hands dirty on the land. But they're not there now. The Greens with their desire to tie up everything in green tape are becoming, more and more, the enemy of people on the land. They have gone from having serious concerns—which we must hold—on issues such as protection of aquifers and prime agricultural land to basically something that wants to inhibit any development on land. Now that I have the capacity that's been given to me—with a pay cut—through being on the backbench, I want to make clear some of the things we need to do. One of those issues is of course the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This act is excessive. This act goes beyond protecting the environment to completely inhibiting the capacity of people on the land to deal with the private asset that they have paid for. One would hope that this side of the House believes in private ownership. We believe in governments staying away. If you come into an area and decide that by mandate, by edict, piece by piece, you'll dispossess a person on the land of their capacity to properly own the land, if you take from them, without payment, an asset that was formally theirs—that is not the side of conservative politics and not the side of people who believe in a market economy where you should have just and fair compensation. If the community truly believes it is the community's right and in the community's interest to take an asset off a private owner then it must be the community's responsibility to pay for it. We saw that in so many regional areas with tree clearing legislation. As many people saw it, an asset that they formerly owned was taken over and owned by the government without payment. There was a word for that in the past; it is called 'communism' when the government decides it is not going to acquire an asset but take it without payment. This act has now to be amended. I look forward to the review, which I think has to happen by 2019. We will move forward to a proper review of this and give back to farmers their rights which in the past have been taken from them. In doing that, we will also make sure that key infrastructure in regional areas is not inhibited by excessive environmental studies. Around Peak Hill—and you would be familiar with this in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker—hundreds of thousands of dollars was required to get approval to build a railway line. Where? Where a railway line is! In my seat of New England, with the Bolivia Hill realignment, I believe millions of dollars was spent on environmental studies to build a road where a road is. This is Kafkaesque. This has to change. The National Party stands proudly in making sure that we fight for this issue. I go back to country of origin labelling and agriculture in general. I note that this amendment itself is meaningless; it has no purpose. It is a true reflection of the Labor Party's agricultural outlook: they have no meaning; they are purposeless. It is almost comical how little attention the Labor Party tactics group gives to the shadow minister for agriculture to ever get a question in question time. Is it because he has no knowledge of agriculture or does not care about agriculture, or is it because the Labor Party has no vision on agriculture? I think it is all three. What we have to do now, what we have to fight for, is to make sure that one of our nation's greatest benefits, the massive turnaround in agriculture, is not stymied and continues to be built on. I commend the work that the member for Maranoa, the new Minister for Agriculture, has been doing in this area. He has really hit the ground running and is doing a great job. They talk about issues such as the blueberry industry. Sitting behind me are the member for Page, for whom the blueberry industry is very important, and the member for Wide Bay, who definitely likes eating blueberries—and they go well with ice cream! I know that both of them would understand that the expansion of our agricultural capacity is driven in part by our three free trade agreements and the massive turnaround in our agricultural exports to China, Japan and Korea as we build on the foundations of the past but have a vision for the future. There is no question about it: if any parliamentary side wishes to understand our economy properly and is bereft of ideas on what they do in agriculture then they do not deserve the treasury bench. I am proud of the work we have done on dams. I am proud of the work we have done on accelerated depreciation on fences. The Greens have now moved to get rid of the dog fences out in the Paroo. And why wouldn't they! I suppose they are having such a great effect that they just don't want them! I support the continued work that we will do. The essence of this nation was built on agriculture and, in the future, it will continue to do the same. 12:29 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin We've just listened to 15 minutes of empty rhetoric from the member for New England. It's interesting to note that this legislation was introduced into the House by the member for New England back in October last year. At the time he introduced it, he spoke for what might have been maybe one or two minutes at most in a half-page speech to the House. Now he comes into the House about four months later and does a 15-minute diatribe on what he thinks his achievements were as the minister for agriculture. I speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for Hunter in respect of the Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017. This is important legislation. It's important for several reasons, but I want to go to the heart of what this bill is all about. Firstly, it increases importers' accountability for food safety in this country; secondly, it improves the monitoring and management of new and emerging food safety risks; and, thirdly, it improves the incident responses by government. They are three critical matters, and I will go to why they are in just a moment. Responsibility for these matters effectively rests with both the federal government and each of the state and territory governments—and, through an agreement we have with New Zealand, it also includes New Zealand. Indeed, FSANZ, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, developed the code that incorporates the standards that apply right across from Australia and into New Zealand in respect of food safety matters. It's important legislation because in 2015-16 Australia imported $18 billion worth of food into this country. Interestingly, only two years earlier, in 2013-14, the figure was $15 billion. In other words, over two years there was a 20 per cent increase in food that was imported into Australia, and, based on the most recent five years of figures, it represents roughly a 10 per cent continuing increase in the value of processed food that is brought into Australia and about seven per in the value of unprocessed foods on an annual basis. So we can expect that we will continue to see an increase in the amount of food that comes into Australia, which is somewhat surprising, given that we are generally considered as a food-producing nation—yet, simultaneously, we continue to increase the amount of food that comes into Australia. Again, there's a reason for that—perhaps not a good reason, but there is a reason for that—and that is that most of our raw food is exported to overseas countries, the processing takes place in other countries and then the food is sent back to Australia. It's disappointing that the processing isn't done here in Australia, where in the past it was and where it should continue to be. It's disappointing not only because it affects our economy but also because, quite frankly, the processing standards that we apply in Australia are generally considered to be much better than the processing standards applied in many of the countries that those operations have been transferred to. Most of the food that comes into Australia now comes from New Zealand, the US, China, Thailand and Singapore. Indeed, if we look at the South-East Asian countries from which we import food, collectively, as a single source the highest amount of food is coming from those countries. Individually, those countries are still behind New Zealand, the USA and China, but the food that comes from them collectively adds up to as much as the food that comes in from any other country. And countries like Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia continue to grow as places where food is processed and then exported back to Australia. The concern about that happening is not just because of the processing in the facilities in those countries and the standards they apply, which I doubt very much would be on a par with the standards in Australia, but also because much of the food that comes into Australia is actually grown in those countries, again under conditions that would not be acceptable in Australia. If Australians were aware of some of the stories that I have been told about growing methods used overseas—in terms of the contamination of the land on which products are grown, the chemicals that are used and so on—they would probably not want to buy the food. But they are not aware, and so we rely on governments to ensure that, when food is imported, it does meet certain standards. That's why this legislation is important. At the very least, we rely on governments to ensure that we have laws in place which clearly identify where the food comes from so that consumers can then make their own choice based on where the food they wish to buy comes from and which particular food they wish to buy. And that's understandably so, because, only a couple of years ago we had the berry scare, which resulted in some 33 cases of hepatitis. It is interesting that, whilst the source of the contamination, where it came from, was, I believe, never formally confirmed, there was a belief or a perception that those berries came from a producer in China, and so the importer of those berries saw their profit drop from $16 million to $2 million almost overnight. This shows that Australian consumers want to know where their food comes from, and, if they have a concern, they will choose to buy their food from elsewhere. Rightly or wrongly, whether that supplier was responsible or not, consumers wanted to avoid whatever risks they thought they were facing if they bought their product from them. It's not just the berry issue that has come to light in recent years that has caused concern for consumers in Australia. There are other concerns that relate to the knowledge of where food comes from. When we look at the food that has been recalled in recent years—and I just want to go through some of the statistics with respect to this—in the decade between 2007 and 2017, there were 608 recalls of different foods across Australia. That's not 608 items; that's 608 particular types of foods, which you could multiply into tens of thousands of products. The breakdown of those recalls is as follows: undeclared allergens, 205 recalls; microbial contamination, 187 recalls; foreign matter in foods, 112 recalls; biotoxins, 36 recalls; chemical contamination, 26 recalls; and other recalls 25. Labelling recalls were made on only 17 occasions. The critical question is: how many of those recalls related to imported foods? That information is not made clear, but it would be interesting to know. I particularly make that point with respect to undeclared allergens in food or labelling not accurately telling you what's in the food because in 2013 a young 10-year-old boy died from drinking coconut milk. It had other milk in it that was not listed on the package. The boy was allergic to the other milk and died. There was another case, involving coconut oil, where a young person also suffered an allergic reaction. The reality is that we are talking about people's lives here and the risks they face when food is either contaminated or not properly labelled, and so the consumer doesn't know exactly what it is that they are consuming. The other matter relating to knowing where food comes from and the risks faced by Australian farmers is the infestation of Australian produce by overseas products that have not been properly grown. We saw that with the white spot disease and the devastation that it caused the Queensland prawn industry only a year or so ago. More recently, fruit fly has been found in Tasmania, and that, in turn, could ruin the livelihoods of Tasmanian farmers. Again, this means tens of thousands of dollars in losses to individuals and millions of dollars in losses to the local economy, and additional losses to the whole economy of people who rely on those particular producers. This occurs because, whilst the minister and the government come into the House and talk up the regulations that we have in place, the reality is that those regulations are not matched with the resourcing that is required to implement and carry out those regulations, to police them, because if they were, it would be very unlikely that the white spot in the prawn industry or the fruit fly in Tasmania would ever have occurred. They would have been found at the border. My understanding is that very few of the foods that are imported into Australia are, indeed, ever checked out and inspected by the authorities. I note that in the six months ending June 2014 there were some 44,648 tests of imported food undertaken as part of the inspection regime. The compliance rate was listed as 98.5 per cent, with 79 per cent of the noncompliance being due to breaches of labelling requirements. That might sound very encouraging, but the reality is that even 1½ per cent noncompliance for packaged foods that come by the millions each year into this country can still result in huge devastation either to an industry or to individuals if the food isn't up to standard. So I'm not comforted by those figures. Indeed, quite frankly, we need to do a lot better than that. I want to talk briefly to the amendment moved by the member for Hunter on behalf of Labor. It reads: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that a distracted Turnbull Government has failed to implement effective policies in a timely manner to ensure that Australian agriculture is achieving its full potential." That's the amendment that we will be moving in this place. I want to say in respect to that amendment two things. If you are a farmer—perhaps a cattle grower, sheep farmer, grain grower or even cotton farmer—then under this government you may get a look in. You may get some support. But if you're a farmer in South Australia or Tasmania, where the National Party have no representation, all you get is patronising lip service. We saw that not only with respect to the situation in Tasmania—and the member for Braddon quite properly articulated how this government has ignored the Tasmanian farmers—but also in South Australia a couple of years ago when there was serious flooding in the northern plains. The vegetable growers in that area received almost no support whatsoever. They received a visit from the Prime Minister, and that was about it. They were also devastated. They don't have farms that run into the thousands of acres, but they still have farms that turn over millions of dollars and, for many of them, their whole season's produce was destroyed. We see that if you're a fruit and vegetable grower or a horticultural grower somewhere else in Australia then you just get pushed to one side. We've seen that with the Shepparton growers in Victoria as well. So I say to this government: get real about your agricultural policy, because it seems to be targeted at one sector and one sector only, and it certainly is not targeted in support of all farmers across all of Australia. The last matter I want to touch on is the issue of free trade agreements. Members of government come into this place and laud their free trade agreement as though they are going to be the saviours of our farming industry. Yet the same members would know full well that from day one Australia has relied on our farming industry as one of our major sources of exports. In fact, the export of Australian farming products has occurred ever since Australia was established as a farming country and before any free trade agreements were in place. I've looked at some of the figures relating to China. I know many farmers at a very personal level. Most of them have been trading with China for a decade or two, and they didn't rely on free trade agreements to do so. The truth of the matter is that, in a global market, if you have a product that is in demand at the right price then you will have a market for it anywhere in the world. When you do away with tariffs, you have to consider that you are dealing with a product where the prices go up and down. It is the same with exchange rates. It is not tariffs that make the real difference to whether people can export overseas. 12:44 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I rise to speak in favour of the Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017 and on the amendment. It's great to have the minister in the chamber, as well as the member for Wide Bay, because there are some things he may be unaware of, and I think he should be aware of some of the wonderful things that are happening in agriculture, especially in my area. For a number of reasons, people have an intrinsic right to know where their food comes from. It was quite clear from a lot of research that had been done by the department that people thought that the labelling laws that we had were messy and confusing and, indeed, led to labels that weren't accurate. There are things that clear labelling does. I think the Australian people have a preference to buy homegrown food and to be very clear all about all the ingredients in products that they are buying and where they're from, because I think the intrinsic nature of Australian consumers is that they would always support a homegrown or local product above an imported product. I could—in fact, I'm going to—give you a number of examples, just from my region, of homegrown products and why they are fully supported by the locals, albeit sometimes at a higher price, because they know (1) that the product is clean and (2) that they are supporting the local economy and local people in buying them. Norco—you may well have heard of it, Deputy Speaker—is a dairy co-op in my region. They have a great name and produce great milk products, including ice cream. When you go into a local supermarket or store in my region, the Norco milks are always the first to go. They are not the cheapest, but again, because people are aware that it's a homegrown, local product—the labelling is pretty clear—that's what people are going to go for. We also have a local meat co-op, the Northern Co-operative Meat Company. Simon Stahl and the team there do a wonderful job. The products from those meatworks are very well supported in our region. We have a blueberry industry and a fishing industry, and we have much, much more. We have a lot of water too—which may interest the minister—to produce this great product. Blueberries are a very important industry, and I know that the minister is doing great work. We've just recently got blueberries onto the list to discuss the protocols for export so we can get blueberries into China, and we already have access to many markets. That industry on its own has turned around two regions in my electorate. One is Woolgoolga. Gurmesh Singh is the chair of the Oz Berries co-op there. It's a big industry employing many locals in the Woolgoolga region and, indeed, backpackers who travel through as well. Another company is run by Ridley Bell, in a huge blueberry-growing area that he's developed in the last few years out at Tabulam. I remember the first time I went to Tabulam after he'd set up and had the pickers there. Tabulam is, with all due respect, not a big place. I drove around. The cafe was packed. There were people everywhere. I thought: 'What's going on here? There must be a party on or something.' But it was just the industry that had been built there and the jobs that were there. There were a lot of young people, all working and helping the economy of Tabulam. I could go on and on, but I will be brief, because I'm very interested in hearing what the minister has to say about this. Again, the essence of this bill is that there was extensive community consultation done. The labelling laws in this country were unclear, and consumers in some ways were being misled. We are not banning imports. Obviously we're still very happy with the imports that we have. People are free to export to us as well. We had lots of consultation with the right bodies to make that clear to people who were exporting into our country. But the Australian consumer will benefit from this legislation and from the laws that we're passing as a government. The agricultural sector is crucial. We understand it. Agricultural prices have gone up since we've been in government—for a variety of reasons, not just because we're in government. We have developed a co-op centre of excellence in my region. We understand the magic of the co-op sector and that business model, and there are lots of exciting things happening there. It is a good bill, good for Australian consumers and good for the Australian agricultural sector. I commend the bill. 12:49 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the member for Page for an outstanding contribution. The Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017 is part of a series of legislative changes required to fully implement reforms to country-of-origin labelling that were introduced by the coalition government in July 2016. Australians want to support Australian farmers. Seventy-four per cent agreed it is important to be able to identify the country of origin of food, and 73 per cent agreed changes to country-of-origin labelling were required. We listened, acted and delivered on our election commitment. These reforms mean that shoppers will soon find it easier to buy Australian food, with new country-of-origin labelling standards set to become compulsory. These reforms address longstanding consumer confusion and frustration about country-of-origin claims on food products. The reforms give consumers clearer and more meaningful origin information to support their buying preferences. It means that shoppers can easily choose clean, green, Aussie produce and support Australian farmers. All we have to do is give them the information. Our labelling changes require a bar graph showing how much of the product is Australian. We've already seen big and small businesses using the labels, including SPC, Nestle, Bulla and Woolworths. The county-of-origin labelling system has been voluntary since it was introduced in mid-2016 but from 1 July this year it will become compulsory. For businesses yet to include the country-of-origin standards on its labels four months might seem like a long time but it will soon be upon us. The bill is needed because country-of-origin labelling will cease to be enforceable under the Imported Food Control Act 1992 on 1 July 2018. The bill will ensure that the new country-of-origin requirements under the new Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016 can be enforced under the Imported Food Control Act. They make it clear to importers that they are required to comply with the country-of-origin food labelling requirements. Imported products will continue to be required to be labelled with the country of origin—for example, 'product of Thailand' or 'made in Canada'—and would need to meet the new rules around 'made in' and 'packed in' claims. For priority foods, importers are required to make their country-of-origin claim in a box on the label, so it can be easily found by consumers. They are not allowed to use the kangaroo symbol, as the product is not of Australian origin. This means that authorised officers of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources can maintain legislative control to enforce country-of-origin labelling for imported food to the border. The bill makes sure that this change will not impact the compliance arrangements for country-of-origin labelling for imported food at the border. Country-of-origin labelling will continue to be enforced by the Department of Agricultural and Water Resources under the Imported Food Inspection Scheme. So, in effect, it will be business as usual at the border for country-of-origin labelling for food. I note the opposition's proposed second reading amendment, asserting that coalition government has failed to implement effectively policies to ensure Australian agriculture achieves its full potential. The assertion in this amendment could not be further from the truth. The coalition government is delivering for the hardworking men and women of Australia's farms and rural industries. We're investing in the future of agricultural by delivering on initiatives in the $4 billion Australian agricultural competitiveness white paper to help make our farm enterprises stronger and more resilient. We are creating the environment for improved prices for farm commodities, and the fruits of our labour is showing. Australia's total agricultural production was worth $63.4 billion in 2016-17, up 30 per cent since we came to office. The value of agricultural exports is up 27 per cent since we came to office, to nearly $49 billion. We have recently signed the comprehensive and progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership and have delivered free trade agreements with three key Asian markets, China, Japan and Korea. These agreements help open the door to export more produce. We have also signed the Peru FTA. This means a 99.4 per cent cut in agricultural tariffs to Peru. In terms of the two-way trade, this agreement is predicted to be worth $435 million. These arrangements are game changers for Australian farmers. They help open the door to export more of Australia's clean, green, quality produce. We continue to work to negotiate new and improved market access into our key markets. We have also worked hard to secure the immediate and progressive removal of tariffs and non-tariff related barriers for our beef, pork, sheep, dairy, sugar, cotton, wool and grains industries. We successfully passed legislation to establish the Regional Investment Corporation functions and governance arrangements through the parliament on 6 February 2018. It will deliver farm business loans to farmers in a nationally consistent and efficient manner. We have also expanded by biosecurity funding by over 29 per cent since Labor left office, including up to $200 million as part of the agricultural competitiveness white paper. By contrast, Labor have no vision or plan for agriculture and pretends to care for farmers, but all their actions the opposite. Only the coalition delivers for jobs in regional Australia, and this includes delivering on country-of-origin labelling. For many years, Australians have been demanding changes to origin claims on food labels, wanting them to be clearer, more meaningful and accurate. The coalition government has listened and delivered. I look forward to more business providing greater transparency about where food was made or packed and how much was made or packed. More Australians buying more Australian goods because of the country-of-origin requirements will mean more investment and jobs in Australia. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view of substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 9

Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018

Second Reading 9 12:55 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner 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 calls upon the Government to demonstrate it is completely committed to clamping down on phoenix activity by introducing legislation for a Directors Identification Number". This bill deals with five relatively uncontroversial matters: an issue on regulatory reform allowing the tax commissioner to pay certain superannuation amounts to individuals with a terminal medical condition, extending tax relief for merging super funds, increasing the APRA levy to cover funding for SuperStream gateway governance, transferring responsibility for the early release of superannuation from the Department of Human Services to the Australian Taxation Office, and payment of GST on taxable supplies of certain real property. I will restrict my comments on this bill to two schedules: schedule 3 and schedule 5. Schedule 3 will amend the APRA Act to enable the government to recover the ongoing cost of the governance of the superannuation transaction network, SuperStream, from the supervisory levy. It was Labor that first introduced SuperStream, following on from the 2010 Cooper review. SuperStream transmits money and information consistently across the superannuation system between employers, funds, service providers and the Australian Taxation Office. Before it existed, many transactions were processed manually, and the cost could be $5 or $10 a transaction. Nowadays, over 80 million transactions a year are processed in a standardised digital form, connecting around 800,000 employers, 200 APRA regulated funds and 350,000 self-managed superannuation funds. SuperStream allows employers to make all their contributions in a single electronic transaction, including to multiple superannuation funds. It allows contributions and rollovers to be processed faster, more efficiently and with fewer errors, and it allows people to be more reliably linked to superannuation, reducing lost superannuation accounts and unclaimed money. The review conducted last year into SuperStream found that it had led to lower costs, ease of operation in the superannuation system and increased retirement savings. Members could now complete a rollover in three days, compared to an average of 45 to 60 days previously. There is greater ease in rolling over and consolidating member accounts, as account consolidations can now be performed online within minutes. There'd been a reduction in unnecessary accounts and a recovery of lost and unclaimed moneys, leading to a reduction in lost member accounts of around 90 per cent over the last six years, representing around five million accounts recovered. There have been stronger protections for members' retirement savings through reduced fees from consolidations and faster allocation of members' money into their account. It improved the employers' experience, saving around $400 million in ongoing efficiencies by simplifying the sending of communications. It improved a superannuation fund's experience through widespread automation—automation rates are now over 85 per cent in contributions and rollovers—and improved the quality of key data holdings and the simplification of data transfer between employers and the funds. These efficiencies have been estimated at about $400 million a year for employers, as I said, and another $400 million a year for funds, and the savings for members are at around $2.4 billion per annum. I acknowledge the work of the Australian Taxation Office and industry on the introduction of SuperStream and the benefits that it has brought to the community. I turn now to schedule 5, which deals with phoenixing in development projects by amending the Taxation Administration Act 1953, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the GST act to require purchasers of new residential premises and new subdivisions of potential residential land to make a payment of part of the purchase price to the Australian Taxation Office. Currently supplies of new residential premises are generally subject to GST, and the supplier remits the GST to the ATO in the next BAS. This can be up to three months after settlement. The withholding tax being collected in this manner fits with existing conveyancing processes. One of the main forms of noncompliance with these obligations involves developers selling properties for a purchase price that reflects the GST obligations but then dissolving their businesses before the next BAS lodgement to avoid remitting the GST. This is, of course, a form of phoenixing. Phoenixing to avoid paying GST has grown significantly over the last decade. As at November 2017, the Australian Taxation Office had identified 3,731 individuals actively involved in this activity over the last five years. These individuals controlled over 12,000 insolvent entities responsible for $1.8 billion in debt that has been written off. These insolvent entities also claimed $1.2 billion of input tax credits between 2013 and 2017. The cost of phoenixing was estimated in 2012 at $3.2 billion annually. This is probably an underestimate. The government has received updated costs of phoenixing as at 2015 but is yet to publicly release them. As the second reading amendment makes clear, the government has been lax in its action on phoenix activity more generally. The member for Gorton and I announced in May last year that Labor would crack down on dodgy directors through putting in place, among other things, a director identification number. Despite the government announcing that it would introduce a director identification number, we are yet to see the government take action. We have had a suite of organisations from across the political spectrum calling on this government to act urgently on a director identification number. When the Australian Institute of Company Directors, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, the Productivity Commission, the Tax Justice Network, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Master Builders Australia, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Restructuring and Turnaround Association, the Australian Institute of Credit Management and the Phoenix Project from the University of Melbourne's law school and Monash University's business school call upon the government to introduce a director identification number, you've got to wonder when they are finally going to act. Australia needs action on phoenixing, not announcements. We need a government which is willing to step forward and put in place a director identification number. If the Turnbull government had acted on director identification numbers when we called on them to do so in May last year, they would be law already; and phoenix directors would no longer be engaged in the dodgy activity of burning their firms and hurting workers, taxpayers and honest small businesses. Cracking down on phoenixing is a pro small business measure because it is honest small businesses that are worst hurt. The estimates are that the cost of phoenixing puts the largest cost on honest businesses—those who supply the phoenix firms and don't get paid when the dodgy directors burn their companies. While we support the government's measures on phoenixing by developers to avoid GST, we urge them to go further and crack down on phoenix inactivity, as the Australian community demands, and reduce the cost of this to the community and the heartache that it imposes on workers, taxpayers and honest businesses. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the amendment seconded? Mr Brendan O'Connor 00AN3 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 13:04 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I am speaking in support of the amendment moved by the member for Fenner. I want to make some brief comments in respect of two elements of this bill that have been dealt with by the member for Fenner—most notably, the reforms relating to the phoenixing of companies and super stream changes as well. Schedule 5 of this bill highlights once again the dithering on regulatory reforms by the Turnbull government that are costing our economy billions of dollars. This hands-off approach to tackling what is basically plain daylight theft—also known as phoenixing—means that workers are losing entitlements, losing redundancies and losing superannuation. Why is this occurring? It's because the Turnbull government isn't interested in being tough on corporate scammers and going after dodgy directors. Instead, it's being distracted by cooking up a scheme to give big corporate business a tax cut, rather than seeking to stop some of these outrageous activities. Schedule 5 of this bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act and the GST Act to require purchasers of new residential premises and new subdivisions of potential residential land to make a payment of part of the purchase price to the ATO. Currently, suppliers of new residential premise are generally subject to GST and the supplier remits the GST to the ATO in their next business activity statement. This can be up to three months after settlement. The withholding tax being collected in the manner proposed fits with existing conveyancing practices and is a simple and well-understood mechanism. However, one of the main forms of non-compliance with these obligations—indeed, in some respects it's a scam—involves developers selling properties for a purchase price that reflects their GST obligations, but then dissolving their businesses before their next BAS lodgement and thus avoiding remitting the GST. It's a form of phoenixing and it's robbing Australian taxpayers of important revenue. Phoenixing to avoid paying GST has grown significantly over the last decade. As of November 2017, the ATO has identified 3,731 individuals who have actively engaged in this activity over the last five years. These individuals controlled over 12,000 insolvent entities responsible for $1.8 billion in debt that's been written off. The insolvent entities also claimed $1.2 billion in their input tax credits between 2013 and 2017. The last publicly available phoenixing figures, which were from 2012, estimated that this practice cost between $1.8 billion and $3.2 billion annually. The accompanying estimates on the form of tax avoidance by phoenixing targeted in this bill indicate that it's up to one-fifth of all phoenix activity, or that the cost of phoenixing is underestimated. It was only in September 2017 that the Turnbull announced it was taking action on phoenixing activity, including that it would finally introduce a director activity number to take action on illegal phoenixing activity. Because of the slow-coach nature of the Turnbull government on implementing this reform, directors have been able to continue scamming honest businesses, employees and taxpayers. Phoenixing has already cost our economy too much, while workers have lost entitlements, lost redundancy, lost superannuation and lost other benefits. Enough is enough. The Turnbull government hasn't clarified whether acquiring a director identification number will require a 100-point identity check, a fundamental aspect of the proposal that was announced by Labor in May last year. The Turnbull government keeps missing deadlines on the register of beneficial ownership, something they're yet to commit to publicly, and questions remain over the public release of updated modelling of the costs that dodgy directors impose through phoenix activity. The Turnbull government is continuing to use figures from five years ago, despite receiving updated costs in 2015. The 2012 estimate put the cost of phoenixing activity at $3 billion a year. No doubt it's risen since then. Labor's been calling for the introduction of director identification numbers since May last year. For the sake of Australian taxpayers, workers and honest businesses, the Turnbull government must implement a director identification number. I want to turn now to looking at some of the other measures in this bill. Most notable is schedule 3, which will amend the APRA Act to enable the government to recover the ongoing costs of the governance of the Superannuation Transaction Network, or SuperStream, from the superannuation supervisory levy. SuperStream is the network that transfers superannuation payments and messages for superannuation contributions and rollovers. It facilitates connections amongst approximately 800,000 employees, 200 APRA regulated funds and over 350,000 self-managed superannuation funds. Before SuperStream, many of these transactions were still processed manually, with an estimated cost of between $5 and $10 per transaction. Today, though, through SuperStream, over 80 million transactions per year are processed in a standard digitalised form. It's important to note that the SuperStream reforms were commenced by the previous Labor government and established this gateway network governance body. They, of course, followed the review that was conducted into the superannuation system in 2010 by Cooper. Last year, the review of SuperStream found that it had led to lower costs, ease of operation in the super system and increased retirement savings. It's estimated that the released efficiencies from SuperStream are approximately $80 million over a year. More significantly, it's estimated savings for members from their investments to be $2.4 billion per year. So the introduction of SuperStream has been a significant project, and it's important to acknowledge the work of the ATO and the industry in implementing this reform. This bill will amend the APRA Act to allow ongoing costs of the gateway governance body to be funded by APRA through a levy and for these funds to be retained to consolidated revenue. There are some other changes contained in this bill that I won't go into, but once again I support the amendment moved by the member for Fenner and commend the bill to the House. 13:11 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins Firstly I'd like to thank those members who've contributed to this debate. Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 forms part of the government's ongoing regulatory reform agenda by making a number of regulatory improvements to Treasury portfolio laws. The schedule continues the government's focus on renewing our existing regulatory systems to ensure that they remain fit for purpose, flexible and capable of adapting to new business models as and when they emerge. It will reduce compliance costs for both individuals and business. Schedule 2 to this bill extends tax relief for merging superannuation funds. This measure is important for the efficiency of the superannuation system and to protect members' balances when mergers take place. Schedule 3 to this bill enables the government to provide ongoing funding on a cost recovery basis for the governance and maintenance of the superannuation transaction network through the existing superannuation supervisory levy. Schedule 4 to this bill transfers the regulator role for early release of superannuation benefits on compassionate grounds from the Chief Executive Medicare, Department of Human Services, to the Commissioner of Taxation, Australian Taxation Office. Schedule 5 to this bill tackles tax evasion by companies that phoenix. It delivers on the 2017-18 budget commitment to address GST integrity in the property development sector. The measure has a start date of 1 July 2018. Schedule 5 to this bill protects GST revenue by making purchasers of new residential premises or new residential subdivisions remit the GST on the purchase price directly to the ATO as part of the settlement process. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Fenner be agreed to. A division is required. In accordance with standing order 133, the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. Debate adjourned. BILLS 12 BILLS Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017 12

Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017

Second Reading 12 13:14 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I rise to speak on the Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017. I want to say from the outset that Labor will support this bill. I welcome the news that the government has followed Labor's lead and is now finally taking some steps to protect vulnerable workers in this country. This legislation was first introduced in the House on Wednesday, 16 August 2017, and we are only debating this bill now. This goes to show the poor priorities of this government. Since this bill was introduced, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection has become the Department of Home Affairs. The Prime Minister upgraded the immigration minister's title to keep the minister satisfied and the Prime Minister in his job. The immigration turned home affairs minister has punted his skilled migration responsibilities to the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, and we now have a brand new Deputy Prime Minister. It goes to show that all of this has happened since the government introduced this legislation in the House back in August 2017. So much for the priorities of this government with respect to protecting vulnerable workers. While the government have been fighting amongst themselves Labor has been getting on with the job and fighting for Australians. Ensuring the integrity of Australia's skilled migration program is essential to all workers. The bill will enable the Department of Home Affairs to collect tax file numbers, which will help streamline targeted and effective compliance activities. This means the department will be able to check that employers are paying their workers correctly and that visa holders are complying with the conditions of the visa. The bill will ensure the department can publicly name businesses that breach their sponsorship obligations. This means people looking for work will be better informed about the businesses they're potentially going to work for. There are unfortunately unscrupulous bosses in Australia who take advantage of vulnerable workers, often temporary or overseas workers, and exploit them. We have seen report after report confirming this in the public domain. These abhorrent and disgusting acts not only exploit the most vulnerable workers in Australia, but they're also to the detriment of the pay and conditions of all Australian workers. This bill is a step in the right direction, but only a step. The Turnbull government has a long, long way to go to ensure the integrity of Australia's skilled migration program. This includes ensuring locals get the first shot at local jobs and genuinely protecting vulnerable workers, including migrant workers. The bill before the House amends a number of pieces of legislation to support the integrity of the temporary and permanent employer sponsored skilled visa systems and programs, including the Migration Act, the Income Tax Assessment Act and the Taxation Administration Act. The Department of Home Affairs monitors sponsors of overseas workers to ensure they comply with their obligations under migration legislation and regulations. There are currently difficulties verifying that sponsors are paying visa holders correctly or simply checking if a visa holder is working for more than one employer. The bill will enable the department to collect, record, store and use the unique tax file numbers of applicants and holders of specified visas. It will aid in more streamlined, targeted and effective compliance activities, assessing the work undertaken in Australia for some permanent sponsored skilled visa applications and for research purposes. There's a new subsection which allows the secretary of the department to request the tax file number of a person who is an applicant for a visa or former holder of a visa as prescribed by the regulations. The regulation made for the purpose of the subsection will be subject to disallowance by either house of parliament, ensuring that there is parliamentary scrutiny over the kinds of visas that are prescribed for the purposes of this legislation. I welcome the guarantee of parliamentary scrutiny, something that the immigration minister seems to avoid at every opportunity in legislation that we have debated in this chamber. The bill will amend divisions and parts of the Migration Act to expressly permit the minister to disclose information regarding sponsored sanctions to the public. This will authorise the department to publicly disclose details of businesses once a sanction has been imposed. Currently the department is only able to release limited information to the public regarding breaches of sponsorship obligations and is unable to advise informants of the outcome of their complaints. I also note that the bill fixes up four incorrect references to sections of the Regulatory Powers Act. I always welcome the Turnbull government taking the time to clean up many of their sloppy mistakes and poor legislative drafting errors. Labor invariably refers all amendments of the Migration Act to a Senate inquiry for further scrutiny. The Migration Act is complex, and given the government's poor track record when it comes to consultation, any amendments warrant further consultation and investigation. Labor referred the bill to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for a Senate inquiry. The committee received two submissions, one from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, as it then was, and one from the Law Council of Australia. I want to thank the Law Council of Australia for the integral and important work they do in ensuring that legislation introduced into the House and the Senate has no unintended consequences. The chair's report into the bill was received on 17 October 2017 and, again, there was no debate on this particular piece of legislation until today. Two recommendations: there was a minor mistake, according to the committee, and it recommended some amendments; but the substantial point simply was that the committee recommended the bill be passed—and Labor agrees. Regrettably, some of the most exploited workers in Australia are migrant workers. It is no secret that, within Australia, there are employers who deliberately and systematically deny Australian and migrant workers their rights, freedoms and a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. We hear stories about exploitation or abuses of workers on a far too regular basis. Whether I've been in Rockhampton or in Bendigo with the member for Bendigo or in Perth, as I was last week, I hear stories from unions, representatives of workers, migrants and Australians on the exploitation they're receiving at the hands of unscrupulous employers. The Senate Education and Employment References Committee tabled a report in March 2016 entitled A national disgrace: the exploitation of temporary work visa holders, which details shocking instances of vulnerable, exploitative conditions faced by visa holders. A few weeks ago, the Fair Work Ombudsman handed down its report into the underpayment of contract cleaners in the Tasmanian supermarkets. The report revealed: … rates of pay being offered by sub-contractors to supermarket cleaners were in some cases up to $26 below the applicable hourly rate. As part of the report, a number of temporary visa holders were observed to have worked 'off the books' and were paid in cash, undertaking more hours of work than their visas permitted. The Fair Work Ombudsman stated: This may be initiated by the employee because they perceive that this suits them or by the employer requiring the employee to do so. This example shows how the exploitation of vulnerable workers and the undercutting of pay and conditions of local workers is tied. These are not mutually exclusive concerns. Under the Turnbull government, we're headed towards an easy-to-hire, easy-to-fire society, which is distorting job security and income distribution. In the absence of leadership from this out-of-touch government, Labor will continue to lead the way to stamp out underpayment and exploitation. One of the most high profile and devastating cases of worker exploitation in recent times is the case of the systemic underpayment of the 7-Eleven workers across the country. I have previously detailed in this place the shocking pay and conditions that many temporary overseas workers received across hundreds of stores. Whilst attempting to make legitimate complaints about the number of hours he was working compared to the pay he was receiving, one 7-Eleven employee said: The sad thing is nobody was listening, not even 7-Eleven. We gave our souls to the stores. We worked like slaves and no-one cared. 7-Eleven didn't care. Following the ABC and Fairfax exposing the exploitation occurring at 7-Eleven, many other franchises were exposed in similar fashion, including Domino's, Caltex and Pizza Hut, as well as the Retail Flood Group including Donut King, Gloria Jeans, Brumby's and Crust Gourmet Pizza. In December, the chairman of 7-Eleven said that he was not confident the issue had 'gone away completely' and warned of an 'epidemic of underpayment' to foreign workers across the franchise sector. Last financial year, 49 per cent of litigations the Fair Work Ombudsman filed in court involved a visa holder, and more than a third of those involved an international student. According to the Fair Work Ombudsman, there are more than 560,000 international students in Australia and research shows that 60 per cent believed raising a workplace issue with an employer would only make the issue worse. International students in Australia have been forced to work for free under fake training schemes or been forced to work for low wages with bosses using the threat of deportation as a form of intimidation. It's a disgrace. I welcome the national crackdown by the Fair Work Ombudsman launched in September last year amid fears that thousands of international students were being exploited. It goes without saying that a crackdown on unscrupulous bosses from the ombudsman isn't enough. We need to do more in this place to pass legislation that adequately protects temporary workers. The appalling and endemic wage theft that is ripping off migrant workers in Australia further exposes the Prime Minister's failure to protect vulnerable workers. The report Wage theft in Australia followed the national temporary migrant work survey undertaken by the University of New South Wales Sydney and UTS. This was an online survey of 4,322 people who had worked in Australia on a temporary visa. Nearly 30 per cent of migrant workers surveyed were paid $12 an hour or less—well below the minimum wage. Nearly half—49 per cent—were paid $15 an hour or less. Half of those surveyed reported that they never, ever received pay slips. This is not only bad for migrant workers but signals a race to the bottom for Australian workers under the coalition government. The report found that the worst paid jobs were in fruit and vegetable picking and farm work. It uncovered that almost one in seven participants in this sector earned $5 per hour or less, and nearly one-third—31 per cent—earned $10 an hour or less. Recently, as I said, with the member for Bendigo I met with the NUW in Bendigo. I have met migrant workers across the country. I have met union representatives from Brisbane across to Perth and in the southern states as well. It is tragic to hear firsthand the personal stories of wage theft and exploitation. There have been stories out of Bundaberg, in my home state of Queensland, about how backpackers have been forced to line up at soup kitchens to get a meal after being short-changed by labour hire companies. Working holiday makers are often locked into overpriced accommodation and then forced into paying off their accumulated and unfair debt. We're talking about taking up accommodation and accumulating debt weeks before the picking season—and their subsequent pay—is even due to begin. More seriously, there have been claims of psychological and sexual exploitation, as well as tragic deaths. These unfair, unlawful and unjust practices witnessed have no place in Australia's workplaces. This is not good enough. The Turnbull government must do much more to benefit all workers than this piece of legislation we have in the House today. These stories aren't meant to taint Australia's agricultural industry as a whole but to highlight the need to provide vulnerable workers with sufficient protection and to give them the opportunities that all Australians deserve. I urge the government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the provisions of this bill before the House are taken up, and more so—to protect all temporary workers. The explanatory memorandum for the bill states that the amendments will 'implement measures to strengthen the integrity of Australia's temporary and permanent employer sponsored skilled migration programs'. In response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, the immigration minister stated: The collection, use, recording and disclosure of tax file numbers will be prescribed in the Regulations. It is intended that the regulations will allow tax file number sharing in relation to a narrow list of subclasses, that is limited to temporary and permanent skilled visas, for research and compliance purposes. This includes identifying and preventing exploitation. The types of visas the provisions of this bill will apply to will be prescribed by regulations. The minister has said that only temporary and permanent sponsored skilled visas will be included. This means the immigration minister isn't intending for this bill to cover other overseas workers, such as those on working holiday visa subclasses 417 and 462. The government is setting up its own loophole to get around. That's why this legislation is simply not good enough. We'll support it but so much more needs to be done. I implore the government, the minister and the secretary to reconsider their limitation of the scope of any regulation and who will be covered. The horrible examples of exploitation continue across many visas. He needs to reconsider his plans in relation to this. By his own admission, the minister is effectively creating a loophole for this exploitation to continue, and that's not counting the 2,000 seasonal workers from Pacific islands. The government announced this program in September last year. It allows people from Pacific islands, our neighbours, to learn skills that they will eventually be able to apply in their own country. We note that this is an expansion of the seasonal worker program first introduced by the Labor government; however, the expanded program cannot be an opportunity for migrants to be exploited by shameless employers, even if the minister and the secretary won't list the relevant visa subclasses in regulation. It's time for the government to do much more—to stamp out the gross underpayment of wages, the doctoring of pay records to conceal unlawful conduct, and the physical, sexual and psychological intimidation that workers are subjected to. When will the government do more? They need to do much better than this legislation. We'll support it, but they need to do much more. I've got great concerns that the government are going to sit on their hands and do nothing. We will support the legislation before the chamber today, but how about improvements and more legislation? Stop being so tardy about these matters. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Oaky North Coalmine 15 13:30 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Labor welcomes the news today that the Oaky North coalminers lockout has ended. However, I would like to highlight reports exposing the hypocrisy of many members of the LNP in Central Queensland. Let's just recap on their hypocrisy. These country miners have been to this place twice, and it wasn't until the second time that they came that their MPs even bothered to meet with them. They wouldn't even meet with them in their own electorates when they turned up. Today we have them turning around and saying that they support the CFMEU, but let's not forget what they said in this place less than six months ago—in fact, the entire time that they have sat here. These members of parliament, these representatives, and their senior ministers have continued to attack the workers subject to the lockout. They have displayed in this place vile and, frankly, shocking behaviour. They have attacked the CFMEU, saying that they own the opposition. They have attacked members on this side who stood up to defend hardworking Australians who were locked out by their employer. And what have we seen today? Two hundred days after the lockout, we've seen these MPs, desperate to hold their own seats, thanking the CFMEU and thanking the workers for raising this issue. Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras 16 13:31 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney This weekend central Sydney will become a riot of colour and glitter as hundreds of thousands of people come together for the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. This year there will be much to celebrate. It will be the first since marriage equality became law and, just as importantly, it will be the 40th anniversary of the Mardi Gras. Mardi Gras began on 24 June 1978, to coincide with the anniversary of the Stonewall riots in New York. The march, though given a legal permit, was broken up by the police, who arrested 53 people. How our society has changed is reflected in the role of the New South Wales Police Force. Forty years ago they reacted to Mardi Gras with brutality; today the New South Wales Police proudly march in the parade in uniform. From these beginnings, the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras has become one of the largest gay pride events in the world and is New South Wales' second largest event. It has been estimated that it is worth more than $30 million to the New South Wales economy, as visitors flock to Sydney from around the world. Forty years ago, the 78ers, as they became known, marched for tolerance and equality before the law, regardless of sexuality. The success of Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras is a testament to their efforts and the determination of the LGBTI community and to all Australians who have demonstrated a sense of inclusion rather than exclusion. I congratulate everyone involved in the 2018 Mardi Gras and pay tribute to those who began it all, the 78ers. Happy Mardi Gras! Temporary Sponsored Parent Visas 16 13:33 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen I rise again to discuss an important issue to many people living in my electorate, particularly in Craigieburn and the growing suburbs around Mickleham and Donnybrook. It is an issue that also impacts thousands of families right across Australia. These people know that the Turnbull government has broken a key migration promise—namely, with regard to introducing new temporary sponsored parent visas. Committed at the election, this measure was introduced as part of the 2017 budget but is yet to come into effect. At the last election, the Liberals followed Labor's policy and promised to introduce a new temporary parent visa. A large number of my constituents wish to be temporarily reunited with their parents who live overseas, especially if there are grandchildren who may not have had the chance to meet their grandparents. The government promised before the election that children would have to pay a bond for those important visas. But, alas, after the election, as we have come to expect, the government announced a non-refundable fee of $20,000 if families choose a 10-year option. This inept Turnbull government said one thing before the election and, once they won government—after misleading the Australian people—are doing something entirely different. A new cap of 15,000 visas per year was announced and they also announced that the new visa would be limited to one set of parents per household, forcing families to choose which parents they are able to reunite with. This is cruel and ridiculous. Our families deserve better than this dishonest government. (Time expired) Influenza Vaccine 16 13:34 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong Sadly, winter is just around the corner, and that means the flu season isn't far away either, so I'm very proud to report that one of the many innovative companies based in Bennelong, Sanofi, has created the high-dose vaccine which the government is providing free to those over 65—praise the Lord! What is incredible about this vaccine, aside from the government providing it free to millions of Australians over 65, is the protection it offers beyond influenza. Influenza is well established as a cause of primary and secondary pneumonia, but the Fluzone vaccine reduces influenza rates by as much as 39.8 per cent, as well as reducing associated complications like heart attack. This is an incredible result. The year 2017 was disastrous for the flu. Nearly 250,000 people had it, and 22 per cent of those were over aged 65—that's me again. Nearly 7,000 of those were still in the workforce, although at times they were not, so cumulatively they took approximately 20,000 days off work—a huge cost to the economy. Furthermore, across the community, 29,000 people were admitted to hospital. The costs associated with the 2017 flu were incredible and underline why we all must put more emphasis on prevention rather than cure. So thank you to Sanofi for creating this incredible vaccine and congratulations to the government for providing it free to those— (Time expired) Charities and Not-for-profits Commission 16 13:36 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Australians expect their Chief Scientist to support science, their Chief Medical Officer to support good health and their charities commission head to support charities. But it is not so under the Turnbull government. Under the Turnbull government we have seen attempts to shut down the Charities and Not-for-profits Commission in the first four of its six years of existence. When they couldn't get that legislation through parliament, they turned to the oldest trick in the book: if you can't demolish the house, send in the white ants. The appointment of a charity critic as head of the charities commission signals a new front in the government's war on charities. Australians overwhelmingly trust their charitable sector to give voice to their concerns on issues like the environment, Indigenous affairs and inequality. But the new ACNC commissioner, Gary Johns, has used his public role to denigrate existing charities. He has said: 'There is a great deal of impure altruism in the charity business'. He has criticised the Indigenous reconciliation charity Recognise. He has criticised beyondblue for their work in LGBT+ communities. He has criticised environmental charities for their advocacy for a better environment. He has said that anyone who is receiving welfare: … must have contraception. No contraception, no benefit. He has referred to poor women in Australia as 'cash cows'. Thousands of Australians have signed the petition calling on Gary Johns to step down as charities commissioner. I urge those who believe in a stronger charitable sector to get on board and sign the petition. (Time expired) Mount Waverley Bowling Club 17 13:37 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm Last week I was delighted to visit the Mount Waverley Bowling Club, a vibrant and active community sporting club for bowlers of all ages and walks of life in my electorate of Chisholm. The wonderful atmosphere on the day was abuzz with goodwill and a real sense of community. I popped in during the Steve Glasson tournament, a competition which draws bowlers from clubs across Melbourne and further afield. After addressing and welcoming members who were attending the tournament and on quite an impromptu basis, I was given a quick lesson—notwithstanding I was wearing high heels—under the superb direction of the team at Mount Waverley Bowling Club and had my first lawn bowls experience. My visit to the Mount Waverley Bowling Club further reinforced to me the important community-building role of local sporting clubs. Clubs such as this club would not provide the vibrant warmth and friendship, goodwill and community were it not for the members and the people who run the club. The extremely hardworking president, Richard Sluggett, vice president, Bruce Morley, and secretary, Jill Anderson, all do a fabulous job, and that was evident on the day tournament. Whether you're a life member of the club with decades of bowling experience or a U3A member trying out a new hobby for a term, sport and team activities promote mental and physical health and wellbeing, companionship and a sense of community, and it is just good fun. The Mount Waverley Bowling Club does all this and more. With a healthy social program, the Mount Waverley Bowling Club is a Chisholm sporting club championing community wellbeing and connection for local residents—the young and the young at heart. (Time expired) Murray-Darling Basin 17 13:39 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin When the former Leader of the National Party was handed responsibility for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, South Australians had good reason to be concerned that the plan would not be delivered as agreed to and that South Australians would lose out. Their concerns were well founded, with alleged water thefts and reductions in environmental water returns already causing grief. Disappointingly the new Leader of the National Party spells even more bad news for South Australians. This is a person who has never believed in the basin plan, who voted against it in 2012 and who has continued to talk it down in this place ever since. The new Deputy Prime Minister believes that South Australians are not entitled to any additional water and should be grateful for what they get. South Australian farmers simply don't matter to the Deputy Prime Minister, who does not have a single National Party member in South Australia. And, when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, where are the Liberals from South Australia? They have gone missing, criticising Labor's support for a disallowance motion that would have seen another 70 gigalitres of water that was meant to be returned to the Murray not returned. South Australian farmers use the least amount of water and were the first to invest in irrigation efficiency measures. They deserve better. Only a Labor government is committed to the basin plan. Mallee Electorate: Rail Infrastructure 17 13:41 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee Today, Tuesday, 27 February 2018, marks a terrific milestone. Today the first standard gauge freight train has left Merbein and headed towards Melbourne. The $240 million for this was first secured by the member for Gippsland when he was the infrastructure minister, and having standard freight rail from Mildura all the way to Melbourne is a fantastic milestone. But there's more to be done in rail in the electorate of Mallee. If there is one thing I can think of that will transform the Wimmera, it would be to get passenger rail from Horsham through Stawell all the way to Ararat, then to Ballarat and ultimately to Melbourne. The member for Gippsland when he was infrastructure minister had been working with the state government on funding for a business case, and we would like to see that business case funded. We asked the Victorian state government to see a vision for western Victoria, to have a business case, and then ultimately put the case for getting passenger rail. Passenger rail is important because it links people who are unwell to health services, it links the community. If you want to be rid of all that traffic in Melbourne, if you want to have a better lifestyle, if want to breathe the great fresh air and have a good passenger rail service, don't go to Gippsland; come where it is nice and warm, come to western Victoria. We look forward to fighting hard for this outcome for our people over the next few years. Mayo Electorate: The Cedars 18 13:42 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My electorate of Mayo was home to one of the most recognisable landscape artists in South Australia and indeed Australia—Sir Hans Heysen. Sir Hans was a man and an artist ahead of his time. He was an ardent conservationist, and he changed the way our nation depicted its environment. He made his home at The Cedars in Hahndorf, and this property was visited by many famous dignitaries, including ballerina Anna Pavlova. The property, including Sir Hans Heysen's art gallery, has recently been purchased from the Heysen family to keep this treasure in public ownership. Now the foundation behind this purchase has a new vision—a world-class art gallery to be called The Cedars. I've been involved with the foundation's campaign since my election in 2016. This could and should be our MONA. I'm pleased to announce that my state colleagues in SA-BEST have pledged $3 million towards the $14 million project. SA-BEST and NXT see this as an investment and a priority for South Australia and the Adelaide Hills. Now it's time for SA Labor and the SA Liberals to pledge their support. This is truly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and it needs both state and federal government support to get it off the ground. I'm very pleased to support that and look forward to other state parties doing their bit. McMillan Electorate: National Disability Insurance Scheme 18 13:44 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan I'm always entirely and emotionally disarmed when I meet with young mums and sometimes older mums who have disabled kids, and I'm honoured to represent them as the member for McMillan. At a meeting in Leongatha last week, when I was back in my electorate, they outlined the problems that they're having with the introduction of the NDIS, the change from where they were to where they are going and the difficulties. There was no angst, no anger; they just laid out the problems. It was meant to be a half-hour meeting; it went for 1½ hours. It is difficult, as all the members in this House would know, when you're not in a city-centric area where all the services are available to you but a region where the services are just not there. But we are moving forward. At the moment the hospital has come in as a provider. We are going to start working with the hospital and with other providers throughout Gippsland. But remember that in regional areas you can't just pop down the road to the service in the next town. It's an hour-and-a-half's drive. If someone drives their child to the service they don't get charged the hour to go, but if they have them drive over to give the service in their town they have to pay for the hour. There are huge difficulties, but we are working together. Thank you, mums from Leongatha. Kingsford Smith Electorate: St Anthony's Catholic Primary School 18 13:45 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Seventy-five years ago a young David Walker started school at St Anthony's Catholic Primary School on the hill in Clovelly. On Saturday, the now retired Bishop Walker proudly led a mass at St Anthony's to celebrate the school's 100th anniversary. He joined community members, former students, teachers, staff and of course current students to celebrate this truly historic milestone. St Anthony's school, part of the St Anthony of Padua parish in Clovelly, opened in January 1918 as both a primary and a secondary school with about 45 students and was run by the Sisters of St Joseph. In those days, the sisters used to walk from their convent at Bondi over the sand hills to undertake classes with the kids. Over the last century, the school has grown to close to 200 students. It has remained true to its core values of love and service. The school was last updated in 2011 with a Building the Education Revolution addition to the school that's been well loved by the school community. It is clear that the school's core values have helped make the school such an important part of the Clovelly community. I want to congratulate Georgia Walsh and Jack Mellick, the school captains, who led the school in celebrations on the weekend, the principal, Kim White, all of the staff for the wonderful job and all of the teachers and community member who have been involved in this important school over the last century. Wright Electorate: Beechmont State School 19 13:47 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright The new school year is now well and truly upon us. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all of my local students, both primary and secondary, in the electorate of Wright. It was my pleasure to recently attend the Beechmont State School leadership presentation ceremony and to congratulate personally the students on their success in being chosen to represent their wonderful school and fellow students. It was a very special day for the students, their families and the entire community that rolled out to support our new leaders. Congratulations to the students chosen as library monitors, rep assistants, instrumental captains, flag attendants, office assistants, peer mediators, tuckshop assistants, class assistants, house captains and student council members. I've no doubt that they will carry out their duties to the best of their abilities throughout the entire year. The Year 6 students affirmed their promise to always assist others both inside the schoolyard and outside the school, maintaining a positive attitude to try their best, to respect each other, to be role models and to motivate and inspire their fellow students by going above and beyond. The students at the Beechmont State School and all the schools in my electorate of Wright are capable of so many amazing things. The future will truly belong to them and, if they believe in their dreams, they have the potential to change the world. They have a very bright future ahead of them. I wish all the students of Wright the very, very best into the future. International Women's Day 19 13:48 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I would like to acknowledge in advance International Women's Day. This year's theme 'Press for progress' is a call for renewed effort at a point when some worldwide gains have begun to slip. In 2017 gender parity went backwards for the first time since the World Economic Forum began measuring it. Australia has fallen to 46th out of 144 countries in terms of the global gender gap, and the national pay gap has remained stuck around 15 per cent for the last 20 years. We know that women are more likely to be casual employees, are more likely to be made redundant and currently retire with less than half the superannuation of men. An estimated 39 per cent of single women retire into poverty. On the positive side, I welcome the initiatives taken by the WA Labor government that have been led by my friend and fellow Fremantle representative Simone McGurk, the first Minister for Women's Interests and Minister for Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence. The WA government has introduced 10 days of domestic violence leave for all public servants and is seeking to amend tenancy laws to allow the early termination of a lease in circumstances of domestic violence. Last year marked the first season of a national AFL league for women. When the Dockers played and won a game against Collingwood at the new Perth Stadium early this month they set a new record for attendance at a women's sporting event. I join with my community and I'm sure with all members in this place in looking forward to International Women's Day and in resolving to press for progress. It's an effort that does require policy and program action much more than platitudes. Illicit Drugs 19 13:50 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland All of us have been touched by the scourge of ice and other illicit substances and the impact they have had on our communities. I think the regional members of parliament, in particular, are well aware of the shortage of rehabilitation facilities and the lack of available beds when people are ready to seek help. Today I want to pay tribute to my community, the Bairnsdale and district community, and a couple, Peter and Margaret Down, who have worked to establish a community group and have developed a plan to build the Hope Restart Centre for rehabilitation in Bairnsdale. This is a grassroots community group, and they have made some major steps forward. They have secured land for the site and a planning permit, and now they have a building permit to get work underway to build a rehabilitation facility which would service not just East Gippsland, but the broader Gippsland region. I'm pleased to announce that the federal government has come on board with a $3 million commitment to the project. Now we are seeking at least matching funds from the state government and philanthropic sources. I understand my colleague Tim Bull, the member for Gippsland East, has been having discussions with the state minister responsible, along with some discussions with potential philanthropic organisations. I appeal to the state government and people interested in helping young people, in particular, get over their addiction to illicit substances to consider helping fund this grassroots community group in their efforts to develop a project which I think will make an enormous difference and will save lives in my community. Youth Partnership Project 19 13:51 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Research by Save the Children in Western Australia has found that one in four young people in detention are from Perth's south-eastern suburbs, predominantly the areas I represent in Burt. In recognition of this shocking statistic, the Youth Partnership Project was founded with the belief that children are not born bad, but rather into complex environments that can lead to significant behavioural problems. The Youth Partnership Project model provides an early targeted support for young people aged 10 to 12 with complex needs, by working with the WA police force and state government to identify young people who are at risk of going down a juvenile justice path. I'm a huge supporter of the Armadale Youth Intervention Partnership. It recognises that merely being tough on crime does little to remedy the causes of crime or reduce crime. Now a recent report of the Telethon Kids Institute has also shown that nine in 10 juvenile detainees have a severe neurodisability, and 36 per cent were found to have fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. In WA we spend $56 million on juvenile detention each year. Imagine if some of that money was invested into early intervention programs like AYIP or directed towards better education and prevention programs to teach families about the dangers of consuming alcohol while pregnant and FASD. We would probably be spending a lot less on corrective services, gaining a lot more from the people who we had helped and having less crime. Early intervention saves lives; it changes the story; it makes dollars and sense. Malaysia Singapore Association 20 13:53 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I take this opportunity to commend the Malaysia Singapore Association for their wonderful annual Lunar New Year dinner, which was held in my electorate in East Doncaster just last weekend. The Malaysia Singapore Association, as the name suggests, is an organisation of people who have emigrated from Malaysia and Singapore in particular, from Chinese, Indian and other Asian backgrounds. It's a very a vibrant organisation, which has a number of functions and brings people from those communities together on a number of occasions each year. The event at the Happy & Lucky Restaurant in East Doncaster was a very joyous occasion. Happy and lucky, of course, is a great description for the year of the dog. Everybody there was certainly very happy. Let's hope that in the year of the dog they will be very lucky as well. It was a great occasion, which Margie and I very much enjoyed, along with all other occasions of the Malaysian Singaporean Association. This is one of many groups in my electorate, which is one of the most multicultural, ethnically diverse electorates in Australia. It has many people from all parts of Asia and all over the world, including the old countries of Europe such as Italy and Greece, not to also mention the UK and others who have made Menzies their home over the past few decades. To all of those who were there and all others, I wish them a very happy Chinese New Year. Health Care 20 13:54 Mr HART 263070 Bass Tasmania's healthcare system is in crisis under an incompetent Liberal government. I know the pressure points within our public hospital system. In particular, I know just how difficult it is to address performance within our emergency departments and access to hospital—that is, public hospital—beds. The most recent performance data of our emergency departments nationwide make disturbing reading. On a state-by-state by basis, there is no improvement in emergency department wait times. Tasmanian ED waiting times are amongst the worst. More needs to be done to remove the pressure from our emergency departments, encouraging people to seek medical attention sooner through their GP. This is cost effective and sensible. The Turnbull government Liberal government promised to unfreeze the Medicare rebate to make easier for people to access their GPs, but what they have done is to delay the unfreezing of the Medicare rebate so that only some visits to a GP can be bulk-billed, if at all. The member for Dawson yesterday suggested that, if a person could not afford to see a GP, they should see a doctor at the emergency departments. These Liberal state and federal governments are simply out of touch. We should celebrate universal access to health care, but successive Liberal governments do everything they can to undermine Medicare. Only Labor—and in particular a Rebecca White Labor government in Tasmania and, of course, federal Labor—will properly resource health and protect Medicare. Oaky North Coalmine 20 13:56 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson It was very good news to hear this week that the Oaky North lockout has ended and workers can return to the job. I met with decent men from my electorate who were locked out by Glencore and just wanted to get back to work. I impressed this upon Glencore in several meetings, and my colleagues the member for Capricornia and the member for Flynn did the same. The minister for resources publicly called on the mining company to end their lockout, and the minister for workplace relations did the same in private meetings with that company. As a result, Glencore told the government they would not oppose a CFMEU application to Fair Work to end that lockout. No company should lock its workers out for even 50 days, let alone more than 200 days. The workers went on strike, but the response was not commensurate to that action, nor was it helpful to enterprise agreement negotiations. I will lobby the government as a backbencher to change the laws around these lockouts. Casualisation of the mining industry workforce played a role in this dispute. I say to all mining companies I am a strong supporter of coalmining, but you cannot continue to employ people, even via labour hire contractors, on a casual basis when in reality they are full-time workers. They need to stop this practice. Mining companies need to stop this practice, or government is going to stop it for them. Health Care 21 13:57 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons More than 2,000 people across Lyons are skipping GP visits because of rising costs. It now costs people in my electorate $35.44 every single time they visit the GP. That is the terrible truth that came out of Senate estimates yesterday. As for the number of people who are skipping visits with specialists, it's even worse: 3,625 people in Lyons are not attending important visits. And why? Because out-of-pocket costs for specialists are now $60.74 every single time. It might not be much in Point Piper, Prime Minister, but it's a cost that many people across my electorate can ill afford. These figures should make those opposite hang their heads in shame, especially those Nationals over there and those regional Liberals who represent regional electorates like mine, because the figures in my electorate are not out of the ordinary. They are not an aberration; they are business as usual for the health care under this wretched government, a government that refuses to address the rising cost of GP visits and refuses to stand up to private health insurance special interests, whose premiums skyrocket while services plummet. We can address these issues with the election of a Tasmanian Labor government headed by Rebecca White on 3 March. Let's put health care first and vote Labor. Dunkley Electorate 21 13:59 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley It was my pleasure last week to host both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health in Dunkley to discuss our job creation policies and our vision for the local area. The Prime Minister and I visited Bata Shoes in Mornington to discuss the impact of the coalition's pro-business jobs growth policies and the export opportunities we have created. Bata have recently gone from 50 to 73 employees and produce 450,000 boots per year—an example of the 1,100 jobs created in the economy every day under the Turnbull government. We also visited Frankston station to discuss with members of the public the importance of the electrification and duplication of Metro rail to Baxter. I was encouraged by the Prime Minister's support and I hope that we will soon see the $4 million federal funded business case for the project put out to tender by the state government, who are currently just sitting on the funds like they are with many other infrastructure projects across Victoria. On Friday, the Committee for Greater Frankston also hosted the Minister for Health to discuss the proposed health hub around Monash University Peninsula Campus and Frankston Hospital. We have fantastic health and wellbeing assets and many of Monash Peninsula's facilities are focused on health. Dunkley has the opportunity to become a centre for health education, and I look forward to continuing to work closely with the Minister for Health to see this project and federal funding for this project come to fruition. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Sexual Harassment 21 14:01 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. All members of parliament should agree that anyone who brings forward a sexual harassment complaint should be afforded confidentiality. Can the Prime Minister explain to the House the policy principles his government applies in protecting the confidentiality of people who bring forward sexual harassment complaints? Does the Prime Minister agree that no member of parliament should publicly disclose the identity of people who make confidential sexual harassment complaints? 14:01 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Of course I agree that complaints should be dealt with confidentially, and of course members of parliament who are privy to those complaints should not disclose the identity of the complainant. Now, if the honourable member wishes to make an allegation against any member of parliament, she should stand up and do so. Economy 21 14:02 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government's economic plan is creating jobs, supporting small and family businesses, and reducing the burden on families, including in my electorate of Brisbane? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:02 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. As the honourable member knows, and as his constituents in the electorate of Brisbane know, the government's economic plan is delivering: 403,000 jobs last year, the largest number of jobs created in our history; 16 consecutive months of jobs growth; 1,100 jobs a day last year. And we're delivering this because of our commitment to enterprise, to Australian business, to the incentives we've given to Australian family owned businesses, small and medium businesses, to invest, and when they invest you get more employment; you get more jobs. We know that the opposition does not have a single policy to create one job. What we do know— An opposition member interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 I hear a note of dissent. We'd love to know what it is. They shouldn't keep it a secret; they should let us know what their plan is to create jobs, because they haven't shared it with anybody else. The Leader of the Opposition wants to increase taxes on the very businesses that employ the majority of Australians in the private sector—that is, business where we have reduced taxes, businesses with turnovers up to $50 million a year. These are not huge corporate giants; these are not massive multinationals. These are overwhelmingly small and medium Australian family owned businesses. They employ most of the private sector workforce. The Leader of the Opposition wants to put the tax up on those companies and those businesses. And we know what will happen—they'll invest less and they'll employ less. He has a plan for higher taxes—$165 billion—and we know that that will have the effect of reducing investment and employment. But it goes further than that. We have now seen him exposed doing the bidding of the CFMEU. In October last year, he told striking CFMEU workers that Australia's industrial relation laws were—and I use his term—'like a cancer'. That is a remarkable description given that these laws—the Fair Work Commission, in particular, and the Fair Work Act—were introduced by Labor. What did he say about the Fair Work Commission at the time, in December 2008? He said: This legislation aims to create workplaces where our children will do better, not worse, than we used to and in which prosperity expands and embraces us all. Now he calls it a cancer. Speaking of children, he does this at the behest and in the presence of people who attacked workers, who are going to work— (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 22 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:06 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon another Speaker—the Hon. Colin Brooks, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Victoria. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Broadband 22 14:06 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. What is the average download speed for household connections on the Prime Minister's copper NBN? 14:06 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I can tell the honourable member that the vast majority of customers on the NBN, regardless of technology, buy products with speed tiers of 25 megabits per second or less. I can say to the honourable member that the rollout of the NBN, which is going at a pace never seen before in telecommunications history in Australia, is delivering years sooner, six to eight years sooner, and at tens of billions of dollars less. We're getting on with an NBN. We are activating more premises in a month than the Labor Party did in six years. The Labor Party can't manage an economy, they can't manage a business and they certainly can't manage the construction of a giant project like the NBN. Taxation 22 14:07 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer update the House on how the budget is delivering on the government's plan to reduce taxes on our economy? Is he aware of any alternative approaches and the implications of those approaches? 14:08 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Mackellar for his question. Ms Butler interjecting — The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith will cease interjecting. She is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L The budget has now been consistently projected to return to balance in 2020-21 over five consecutive statements over the last two years. The tax cuts that are included in that budget have already been delivered for businesses with a turnover up to $50 million. The extension of those tax cuts to all businesses in the economy in that budget is being done to drive the growth in jobs in our economy that we are seeing. More than 1,100 jobs were created every single day last year, some 403,100 jobs. On this side of the House, the Liberal and National parties are the parties of jobs and the parties of growth. The coalition's economic plan is being implemented. It is working. We are getting on with it, and there's more to come. There is more to come on the coalition's economic plan to drive growth. There's a different approach that comes from those in the Labor Party. We learnt yesterday that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is as good at economics as she is on geography. Normally that wouldn't be such a problem, but we read today that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition 's left faction is the one now calling the tune and dictating the terms on economic policy in the Labor Party. That's what's happening. Paul Keating and Bob Hawke would never have stood for that. They would never have sat there and been dictated to by the Left on economic policy. But this Leader of the Opposition and this shadow Treasurer have been forced out there to recant all the things they used to believe. The Leader of the Opposition today is worried that perhaps we might be following 'Trumponomics', as he refers to it. Well, he is giving his shadow Treasurer very little credit—because in that great tome Hearts & Minds, which I have had on loan from the Library for some months— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer knows the rules on props. Mr MORRISON E3L and no-one else has come to borrow it, I assure you—no-one on that side— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Treasurer knows the rule on props; he has a shocking history with them; he will return to the dispatch box without it. Mr MORRISON E3L Thank you, Mr Speaker. What the Leader of the Opposition forgets is that, in that book, the shadow Treasurer said: 'Reducing company taxes promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth.' Perhaps President Trump read the shadow Treasurer's book! He should be claiming more credit for these things. Perhaps others should read it. Perhaps the shadow Treasurer should read it again—because he has walked away from every conviction and belief he once held on the Australian economy. He is sitting there while the Labor Party runs off to the 'almond latte Left'. They are taking their dictation from the left wing of the Labor Party; and, when they are not doing that, they are taking their instructions from union thugs, seeking their praises. National Broadband Network 23 14:11 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway My question is to the Prime Minister. Last night at Senate estimates the Prime Minister's Department confirmed that he has a 100 megabits per second NBN connection at his Point Piper mansion. Why does the Prime Minister get a 100 megabits NBN connection to his Point Piper mansion when three-quarters of premises on his copper NBN can't get that speed? Why is it always one rule for this born-to-rule Prime Minister and another rule for Australians? 14:12 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth There are 1.4 million premises in Australia which are able to get an NBN service on the hybrid fibre coax network built by Telstra and taken over by the NBN, and 411,000 of them are active. I would remind members opposite that in Avondale Heights, in the Leader of the Opposition's electorate, there are more than 2,000 premises connected to the NBN on the HFC. In the electorate of Watson there are 2,000 premises connected and in the electorate of McMahon there are 4,000 connected. All of those premises connected to HFC are able to get a 100 megabit per second product from the NBN. In fact, if they were on the Telstra network, they should have been able to get a 100 megabit per second product before the NBN took over the network. The reality is that 7.2 million homes and businesses are in areas where the NBN has been switched on. There are over 3½ million premises currently connected. By 2020, Australia will be the first country of our size to make broadband access universal. As I said in my earlier answer, we are connecting more premises a month than Labor did in six years. In fact, there were over 59,000 new active services in the past fortnight alone, compared to 51,000 in total under Labor. We know what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do. He is trying to run his politics of envy, his faux class war. Anyone who wants to know what a fake he is as a class warrior only has to watch the video of his address to the CFMEU workers at Oaky. There he is, the great imposter, complaining about an industrial relations system that he created, and doing everything he can to encourage the militancy of people that threaten violence— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 not just against other workers, but against their children. He has no shame, no principle, no character. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 24 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:15 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Australian Political Exchange Council's 12th delegation from the Philippines. On behalf of the House I extent a very warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 24 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Broadband 24 14:15 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison Prime Minister, the NBN rollout is supposedly nearing completion in Tasmania. But subcontractors in my electorate tell me the copper network, which is integral to your government's model, is in dire need of improvement. So why has the copper network improvement program stalled in Tasmania? Moreover, why is it that a constituent who runs his business from his home in Ferntree still can't connect to the NBN, even though he's only 60 metres from a node? Why are small business owners in urban areas like Moonah being quoted $5,000, $10,000 or even $20,000 to upgrade from fibre to the node to fibre to the premises, when NBN infrastructure is already very close? Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McEwen is warned. 14:16 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I must remind the technological geniuses on other side that the network which is being used by the NBN in my electorate, where I live, and where the honourable member for Maribyrnong lives is in fact copper. That's what HFC is made out of. I'm just letting you know. It's copper cable. It's called co-axial cable and it has copper running down it. That is just a little pick up for you. Turning to Tasmania, as the honourable member has already highlighted, the NBN is almost completely rolled out. There are over 267,000 premises ready to connect and 161,000 premises have an active NBN connection already. It's a far cry from the situation we inherited in late 2013, when the NBN rollout in Tasmania was a complete mess. The lead contractor, Visionstream, had downed tools. Notwithstanding the brief interlude of the honourable member for Grayndler as communications minister, it wasn't enough to save the NBN from the Conrovian experiment. All up there were only 7,000 fixed-line premises in Tasmania ever connected under the former Labor government, despite the rollout kicking off in that state in 2010. In the honourable member's electorate the rollout is essentially complete. I am advised there are just 266 connections to go, and to date 71 per cent of the premises in his electorate have connected to the NBN, which is a great result. That's almost 60,000 premises in Denison able to connect to the NBN. He's raised an issue about a particular constituent and his office has provided details of that constituent. The NBN is in touch with the constituent today to see how the problem that's been reported to him can be addressed. In terms of the prices quoted by NBN under technology choice, they simply reflect the real world cost of rolling out more expensive technologies to a particular premise. The reality is that the NBN, as delivered by my government, delivered by the Coalition, is getting built far sooner, many years sooner, and tens of billions of dollars more affordable. Infrastructure 24 14:18 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on action the coalition government is taking to deliver job-creating infrastructure in rural and regional Australia. Is he aware of any alternatives? 14:19 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for his question. He is a fine member. He represents an electorate which is more than 393,000 square kilometres. He rather unkindly sometimes refers to other electorates as mere horse paddocks. Certainly it's the largest electorate in New South Wales. As a proud member and as a strong advocate for regional issues, I know he understands the importance of getting on with the job of investing in vital nation-building infrastructure. He knows that this infrastructure creates local jobs and fuels local economies. That's why this side of the House is investing in small and medium enterprises such that we're enabling them to create jobs—403,000 jobs just last year, as the Prime Minister mentioned a little earlier on. That is 1,100 jobs a day, and many of them were full-time jobs. The member for Parkes and I are from regional Australia and we are proud of it. Our areas stretch from the north of New South Wales through the central west and through the Riverina. We know our farmers will benefit from this government's investment in Inland Rail. Construction will start in coming months on the first section of the Inland Rail from Parkes to Narromine, with the Inland Rail delivering more than $480 million in economic benefit just to the central west region alone. On 15 January this year, the member for Parkes, the member for New England and I were at Peak Hill, where the first lot of steel was dropped off to start this iconic project—600 tonnes of steel was delivered on this historic day. Just to give you an idea of the enormity of the Inland Rail project, it's going to use enough steel to build five Sydney Harbour Bridges. That's impressive. We know that the small businesses supporting our farmers in these regional communities will benefit from the economic growth the rail line will bring. There is $10 billion for the construction of the Inland Rail. It is the Commonwealth's largest rail project in 100 years—the largest rail project by the Commonwealth in 100 years, thanks to a Liberal-Nationals government. It wouldn't have happened under those opposite. We know that increasing economic activity leads to jobs growth, new opportunities and more money in hardworking Australians' pockets. I promise that for all those farmers and all those small-business people out there working hard to get ahead, this government has their back. But what do those opposite want to do? They want to jack up taxes, they want to destroy jobs and they want to back the CFMEU in all the way. But don't take my word for it; just look at the front page of The Australian today. That's where the Labor and CFMEU deal is writ large. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 25 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:22 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House we also have present in the gallery this afternoon the honourable Alan Ferguson, former President of the Senate, who has just joined us. On behalf of the House we extend a warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 25 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Deputy Prime Minister 25 14:22 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. This morning the former Deputy Prime Minister, the member for New England, refused to rule out a return to the job. How long does the current Deputy Prime Minister plan to stay in his role? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House, on a point of order? Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, clearly that is a question that is out of order. It doesn't ask about the responsibilities of the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. It is purely a political smear dressed as a question, and it shouldn't be allowed to be asked. The SPEAKER 00APG I'm happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business, but I don't think the question is in order at all. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, a point of order? The SPEAKER 00APG Take some time, yes. It's your time; go for it. Mr Burke DYW There have been constant occasions when a minister has been asked whether they will resign and whether they will continue in their role. Now, unusually, they don't normally get asked this on the second day in the job. But it is completely in order— The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat. You could see how clear I was in my ruling. Clearly, I don't agree with those previous rulings. So, now that we have cleared that up, let's move to the next question. Employment 25 14:23 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright My question is to the Minister for Defence representing the Minister for Jobs and Innovation. Will the minister outline what threats exist to the delivery of long-term job creation in the economy, and how the government is ensuring that businesses thrive and help grow the economy. 14:23 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Wright for his question. The member for Wright knows that the government in the last 12 months has created 403,000 new jobs in this economy, almost 80 per cent of which are full-time jobs. It is a tremendous achievement, and, with 16 consecutive months of net jobs growth, we are well on track to pass a million new jobs in the five-year time period that the member for Warringah promised in 2013 when we were first elected. We are ahead of schedule in creating those million jobs. We are almost there. It is a real achievement of this government. But I was asked by the member for Wright about threats to this job creation model and to a growing economy. Sadly the Left of the Labor Party have recently published a manifesto that calls for higher and new taxes, and softer border protection, so we can return to the bad old days of the Labor government. But, even worse than that, it is about empowering the CFMEU and giving more power to the unions on worksites. We can usually dismiss the Left, because they don't have the power in the ALP—that's usually been held by the right wing—but sadly the Left are growing in power and threatening to take over the national conference this year, so their manifesto has to be taken very seriously. What is worse than that, the Left are threatening the shadow minister for defence—who I very much care about, as my shadow ministerial opponent—who is apparently a right-wing powerbroker. Now, I know it strains credulity that Mr Nice Guy of the frontbench is apparently a knife-wielding factional warrior, but my strong advice to him, because I want him to stay safe, is to stay away from butterknife-wielding state ALP members of parliament or to carry his own butterknife. If he carried his own butterknife into a fast-moving butterknife fight, I would back the member for Corio because, despite his looks, he's quite fast moving. I believe people underestimate the member for Corio. In a fast-moving butterknife fight, I'd back the member for Corio. But I digress. More seriously, the second great threat to this job creation model is of course the Leader of the Opposition himself. At the Oakey mine protest he said to the CFMEU that he would rip up the industrial relations laws in this country. He wants the CFMEU to have more power. He not only wants the CFMEU to make donations to the ALP, to make the preselection decisions, to make the policy decisions; he wants to rip up the IR laws and give them more power on the worksites of Australia. (Time expired) Broadband 26 14:27 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's department said about the NBN connection to his Point Piper mansion that 'the Prime Minister asked us to make sure it was connected to Point Piper, but our office just had to make sure that everything proceeded smoothly'. Can the Prime Minister confirm his department had one discussion with NBN Co, and it took just one appointment to get his NBN connection? How was the Prime Minister able to get a speed and service from the NBN that the rest of Australia can only dream of? 14:27 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her interest in the NBN connections in my electorate. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Mr TURNBULL 885 The rollout of the NBN over the hybrid fibre-coaxial network, which is built on coaxial cables made of copper, is the technology and apparently the premium service that I and 411,000 other customers are receiving. This is the one the Labor Party said was second-rate and outdated and should be junked. That's what they said. They can't have it both ways. For more information on the NBN I'll ask the honourable Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities to address the House. Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I remind the member for McEwen he's already been warned. The minister has the call. 14:28 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to explore in more detail the question of what Labor's views about the NBN really are, and, in particular, what they think about the HFC. It seems that Labor has a split personality on the issue of the HFC. Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Moreton is warned. Mr FLETCHER L6B The Leader of the Opposition is quoted as saying that Mr Turnbull says Australian families do not need a first-grade NBN but is happy to use one for his own suburb. In other words, he's saying that the Prime Minister is getting first-rate NBN over the HFC. It is certainly true that the HFC offers a first-rate broadband service. Now, what does the member for Greenway say on the same topic? Her Facebook page, on 11 February, says: 'Second-rate HFC'. Labor cannot even decide what their views about the HFC are. It's first-rate, according to the Leader of the Opposition, or it's second-rate, according to the member for Greenway. What was Labor's policy on the HFC for the 2016 election? 'Under Labor the rollout of HFC will continue.' Isn't that interesting? Labor plans to do exactly the same thing with HFC as the coalition does. We know that the member for Greenway has form on this. Remember that she was the one who claimed that an Akamai survey about broadband in Kenya was in some way relevant to be compared to Australia. There are 200,000 people in Kenya who have a broadband service. There was another great contribution from that member when she quoted an Ipsos survey which she said found Australia ranks lowest for broadband satisfaction. In that same Ipsos survey 19 per cent of Australians rated the current quality of nuclear infrastructure to generate energy in Australia as very or fairly good. That's the kind of reputable survey that this member is quoting. They'll say anything on the NBN; we're delivering it. Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union 27 14:30 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General update the House on the Federal Court's judgement in the case of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union? What role do the courts play in maintaining the rule of law? Is the Attorney aware of any alternatives? 14:31 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the member for his question. As the member is well aware, the Federal Court yesterday levied near maximum fines against the CFMEU for, amongst other things, knowingly making false representations to a worker about the necessity to pay fees to the CFMEU in breach of section 349(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act and threatening to prevent a worker from their lawful right to work on a site with the intent of coercing the worker into industrial activity in breach of section 348. The Federal Court judge in that case said that the CFMEU had a deplorable record in contravening the law, having contravened industrial law on 135 separate occasions in the last 15 years. The judge also found that the CFMEU condoned the continual breaching of the law. The judge, interestingly, also found that the CFMEU in the 2016 calendar year had revenue of nearly $31 million and net assets valued at $58.5 million, including $9.2 million in cash. The case dealt with a worker who had not worked for three months, who was struggling to pay their bills for their family and faced illegal threats designed to prevent him from doing his job and designed to coerce him to pay money to the same union which has $58.5 million in assets. How lucky the workers are to have the CFMEU looking after them in such a professional way! As the Prime Minister noted, this is of course the same union whose representatives made threats against the children of Glencore workers—threats of the most sickening and seriously criminal kind made against children. Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Moreton has been warned. Mr PORTER 208884 I was asked about alternatives. There are of course alternatives to prosecuting and convicting these types of breaches of the law to provide a deterrence to threats and coercion. Instead of cutting ties with the union to deter its criminal conduct, you could, for instance, accept large amounts of money from the same union whose business model in raising money is to break the law. It is notable that, in the 2016-17 financial year, the ALP accepted in excess of $620,000 from this union. Instead of discouraging unlawfulness with clear public statements that it is unacceptable, you could attend a rally and encourage the behaviours by describing the law being broken as a cancer. Perhaps the most remarkable thing in here is that the alternative of the Leader of the Opposition exhibits all of the trademark hypocrisy that he has become known for— The SPEAKER 00APG The Attorney-General will resume his seat. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW The Attorney-General has now referred directly to the Leader of the Opposition. Under standing order 68 he is referring specifically to a claim that the Leader of the Opposition supports particular conduct and statements that have been made by people. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right! Member for Brisbane! Mr Burke DYW Under standing order 68, when the issue has been specifically dealt with by personal explanation there is an opportunity for the Speaker to intervene, and I ask that you do so. The SPEAKER 00APG I am very familiar, obviously, with this terrain, and I'll take a little bit of time of the House to explain my approach on this. The former Speaker gave a comprehensive ruling on this matter back near the beginning of the last parliament, because the standing order to which the Manager of Opposition Business refers was introduced back then, at the beginning of that parliament. The former Speaker rightly pointed out a number of things. It was a lengthy ruling; I won't go through every aspect of it. She quite rightly, in my view, pointed out that this additional standing order posed challenges for the Speaker. One is in balancing free speech also with a misrepresentation being repeated. She adopted a number of principles, which I've said previously in the House I abide by: No. 1, the claim would have to be of the exact nature again—and I am listening very carefully, and in this folder I have many things, including previous personal explanations. It would have to be of the exact nature, and I was listening very carefully to the answer. It would then need to be raised by the member affected: that is, the member—and that would be the Leader of the Opposition—who made the personal explanation. The Speaker would need to be aware of exactly what was said, and for it to be an exact replication. And, even after all that, standing order 68—I have the page open here—says, 'The Speaker may intervene.' Now, I'm listening very closely. I'm very conscious that, prior to the introduction of this standing order, the Speaker could not intervene. I'm very conscious that that is something that the House has decided to include in the standing orders to give the Speaker that option. I'm just going to say to the Attorney-General that I'm listening very closely. He hasn't exactly met the threshold, but I've taken the time of the House for any subsequent answers to questions to make that matter clear. Mr PORTER 208884 The question is: if you go to a rally like that and describe the laws being broken as a cancer, are you discouraging or encouraging the breaking of those laws? And the ultimate hypocrisy here is they were laws introduced by Labor. Broadband 28 14:37 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo My question is to the Prime Minister. Nola is a 77-year-old who lives in my electorate and recently connected to the Prime Minister's copper NBN. NBN has run a copper cable across her yard, through the bushes and under her bedroom window. Nola was told to be careful when mowing to avoid cutting the cable. When the Prime Minister has a premium-speed NBN connection, why should people like Nola have to suffer with his inept copper NBN? 14:38 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I thank the member for her question, but once again she's drawing a contrast with the HFC, which is, as we've consistently said, a first-rate form of broadband. Labor seems to be complaining that the HFC is able to deliver a speed of 100 megabits per second—as it is, I'm pleased to say—for the Prime Minister, and for many thousands of other customers—411,000 HFC customers, all of them able to access and many of them choosing to access 100 megabits per second. It does raise the question: what is Labor's plan for the NBN? What is Labor's plan for the NBN? We really have no idea. In the 2016 election campaign, we know that, despite their heated rhetoric now, they stated that they intended to continue with the HFC rollout. They also claimed that they were going to deliver an additional— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW My point of order is on direct relevance. The example that's been given is one of a copper cable. It is not an HFC connection. The minister's entire answer has been about different technology to what the question is about. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right will cease interjecting. I'm going to call the minister. But I will consider the first part of his answer— Ms Husar interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I am not going to be interrupted when I am making a ruling. The member for Lindsay will leave under 94(a). The member for Lindsay then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG I am calling the minister, but his preamble has come to an end. Mr FLETCHER L6B I make the point to the House that policy in this area needs to determine the appropriate mix of HFC, fibre to the premises, fibre to the node and fibre to the kerb. That is what the Turnbull government has been focused on so that we can roll this out for $30 billion less and more quickly—getting the whole network delivered by 2020. What we also know about a number of instances that have been raised by Labor in the past is that, on investigation, the facts have turned out not to have been as claimed. But, of course, we will go back and have a look at this claim and we will respond. But I do make the point that we are delivering a network more quickly than Labor could have delivered it and for $30 billion less, with some 7.4 million premises now in ready-for-service areas. When Labor left government barely 50,000 premises were connected to the fixed network. We now have 7.4 million able to connect. We have no idea what Labor's policy will be at the next election. The question the Australian people are entitled to ask is: what is Labor going to do? At the last election they claimed that they were going to roll out two million more fibre premises and cost not one dollar more. That is magic pudding economics. That is a completely implausible and utterly incredible claim. There is no doubt that the member for Blaxland is deeply relieved not to be the shadow minister anymore so he doesn't have to defend that particular ridiculous policy. The member for Moreton left the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Moreton left the chamber under standing order 94(a). He had been warned a number of times, and when he saw me he walked. I am just making sure that it is right for the record. I call the member for Tangney. National Security 29 14:42 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the steps the government is taking to protect Australian interests from the threat of terrorism in our region? 14:42 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I thank the member for Tangney for his question. Yesterday I informed the House of the success to date in the fight against the terrorist organisation ISIS. It is a fact that ISIS has now lost about 98 per cent—almost all—of the territory it once controlled in Syria and Iraq. However, we still face threats from ISIS and other terrorist organisations—the fighters, the propagandists and the supporters—and we are concerned about returning foreign terrorist fighters. So tracking and monitoring their movements remains one of our highest priorities. It is a fact that we are working very closely with our intelligence partners, key allies and partners in the region, particularly tracking those foreign terrorist fighters that we believe are coming back to this part of the world. I can inform the House that we believe that about 220 Australians were in the conflict zone in Syria and Iraq. About half of them have been killed. Some of them have returned to Australia and are being monitored. Some of them are being prosecuted. We believe that about 110 remain in the Middle East, and we are working with partners to keep tracking their movements and monitoring their whereabouts. I can also say that our intelligence agencies believe that about 70 children are in the Middle East. They had been taken there by the terrorist fighters and, tragically, we believe that they are still there. Our regional partners are deeply concerned about the number of families that are in the conflict zone. We share their concerns. Imagine the trauma that some of these women and children have suffered. But also, disturbingly, there are more women involved than ever before in supporting terrorists and their activities. So we are working very closely with Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines to share information, to share intelligence and to counter terrorism however we can. I can report to the House that as foreign minister I have cancelled the passports of about 230 Australians who we believe pose a national security threat and were seeking to join the terrorist organisation ISIS or affiliates in the Middle East. We are keeping these people here so that they can remain under surveillance, under monitoring, and to ensure that they don't go over to the Middle East, take up with a terrorist organisation and become experienced terrorist fighters. This government places the security of Australians as one of our highest priorities, and we will continue to fight terrorism both at home and abroad. Broadband 29 14:45 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Senator Fifield has claimed that the Prime Minister's copper NBN is 'the envy of the world'. Given that the Prime Minister is personally responsible for the highest level of internet complaints on record, a $20 billion cost blowout and a copper network that can't deliver the speeds that Australians want or need, isn't it clear that the only thing that the Prime Minister has achieved is to make the internet speeds at Point Piper the envy of the rest of Australia? 14:46 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for demonstrating his enthusiasm for his politics of envy and his phony class war. It reminds me of the address he gave to the CFMEU workers at Oakey. There he was saying the Fair Work Commission that his government, the Labor government, established was a 'cancer' that had to be excised. He was backing those striking CFMEU members right at the time when they were threatening other Glencore workers with violence against their children. That was the company he was keeping and the people he was backing. He was there with the member for Gorton and said: 'I thank you for inviting Brendan and I. I'm spewing to see you in these difficult circumstances.' I think the only spewing that would have gone on was when seeing the Leader of the Opposition in his fake man of the people, horny-handed son of toil, workers' champion— Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. While I appreciate that the question— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Could the Manager of Opposition Business just pause for a second. Could those on my right cease interjecting, including the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW While a question like this always does give a wide scope for the answer, we've gone completely beyond the policy topic in the Prime Minister's answer and well away from anything that could be considered even vaguely relevant to the question. The SPEAKER 00APG As I've said before, the Prime Minister and other ministers are entitled to compare and contrast. The Prime Minister, for a period there, linked to a word in the question and made an observation with respect to the word 'envy', which he's entitled to do. But I do agree with the Manager of Opposition Business that the Prime Minister needs to come back to the policy topic now he's compared and contrasted. Mr TURNBULL 885 I will just conclude with some information from the NBN. The average speed across the fibre-to-the-node part of the NBN is almost 70 megabits per second and 80 per cent of users take up a 12-megabit-per-second or 25-megabit-per-second plan. I would remind honourable members opposite that coaxial cable is made out of copper, and so the coaxial cable that goes into premises in HFC areas has been there for a very long time. It is what the honourable member for Greenway recently described as being second rate. It is a copper technology and, where it is available, which is currently at 1.4 million premises, it can offer a speed of 100 megabits per second. Regrettably, not enough people take that up. The NBN would be very grateful for the extra revenue. I would also say, in reference to the question from the member for Denison—I'm sorry he's not here—about his constituent in Fern Tree that he referred to, I'm advised by the NBN that they have just called him and advised him his premises are ready for service. Migration 30 14:50 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on steps the coalition government has taken to protect Australian families from dangerous visa-holders, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:50 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. I'm proud of the fact the government has a strong policy on cancelling the visas of noncitizens—people who are in our country as tourists, as guests, as workers—who commit crimes against Australians. They can expect to have their visas cancelled. In fact, under this government, we have cancelled some 3,300 visas of dangerous noncitizens, and Australians are safer because of it. It is in stark contrast, not only in this area but also in the area of border protection, to Labor. Labor was weak as well in that area of public policy. We know that, in the last three months, we've cancelled more visas of dangerous criminals who were in our country than Labor did in their first three years in government. Of the 3,300, we've cancelled the visas of 135 rapists, 260 child sex offenders and 170 members of outlaw motorcycle gangs. As we've reported to the House before, the visa cancellations of outlaw motorcycle gang members have not been welcomed by all Australians, because, as we know, the CFMEU, the most militant union in the country, employs the services of outlaw motorcycle gang members—because the outlaw motorcycle gang members aren't only involved in the distribution of ice and amphetamines around the country; they aren't only involved in extortion of shop owners and families around the country; they are also engaged in the CFMEU's protection racket on building sites around the country. Now, there is somebody in this House who has a particular connection to the CFMEU. It is, of course, our old friend the Leader of the Opposition. The CFMEU has donated tens of millions of dollars to the Labor Party. We see in today's Australian a story by Simon Benson where he details again the involvement of the Leader of the Opposition and the encouragement, through his words, of those lawless thugs involved in the CFMEU. We know that members of outlaw motorcycle gangs have now infiltrated the union movement, the CFMEU, and it seems that the Leader of the Opposition has learnt not only how to take money from the CFMEU but also— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will just pause for a second. He can't make a claim that the Leader of the Opposition has taken money from the CFMEU. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I made the reference to the donation— The SPEAKER 00APG No, he will withdraw. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I withdraw the personal inference. I am sure that has never taken place! This person is of impeccable character! I have no doubt. He has been involved in a number of affairs across his adult life. He's broken trust with so many people across his adult life. There are many members behind him who have been doublecrossed by this Leader of the Opposition. There are many people involved in the union movement, involved in the Labor Party, who cannot trust a word that this Leader of the Opposition says. And you know what, Mr Speaker? The Australian public has formed the same judgement. Pacific Blue Capital 31 14:53 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of reports that a consortium led by Pacific Blue Capital, a company run by his mate Scott Briggs, will bid for a $1 billion contract to privatise the government's visa-processing system? Given it's reported that the Prime Minister launched Pacific Blue Capital and that Mr Briggs worked for the Prime Minister's private investment firm, does the Prime Minister have a conflict of interest in relation to this $1 billion government contract, and, if so, how will he manage it? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House? Mr Pyne 9V5 That question is just a slur and a smear against the Prime Minister. He has absolutely no responsibility— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will resume his seat. Members on my left will cease interjecting. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. I need to hear the Leader of the House. He's entitled to be heard, just as the Manager of Opposition Business is entitled to be heard. If this persists, I will just lower the temperature rapidly through ejections. I would like the Leader of the House to raise his point of order, and I need to be able to hear him. If the Leader of the House could start again, because I only heard every second word. Mr Pyne 9V5 That is a slur and a smear masquerading as a question. The Prime Minister has no responsibility for public tenders in other ministers' portfolios and therefore he couldn't possibly have any knowledge of the answer to that question. Mr Hill interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce will leave under 94(a). Anyone else who wants to join him, speak now. The member for Bruce then left the chamber. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, on the point of order, there are two parts to the question—whether the Prime Minister has a conflict of interest and, if so, how he manages it. The other information is provided only to the extent that it's necessary to make sense of the question. The SPEAKER 00APG In ruling on this question, there are aspects of the question that I think are out of order, but not of the volume we had yesterday. The Prime Minister, as other ministers do under the Practice, has every option to answer the question himself or refer it to another minister if they so wish. So it's close to the line, but I am going to allow the question to proceed. 14:56 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I can confirm that my department is in a tender process at the moment. The normal probity arrangements are in place. The Prime Minister and I are not decision-makers in relation to this particular tender, and it's the case with tenders across the Commonwealth that they are dealt with by the appropriate officers within the respective departments, in relation to this matter, in relation to my own department, and all of the normal procedures will be followed, and that is an issue for the departments, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows. But I'll say one thing: we are not going to take a morals lecture from this man, not on this topic, not on any topic. We are not going to take a lecture on morals from this man in relation to— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition did not ask the question. Oaky Creek Mine 31 14:57 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation. Will the minister update the House on bargaining at the Oaky Creek mine and outline steps the government has been taking in order to encourage the parties to reach agreement? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:58 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid I do thank the member for Capricornia for her question. I want to thank her, the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, the member for Dawson and the member for Flynn, in particular. I am pleased to inform the House that next Monday the workers at Oaky Creek will head back into the mine, and that is a great result and I would like to thank the Fair Work Commission for the role it has played in that. But, in particular, I would like to thank the member for Capricornia, the member for Dawson, the member for Flynn and the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia for the opportunity they provided me in meeting with local CFMEU delegates in the last couple of weeks, as well as with the company involved, Glencore. In the last couple of weeks I have met with both sides of this dispute on several occasions, as have they. We have urged the parties to come together and bargain in good faith—an approach that I hope, in whatever time I have in this portfolio, to attack it with, to bring both sides together— Ms Chesters interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bendigo is warned. Mr LAUNDY 247130 and find a constructive solution. On Monday, this lockout will end after near seven months. I'm asked if there are any alternatives. Just last night, we found out all about Labor's secret plan, the plan that has been constructed by Sally McManus and the ACTU, in which the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Gorton are going to rip up their own Fair Work Act, the result of their legislation drafted between 2007 and implemented in mid-2009, which they have stood behind and all said magnificently proud things of. Why? Because, as the member for Gorton said this morning, the system's broken. The nuclear factor, which is what Sally McManus refers to, is terminating agreements. In the last 12 months, three per cent of the agreements terminated have been contested. Ninety-seven per cent have been done by mutual consent. What does this broken system look like? This week Olivia, a year 10 student, and her mother took action in the commission against the Yoghurt Factory and their enterprise agreement. They beat the company and had it contested and dismissed. Why? Because the conditions in that had come to a stage where they needed to be updated. A year 10 student and her mother used the system as it was designed. This system is not broken. It is being manipulated by the ACTU and the left of the Labor Party, as they dictate to the member for Gorton and the Leader of the Opposition, who swallow it hook, line and sinker. Why? Because they are interested in union power in the workplace—nothing more and nothing less. What will be the result? The decimation of this economy and a loss of jobs. Again, there is not one policy that will create one job—only policies that decimate the economy. If you put this mob in charge, you will pay the price. Pacific Blue Capital 32 15:01 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. I refer to his previous answer and to reports that a consortium led by Pacific Blue Capital will bid for a $1 billion contract to privatise the government's visa-processing system. Does the Minister for Home Affairs have a conflict of interest in relation to this $1 billion government contract, given the minister's former senior adviser is now director of special projects at Pacific Blue Capital? If so, how will this conflict be managed? Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. 15:02 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. In any open tender process, anybody is able to make application or to submit a tender for that work—unless the opposition is suggesting that people should be excluded on a particular basis. Then they'd need to put that forward to articulate that. I don't think that's what they're suggesting. I think this is more to do with some sort of smear campaign to try and push back against what we have raised legitimately in this question time today in relation to this Leader of the Opposition and questions about his character. That's what I think this is about. This is more about some sort of deflection from the criticism rightly levelled at this Leader of the Opposition during question time today. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs on a point of order. Mr Dreyfus HWG Yes, the point of order is direct relevance. None of what the minister is saying has anything to— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs will resume his seat. The minister has the call. He's finished his answer. Economy 32 15:03 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm 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 to grow the economy and reduce the tax burden on hardworking Australians? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 15:03 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for Chisholm for her question, and I note her strong family history and her background in small business. Like the member, the government knows that the best way to improve the prosperity of Australians is to create the right economic settings to allow them to invest, to grow jobs and to make sure that they create wealth. It was on this basis that, of course, the government provided tax relief for more than three million Australians—middle-income Australians who are doing it tough—and we have reduced taxes for small and medium-sized businesses, who employ more than half of Australia's private sector workforce. The government's policies have well and truly borne fruit. We have seen more than 1,100 jobs created every single day in 2017, and we have also seen the longest run of monthly jobs growth ever recorded. Pleasingly, female workforce participation has climbed to its highest level on record. Now, those opposite, sadly, do not support the government's plans for growth and prosperity. They believe that, instead of growing the pie, you should tax it further and further into oblivion. And it's very sad. It used to be that Paul Keating was the standard bearer for the Labor Party's economic credentials, but since then they have absolutely gone backwards. They have gone back to the member for Lilley, then to the member for McMahon, and it was revealed only this week that the member for Scullin and the member Shortland have assumed the role of the new Labor economic brains trust. Not content with the $164 billion worth of new taxes that their leader has already proposed, we have seen reports this week that the Labor Party would pile even more new taxes onto the Australian economy. If I can quote the dynamic duo: these taxes—such as, but not limited to, the Buffett tax and the Tobin tax. I wonder where in the world did they get inspiration for these ideas? How about the left-wing ideologue Bernie Sanders, for starters, who proposed an extra $15 trillion worth of new taxes. That's something to aspire to. How about—and I know the Leader of the Opposition will particularly like this one—Jeremy Corbyn, the radical UK Labour leader, who is on record as saying, 'We must work to bring in a financial transactions tax.' The contrast could not be clearer. The Turnbull government: we stand for jobs, we stand for lower taxes, we stand for greater prosperity for all Australians— (Time expired) Work for the Dole 33 15:06 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation. It's been nearly two years since an 18-year-old tragically lost his life on a Work for the Dole project in Toowoomba. Since then, we've had reports of Work for the Dole participants exposed to asbestos. Internal audits have revealed 36 per cent of Work for the Dole sites failed to meet departmental safety expectations. Why has the Turnbull government refused to tell the public the concrete steps it's taking to improve workplace safety for young Australians in the Work for the Dole program? 15:07 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid I thank the member for his question. Obviously, any workplace tragedy is one workplace tragedy too many, and I think that would be a consistent view right across the House. The Work for the Dole scheme, which was reintroduced upon the election of us in the 2013 election campaign, is a centrepiece component of the philosophy that we have on this side of the House: the best form of welfare is a job. We've had a raft of policies that are consistent with that theme. The most recent that I spoke about in this chamber is the Youth Jobs PaTH program. The results of that in fast approaching its first anniversary are nearly 70 per cent of the people involved in the Internship Programme have achieved employment. When it comes to the youth program, the result is somewhere around 63 per cent. I spoke last week about the member for McMillan— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Chifley on a point of order. Mr Husic 91219 Mr Speaker, I think a serious question deserves direct relevance. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the member for Chifley. The minister is in order. Mr LAUNDY 247130 I can assure the member for Chifley I take workplace safety extremely seriously. I had, as I've stated many times, 23 years pre-politics implementing work, health and safety procedures and practices, which all employers, irrespective of whether in the public or private sector, should do. I was in the process of explaining that these procedures and policies should always be taken seriously by all workplaces. We have, as I said on this side of the House, implemented policies— Opposition members interjecting— Mr LAUNDY 247130 and those opposite who interject, I know you don't like them, because I've read many, many of your quotes. But the results of these policies are serious economic and employment results. Yes, the onus on every employer in this country under the Work Health and Safety Act, above all other acts in this country, is the safety of their employees, and they should at all times have this front and centre of mind as they formulate their own policies and procedures under that act, train their staff and implement them. Welfare Reform 33 15:10 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on the government's commitment to roll out measures that help welfare recipients struggling with substance abuse to get off drugs and into work? How does this compare with alternative approaches? 15:10 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I'd like to thank the member for his question and note his advocacy for getting people off welfare and into work. I know it's been a passion of his since he's been in this place. The coalition knows that the best form of welfare is a job; however, research has consistently shown that one of the worst barriers to getting a job is substance abuse. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's 2016 National Drug Strategy Household Survey shows that illicit drug use was more prevalent among the unemployed than employed people. Those who are unemployed were 3.1 times more likely to use methamphetamines and 1.5 times more likely to use cannabis. This is why tomorrow the government will introduce measures that will trial drug testing for new welfare recipients in three locations across Australia. If this bill passes, the trial will be rolled out to Logan in Queensland, Canterbury-Bankstown in New South Wales and Mandurah in Western Australia. The trial is not about taking away payments for those who test positive. This is about helping those people with a problem to get treatment, helping them to help themselves and then get a job. People who are part of the trial and test positive to illicit drugs would have access to treatment and rehabilitation to assist them in getting a job. This is about helping them help themselves into a job. For those people who are medically assessed as having substance abuse issues that will prevent them from getting a job, their treatment will be included in their mutual obligation for welfare payments. We have put in place measures that will safeguard the vulnerable, including people who might also be the victims of domestic violence or homelessness. We are willing to try new measures and tackle drug abuse and ensure taxpayer money is aimed at getting people off welfare and into work. I say to those opposite: this is a trial. We encourage you to work with us. We want to help these people. We want to make sure that these people can benefit from the 1,100 jobs that are being created a day, that they can benefit from that jobs growth and that they can be part of the successful economy that we are now seeing. This is an opportunity to help them, especially the long-term unemployed, to benefit from the 1,100 jobs we are creating a day. Mr Turnbull 885 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 34 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Coalition Agreement 34 15:13 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Mr Speaker, I have a question to you, and it concerns standing order 105 and the administrative follow-up when a question's put on the Notice Paper. Yesterday the PM agreed to report back on an answer with respect to the member for Hunter and the cost of legal fees and the coalition agreement. Whereas there is a way that you're able to take action for questions that are in writing, is there a similar process available to us when somebody offers to report back to the House and mysteriously doesn't do so? 15:14 The SPEAKER 00APG The short answer to the Manager of Opposition Business's point of order is: no, there's not. But, clearly, when ministers offer to take something on notice, the expectation is that there will be a reply. Is the PM seeking indulgence? 15:14 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth on indulgence—I was hoping the member for Hunter would ask me again. The Commonwealth's legal costs to date, I'm advised, have been $87,000, but they will be considerably reduced because of the costs order against the member for Hunter. So we just hope that, in the interests of preserving the public finances of the nation, the member for Hunter pays up in accordance with the court order. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 34 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:15 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 I have been: just now by the Prime Minister. There is no such cost order in the matter of Joel Fitzgibbon v the Prime Minister. 15:15 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I wish 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 He may proceed. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG During question time, the Prime Minister and other ministers made inaccurate claims about my visit to Oaky North. Firstly, the Prime Minister said the workers that I spoke to were on strike. They were not on strike; they wanted to work, but they'd been locked out by their multinational employer in an attempt to force them to accept a cut in pay and conditions. Secondly, it was said that I condone unlawful behaviour alleged to have occurred some months earlier on the protest line. I do not condone unlawful behaviour by workers, employers or, indeed, Liberal Party donors. Thirdly, what I said to the workers at Oaky—as I said at the National Press Club in January and as I've said at many of my public town hall meetings—is that the industrial relations system is being abused and distorted to disadvantage workers, to undermine collective bargaining and to weaken workplace safety. I make no apologies for saying that a future Labor government will deliver better wages and conditions for working Australians. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 35 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Energy 35 15:17 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the member for Port Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The importance of long-term policy certainty, including on renewable energy and climate change. I call upon all those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:17 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide It's hard to think of a policy area that has been more dogged by uncertainty over the last decade than climate change and energy policy. It's also hard to imagine more serious consequences than those that are facing our nation today largely because of that uncertainty. As we've spoken about many times in this chamber, the nation finds itself deep in the throes of an energy crisis. It is an energy crisis that has emerged under this government, particularly under this Prime Minister, and is causing power prices to go up and up for households and for businesses. It is causing gas prices to go up and up, particularly for manufacturing businesses, placing tens of thousands of jobs in jeopardy for Australian workers. Over the last two years we have also been regularly reminded by electricity sector agencies of increasing concerns about the reliability of our energy system across the whole of the national electricity market, no matter what the levels of penetration of renewable energy or coal fired generation or anything in between in all of those regions. After coming down by some 10 per cent during our last term in government, carbon pollution and greenhouse gases have again started to rise under this government and, according to the government's own data that was released just before Christmas, those pollution levels are projected to keep rising between now and 2030. Australia is now pretty much the only major advanced economy in the world where greenhouse gases are going up rather than coming down. It could all have been so different. Only a decade ago there was an emerging consensus on this devilishly complex area of policy in climate change and energy. It was an area of consensus where the Liberal Party and the Labor Party had both taken an emissions trading scheme to the 2007 elections. Through the course of 2008 and 2009, Liberal Party MP after Liberal Party MP continued to protest their support for an emissions trading scheme. Indeed, the member for Warringah—who was not then the Leader of the Opposition—said famously that he thought maybe a carbon tax, rather than emissions trading scheme, would be a more efficient way to deal with climate change policy. But that all changed in late 2009 when, in the dead of night, a coup emerged from the member for Warringah to dethrone and defenestrate the then Leader of the Opposition, the member of Wentworth. And then, to quote The Economist magazine in their description of Newt Gingrich, the member for Warringah 'turned politics into war'. Since then, that side of the House has devoted years to vandalism and to wrecking any chance of bipartisan policy in climate change and energy. But the crossbench has been important in this as well, and I want to talk a bit about the role of the crossbench over the last decade. I and many on this side have spoken about the role of the Greens in trashing the carbon pollution reduction scheme in 2009. Of course, they will never admit that they made a mistake. They will always pretend to be pure than anyone else in this chamber. But we know that that decision was a platform for the decade of vandalism that has happened since by those opposite on sensible climate change and energy policy. But I want to talk today about the role of Nick Xenophon—a former senator in this place and now challenging for a seat in the House of Assembly in South Australia. Nick Xenophon, as some of us from South Australia know, is a very clever politician, a very cunning politician—pitching at the moment to lead a conservative coalition between SA-BEST and the Liberal Party after the next election. He regularly polls as the second preferred premier, the second-rated preferred premier, in South Australia, substantially behind Jay Weatherill but even more substantially ahead of Steven Marshall from the Liberal Party. So it is a bit overdue that we have a bit of focus on Nick Xenophon's policies in this area, because, as in so many policy areas, it's important to look at what they do rather than what they say—how they vote rather than what they say. We've talked about schools policy, and that's been a bit ambiguous from Nick Xenophon. But, on climate change and energy, there has been no equivocation whatsoever. On every occasion that has counted, going back to 2009, Nick Xenophon has lined up with the member for Warringah to trash sensible climate change and energy policy. Back in 2009 he described Labor's emissions trading scheme—which we were negotiating with the Liberal Party—as a 'dog that should be put down'. On the first day of the member for Warringah's leadership after defenestrating the member for Wentworth, Nick Xenophon delivered Tony Abbott the most extraordinary tactical victory by voting down the emissions trading scheme in the other place and setting the platform for a decade of vandalism and wrecking on sensible climate change and energy policy. More than any other, that vote, that level of support that Nick Xenophon gave to the member for Warringah that day, sowed the seeds for today's energy crisis and the challenges we have in good climate change and energy policy. In 2011, Nick Xenophon again backed the member for Warringah in voting against the Gillard Labor government's clean energy futures package, a package negotiated with sensible crossbenchers like Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott. Again, Nick Xenophon lined up with the extreme right of those opposite in trashing sensible climate change and energy policy. Unsurprisingly perhaps, Nick Xenophon then loyally voted again with the member for Warringah to repeal the clean energy package, to dismantle entirely the carbon price mechanism, after Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, became Prime Minister, making Australia the first nation in the world to entirely dismantle a climate change framework—and the member for Warringah did so with Nick Xenophon's support. Six months later, again unsurprisingly, Nick Xenophon voted with the member for Warringah to install the direct action policy—a policy that had been ridiculed for five years by expert after expert. And 3½ years later what do we see? Carbon pollution levels have continued to rise. Billions of dollars of taxpayer funds have been handed over by those opposite to businesses with no impact on the government's carbon footprint whatsoever. And the review that Nick Xenophon negotiated with the member for Warringah as his price for supporting direct action into legislation—a review that was delivered in December—recommended making it even easier, not harder, for large polluters to increase their carbon pollution levels. On renewable energy, Nick Xenophon has again been a strong supporter of some of the most extreme, discredited anti-renewables rubbish seen in this country. In 2012, famously, Nick Xenophon said about wind power: People are being driven out of their own homes. How can you have people turned into wind turbine refugees because the noise, the infrasound, that low frequency sound that actually affects brain activity is actually ruining their lives? That is a claim that has been utterly debunked by the National Health and Medical Research Council and all of their equivalent agencies across the world. When the government, under the member for Warringah's prime ministership, launched their attacks on the Renewable Energy Target in 2014, again Nick Xenophon stood shoulder to shoulder, right beside them. He told a conference that year, 'I don't like wind, and I think that's an issue for a lot of other coalition MPs.' He famously arranged to attend, on the same day, a rally in favour of the Renewable Energy Target and a rally against the Renewable Energy Target—classic Nick Xenophon, walking both sides of the road. Over the course of this campaign you often hear Nick Xenophon talk a lot about affordability. But again we saw the true colour of Nick Xenophon's commitment on this last year when he waved through $24 billion of company tax cuts supported by those on the other side. When he had the government over a barrel and said he'd deliver something on affordability, do you think he got the government to drop the energy supplement cut, which would have meant $365 per year every year for age pensioners and disability support pensioners? No. He gave in for one one-off payment of $75. I'd love to negotiate with this guy when he's in a position of strength. Nick Xenophon has made a career out of presenting himself as an honest broker. You don't look at what he says, though; you've to look at what he does and how he votes. On climate change policy, on every single occasion when it counted, Nick Xenophon voted with the member for Warringah to wreck sensible climate change policy and to usher in reckless Direct Action nonsense. On renewable energy, he has parroted some of the silliest, most discredited rubbish you'll hear in this building or even outside it. He gave moral support to the member for Warringah's constant attacks against renewables. If you care about action on climate change and energy transition, don't vote for Nick Xenophon. 15:27 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong It's truly bizarre for the federal Labor Party to bring this MPI into the House to attack a candidate at the South Australian state level and then, on the other hand, to say, 'Hang on, we're open to a partnership with him if he ever holds the balance of power.' Labor's inconsistency and hypocrisy are there for all to see. The member for Port Adelaide, a truly nice guy in this place, is in charge of a horrible Labor Party policy when it comes to energy and climate change. He belled the cat when he published a book about the climate wars and he admitted that the Labor Party had sent 'mixed signals' when they were last in office on energy and climate policy and had made mistakes. Their mistakes were any one of the 12 different positions they had at the time. There was the CPRS, the ETS, the dreaded carbon tax, the citizens assembly—that Athenian mode of democracy that was promised by Julia Gillard—as well as Cash for Clunkers and the many other disastrous policies that the Labor Party presided over during their six years in office. But the worst possible aspect of their policies at the time was the fact that electricity prices doubled on their watch. In their own words, in their own policy document, network prices skyrocketed. The gold plating which we are now paying a heavy price for occurred under the then Labor government. And they ignored the warnings about the major export gas industry on the east coast of Australia and the impact it would have on prices and stability in the domestic electricity market and gas market. Then, after denying that they were warned, the member for Port Adelaide finally admitted that that was the case in its energy white paper as well as in an AEMO report, both in 2012. It's that mess that the coalition has been left to clean up. Our approach to energy and climate change policy is, for the first time, to try to integrate them into one single mechanism—a mechanism which will drive a more affordable and reliable power system, as well as meeting our international commitments to reduce emissions over time. That is taking place with the National Energy Guarantee—a recommendation from independent experts made up of the Energy Security Board, the head of AEMO, the head of the AEMC, the head of the AER, an independent chair, and an independent deputy chair. That recommendation, through the National Energy Guarantee, creates two new obligations on the retailers. One is an obligation to provide a certain amount of dispatchable power, because we have failed to price reliability. We have failed to put a premium on dispatchability. The price for that failure is played out graphically in South Australia, with the huge price volatility and the fact that prices in South Australia are, on average, 20 per cent more than can be found in the rest of the country. We're creating two new obligations on the retailers: one to provide a certain amount of dispatchability, and the other to ensure that the emissions intensity of their portfolio of assets declines over time in a way that is consistent with our Paris commitments. Our National Energy Guarantee has been independently modelled. The average Australian household will be $300 a year better off than they would be under the Labor Party's plan. At the same time, we will see wholesale prices come down by 23 per cent. So, if you are running a supermarket, that could see you save $400,000 on your power bill. If you're a major chemical manufacturer, you could save $1 million on your energy bill. If you are a paper manufacturer, you could save $10 million on your energy bill. If you are one of the millions of small businesses around Australia struggling with high power bills, you could also save hundreds of dollars, if not more, every year. No wonder the National Energy Guarantee has been so warmly received by both energy users and energy producers alike. The big employers across Australia—the BHPs, the Rio Tintos, the Dow Chemicals—have come out in favour of the National Energy Guarantee. BlueScope Steel, the largest manufacturer in Australia and a major exporter into the United States, where they have cheaper power than we do here, has said that, for the first time in a decade, it's an opportunity to break that impasse over energy and climate policy. The BCA, the Australian Industry Group, the ACCI—the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry—irrigators and farmers have all come out and strongly supported the National Energy Guarantee, as it's the only game in town. So we say to the Labor Party: put your ideology aside, put aside the fact that you didn't come up with this policy, put aside the fact that your carbon tax was a disaster, put aside the fact that you presided over a doubling of electricity prices when you were last in government and get behind the National Energy Guarantee to deliver lower prices and a more reliable system as we meet our international commitments. On top of the National Energy Guarantee is the work we've done to abolish the limited merits review process, which allowed the network companies to game the system to the tune of $6½ billion in additional power bills that Australian consumers have had to pay because the Labor Party didn't have the courage and the foresight to abolish the limited merits review, as we did last year. The deal that we've done with the retailers to ensure that they get more information, more comparable information, and information in an easier-to-digest form so that they can compare their energy bills with those being offered to them by other retailers. It's that ability to shop around for a better offer that can save hundreds of dollars a year or, as the Australian Energy Regulator has said, more than $1,000 a year for some customers. Nearly one million Australians have gone to the Australian Energy Regulator website—energymadeeasy.gov.au—in order to compare their deals. We're told 50 per cent of Australian households have not moved retailers or contracts in the last five years, despite the benefits of doing so. What about our intervention in the gas market, that the ACCC has said has already seen up to a 50 per cent fall in the gas price that is paid by some customers? That action we took was only forced upon us by the fact that the Labor Party had ignored the warnings when they were last in office. Gas is increasingly setting the price of electricity, as some of the coal-fired generators have closed. And, of course,  there is storage and Snowy 2.0. We are putting in place the big batteries, whether they be lithium batteries or with the pumped hydro project s , like the ones we are funding in the member for Grey's electorate, at Cultana in the Upper Spencer Gulf, and near Whyalla with Zen Energy, partnering to use a disused mine. There is the Kidston pumped hydro project in Queensland. These are projects that are helping to deliver a more stable system, and a more stable system means a more affordable system. In closing, we know what the Turnbull government's plan is: i t is reducing the network costs, it's getting a better deal from the retailers, it's putting in the storage solutions that we need for the 21st century, and it's putting in place the National Energy Guarantee to integrate climate and energy policy. That's the stability that we are offering the Australian people. At the same time, emissions, on a per-capita basis , are at their lowest in 28 years. On the other hand, we know what the Labor Party stands for: higher prices and a less stable system. That was their record when they were in office, and that is the record we're now seeing in Victoria under a Labor government, where they have tripled the Commonwealth royalties. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Coulton): The member for Shortland! Mr FRYDENBERG: The Leader of the Opposition will say one thing to the coalminers in the Latrobe Valley, and another thing to the people in Batman. And we've seen it now in South Australia, with not just a 50 p er cent renewable energy target but a reckless 75 per cent renewable energy target. T he Premier, Jay Weatherill, is like a problem gambler doubling-down to chase his losses. That is what Labor will give you when it comes to energy and climate policy. 15:42 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack Finally Labor have put forward an MPI that I agree with. But, the longer this debate goes on, the more I realise it is nothing to do with national energy; it is actually to do with the South Australian election. Nonetheless, it is a good topic for us to talk about. Here today we are talking about one of the greatest challenges that the world faces today: how do we maintain the delicate balance between conserving and protecting our environment and growing our economy? Those opposite would have the Australian public believe that we on this side don't care about the environment. They think all we care about is blowing it up and digging it out. Well, that's not so. We on this side want the environment to be better today than it was yesterday. That is what Australia wants and that is what our policies are going to achieve. But what about those opposite? We've heard a lot about what Nick Xenophon wants and doesn't want. But since the factions inside the Labor Party successfully lobbied for the 50 per cent renewable energy policy to become official state and federal Labor policy we have seen Labor repeatedly throw caution to the wind on really important issues like energy policy, conservation, land management and water resource management. Every normal clear-thinking person in Australia—you know it and I know it—wants renewable clean energy because they know it is a good thing. But this industry needs to be slowly, methodically and responsibly developed and maintained. Otherwise, we'll see a repeat of the blackouts in South Australia—and nobody wants that. If we all took Jay Weatherill's advice, our country would have the most expensive energy power in the world, our economy would collapse, our wages would stagnate and our way of life would be in tatters. We all know that, including those opposite. We know that this irresponsible approach by South Australia Labor will be tested in the South Australian election on 17 March. Energy generation accounts for 36 per cent of our carbon emissions and is clearly a significant contributor to our total emissions. Getting the policy right is crucial for meeting our Paris commitments. The arguments proffered by those opposite are sadly ignoring some inconvenient facts which make their case untenable. Our emissions today are the lowest they have been on a per capita and GDP basis for some 30 years. We're investing record amounts through ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation in renewable energy projects, many of which are in my electorate. I'm particularly proud that we are trialling innovative projects in regional Australia which will help to ease the burden on regional communities, because we know that those communities are the most affected by unreliable and expensive power. Five Mile Community, an Indigenous community in my electorate of Durack, has received $500,000 from this government for an off-grid solar water treatment and power plant, a little but very important project that will give that Indigenous community clean drinking water and renewable power to power their homes instead of running a very expensive and unreliable gas generator. We've recently granted $20 million to the Pilbara Minerals project through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This will help to develop a lithium mine south of Port Hedland, lithium being the prime ingredient in lithium batteries, something that we'll all need a lot of as we transition to renewable energy technologies. In Emu Downs in Badgingarra, also in my electorate, we've invested $5.5 million through the Australian Renewable Energy Agency to build a 20-megawatt solar farm on the wind farm already located there. See? We love wind farms, especially in Emu Downs. In that same funding run, 11 other solar farms were approved for funding all around the country. This has led to us seeing, in the last quarter, the largest drop in overall emissions in four years. But those opposite don't care about the facts; they just care about the Batman by-election or, as it happens, the South Australian election, including worrying about Green votes. This whole MPI exercise is about out-greening the Greens and also having a crack at Xenophon along the way. They don't care about these issues that affect regional Australians. We know that regional Australians are disproportionately affected by the cost and also that those who are involved in the fossil fuel industry are predominantly employed in regional Australia. They don't care about these things, because they turned their back on regional Australia some time ago and haven't been back. The party that used to care about shearers and labourers is no more. On this side, we get regional Australia, we understand regional Australia and we care about regional people in Australia, especially those on the land who are constantly dealing with the effects of climate and weather events, often more than their city cousins. I understand there's a need for strong leadership on this issue, and I'm very proud that this government is providing the right leadership, the strong leadership to tackle these very complicated issues. 15:47 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield It's always good to hear the member for Port Adelaide lacerate the government on their actual achievements, which are higher emissions, higher prices and less reliability. That's what they've actually delivered for the people of Australia, and they wonder why no-one can take them seriously when they stumble around in this incoherence. The speaker before me reels off all these projects, but this is the government which sat around and celebrated the end of effective action against climate change in this parliament, and the member opposite was one of those dancing around the parliament and cheering and clapping with the member for Warringah at the time. Members opposite hand around lumps of coal in question time, and they wonder why we think that they are incapable of managing a transition to a new energy system dominated by renewable energy. Of course, the member for Port Adelaide also pointed out Nick Xenophon's decade of cohabitation with Tony Abbott, his cohabitation with bad climate change policy and his role in destroying our transition to a renewable-based energy system, a non-carbon-based energy system. He talked about how Nick Xenophon had voted against the CPRS, had indulged crackpot theories and crackpot exercises, and had spent his time running around the place undermining people's confidence in renewables. Ms Price interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The assistant minister's had her turn. Mr CHAMPION HW9 The assistant minister has had her turn. I didn't hear the interjection. She talks about regional people. I remember where I was on the night of the blackout. I was up in the Barossa Valley and, like other South Australians, we were trying to get everything ready. The power went out, and there we were, hunkered down in the living room. It was the middle of winter, so we had the combustion heater on and a good glass of red. We had the baby in the same room as us, and the dog was in the same room—the dog loved it. But I tell you what was so frustrating that night. Rather than the people of South Australia being able to get emergency messages from the Premier or the State Emergency Services or the CFS, instead, they had to watch the ABC, where, 45 minutes after the blackout, Nick Xenophon, who was in Canberra, ran into a newsroom and blamed renewable energy. That's what actually happened on the night of the blackout. Normal politicians—and those opposite are normal, everyday politicians—when there's a disaster, when there's a natural event, stay out of the news waves, don't make political statements, and support the government and its agencies at a time of peril. Nick Xenophon—so desperate is he to get his head before the cameras, such a prima donna is he—ran into a Canberra newsroom and delivered a farrago of mistruths and lies about renewable energy. This is the record of Nick Xenophon. How anybody can take him seriously, and how anybody can take his signs that are up around Adelaide promising to lower power prices seriously—you may as well believe in the magic pudding, in fairytales, that there's a bridge in Sydney Harbour which you can buy. It is just complete nonsense. Of course, he's not alone in the South Australian election. There are other people putting out complete nonsense. On 11 October in 2017, it was exposed, 'SA Liberals concede energy plan alone won't slash bills by $300'. This was two days into the energy plan. Steven Marshall had conceded householders would only be between $60 and $70 better off as a result of his energy plan alone, rather than spruiking a $300 drop. So he was $230 out in his own estimates. It was such a debacle for the Leader of the Opposition, Steven Marshall, that Lainie Anderson, a columnist for the Sunday Mail, described it as 'one of the most stupid and/or devious policy announcements of recent times'. Lainie Anderson is no friend of the Labor Party, I might add. Against this, you have Jay Weatherill, who's actually delivered an energy plan, with the world's largest lithium ion battery in Jamestown, a 150-megawatt solar thermal plant in Port Augusta, a state owned power plant with stand-by power for South Australian agencies, a $150 million renewable technology fund, stronger ministerial powers and stronger intervention in a market that wasn't working, because the national government made sure it wouldn't work. 15:52 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane The Labor Party opposite is the party of the on-again, off-again, on-again carbon tax. They're the party who talked about the greatest moral challenges of our time, who then backflipped and walked away from that view; they're the party that delivered a doubling of electricity prices when they were last in office; and they're a party who thinks that the statewide blackouts in South Australia were a 'hiccup' in a 'big experiment' that they really wish they could take nationwide. And here we are today, with that jumble, that unstable, feeble record—they're here trying to talk about stable energy policy—or maybe I'm detecting a little bit more of a South Australian flavour and element to the approach here. Is their polling in South Australia really that bad? Are the people of South Australia about to deliver a statewide blackout to the Labor state government in that state? The Labor Party are incapable—as they've proven over the last 10 years—of delivering stable policy on almost any topic. But their record of delivery on energy and the environment is especially incompetent. I find it remarkable, even today, that I was the only candidate in the inner-city seat of Brisbane at the last federal election who made local environmental commitments. There was a Labor candidate, there was a Greens candidate and there were others, but it seemed that I was the only candidate who had actually thought deeply about the local environment, who'd considered the environmental priorities and who had successfully lobbied my party and my minister seeking resources to make those sorts of commitments. On the topic of energy policy, let's consider all of those key planks of this government's energy policy out there right now: Snowy Hydro 2.0, ensuring our domestic gas needs are met; promoting retail competition and choice for consumers; and of course the National Energy Guarantee, designed by independent experts, as the minister outlined. Why didn't Labor do any of those things? Why didn't they touch on any of those ideas or topics when they were in government? They could have, but they didn't. They certainly didn't think anything about pumped hydro, and they've never said anything in their policies about the idea of storage, despite how important it is to make renewables actually work for the grid. Labor caused the issue of domestic gas shortages, despite being officially warned, as we've heard in this place, that the policies they were pursuing would cause that exact gas shortage. On the topic of policy certainty, Labor would actually do quite well to move aside some of these coincidentally South Australian members of the Labor Party who are all talking here today and to talk to some of their own backbenchers who have recently been doing some work with us on the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy. A few weeks ago, many of us on both sides got up in the Federation Chamber and talked about the report called Powering our future: inquiry into modernising Australia's electricity grid. It was a significant contribution towards this parliament's work, which is supposed to be bipartisan and looking forwards, on this important topic of energy. That report was important for a couple of reasons. Firstly, as I said, it was certainly bipartisan. Secondly, as the very first recommendation in that report made clear, the importance of policy certainty is supposed to be a bipartisan feature of the landscape now. Quite frankly, that report went on to make further recommendations that really underscore the importance of so many of the other key planks of this government's energy policies, as the minister outlined earlier—that increased focus on dispatchability and the flexibility of the electricity grid and the need to incentivise stability in both a technical and an economic sense. That report was obviously focused specifically on the electricity grid, but it's important to understand there are so many other features of our energy system. That's why there are all of these other key planks to the government's energy policy. In the area of generation, in those wholesale markets, as the minister outlined, the government's National Energy Guarantee is the mechanism that will settle the energy trifecta of affordability, reliability and emissions reduction. The reliability guarantee in the national electricity guarantee will help deliver the right level of dispatchable energy when it's needed by customers, while the emissions guarantee will ensure Australia simultaneously meets its environmental commitments. 15:57 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin The one thing I would agree with the last speaker about is that policy certainty is important for the nation. That is one thing we would agree with. The very reason we are having this debate today is that there is no policy certainty for this nation under this coalition government and under its counterparts in each of the state and territory jurisdictions. The reality is that we are having this debate because so many members of the coalition—and particularly those in the National Party, who seem to have a great say in how this government operates—still do not believe that climate change is real. Just for the record, let me quote just three or four recent facts. Between 2013 and 2017, the world had its hottest five-year period ever. 2017 was the hottest ever in which temperatures had not been boosted by an El Nino event. The world's 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998 and 17 of the last 18 hottest years on record have occurred this century. The evidence is in, and it's clear—the climate is changing and fossil fuel burning is contributing to that change. Governments, whether in this place or at the state level, have a responsibility to lead and to manage the emerging risks that they and the people that they act on behalf of face. It is not their right to simply walk away, to kick the can down the road or to pretend that the risks simply are not there. We see an absolute policy failure when it comes to this government. It does not have an energy policy, a gas policy or anything near it. Nor do we see one in South Australia when it comes to the two main contenders to replace Jay Weatherill as Premier of South Australia. I'm referring to Steven Marshall and Nick Xenophon. The reality is that, in South Australia, where energy is a big issue, only South Australian Labor has a credible energy plan—a plan that looks at a 75 per cent renewable energy target, a plan with a 25 per cent renewable storage target, a plan where the Premier has committed $560 million towards securing South Australia's future energy supplies through $360 million for a gas-fired generator, $100 million for battery storage and $100 million for diesel generators. That plan provides future and certainty, and future and certainty in turn provides investment and confidence for the people of South Australia. Can I say to members opposite who don't live in South Australia: South Australians are getting rather sick and tired of the minister for energy and the Prime Minister constantly coming into this place and telling them that they are following an energy policy in South Australia that is wrong for them. South Australians are not fools. They understand that it was not renewable energy that caused the blackout two years ago, and they also understand that the future in terms of the security of our state rests with a clean energy target and a clean energy system. That has been proven by the fact that we're seeing in South Australia in recent times significant investments, whether it is from Elon Musk, with his battery investment; Sanjeev Gupta, who is leading a green energy revival of the Whyalla steelworks; or Sonnen's proposed manufacturing plant, again, to do with renewable energy in South Australia. These investments are creating jobs for South Australians and creating the policy certainty that is required. Yet, when you look at the Liberal opposition in South Australia, led by Steven Marshall, there is no credibility, no policy, no idea. The reality is that it was the Liberals who sold off ETSA. As far as Nick Xenophon goes, yes, he voted against the sale, but he would have supported the long-term lease of it, which would have amounted to exactly the same thing. The Liberals sold ETSA, and they did so quite deliberately, making sure that there was not a New South Wales interconnector in order to boost the price of the sale. Had that connector been there at the time when the blackout occurred, we may not have had the blackout. But, in order to boost the price of the sale of the ETSA, they deliberately walked away from the interconnector with New South Wales at the time. This is a party who has no idea about energy policy, and that's become more evident in their recent policy announcements, which the member for Wakefield quite rightly, just a moment ago, showed them as ridiculous propositions being put to the people of South Australia. With respect to the other party, SA-BEST—and I won't go into all the details, because time does not permit me—there is a simple message. They'll say what they think people want to hear, but, at the end of the day, they do not have a coherent policy. Their latest policy of supposedly having a cooperative buy energy does nothing to address the real issue of how the energy is created in the first place. Only Labor has a secure energy policy for the future of South Australia. 16:02 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn During six years of Labor government, electricity prices actually doubled—yes, doubled. Federal and state Labor policies have continued to increase the pressure on prices through job-destroying gas bans and moratoriums, unrealistic renewable energy targets and open hostility to reliable base load power. The Turnbull government has taken action to fix this mess. The government is focused on keeping the lights on and reducing household electricity bills. The government and the National Energy Guarantee will cut electricity prices by ending subsidies for energy which are passed on to the customers, creating a level playing field that ensures all types of energy are part of the Australian mix and providing certainty for investors. This means more supply and, in turn, lower prices—in other words, supply and demand. This will reduce volatility by ensuring reliable and affordable power when it's needed. I have a 10-point plan of my own. This was developed in conjunction with industry, both large and small. I have spoken to companies like Boyne Smelter; Queensland Alumina at Gladstone and Yarwun; Orica, a chemical company in Gladstone; Cement Australia in Gladstone; and Rusal, a Russian company, who partners with QAL. I have also spoken to BMA, BHP and a lot of other mines in my area. I have 11 coalmines in my electorate, and the future of those 11 coalmines would hang in the balance if Bill Shorten were to gain power in Australia. Coal will be around for the next hundred years, in their terms and their planning. It will not go away. It will be a future energy source for a long time yet. But there are also small businesses who are buckling under the power prices—places like Biggenden Meat Works, owned by Peter Gibbs. He's the biggest employer in the town of Biggenden. It's a small town, but he employs 52 people. His electricity bills are going up $500 each and every month. Half of his electricity bill is made up of what he uses and the other half is the renewable energy or the network charges. Mind you, he had to bulldoze his own powerlines in and put in his own poles to get power to his plant. For that honour, he gets charged between $8,000 and $9,000 each and every month. He also pays $280,000 a year in payroll tax. He said to me, 'What are you trying to do to my business? The day I stop making a dollar is the day I depart the scene'—and there goes the 52 jobs with the biggest employer in Biggenden because of these power bills. My 10-point plan is comprehensive and it centres around HELE—high efficiency, low emission—power plants. These HELE plants are new to Australia but they are not new to the rest of the world. We export millions of tonnes of coal to other countries, such as Korea, Japan, China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam, and they are fully engrossed in the HELE plants. This ensures base load power at the cheapest price. Our aluminium smelter on Boyne Island pays the dearest price in the world for electricity—and that just ain't good enough, when we have all these natural resources at our fingertips. We have coal, we have gas, we have uranium and, of course, we have sun, water and wind. Why should Boyne Smelter, who employ over 1,000 people, be paying— (Time expired) 16:07 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I rise today to join my South Australian colleagues on this side of the House on this matter of public importance. What a great shame it is that we have a government here in Canberra that fails to recognise climate change and the importance of renewable energy. We have had a government for the last six years—and they were in opposition for three years prior to that—that are anti-climate change, anti-renewables and anti-investment into renewables, which means that they are anti-jobs. When I think of this government's climate change and energy policies, I can't help but think of a novel that many of us may be familiar with, a novel written by Miguel de Cervantes, where the protagonist, Don Quixote, is on his horse fighting windmills that he imagines are massive giants out to destroy him. That's what I see in this government—a government that sees renewables and windmills et cetera as massive giants that are out to destroy them, which is absolutely not true. You can just imagine the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, on his horse with a wooden sword trying to chop down the wonderful windmills we have that create energy, and a whole bunch of MPs and backbenchers riding behind him up the hill to destroy these wonderful works of renewable energy that help reduce our carbon emissions et cetera. It is a great shame. It's a government that has done nothing in this area. We have seen no national framework for a national policy on energy and renewables. They've spent six years saying that climate change is not a problem and that we should continue with coal. We had a Treasurer that walked into this House with a lump of coal. How embarrassing on the international scale can that be, when other nations around the world are combating and doing everything they can, to see a leader of the government, someone in high office, come into this place, plonk a hunk of coal on the table and say, 'This is the way to go.' I think most Australians actually get it. Young people get it. I was at a school recently, the Star of the Sea, where a great group of kids were dedicated to the environment. A particular student called Hudson was incredibly passionate about the planet and so were his fellow students. They were genuinely worried about the planet that they would inherit. They spoke to me about it. Hudson spoke about his opposition to Adani and many other things, and he was so impressively engaged with this debate that he had garnered signatures from all others in the community and handed them to us. We need to invest more money in renewables. We need to create green jobs and projects just like the Weatherill Labor government is doing in South Australia. This government has left the states on their own when it comes to energy policy. They came into government in 2013 promising that energy prices would go down once they removed Labor's policies. What we have seen is a 70 per cent increase in energy prices. It's closer to 70 per cent to 80 per cent increase in energy prices across the nation. Why have we seen that? Because there's been no national framework. There's been no national policy for renewables, so how can you get new industries to invest into the nation and the economy with renewable energy and new technologies et cetera? Therefore we have seen the outflow of many of these businesses. You look at Asia, where trillions of dollars are being spent at the moment in investment in renewables and much more will be spent in this area. We will be missing out. We will be missing out because our government doesn't care. But in South Australia we've got a 75 per cent target for renewables by 2025; a 25 per cent renewable storage target; a $10 billion investment in low-carbon generations; achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and establishing Adelaide as one of the world's first carbon-neutral cities. This is drawing in investment. We have had people coming in to invest in solar power, battery power and a whole range of other things. This is the way that this federal government should be going—coming up with a national plan that actually encourages business to invest, to create jobs, to have new technologies and to ensure that we save this planet. The reality is you can talk as much as you like about businesses, about jobs, but there will be no businesses and no jobs within a few years, within the generation of our great grandkids. We have a duty as people in this place to ensure that we protect the environment. (Time expired) 16:13 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey As I look at this discussion of a matter of public importance, I was searching everywhere for Nick Xenophon, but I couldn't see his name in there. There must be some awful polling coming out of South Australia for the state Labor Party, I'd suggest. It is interesting, though, because the matter of public importance goes to policy certainty. I'm not too sure what the member for Port Adelaide was on about, whether he was trying to dent the reputation of the coalition government or blow up his mate Jay Weatherill. But some proposals coming out of South Australia from the Weatherill government have been the cause of the problem. The motion goes to policy certainty. There's nothing more certain than blowing up a perfectly good coal-fired power station with more than a 15-year life left in it will plunge the state into darkness. It's certain to massively increase wholesale electricity prices. It's certain to lead to the state having to spend well over $500 million just to keep the lights on. In fact it's certain that it will consume more diesel for the new generators that have been hastily installed trying to keep those lights on. The Premier is on record as saying that South Australia's electricity grid is a giant experiment. Well, that's another certainty. It's an experiment that's gone horribly pear-shaped. And it's down to the Premier. It's down to the team that sit on the other side of this House. South Australia has become the laughing-stock of the rest of the nation, and I don't appreciate it very much, nor do my businesses appreciate having to pay ridiculous prices for electricity that their competitors interstate can get on a much more equitable basis. In 2012 I met with the AEMO commissioner in Adelaide. I said to the commissioner at the time, 'If we close Port Augusta too early, if it is closed before we are ready to make the transition, South Australia will be in deep trouble.' The commissioner assured me: 'It will be okay because we're upgrading the interconnector to Heywood. It'll be okay, Mr Ramsey, even if Port Augusta goes offline.' It wasn't okay, because the week it closed the wholesale prices in South Australia doubled. It wasn't okay at all. So I was doubtful, and I was right to be doubtful. What has happened? Nationally we've had a 20 per cent renewable target by 2020, but we did a little better than that. But it was not area specific, and this is a policy failure. Consequently, state governments could seek to maximise installations within their boundaries, which is exactly what South Australia did. It chased down wind investment. In fact, Jay Weatherill had a target of 50 per cent, and he was successful. South Australia is now close to that amount. But doing so has led to surging, intermittent electricity supplies, which have undone the business case for base-load generators in South Australia. In that period of time, we got rid of the coal-fired power station and we've have had no reinvestment in new base-load generation. There has been no reinvestment in the Torrens Island gas turbine and no investment for new base-load generators at all. The member for Adelaide talks about certainty, and he wanted to reflect on the member for Warringah when he spoke, without any reference to his Prime Minister, who promised never, never to have a carbon tax under a government which she led. Where is the certainty in that? It was certainly a promise that was trashed pretty quickly. We more than met our Kyoto Protocol targets, if we're talking about certainty on climate change. We will meet our Paris targets, and we are making positive contributions at the federal level about reducing the price of electricity in Australia and increasing its reliability. We've reduced the price of domestic gas by passing import restrictions that we have not had to implement, because the Prime Minister sat down with the retailers and they increased the supply of gas. We put $110 million on the table. I would note the member for Wakefield said that Jay Weatherill was building a solar thermal plant with molten salt storage in Port Augusta. He hasn't put any dollars into it—no dollars at all. It's the federal government putting $110 million into it. We are backing Snowy 2.0. I had the opportunity to go down and have a look at it a couple of weeks ago, and it's a very impressive operation. It will make a considerable difference to Australia. We're backing two pumped hydro projects in my electorate, in the Upper Spencer gulf. We have convinced retailers to contact their uncontracted customers to give them up-to-date prices and move them into the current format. Most importantly, we will establish the National Energy Guarantee, which will ensure we will have not only renewable energy but base-load energy. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN Order! This discussion has concluded. BILLS 44 BILLS Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017 44

Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017

Second Reading 44 16:18 The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved by the honourable member for Hunter on which a division was called for earlier today and deferred in accordance with the standing orders. No further debate is allowed. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be 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. [16:22]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 69 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM 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 Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM 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 Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT 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'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.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 46 16:28 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 46

Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018

Second Reading 46 16:28 The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for Fenner on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing orders. No further debate is allowed. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Fenner 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 Fenner be agreed to. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

The House divided. [16:30]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 69 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM 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 Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM 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 Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT 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'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.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

Third Reading 47 16:35 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. With Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 48 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Coalition Agreement 48 16:36 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Mr Speaker, on indulgence: at the end of question time the member for Hunter said that there had been no costs order made against him in the case between himself and myself in the Federal Court. I table the order of the court. The third order is: 'The applicant'—that is to say the member for Hunter—'is to pay the costs of the first respondent'—that is to say myself—'as agreed or as taxed.' I look forward to the member for Hunter correcting the record. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hunter— 16:36 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter Mr Speaker, on indulgence: I would like to respond to the Prime Minister. The SPEAKER 00APG No. I will allow you to seek to make a personal explanation. Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 I can do it anyway you like. I assure you I am not seeking to politicise the conversation—whichever way you would like to do it. The SPEAKER 00APG Just the right way—which is for you to seek to make a personal explanation. Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 I'm not sure I haven't been misrepresented. I would have thought it would be more appropriate to do this on indulgence. But if that is your ruling, Mr Speaker, I would be very happy to take— The SPEAKER 00APG I will let you address the matter on indulgence and we'll see how go. Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Obviously, the Prime Minister raised this issue in question time. As I understand it, in a technical sense there is a costs order. To the extent to which that is true, I apologise if I misled the House. I was not aware of, nor did I fully understand, that matter at the time. But I can explain to the House that I understand there was no agreement between the parties as to costs, there was no dollar figure and there has been no demand on me for costs. On that basis, I was not aware that a costs order had been made. If the Prime Minister wants to continue to spend taxpayers' money and continue to argue that 10 per cent has been given back by a costs order he can do so— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hunter will resume his seat. BUSINESS 48 BUSINESS Rearrangement 48 16:37 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 6, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 48 BILLS Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 1) Bill 2018 48

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 1) Bill 2018

Second Reading 48 16:38 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston Today I rise to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 1) Bill 2018. This bill, which comprises eight schedules, seeks to provide greater support for our current and former ADF members by addressing several recommendations from the Senate inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel. We do owe a debt to those who put their lives on hold in service of our country. When individuals enlist with the Australian Defence Force they undertake a commitment to our country and place their health and wellbeing on the line in service to our nation. In return, we undertake a commitment to look after them and their families both during their time in the ADF and after. This commitment is about more than just their physical health; it is about taking a holistic view of the member and their loved one. For those whose service has had a greater impact on them, we have a duty to care for them and their family now and into the future. One suicide is one too many and we should be doing all we can to prevent our current and ex-serving Defence personnel and their loved ones from reaching this crisis point. It's for this reason that Labor supported the establishment of the Senate inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel. This inquiry sought to highlight the struggles some veterans and their families undergo following their time in the Australian Defence Force and, importantly, what we can do to provide greater assistance. Over the course of 11 months the inquiry received 458 submissions and held a number of public hearings with veterans, families, ex-service organisations and other interested parties to work through the issues facing our ex-service community. These submissions built a detailed picture of gaps and stumbling blocks that our veterans experience. They highlighted the lessons they had learnt and what the Department of Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the government could do to improve outcomes for the ex-service community. The report made 24 recommendations, with the government accepting 22 in full and two in principle. This legislation addresses two of these recommendations. Labor has offered full support to the government to ensure the Senate inquiry recommendations are implemented in a timely manner to bring about positive changes for our veterans and their families. I've been following the progress of these recommendations closely to ensure that they are implemented in a timely fashion and am pleased to see these elements included in this bill. Schedule 1 of this bill seeks to amend the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to provide additional support for current and former members and the families of current and former members, including deceased members, by providing additional childcare arrangements, counselling, household services and attendant care. This is in response to recommendation 19 of the Senate inquiry, which states: The committee recommends that the Department of Veterans' Affairs review the support for partners of veterans to identify further avenues for assistance. This review should include services such as information and advice, counselling, peer support and options for family respite care to support partners of veterans. The proposed amendments will support the implementation of three initiatives which are intended to help families maintain their connections to community and employment and improve social function. They aim to provide key psychosocial interventions to members with complex needs and assist in reducing family pressures. This schedule will help to address some of the issues that have been raised with me which have also been highlighted in the National Mental Health Commission's report. Family members of current and ex-serving Defence personnel play a vital role in supporting their loved ones, particularly in circumstances where the service of a veteran has had a greater impact on that member. In these circumstances the families have needs of their own and it is our responsibility to ensure that the systems which support veterans extend the same care to their loved ones. It is for this reason that Labor has committed, if elected, to developing a family engagement and support strategy for Defence personnel and veterans. This strategy would provide a national blueprint to include engagement of DVA and Defence with military families and would ensure best-practice support for families of serving personnel and ex-ADF members is consistently available across the country. This element of consistency is particularly important given the cycle of repostings for ADF members and the impact on the family who move with them. Support for families was the topic of many conversations during my recent trip to Darwin. Luke Gosling, the member for Solomon, invited me to the NT to visit with current and ex-serving members and their families. I really appreciated those individuals who took the time to come and meet with me and raise concerns. It's by talking to members of the serving and ex-service community and their families that I'm able to best advocate for their needs. I'm pleased to see the government acting on the recommendation which seeks to provide additional support and recognises the importance of military families. Under this schedule a new chapter will be inserted into the MRCA to enable the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to provide a range of services to current and former ADF members, specified family members and specified family members of deceased family members. This schedule seeks to provide additional child care, brief intervention counselling and additional household services for widows and widowers. While some of these services have been made available to individuals in this group via exceptional circumstances determinations, these changes will formalise the assistance and make the process smoother and easier for veterans and their families. Labor is supportive of these changes to provide greater assistance to the family, who do, as I've said, play a critical role. After all, greater support for military families is greater support for our current and ex-serving Defence personnel. Schedule 2 establishes the veteran payment, an interim income support payment for those waiting for mental health claims to be determined. The payments are subject to satisfying the income and assets tests and will require individuals to engage in vocational and psychosocial rehabilitation, including financial counselling. In addition, partners of veterans may also be eligible for a payment. This new payment is both in response to the Senate inquiry and in response to the inquiry into the suicide of Jesse Bird. As members may be aware, Jesse Bird was a young veteran who took his life in June 2017 after his claim for compensation had been rejected by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Jesse's case made 19 recommendations to improve the service and experience of veterans. Recommendation 18 dealt with the provision of more timely incapacity compensation payments, recommending the provision of more timely incapacity compensation payments for former members of the ADF incapacitated for service or work by mental health conditions without the need for a determination that those mental health conditions are related to service. As a result of the recommendation, and the findings of the Senate inquiry, the government committed to introducing interim incapacity payments for mental health conditions which would ensure a level of financial security for veterans and their families when suffering from mental health injury. Schedule 2 of this bill provides the legislative basis for these payments. The veteran payment will be available between lodging a claim for a mental health injury and the claim being determined, essentially targeting this gap and providing some level of financial security during a difficult time for a particularly vulnerable group of individuals. Importantly, this payment can include the veteran's partner, who may be unable to work directly due to this circumstance. The basic rate for an individual will be set at $913 and $713.60 for a partnered person per fortnight. In addition, these individuals may be eligible for the pension supplement, rent assistance, remote area allowance and family tax benefit part A. The payments will be subject to the individual and their partner satisfying the assets and income tests. It is anticipated that this payment will benefit approximately 1,500 people in 2017-18, made up of 830 veterans and around 700 partners. This includes veterans who are currently waiting for their mental health injury to be determined. Financial security is a key element of good mental health. For those suffering from mental health issues following their time in the ADF, this payment will provide some certainty and assist to lessen the impact of an often complicated and lengthy claims process. This veteran payment is a direct result of the advocacy of Karen Bird and all of those who made submissions to the Senate inquiry. Karen and her family's strength, courage and determination in the face of such a terrible circumstance has been humbling to witness. Since Jesse's death and over the course of this inquiry I have been in regular contact with Jesse's family and have appreciated how generous the Birds have been with their time. I'm glad to see the recommendations are beginning to be implemented. I can assure the House that I will continue to actively pursue with the government the remaining changes to ensure that they are implemented in a timely manner. Labor does support this measure and the drive to implement this payment as soon as possible to assist veterans and their families. Schedule 3 amends the MRCA and the Veterans' Entitlements Act to assist in creating a pilot program to improve the mental health support for veterans in rural and regional areas. This measure will build on the existing Coordinated Veterans' Care Program, which is a team based model of care led by a GP and supported by a practice nurse, and will refer veterans to use an application on a smart device. It is aimed at veterans with mild and moderate health conditions such as anxiety and depression who have a physical condition requiring pain management and will recruit 125 participants each year over two years to provide support for veterans in rural and regional areas. The app will utilise cognitive behaviour therapy treatments and will include a level of clinical oversight. Access to mental health treatment is an issue of concern for many in the veteran community, particularly in rural and regional areas, and this has been an issue that I have raised on a regular basis. Labor welcomes this funding and supports this trial aimed at addressing some of these issues. But of course, that being said, geographical location is not the only roadblock for veterans seeking mental health treatment. Access to clinical support for veterans is being eroded due to issues with the freeze of the repatriation medical fee schedule. This schedule is tied to the Medicare rebate and indexed in line with Medicare rebate indexation. As such, this fee has remained stagnant since 2014, resulting in circumstances where some medical and allied health professionals are turning DVA clients away. The government has flagged its intention to lift the freeze in 2020. Four years is far too long to wait to address these issues. Labor and I have called on the government to drop this unfair freeze immediately. Until this freeze is lifted, access to clinical services for veterans is going to get worse. Schedule 4 amends the existing provisions relating to compensation for household and attendant care services where an ADF member has sustained a catastrophic injury or disease under the MRCA legislation. These provisions will allow the commission to approve weekly amounts of compensation for household and attendant care services it considers reasonable in individual circumstances. As with schedule 1, this assistance is currently provided by an exceptional determination; however, these amendments will remove the requirement for this determination to be made, thereby minimising any delay in the provision of appropriate care and support for seriously injured current and former ADF members. Labor is supportive of this measure as a way to ensure clear and practical support for those whose lives have been significantly impacted by their service. They deserve our unwavering support and assistance now and into the future. Schedule 5 will amend the Veterans' Entitlements Act as it relates to a claim for qualifying service. This amendment will create an additional way for a qualifying service determination to be made. The amendment will enable the automation of a qualifying service determination and be primarily based on the information that the Department of Defence provides to DVA. This process will essentially remove a hurdle that veterans must currently overcome in order to make an application for a benefit. This is the first legislative amendment to support the implementation of a veteran-centric reform and is part of a broader improvement strategy to ease the transition process for veterans. Labor is supportive of this measure which improves process and addresses longstanding issues within the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That being said, we will be closely monitoring the implementation of the so-called veteran-centric reform process to ensure it does not result in veterans being left worse off. Veterans deserve world-class care and support delivered through a dedicated department. Schedule 6 makes technical amendments to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act. These technical amendments would remove redundant references to Comcare and other bodies and repeal provisions not related to providing compensation and rehabilitation to current and former ADF members and eligible persons. As members may be aware, this piece of legislation, the DRCA, removed all the Defence Force elements from the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, known as the SRCA. The SRCA covers public servants, and, until last year, this included Defence Force members in certain circumstances between 1949 and 2004. As the SRCA covers public servants, it sat under the responsibility of the minister for employment. Last year, in an effort to simplify and consolidate all three acts under the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the government made a carbon copy of all the Defence Force related elements in the SRCA and created the new act, the DRCA. The government advised that, in an effort to make this process as clear as possible, technical amendments were kept to a minimum at that time. Now that this process has been completed, the DRCA is acting as intended. The government is now seeking to remove redundant references and provisions not related to Defence Force members in an effort to tidy up the legislation. Last year when the DRCA was proposed, the veterans and ex-service community raised some concerns about whether the bill was indeed a carbon copy of the SRCA. Labor diligently worked through each of the concerns raised to ensure that they were replicated in the new act. While I appreciate the intention of this schedule and believe that the proposed amendments are of a technical nature, I will continue to listen to and work with the veterans community to ensure that is indeed the case. This schedule also proposes to align the information-sharing provisions under the DRCA with those under the MRCA, enabling the commission to provide information to the Chief of Defence for the reconsideration or review of a determination made regarding the liability of injury, disease or death of an employee. Finally, this schedule will also reinsert section 43 into the SRCA, which was admitted during the drafting process. Section 43 provides that if compensation under SRCA is payable to a person who is a peacekeeper for the purpose of the VEA, they can elect to not receive compensation under the SRCA when they wish to pursue a claim through the VEA. Schedule 7 makes a number of consequential amendments relating to references made by the Specialist Medical Review Council. These amendments will remove references to 'the Council' and replace them with 'the Review Council' to make it clear that these references relate to the Specialist Medical Review Council. Schedule 8 makes a number of amendments, the first to the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006 and the Australian Participants in British Commonwealth Occupation Force (Treatment) Act 2006, which will enable a person who was a member of the ADF who served in Japan any time from 6 August 1945 to the end of the 30 January 1946 to be eligible for the gold card. This amendment is intended to extend the gold card eligibility to those members of the ADF who served in Japan just prior to the British Commonwealth Occupation Force, BCOF, and subsequently missed out on the changes that went through the parliament last year. Given that these individuals were exposed to the same conditions as those members of the BCOF, it is entirely appropriate that they receive the same care and support which was extended to members of the BCOF last year. Labor wholeheartedly supports this change. The second change is to the VEA to align the pension age with the DRCA and the MRCA. The amendment removes the prescribed age of 65 and replaces it with the term 'pension age', meaning that, as the pension age increases, the act will reflect this and not create a gap of support for veterans. Finally, there will be a technical amendment to this schedule. Labor is supportive of the amendments proposed in the legislation, in particular those which seek to implement the recommendations from the Senate inquiry and the Jesse Bird inquiry. Both those inquiries highlighted issues with a system that has become adversarial, lengthy and overly complicated, a system which has let down some of the people it is designed to assist. As I mentioned, the Senate inquiry received over 400 submissions detailing the difficulties they have experienced and what we could do to make sure both they and their loved ones get the support they need to live full and productive lives. We owe it to them, and to all those that have and continue to put their lives on hold in service to our country, to ensure that these important recommendations are implemented in a timely manner. While I'm pleased to see legislation introduced which begins to address the recommendations, more needs to be done. As part of recommendation 6, the government agreed to make a reference to the Productivity Commission review into the legislative framework of compensation and rehabilitation for service members and veterans. The Senate inquiry recommended that this be completed within 18 months. It's now four months later and it appears the terms of reference have not been completed. This issue around the complicated legislative framework has been well established, and if the government had been serious about addressing concerns of the veterans community, the commission would have had the terms of reference finalised and the Productivity Commission would be undertaking this review. In addition, several recommendations raised issues around barriers to employment and what support could be offered to members of the ex-service community. The unemployment and underemployment of veterans is a serious issue which requires our concentrated attention. Recent reports have the unemployment rate for veterans at 30 per cent. For those who are employed, there is an average 30 per cent drop in income from ADF wages. Our country would not tolerate a 30 per cent unemployment rate in many other groups within our community and it should not be tolerated when it comes to our veterans. Our ADF members have a wealth of practical experience, but clearly not enough is being done to assist transitioning members into employment. The government's focus thus far has been to establish an industry advisory committee and the Prime Minister's employment awards, which recognise employers. I believe that there is value in working with industry, but it cannot be the only action taken to ensure our veterans move and transition into fulfilling employment. More needs to be done to ensure employers can benefit from the many desirable skills of our ex-ADF and to prepare and train and enable those transitioning members to move smoothly into the job market. I will continue to urge the implementation of the recommendations from the Senate inquiry to ensure that the government delivers on their commitments to our current and ex-serving community. In the meantime, given the changes in this proposed legislation, which seeks to provide greater support for families and those suffering from mental health injury, I and Labor offer support to this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 52 17:01 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson by leave—I move: That the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 1) Bill 2018 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. Question agreed to. Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017 52

Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017

Second Reading 52 17:02 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein As always it's a great pleasure to represent the Goldstein electorate in this hallowed chamber and to have the opportunity to address a piece of legislation as important as this. My remarks will be relatively brief. The reality is that the core focus of this bill, as part of many that are being introduced in the migration space, is to build a greater sense of confidence and integrity in our migration system for Australians. As a nation we have always welcomed people from across the world and we must continue to do so. Migrants have made an incredible contribution to the building of this nation as new Australians at all stages, all the way from the beginning of those who have settled on this continent, and we should continue to support the arrival of new Australians onto our shores to help build Australia's future. Having a system of integrity around our migration system is incredibly important to build that confidence, public trust and respect. That includes people, of course, who are seeking migration pathways as a consequence of fleeing from persecution or conflict overseas through the pathway of being an asylum seeker, all the way through to people who are skilled migrants or family reunions. At every stage there has to be confidence in the migration system to make sure that Australians know that the people they are letting into our country to help build its future are part of a positive contribution, that their identities are security checked and that there is proper integrity in the process. That is what this bill seeks to do, by allowing the public disclosure of sponsor sanctions related to the consequences of people breaching visas. It will allow the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to collect records, store and use the tax file numbers of certain visa holders for compliance and research purposes. It will provide certainty around when merits review is available for visas that require an approved nomination, and allow the department to enter an enforceable undertaking with a sponsor who has breached their sponsor obligations related to work visas. These measures complement and are part of the significant reform package to abolish the subclass 457 visa and replace it with a new temporary skill shortage visa. Let's not understate the importance of skills and providing migration pathways for skills and high value skill into this country. Many businesses or people who work within businesses in the Goldstein electorate need visa classes to enable skilled migrants to come to this country. They often form the foundation of much of the skills base that is sometimes lacking within our country. In fact, I've had a number of businesses who've come to see me recently about these changes. They are conscious of the impact that sits upon them and their businesses where they may have skills shortages. What this bill will enable people to do is make sure that they can continue to address skills shortages as part of the migration system. Equally, we can make sure that, as part of the total package of these measures, those businesses that can provide Australian jobs will provide Australian jobs. The measures in this bill will apply to temporary and permanent sponsored skilled work visas, which includes the 457 visa and its replacement, the temporary skills shortage visa. These measures strengthen the integrity of these visa programs and protect Australians and overseas workers. The bill proposes to amend the Migration Act to allow the public disclosure of information concerning businesses that are sanctioned for breaching their sponsor obligations. This information will be published on the department's website. To make sure that businesses are forthright, honest and do the right thing by Australians and the workers that they seek to bring to this country, information released will include the sponsor obligation that was breached, the sanction that was imposed and the details of the business. Sponsor obligations are in place to protect the wages and conditions of Australian and overseas workers and to ensure skilled work programs are used only when an Australian is not available. Currently the department is only able to publicly release limited information regarding breaches. Whilst the department's annual report includes aggregate data on sponsor sanctions, it does not contain details of the companies that breach their obligations or the penalties that were issued. The presently available information is not enough to inform the public about the businesses that do the wrong thing. It is a critical part of making sure there is appropriate accountability in the system to build public confidence. The bill also proposes to amend the Migration Act to provide certainty around when merits review is available for visas that require an approved nomination. The measure will clarify the situations in which review is available. It will clarify that review rights are determined at the time a decision to refuse a visa is made. The bill also proposes to amend the Migration Act, Income Tax Assessment Act and the Taxation Administration Act to allow the department to collect, record, store and use the tax file numbers associated with temporary and permanent skilled visas for compliance and for research purposes as the foundation for making sure that this government and future governments make informed decisions so that migration advances the interests of Australians. It is proposed that the Migration Regulations will provide for the sharing of tax file numbers associated with temporary and skilled visas, including the subclass 457 visa. Enhanced data matching through tax file number sharing will improve the department's ability to perform the research and trend analysis that underpins the development of visa policy, something I think everybody in this House should encourage and want to see more of. The department will use tax file numbers to match and access data, including the salary data held by the ATO, so that people make sure they pay their proper investment in this country as part of the enjoyment of continuing to seek employment here. Whilst the department already conducts data sharing with the Australian Taxation Office, it does not have the authority to collect or store tax file numbers for this purpose. The data will assist the department to undertake more streamlined, targeted and effective compliance activity to identify employers who breach their obligations, including by underpaying visa holders, and visa holders working for more than one employer in breach of the visa conditions. TFNs will also improve the department's ability to undertake research and trend analysis. This will provide an additional evidence base for the department in developing skilled visa policy. In order to achieve these goals it is also proposed that the department would be able to store tax file numbers if they are provided during the visa application process, and it is proposed to amend the Migration Act so the department can enter into enforceable undertakings with sponsors who have breached their obligations. This provides the department and sponsors with an additional remedy to address breaches. The issues around migration are often raised with me by the Goldstein community, because people want to have a strong sense of confidence in the operation of our migration system. We have had a number of debates within this parliament over a long period of time, looking at different methods in which people seek visas to be able to enter this country for work purposes, for family reunions and also for the purposes of seeking asylum. The more integrity we have around all aspects of our system, the more likely it is that we can continue to retain and increase public confidence in the migration system and make sure we remain a country open to the world. One of the worst things that we can do as a nation is to undermine that sense of public confidence. We have all, either directly or through our ancestry, come to this great land and this great continent, wanting to invest in and build its future, and continuing migration is a critical part of that story. But to do so we need public confidence, which is delivered in this bill as well as many other bills as part of this package. These bills will help continue to restore that sense of public confidence and trust that can only be delivered by a Turnbull coalition government. 17:10 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I'll start off by just reflecting on some of the comments we just heard and paying a compliment to the member for Goldstein. It's a backhanded compliment: that was the most boring speech I've ever heard you deliver, but I was grateful for the last minute, where you actually brought it home and said something. But it continues a trend which, I might note, we've seen since parliament resumed on private members' business, particularly this week, but also the government's own legislation: there's a complete dearth of government speakers who are prepared to come in and defend the government's agenda and explain it to people. There's a habit we've noticed. My favourite was the member for Boothby, who came back from pony club—or wherever she is when she's not in here—this morning and read out press releases to us on home care packages. Mrs Andrews 230886 Deputy Speaker, I would ask you to bring the member back to the topic that he is meant to be speaking to. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Relevance? Mrs Andrews 230886 Yes. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The member for Bruce has the call, and I would just ask the member to be relevant. Mr HILL 86256 Thank you. Anyway, it is continuing a trend where government members are loath to actually come and speak on their bill but come and read out random explanatory memoranda. Anyway, thank you. I'd say at the outset that we support the Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017. Indeed, it would be hard not to. It's a fairly sensible, if slowly baked and overdue, change to improve the integrity of the migration system. To enable the Department of Home Affairs or whatever it's called this week to collect tax file numbers, as has been outlined, is a pretty sensible effort at streamlining and ensuring more targeted and effective compliance. It can help, if done properly, to ensure the department will be able to check with employers that they're paying correctly and that workers on visas are complying with conditions: that they're working in an appropriate position with an employer in accordance with their visa requirements; that they're being paid the correct salary, particularly where those salaries have been nominated as part of the migration process; that they're paying tax; and, importantly, that they're being paid appropriately. Currently, as has been outlined, it is true that, with the temporary skilled migration system, there has been difficulty for the department in verifying that those things have been occurring. So in that context it's a sensible, practical measure, if somewhat modest. You wouldn't exactly say this is scintillating structural reform, but it is a constructive change nevertheless. I want to make some remarks, though, on the context in which this measure has been introduced. First, I will just reflect on a little mystery for many of us, which is why this has taken so long to get here. It does need to be remarked upon. If you believe all the sensible things that we've heard from the minister, from opposition speakers and from the previous speaker, this is a sensible change, but it was in February 2014, four years ago, that the Abbott government—remember them?—commissioned a review of the 457 visa program. So off they go in February, and then in September 2014 they got the report. I think John Azarias, if I remember correctly, chaired it. There were 22 recommendations. So the government kind of chewed on that over summer, which is sort of a stately time frame. You wouldn't say it was accelerated or quick, but it was faster than a lot of things this government seems to do. In March 2015 the government's response came out, and I think they accepted all but a couple of the recommendations in full or in part. So, 12 months after they kicked off this review, they said, 'Okay, here's what we're going to do.' That was March 2015. So we're about to hit the third anniversary of the government saying, 'Here's a bunch of changes we're going to make to the temporary skilled migration system.' If these changes are so important, why has it taken three years to get what should be a pretty straightforward piece of legislation into this parliament so we can all agree on it and, as you say, improve the integrity of the temporary skilled migration system? So, after three years, the government finally gets around to implementing just two of those recommendations—the tax file numbers, to allow these things to happen, and the 'name and shame'—to use a colloquial term—sanctions on sponsors who breach the visa conditions. I note that, when the government introduced the bill some time last year, they trumpeted, they said very clearly, it was all going to be in place—and the immigration department or Home Affairs, or whatever it's called next week, would be collecting tax file numbers—by 31 December. That was the government's clear commitment. This system was going to be introduced by 31 December. As we know, they cancelled the last week of parliament, running scared, saying that there wasn't anything to do but the marriage bill. But the Notice Paper was full of sensible, somewhat important changes like this that we could have turned up to work for last year and voted on, and we could have had this in place. So let's be clear. This delay of three years and then stuffing around, diddling around, last year—who knows what they were doing—has meant that this pretty sensible change is still not in place. You could speculate multiple-choice-wise, as the member for Bass and I often do, why this took so long. It could be incompetence. Incompetence is a theme. The Prime Minister got promoted for stuffing up the NBN, and we've seen a new Deputy Prime Minister promoted this week. So incompetence is a theme. It's a legitimate question about the delay of this measure by the government. I think it's just relevant. Are they confused? The government often confuses being in government with actually governing. It means you get recommendations, you move them through, you introduce legislation, you run a program and you vote on them. Or it could be that they're just fighting each other. We have seen a bit of that. I was hoping O'Dowd would come out on top to be Deputy Prime Minister! If they'd stop fighting they could go back to governing—debating legislation. Or indeed it could be that the government just does not see protecting vulnerable migrant workers as a priority. It's a very legitimate and important point. Let's dwell on that last option. The truth is that at every step the government has had to be dragged kicking and dreaming to do anything meaningful to protect vulnerable migrant workers, despite being publicly shamed in many cases by endless scandals with 7-Elevens, kickbacks and underpayments—supposedly, some of the things this bill may go some small way towards preventing. But I will be very clear to the House that the most vulnerable, exploited workers in Australia are those here on temporary visas. They are uniquely vulnerable to exploitation. Every hour of every day we have had evidence for years from across Australia that these people with little or no bargaining power in the workplace are being exploited by unscrupulous employers. That comes in many forms, as has been documented before in debates in this place, numerous times in the media and, indeed, in Senate inquiries that the government has done basically nothing with: underpayment, payment below the award or the minimum wage; theft of superannuation; being forced to work unpaid overtime; illegal kickbacks to employers for visa fees, tools, uniforms and so on. In that context, these tax file number changes and a bit of naming and shaming may help improve the system's integrity for some workers, and address a small amount of the underpayments—theoretically. But it is manifestly insufficient. This bill is not enough, not in anyone's universe, to address the pattern we have seen. It's like the fair work amendment bill. You might remember that one, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill—a misnomer if ever there was one, as it didn't actually do anything much to protect vulnerable workers—that we had to debate last year. For this government, 'something is better than nothing' in this space seems to be its motto. Despite the numerous issues raised repeatedly in the parliament in recent years, they have still not addressed them. I'll just repeat a pub test moment, and I think it is relevant—three propositions that I reckon past the pub test. The first point is that employers should pay their workers what they're owed and must act in accordance with the law. The second point, pretty non-controversial, is that the law should be enforced by a strong, well-resourced regulator. This bill does nothing in that regard to address the serious issues that are out there. The third point is that, where there are gaps in the law or regulatory regime, the government and parliament must act quickly to fix them. With something as modest as this change, really, 'quickly' does not mean that, three years after you said you'd do it, you're finally getting around to scheduling it on the legislative program. Mrs Andrews 230886 This is a very long speech for something you're agreeing to. Mr HILL 86256 Exactly. And it's important, Assistant Minister, that the parliament actually spends time thinking about workplace exploitation, not diddling around with administrative changes. Your government has not responded to the Senate committee reports on vulnerable workers. Mrs Andrews interjecting— Mr HILL 86256 You might laugh. It might be funny that people are working in almost slavery like conditions across the country! You might find that funny. I call on the government to stop being complacent, stop pretending to act, stop coming in here and waffling about administrative changes, and actually do something about this. We have 1.2 million or more people in this country right now on temporary visas with work rights attached. That's a fact. They include people on 457s, working holiday makers and international students. I think it's difficult for people who are born in this country or came here many decades ago, in a different migration world, to truly understand the terror that is caused for temporary migrants by employers holding their migration sponsorship over them. We've had reports of sexual slavery. We've had numerous reports of underpayment. I remember an employer in one of those programs on TV last year, and he said, 'Visa holders are the best workers you can get because, if they don't do what you want, you can just put them on a boat and send them back.' That is the attitude that needs to be addressed, and it's not going to be addressed, despite all the fine rhetoric of the government, by tax file number comparisons. Worthy as it goes, it's not sufficient to address the terror that's caused—'Do what I say or I'll dob you in and you'll be deported.' Much more needs to be done. I know from conversations with people in my community about this that it's often thought, 'Temporary migrants, vulnerable workers—that doesn't affect me; that's other people.' You can kind of tune out and say, 'That's bad. The government should do something about that, but it doesn't affect me.' It does. It affects every Australian. It affects everyone seeking a job in the labour market, particularly in the lower-skilled industries and lower-paid occupations. It's not fair that unscrupulous employers won't be hit by this bill—the government has still refused to act—and employers trying to do the right thing are undercut by employers who are cheating the system. It's not fair that the integrity of the workplace relations system is undermined and, importantly, as has been shown repeatedly, it distorts the labour market and wages. We talk about low wage growth, particularly at the low end, for low-skilled workers. Well, in many industries a big reason for that is that we have temporary migrants being exploited, being paid below award wages, working unpaid over time and so on and so forth. How do you bargain in that environment against an employer. This is real life. So, in concept the bill is fine, albeit years late. But, in execution, I might note—because I did read most of the Bills Digest—that, despite all the time they've had, three years, it's badly drafted. So, despite the delay, it's a sloppy job. There's discussion in paragraph 338 (2)(d) around it being ambiguous, and the Law Council said, 'You really need to remove it or redraft it.' But it wasn't just the Law Council; the government's own Scrutiny of Bills Committee said, 'This isn't very good.' So it's not even a good job. In summary, the government's attitude on this is insufficient. Every time you bring a bill in here I and other Labor members will stand up and say, 'It's not enough. Go back to those Senate inquiries and bring some legislation forward that addresses the problems.' The government may find it funny but they are serious issues for so many people in my electorate, a heavily multicultural area. I have this old-fashioned view that we should actually represent people in the country, not just citizens. In that regard, I know the member for Willis and I have tens of thousands of people living in our electorates, in our communities, contributing in different ways to the community, who are being exploited right now because of the government's lack of action. 17:23 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Just as the member for Bruce pointed out, it's not good enough. It's always the case that something falls short with this government, in every area, and this is another example of that—just not good enough. While we will support the Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017 in the House, because we want to ensure vulnerable overseas workers are appropriately protected from unscrupulous employers, and it's a step in the right direction, there's still a long way to go to genuinely protect vulnerable workers, including migrant workers, as well as ensuring that Australians and locals get the first shot at local jobs. There's been a lot of debate in the House around immigration and migration matters over the last couple of weeks. We had before us another migration legislation bill on which I spoke and raised concerns around the immigration policy under this government and particularly that it is being securitised under the new Department of Home Affairs. That really is a failure to understand that this policy area is one of a facilitation of new migrants coming to our country who contribute economically, socially and culturally, whereas security is only one aspect of that and not the entirety of it. We have heard from the member for Warringah that he believes the skilled migrant intake should be halved. The member for Warringah is wrong when he suggests these cuts to the intake of migrants. These are people who work, pay taxes and contribute to our society and of course this would have a negative impact on our economic growth. But then you have the Treasurer, who was just disingenuous in his attack on the member for Warringah. It's actually his government, the Abbott-Turnbull government, which has cut funding for infrastructure—roads and transport—and funding to schools and hospitals. All of those are feeling enormous strain, particularly in the capital cities of Melbourne and Sydney because, as we know, the majority of our migrant intake goes to those two cities. So, instead of taking pot shots at each other with simplistic arguments over cutting migration, what about some creative policies? What about investing in infrastructure, just to start with? What about some incentives for migrants to settle in other capital cities or in regional centres? What about support for advanced manufacturing, research and development, IT and biotech jobs? As Labor leader Bill Shorten has pointed out, it's important to tighten the visa restrictions on temporary migrant visa holders who, as we know, are adding further pressure to cities like Melbourne and Sydney. So I would call on the government to do its job so Australia can continue to benefit economically from skilled migration. We're talking about specifically migrant workers. As we know, and as we have heard, they are absolutely vital to the future of Australia's economy. You would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, that in the agricultural industry, for example, getting migrants and migrant workers to rural areas helps reduce labour shortages, particularly during seasonal harvesting peaks. It counteracts the trend of population movement away from the bush to the capital cities. That's a good thing. Immigrants, including refugees and these migrant workers, sometimes go on to become permanent residents and Australian citizens and go on to become entrepreneurs themselves. They open up their own businesses. This has been proven. According to the research paper titled New immigrants improving productivity in Australian agriculture, skilled immigrants in the agricultural sector are much more likely to set up their own business, at around 15 per cent, than the Australian average rate of entrepreneurship at 10 per cent. Immigrant farmers are also filling the growing intergenerational gap in farm succession and bringing with them new technologies and innovations to Australian farming, as well as introducing many new vegetables that expand Australia's food horizons. For all the opportunities, however, it is a fact that some of the most exploited workers in Australia are these migrant workers. Migration status, even for those with the right to work in Australia, is often used as leverage to exploit those workers. This is evident from many different inquiries. The Victorian state government's 2016 inquiry into the labour hire industry and insecure work highlighted some of these cases of exploitation. It's no secret then that within Australia there are employers who are deliberately and systematically denying Australian and migrant workers their rights, freedoms and a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. This includes gross underpayment of wages, doctoring pay records to conceal unlawful conduct, physical intimidation and subjecting workers to threats of deportation. Most decent employers will not do this. There are some employers, however, that prefer temporary grant workers because they are more compliant and less likely to complain or be unionised. Employers who deliberately and systematically deny workers their rights are not only denying working people a fair day's pay for a fair day's work; they are undercutting the employers who want to do the right thing and who are doing the right thing. They undermine the integrity of the workplace relations system, they distort the labour market and they undermine the principles of fair competition that should be the foundations of a successful economy. We know that this bill will enable the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to collect tax file numbers, which will help streamline more targeted and effective compliance activities. The amendment gives effect to the recommendations of the Robust new foundations: a streamlined, transparent and responsive system for the 457 programmereport,which recommended that the department disclose greater information on its sanctions actions and communicate this directly to all sponsors and the migration advice profession, as well as placing information on its website. Currently, the department is only able to release limited information to the public regarding breaches of sponsorship obligations. The department is unable to advise informants of the outcome of their complaint. So these changes, as minor as they are, will mean the department will be able to check that bosses are paying their workers correctly and that visa holders are complying with the conditions of the visa, including that they are working in an appropriate position with the one employer. Labor acknowledges that there are currently difficulties verifying that sponsors are paying visa holders correctly or checking if a visa holder is working for more than one employer. So collecting tax file numbers will assist the department to undertake more streamlined, targeted and effective compliance activities. It will also ensure that the department can publicly name businesses that breach their sponsorship obligations. This will give prospective staff the opportunity to be informed about who they are signing up to work for. There's also the added point that this will ensure some certainty around merit review rights for visas that require an approved nomination and that the relevant legislation achieves the government's policy intention. The amendment ensures that it is clear that the merits review is available at the appropriate point in the visa application process—namely, when a visa is refused—and only in circumstances where there is either an approved nomination or a decision affecting whether there is an approved nomination. This reflects the original policy intention. Merit reviews continue to be available for nomination and visa decisions, albeit only after refusal. However, the bill does not change or remove a visa applicant's rights to judicial review, which is the right to challenge the legal validity of a decision in a court. Despite all this, we are aware on our side of the House—given the complexity of the Migration Act, which is such a complex piece of legislation—that any amendments always warrant further consultation and investigation. That's the important basis of the reasoning, if you like, to refer to bill to a Senate inquiry for further scrutiny. Frankly, another reason is to give stakeholders the opportunity to have their say about the practical effects and the legal implications of this bill. Another reason for the referral of the bill to the Senate is to try to avoid what happened when the Turnbull government's changes to the skilled migration system sent waves of uncertainty through the business, innovation and education sectors. Stakeholders at the time had been very vocal in raising their concerns about the unintended consequences of the Turnbull government's recent changes to skilled migration. This is why it's so disappointing, yet not surprising, that this Abbott-Turnbull government has to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table to bring forward any measures to address exploitation of vulnerable workers. As the previous speaker noted, it's just not a priority for them. True to form, the Turnbull government botched their changes to temporary skilled migration, proving they can't be trusted with Australian jobs. Under this government, too many local workers are being left at the back of the queue for local jobs. Local workers are missing out on job opportunities. Employers can hire migrant workers in areas where Australians are willing and able to work. That is because there is currently no proper mechanism for ensuring there is a skill shortage for the jobs in which employers hire migrant workers. For example, nursing, teaching and engineering are all on the Short-term Skilled Occupation List. All are occupations where Australians are struggling to enter the labour market. Under the current government, 457 visas are being manipulated to bring in cheap labour. Workers have been flown in on 457 visas under this government for jobs as cooks, chef, nurses, IT support and administration staff, mechanics, fitters, welders, carpenters, joiners, hairdressers, teachers, early childhood educators, draftspersons, electricians and bricklayers. Are the government seriously telling us that these jobs can't be filled locally? Is that what they're asking us to believe? We're very concerned that Australians are missing out on these jobs. We should be employing local workers and investing in apprenticeships and training to give young kids the chance at these quality jobs. However, let's be clear: as I've said earlier, we are not against migrant workers. We've already highlighted the important role they can and do play in the agricultural industry, for example. We've highlighted how they have been exploited. But the figures show that only about 3.5 per cent of 457 visas are for the mining industry, and less than two per cent are for the agricultural industry. More than 85 per cent of 457 visas are used to fly in workers to fill jobs in capital cities. While the Minister for Home Affairs is lamenting the strain on our capital cities infrastructure and the cities being 'overcrowded', and the member for Warringah talks about cutting the intake of migrant numbers by half, the fact is that the minister's own department is contributing to that strain and making it harder for local workers to find jobs. The Minister for Home Affairs is seeking to reheat the old migration numbers debate by focusing on fear mongering and the securitisation of Australia's immigration policy. The real issue is that the Liberals are ignoring the hundreds of thousands of workers granted 457 visas for jobs that local workers could be doing. We believe that 457 visas should only be used to bring in workers with highly specialised skills for jobs which businesses cannot find local workers to do. It's a simple proposition. But 457 visas are currently being rorted to import cheap labour from overseas, instead of training and employing local workers. Labor will crack down on these rorts to stop 457 visas being abused and ensure local workers are employed first. We're the only party in this place that has a plan to put local workers first and ensure businesses are training and employing local workers. We will always put local workers first. We will ensure that temporary work visas are filling genuine skill shortages. We will establish an independent authority to advise government on current skill shortages and future skill needs. We will address skill shortages with training that will lead to real jobs for local workers. We will strengthen penalties for employers who abuse the system and exploit their workers. We will not waive labour-market testing requirements in new free trade agreements. We will introduce a new science, high-tech and research visa allowing for continued access to the best specialists to collaborate with their Australian counterparts. Labor has always been the party to stand up for middle- and working-class Australians. We took this policy to the last election. In government in 2013, Labor reintroduced labour-market testing requirements which had been removed by the Liberals in 2001. It is clear that further steps are needed to end the rorts and ensure local workers are given a first opportunity at jobs. That is why we will support this bill in the House. We will consider any recommendations of the Senate inquiry before forming our final position in the Senate. 17:37 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman I rise today to speak on the Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017. I want to make it very clear from the beginning that I support any measure—any measure—that ensures vulnerable workers or vulnerable overseas workers are appropriately protected from dishonest or unfair employers. It seems like it's every single week that we hear new stories of a fraudulent boss underpaying their workers, oftentimes exploiting workers and vulnerable working-visa holders. It seems like it's almost every that week we're reading about this. I don't think it would come as a huge shock to anybody who might be listening to know that there are employers out there who are deliberately and systematically denying visa holders what they are entitled to as workers in this country. This is truly unacceptable behaviour. Our entire economy is built upon the principles of fair competition: everyone is entitled to the same basic minimum wages and conditions. Australia's trade unions have fought for decades and decades for these conditions for our entire country—for the benefit of both workers and employers. By blatantly undermining these conditions, unlawful businesses are throwing a huge slap in the face to all those hard workers who came before them, stood their ground and built the Australian industrial relations system that we have today. I'm not talking about a business who just accidently pays someone a dollar or two less, realises, and then moves very quickly to fix it up when they find out what the error is. I'm not talking about those businesses. What I'm talking about are unfair and unlawful practices that exploit vulnerable workers and undercut the employers who want to do the right thing. We've seen deliberate practices, like the gross underpayment of wages and subsequent doctoring of records to hide the unlawful conduct, or the utilisation of physical violence. We've seen evidence of that and threats of deportation to coerce people into forfeiting the conditions that they're entitled to. There are unscrupulous employers. They aren't unheard of. We know of an incident between 2006 and 2009 where a 457 visa worker who spoke very limited English was exploited by an Indian restaurant in Melbourne. Although some weeks he worked up to 71 hours a week, he received a weekly pay of just $752. The federal magistrate that presided over that case acknowledged that through their employment agreement the employer had demonstrated their knowledge of workplace laws, so this was very clearly exploitation of someone more vulnerable than just the average Australian worker. That magistrate also noted that the provisions that were breached are notorious—that was his word—in Australian workplace culture. No breaches should ever become so common as to become notorious in an industry. What is quite clear is that there are Australian employers who are deliberately and systematically choosing to deny workers their rights, their freedoms and the remuneration that they are entitled to. But what is also very clear is that not enough is being done by this coalition government to prevent the denying of those rights and freedoms and remuneration that they are entitled to. The recent changes that the government made to the skilled worker program—I have to be honest, I find them nothing short of sloppy. Not only have the changes brought in by the government failed to do enough to protect these migrant workers; they've also sent waves of uncertainty through the business, innovation and education sectors throughout Australia. Despite their rhetoric, they have failed to put Australians first. More than 140,000 workers on skilled visas have been flown in from overseas under the Liberal-National government. We know 85 per cent of 457 visa workers fly in. They're fly-in workers and they're in capital cities. They've been flown in to take jobs as nurses and carpenters, early childhood educators and electricians. In my electorate of Longman we have some of the very best nurses you will ever find in this country. We have some of the very best tradies, carpenters. We have highly qualified and professional early childhood educators. Some of the very best electricians that you will ever see are working in my electorate. Yet these are the skilled visas that we're giving out. At a time when we've got 723,000 unemployed Australians, we really have to ask: are there really no local people who could take these jobs? Surely not. This is just another example of the skilled worker program failing under the coalition government. Too many local workers are being left at the back of the queue. I want to be very clear: I'm not advocating for this program to be abolished, nor am I suggesting that there's no place for skilled workers in this country, because there absolutely is. There will always be a gap between what Australian workers can offer and what can be satisfied by migrant workers, but these gaps are not as big as what are being filled by migrant workers. What should really be used as a bandaid solution to a temporary problem with the Australian labour market is essentially being used as a full body cast. While it might be helping to correct some of the problem areas, at the same time the current system is restricting access for Australian workers. Like I said, I know for a fact there are a number of people in my electorate who are fantastic tradespeople—nurses, early childhood educators, electricians. But there are other tradespeople who would love the opportunity to find work, who are looking for work, and yet what we're finding is that they're being overlooked in favour of overseas labour. It just isn't fair. What we have seen is a coalition resting on its laurels. What I'm constantly being asked is: what will the Labor Party do? What's their plan to stop this blatant abuse of the skilled worker program? We have a plan. That's what I can say. We have a plan. That plan is to put local workers first and to skill up Australia. That's our plan. Labor understand there is a skills shortage and 457s are only a temporary measure. Is it is quite clear that a longer term solution would be to address the root of the issue when we are talking about skilled labour in this country. That is done by encouraging, not restricting, skills training of all Australians. Anybody with some foresight could see this, but obviously the skill of looking forward is in very, very short supply within the ranks of this government. I suggest that it's members could do some skills training themselves because, if the government truly understood how to address a skills shortage, they would not have cut $637 million from VET funding in the 2017 budget. Instead we find them following Labor's lead and making TAFE the centrepiece of Australia's training system. Under Labor that $637 million worth of cut funding would be restored. As we announced last week, we will reshape the way Australians think about TAFE, making sure it's on equal footing with universities. The revolutionary inquiry that Labor will start within its first 100 days of government will just begin fixing this mess that the Liberals have left of Australia's skills training sector. To ensure that the future skills needs are addressed, Labor will establish an independent authority to advise government on those skills shortages and how to alleviate them—because that just makes sense. A strong skills training sector means a skilled-up Australian workforce, and a skilled-up Australian workforce means more local workers in more local jobs and less reliance on overseas workers. The coalition really have not taken their role seriously. There should be a strong focus from the government on creating and protecting decent and secure work for locals, but instead they have applied a truly haphazard approach. We don't have to look too far to see that. Just look at the previous iteration of the Trans-Pacific Partnership when the Liberals were happy to do a deal that didn't require true labour market testing. I'm really concerned that the new free trade agreement which the Prime Minister is concocting in the shadows won't— Mrs Andrews 230886 I raise a point of order on relevance. I would ask that the member be brought back to the legislation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM The member is asked to be relevant to the legislation. Ms LAMB 265975 I would have thought skilled workers and training Australians to be those skilled workers is entirely relevant to legislation that ensures that we have the workers we need for the future. It has direct relevance to 457s. But I will continue talking about labour market testing. We need to talk about labour market testing if we're going to talk about 457 visas and fixing that gap while we are reskilling the Australians that have had their skills cut under this government. I will go back very quickly to the TPP. I'm sure the email inboxes of the members that sit across from us would be full of people talking about the TPP and skilled workers in this country as well. I'm sure I'm not the only one receiving those emails calling for skilling Australian workers. Going back to the TPP, what we need to make sure is there is true genuine labour market testing when it comes to the TPP. We don't know for sure that that's going to exist in the current TPP. Under Labor we will ensure that true labour market testing exists. We will ensure that employers advertise any jobs for Australia for at least four weeks before looking overseas at 457 visa holders to give local workers the first opportunity to apply. We will make sure the ads don't set any sort of unrealistic expectations or skill requirements to make sure that local workers have first crack at getting these jobs. Labor will make sure that businesses will utilise a significant number of temporary workers and have a plan to train local workers. These are very simple fixes that will see more jobseekers in local positions. As the assistant minister asked me to come back and be relevant—and I'm not sure where I deviated—I welcome her government finally bringing to the table a piece of legislation that will go some way towards enabling the recording, storing and usage of tax file numbers of applicants and holders of specified visas. I welcome the government finally bringing that to the table. It has taken far too long of course, but we've got here. I'm happy to support the bill—I'm happy to support any bill that protects vulnerable overseas workers from exploitation at the hands of unscrupulous bosses—but really what we need is more reforms. We need to put an end to the exploitation of skilled workers, to provide them with proper and robust protections and to ensure that they get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. It shouldn't matter where they're from. When they're working in Australia they should be entitled to the protections that our Australian unions have fought for. In closing, it's clear that, in an environment where we have skill shortages, the best way forward is to ensure that we encourage skills training. It doesn't make sense that a job like bricklaying can languish on the list of jobs eligible for 457 visas longer than it takes to actually train someone to be a brickie. The government have been championing their $65 billion handout to big business. If they're serious about skilling up Australia and getting locals into work then they are more than welcome to follow Labor's lead on skilling up Australians. We need to ensure that the true integrity of this bill is upheld. We need to ensure that in this country no worker providing labour—labour that builds this country and contributes to company profits—is exploited. (Time expired) 17:52 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I want to speak on this bill for a number of reasons. Most people on this side of the House in the Labor opposition would be interested in a bill that calls itself the Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill, because we've all heard the stories over the last few years of workers who have come from overseas to work in Australia and have been appallingly exploited—they have been paid less than the award, been required to work more hours and pretend that they worked fewer, been marched to automatic teller machines and made to repay part of their wages to their employer, been intimidated and been made to pay exorbitant visa fees or accommodation fees. We've heard appalling stories of workers being exploited in a country that we think is all about fairness and mateship. When the government put up this bill with the words 'enhanced integrity' relating to overseas workers I thought I want to talk about that, because we as a nation need to do better. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't do anywhere near enough. In many ways it's so little and it's very late. Because of that it's hard to believe that the government is really serious about addressing what is an epidemic of worker exploitation in this country. We on the opposition side will support the bill because we do want to ensure that vulnerable overseas workers are appropriately protected from unscrupulous bosses. This bill does a couple of things. It enables the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to collect tax file numbers, which will help to make compliance activities more streamlined, targeted and effective. That in itself is a good thing. It means the department will be able to check that bosses are paying their workers correctly and that visa holders are complying with the conditions of their visa, including that they are working in an appropriate position with the one employer. The bill will also ensure that the department can publicly name businesses who breach their sponsorship obligations. This will give prospective staff the opportunity to be informed about who they are signing up to work for. We know from many of the stories that some of the most exploited workers in Australia are migrant workers. It is no secret that, within Australia, there are employers who are deliberately and systematically denying Australian and migrant workers rights, freedoms and a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. We are hearing examples of wage theft every single day. But I would question whether the ability to collect tax file numbers will address some of the manipulation that is taking place in the workforce where an employee may be paid the appropriate amount of money but is being required to pay their employer back in various ways and for various services. With such a wealth of methods for exploiting foreign workers in this country at the moment, this bill won't go anywhere near far enough. In fact, I would suggest that, with the level of exploitation that is taking place in Australia, the real issues will not be addressed unless the government has a serious look at market testing to ensure that, when a business sponsors an overseas worker, they do so because there isn't one available in Australia. Again, we know the government resists the idea of market testing. But, without that, you can't be serious about stopping the exploitation of workers if you are still allowing businesses to choose to employ foreign workers because they can pay them less than Australia; they are not supposed to, of course, but we see examples of illegal action every single day. Without real market testing, you can't really take this government seriously. I am also concerned that, with the collection of tax file numbers, the government might use this bill to target exploited workers a little more than they might target exploiting employers; it does, after all, track the worker. It is a facility that the government can use for workers or employers. I really hope the government are serious about that and use the provisions of this bill to tackle employers who behave badly rather than chasing people in appalling circumstances who are sometimes being forced to work more hours than their visas allow, and for lesser amounts of pay, under the threat of being deported. There are workers who have had their passports confiscated. I have had people in my electorate talk to me anonymously and refuse to give their name or their employer's name because they are so fearful of being deported. So we will wait and see whether the government is really serious about wage theft and uses the provisions of this bill to pursue the large number of sometimes large and high-profile businesses that have been exploiting workers. Again, it is hard to take the government seriously when this bill doesn't cover seasonal workers. It covers temporary and permanent sponsored visas. That is very important, but it doesn't cover the thousands of backpackers and seasonal workers that come into the country. In recent months we have heard appalling stories of sexual exploitation and underpayment or non-payment of wages, sometimes for months, in this area. This bill doesn't touch that at all. It only deals with temporary and permanent sponsored visas. In some cases, it would be fair to say that what is happening among some of our seasonal workers and backpackers is slave labour. This bill does nothing on that. I'm a great supporter of sponsored visas. I've spoken twice in the House this week on my concerns about the government's actions on market testing et cetera. There are very good reasons for sponsored visas. During the mining building boom, when the mines were expanding rapidly, we required an enormous number of construction workers. There is no way in the world a nation would train workers for a four- or five-year build; you just don't do that. So it was perfectly logical to bring in workers for that. And it is perfectly logical to bring in workers where a new field opens up and suddenly you need skills we don't have in Australia and it takes time to train them. I can see situations in my electorate—for example, with really quite high-quality restaurants in Gujarat or Telugu food. You don't learn that at TAFE in Australia. You might learn a whole range of things about being a chef, but not those specific fields. I remember the government making much fun of the idea that we had goat herders on the skilled migration list. But when you go out to regional areas and see how many feral goats there are and how many businesses there are growing in that field, you see that you sometimes don't have the skills required for something that emerges, and it takes a while to train them. It is incredibly important, but we shouldn't be using overseas workers to come into Australia where an Australian can do the job, and we shouldn't be using them without training Australian workers to take over. If the government is really serious about ensuring that, as a country, we make the best and most effective use of overseas workers, I want to see the long-term planning and the building of skills in advance of need, I want to see the projections of skills shortages, I want to see genuine training plans in those areas, and I really don't see that. If they were really serious about ensuring that Australians got the jobs first, where those jobs were available, and that we only brought in overseas workers where Australians couldn't do the jobs and that those workers were not exploited, they would be doing much more than this, including market testing. But, mostly, I know they're not serious about this because it just took so long, and, after so long, this is it: the collection of tax file numbers for sponsored temporary and permanent workers—not for backpackers, not for seasonal workers, but just for that group. It is so little for an issue which is just so big. We hear of major companies that have been behaving very badly and engaging in what can only be called wage theft. Time goes pretty fast when you're in this place, and we all remember when the 7-Eleven scandal broke. It was truly appalling. Fairfax and Four Corners combined, and their report came out in August 2015. It is now February, nearly March, 2018—2½ years later. That's how long it's taken for this government to act. The Senate inquiry into this, which began shortly after the 7-Eleven report, reported in March 2016. That was two years ago. The report was called A national disgrace: the exploitation of temporary work visa holders, and two years later this thin bill that does so little is the result. I would strongly suggest that if the government wants to be taken seriously on this they go back and look at the recommendations of that report. Just have a look at how much is needed to really clamp down on this. There were articles in February 2016. I have an SBS article in front of me from February 2016 about the 7-Eleven workers, but there are many other articles from the same era talking extensively about worker exploitation. On 21 November 2017 there was another report. By Laurie Berg and Basinna Farbenblum and called Wage Theft in Australia: Findings of the National Temporary Migrant Work Survey, it drew on responses from 4,322 temporary migrants across 117 nationalities. The authors found almost a third of international students and backpackers earned $12 per hour or less, about half the minimum wage for the casual employee in many of the jobs in which temporary migrants worked. Those workers aren't covered by this bill. The report said: Underpayment was widespread across numerous industries but was especially prevalent in food services, and especially severe in fruit and vegetable picking. Again, these areas are not generally covered by this bill. Severe underpayment was experienced by every major nationality of backpackers and international students in this country, and at least one in five Americans, British, Indians, Brazilians and Chinese earned roughly half the minimum wage. At least three-quarters of underpaid international students knew they were being paid less than the minimum wage but stayed because they believed that everyone else on the visa was earning the same. This is an indictment of what is happening in this country. None of this activity is covered by this bill, because this bill covers permanent and temporary sponsored visas. These are not. Just to give an idea of how late this government is, with all of its resources, with ministers, with staff, with the departments, with all the resources available to a government, it's taken them two years since the Senate report to do anything at all, and nearly 2½ years since the first 7-Eleven reports came out. Labor, on the other hand, put out its first plan to tackle worker exploitation in February 2016, two years ago. Three or four months after the 7-Eleven report, Labor's caucus committee that worked in this area had travelled the country, talked to workers and put together the first plan for serious cases of worker exploitation. We have grown it since then. But even in February 2016, we knew that Myer subcontractors employing cleaners on sham contracts were being paid well below the award wage, denied penalty rates and superannuation, and were working without occupational health and safety protections. We knew about 7-Eleven stores, of course. We knew that Pizza Hut delivery drivers were being paid as little as $6 an hour in a rampant sham contracting arrangement. We knew there was widespread exploitation of workers in Baiada Group food processing factories, including workers being required to work dangerously long hours for less than the award wage. We put together a plan right then to crack down on the underpayment of workers, ramp up protection for workers from sham contracting, to give the Fair Work Ombudsman more power and introduce reforms to ensure that temporary workers were not being exploited and underpaid. It was two years ago, from opposition, with very little support staff and no public sector behind us. We managed to come up with a plan in three or four months, and we travelled the country preparing it. This government's had two years, with all of the resources of government. That's why I can't take this government seriously. It is far too little and far too late. Be serious about this. This is a blight on the Australian workforce and it's about time the government fixed it. (Time expired) 18:07 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017. This bill seeks to make amendments to the Migration Act with changes that are mostly quite technical. I commend the contribution by the member for Parramatta prior to me. The Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection in his second reading speech said the purpose of this bill is to protect Australian and overseas workers by strengthening the integrity of Australia's temporary and permanent sponsored skilled work visas. It is a commendable goal and something that obviously Labor supports, because we'll always support measures that will support vulnerable overseas workers from unscrupulous employers. As anyone knows who knows their labour history or Australian political history, the Labor Party was born out of the labour movement and from that became a political party devoted to looking after employees as much as possible. That is our record. That is something that we're particularly proud of. I have seen this in my electorate. I have gone on trips up to Bundaberg and to the Lockyer Valley with Ken Lai, one of the representatives from the Taiwanese economic and cultural office, where we looked at the way Taiwanese backpackers were being treated. I'll come to the Taiwanese community a little later. I know that it's important we get this right because it sends a bad message to potential travellers, potential Australians perhaps even, if we don't look after them when they're working in Australia. As deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I'm familiar with the committee's examination of this bill. I point out that the human rights committee identified several issues of concern with this bill. The amendments contained in this bill, which, as I said, are mainly technical, seek to require the minister to publish information prescribed by the regulations, including the personal information of sponsors who have been sanctioned for failing to satisfy the obligations of sponsorship. The committee was concerned that this amendment may infringe the right to privacy of those individuals, as the publishing requirements in the bill appeared to be broader than what was outlined in the bill's statement of compatibility. The committee asked the advice of the minister as to whether the limitation on the right to privacy is proportionate to the achievement of the stated objective, including whether there are adequate and effective safeguards with respect to the right to privacy. The minister's response confirmed that the information to be published will be narrowly confined but that such information will be prescribed by regulation. After the human rights committee considered the minister's response, it was of the view that, on balance, the measure is likely to be compatible with the right to privacy but that the committee would consider the human rights compatibility of the regulations that prescribe the information to be disclosed once they have been received. All are part of open and accountable government. The human rights committee was also concerned about the amendment in the bill that permits the tax file numbers of applicants and holders of specified visas to be requested, provided, used, recorded and disclosed. The digital age is a wonderful thing. It brings many innovations. It means we have technology in our pockets, in our phones that people could only dream of 10 years ago. But with that comes the possibility of hacking, of information being disclosed and all the fraud that can flow from such thefts. So hacking is something we need to be aware of. The right to privacy does extend to informational privacy. The human rights committee was concerned that the provision was overly broad by allowing a tax file number to be collected from any class of visa applicant holder or former visa holder. Again, the human rights committee sought the advice of the minister, who stated: The collection, use, recording and disclosure of tax file numbers will be prescribed in the Regulations. It is intended that the regulations will allow tax file number sharing in relation to a narrow list of subclasses, that is limited to temporary and permanent skilled visas, for research and compliance purposes. This includes identifying and preventing exploitation. The committee considered that the limitation indicated by the minister and the safeguards to be put in place by way of a communications package provided to affected persons would protect that individual's rights. This bill has also been considered by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Those committees also expressed concern about some provisions of the bill. As an aside, I'd like to point out the great work that is done by committees in scrutinising legislation both in this House and in the other place. I mention that in passing to the minister at the table because we've been on a committee together. I commend him for not only his promotion but also the good work he's done behind the scenes on parliamentary committees, looking at legislation, making sure that we get the best results for the Australian people. It has nothing to do with political parties. I congratulate the member for Murray on his promotion and the work he did in the trade subcommittee with me. This bill has been well and truly scrutinised. On balance the bill will help protect vulnerable overseas workers, allow the department to check that bosses are paying their workers correctly and allow the department to publicly name businesses who breach their sponsorship obligations. It's essential that we protect overseas workers who come to Australia in good faith to work in Australian conditions. There's the old saying: it's not the good bosses that are the concern; it's the bad bosses who exploit people. It's the bad bosses who, by undercutting the efforts of good bosses, drive good bosses out of business. That is not the sort of Australia that we want. Migrant workers are vital to the health of the Australian economy. They have an important role to play. Migrant workers are improving Australia's labour productivity and helping Australian businesses to source labour that might otherwise be hard to find. That is the whole focus obviously. Importantly, migrant workers are also helping Australia to offset the effects of an ageing population. We have seen these effects in countries around the world—for example, our big trading partner Japan. They are selling more adult nappies than children's nappies because of an ageing population. So we need to get it right. Importantly, as such, migrant workers will be critical in giving Australian businesses a competitive edge in an increasingly globalised world. Migrant workers are an indispensable part of the economy in my own electorate of Moreton, on the Southside of Brisbane, a flourishing multicultural community with over 40 per cent of residents born overseas. I particularly mention the large Taiwanese community, not only because I've been celebrating Lunar New Year with them but because I've done some work on Taiwanese backpackers and how they've been treated by some farming companies. Taiwan is one of the top five sources for working holiday visas. Migrant workers are some of the most exploited workers in Australia, with many being systematically denied their basic rights and freedoms by bad employers. This includes gross underpayment, verbal and physical intimidation by their supervisors, many workers being subject to dangerous working conditions, threats of deportation, and even sexual harassment and worse. Migrant workers often speak little English and have limited knowledge of their rights at work, and obviously bad bosses don't make them aware of their rights, or the middle people who rip them off. Migrant workers who wish to continue working in Australia may have their visas leveraged against them by unscrupulous businesses. All of this means migrant workers often feel they have no option but to tolerate unlawful and unacceptable conditions that could even be dangerous. A national survey by the ACTU which was released in November 2017 of approximately 4,000 temporary migrants from 107 countries found that a quarter of all international students and a third of backpackers earnt only half the wage they are entitled to. That is a depressing statistic. Approximately 15 per cent of migrant workers in the agricultural industry were paid as little as $5 per hour, while another 31 per cent received $10 an hour. If you are familiar with some of those farming conditions, you'd know that you'd certainly earn your money. Two out of five workers surveyed had the lowest paid jobs in the hospitality industry. A quarter of all international students earnt $12 per hour or less. Almost half of all backpackers earnt $15 per hour or less. The then president of the ACTU, Ged Kearney, now our fantastic candidate for the Victorian seat of Batman—go, Ged!— said at the release of survey: Our broken laws not only facilitate the theft of wages, they have facilitated big businesses importing what amounts to a slave labour class of workers on temporary visas. Employers are flaunting our laws with alarming regularity and exploiting migrant workers. A Four Corners episode which aired in 2015 also helped to shine a light on the grim reality of migrant workers in Australia. It revealed that thousands of young workers had been grossly mistreated in the food industry under the working holiday visa program. These workers were taken advantage of by unscrupulous labour hire firms who onsell migrant labour to Australian factories and farms, where many have endured terrible working conditions. In some cases migrant workers were found to be working 22-hour days seven days a week and earning as little as $395. Some migrant workers were refused things like toilet breaks, were charged excessive rent on substandard accommodation and were even asked to give sexual favours to supervisors in return for signing visa applications. Sadly, this is not an isolated problem. Even in my own electorate of Moreton, there have been terrible reports of migrant worker exploitation. Three food outlets in Sunnybank, the same suburb I have my office in, were found to be paying workers flat rates of no more than $10 per hour. These workers, who were actually entitled to a minimum of $17.70 per hour, were underpaid between $13,880, even up to $45,000. These were serious breaches and resulted in the court imposing more than $200,000 in penalties on these businesses. People should always ask their chefs, if they're in Sunnybank or wherever they are, to make sure their workers are being looked after. Labor support this bill because we know how important it is to protect vulnerable overseas workers from unscrupulous and greedy employers, from employers who are systematically and deliberately denying Australian migrant workers their rights and freedoms. The visas that apply to collection of tax file numbers will be prescribed by regulation. But the minister has said they will only apply to temporary and permanent sponsored skilled work visas. That means that they will not apply to those overseas workers on working-holiday visas, the subclass 417. So the exploitation of vulnerable workers that I've mentioned, particularly those Taiwanese backpackers picking tomatoes around Bundaberg or other food crops in the Lockyer Valley, could still continue—and I note there are also many Korean workers there as well. Protecting workers is in Labor's DNA. It is, obviously, the raison d'etre of the labour movement by wholesale. Whether workers are born here in Australia or overseas, Labor will ensure that all workers rights are protected and all workers get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, as prescribed in the Bible. It is obviously important for the worker, but it's also important for all employers. Employers who are doing the wrong thing are undercutting employers who are doing the right thing. They put at risk the integrity of the entire workplace relations system. They risk distorting the labour market and undermining the principles of fair competition. Sadly, we have a government, the Turnbull government, that is inept and out of touch. Only the Labor Party has a plan to put local workers first. Labor will ensure that temporary work visas are actually filling genuine skill shortages. Labor will establish an independent authority to advise governments on current skill shortages and future skill needs. Obviously, we would hate for any enterprise to fall over because the skills of certain workers aren't available in Australia, but we've got to get the balance right. Labor will strengthen penalties for employers who abuse the system and exploit workers. Labor will not waive labour market testing requirements in new free trade agreements. Labor will introduce a new science, high-tech and research visa, allowing continued access by the best specialists to collaborate with their Australian counterparts. That's what a globally interconnected, competitive country like Australia needs to do. So Labor supports this bill because it will help protect Australian workers. But, sadly, I see a government that has failed to ensure that locals get the local jobs first. The Turnbull government needs to go back to the drawing board. 18:22 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy It's quite extraordinary. The member that just sat down is one of the better Labor people in this place, but you can't get away with lying to the public. The hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this issue is towering. The facts are that, when the Liberal government fell in 2011 or 2012, whenever it was, and the Rudd government came in, there were 33,500 section 457 workers. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM Order! The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. I call the member for Moreton. Mr Perrett HVP I think the member for Kennedy has accused me of lying, and I'd ask him to withdraw that comment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM If the member for Kennedy has accused the member for Moreton of lying, I would ask him to withdraw that. Mr KATTER HX4 I withdraw the word 'lying' and replace it with the words 'consciously misleading'. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM I asked you to withdraw. Have you withdrawn? Mr KATTER HX4 Yes, it's withdrawn, but I replace it with 'consciously misleading'. He has to know that his government took the number of section 457 visas from 33,510 up to 125,000. He has to know that. How's that for an exercise in staggering and towering hypocrisy? Quite frankly, the honourable member for Melbourne, on my left here—we represent different ends of the spectrum, but there are some things that we passionately agree on, like the undermining of workers' pay and conditions, which one would expect from the Liberal Party. But it didn't come from the Liberal Party. It came from the Labor Party. They were the founders and architects of section 457 visas. No less a person than the Australian president of the CFMEU, the much-maligned CFMEU, is the only prominent person that I know in this country who's had the strength of character to speak up on this issue. He confronted it here in this place, at a dinner in the function centre. We sat down and on each plate were the words: 'This union will brook no further section 457 workers coming into this country'. Then he said it in a way that was just as aggressive and as confrontational as I'm saying it now when he addressed his remarks to the then Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, who was sitting beside him and who went red and pink and purple in the face. There was not a word from any of the media. They ran around talking about some bloke going home with some sheila after the meeting or something of that nature or I some joke that was off colour. The issue of the CFMEU confronting the government of Australia in the most confrontational manner went by without a single sentence! And the only two people who spoke up in this place were an honourable colleague of mine, quite appropriately on my left, and me. I am quite appropriately on his right. We were the only two who spoke up about it in this place. Is it any wonder that we both have friendships with the CFMEU. When you walk into this place, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are two magnificent portraits. One of them is of Charlie McDonald, the first member for Kennedy, who, like me, served 25 years in this place. Every time I go past his portrait, if you watch me, I salute Charlie, because six of Charlie's first seven speeches, I am informed in in this place, was railing against people bringing the Senegalese, the coolies and the Kanakas into this country to take our jobs off us and to undermine our pay and conditions for which these men had fought. The entire executive of the AWU in Queensland, in 1893, I think it was, was jailed with hard labour for three years for having a work stoppage. In my homeland of Cloncurry, there was a little station property south of us where a song called Waltzing Matildawas composed. It was about a swagman. There were swagmen everywhere, because they were workers who, during the great shearers' strike, were out of work. Three of the shearers were shot dead in that confrontation. We went through all those trials and tribulations to watch the Labor Party in this place introduce 150,000 workers, taking jobs off hardworking Australians. I'm sick and tired of people telling me that Australians won't work. It's funny, because 15 years ago they were all working. Fifteen years ago there were no people on 457 visas coming into this country. It is funny that they were working then but they're not working now. You have choice between some bloke who is going to work for you on award wages and someone who has $200 a week taken out of his pay to pay the labour hire company that brought him here, and then of course $70 or $80 of that goes as a kickback to the employer. A lot of employers will house them, they'll provide the accommodation, and there's another $100-a-week kickback. Everybody in this place must know that that's going on. I praised the Prime Minister of Australia fulsomely for saying that the government is going to cut out this 457 work visa business. I praised him fulsomely. More fool me! The hypocrisy and lies in this place never, ever cease. Well, I suppose he did take them down from 137,000 a year under Labor down to 87,580. But don't tell me the Liberals have cut it out, because that's just a flagrant lie. It's nothing more than a flagrant lie. There is a reason why the major parties in this place are doomed. I worked on a polling booth all day in the state elections in Queensland and, in a very strong Labor area, I sent our scrutineer back in three times because I couldn't believe what I was seeing. The KAP candidate was on 800, the ALP candidate was on 300 and the Liberal Party was on 100—100!—in a seat that they held some time ago. Up in North Queensland, the KAP are able to get through to the people. We started on the Liberal Party this time, but, believe me, the Labor Party are in our sights right now! It is because of the hypocrisy of these people! These people—including the great man Charlie McDonald out there, the first member for Kennedy—went to jail, were shot dead, did hard labour for three years of their lives, were never to be reemployed, and their families went hungry. The Liberal and Labor parties in here had sold them out, bringing 150,000 people a year into the country to take their jobs off them and undermine their pay and conditions. That's a direct quote, not from me but from the president of the CFMEU addressing the Prime Minister of Australia sitting beside him. The government have carried on the policies of the Labor Party. In the last year for which we have the figures, they brought 637,941 people to Australia. So, 640,000 people are coming to an economy that is only generating 200,000 jobs. I will repeat that slowly: they are bringing 640,000 people in each year through migration, student visas and section 457 workers to an economy that's only generating 200,000 jobs and has over 200,000 school leavers each year. So, now we have 840,000 people chasing 200,000 jobs. We all know what that is going to do to the wages, pay and condition in this country. My family proudly worked like dogs for Charlie McDonald. I'm not going to stand up here and say we were poor people or we were working class, because we weren't. My father's side of the family came to Australia in the 1870s, and within a few years they were very rich, powerful and influential people. Our critics would say, 'The more money in the worker's pocket, the more money was going to flow through your clothing stores.' So, maybe there was self-interest there. Maybe there was, but I am proud that the record reads that my great grandad put 3,000 pounds—over a million dollars in terms of today's money—behind the strike fund. At the end of the day, he was a store keeper. Yes, he had a lot of stores—maybe 20 or 30 throughout Queensland—but he was a store keeper in Charters Towers. He believed that what was happening in Australia could not go on. And here I am today, standing here, 110 years later, fighting exactly the same battles that my forebears were fighting 110 years ago. I love my country. I love Australians. I wrote a very passionate history book. It was published by Murdoch Books, the most distinguished publication people in Australia. Publishing that book was a very great honour. I called us an incredible race of people. Every person that has actually read the book, when they see me, say, 'I just love that book so much.' That is because they are Australians. They love their country. They love the stories of our country and the heroic battles we had to get decent pay and conditions. When the much maligned Bjelke-Petersen government went down in Queensland—with a stab in the back, in much the same way that they took out Edward Theodore, the great Labor leader and Premier of Queensland—we had the highest wages paid to any working people in the world, by a long way. That was because we believed in development. We were building 300 or 400 kilometre of railway line every single year so that our people could have jobs and opportunities. What has happened? Successive ALP and LNP governments in Queensland haven't built a single kilometre of railway line. When someone decides to build a railway line now they are going to pay a foreigner to own the whole of the Galilee Basin goldfields. That is their approach to development. Of course, the ALP approach to development is no development—the bludgerigar club. No development. We will create jobs for the people: we will create public service jobs. No-one's ever told them about cannibalism in the economic field. If ever there was a case of economic cannibalism, it would be that. We are bringing in 640,000 people a year. Where do they come from? In order, China is first. And this is the ALP. And the LNP, because they go home and tell their people: 'The naughty bad, ALP are bringing all these people who are very foreign to Australia into this country. We are going to do something about it.' You're going to do a lot of things, but you haven't done anything. You haven't done anything. I will tell you where they come from: China, India, the Middle East and North Africa, three groups of people that have either no democracy, no rule of law, no Judaeo-Christian belief system or no egalitarian traditions. That covers all three of those countries or areas. So you are watching the people that are in this place, in the zoo, where the foreign corporations hold the key. We're performing puppets in this place for the foreign corporations that hold the key. What are we doing here? We are completely destroying Australia. Within 20 years, the people that are in this place now will be a minority, and we'll be taken over by people who have no tradition of loving your neighbour, doing good to other people or turning the other cheek; no traditions of sitting in the front of a taxi and believing that all people are equal; and no traditions of democracy or rule of law. They will be a majority in this country. You don't have to be Albert Einstein to be able to multiply 640,000 by 20 years. There is another little issue. You see, we've had the citizenship issue. The Chinese government has declared all overseas citizens to be citizens of their country. So, if we have 10 or 15 million Chinese in this country that are actually declared citizens of China, through our trade partnerships and agreements and free market—bloody rubbish—they can see you. They set up a corporation here and want to bring all their workers in from China. Under the China free trade agreement, quite frankly, they can. Let me be very specific. Everyone would have encountered this. I came in at 9.15 one night on an aeroplane into Brisbane. I went to the pharmacy. There were six people working there. None of them spoke fluent English. They were all foreign. I went down to the Red Rooster. I counted 12 people down there. They were all clearly foreign people. I counted two in the after-hours centre. In Bowen and Collinsville, they're putting in foreign solar energy panels. They've all been put in by foreigners. (Time expired) 18:37 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne There are some basic principles that most people would probably think apply in Australia, and they certainly should apply, but I think people would be shocked to find out they don't. One basic principle that I think should be inarguable is that, when the Fair Work Act sets down a legal set of minimum wages, conditions and protections that apply to people who work in this country, and when those wages, conditions and protections are then sometimes increased through enterprise agreements or through other deals, they should apply to everyone, regardless of where you've come from. But that is not the case in Australian labour law. The reason it's not the case in Australian labour law is that over many, many years we've steadily carved out exceptions to it. We've steadily carved out whole groups of people who don't get the basic protections that you would think that everyone is entitled to. The reason that they don't get those protections and can therefore be paid less than the going rate, less than someone working next to them on a particular project, is basically that they come from another country and our immigration laws, in many cases, override and trump our labour laws, because we've created certain classes of visa that basically allow people to bypass the Fair Work Act and agreements that are in place in this country. For other laws that apply and might give you protections, like the ability to go and work in a union and negotiate your collective agreement, an unscrupulous employer or a big corporation can basically contract out of that in Australia, just by using certain classes of visas. What we've found is that in some places it's been particularly prevalent—in the offshore oil and gas sector, for example. The Greens have a very strong position around the use of fossil fuels, but, so long as they are there, the people who were working there should at least have the same wages and conditions as people on the mainland, for example. We have laws in place that allow for different conditions to be applied there, provided you've come in and worked on a certain class of visa. We find that now happening regularly on the mainland as well. For all the talk that we have in this country about how we don't want Third World wages and conditions and we don't want sweatshops, what goes unremarked is that we are actually recreating those very conditions in pockets of our own country. This leads to massive exploitation. We need to lay the groundwork very clearly here. This is not about xenophobia, and nor should it ever be. What we've found is that the people who come here were living in poverty in their country. They have been given an opportunity to come and earn a good wage for them and their families. When they are brought here on these visas, they often get treated in the most horrible of ways. It's not about getting a better life for them; it's about the employer making as much money as they possibly can. So they get brought in. They often get forced to sleep in dormitories and they often get their wages sequestered by their employer. When they twig that in many instances they're getting paid less than someone who is working under a collective agreement, they join a union—and it has often been the unions who have uncovered the exploitation of overseas workers on these visas—and the employer says, 'You can speak up if you want, but if you do you're on the next plane out of here.' So those people coming here and working under those visas are getting exploited. It also serves to help drive down local wages and conditions because employers say, 'If I can get someone in on a visa to do it more cheaply because that's legitimate and lawful, why should I bother paying you the wage of a higher enterprise agreement?' So it exploits the overseas workers and it exploits local workers. People know that this is going on and know that it happened under Labor and Liberal, which is why they've been speaking up so much about and why it has caused so much consternation. People are asking for the basic principle to apply that, no matter where you come from, you get paid the same wages and we use visas to fill any genuine skill shortages but we don't use them to undermine local wages and conditions. They're pretty basic principles that people have been asking for. So we find both Labor and Liberal governments who have been perpetuating this scheme being dragged kicking and screaming to do something. When they get dragged kicking and screaming to do it, it's more important for them to be seen to be doing something rather than actually be doing something. So we had, for example, the farce of a big focus on 457 visas, which this bill continues to talk about, while all the other classes of visa go completely unregulated. I don't know if it still exists, but there used to be a game that I would sometimes play at the arcade called Whac-A-Mole. A little mole pops up and you try to whack it. Every time one pops up, another one pops up somewhere else. It's a never-ending game. This bill and all the rhetoric that has come from this government and from the opposition have focused on 457 visas. That's what this bill is largely about. They forget to tell you that not that long ago the parliament was debating the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. In that agreement is an appendix that says that, for certain classes of workers and certain categories of people, you don't have to use a 457—and we're talking about 400 visas, for example, and other categories of visas. It said: 'Forget about all the restrictions that might be in this legislation about 457s, we're going to grant you a complete exemption.' As a result, under the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement all a Chinese company needs to do is say that they've got someone employed in Australia under a contract, which is anyone, and they get a free pass from all the labour market testing rules and they don't have to advertise locally. And when there are certain categories of people—contractual service providers—who are also mentioned in the appendix to that agreement, you get a free pass from all those rules as well, including this bill, which will do nothing to deal with that. As a result, in the free trade agreement that Labor and Liberal agreed to, for all their rhetoric about protecting local wages and conditions, there are loopholes that trump everything in domestic legislation and allow plane loads of exploited overseas workers to come through and, in the process, exploit them and drive down local wages and conditions. What we have seen in Victoria is that many of the people who are maintaining our state electricity system have been brought here without advertising for local electricians having been done here first. They have been brought here because it is all being done in connection with an overseas corporation. The unions are the ones that have gone in and found that out. In many instances, there and elsewhere, they have found that the employer is actually doing everything lawfully because the Labor-Liberal China free trade agreement gave them this blanket exemption from labour market testing so they don't have to advertise locally. What I'm really worried about is that what we are getting from Labor and Liberal at the moment is the xenophobia and the 'Australia first' rhetoric but without the protections. What I would like to see is the protections without the xenophobia. I would like us to actually take some steps to change our laws to ensure basic principles like saying 'advertise locally first and if you can't find someone locally go advertise overseas'. No problem. Or there might be a genuine skills reason why you might want someone from overseas. I talk to medical researchers in my electorate all the time who love the global nature of the workplace. There will be many instances where it is worthwhile exploring global connections, but we shouldn't use visa categories as a way of failing to invest in proper training in this country. We've completely gutted TAFE. And when Labor and Liberal alike say they'll allow an unregulated and unlimited number of people to come in without even having to advertise locally first, we wonder why people don't want to invest in skills in this country. Why would you? If you are an employer you would be a mug to invest in skills in this country if Labor and Liberal have given you a blank cheque to go and get someone from somewhere else and you don't have to invest locally. So we have got a lot of catching up to do. We have just seen a mining boom pass us by without having anything to show for it except a hangover in Western Australia where the economy is struggling and nothing is left in the kitty. Meanwhile Norway, which has oil riches, had the smarts to put some of its money away into a sovereign wealth fund and now has the biggest sovereign wealth fund in the world. And here, because the mining companies were so successful in running their campaign against the mining tax—they wrote themselves out of having to pay their fair share—we now find ourselves saying that, if it's a Labor government, maybe we have to cut single parent payments or, if it's a Liberal government, maybe we have to put fees up for people to go and see the doctor. We have left this massive opportunity pass us by. We failed to take some of that money we could've taken from the mining boom and invest in training locally. So we have not only lost a lot of money with 83 per cent of profits from that mining boom going overseas; we have lost a lot of opportunities to skill up our population as well. And now we're playing catch-up. This bill is worth being supported, because does at least something, but it only does something with respect to a very small proportion of the problem. It is going to allow all the other moles to keep popping up. It is going to allow all the other classes of visas to keep going and causing the problems that they have caused. The labour market testing legislation that we've got in this country, to which the government has been dragged kicking and screaming, applies to a very narrow section of the people who are coming in. As a result, until we fix it and start saying we should not keep blindly signing up to free trade deals if they are not in our country's interest—and I don't know about the member for Kennedy's party, but certainly the Greens have been the only ones, at least in the Senate, to be consistently voting against these free trade deals when they come in. Until we start saying we can't just keep signing up to free trade deals because big corporations want us to because it allows them to make a lot more money at the expense of people, and until we put things like the TPP on the backburner and say that having what is essentially a global corporate blueprint for the diminution of wages is not a good thing and that allowing companies to sue governments because governments might have the temerity to act in the public interest is not a good thing—until we have the common sense to distance ourselves from these free trade agreements that bind governments' hands and make it much more difficult to legislate for the protection of the population, and until we start getting back to basics and saying, 'Look, the most important thing isn't to have the appearance of doing something and isn't to beat your chest with "Australia first" rhetoric but actually to work out what the problem is and how we can support our young people'—we are going to continue to be in strife. We now have a situation where the Treasurer comes in here and trumpets the jobs numbers and says the government is doing a wonderful job. Mr Howarth 247742 Hear, hear! Mr BANDT M3C I hear, 'Hear, hear' from the backbench. Let me tell you this: close to one in three young people in this country either has no work or doesn't have enough work—one in three. The number is going up since the GFC. Usually, whenever we have economic downturns, it takes only a couple of years for the situation to right itself, and it hasn't for young people in this country. It is getting worse. When one in three young people either has no work or doesn't have enough, and it's been like that persistently under your watch, we are in strife. Until you find a way of fixing that and start saying, 'Maybe this whole neoliberal experiment hasn't worked out that well at all, and maybe this dog-eat-dog world is not what people in Australia want,' you are going to keep going down in the polls, and the parties that have the guts to stand up to big business on behalf of the community are the ones that are going to succeed. 18:52 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I rise to sum up on the Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017. In doing so, can I thank all the members who spoke on the bill for their contributions. The amendments in this bill are aimed at protecting Australian and overseas workers by strengthening the integrity of Australia's temporary and permanent sponsored skilled work visas. The measures in the bill itself complement and are part of the significant reform package to abolish the subclass 457 visa and replace it with the new temporary skills shortage visa in March 2018. As members would probably know, in part that reduced the number of occupations on the skills list from about 651 occupations down to 461 occupations which became eligible for those temporary short-term visas. The key measure in this bill is the publication of detailed sanction information, and the aim of this is to deter businesses from breaching their obligations. This is a very important measure, and it's aimed at ensuring that businesses do the right thing. The 457 visa program is there only for when there are no Australians available to fill the skills shortage. If that occurs then, yes, a business can get a 457 visa, but only if that condition is met. If the business breaches those conditions and doesn't properly abide by the law, this bill will now allow that business to be named on the government's website so that other businesses know and so that other prospective employees who may be overseas are aware of that as well. As I mentioned, this bill is part of a suite of changes which we've made to the 457 visa program. We had some serious concerns in relation to that program, and we've introduced many changes, including reducing the number of occupations on the skilled migration list. More recently we've introduced a measure which will allow more formal labour market testing, and there will be other complementary measures as well, which will be coming forward in the next few weeks. All of those things are done do ensure that Australians have the best opportunity of getting Australian jobs. We've actually done remarkably well at this, because when you look at the number of 457 visas which have been allocated, you see it is now significantly lower than it was when we first came to government. Last year, for example, only 70,000 457 visas were issued, whereas at the peak under the Labor government 130,000 457 visas were issued. The interesting thing about this is that, while the number of 457 visas issued last year was almost half the number at its peak under the Labor government, it occurred at a time when there was massive jobs growth, with 400,000 jobs created last year, and at a time when the proportion of people on welfare payments dropped to its lowest level in 25 years. So it's been a great trifecta for the Australian worker, with more jobs being created, more Australians coming off welfare and taking those jobs, and fewer 457 visas issued because Aussies are taking those jobs. It's exactly the reverse of what occurred under the former government, whereby the record number of 457 visas issued back in 2012 occurred while the number of jobs actually declined and while the welfare queues were expanding. It's one thing to need 457 visas and maybe for those lists to grow when there is a very tight labour market, but what occurred under Labor Party is that the welfare queues were growing, the number of jobs was declining and yet they were still issuing record numbers of 457 visas. We're proud of what we have achieved to date in relation to the reforms that we've made to ensure that Australians have the best chance of getting a job in this country and maintaining that job and to ensure they have the best chance of growing and developing themselves and improving their wages in the process. This bill assists with that process. I mentioned that publication of detailed sanction information is the most important measure here, but there are also a number of other measures in this bill. It provides certainty around merits review by clarifying that review rights are determined at the time a decision to review a visa is made. A third element of the bill will allow the Department Immigration and Border Protection, now the Department of Home Affairs, to collect, record, store and use the tax file numbers associated with temporary and permanent skilled visas. This will improve the department's ability to verify that businesses who sponsor overseas workers are complying with their sponsorship obligations and that the skilled visa holders comply with their visa conditions. Tax file number will also improve the department's ability to undertake research and trend analysis, which will provide an additional evidence base for the department in developing skilled visa policy. These measures collectively strengthen the integrity of skilled migration visa programs and protect Australian and overseas workers. This government has a very strong track record in jobs creation, in getting people off welfare and into work, and only where absolutely necessary issuing 457 visas when no Australian is able to do the job. That's what we're about. We're about Australians getting Australian jobs, improving their wages and improving their opportunities, and this bill goes towards that. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 70 18:59 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill 2017, ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Amendment Bill 2017 71

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

ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Amendment Bill 2017

Second Reading 71 19:00 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Today we are debating two bills that, at least in terms of intent, are uncontroversial. Labor will support schedule 1 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill 2017 and the ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Amendment Bill 2017 without hesitation. Labor remains concerned about the manner in which indigeneity is defined in schedule 2 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill 2017, and I will address that matter in due course. Turning first to the ASIC measures, schedule 1 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill makes amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 to strengthen protections against manipulation of financial benchmarks. It will make manipulation of all financial benchmarks used in Australia a specific criminal offence and subject to civil penalties. Individuals will be liable to fines up to the greater of three times the benefit they gained or 4,500 penalty units, currently $945,000. Body corporates will be liable to fines up to the greater of 45,000 penalty units—$9.45 million in current terms—three times any benefits from the manipulation or 10 per cent of the entity's turnover in the previous year. Civil penalties will also apply. Currently manipulation of financial benchmarks is enforced using existing laws relating to market manipulation, false trading and market rigging. Second, these measures will also establish a new licensing regime requiring administrators of certain designated significant financial benchmarks to obtain a new 'benchmark administrator licence' from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Administration of financial benchmarks, at present, does not require a licence and is not a regulated activity under current law. ASIC will have the power to designate significant financial benchmarks with the consent of the minister. Financial benchmarks can be so designated if the benchmark is systematically important, could cause instability or would materially impact Australian investors if the availability or integrity of the benchmark were disrupted. Third, the bill will give ASIC powers to make rules imposing a regulatory framework for licensed benchmark administrators and related matters. This framework will reflect a set of principles released by the International Organization of Securities Commissions. This bill will give ASIC the power to compel market participants to make submissions to ensure the continued generation of financial benchmarks during times of financial market stress. This is naturally a power of last resort. The ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Amendment Bill 2017 supports this regime by adding benchmark administrator licensees to the list of entities from which ASIC may recover its regulatory costs under the ASIC supervisory costs recovery levy. Labor supports these measures, as they strengthen our laws against the manipulation of financial benchmarks. We've seen cases of manipulation of financial benchmarks around the world. In Australia, legal action against Westpac, NAB and ANZ regarding alleged manipulation of the bank bill swap rate is ongoing. As ASIC has noted, the manipulation of the bank bill swap rate is not a victimless act. There are winners and losers. Just as insider trading harms certain market participants, so too does manipulation of the bank bill swap rate. It impacts financial products used by many Australian businesses to manage their financial affairs, and it undermines the confidence that investors have in the market itself. Manipulation of rates causes other market participants to pull out, just as insider trading decreases the trading volume. We support these measures. I turn now to the Productivity Commission reforms. Schedule 2 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill provides for the appointment of a commissioner with extensive skills and experience in dealing with policies and programs that have an impact on Indigenous persons and experience in dealing with one or more communities of Indigenous persons. The new law increases the number of commissioners, not including the chair, from 11 to 12. In his Closing the Gap statement to parliament on Valentine's Day of this year, the Prime Minister announced a new role for the commission in Indigenous policy evaluation and the expansion of the commission to include a new commissioner to oversee this work. According to the explanatory memorandum: A number of high profile reports have highlighted the need for more evaluation of policies and programs that have an impact on Indigenous persons, including the Commission’s Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage Report 2016. This report included case studies of programs that are making a difference as 'things that work', but the report found that only a relatively small number have been rigorously evaluated. There is a pressing need for further evaluation to better understand which policies and programs are effective in improving outcomes for Indigenous persons. Labor share this concern. We are worried that the quality of evaluation has not been as high as it should have been. Improving the evidence base in Australia is absolutely critical, and there is no area in which that is more vital than Indigenous policy. The Productivity Commission has been at the forefront of making this argument. To the extent that we can increase the quality of evaluation, perhaps even implement a greater number of randomised policy trials in this field, that would be a very good thing. Labor support the inclusion of a Productivity Commissioner with expertise and remit to policy matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. So that goal enjoys bipartisan support. But there is a significant issue that concerns us. That goes to the definition of 'Indigenous person' in this bill. In the bill the definition of 'Indigenous person' is an old-fashioned one. It is based on race and descent rather than the standard updated definition which uses a three-part notion—descent, identification and acceptance in the community. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Law Reform Commission, among others, the most widely adopted definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, what they call the 'Commonwealth working definition', is: … Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, who identifies as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin and who is accepted as such by the community with which the person associates … In practice, the 'descent, identification and acceptance' definition is the one used by Commonwealth departments. I referred to it as the modern definition. But what I call this modern definition echoes Justice Gerard Brennan's words from the 1992 Mabo judgement which noted Indigeneity as being a combination of: … biological descent from the indigenous people and … mutual recognition of a particular person’s membership by that person and by the elders or other persons enjoying traditional authority among those people. So this modern definition has at least a quarter-century of jurisprudence behind it. This three-part definition was also used by the former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission to determine eligibility to vote and stand in ATSIC regional and national councils. When various elections were challenged, this three-part definition—this updated, modern definition, known these days as the Commonwealth working definition—was tested a number of times in the courts. So it is not as though the three-part definition has not been before the courts in the past. Labor argued in a Senate Select Committee on Strengthening Multiculturalism report that it was necessary to move away from race based terminology in legislation and policy. I want to read to the House the Labor senators' comments in the Senate multiculturalism report: 1.1 The question of 'race' as a 'concept' and 'term' is used widely in parliamentary language, legislation and in the construction of entities with 'race' as part of their nomenclature. The issue of 'race' is a concern to Labor. 1.2 The use of the term 'race' has the capacity to reinforce negative perceptions of others from different cultures. This matter ought to be seriously considered by us and we ought to consider ways by which the leadership of the parliament could begin to change attitudes around the use of the term race in our multicultural society. 1.3 The Australian Labor Party notes that, in the 2012 Final Report of the Expert Panel on Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution, the Expert Panel proposed the removal of s. 51(26) and s. 25 of the Australian Constitution because of their reliance upon 'race' as an 18th Century concept, and the embedded racist thinking that governs their construction. 1.4 Race is used in other applications and has been the basis or cause of much discrimination in Australia as a consequence. The constitutional changes recommended by the previous Expert Panel … have not been proceeded with so the Australian Constitution remains racist. It is indeed true that the existing definition, the one that the government brings forward in the bill today, has been used in legislation in the past. It is indeed true, as the government has put to us, that it is part of Commonwealth legislative drafting guidelines. But just because it was done in the past doesn't mean it should be done in the future. As our Labor senators have noted, it is not the 18th century. It's time to demonstrate leadership on how Australia can change attitudes around the use of the term 'race'. It is time to use an updated, modern definition to include the Commonwealth working definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander in this bill. That is not a matter of semantics; it is a matter that is important for reconciliation. It's important for multiculturalism. It's important for egalitarianism. I should note that, as we have sought to pursue this matter, we've done so in good faith through discussions between offices. We were hopeful that this matter could have been resolved by the government without us needing to raise it in the House. The Treasurer's office did indeed engage in good faith. We approached them shortly after this bill was introduced. We explained our concerns and we proposed an amendment which was based on the Commonwealth working definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. So I don't want to criticise the Treasurer's office for the way in which they have dealt with this. What we have been concerned about, though, is the way in which this matter has been handled by the Prime Minister's office. Following weeks in which Labor had not had our calls returned, we opened the Weekend Australian on 24 February to read an article clearly planted by the government quoting Senator Scullion saying that the delay in passing the bill was Labor's fault. The government wasn't returning our calls, wasn't engaging with us in good faith, but instead was simply seeking to background The Australian newspaper. But I have to say that that article in The Australian makes some interesting historical points. It quotes the words of Justice Brennan that I noted earlier. And, when detailing Senator Scullion's suggestion that a Labor amendment would require further consultation, the reporter, Steven Fitzpatrick wrote: Asking an actual indigenous Australian for legislative advice? Well, there’s a ruling on that, too. In a 1998 Federal Court case on indigenous identity, Justice Ron Merkel said it was a shame the matter had been 'left by a parliament that is not representative of Aboriginal people to be determined by a court which is also not representative of Aboriginal people.' Perhaps one day, he mused, such a ruling 'might be made by independently constituted bodies or tribunals which are representative of Aboriginal people'. It is notable that we are dealing with this issue, with these problems, and with the way in which the Prime Minister's office has handled this issue at the very same time that the government is failing to listen to and embrace the Statement from the Heart at Uluru. As the Opposition Leader said in response to the Closing the gap report: This has to include a meaningful say for the First Australians in the decisions that affect their lives—a Voice to parliament. Labor will legislate one should we win government. The Prime Minister has ruled the voice out. And it appears that the Prime Minister is also reluctant to accept Labor's amendments to move away from an old-fashioned definition of Indigenous people in our bill. Labor has consulted on this issue. We have the benefit of three Indigenous members of the Labor caucus. Labor's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander caucus was attuned to the issue. We have sought expert advice. We are not going out on a limb here. The use of our proposed definition is not even unprecedented in legislation in Australia. Commonwealth legislation has indeed used the standard, old-fashioned, outmoded definition, but in the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 the definition is: Aboriginal person means a person who: (a) is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia, and (b) identifies as an Aboriginal person, and (c) is accepted by the Aboriginal community as an Aboriginal person. The Commonwealth working definition, the three-part definition, finds existence in New South Wales law but not, ironically, in Commonwealth law. The government claims that moving to the new, modern, three-part definition—putting the Commonwealth working definition in statute—might cause constitutional problems. Those experts we have consulted say this is a claim which is shaky at best. The three-part definition was upheld by the High Court as giving meaning to the expression 'aboriginal race', formerly within section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution, by Justice Deane in Commonwealth v Tasmania 1983. If there was a constitutional concern, it surely would have been tested by now. Constitutional lawyer Professor Megan Davis has been commenting on the matter publicly over the last week. Indeed, she did so in response to the story in The Australian. Professor Davis's concerns are about the use of the two-part race based definition in the legislation and how such race based definitions deny Indigenous communities sovereignty over their identity. Her comments do not go to the issue of a constitutional challenge. Labor will facilitate passage of the bills in the House. As I have noted before, they are, in their broad substance, issues which we support on this side. But in the Senate we will proceed with our detailed amendment to the definition of 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person'. We trust that the government will return our calls and engage with us in good faith, not choose to play games on this sensitive and important issue but, instead, recognise the desire of many in the Indigenous community to use an updated, modern definition of Indigeneity, to move away from race based language and to use the Commonwealth working definition—the descent, identification and acceptance definition—in this bill. It ought not be a bridge too far. It is time to update the way in which we define Indigeneity in Commonwealth legislation. This bill is the right place to start. I urge the government to get on board, to do the right thing and to engage with decency and good faith, as Labor has done. 19:17 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill 2017 and the ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Amendment Bill 2017, and commend them to the house. What we're debating today aims to implement two government measures—firstly, a new regulatory regime for financial benchmarks used in Australia and, secondly, the appointment of a new Indigenous policy commissioner to the Productivity Commission. I'd like to commend the Treasurer for his work on these measures, which demonstrate the importance of safeguarding our economy and ensuring that we are focused on our key commitments to the Australian people. It's also important so that families and businesses, including in my electorate of Robertson, on the Central Coast, can have certainty about the integrity, resilience and fairness of the financial system. Our commitment is to do everything that we can to better protect Australians from the possible abuse and manipulation of financial markets that can happen through the work of sophisticated financial institutions. Financial benchmarks are used to value trillions of dollars of financial products, yet we've seen many cases now, both in Australia and around the world, where the regulation of these financial benchmarks has caused significant issues. The Treasurer, in his second reading speech, made mention of some of the special cases which in total add up to penalties for misconduct of around $25 billion as of August last year. A manipulation of the market has also been found to happen here, and, when this government was elected, there appeared to be evidence of abuse for many years. For example, in 2016, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission commenced formal court proceedings against three of our biggest banks for alleged manipulation of the bank bill swap rate. This legislation acts to ensure that we have market integrity and investor confidence, and reflects the action taken overseas in places like the UK, the EU, Japan and Canada. As the Treasurer said, without similar reforms in Australia, investors will lose confidence in our markets, and Australian businesses, including the four major banks, would likely not be able to issue or trade securities linked to Australian benchmarks in key foreign markets, including the EU. So, in line with the advice provided to the government from the Council of Financial Regulators, these bills will make important changes in key areas. We will require administrators of significant benchmarks to hold a benchmark administrator licence and also to comply with a range of rules aligned to international best practice and enforceable by ASIC. We're making the manipulation of any financial benchmark or a product used to generate such a benchmark a specific criminal and civil offence. I should note that legitimate business activity not intended to set a financial benchmark at a particular level is explicitly outside the scope of these new provisions. But there is a real resolve to stamp out benchmark manipulation, as seen in some of these penalties, including up to 10 years imprisonment for an individual and, for a body corporate, fines of almost $10 million, three times any benefits derived from the manipulation or 10 per cent of the entity's turnover in the previous year. The government believes this will give ASIC the power it needs to be a tough cop on the beat and to crack down on attempts to manipulate a financial benchmark. There are cost recovery measures, including that licensed benchmark administrators will be required to pay an annual supervisory levy. This levy, thankfully, stops the costs going back onto taxpayers, who I know don't want to bear the brunt of financial sector mismanagement. I also note the Treasurer's comments that, by only requiring the administrators of significant benchmarks to obtain a licence, we have appropriately balanced the need to ensure the integrity of Australia's financial system against the burden of extra regulatory costs seen in the more heavy-handed approach to licensing. I should say at this point that this does build on many other measures that this government has taken to protect Australians in this space. This includes a boost of $127.2 million to enhance ASIC's powers, its data analytics and surveillance capabilities, and to allow ASIC to take more surveillance and enforcement action. We're also launching a comprehensive review of ASIC's enforcement regime to help deter misconduct and grow consumer confidence. There's also the implementation of a new banking executive accountability regime, which will strengthen the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's powers. Together, these reforms will help ensure continued confidence in Australia's financial system now. I'd also like to speak briefly on the second part of this legislation, the Indigenous policy and program evaluation. I spoke recently in this place about the latest Closing the gap report. As one of the co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Closing the Gap, I noted the hard work and commitment of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Indigenous Health on the progress of our commitments to close the gap. I spoke of how, on the Central Coast, we've got some real success stories, such as at The Glen rehabilitation centre. Joseph Coyte, CEO of The Glen, told me an extraordinary story about how they have used the government's initiatives like the Indigenous Procurement Policy, IPP, to kickstart social enterprises that directly help our community. This has helped create jobs, opportunity and a clear future direction. The government has also created a role for the Productivity Commission in Indigenous policy evaluation. This involves the expansion of the commission to include a new commissioner. As the Treasurer has outlined, a number of high-profile reports have shown the need for more evaluation of policies and programs that have an impact on Indigenous Australians. The commission's Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage report in 2016 found that only a small number had been rigorously evaluated. This part of the legislation is about trying to see more success stories like we are seeing on the Central Coast and about improving our capability to better understand which policies and programs are most effective in improving outcomes for Indigenous Australians. The focus, quite simply, is on what works. By making amendments to the Productivity Commission Act 1998, this bill will increase the number of commissioners, other than the chair, to a maximum of 12. We will require that one commissioner has extensive skills and experience in dealing with policies and programs affecting Indigenous Australians, including dealing with Indigenous communities. Importantly, the commissioner will be expected to have a strong understanding of the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and strong links with communities. In closing, I want to comment on the remarks by the member for Fenner and Labor about definitions. It is the government's view that the parliament should retain the legislative definition of an 'Indigenous person' as currently drafted in schedule 2 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill 2017. This is because it is consistent with the standard Commonwealth legislative definition used across the statute book. The current legislative definition has been established through longstanding bipartisan use. If there is an interest in changing the standard definition, a debate on this bill is not the appropriate process for such a change. Consideration of how to define Indigenous status is a significant matter—I agree with that—and a full and proper discussion with Indigenous Australians about these issues and their implications is required; however, any delay to the passing of this legislation will prevent the Productivity Commission from commencing its important new functions. I commend this bill to the House. 19:26 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I'm pleased to be able to make a very brief contribution to this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill 2017 and the ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Amendment Bill 2017. I was pleased to have been here for the contribution of the shadow minister, the member for Fenner, and, in large part, my comments on this bill echo his remarks and confirm our position that we are not seeking to frustrate the passage of the bill. I'm also pleased to have been in the chamber for the contribution of the previous speaker, and I note that she touched on the issue of greatest concern to members of my party, the Australian Labor Party, which goes to the government's view of how we should approach definitions of indigeneity. Like the member for Fenner, I think it's very difficult to see this outside of the wider context within which this debate is playing out. Like the member for Robertson, I, too, contributed to the parliamentary debate on Closing the Gap. That is an occasion where the parliament comes together to recognise some of our wider and multipartisan responsibilities towards our first Australians. I'm very pleased to hear of the progress being made in the member for Robertson's electorate. I was also very pleased to highlight some achievements of first-nations Australians in Melbourne's northern suburbs. But those achievements can't derogate from some of the fundamental and hard truths all of us have to acknowledge about the ongoing impacts of intergenerational trauma. These are issues of deep concern to me, the communities I represent and more broadly. While there may well be other opportunities to debate these issues—I'm sure there will be—the questions of definition cannot lightly be set aside, nor can the views of people like Professor Megan Davis, a very prominent constitutional lawyer and very prominent and effective Indigenous activist. I note the contribution of my colleague the member for Fenner in that regard. When we think about the broad range of measures contained in the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill and the government's commitment to strengthen financial regulation and to deal with issues that may go to potential abuses and manipulation of financial markets by sophisticated financial institutions at the expense of ordinary Australian consumers, we can't divorce that from these very significant issues which go to the heart of how Australians generally deal with the concerns of Indigenous Australians. When we are talking about this bill, the wider regulatory issues are obviously of great significance, but I think it is impossible to understate the significance of the appointment of a new Indigenous policy commissioner to the Productivity Commission. That is something of enormous significance, and that is why the member for Fenner and other Labor members have been setting out these concerns. These are concerns of not just members of the Australian Labor Party but the vast majority of first-nations Australians who have expressed views on this matter. These are matters that can't be brushed over. They can't be set aside for another time. They require all of us in this place to reflect not only on the significance of this particular proposal, this significant appointment, but also on the wider issues that were touched upon so effectively by the member for Robertson in her contribution. ADJOURNMENT 75 ADJOURNMENT Batman By-Election 75 19:30 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin It is very clear that people in the Batman electorate are tired of politics as usual, and it is clear too that they are heartily sick of this terrible Turnbull government. They are frustrated by the drift to inequality that is happening in Australia and angered by the Liberals' determination to accelerate this trend when it needs to be brought to an end. But over the next few weeks they have a chance to change our politics and take a big step towards changing our country for the better. Ged Kearney's campaign to secure the support of Batman voters is politics with real purpose; it's not politics as usual. Ged is standing on action, integrity and real change for Batman. She knows how to fight the tough battles and also how to win them. She's been doing it for years—as a nurse, as head of the nurses' union and as head of the ACTU. She has the runs on the board. Ged has a plan for Batman, not a running commentary on other parties. In just the past two weeks we have seen announcements for a new LGBTI health clinic in Northcote, an extension of the No. 11 tramline out to Reservoir and $10 million for a new science and technology centre in Preston—all secured by Ged, who has listened to the community and responded with real action. So I say to people in Melbourne's north that in supporting Ged Kearney you would be putting an effective, progressive voice inside a party of government, a party that will soon form government—a voice for workers, for people on fixed incomes, for asylum seekers, for a good society, for a society in which all of us have a stake and also say. You would also be supporting someone who understands the power and importance of government. To change the country, we have to change the government; it's that simple. Don't believe the Greens hype and their ultra-cynical posturing about 'old parties'. Instead, progressive voters should have a look at what has been happening in the United Kingdom and the United States with the movements around Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders—brave consistent voices committed to a politics that is genuinely transformative. They are concerned with forming governments that change how people live their lives, not how we feel about ourselves. That is one reason why this by-election in Batman matters so much: Ged Kearney stands out as someone who can make real her values as a driver of enduring change. But there is another reason too. What I believe unites the people of Batman is a strong desire to kick out this terrible government and all the things it represents. They should remember that the Greens, under Senator Di Natale, have developed a worrying tendency to vote with the Liberals when it really matters—on progressive pension changes, most obviously. Let's make no mistake about this: they enabled the schools funding cuts which have seen Batman's schools short-changed and needs-based funding of our public schools thrown away around the country. I say this to the voters in Batman: if you want to get rid of the Prime Minister, his Treasurer and his soulless Minister for Immigration, if you want them off the government benches, you should think about who they want to win this by-election. A Greens victory would only help this terrible government feel more comfortable. That is the reality. That is why the Liberals aren't fielding a candidate: they are hoping for a Greens win. They are afraid of Ged Kearney, who she is and what she represents. Ged Kearney can actually deliver the changes that she promises for the communities which make up the Batman electorate and right around this country. She wants to be a representative, not a commentator. She won't be complaining and asking others to do the work that is required to secure a more equal Australia—unlike the 'all care, no responsibility' Greens, who, at best, offer protests, grandstanding and, when it comes to this parliament, meaningless motions, most of which seem to be focused on critiquing the Labor Party, or offer up two-word slogans that may sound and feel good but don't address the underlying challenges. This is cynicism disguised as idealism, because it denies the possibilities of real change, rejecting the inspiration offered by Corbyn and Sanders and the strong response to the bold agenda across our nation which has been set out by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong. It's this cynicism, this disingenuousness, which is politics as usual. It's time to break that mould. Voters in Batman right now can do that by supporting Ged Kearney as their representative and the election of a Shorten Labor government. Robertson Electorate: Employment 76 19:35 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I rise to speak about a major commitment to the people of Robertson to deliver more local jobs to my electorate on the Central Coast. In doing so I note the government's impressive record already when it comes to jobs. 16,000 jobs were added in January and 403,000 jobs for the year. We've now had 16 consecutive months of jobs growth, which is the longest run of jobs growth ever recorded. Our business tax cuts are helping small business to invest, hire and grow. We want to create even more jobs and opportunities, including for families and businesses on the Central Coast. We know that more needs to be done to ensure that people can live and work in what I think is the greatest region in the greatest country in the world. That's why our growth plan for the Central Coast—a key part of it and a real game changer for the Central Coast—includes the delivery of 600 new jobs in a new ATO building in Gosford. The first ATO employees started work at their desks last year, which is fantastic news for our community. But there have been questions from our community around what sort of impact the jobs will have on the local economy. That is what I would like to focus on in my time today. The reports are in. I'm pleased to confirm that we are already seeing an uplift in Gosford CBD that's being felt by businesses, local families and the wider community. I call this coffee shop economics, based on the simple premise that each of the 600 employees will be grabbing their morning coffee, and maybe a few coffees on a busy day, in Gosford and not in Sydney or Newcastle, which creates more confidence and more jobs for people on the coast. What better place to turn to for evidence than coffee shops and business owners themselves to see if Gosford really is experiencing a change in fortunes. The Good Bits Co is a new coffee shop near Kibble Park. It's a great new venue with great coffee. Lydia told me that since the ATO has opened they have definitely been a lot busier. She said, 'We've seen a lot of new faces coming through the cafe. It's been really great. The popularity of our cafe is spread through word of mouth, and we've now got some great regular customers that are ATO staff. We're all about pumping up Gosford, and these jobs have really made a difference to the area.' Paul, another local business person in Gosford, agreed and said, 'Since the ATO has opened, the CBD feels like it's buzzing again. Local cafes and restaurants are busy at breakfast and lunchtimes, and the influx of new workers has benefitted local mum and dad businesses.' Jeff from F45 Training, also in Gosford, said he was now looking at ways to market the gym to people working in the ATO building. Jeff said he has seen local cafes around the corner from the gym busy with the customers from the ATO every morning. Jan Gairn, from Ray White Gosford, said that with greater career opportunities it's making Gosford and the local area a more vibrant region, and the economic stimulation is already significant at a grassroots level. She said that this has become evident with small business owners opening their doors in and around the Gosford CBD offering more services in the retail sector, such as coffee shops, clothing stores and restaurants locally, which are being supported and embraced by the local workforce. In the case of the small number of people who have been travelling into Gosford—because, of course, the vast majority of people at the ATO in Gosford are actually living locally on the Central Coast and are now able to work on the Central Coast—those people who are travelling from the Hills District and the North Shore area of Sydney to Gosford for employment anecdotally are saying they are considering making a permanent move to the coast because of our region's lifestyle and affordability. Peter Blacker from Central Coast Leagues Club also said the injection of jobs from the ATO has been really positive for Gosford. The Central Coast Leagues Club is just up the road from the ATO, and Peter said they have seen a lot more people out and about walking the streets and that Gosford hasn't been like that in a long time. Rod Dever, the new president of the Gosford-Erina chamber of commerce, also confirmed that the construction of the ATO and the commitment to deliver 600 new jobs has been a positive development in terms of the Gosford area. Rod said the ATO has held a number of information sessions and has been fantastic in terms of outreach to local businesses, and that having a government department available at a local level has meant that obtaining information is also much easier. So, this week, we're continuing to contact businesses across Gosford to hear more about the economic impact that these policies are having on our city and on our region. I look forward to continuing to update my community and the parliament about the success of our growth plan to rejuvenate Gosford. Indi Electorate: Tourism 77 19:40 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi Good evening, colleagues. I want to extend to you a warm invitation to come and visit north-east Victoria in autumn. From Thursday on, we are celebrating our High Country Festival. So, tonight, I want to talk a bit about why, Mr Speaker, you should come north and members at the table should come south. I want to talk about the importance of tourism to the economy. I want to talk about some of the exciting things that we've got to do and put a call-out to the government about how absolutely important infrastructure is for our public transport and mobile phone coverage—round 4 of our mobile phone coverage for a really good NBN. Without this infrastructure, it makes it really hard for our tourists and our tourist businesses to do business. Tourism is increasingly one of the largest industries in my electorate of Indi. The area known as the High Country includes six main shires: Alpine, Benalla, Indigo, Mansfield, Towong and Wangaratta, and the three major Alpine areas of Falls Creek, Mount Buller and Mount Hotham. Together, they attract over three million visitors, who spend other $692 million. As such, tourism is accounting for 20.3 per cent of the gross regional product. It employs over 7,900 people, which is 20.2 per cent of regional employment. In the most recent data, collected in September 2017 for domestic travel, the High Country received over 1.6 million domestic visitors overnight. Visitors spent nearly 4.8 million nights in the region, and the region received 10.3 per cent of visitors and 10.8 per cent of nights in regional Victoria. They are some of the statistics. It is not only local statistics that are important. What I want to talk about before I get into the delights, Mr Speaker, of why you should come north is that the Productivity Commission has just released a report talking about transitioning regions. What this Productivity Commission report tells us is that in a cross-country analysis of drivers of regional economic growth the OECD found that infrastructure and connectivity were critical enablers. This includes investment in regional transport infrastructure—a call-out to the new Deputy Prime Minister and minister for regional development. We've got to fix our trains. There is investment in regional infrastructure and also connecting relatively closed and isolated regions to external markets, and ensuring the transport infrastructure capitalises on geographical positions. That's Indi to a tee. We've also been told by the Productivity Commission that building capacity in regional communities involves investment in infrastructure that increases connectivity and enables the movement of goods, services and people, and communication between people. So there are lots of reasons why you should come and visit Victoria and spend your money there. But let me just whet your appetite. Mr Speaker, I suspect you might be really interested in the Wild Deer Hunting Guiding and Fishing Expo. It is taking place next weekend. No? Wild Deer & Hunting Adventures proudly presents the 2018 hunting, guiding and fishing expo. It's the biggest hunting, guiding and fishing expo in the Asia-Pacific region. Let me try mountain biking, Mr Speaker. Mountain Bike Australia, in conjunction with the Alpine Cycling Club, is going to present the 2018 MTBA Downhill National Championships in Bright. Maybe not? So let me suggest the Wall to Wall Festival in Benalla. That may be more to your liking. This is Australia's most exciting annual street art event. I'm going to be there, so come and say hello—maybe the member for Scullin? The Wall to Wall Festival will liven things up in Benalla. It's in its fourth year. This festival brings together a dynamic combination of local, national and international artists who do murals across every single wall in Benalla. Walls that you didn't know were there get decorated. If that's not to your taste, there is Tastes of Rutherglen—that's wine. Mansfield shire has Tenors on the Turf. Murrindindi has the Regional World's Longest Lunch, at Acheron. Lake Mountain has great activities at Easter time. Towong has the Man from Snowy River Bush Festival in Corryong, Wangaratta has the A Hitch to the Sticks Festival, and the City of Wodonga has their wood-fired pizza opening. But the piece de resistance is the Yackandandah Folk Festival. It's on the weekend before we come back at the end of March. There is music, community and fantastic things happening. Mr Speaker, maybe you and your family could get in your car, roll up the highway, turn off to Yackandandah and come via Beechworth and the wineries of Milawa. We would enjoy your company. Welfare Reform 78 19:45 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor It sounds like a wonderful weekend coming up in Indi. Mr Speaker, you're welcome to come to the Wagin Woolorama in my electorate next weekend, if you have time. Tonight I rise to update the House on the progress towards rolling out the cashless debit card in the Goldfields region of O'Connor. Again, I thank Ministers Tudge and Tehan for their steadfast support of this initiative, and those here in the House and the Senate who supported the passage of this legislation. The ink was barely dry on this legislation when I headed back to the Goldfields last week. In Leonora I popped in to The Food Van Cafe and the owner, Fi, said: 'I keep hearing conflicting stories. Promise me we are going to get the cashless debit card here in Leonora.' I was pleased to reassure her that we were. I joined the Leonora Shire Council for a meeting where councillors were discussing the rollout logistics. The shire has just purchased a roving EFTPOS machine for use at community events, and is working to ensure all businesses will accept the card. The shire already has liquor and gambling restrictions in place for times of unrest, but are considering further liquor accords and ancillary support measures. At the Leonora District High School, I met with the principal and discussed how the school could support cashless debit card participants and help monitor outcomes of the trial. Next, I travelled to Laverton, a town that supports a thriving mining industry that last year contributed almost $2 billion to the Australian economy. The Shire of Laverton invited me to speak at their annual mining liaison meeting. I took this opportunity to discuss the cashless debit card, and reinforce the important role of the mining industry in providing employment for locals trying to break the cycle of welfare dependence. I also attended an Indigenous business workshop where discussion was around forming businesses that would train and employ Indigenous people. Meanwhile, the Department of Social Services has already engaged respected Laverton community member Marty Seelander as their community liaison officer. Marty will support the cashless debit card participants in Laverton and the outlying Aboriginal communities of Mount Margaret, Cosmo Newberry and Mulga Queen. He will make sure they can all access the benefits of the card and connect them with any wrap-around services they may require. Marty and I visited the police to discuss identifying measurable outcomes of the card as part of critically evaluating the trial as it progresses. We talked to people on the streets and in businesses. It was encouraging to hear the level of support and enthusiasm for the cashless debit card trial in the Northern Goldfields. The following day in Kalgoorlie, I hosted a round table discussion with the Department of Social Services, the Shires of Coolgardie, Menzies, Laverton and Leonora and the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. We were joined by Simone de Been, CEO of the Kalgoorlie-Boulder Chamber of Commerce and Industry. We spoke about the logistics of ensuring that cashless debit card participants can use the card to make any of their usual purchases, excepting alcohol and gambling products. The shires were informed they would receive their local partner contracts by 5 March, and the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder could engage at least six people to assist the transition onto the card. The cashless debit card office will be located in Kalgoorlie and in the Boulder Town Hall. In Leonora, Menzies and Kambalda cashless debit card support officers will work out of the community resource centres. In Coolgardie they will be based in the shire administration building, and an office has been secured in Laverton. During the stakeholder round table, the department also debunked some of the myths that have circulated through the Goldfields community on social media, much of them peddled by city based armchair activists. To those trolls who have never experienced the social harm being done in our communities, I quote an Aboriginal woman who spoke at a recent women's gathering: They need to come here and stay here for a while. Go for a walk at nine o'clock at night and see what the town's like when these people get drunk and start fighting or breaking into things. We need the card to try and curb that behaviour. They need to see what it's like living out here. Regarding some of the falsehoods about this card, I state categorically: this card will be accepted by all outlets that accept Visa; the vast majority of merchants do not have to sign a contract with the card service provider unless they sell alcohol or gambling products; the only merchants who are blocked are those who supply alcohol, gambling products or cash to card holders illicitly; and all direct debit requests, loan repayments and electronic transfers will be honoured by the card provider unless the participant does not have the funds to make these payments. Additionally, participants can elect to receive real-time account balances on their mobile phone to ensure there are always sufficient funds to cover scheduled payments. It is my hope that this finally allays the fears of those welfare recipients who have called my office after reading false information. I'll continue to work hard with all levels of government and the private businesses and service providers of the Goldfields to ensure that no participant is disadvantaged by the card. I believe that together we can work to reduce the social harm that's being experienced in our communities. Bombing of Darwin: 76th Anniversary 79 19:50 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon 19 February is a national day of observance because on this day 76 years ago, in 1942, mainland Australia came under attack for the first time. On this day Japanese forces mounted two air raids on Darwin that involved over 260 enemy aircraft, killing at least 252 Allied service personnel and civilians. Last Monday was 19 February and I attended ceremonies in Darwin commemorating the 76th anniversary of this really significant event for our city and for our country—when Darwin was bombed. First we met at the USS Peary memorial and then at the Darwin cenotaph for the commemoration, including at 10 am a re-enactment of the raid complete with aircraft and anti-aircraft guns. It was a lot of excitement for the families who came along. Also on this morning the Maritime Union of Australia had a commemoration at Stokes Hill Wharf for those seafarers and waterside workers who were killed when bombs rained down on the wharf. This commemoration goes back to 1943, so they held their commemoration a year after the bombing and every year since. At the Darwin cenotaph the NT Chief Minister, Michael Gunner, reminded us during his speech of the heroic Tiwi man, Matthias Ulungura, who captured Japanese pilot Hajime Toyoshima on the Tiwi Islands. Toyoshima was the first Japanese prisoner of war taken on Australian soil after he crash-landed on Melville Island during the air raids. Matthias saw the plane crash on Melville Island. He broke from his hunting party, approached the Japanese pilot from behind, poked him in the back with the butt of his tomahawk and said, 'Stick 'em up.' I was sitting next to the Father of the House, the member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, at the commemoration, who then explained that Matthias went on to say to the Japanese pilot, 'You come longa me, Hopalong Cassidy.' The Japanese pilot, very smartly, did as he was told and became the first prisoner of war taken on Australian soil. A mate of mine, a Vietnam veteran and a bush poet, Waldo from Humpty Doo in the Northern Territory, penned this poem about the bombing of Darwin on 19 February 1942: The bombs rained down on Darwin, what a sad and sorry day. Prayers said for those who perished, what a shocking price to pay. The war had reached our golden shores and some northern country towns. While the people south of the Brisbane line thought they were safe and sound. Enemy bombers spanned our skies as fighters flew below, Attacking ships in the harbour like a giant lightning show. Our Airforce tried to stem the bombing, but didn't stand a chance. With the Imperial Japanese carriers, as their Naval fleet advanced. Australia's Ack-Ack crews relentless, as they searched the northern skies. From East Point 'cross the Stokes Hill Wharf, diggers died before our eyes. Our courageous indigenous coast watch spotters were all on high alert; They were bombed and strafed across their Islands and left dying in the dirt. Japanese Zeros plastered bullets on the fuel tanks at Stokes Hill Wharf, Then strafed A.I.F. Gun turrets, as they slowly changed their course. They attacked the Catalina base at Doctors Gully then flew down by the shores Where they bombed another flying boat base and turned around for more. Then the bombers flew down Smith Street, Cavanagh as well; Demolished shops and the Post Office, it was just like bloody hell. Melville Island, Groote and Bathurst, Torres Strait and Broome as well; Katherine also copped some flack, Strauss airstrip, Hughes and Pell; The USS Peary's gun crew were outstanding as she slipped beneath the waves. Now she rests in our beloved harbour, a proud US Naval grave. Seventy years we've been allies through blue skies and 'cross the waves We share a common bond for peace, Australia and the USA. God bless our wonderful countries and peace be with you all. Darwin, we now salute you. I thank Waldo for that poem. I also want to acknowledge the fantastic commemorations that were held in Darwin last Monday. It was great to see the schoolkids there learning about this very important part of our history. Of course, we should always remember the fallen, as we do every 19 February, but we should also look after the living, so it was great to have Amanda Rishworth, the member for Kingston, come up and hold a veterans forum with us. Economy 80 19:55 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein This parliament must confront the serious economic risks on our horizon and the structural imbalances in our economy. The warning signs are all there. We have alarming rates of public and private debt, low interest rates, inflated asset prices and excessive public spending. As economist John Adams argued: Australian household debt has never been higher—now at nearly 200 per cent as a proportion of disposable income—household savings have slumped, the US share market is now in a bigger bubble than 1929, risky derivatives are now being sold in significant quantities and global debt is $US80 trillion more than it was in 2008. Australia is completely exposed to global economic shocks. Many households are now inadvertently exposed to international markets and foreign policymakers. Last year, 12 Australian banks, six major Canadian banks and China sovereign's debt were downgraded by Moody's Investors Service. In addition, S&P has downgraded 23 small to medium Australian financial institutions at the risk of falling property prices. Debt has gone from an advanced economy problem to a global problem. There are a number of warning signs that we need to wake up to. First, we have record low interest rates. Australia has the lowest official rates on record with the Reserve Bank of Australia's cash rate sitting at 1.5 per cent. From April 1990 to September 2008, the average RBA cash rate was 6.29 per cent. The long-term cash rate average since the last recession is around 5.2 per cent. In response to the low rates, Australians have borrowed strongly and are heavily leveraged. Second, we have overvalued housing assets, and the expansion of cheap credit by the RBA has been thrust into the housing prices over the last 25 years. Credit to housing as a proportion of Australia's GDP rose from 21.07 per cent in 1991 to 95.33 per cent last year. Over the same period, credit which has been directed at the business sector or to other personal expenses remained stable as a proportion of GDP. The influence of American quantitative easing has been particularly disastrous. As Rupert Murdoch said in his 2014 speech to G20 finance ministers: Quantitative easing increased the price of assets, such as stocks and real estate, and that helped first and foremost those who already have assets. Quantitative easing has shamefully amounted to direct wealth transfer from the young and working to the established and well-off. Third, we have record Australian household debt. As RBA Governor Philip Lowe stated last year 'a continuing source of uncertainty is the outlook for household consumption' as a consequence of household debt. Unsurprisingly, households with mortgages are the most likely to be over indebted, particularly those with investment property finance. The average household mortgage debt to income ratio rose from around 120 per cent in 2012 to 140 per cent at the end of 2017. Interest-only loans have skyrocketed over recent years. By early 2017, 40 per cent of the debt did not require principal repayments—though we need to acknowledge that regulators have made an effort to address this. This isn't just a property investor problem; it also includes owner-occupiers. The RBA puts Australia's household debt as a proportion of disposable income at a record of almost 200 per cent. Household debt is at a record high and now surpasses the levels of the 1880s and the 1920s—the two periods which preceded the two great economic depressions experienced in Australian history. Fourth, record net Australian foreign debt is sitting at just shy of $1 trillion or more than 56 per cent of GDP. As a country, that leaves us dangerously exposed, particularly against a global backdrop of huge amounts of debt across the United States and China. In short, things are hotting up. The reality is our current policy settings are not adequate to deal with the economic downturn that may come. William White, the chair of the Economic and Development Review Committee of the OECD, wrote in the Financial Times: Continuing on the current monetary path is ineffective and increasingly dangerous. But any reversal also involves great risks. It follows that the odds of another crisis blowing up continue to rise. The forthcoming budget provides us with an opportunity for reform. First, we need to cut spending—and we need to cut it very significantly, because it is being driven by an unsustainable position in the budget into the future, particularly as a consequence of the ageing population. Second, we need to create the policy settings to progressively increase interest rates. I agree with former Treasurer Peter Costello, who said last year: We have to normalise interest rates, and the longer you leave it the more unbalanced your economy is going to get. Money is too cheap, and it's time we did something about it around the policy framework. Critical to that is the third. We need comprehensive tax reform—broader, consistent, flatter, lower tax rates, to shift the economy into gear and to make us more productive. We also need tax reform to shift the burden which predominantly falls on younger Australians and working people, so that we can confront the issues ahead of us and so that we can have an economy that can deliver for the Australian people. As former US President Ronald Reagan said: If not now, when? If not us, who? House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 82 NOTICES

Tuesday, 27 February 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) took the chair at 15:59.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 84 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Campbelltown Hospital, Liverpool Hospital 84 16:00 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I rise today to speak about the shameful closure of an essential after-hours general practice service located at Campbelltown Hospital, within my electorate of Macarthur, and a similar closure in the neighbouring electorate of Werriwa at Liverpool Hospital. The member for Dawson, of course, well knows the importance of medical services at our local hospitals after hours. Most of my constituents would be aware of this decision. However, I thought it prudent to inform the House of this extraordinary development. Upon being informed of the impending closure, the member for Werriwa and I have been working hard to put a stop to the closure of the services at both Campbelltown and Liverpool hospitals and also to ascertain the cause of such an ill-conceived and unnecessary cut to essential services. These after-hours general practice centres provide a vital service to my constituents and to those of my colleague in ensuring equitable access to health services after hours and on weekends. Having been a paediatrician in the area for decades, and working directly out of the hospital, I can attest to the vital function that the service plays. Countless former patients of mine would make use of the after-hours clinic and benefit from the necessary services it provides. Given the rapid growth we're seeing in the population of south-west Sydney—rapid growth, I might add, without appropriate infrastructure—it's essential that we continue to improve on our health infrastructure and to improve the provision of services. Taking away a strategically located after-hours GP service is a complete folly. It will only put further strain on my constituents and our already overstretched hospital and staff. To me and many of my colleagues within the health sector, the removal of this service is completely senseless. There's no benefit in closing this clinic or moving it elsewhere, and the cost in terms of the added strain this will put on our hospital is immeasurable. As I stated previously, the member for Werriwa and I have been trying to get to the bottom of this ridiculous move, as have our colleagues in the New South Wales parliament. I even spoke directly to the New South Wales health minister, Mr Brad Hazzard, who was very receptive to my concerns and was open to my feedback. However, ultimately he and his ministry were unable to intervene in the matter, due to an issue of federal funding. Despite our differences in policies, I appreciate the minister's willingness to discuss the matter and his understanding of the issues involved. I, along with my Labor colleagues, will continue to fight against this change and attempt to inform those involved in making this decision of the disastrous outcomes that this closure will lead to. It will lead to further backlogs in our emergency departments, it will lead to a lack of proper training for our medical students at the hospital and the general practice in the community and it will lead to a lack of contact with our local hospital. It's very poor in terms of health management. It's very poor in the removal of services. It's very bad politics. I really condemn the move. ThinkUKnow 84 16:03 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume It's good to see the member for Macarthur, whose electorate borders mine, here in the chamber. Whilst we won't always agree on political issues, I know that he, as a medical practitioner, knows the importance of health and safety for younger Australians. Today I want to congratulate the Australian Federal Police on the regional rollout of the ThinkUKnow cybersafety program. New sessions to train the trainers were started up in a number of regional areas in recent weeks. ThinkUKnow is a really unique partnership between industry, the Australian Federal Police and the state police. It trains volunteers to talk to schools, schoolchildren and parent groups about how young people can stay safe online. This week, the training is happening in Rockhampton and Cairns, followed by Port Augusta, Ballarat, Kalgoorlie and Karratha in March. It's going to a wide spread of areas. In the last 12 months, ThinkUKnow has trained Commonwealth Bank volunteers in Ballarat, Alice Springs, Dubbo and Goulburn—my home town; fantastic to see them there—and it has held digital training for volunteers in Bowen, Riverton and Mildura. We know that the internet has absolutely no geographic boundaries, so we need to reach all members of the community, especially those who might feel vulnerable because of a lack of resources. We also know that the internet has great benefits for younger Australians. It allows them to stay in touch with friends and family, feel connected and to link in to services that they need access to. But, as we know, the social media space is dynamic and it's fast moving—there are thousands of new apps released every day—and children and young people are one of the most vulnerable groups on the internet. We need to empower them to think critically, to be aware of unusual behaviour so they can make good decisions. Young people need to understand, when things go wrong online, where they can go for help and support. The AFP has reported a large increase in referrals involving younger children. Sometimes they involve unsupervised young children playing with devices, accidentally uploading images. Other cases, unfortunately, are much more sinister and involve grooming on platforms that are popular with children. As a regional MP and as a father of three teenagers—one almost there—I know it's really important for us to get behind programs like ThinkUKnow, especially their outreach into regional and rural areas. I know the member for Hunter, who is in the chamber, will agree with that. At last count there were 750 volunteers registered in the program. I encourage school groups and any concerned parents, particularly those in regional and remote communities, to get in touch with the ThinkUKnow organisers via their website. NuCoal 85 16:06 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter I rise today in support of the 500 people in my electorate who had shares in the listed company NuCoal. People will be surprised by me raising the issue of NuCoal, because members would know NuCoal bought a mining lease in my electorate from a now discredited company called Doyles Creek. The Doyles Creek venture was subject to proceedings in the Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales. The history is well known, and people have been convicted on the basis of arrangements that were in place for Doyles Creek. NuCoal bought the lease which was going to be operated by Doyles Creek in 2009 and subsequently had its property expropriated by the New South Wales government as a consequence of the proceedings in the Independent Commission Against Corruption. While I make no judgements about the finding of ICAC or even the actions of the New South Wales government in the expropriation, because I simply don't know enough about the technicalities and enough about the history, my point is that my shareholders in my electorate have lost their money, basically, and, in some cases, a considerable amount of money. NuCoal's only crime, as I understand it, was to buy a lease which later became subject to ICAC proceedings and it could not have had any knowledge that those ICAC proceedings would take place so long after the event. But certainly the mum-and-dad shareholders who bought shares in NuCoal could not have foreseen that event and would not have bought shares in NuCoal in any way on the basis of what had happened when the lease was under the control of Doyles Creek. I also have great sympathy for the contractors who lost their money as a result of events surrounding Doyles Creek. So I do make the appeal today to governments at all levels to consider the plight of the people who have lost their money after investing in NuCoal. I know this is a question which also now has the interest of the United States government, because some 20 per cent of shareholders in NuCoal live in the United States, and there are suggestions that this breaches Australia's free trade agreement with the United States of America, and that gives the Commonwealth government an interest in this matter. But my appeal today is on behalf of the shareholders who have been adversely affected, and I call upon governments of both levels to consider their plight, a plight that flows from an expropriation by a government without compensation. Smith, Father Anthony Victor SJ 85 16:09 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney I rise today to commemorate a man who made a great contribution to the community of North Sydney, Father Tony Smith SJ. Sadly, Father Tony passed away at the age of 70 a little over a week ago. Although he was born in Perth in 1947, Father Tony will be remembered by most as the headmaster of St Aloysius' College in Milsons Point. He served the school for 17 years, from 1986 until 2003, and was a role model and guide for thousands of young people who passed through the gates of this great school. Father Tony joined the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, at age 18, pursuing his formation and education in Western Australia and Victoria. He first came to Sydney in 1973, spending a year at Saint Ignatius', Riverview, and returned there again in 1979. Nineteen eighty-five saw Father Tony move to St Aloysius' for the first time, becoming its 20th headmaster the following year. He was to become the school's longest-serving headmaster. Father Tony played a huge role in the lives of the students of St Aloysius' over that period. He was described by one friend as coming to the school with a construction hat, and the list of building works undertaken during his leadership confirms this. Among those projects was the installation in the school chapel of the stained-glass windows by Stephen Moore and the Letourneau organ. These provide something of a key to Father Tony's character. As a good Jesuit, he did everything to the greater glory of God, and these projects in the chapel show that spirit. But also, as a good Jesuit, a good priest and a good man, for him this greater glory of God came out most in the pastoral care shown to others. It is here that Father Tony left his strongest legacy, in the lives and in the hearts of his students. Wherever two or three old Aloysians are gathered, his name will be mentioned and imitations often given. One former Aloysian who worked closely with Father Tony was my predecessor, Joe Hockey, and I know the regard in which Joe held Father Tony. I'm sure he would want me to associate him with these remarks today. Father Tony was not just there for the students in the chapel or the classroom; he was there for them throughout their lives, to celebrate in the good times, at weddings and baptisms, and to support and to console in the hard times, not only at funerals but at any time of need. The example of pastoral care and support was shown again during his appointment to Sacred Heart Residence, North Sydney, after retiring as headmaster of St Aloysius'. There he started Father Tony's lunch, a free Christmas lunch catering for up to 200 people who had nowhere else to go on Christmas Day. Father Tony passed away on February the 18th, having given his life to the community of North Sydney. He lived 'ad majorem Dei gloriam', and the evidence is shown in the memories cherished by students, colleagues, confreres and every one of the thousands he helped. Vale, Father Tony. Dobell Electorate: Wallarah 2 Coalmine 86 16:12 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell Today I call on the minister for the environment to take a stand to protect my community's drinking water. I call on him to choose science over politics and to choose Central Coast people over foreign mining interests. I call on him to reject the Wallarah 2 coalmine. This mine plan, which has plagued our community for more than a decade, has now been recommended for approval by the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission. This beggars belief. But the federal environment minister can stop it. And he must stop it. The Central Coast community is against it. The Central Coast Council is against it. The state Labor opposition is against it. Even the state Liberal government was against it—at least, that was the case when former Premier Barry O'Farrell was famously photographed in his 'water not coal' T-shirt, lining up with candidates for the 2011 state election, promising that this mine would not go ahead—no ifs or buts. But more important than broken political promises is scientific evaluation. Experts have warned that this mine threatens the long-term water supply of the Central Coast. The independent expert scientific committee, which assessed the proposal, wrote: … there are significant risks associated with the proposed project having a detrimental and long-lasting effect on an already stressed water supply catchment. What can the justification for this mine be? Jobs? Jobs matter. The environment matters. We need real jobs on the coast—jobs that stack up economically and environmentally. Conditions have been placed on the mine, but how can we be satisfied, given the warnings of the experts? This is not just an issue for the Central Coast or for New South Wales; it is an issue of national significance. This mine is now before the minister for the environment because it was captured by the water trigger enshrined in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act by Labor, to protect communities from this very threat. Water is precious. My community knows this. We remember, only a decade ago, the severe water restrictions imposed when our dam levels plummeted to 13 per cent. As a councillor at the time, I welcomed the then Labor government's $80 million contribution, in partnership with Wyong and Gosford councils, to build the $120 million Mardi to Mangrove pipeline—critical infrastructure, securing our long-term water supply. Our community will not have that supply jeopardised by a mine. Wallarah 2 proposes to mine under the Jilliby Jilliby Creek catchment and release 300 megalitres of treated mine wastewater into the Central Coast catchment each year. This is not acceptable. Our water is not the property of a foreign mining company but the very life force of our community. Today I implore the federal Minister for the Environment and Energy to stop this mine, to stand up for our community and to act in its interest. Leukaemia Foundation 86 16:15 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong During October and November last year, I embarked on a 100-kay walk around Bennelong. Along the way I played table tennis with schoolkids, had coffee at local shops, talked tennis with the residents of aged-care villages and said hi to everyone I met as I walked down their streets. It was all for a great cause: to raise money for the Leukaemia Foundation in memory of my dear friend and mentor Lew Hoad. I'm proud to report that the wonderful people of Bennelong raised over $11,000 for this cause. These are much-needed funds for the Leukaemia Foundation and the fantastic work they do. The Leukaemia Foundation works to improve the lives of those affected by blood cancer. While the foundation is very proud of the wonderful work it does, support and assistance must continue to evolve as the needs and aspirations of people living with blood cancer and their families also evolve. I would like to thank Phil Gibson, the acting general manager; Claire Hanson, the community relations coordinator; and all the hardworking people at the Leukaemia Foundation for their support during the walk. The start of the walk coincided with the Leukaemia Foundation's annual Light The Night event. Light The Night is a unique event, bringing Australia's blood cancer community together in more than 100 locations to remember and reflect during a moving ceremony and a short lantern walk. It was a magical sight, watching the parade of lanterns marching along North Ryde Oval. I couldn't think of a better way to start the walk. The community's support for the walk was incredible. Thank you to many of the local companies and their staff for their kind donations, particularly AstraZeneca, who raised over $2,000. Medtronic, Hyundai and 3M were also some of the highest-donating businesses. I would also like to send a big thankyou to the schools of Bennelong for your support. During the walk I visited nearly every school within my electorate. I can say proudly that the Bennelong schools—I'm sorry, to my colleagues—are the best schools, with the best teachers and the best students, in the country. Their generosity surpassed all expectations. A special mention must go to the North Ryde Public School, Gladesville Public School and Holy Spirit Primary School, who were amongst the highest-donating schools. North Ryde Public School raised the most money, collecting nearly $700. This meant that two of their students got the privilege of shaving my head for the Leukaemia Foundation's World's Greatest Shave campaign. The shaving took place at the end of my walk. I crossed the finish line at Eastwood Oval, where I hosted a celebratory barbecue for the community. The students from North Ryde Public School, along with representatives of AstraZeneca, took to me with the clippers, shaving my long and luscious locks. My son said it might be the only haircut I'll ever have, time permitting! Again, thank you to everyone for their very kind donations and to the Leukaemia Foundation for making the walk such a success. I look forward to the next one. International Women's Day 87 16:18 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide As we head towards International Women's Day, right around Australia and right around the world, our focus turns to remarkable women. I know that in the biggest breakfast that is held in Adelaide, with over a thousand women, we regularly come together on International Women's Day and celebrate our— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:19 to 16:38 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU As we look towards International Women's Day and our focus turns to remarkable women, we will listen to inspiring speakers, celebrate trailblazers and hold up our role models, as we should, but we should also look to other women that we should be focusing on. We should further their case to serve as a reminder of the work that is yet to be done. I would bring to the House's attention one group of women that I think we can learn much from and be inspired by. I reflect on a group of young women I met late last year on a visit to the St Joseph's Education Centre. This is a school in my electorate which has been set up specifically for young mothers who fell pregnant before being able to complete their year 12 studies. Each year, the school holds a retreat and speakers are invited to come and talk to the students, and I had the absolute privilege of being able to go and do just that. These young mums are doing it tough. When we talk about juggling acts, I can't think of many that are more difficult than, while potentially being a teenager yourself, needing to complete your high school education, recognising what a priority that should be, and having a newborn baby or, in some cases, a number of children in your care. I was so incredibly inspired by these women. I heard their stories about how hard it is to make ends meet and I heard them talking about how it is all just a little bit too hard, but they were determined that the most important thing in their lives was to be a good mother to their children, and they knew that their chances of employment were greatly increased if they finished high school. So I pay tribute to the teachers and staff at St Joseph's Education Centre and to the volunteers who go and work there each and every day but particularly to those women who are working so hard to balance their education and being young mothers. I'd also like to say that, this International Women's Day, we can recommit to trying to make it a little bit easier for these women and women like these women right across Australia. There will be many debates about the number of women on boards, about gender pay gaps and about a range of different issues. But, for these women, it means that we as parliamentarians commit to essential social services and support, to a quality education system and to providing flexible workplaces. McPherson Electorate: GC101 Campaign 88 16:41 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I'd like to inform the House about a successful initiative in my home city of the Gold Coast, directly related to my portfolio of vocational education and skills, that's providing new opportunities for young people and helping to build a skilled workforce to support the future growth of our local industries. For the second year running, the GC101 campaign set out to put 101 young people into apprenticeships in 60 days, coinciding with the end of the school year. I was proud to launch the campaign last November, which was coordinated by BUSY At Work, one of our Australian Apprenticeship Support Network providers, and I'm very pleased to say that it was again a success. With the terrific support of Gold Coast employers, we exceeded expectations by signing up 111 people to apprenticeships over a wide range of industries, including construction, automotive and, of course, on the Gold Coast, tourism. Thirty-one have just left school and the other 80 are young people who've all now been given a great opportunity to make their way into a great job and career through the skills training they're now undertaking. I was honoured to announce the results of the campaign at a Gold Coast city council depot with Anika Fritz-Shanks, who secured her apprenticeship as a fitter and turner through the first GC101 campaign. On top of the great result, we achieved a further 225 young students being signed up to a school based apprenticeship or traineeship. Latest figures show that over 90 per cent of those who complete a trade apprenticeship go into full-time employment, so it's great to see so many young students take the opportunity to get a good head start by the time they finish year 12. After the first successful GC101, similar campaigns were held in Victoria and regional New South Wales, which I'm pleased to say also produced some great results. So I particularly congratulate the member for Dunkley, Chris Crewther, and the member for Gilmore, Ann Sudmalis, for their commitment to creating new apprenticeship and traineeship opportunities for young people in their electorates. I encourage my colleagues around Australia to consider holding similar campaigns, and my office is able to provide any assistance that's required. These campaigns are in line with the reforms being delivered by the coalition government to build a stronger vocational education and training system that increases participation, provides great job and career opportunities, and boosts Australia's skilled workforce. One of our major policies is the $1.5 billion Skilling Australians Fund, which will create an extra 300,000 new apprenticeships and traineeships through a re-engineered partnership with states and territories. I again congratulate all those involved in the GC101 campaign, which shows how people working together locally can bring real benefits to our community. National Broadband Network 88 16:44 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond This government are so dysfunctional and chaotic, and are also a government with all the wrong priorities. Here they are pushing for a $65 billion tax cut for multimillionaires and big business whilst, at the same time, cutting essential services. One of the areas where they really fail, and especially fail the people of regional Australia, is their disastrous NBN rollout. I'm constantly approached by locals with complaints regarding the rollout of the NBN. Under this government, the NBN has been a complete failure resulting in cost blow outs and poor service. We know the costs have blown out from a promised $2.5 billion to a huge $49 billion and counting. Of course, one of the biggest costs of this chaotic rollout is the human cost, the one that affects the people of Australia, the people this government should be taking care of. So I stand here today on behalf of the people of my electorate of Richmond and call out the government in their treatment of consumers in the NBN rollout. I could, for hours, give case study after case study of people failed by the government in this botched rollout. The fact is the NBN delivers a far less reliable service, and the NBN technology does not work with many of the medical alert devices that ensure that elderly people can live independently in their homes. NBN Co cannot adequately explain the shortfalls in the system, meaning that many elderly people are left stranded. The fact is, the NBN delivers slower speeds. Despite the promises to consumers of lightning speeds, the reality is the infrastructure is inadequate and simply can't deliver. Consumers are being sold highly priced plans by their service providers on the basis of speeds the NBN simply can't meet. Further complaints include but aren't limited to: an 80-year-old woman who, despite a medical priority, had a phone disconnected for over a fortnight; a 99-year-old who was not advised that one of her two vital telephone lines would be removed nor was she provided with any guidance as to her medical alert system; parents and businesses waiting weeks after switching over to get any access to the internet and then speeds being slower than their previous connections; business and community groups being told they don't have the infrastructure required to get them connected and back in business. This situation is disastrous for the elderly, local students, families and businesses who rely on the NBN. The fact is, businesses need to be in touch with their clients to be productive and efficient. Parents need to know their children can complete their homework and have access to the ever-evolving technologies that are relevant to their futures. The elderly need the peace of mind and security that comes with knowing they're only a phone call away from their family and from some important assistance. I call on the Turnbull government to fix this mess of their own making. It is disastrous right across the country. Who is it that's failed the people of regional and rural Australia the most? Well, it's the National Party and that's a fact. As I've often said in this place, National Party choices hurt, and this disastrous stuff-up of the NBN rollout is one of those choices that they have made that's greatly hurt locals living in the country. In fact, as we know, the National Party long ago deserted the people living in the regions. I think this botched NBN rollout really shows how little they care for people in regional and rural Australia. Defence Industry 89 16:48 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies It's a great pleasure to be here in the Federation Chamber. I'm here today to support the bid by BAE to manufacture the new Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle for the Army in Victoria. Last week, with a number of colleagues—the members for Aston, Deakin, Dunkley, Goldstein and Senator Jane Hume—we visited RUAG, which is a component manufacturer at Bayswater in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne; indeed, in the member for Aston's electorate. RUAG is part of the consortia of component manufacturers and other manufacturers with BAE who are part of this bid for the Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle. RUAG currently manufacture components for the Joint Strike Fighter. Importantly, they showed us part of the landing gear which they manufacture for the Joint Strike Fighter, not just the ones coming to Australia but Joint Strike Fighters that will be distributed around the world. Their role, if this bid is successful by BAE for Victoria, will be to manufacture the vital armour plating for the Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle. Obviously the armour plating is the key in terms of protecting the personnel that travel in such a vehicle. As the member for Hunter opposite would fully understand, unless you can protect the personnel in a vehicle such as this then it doesn't matter what other manoeuvrability it has. It doesn't matter what range its guns have. If you can't protect the personnel, then you can't do anything which is very useful in terms of this sort of vehicle. That, of course, will be one of the key components when Defence and the National Security Committee make a decision about this vehicle. That armour plating, if the BAE bid is successful, will be manufactured and assembled in Bayswater in Victoria. Previously quite a number of colleagues and myself had the opportunity to visit Fishermans Bend, where BAE operate from, and to ride in the Patria vehicle, which is the Victorian bid in this process. Victoria is well placed to be able to manufacture such vehicles. It's had decades of automotive manufacturing in the state. If the bid is successful for Victoria, there would be some 200 direct jobs and 500 indirect jobs. It's a $1.2 billion initial investment. There are many component manufacturers not just in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne but right throughout Melbourne, in the southeast in Geelong, and elsewhere around the state who would benefit from this. As I said, I'm here to support the bid by BAE to manufacture this vehicle in Victoria. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 89 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples: 10th Anniversary 89 16:51 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari I was fortunate enough to have the honour to be in the federal parliament the day Kevin Rudd expressed his apology on behalf of the nation to the stolen generations. There's no doubt it was a euphoric occasion, marked on the one hand by great sadness but also happiness that at last the nation had come to terms with the abhorrent and sorry policies of past governments. The hideousness of it all, of course, was that we had to wait so long and the fact that the previous Howard government just resisted the idea of having an apology, saying sorry and talking about a black armband view of history. Those of us who had the honour of being there that day, and those around the nation, saw the tears of expression coming from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who were members of the stolen generation and their families, which left us, I think, feeling that things had changed. And things did change, but still there is work to be done. I will come to that in a moment. We can't run away from our sorry history. We shouldn't run away from our sorry history. We need to acknowledge that history and understand there is still work to be done and that. In the context of the Northern Territory in particular and, indeed, the ACT and Jervis Bay, we the Commonwealth need to compensate those surviving members of the stolen generation—something which we in Labor are committed to doing. Let's just go back a bit, if I may, to remind ourselves that between the 1890s and the 1970s Aboriginal children were stolen from their families. It included many families where one parent was an Aboriginal person. Between 1905 and 1969, it's estimated that one in 10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were stolen. Over the years of these policies, it's estimated that over 2,000 Aboriginal kids in the Northern Territory were removed from their families by government officers and taken to seven different missions. Throughout all of this period, the Northern Territory was governed by the Commonwealth. Children were removed from their families at any age, but between one-half to two-thirds of children forcibly removed were taken before the age of five years. Can you just imagine it? If you are a parent, can you have in your mind the horror of children being taken without consultation, without agreement, without any reasonable approach, without concession, and the parents and mothers, in particular, left without hope? Sadly, this was the plight of far too many, and we're still wearing the consequences of that: the intergenerational trauma that exists in families where parents—and grandparents, for that matter—were stolen. Children were taken away and trained to be domestic servants. They were cheap labour. Many were abused emotionally and sexually. One in six girls ran away, one in 11 girls became pregnant while apprenticed and one in 12 died. All of this was because of abhorrent racism. No other explanation is required. This was about smoothing the pillow of the dying race. It was a classic assimilationist policy post Second World War. Today in the Northern Territory we estimate there are around 400 surviving members of the stolen generations. One of those about whom I want to speak briefly is Barbara Cummings, who 35 years ago, along with others, was a primary mover and instigator for a conference at Kormilda College, at which I was present, the first occasion that members of the stolen generations from across the Northern Territory were brought together. This was very important. It led to the long road home. Barbara was responsible for a book, Take this child: from Kahlin Compound to the Retta Dixon Children's Home, about the story of children in institutions in the Territory where she and many of her friends were institutionalised. Barbara fought her whole adult life to have stolen generations properly recognised by governments of all political persuasions, and for not just symbolism but compensation. Sadly, much to our disgrace, she wasn't present at the Rudd apology here in this parliament, which was such an important event in our history. Also sadly, Barbara is now in declining health. I'd like to hope that this government has the good grace to finally pass an act for compensation for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, the ACT and Jervis Bay who were stolen, whilst she's able to understand what we're doing. Surely to goodness we can do that. I plead to the government: why don't you just do it? There are many other members of the stolen generation with whom I am very close, some of whom have passed away in the struggle, taking the Commonwealth to the High Court. People like—I won't mention their full names—Mr Kruger, Ms Cubillo and Mr Gunner lost their cases. Others such as Harold Thomas in the Top End and Harold Furber in Central Australia are still fighting for the recognition that members of the stolen generation so properly deserve. I know of others, one of whom was my own staff member, a non-Aboriginal person, Jack Crosby, who, with his partner, Sue Roman, was primarily involved in instigating a case where the children from Retta Dixon, as a result of the royal commission into child abuse, were able to take the Commonwealth to court over its failure of duty of care. That, to my knowledge, was the only occasion where members of the stolen generations in the Northern Territory have had their case recognised for this question of duty of care and been compensated as a result of a court ruling—really quite important. It was not volunteered by the Commonwealth, I might say, much to our disgrace, but something so very important to them. Sadly, Jack passed away not too long ago, but he was a very close personal friend. I am pleased to say that the Shorten Labor team have committed ourselves to establishing a compensation scheme for survivors of the stolen generations in Commonwealth jurisdictions. That compensation scheme will provide an ex gratia payment of $75,000. We'll also establish a funeral assistance fund of $7,000 to assist members of the stolen generation with the cost of funerals. We will also establish a $10 million national healing fund to support healing for the stolen generations and their families in recognition of the intergenerational effects of forced removal, something which is yet to be properly understood by the majority of the population but which comes home to me almost daily. To try and respond to the unacceptably high rates of children of first nations peoples currently in out-of-home care, the Shorten Labor government will convene a national summit on first-nations children in our first 100 days. These are very, very important initiatives and something I'm very proud to associate myself with. In many respects, for many they've come too late because so many of the stolen generations have passed. But we as a nation, it is not too late for us to finish the journey that we've embarked upon as a result of the apology. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Kevin Rudd at the time of the apology and reiterate how sad it is that we had to wait so long for that recognition. It's not a question of understanding or accepting a 'black armband' view of history; it's about acknowledging our past; understanding the absurdity, the stupidity, the danger and the cruelty of past government policies; and accepting that we as a Commonwealth are responsible and that as a responsible Commonwealth we should legitimately pay compensation to those who were affected. 17:01 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter One of my earliest political mentors was a great guy by the name of Doug Puxty, a resident of my hometown of Cessnock. He and his wife, Helen, were and are close friends of my family. Doug has been an amazing contributor to his community as a careers adviser at the local high school, as a member of the Labor Party and as a member of the Catholic Church, particularly his work with St Vincent de Paul, the Two Bishops Trust and many others. He's not particularly well at the moment, in his early 80s, and I wish him the very best for the future. I mention Doug Puxty because I've never forgotten that Doug Puxty, in a very simple way, gave me my first realisation of how badly our Indigenous Australians had been treated. Yes, I knew the history, but he somehow brought it home to a personal level. He told me that he remembered playing football with Indigenous players and going to the pub after for a drink—as you did in those days, and some possibly still do now—but without his Indigenous teammates. His Indigenous teammates weren't allowed to go to the pub for a drink. As members know, they weren't allowed to visit hotels. That story, as simple and obvious as it seems, has always stayed with me. I've been in this place 22 years and I've had many occasions to be emotionally overwhelmed by the events before the House, but three stand out which are relevant to the motion from the Prime Minister that we are addressing today. The first was early in my time here, in 1997. It was the time of the debate around the government's response to the Wik decision. They were energetic and robust times. Of course, the Howard government—and I have no intention of politicising this debate—wasn't providing a response which was welcomed by the Wik peoples or Indigenous Australians more generally. I vividly remember what must have been more than a thousand Indigenous Australians forming a ring around Parliament House. I believe we may have sat right through to Saturday on that occasion to finish the Wik legislation, to shepherd it through the House. There had been a number of amendments, and I'm pretty sure we were kept back to finish our work. I remember very vividly being dropped off at the base, if you like, of the Reps—the ramp up into the Reps entrance—and encountering this ring of Indigenous Australians, and walking to the Reps entrance and sort of high-fiving them or tapping their hands as we walked up to the entrance. It was a nice time to be a member of the Labor Party because we felt we were delivering a greater level of justice than the Howard government had provided. The second time was throughout the period immediately after the tabling of the stolen generation report, the Bringing them home report. Again, John Howard, the Prime Minister at the time, had determined that he would move in the House a motion of regret for the impact of what had happened to so many Indigenous Australians through a dark period of our history. The Labor Party was rightly, in my view, of the view that we needed a stronger form of words than that, and Kim Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition at the time, had moved an amendment changing the words to a full apology. If I remember correctly, that debate rolled on for many days, if not weeks, somehow. The Labor Party's tacticians, I suppose you would say, determined to present our case, decided that every Labor member, every member of the opposition, would use their adjournment speech to read one story out of this amazing, challenging and confronting report. I remember people being in tears as they read these excerpts out of the report. It was a very emotional and confronting time, and a time that none of us should forget. The third occasion, of course, was when Kevin Rudd, as Prime Minister, finally delivered the apology to the stolen generation—the event which we are commemorating today. I remember the apology very well, and it was an emotional time. The galleries were packed, of course. People were expressing their emotions. But I remember even more vividly sitting in the Members' Hall, where we must have been watching, observing what was probably a smoking ceremony, amongst other things. But they had people re-enacting the events of the earlier period in our history, including women sitting on the floor in their traditional dress, charcoaling the faces of young children—and of course, as we all know, mothers charcoaled the faces of their children so that their children wouldn't be taken. The authorities had made the determination that full-blooded Indigenous Australians were beyond help, were beyond redemption, and they were left with their mothers, and so their mothers would attempt to make their children's faces darker—so they wouldn't be taken away. So it was a historic occasion, 10 years ago. We've come a long way, but we have so much further to go. The Closing the Gap report tells us that. We must all unite, surely, to ensure we go the next yards. The fact is that Indigenous Australians are still more likely to be unemployed, less likely to own a home, likely to die younger, more likely to be in jail—the list is long. While we've made some gains, we do have a long way to go. I'm very proud that the Leader of the Opposition has put forward a commitment to a compensation scheme and other arrangements. My strongest hope is that the parliament in the future avoids the divisions that I've experienced in the past in this place, can speak with one voice and ensures that justice is finally delivered. 17:09 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay It's important to be in this place but even more so when you get to speak on something like this, following someone such as the member for Hunter, who was actually here during that time. I wasn't here during that time. I was at home, raising my own children, but I know something about removal of children from families. My grandmother was taken at 14, given to the Nazis in Poland and put into a work camp. She never saw her parents or her family again. So this apology and the notion that children could be taken from their families is something that my family grew up with. My babcia—my grandmother—always spoke fondly of her family, and I imagine that is what it would be like for many of the children who were taken. I had the privilege of growing up with a girl from kindergarten through to high school. In our entire journey through school, from all of those K-6 years right up until high school, it wasn't until we got to year 8 or year 9 that her family admitted that they were Indigenous. Such was the fear that ran through her family that that child and her sibling would be or could be removed from their family that even then in the eighties and nineties their family did not feel safe to admit their Aboriginality. They didn't own up to it, they didn't own it and they weren't proud of it. They didn't celebrate; they denied it. I can understand why this apology has had such an effect. We gave an acknowledgement of country after that historic event, and I start them with something like, 'I acknowledge the traditional lands where' this meeting, speech, even or whatever I'm doing takes place. I always follow with, 'I commit myself to reducing the high rates of incarceration of young people so it is not the case that, if you are young and Aboriginal you are more likely to be in jail than you are to be at university. I commit myself to reducing the numbers of children in care, away from their families, culture and community, which has doubled in the last 10 years since the apology to the stolen generations. And I commit myself to reducing the rates of family violence in Aboriginal communities, which is 32 times higher for Aboriginal women.' This is how I open all of my public addresses, and it's a reminder to all of us that this is not a series of words where we simply acknowledge that we're on Aboriginal land. We acknowledge and we provide that to re-energise people and remind people it is important. I am pretty devastated to see that there is not a Liberal speaker on this today or when it was in here the other day, and there was not for Closing the Gap. I was incredibly proud to be at the anniversary of the apology when it was here but very distressed not to see any members of the government there except for the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. I make that statement not to politicise this but because I just had to sit through a committee meeting with one of the government members who didn't know that there were 35,000 Aboriginal children currently in foster care, away from their families. I know that they're not really governing for the people, they're not really on the same planet as us and they're certainly not on the same page, let alone in the same storybook, but I would have thought a number like that, which is so significantly larger than the number we started with 10 years ago when we gave this apology, would have been a number that nearly every single person in this House knew, understood and was trying to reconcile. In the world of that member of the government party ignorance is obviously bliss, but it is incredibly disheartening to know that people that I walk in the corridors of this place with are not here for the same reasons. We can be ideologically opposed or whatever you like, but, when it comes to this, when it comes to doing justice and making right the errors of our past, every single person in this place should understand what it is. We've all had access to the Closing the Gap reports. I get given one every year that we do it. We have a statement. I don't know where his head is at when those statements are given, but he's clearly not listening twice as much as he's speaking. When that apology was given, I wasn't here, but I watched intently at the look of pride on the people gathered inside and outside of this place—in the galleries, on the lawns. The member for Hunter talked about the ring of Aboriginal people circling this building. It was an outpouring of relief that past wrongs had finally been recognised. We had really looked into the nation's heart and said that we were wrong. I remember feeling that outside and not having that same level of emotion that was felt in here, walking around in my community and thinking: 'Okay, we've done something. We've actually rectified something here.' We've said that we were wrong about so many things almost as one—except for a few who refused to be in the chamber when that apology was given. We almost all shook hands with people we didn't know, and we formed friendships and saw firsthand the effects that the apology had on some of the most disaffected people in Australia. I am always proud to be a member of the Labor Party but I'm incredibly proud that we had the strength and tenacity to do something about this. Everything is always hard until it's done. For years and years we were told that we couldn't say that we were sorry. In his apology the then Prime Minister said, 'We sought a future where this parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never happen again.' We have 35,000 first nation children currently not growing up with their family, culture, communities or connections to the land. I wouldn't say that that apology has been heeded in most circles. I would say that that's a pretty disappointing outcome. The apology did lead to the development and the action around Closing the Gap, and we collectively gave a commitment to Indigenous Australians that we would back our words with some action. Despite these efforts, there is still too much more to be done; and I say too much more, not because it is an insurmountable task but because it takes will and it takes an absolute commitment to doing it. It takes for people to understand that there are 35,000 children currently in care. It takes for people to understand what that looks like and what that means, how we get them out of there, and it creates an opportunity to rectify that. We need to accept that inequality, disadvantage and health outcomes for Aboriginal people are well below world standards and also that it is not a one-size-fits-all approach. I recognise that my community of Lindsay requires a very different approach to the communities in Central Australia. And having the largest urban settlement of Aboriginal people in Western Sydney, I do know that that approach is going to be very different to what we might see in Townsville or what we might see in Ceduna or in the Goldfields or in Alice Springs. I reiterate my commitment to working with all of the Aboriginal communities to achieve their goals. I was very proud to go to and visit Alice Springs a couple of times last year and to make a connection with the Tangentyere women's safety group, who are trying to better the lives of themselves and the outcomes for women up there and also for their children. I do note that NAIDOC Week's theme this year, to be celebrated in the middle of the year, is all about women and the important role women play in those communities. We need to work together to ensure that the evidence based data and strong cultural understanding are actually realised for real outcomes and work towards proper jobs, positive educational outcomes and, importantly, better health outcomes. It is not acceptable that by virtue of your Aboriginality you are going to die quicker than someone with white skin. That's not something to be accepting of in 2018 in this country. It is not something we should ever dismiss say by saying, 'That's their lot in life.' We need to close those gaps and work together to ensure young Aboriginal people are not over-represented in our jails, which is currently the case. That's what an apology means. That's what it means when you say 'sorry'. I never forced my kids and the kids I taught to say 'sorry'. If they hit their brother or their sister, I never forced them to say sorry because I don't think that's the way you change their behaviour. But if you are sorry then you be sorry and you do sorry. It is not just a word that rolls off the tongue; it is an action, a doing word. We do not simply say, 'Sorry about that,' and move on. It's actually, 'I'm sorry and I'm not going to do it again.' Otherwise, it is useless to say it, in my opinion, because you will just be saying it every other day every time you commit an offence. When Kevin Rudd said in his speech about the need for a future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity, that is essentially what the apology was aiming to do. It is dissatisfying and disappointing and, quite frankly, heartbreaking that we are still here trying to work together to rectify this 10 years later. The Labor Party has committed itself to working with First Australians. We've committed to the redress scheme or the compensation scheme, not that money takes things away or makes things better. We are committed to ensuring that first nations leaders are heard and, more importantly, that their ideas are given credence, and that it's not us telling people what they need to know or to do; it's us allowing them to help us. I'm proud to be a member of the Labor Party, who apologised, and commit myself to continuing to close the gap. 17:19 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman First, I'd like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land where I have the privilege of speaking today, the Ngunawal people, and pay my respects to their elders past and present and, of course, their emerging elders. This is their land, and so it was peacefully for many, many thousands of years, but, following the arrival of the British boats in the 18th century, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the traditional owners of this land, have suffered. I can't pretend to understand or possibly even begin to understand how hard it must be to endure the pain that Indigenous Australians have. I cannot possibly begin to understand or pretend that I'm not ashamed for what they have experienced, because I am. What I can do, though, is say sorry. I can say sorry and, in my role as a federal parliamentarian, I can advocate for change to make sure that neither they nor any other race of people have to ever, ever suffer such horrible treatment again. So, to all Indigenous people with Indigenous heritage, I say sorry—I say sorry, just as Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister at the time, said sorry on behalf of our nation in 2008. It was a very small gesture, of course, but it meant so much to so many people. I even remember where I was on that day, 10 years ago, when Kevin Rudd delivered that monumental speech. I was in Musgrave Park in South Brisbane watching a television underneath a big tarpaulin that had been erected. I remember the feeling that was in the air on that day. It was a stillness that comes with anticipation. I remember how time slowed down when the Prime Minister got up on his feet. I remember the tears when he uttered those words: 'We say sorry.' If you know of Musgrave Park in South Brisbane, it's of really significant cultural importance to First Australians. As a remnant of the former Kurilpa Aboriginal camping ground, the park has been used as a meeting place for Indigenous people for many, many years. The park lays just a stone's throw from Boundary Street in West End. Today, Boundary Street is a major road in Brisbane's south. While it may be a major road in Brisbane's south, it carries a really shameful history. You see, for many years, Boundary Street acted, as the name suggests, as a boundary line. At certain times on certain days, this line was used to separate Indigenous people from the other inhabitants of Brisbane—absolutely shameful. Six days a week at 4 pm, and all day on Sundays, Aboriginal people were exiled to the far side of Boundary Street by troopers with stockwhips—absolutely shameful. This racist policy has long since been abolished, thank goodness, but the street name remains as a reminder of our city's shameful past. This clearly isn't the only shameful policy that our nation once inflicted upon our Indigenous people, who weren't even recognised in our national census until after 'yes' was recorded in the 1967 referendum. But what stands out as our true national shame is the policy which Prime Minister Rudd was acknowledging in his landmark speech. That is the stolen generations policy. Official government estimates suggest that between one in 10 and one in three Indigenous Australian children were forcibly taken from their families and communities between 1910 and 1970. These children were taught to reject their heritage and that their culture was evil, and they were forced to adopt white culture. Their names were often changed. They were forbidden to speak traditional languages. Children were forced to assimilate through foster families and institutions, where abuse and neglect were far, far too common. I can only imagine the pain and hurt that these families suffer and, to this day, continue to suffer. So, again, I apologise on our nation's behalf. I still struggle to understand, though, why my electoral neighbour, the member for Dickson, Peter Dutton, could be so heartless as to boycott that apology on that day. Now Australia looks back on his actions on that day as truly disgraceful and as a strong signifier of that man's character. I have to say that despite the member for Dickson shamefully digging in his heels, we are making progress. Labor will establish a compensation scheme for members of the stolen generation in the Commonwealth jurisdictions, as well as a $10 million national healing fund to support the stolen generations and their families. Labor will immediately begin consulting on the form of a voice to parliament for first-nations people in response to the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the Referendum Council recommendations. But we all know that policies and legislation can only do so much. My hope for the future comes from people. Having spoken with young people in my electorate of Longman I recognise great respect for Indigenous culture in the community. I have hope that this respect will bring with it the change that is needed because we have still so far to go. I recently heard from a young Indigenous woman as she spoke at the Lions Youth of the Year ceremony at St Columban's College in Caboolture last week. She is a very, very proud Wiradjuri woman—I think I pronounced that correctly—from the south-west inland region of New South Wales. She spoke with such great strength. She spoke with strength and she spoke with dignity. The speech she gave at Lions Youth of the Year was titled, 'I call for a Treaty'. It was powerful and full of hope. It was a five-minute speech, and when she closed the speech she said: I am looking forward to a future where all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will be seen as equals with separate identities that date back over tens of thousands of years. This is what we are working towards. We are working towards closing the gap and we are working towards equality. And while we still may have members of parliament who refuse to acknowledge our past, it gives me hope that there are strong young Indigenous people, like that young woman who spoke at the Lions Youth of the Year, who are looking to our future and shaping our future. 17:27 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which this parliament meets, and I pay my respects to their elders past and present. In December 2007 the government changed. When you change the government, you do change the nation. After my appointment as Leader of the House, I was very honoured to be in a position of having discussions as part of that Rudd Labor cabinet about the timetable for parliament's resumption. It was determined, with the support and leadership of the Prime Minister and, in particular, the then-Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, that the parliament should indeed begin with the apology to the stolen generations. At the time, of course, this followed years of indecision—years in which Prime Minister Howard said that it would be inappropriate for the parliament to apologise. It was argued that those who would deliver that apology were not personally responsible for taking Indigenous children from their parents over the previous decades. The events of that momentous day show how wrong that view was. It was certainly the proudest day of the 22 years I'll celebrate as a member of this parliament this coming Friday. It was a day when we as a parliament righted a wrong. It was a day when, after years of denial, the parliament recognised the injustices and inhumanity visited upon the stolen generations. Those who were there that day will all remember it. This was a time when the nation paused to reflect our history, and indeed that day made history. I want to pay tribute in particular to the generosity of the members of the stolen generations themselves who came to this parliament, sat around that chamber and weren't bitter about their experience. They accepted the spirit in which the apology was given by Prime Minister Rudd on behalf of the nation. I looked up as the Prime Minister spoke, and I saw scores of members of the stolen generation weeping, sitting in their seats trembling, holding each other's hands. I've seen since, of course, the depiction of meetings out on the front lawn and right around our nation, where the response was the same. My son's then primary school stopped to watch this historic event on a large screen. The members of the stolen generation, that day, received just a little bit of warm-hearted response that helped make them feel as though the nation understood, in a small way, the incredible trauma that had been done to them. It will indeed be remembered for a very long time. As Prime Minister Rudd said: For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry. To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry. And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry. As the speech continued, everyone in the parliament knew that we were doing the right thing, as did the millions of Australians gathered around the nation. And indeed, when Prime Minister Rudd finished that address, around the nation, as well as in the chamber, they leapt to their feet to applaud. Of course, the apology was not the end of the story; it was just the beginning. We knew at the time that the apology needed to be backed up with concrete action, that it was just a step on the road to reconciliation. Importantly, establishing the Closing the gap report to parliament was an important step forward. Some progress has been made in three out of the seven targets. They include the target to halve the gap in child mortality rates for Indigenous children under five within a decade, the target that 95 per cent of all Indigenous four-year-olds would be enrolled in early education by 2025, and the target to halve the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020. Not on track are life expectancy, employment, reading and writing, and school attendance. I was somewhat disappointed by some of the reporting and public discussion of the Prime Minister's report to parliament on Closing the Gap, because there was a tone of pessimism. That, I believe, is a wrong analysis. It will take generations to close the gap—indeed, decades of bipartisanship. Let me quote former Prime Minister Rudd when he spoke at the National Press Club just last month. He said: … these targets were meant to be ambitious; they were meant to challenge us all; because we had to shake ourselves out of our national torpor that business as usual was fine, or we could just fiddle at the edges of indigenous disadvantage. Mr Rudd went on to say that, while we must accept our failures and act to correct them, we must also celebrate our progress. Because of Closing the Gap, more Indigenous children are finishing school. Because of Closing the Gap, fewer infants are dying. Because of Closing the Gap, more youngsters are receiving early childhood education. We have a long way to go, but we can't give up. We have a responsibility to the First Australians, as privileged as we are to live in the nation with the oldest continuous civilisation on the planet, to close the gap across the board so that these issues of education, health, employment and life expectancy are all dealt with. The apology and Closing the Gap are also critical to the achievement of broader reconciliation. This requires collaboration and it requires that we listen to Indigenous people. Hence the importance of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. This calls for a voice to the parliament. Who could disagree with the concept that Indigenous Australians are entitled to put forward their view about legislation before this parliament that impacts them? What they are not asking for is a third chamber. They are asking for a voice to the parliament. It was very pleasing that Labor have said that we will work towards achieving that. I'd ask the Prime Minister to reconsider the rejection of the Uluru statement. It is important that these issues be bipartisan. We must engage with Indigenous people who have gone through a process of consultation with communities around the nation, and not just dismiss them, and certainly not misrepresent what they are asking for. We have a long way to go to achieve reconciliation in this country, but the apology was an important step. It's one that I'm proud, as a member of the House of Representatives, to be associated with. It is very important that we have signified the tenth anniversary of this historic occasion. 17:37 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney On 11 November 1998, I made my first speech to this parliament. In that first speech, I said sorry to the members of the stolen generations. It seemed to me such a simple and necessary thing to do. I couldn't understand why it took 10 more years for the parliament as a whole to do that. But I was so proud when, in 2008, Kevin Rudd delivered the apology on behalf of Labor—the government of the day—and the opposition responded. The work that Kevin Rudd and Jenny Macklin did in drafting that apology and making sure that stolen generations members were able to fill the galleries, fill the parliament and fill the courtyard, and, for the first time, really make Parliament House theirs and truly a Parliament House for the whole nation was absolutely unforgettable. We needed to apologise because governments removed Indigenous children from their families, from their homes and from their land not because of abuse or neglect but because of the colour of their skin. Families and communities across the nation were destroyed, and many have never fully recovered. There are many people who were never able to find the parents, the families or the communities that they were taken from. There are so many stories of people who found out where they were from just a little too late, whose parents had died before they reconnected. It was Paul Keating in his Redfern Park Speech who said about the treatment of Indigenous Australians by non-Indigenous Australians: With some noble exceptions, we failed to make the most basic human response and enter into their hearts and minds. We failed to ask—how would I feel if this were done to me? In the case of the stolen generations, there is no more powerful way of connecting with this issue than imagining how we would feel if our children were taken from us, or how we would feel if, as a child, we were taken from our family and our community. It was a question that Australians had delayed asking themselves for too long, and it led, eventually, to the apology in 2008 and to our commemoration of it each year and today. It's not just about the past, of course; it's about the future because, as important as the apology was, on its own, it's not enough. What it is is a motivation for us to do better in the future, to take practical steps to redress disadvantage. There is so much unfinished business. That's why I'm so pleased that Labor have committed to a stolen generations compensation fund for the survivors of the stolen generation from the Northern Territory and the ACT—the two Commonwealth jurisdictions—and why we've committed to $10 million in funding for the Healing Foundation to help the descendants, because we know that the trauma of removal ricochets through generations. In government, of course, we'll convene a national gathering, a summit on first nations children, because, while of course our first priority always has to be the safety of children, we cannot have another generation of Indigenous children growing up in out-of-home care away from family and country. I believe it's important to acknowledge our mistakes but also to be positive about the steps we've taken to redress disadvantage—most of those steps, of course, led by our first peoples. Last year, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum and we celebrated the 25th anniversary of Paul Keating's historic Redfern speech. And we hoped, also, for the next significant step on our reconciliation journey—a referendum to acknowledge that Australia's first nations have a unique place in the life and the soul and, of course, the Constitution of our country. In 2017, a gathering was held at the centre of our nation, and from it emerged the Uluru Statement from the Heart, with two powerful calls: an Indigenous voice to parliament formally enshrined in the Constitution and a makarrata commission established to work through a treaty process and truth telling. For our part, the Labor Party have made it clear both that we support a formal Indigenous voice to parliament and that we are prepared to legislate for it. We were very disappointed by the government's very quick rejection of this idea, really without any consultation with Indigenous people, and also by the Prime Minister's dishonest effort to paint this as an undemocratic body—as somehow a third chamber of the parliament. The Prime Minister has declared that he will make Labor's support for an Indigenous voice to parliament an election issue at the next election, and it is disappointing that bipartisanship has been abandoned in this area. If the Liberal government is unwilling to act, Labor governments will, at both state and federal level. So, while I'm proud of the commitments we've made, I am also delighted to see that the New South Wales opposition leader and other Labor states have begun the process of negotiating treaties or committing to negotiating treaties. If Canada, New Zealand, the United States and many other countries can do it, surely it is not beyond us here in Australia. While the federal government has turned its back on the message from Uluru, many Australians have heard it. We know that the time for empty platitudes and token acknowledgements has passed. We need to build on the history of activism of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities—the demands for justice, acknowledgement and a true reckoning of our history—and take the next step forward. And I think that no doubt much of this next step will come from my electorate, as many of these moves have in the past. It was Redfern that attracted Aboriginal people from all over New South Wales to factories in the 19th century, bringing them together and creating the environment for new political movements to grow. It was in the Australian Hall in Elizabeth Street that Aboriginal Australians held their first day of mourning in 1938. It was in Redfern in 1944 that the Redfern All Blacks were formed by Aboriginal players who couldn't get a run with other clubs in the local South Sydney district junior competition. It was amongst that community—my community—that the first Aboriginal-controlled community organisations were established: the first medical service, the first legal service and the Aboriginal Housing Company. It was from Redfern that four young men drove to Canberra and set up a beach umbrella on the lawns outside what was then Parliament House—we call it Old Parliament House now—founding the Tent Embassy. It was the work of the Coloured Diggers in my electorate that led to first-nations service personnel and veterans leading last year's Anzac Day march in Canberra for the very first time. I'm proud to represent a community that has produced generations of activists that have changed the course of history in this country, and I would add this: Just as Washington, DC, has the National Museum of the American Indian—a beautiful building that gives such a great account of the thousands of years of history of first-nations people in the United States—we should have, I think, in Redfern a cultural centre celebrating our first nations' thousands of years of history and culture. And, if not in Redfern, maybe Goat Island in Sydney Harbour, or Me-mel as it's traditionally known, to tell the story of 65,000 years of Aboriginal history and culture in this country; to tell the recent stories: the front wars and the massacres, the stories of land rights, Mabo and Wick; to tell the story of the world's oldest continuing culture, its art, dancing, music and spirituality; and to build support for a future based around our shared values: respect, self-determination, recognition in our Constitution, and makarrata. 17:47 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert As the member for Sydney, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, said, Paul Keating in his speech said, 'Have we asked how it would feel if this happened to us?' I have asked myself that question and I have seen the devastation in my family. My grandfather's family was completely separated and locked. His family was of the small portion—the 3,000 Lebanese people—that were here in this country at the time of World War II. My mother never got to see her grandmother. My grandfather never got to see his mother or father again. So I have empathy for our Indigenous people. It was on 13 February 2018 that we acknowledged the 10th anniversary since the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised unreservedly to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. And I remember exactly where I was. I was in the Townsville mall with my work colleagues and hundreds of other people, watching on the big screen as the Prime Minister made the announcement. And there were many from my community who were descendants and some of the stolen generation people there. This was a watershed moment for our country, a step in the right direction towards achieving reconciliation and the opportunity to begin the truth-telling and the healing that will benefit our whole nation. This was a day that we said sorry for the mistreatment, injustices and hurts that the stolen generation experienced. Many of them and their dependants still carry these scars to this very day in the form of transgenerational trauma. It was a day where all Australians embraced one another and a day where we committed to working together to improve the lives of our first-nations people. To use the language of Senator McCarthy: 'The day of the apology was the day where the nation's heart beat as one. 'Ten years ago we promised we would do better. This is particularly important to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in my electorate of Herbert. Palm Island is also in my electorate. This is an incredibly diverse community of approximately 47 language groups, people from communities across the state of Queensland who were forcibly moved to Palm Island. Many of those men came in chains and were shackled around the neck, the hands and the feet. The electorate of Herbert was home to the great Eddie Koiki Mabo who, 25 years ago last year, won the High Court decision to take ownership of his land, Mer Island, in the Torres Strait. It is the home of the Palm Island Seven, who went on strike 60 years ago to fight for wages and better working conditions. Their courage and fight for justice and equality resulted in them, and their families, being removed from the island, not to come back. Last year, we celebrated 50 years of the referendum, where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people got the vote for the first time. I note that the people of Townsville and Toowoomba voted no in that referendum. However, I believe that we have taken action in the latter years to make amends for that vote. Herbert was also home of the great Dr Evelyn Scott, the first Aboriginal woman to have a state funeral. She spent her life fighting for justice, equality and education for her people. Herbert is also the home of Dr Gracelyn Smallwood; Uncle Eddie Smallwood; Florence Onus; two young women I met last week, Melisa and Bernice from Blaq Diamonds; and many, many other people in our community who have given their lives fighting for justice and equality. Words are important, but words alone do not change behaviours; nor do they create opportunities for equality and justice. In order to move on from the words of the most important apology, we needed real action, and that is where we set targets to close the gap, with the aim of improving the lives of Torres Strait Island and Aboriginal people. In 2018, the Closing the gap report found that, for the first time since 2011, three of the seven closing the gap targets are on track to be met. However, this sadly demonstrates that we are behind in four of those seven targets. This begs the question: are we succeeding in achieving our objectives to close the gap? Are our Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters getting better lives in rural and remote communities? Today, especially as I reflect on whether the lives of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been made better since the apology, I again think about the people in Townsville, in my electorate, and the people on Palm Island. We must read the Closing the gap report in its entirety and acknowledge that we have not succeeded and we can and must do better. If the lives of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters are to improve, we would not see such things as the life expectancy for Aboriginal people at approximately 10 years less than that of non-Aboriginal people. The suicide rate for Aboriginal people is six times higher than it is for non-Aboriginal people. Countrywide rates of imprisonment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are worse per capita than during the apartheid in South Africa. I see this in both the Cleveland detention centre and the Stuart prison in my electorate. Clearly, governments aren't doing anywhere near enough. As I said earlier in this speech, I am proud to be the member for Herbert, which includes Palm Island, which is the largest discrete Aboriginal community in the country. I pay my respects to the Wulgurukaba and Bindal people of that country. It is against all odds that the people of Palm Island will celebrate their centenary this year. Palm Island has a rich history, but it is also a history that is rich in pain. However, Palm Island is a resilient community with some unique challenges. The Turnbull government is so completely out of touch and is ignoring the fact that on Palm Island we have an unemployment rate of 27 per cent. The Palm Island Shire Council, led by Mayor Alf Lacey, is doing remarkable work to address these issues. I will continue to work with them to secure recognition, equality and a better life. The biggest threat to the Palm Island community is the fact that the Turnbull government is cutting the National Partnership on Remote Housing. Instead of working with the community to address unemployment, the Turnbull government is cutting the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing—a 10-year, $5.4 billion program which expires on 30 June this year. For Palm Island, this means job losses. Let me reiterate: the unemployment rate on Palm Island is 27 per cent. The job losses will include seven apprenticeships. During question time at the last sitting, I asked the Prime Minister why he was cutting this program. He chose not to personally answer the question but instead referred the question to the Minister for Indigenous Health, the member for Hasluck, the Hon. Ken Wyatt. Labor are prepared to work with the government, but, rest assured, we will not wait for them when it comes to bettering the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Leader of the Opposition has announced a few of the policies that Labor will take to the next election, and I am proud to say that a Labor government will provide $10 million to programs to assist with the healing of stolen generation members and their descendants nationwide, to be administered by the Healing Foundation. These programs will support intergenerational healing, family reunion and return to country. Labor will work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to set justice targets to ensure that we reduce the incarceration rate and improve community safety. This is particularly important for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth. In the first 100 days, a new Labor government will convene a national summit for first-nations children. Further to this, Labor has already started working on legislating an Indigenous voice to parliament—without government support—because bipartisanship on issues of constitutional change does not mean doing nothing. Labor will work on a voice enshrined in the Constitution, a declaration to be passed by all parliaments, Commonwealth and state, acknowledging the unique place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australian history, their culture and connection. A makarrata commission to oversee a process of agreement making and truth telling will also be established. We must take serious action to close the gap, and it needs to start immediately. The fact that only three of the seven targets set a decade ago are on track is a national shame. It is a national shame that must be addressed urgently. It certainly doesn't start with the Turnbull government cutting seven apprenticeship jobs on Palm Island. As I said, Labor will work with the government on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, but we certainly will not wait. And I would like to finish this speech by offering my personal apology to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of this great nation. 17:57 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce In reflecting on the 10th anniversary of this parliament's apology to the stolen generations and thinking about what I might say, I was struck again—as I was when reflecting last year on the anniversary of the 1967 referendum, the 25th anniversary of the Mabo decision and indeed the anniversary of Paul Keating's Redfern speech—by how contemporary this event is. Indeed, I was actually a staffer in this building from 1995 to 2000 and so in the year 1997, when the Bringing them home report was tabled and debated in this parliament. It recommended that the parliaments of Australia acknowledge the responsibility of successive parliaments and parliamentarians for the laws, policies and practices which allowed the forcible removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their mothers and fathers. I'll just read into the Hansard a quote from the community guide, which summarised the report's conclusions in quite sharp, stark terms: 'Indigenous families and communities have endured gross violations of their human rights. These violations continue to affect Indigenous people's daily lives. They were an act of genocide aimed at wiping out Indigenous families, communities and cultures vital to the precious and inalienable heritage of Australia.' The emotion of that debate—there's a lot that passes or washes over you that you either forget or wish you could forget at times, listening to debates in this place. But I cannot remember anything that stuck in my emotional memory of my five years working as a staffer in this building as much as the days when that report was debated. The building was filled with people from the stolen generations and their families, and every Labor member and senator got up and spoke and read into the Hansard some of the individual and personal stories contained in that report. To their shame, most of the now government did not adopt that spirit. But we recaptured, I think it's fair to say, a brief moment of that kind of emotion at the breakfast with former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd a couple of weeks ago to commemorate the 10th anniversary. Now, I'm not a particularly emotional person—let's be honest; I know most of the people in this chamber—but who could not be moved? I do admit to uncharacteristically shedding a little tear at a couple of moments during the breakfast; not just at the stories of dispossession that were told and retold and should not be forgotten, but most of all, actually, at the faces—watching the faces that were up on the screen of the people who were in the chamber, in this parliament, out on the lawns and around the nation watching then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd deliver that historic apology. The emotion was real, it was palpable, and you can see it still and through the ages. Anyone watching that video footage of the reaction can see just how much this apology meant to people and how real the impact was. Despite that, it wasn't until 2007, four elections later, that an Australian Prime Minister finally stood up in the House of Representatives and followed through on the recommendation to say sorry. John Howard, for his eternal shame, was too small a man to utter that simple word, 'sorry'. He skirted around it with semantics and expressions of regret, but he could not say sorry. Kevin Rudd was brave enough, courageous enough and decent enough to do so. This year we could have been and should have been celebrating the 20th anniversary of the apology and not the 10th. We could have and should have had an extra 10 years of serious policy from this parliament to try to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians on things like life expectancy, educational attainment, employment, health outcomes and so on. The contemporaneity of this historic event is a reminder that progress is never won easily and is always resisted by some. To his eternal shame, the member for Dickson couldn't bring himself to even turn up and be in the chamber for that historic moment—a stain on his record. There is a political truth that underlies this difficulty. It's much harder to unite, to build a case and to build momentum for positive change. As Kevin Rudd so aptly reminded us at the breakfast, all of the big moments in the history of Aboriginal rights in modern Australia were hard until they were done. 1967, Gough's land rights, Keating's Mabo—all of them were hard until they were done. It is far easier, as some of those opposite know well, to trade on the base human emotion of fear—to make it your political business model and to leverage fear and difference to divide and conquer. In this way, the member for Warringah and the member for Dickson are the true heirs of John Howard, who was a master of the dark arts. It was only 10 years ago that the Australian Prime Minister stood up in this parliament and apologised to the First Australians who were ripped from their families and had their childhoods destroyed by policies enacted by people who sat in this chamber and in parliaments around the nation. Some may have meant well, but still it was wrong. Eventually, finally, our nation's leader said sorry. Between 1910 and 1970, over 50,000 children were stolen from their families, often violently, due to the deliberate policies of Australian parliaments. This was no accident. Prime Minister Rudd made this point in his speech 10 years ago when he said: … the laws that our parliaments enacted made the stolen generations possible. We, the parliaments of the nation, are ultimately responsible, not those who gave effect to our laws. The problem lay with the laws themselves. It's a sobering reminder of the work that we do here and the responsibility that comes with the parliament's power to ensure that the laws we pass and the laws we propose are just laws. It's important also to note that this affected all Indigenous Australians and not just those who were stolen and had their lives disrupted. As Aboriginal people told the parliament through the Bringing them home report, the fear and the trauma engendered across a whole nation—the Aboriginal nation; the whole people—was that your kids may be next or your neighbour's kids may be next. The anniversary of the apology is also an important reminder that without action, words—especially apologies—risk becoming hollow. Prime Minister Rudd knew this, to his credit, and that's why he instituted the Closing the gap report, which forced the reality of Aboriginal disadvantage into the light, if you like, so that his own government and all of the governments that came after could not claim ignorance for the problem. In my former life as a public servant, I had the enormous privilege for close to year of being responsible for the Victorian government's Aboriginal policy under a former coalition Liberal government. I was looking at the cross-government work to implement the Closing the gap targets, and responsible for the reporting, preparation and finalisation of the next framework. In Victoria, I'm pleased to say, it has been a broadly bipartisan approach. The member for Grayndler outlined well the progress which has been made. I think I'd summarise it as patchy, not enough and insufficient, but there has been modest progress in three areas because of Closing the gap. There is a glass half full glass half empty view you can take of these things—both are important lenses in this case. We do need to acknowledge the progress but we need also to acknowledge, as Prime Minister Rudd said, these were ambitious targets. They were not meant to be easy to achieve. We have a responsibility to the Aboriginal citizens of Australia, as custodians on this continent of the world's oldest continuous living culture, to do more and to not abandon those targets. That's why Labor to a team, every member, every senator, every woman and every man, have committed to establishing a stolen generations compensation scheme, to ensure that saying sorry is actually met with determined action. Of course, this is too late for some people. I was in despair, I suppose, to read media reports of quite cynical, disgraceful responses to our pretty modest announcement of the numbers in the scheme—$75,000 to around 150 people in the ACT and the Northern Territory not covered by the state schemes. People spoke about 'the Aboriginal industry' or 'people are only doing it for the money'. That stuff should be called out by any member of parliament and by any leader of the community. We'll also provide $10 million to programs that assist with the healing of stolen generation members and their families. These programs will support intergenerational healing, family reunion and return to country, as well as provide support for some of the older members of the stolen generation. The apology is a reminder that words and symbolism do matter when dealing with grief and trauma. Put simply, if you hurt someone you say sorry. So acknowledgement of the truth of our nation's history, which is far too often uncomfortable and distressing, and ensuring that apologies were spoken and people were heard, and that a very real important part of reconciling our history and ensuring we're able to move forward together is important to mark, but there is much more to be done. I was talking about the apology to someone who has known the Prime Minister for many years and used to be a personal friend. They said that there are a lot of good things about the Prime Minister. I asked what his problem with this issue was. They said, 'Like all humans, we all have some blind spots and we all have some gaps, but,'—in their words—'the Prime Minister has always had a gap on the blackfella issues. He doesn't feel it in his heart.' I would urge his government to reconsider the Uluru Statement from the Heart. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 100 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Tasmania, Medicare 100 18:07 Mr HART 263070 Bass I'm always very pleased to return to my electorate in northern Tasmania, especially after the always eventful sitting weeks in Canberra. Upon my return to Tasmania the week before last, I went doorknocking in West Launceston. I don't need an opinion poll to tell me about the issues that are important in northern Tasmania; I hear them on the door steps every day. I heard them loud and clear in the months leading up to the election on 2 July 2016. These issues are jobs, well-paid jobs that people can rely upon, jobs that enable people to play a real part in our communities; education, so that our children can play their part in building Tasmania and Australia; communities which are strong and resilient, so that the workforce is able to cope with a demanding future; and, finally, but not least, health. Our communities know how important our public healthcare system is. Labor established Medicare. We understand the importance of being able to access GPs through our world-class universal healthcare system. We also understand that our healthcare system is an integrated system, with access to GPs as primary healthcare providers and our world-class public hospital system providing acute care, with a host of specialists and allied health providers supporting the system both in the primary- and acute-care models. We took a lot of flak after the 2016 election campaign, particularly from a petulant Prime Minister on election night, for daring to suggest that Medicare was under attack from the Liberals, but even the Liberals know that Medicare plays an important part in the life of every Australian. That is why the Liberals have taken the extraordinary step of passing legislation to, supposedly, guarantee Medicare. This is despite the Liberals continuing their freeze on the Medicare rebate whilst claiming that it is unfrozen. Try seeing a GP or specialist in northern Tasmania to test the proposition that the Liberals have unfrozen the Medicare rebate freeze. Labor knows—everyone knows—that the unfreezing of the Medicare rebate is a con, timed to coincide with the next federal election. It was the federal Liberals that cut funding to our healthcare system by failing to provide for increased demand and acuity, but it was the Tasmanian state Liberals led by Will Hodgman who stood idly by and failed to do anything about it. The state and federal Liberals are more interested in their own petty internal squabbles than standing up for the state of Tasmania. The Prime Minister has postponed any action with respect to the distribution of the GST, which is vital to services in Tasmania like our health budget, until after the Tasmanian and South Australian elections. The fact that the Tasmanian Liberal Premier and the Treasurer are not complaining publicly about this tells us the truth of the matter: the Tasmanian Liberals are too weak and ineffective to argue the state's case for retaining our share of GST. But the Liberal Party's disdain for Tasmania goes much further. Just the last sitting week, the member for New England, in his previous role as Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, was asked in a series of questions about infrastructure, in particular, the woeful underspend within that portfolio and the lack of new infrastructure projects within my home state of Tasmania. The former Deputy Prime Minister must have had other matters on his mind because his answer referred to the coalition's commitment to, of all things, inland rail—you just couldn't make it up! Any infrastructure projects in fact referred to by the member for New England were projects commenced under the state and federal Labor governments. Federal Labor is a friend to Tasmania. Labor understands the importance of transforming our Tasmanian economy through investment in education, in particular TAFE and higher education, where Tasmania has historically underperformed. The federal Liberals cut over $80 million from schools in Tasmania whilst appropriating to themselves a commitment to education. What did we hear from Will Hodgman's government? Nothing. Silence. Nothing at all. Tasmanians deserve a government that will stand up for them and fight for them in Canberra. This weekend Tasmanian voters will go to the polls faced with a choice: another four years of a weak and ineffectual Liberal government or a Rebecca White majority Labor government fighting for the interests of Tasmania. The difference could not be more obvious. The Hodgman Liberal government created the health crisis that we are currently facing in Tasmania, cutting $210 million from health in their budget and standing idly by when the Prime Minister cut millions more. Waiting times have blown out. Ambulances are ramped at all hours of the day and night, and our health professionals are struggling in an under-resourced system. Under a Rebecca White majority state Labor government, health will be the No. 1 priority. Labor's Better Health Plan will keep Tasmanians healthier for longer, treated faster and returned home to their families sooner. This investment will support the opening of more hospital beds and employ up to 500 health professionals, including offering: 100 more graduate nurse positions, 20 hospital doctors, 25 paramedics and fund 32 GP internships. Labor will build the capacity of the health workforce steadily over the next six years. This will allow for more beds, more medical treatment, more elective surgery, shorter emergency wait times, and better ambulance response times. The Hodgman Liberal government has an equally dismal record on jobs for Tasmania as it does on health. We know that full-time jobs have fallen since the election of this government and that in some regions youth unemployment is as high as 20 per cent, leaving a generation of young Tasmanian people without opportunity. Rather than standing up for hardworking low-paid workers, the state Liberals instead welcomed the decision to cut penalty rates, proving, once again, they lack the credentials to fight for vulnerable Tasmanians when it counts. Their record too on education is just as concerning—cutting pathway planners from schools, mismanaging TAFE, and making a disastrous attempt to lower the school starting age for Tasmanian children. A Tasmania Labor government will strive towards making Tasmania the education state, delivering $63 million in extra funding to provide Tasmanian schools with more than 300 new teachers and education support staff. Labor has listened to families and listened to students and educators, and is committed to delivering a quality education plan to repair the damage done by the Hodgman Liberal government. Only a majority Labor government will remove compulsory school fees from public schools. Nationally, federal Labor will put back what the Liberals have cut. We have a plan to ensure that proper needs-based funding is reinstated, working in conjunction with the states. Time and time again, meeting people while door-knocking, in the street, or in my electorate office, I hear how hard it is for ordinary, everyday Australians to get ahead, despite the fact that they may be in work. Those ordinary Tasmanians feel that they are not participating in the 'better times' that Will Hodgman and co tell us that the state of Tasmania is experiencing. Perhaps it is the fact that no Liberals have protested the cuts to penalty rates and no Liberals have argued for decent wage growth. Instead, we hear about a plan for economic growth based upon handing out $65 billion worth of tax cuts to the top end of town. It is the Labor Party that carries the torch in Canberra for fairer outcomes for ordinary Australians, the people who are ignored and left behind by the Liberals. And it will be the Labor Party that delivers a better future for Tasmanians. We understand that the way to improve the life of most Australians is not to give a $65 billion tax cut to the big corporates. We understand, on this side of the House, that education transforms lives. We understand that we must ensure that our world-class universal healthcare system is supported and enhanced. We put the interests of people first. Rebecca White, on Saturday, will lead a majority Labor government for Tasmanians, not just for special interests. It's vitally important that Tasmanians hear the call and that they vote for a better future for Tasmanians, not something simply perpetuating the special interests which have been supporting the Hodgman Liberal government. 18:17 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I'm proud to have recently become the chair of the government's backbench committee on small business, employment, innovation and science, and I look forward to working closely with the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation, the Hon. Craig Laundy, for the benefit of Australia's small and family businesses and, ultimately, for the benefit of all of Brisbane and all Australians. I believe it's important to focus on how the fortunes of Australia's small and family businesses are so closely tied to the prosperity of almost all Australians out there. This is important because, at this time, the Turnbull government has a suite of policies which are turbocharging small and family businesses, leading to record numbers of jobs and opportunities being created around Australia. Four hundred and three thousand new jobs were created last year—the highest number for any year on record. That is 1,100 jobs a day. Seventy-five per cent of those—three out of every four—are full-time jobs. Yet we see this opposition crab-walking away from sensible economic policies—crab-walking away from what used to be standard, bipartisan planks of this country's economic agenda: tax cuts; trade; jobs creation; independent IR decision-making. The opposition these days is crab-walking away from that Hawke-Keating economic legacy, despite the fact that those old Labor leaders built that legacy by trying to drag Labor back towards mainstream economic policies to make them re-electable and ultimately worthy to hold government again. This emerging and growing difference between the major parties that we're seeing on economic matters, and other matters, is, I think, one of the most important underlying trends in politics at the moment. It's possibly a shame that more journalists and more commentators are not so attuned to it. We've had 26 years now of sustained economic growth in this country. That's not just a throwaway line or a statistic; it's a significant achievement that no other country around the world has managed to match. In practice it means that Australians under the age of 40 such as I have never been in the workforce during an actual recession. It means that Australians have become over that time some of the most prosperous and egalitarian citizens around the world. It means that our living standards over that period of time grew more than most other developed countries and that we can, consequently, afford to do more and be more than the generations that came before us. So that's really what's at stake here. As this government takes those sensible economic foundations which used to enjoy bipartisan support and takes that strong economic base forward into the 21st century with our focuses on international competitiveness, trade, tax reform and the National Innovation and Science Agenda, on the other hand we see a Labor Party dismantling the very policy base that it used to support and that saw Australia achieve those 26 long years of unmatched economic growth. When it comes to the jobs and the growth being delivered today, small business really is the key, Deputy Speaker. Small businesses already do more than any other sector to provide jobs, opportunities and prosperity, including for the young, for women, for the lower trained and for the most vulnerable in our society. Eighty per cent—eight out of 10—of all of the jobs that have been created in this country over the last 10 years were created in small and new businesses. That's according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. So small business is not just the backbone of our economy; it's the powerhouse of our growth when it comes to creating new jobs and opportunities. So it's by no means an accident that our economic plan has been structured around supporting small businesses at its very core as its starting point, as our tiered economic tax plan shows. Cutting taxes to our small and medium businesses first, everything we are doing is centred on them and with them first in mind, because we know that the policies that we're implementing are good for investment. It's freeing up businesses to invest in their businesses and, ultimately, in creating the opportunities that mean new jobs. We know that every single time in the past a federal Australian government has reduced that headline corporate tax rate there have been higher corporate tax takes for the government in the future. That shows two things. Firstly, it used to be bipartisan policy and well known that cutting tax stokes growth. Secondly, it increases the confidence to invest. We're also trying to rekindle this nation's great reputation for innovation and backing it to ensure our world-class research and technology can be commercialised to create even more opportunities. The National Innovation and Science Agenda of this government I think will be forever remembered as the birthplace for so many Australian success stories in business, so many inventions, so many medical research breakthroughs and other breakthroughs, so many new business start-ups and so many successful entrepreneurs. Yet we're also giving businesses the confidence to invest and grow by themselves. In many ways, our agenda of creating this business-friendly environment has steadied the ship for our business community after far too many years of policy uncertainty under previous governments. Government can never be the sole creator of new jobs and opportunities, and in many ways it's just as important sometimes for policymakers to know when to get out of the way of business when it's creating those opportunities and that prosperity. It's really important for policymakers to properly comprehend the potential, needs and challenges of, especially, our small business sector and our family businesses, because, when policymakers think first and foremost about big businesses, big unions and big government doing deals and making decisions, they really ultimately fail small businesses and the majority of Australians who are employed in those small businesses. Firstly, if policymakers make new regulations or new laws for particular industries and they think first and foremost only of the big businesses in that industry, they can often fail to comprehend how the compliance burden will fall more onerously on the small businesses. They can actually create the situation where big businesses get a competitive advantage over those small businesses and start-ups by being more easily able to comply with the new laws or regulations. Even when many small businesses aren't directly regulated or licensed, they certainly can still feel the cumulative burden of business red tape. Well-intentioned but ill-considered and sometimes poorly administered regulations can kill otherwise good businesses by making hardworking small business people throw in the towel. My experience, as I've outlined in this place previously, is that too many small businesses are currently surviving in that fraught purgatory of noncompliance and non-enforcement. Better government is the key, and our party was founded on these principles focused on the forgotten people: shopkeepers, skilled artisans, professional men and women. To support our small businesses today, I believe the small business middle class will be just as likely to include young entrepreneurs, creative industry types, tradies, independent contractors and medical researchers—professionals who have specialised in areas of expertise but don't want to be shackled by employment to individual advisory or big service firms. To support the emerging small business class of today and tomorrow, wherever possible we need to keep up this focus on ensuring that our regulations are based more around principles than overprescriptions. It is a change I think we can encourage, especially with Minister Laundy at the head of our small business agenda. Like me, the minister is of and from the small and family business sector. He understands where prosperity comes from. Sadly, the Labor Party is becoming so divorced from their past and from business that these days they confuse income with profit. Last year 1.1 million small and family businesses made not one single dollar in profit yet at the same time employed hundreds and thousands of people and paid salaries amounting to almost $40 billion. What will happen to those businesses and all their employees under a change of government? What will happen to the hardworking small business owners when they get a Labor Party that wants to roll back all those policies we've been implementing to support their businesses to grow? Most importantly, what will happen to the millions of Australians who work for those small businesses if they get a Labor government that doesn't even pretend to understand how the small business sector works, given how their deals and policymaking focus on big business, big unions and big government? The Turnbull government is right now delivering the support that small and family businesses need. Tasmanian State Election 103 18:27 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin This Saturday Tasmanians get a choice between a tired Hodgman Liberal government and the progressive Rebecca White Labor majority government. Rebecca White as leader of the Labor Party in Tasmania has been doing a remarkable job. Every person she meets likes her more and more. One of the big issues getting a lot of prominence in this campaign is health. The Abbott government, when first elected back in 2013, ripped more than a billion dollars over 10 years from Tasmania's health system, then Premier Will Hodgman came in and ripped $210 million from health in his first budget. This has had a devastating impact on the state of Tasmania. As we heard from the member for Bass earlier, waiting lists have blown out, especially for people waiting to see a specialist in the public health system. People are waiting to see the specialists before they can even get on an elective surgery waitlist. People are waiting 12, 14, 18 months, two years, just to see a specialist in the public health system in Tasmania, because of the shortage. The ambulance ramping is also particularly bad. Some nights there have not been enough ambulances in southern Tasmania. Ambulances have been sitting on the top of Tolmans Hill, trying to cover two areas, waiting to see if anything happens, because the other ambulances are ramped up at the Royal Hobart Hospital. Staff are under strain. Nurses are doing double shifts. Specialists in the hospitals are working as hard as they possibly can to ensure that people have the best possible care, but they're not being supported by the Hodgman government. Then at the Liberal campaign launch a couple of weeks ago the government said, 'It's alright now; we'll give you a bit more money for health.' Frankly, Tasmanians don't believe them. They've sat on their hands for four years while Tasmanians have suffered, waitlists have grown and ambulances have been ramping—and they suddenly think they can find some more money? When you have a look at this money they're getting, it's actually smoke and mirrors because they are not going to employ any actual staff to help with the system in the first four years. They're not going to employ more nurses, more doctors. Most of the money in the first few years is actually capital expenditure; its not actually ongoing funding for staff that are desperately needed in the health system in Tasmania. It's quite different to Labor's plan. Labor actually wants to spend money on doctors and nurses and health professionals to provide care. We've very clearly said we're going to employ 500 health professionals. We're going to open up more hospital beds. And federal Labor has also made a commitment that we will spend $30 million addressing the elective surgery waitlists. So that will provide about 3,000 surgeries, I understand, in Tasmania and will help with the list. It will help get those Tasmanians that are currently waiting for surgery to get it. Labor will also spend money, critically, on getting more specialists into Tasmania so that those people who are waiting to see a specialist to get onto the waitlist can also be seen because we want to make sure that Tasmanians get the same health services that all other Australians get and we want to make sure that we do the very best that we can. We also know that, when it comes to the health system in Tasmania, that Tasmania's funding for health over the long-term is at risk because of this federal Liberal government and it is at risk due to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into GST distribution. That Productivity Commission interim report is of great concern to Tasmanians because it would mean that, over the forward estimates, Tasmania would lose almost $1 billion; indeed, $168 million in the first year, and that's money that we need for our health and education systems in Tasmania. We were really concerned when, in early January, the Treasurer slipped out a little note saying that now the Productivity Commission won't report until May. And what that means, of course, is that Tasmanians and South Australians who are going to the polls in March are not going to have the information they need before they make their decisions. They are not going to know how much revenue they will be losing in GST to those states that is critically needed to provide the same services that all Australians rely on—health and education. When it comes to education, the Hodgman Liberal government, when they first came to office, made every school sack two teachers. Every single school in the state had to sack two teachers. Sadly, a lot of those schools removed other language teachers, they removed specialist music teachers and they removed other teachers that provided literacy support for students. What that has meant is that other teachers in those schools are having to make up for that loss. And then, all of a sudden, you know, you get the government come out again and say, 'Oh, but now that the budget emergency's over, we can provide some money for schools.' As I said on health, people don't believe them and they don't believe them because they know the Liberals cut teachers out of schools. They know that they had to sack their music teacher or their language teacher or their early learning literacy teachers. And we know that the Liberals can't be trusted on this. Federal and state Labor who have consistently said, 'We want to invest in proper, needs-based funding for our schools.' We have said that we will put more money into schools in Tasmania at both the state and federal level. But importantly, my state colleagues have said that they will abolish school levies. Levies in Tasmania happen to be some of the highest in the country. People are paying $800 to go to their local public school. Not only that, but the state government's education department is actually sending debt collectors to collect the levies. So you have parents at this time of year, as students have returned to school, paying off the uniforms, doing the things that they need to do to get their kids to school and they're getting debt collection notices for school levies, as you would. It's not good enough, and it's only Labor that has a plan to address this. We're saying that public schools should be free, that students should be able to turn up to their local public school and not have to pay a levy to attend the public school. It is a great policy, and I commend Labor leader Rebecca White on doing that. But she's gone even further. Labor is going to provide free bus travel at the state level to the nearest public school for all students from kinder through to Year 12. That will mean that parents can reliably put their children on those public buses—free public buses and free public school—and send their children to the local schools. That is a great outcome for those parents and those students in Tasmania. We've also seen an issue around biosecurity in Tasmania recently. What we have in Tasmania is a fruit fly incursion. What we saw from the Liberal Hodgman government—again, when they first came to office—were cuts to Biosecurity Tasmania. What we have seen is an increase in tourist numbers in Tasmania because of investments by the previous state and federal Labor governments. A government member interjecting— Ms COLLINS HWM It is true. They have cut officers. Not only that; they haven't increased the biosecurity officers that have been needed to deal with the increase in tourists. They know that people are coming into our state. They are bringing fruit into our state and we now have a fruit fly incursion. This, of course, has affected our primary producers. We invested very heavily in irrigation, around $180 million between state and federal Labor on irrigation schemes in Tasmania, and we are seeing the benefits of those investments. But they are at jeopardy because of the state Liberal government's ineptness when it comes to biosecurity. They are not ready. They don't have enough staff trained. That has become very clear during this outbreak. They are scrambling to deal with this situation. We've even had the Deputy Premier of Tasmania say that this is a national issue and that it's because of the federal government that the state is in this position. I'm not sure whether it's the federal government's responsibility, the state Liberal government's responsibility or both of the Liberal governments' responsibility, but Tasmanians are very concerned about this biosecurity issue. They're very concerned about our fruit fly status that is stopping some of our exports overseas and is causing people to have to dump their produce. We are having people dump tomatoes and cherries because they're not allowed to remove them from the fruit fly exclusion zone. This is a very serious matter, and it would only have happened under the Liberals' watch, because they are the ones that haven't kept up with the need when it comes to biosecurity. They are blaming the federal government, but clearly neither the federal Liberal government nor the state Liberal government are taking this issue seriously enough. The choice is clear this Saturday: Rebecca White and her talented team or the tired, old Hodgman government. Capitalism 105 18:37 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar Capitalism in all of its various forms has been one of, if not the, most important drivers of human welfare in modern history. More than anything, it does two things which no other system of governance so far conceived of by humanity has managed to do. It turns our most basic and fundamental self-interested instincts into public goods. It ensures that all of us are incentivised to do good not out of the kindness of our hearts, but rather out of our own regard to our own self-preservation. The other miracle it performs is its efficient allocation of resources without referral to a committee or a centralised authority. The greatest miracle of this is that it is driven by people themselves. As Milton Friedman once reflected: in a democracy you get breakfast cereal that 51 per cent of people want; in a free market you get the cereal you want. Karl Marx once pointed out that the thing about capitalism is that it is constantly reinventing itself. These reinventions have continuously improved the lives of billions and ensured the ever-upward welfare of humanity. One example that has not been pointed to enough is free trade. In the 19th century, David Ricardo pointed out that when two countries trade both are better off in a material sense. What he did not point out, but liberals did, was that we are all civilised. From 1945 to 1990, the international community spent billions on international aid. This included forgiving the debts of many developing countries. The horrible truth is that all of these activities did little to shift the dial on global poverty. In fact, in too many cases, these international efforts were perverting, and encouraged, among other things, corruption. As an aside, in the mania of billionaires getting involved in global philanthropy it is important to note what the member for Tangney recently discovered: even though the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does not allow their funds to be used for political activities, that is exactly what happened in 2016 when the foundation gave over a million dollars for specific political-purpose campaigns; yet Labor and the Greens continue to oppose transparency in funding, especially from foreign sources. One has to ask what they are trying to hide and why the media is so uninterested in holding them to account. It goes without saying that free trade never made an undisclosed political donation to a charitable front, yet it attracts more critical press than Labor and the Greens ever have. It also goes without saying that, with none of the downside, free trade over the last 30 years has lifted billions of people out of poverty. But, in developed countries, many people with transferrable skills have seen their wages increase at only just above the cost of living. For much of the 20th century, Labor was pitted against capital. One was looking for greater profits and the other higher wages, with increases in productivity relieving the underlying tension. It would be preferable if this tension were resolved and incentives were aligned. If Labor could share in the benefits of improving productivity and if businesses—especially those starting up—could share the excitement and financial benefits of a successful venture, surely our community, our economy, would be a better place. In this comes your conception of what government is and what it should do, if you believe in the progressive dream of large government that regulates all parts of human interactions and that employee share schemes and employee share ownership is not for you. If, on the other hand, you believe in a liberal conception where the authority of a government should depend on the consent of the people, where power resides in the hands of individuals and government is small, then employee share ownership is probably for you. All that is required of those of us in this building is to get out of their way. In this century, where labour is increasingly borderless and economic prosperity depends more on imagination than industrial might, Australia must continue to design taxation and corporate regulations that enable innovation, which improves the lives of so many. Last week, as co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Innovation and Enterprise, I hosted a conversation with key thought leaders on the emerging challenges in business innovation and employee ownership. I'd like to thank Andrew Clements, deputy chair of Employee Ownership Australia and partner at King & Wood Mallesons, for his introduction on contemporary challenges with employee shareholding. For many years, Andrew has been a strong advocate for employee share ownership and the leading expert on employee share ownership within our corporate and taxation legislation. I'd also like to thank Bill Withers, entrepreneurial leader at ADAPT By Design; James Miller, director of R&B Solutions; and Bradley Delamare, CEO and general manager at Tank Stream Labs for their contributions to a panel discussion on succession planning and the role employee ownership can play for retiring SME owners and their employees. As many of the panellists noted, employee share ownership is not a new concept and its value is well known. The benefits usually flow into a number of broad categories. Silicon Valley has demonstrated, more than any other place on the planet—except for, potentially, Israel—that issuing stock options not only invigorates a workforce but also helps that enterprise to begin in the first place. It enables enterprises to take on some of the largest challenges facing our planet, from interplanetary travel to renewable energy and even boring machines. These ventures and companies exist because of stock options. There are also workplace relations benefits by allowing all employees to invest in an organisation's success, with a common goal or objective, breaking down the barriers between employees and owners, or the us-and-them mentality. Within the gig economy, where there is great labour mobility, employee schemes can allow all workers to make investments in the profits of a firm which are growing faster than wages. For employees, this means providing greater flexibility and a recognition of the needs of the new workforce, especially where there is great work mobility. In the 21st century innovation economy, employee share ownership provides a tool for SMEs and start-ups to break down the traditional barriers between capital and labour, unlocking both vital capital and labour through an alignment of mutual risk and reward. As Andrew noted, there are three small steps that we can take here that will probably have an outsized impact on increasing employee involvement in the capital structure of a firm. We could ensure not a wholesale revision of the rules but rather an alignment of the current corporate and taxation regimes—for example, making the discount rates in the tax act and the Corporations Act more in line with each other or increasing the $5,000 limit for ASIC relief so that it is much more meaningful. Even simple clarification of buyback rules so that it can be better used by firms would have major benefits. Andrew has proposed a regulatory consultation forum with the ATO and ASIC, as well as representatives from an EOA peer group, to get this moving. The government has also made significant changes, passing legislation last year that effectively made it easier for start-ups to provide shares to employees. This change was incorporated in the Treasury Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill. The ESS-related amendment in this bill removed the requirement for disclosure documents given to employees under an eligible employee share scheme and lodged with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to be made available to the public. These disclosure requirements can discourage small companies and start-ups from implementing an ESS because it may result in the release of commercially sensitive information, and it is costly to produce the documents. By removing them, we remove this barrier. Increasingly, the future belongs to the fast, the nimble, the innovators—but, most importantly, to those who are willing to dream, to believe in the foolish and never lose hope. Today, the scope of those dreams has never been bigger, and the vehicle they use to make their dreams a reality is a corporate entity where everyone gets to share in the dreams. We here should make those dreams a reality by getting out of the way. Mental Health, Infrastructure 106 18:47 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen That would be the most boring contribution of rubbish I've ever heard in this place! On Sunday, I was honoured to attend the Mitchell Shire Suicide Prevention Network's community walk. The day's theme was 'walk, talk and support', something I was proud to get behind with so many in my community. I'm a strong believer that every step we take to save a life is a step that benefits each of us, whether it be directly or indirectly. In that spirit, it was great to see so many local groups show up and support such an important cause. It was great to see my parliamentary colleagues and local councillors with their runners on, alongside members of Victoria Police, the Wesley Mission, Rotary, the ADF, Lions, OKRFM, Nexus, the CFA, Bully Zero, Love Action, Assumption College and of course the Mitchell Shire Suicide Prevention Network community members, including Phil Clancy and Roger Fletcher. These are two gentlemen that I could never speak highly enough of. The work they've done in putting this whole event together is absolutely sensational. As the member for McEwen, it's an absolute privilege to be an ambassador for Bully Zero, an organisation which strives to provide genuine, enduring care for bullying victims and their families. Bully Zero and so many other community groups I've mentioned play an integral role in the coalface of our community by tackling suicide through prevention, intervention and postvention. Mental ill health is an issue that begins overnight, and it certainly can't heal overnight. But, when we bring the community together in this way to shine a light, we are making a difference one step at a time. Suicide prevention is particularly important in my electorate of McEwen because we know the rate of suicide among those who live outside the capital cities is a lot higher than the rate for those in town. Suicide doesn't end the chances of life getting worse. What it does is that it eliminates any chance of it getting better. Losing one person in our community is far too many. So we must hold ourselves to be aware—aware of the signs, of how to help and of when the support of those around us just isn't enough. Each of these steps is so important to making a difference in someone's life, but the community can't do it alone. Being outside the cities and towns, we are in most need of access to services and support in moments of crisis, for ongoing interventions and for the very important recovery phase. This is why the Abbott and Turnbull government's cuts to mental health programs and support and the impact they're having have been such a big concern to communities outside of Melbourne. We know those opposite have no interest in this. They've shown no care, no compassion and no interest in mental health. That's why they cut the funding in 2013. They did that because their idea of supporting people is to leave them to themselves. Labor is committed to providing each and every Australian with health care that they deserve, which is why we pioneered headspace. We saw a gap in mental health care for our young Australians and we filled it. The Craigieburn headspace clinic was funded and opened by the Labor government to offer accessible and affordable mental healthcare services to young people in our communities. We are committed to providing services to the rapidly growing northern Melbourne community, with a growing young population of over 50,000, through the Craigieburn headspace clinic. The service has been extremely popular and much needed, with around 600 young people visiting the headspace clinic over the past year on an average of five or six times per young person. The staff at Craigieburn headspace are working day-in, day-out to provide support for young people in all walks of life. On top of this, they take their outreach programs to the local schools. But they are increasingly expected to do more with less and less funding. This is an actual fact that these headspace services are delivering more and more on less and less because this government would rather give banks tax cuts than help those who are out in mental health services. Not only are they working tirelessly in the Craigieburn area but they've also been forced to take on the Willesee area because Willesee's bid for a headspace clinic wasn't successful. Because of this, over 40 per cent of young people turning to Craigieburn headspace are now waiting over three weeks for their first appointment, which is absolutely critical in early intervention. Why this government refuses to fund headspace and mental health services properly is beyond me. Willesee is one of the fastest-growing municipalities in the country, so stretching Craigieburn's headspace services and infrastructure to the limits trying to service Willesee and Hume City Council, as well as the ever-growing Mitchell Shire is leaving young people without the care they require, while they are surrounded by growing stresses and increasing costs of living. We know that 75 per cent of mental health disorders start before the age of 25 so giving our young people access to essential services such as headspace is absolutely vital in ensuring a thriving future for the nation. Early last week, I met with the director of clinical programs for Orygen with Labor's shadow assistant minister for mental health, Senator Deborah O'Neill, at the Craigieburn headspace. We talked about the burden being placed on headspace and the lack of government funding which is impacting their ability to properly provide services to the McEwen community. We also had a roundtable with primary healthcare providers from community health groups to get a sense of what the key issues are when it comes to community healthcare. It was great that the shadow minister for health, Catherine King, came out to the community and talked frankly and openly about the needs that we face. Since the election of the Abbott and then Turnbull governments, not once has a minister come to the seat of McEwen. In fact, they are so inept and lazy, we wait nearly 12 months for responses from ministers. We've had two ministers for health and neither of them have responded to any letters on lifesaving drugs. We can't get an answer on mental health. We can't get an answer out of the government because, like the calendar, as it ticks over monthly, they change veterans' affairs ministers. Veterans who are suffering with mental health conditions can't get support, because the government is too busy fighting itself and not actually looking after the people who put on the uniforms and fought for this country. It's an absolute disgrace. You will not hear any of those opposite stand up and refute what I'm saying because it's true. The work that local organisations do in our communities for mental health as well as suicide prevention and ongoing care is so important that I remain committed to being a megaphone for the voices doing it hard in our community. Unfortunately, healthcare is not the only thing this government is under funding in Victoria. The government is stuck with the Point Piper prince in the Sydney bubble, and I'm here to burst that bubble. Hopefully they will finally realise there are millions of Australians missing out on a fair share of infrastructure. Let's put reality into simple terms that even a couple of those opposite may understand, so we'll speak slowly because we know they can't think fast. Let's compare the pair. On one hand you've got a family of five living in Tallarook with both parents working hard and diligently paying their taxes. In return the government is spending $105 per family on making sure their roads and public transport, mobile phone reception and NBN are up to scratch. On the other hand we have a couple living in Point Piper in Sydney earning big bucks—enough to offshore millions in accounts so they don't pay tax—while having access to fast interned speed, upgraded roads and 4G mobile phone reception wherever they go. The government has done this city-centric math and thinks that spending $411 on each of them seems reasonable. But that couple benefits from more infrastructure funding than the family of five does combined. Where is the fairness in that? Why is it hardworking families in Victoria are being dudded by the government pork-barrelling its own electorates? We really do get it. We really do understand that they're scared that, if they stop pumping cash into our own electorates, their constituents will finally realise that this government does nothing. It's just not good enough. We deserve our fair share. Victoria is being dudded to the tune of $6 billion over the next five years of funding, which should go into the fastest-growing communities in this nation. We are getting the lowest rate of federal infrastructure funding per capita, a trend that will continue over the next four years unless this government wakes up Mr Falinski interjecting— Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E Mate, you make your predecessor look smart. That's really hard to do, but you're doing it, you clown. It will probably take a while because you're about as sharp as a bowling ball, let's be honest. In McEwen so many projects are going unfunded because the government is turning a blind eye to Victorians. We need the funding to upgrade the roads— Mr Falinski interjecting— Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E We're dealing with simpletons over here. The Hume Highway is a federal road. Understand that. You're a federal government. The federal government funded— Mr Falinski interjecting— Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E Really, seriously. Throw him a fish or spin a ball on his nose and send him home. My electorate has two of the five fastest-growing suburbs in the country, and yet we get the lowest funding in the country. Why? Because the federal government is more committed to fighting itself than standing up and fighting for people in Victoria. Boothby Electorate: Anniversaries 108 18:57 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby 2018 has already been a busy year in my electorate of Boothby, with many significant anniversaries. I have been privileged to attend events in my community to mark these important occasions, and I'm proud to inform the House of some of them today. On Saturday, 24 February, I was delighted to join 275 players, volunteers, supporters and club legends to fondly celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Brighton Cricket Club. I'm grateful to club president Scott Phillips and his wife, Ann, for hosting me for the evening and for their incredible efforts along with those of the organising committee and club members that went into this wonderfully successful event. The Brighton Cricket Club exemplifies exactly what local sport is all about. The club has brought together players and their families from across our community for generations. The Brighton Cricket Club's inaugural match was played on Saturday, 18 October 1867 in a contest between married cricketers and single cricketers. An extract from The Express and Telegraph newspaper reported a 'splendid day favoured the players' and a win for the married team. To commemorate this anniversary, the club recreated that splendid day with a married-versus-singles match at the start of the season, which this time ended in a tie. Club records held following World War II show that Brighton has won 52 premierships, including nine in the A grade. Currently, the club is represented by over 225 players, including 141 juniors, who make up the five senior teams and 13 junior teams. There is also an over-50s team. The 150th anniversary dinner saw the club launch the inaugural Brighton Cricket Club Hall of Fame. Eleven players were named from throughout the history of the club. These past players, the first of whom was born in the 1800s, all contributed to the club as outstanding cricketers in batting and bowling—and often both—and, importantly, were representatives on the board in senior leadership roles and as volunteers. I would therefore like to congratulate and recognise the following Brighton Cricket Club Hall of Fame inductees: Norman Pontifex, Ernest Anthoney, Edgar Gregory, Brian Neill, Sydney Shepherdson, John Ward, Mostyn Matters, Paul Dale, Charles Moyle, Ian Barnes and Mark Wilson. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the leadership group of the Brighton Cricket Club for their contribution to our community. I'm delighted that, to coincide with this significant anniversary, the City of Holdfast Bay has announced a $6 million upgrade to the site supported by a further $2 million contribution by local members of parliament Corey Wingard MP and David Speirs MP and the South Australian Liberal Party. This funding will upgrade the entire site, which is also home to Brighton lacrosse, Brighton football and Brighton rugby clubs. The 16th of February is a significant date in our Defence Force history for very tragic reasons. It was on this date, 76 years ago, that 21 Australian nurses were massacred on Radji Beach, Bangka Island. I recently attended the 76th Bangka Day memorial service at the Women's Memorial Playing Fields in St Marys to lay a wreath on behalf of the Prime Minister to pay tribute to these women and other people who lost their lives following the sinking of the SS Vyner Brooke. This tragic story began on 12 February 1942, when 65 Australian nurses began their evacuation from Singapore as it fell. They boarded the small ship, the SS Vyner Brooke, along with many civilians and children. The ship was loaded far beyond its capacity and was a target for the Japanese, despite the best efforts of the ship's captain to hug the coastline of Indonesia as they fled. The Vyner Brooke was attacked by nine Japanese aircraft, who bombed it no fewer than 30 times in five minutes, before damaging it so badly that it began to sink. Many were killed during the attack. Fifty-three nurses somehow made it to Bangka Island, Indonesia, but 12 did not and were lost at sea. Twenty-one nurses who did make it to shore were massacred by Japanese troops on Radji Beach. South Australian sister Vivian Bullwinkel survived and later gave evidence about the atrocities. A further eight nurses who made it to a village and surrendered died as prisoners of war just before the war ended. The annual Bangka Day memorial service commemorates the courage and service of these wonderful women as well as all current and former servicewomen. This year, we were fortunate to hear from the guest speaker, the Commander Joint Health and Surgeon General of the Australian Defence Force, Air Vice Marshal Tracy Smart AM. Thank you to the Women's Memorial Playing Fields Trust president, Bruce Parker, the members of the trust board and members of our local community who attended and commemorated this very important remembrance service. The 16th of February also marks another tragic military anniversary. On this date in 2002, SAS soldier Sergeant Andrew Russell was killed in service in Afghanistan. Sergeant Russell was the first Australian serviceman to be killed in action since Vietnam. He left behind his parents, his wife, Kylie, and his baby daughter, Leisa, whom he never met as she was born after his deployment to Afghanistan. I was honoured to attend a significant local event in my electorate in memory of Sergeant Russell on 16 February at the Marion RSL. It was on this date that RSL Care SA officially opened the Andrew Russell Veteran Living homeless veteran accommodation. This RSL Care SA initiative ensures that veterans who finds themselves homeless or at risk of homelessness have the opportunity to access appropriate and affordable housing solutions and are provided with practical support to enable them to get back on their feet. ARVL partners with a range of providers to expand services and support to encourage residents to get the help and the support that they need. Groups like RSL Care SA and initiatives like Andrew Russell Veteran Living are vital to support the health and wellbeing of our returned Defence Force men and women and recognise the sacrifice and service they give to our nation. It was a true honour to have Sergeant Russell's parents at the opening of the accommodation. I'm grateful to RSL Care SA CEO Nathan Klinge, Chairman Loretta Byers and the board for inviting me to this significant event and for the work they're doing to support our at-risk veterans in memory of Sergeant Russell, who made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. On Sunday, I attended yet another significant anniversary in my electorate with my state colleague Sam Duluk MP. The Hills Christian Family Centre celebrated their 20th anniversary of fellowship in Blackwood. I was delighted to attend their celebratory service at the Blackwood High School arts centre in Eden Hills, led by founding Pastor David Smythe and with words from Pastor Bill Vasilakis, the national chairman of CRC Churches International. Since 1998, the centre has become an important foundation for our community, offering guidance and support to those in need and providing a weekly service to spread the word of God. A barbecue picnic—complete with ice cream and games for the children in attendance—for friends of the church to celebrate the occasion followed the anniversary service. Thank you to Pastor David and Nerina Smythe for their hospitality and continuing role in the community. Thank you also to Pastor David Bland for making Sam Duluk and me so welcome and for all of the wonderful work they do for everyone in the Blackwood area. Congratulations to all members of the congregation. Finally, I was honoured to attend the Southern Country Music Club's 30th anniversary celebration at the Clovelly Park Memorial Hall recently. Not only did I get to attend their birthday I got to cut the very impressive birthday cake as well. The club is home to some very talented musicians, who treated us to some notable country music classics on the day. I also got to see the new air conditioner that the federal coalition helped the country music club and the Clovelly Park memorial hall to purchase through a stronger communities grant to help them cool the kitchen. This has been a wonderful help to the volunteers—especially as we've been going through another heatwave in Adelaide, as we do every summer—who provide afternoon tea for club members and also get to share their love of country music. With over 200 people in attendance there were a lot of people to feed and provide with cups of tea and coffee to celebrate their 30th birthday, and apparently this was a small crowd. I'm very pleased that in a very small way I was able to help these wonderful volunteers to support this great community group. A very big thank you to club president Mr Graeme Smallacombe for inviting me to this momentous occasion and to all of the attendees for sharing their passion for country music with our community. Happy birthday to the Southern Country Music Club! Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, as you can see, my electorate of Boothby is full of wonderful clubs, local groups and people working as volunteers to support very worth causes and commemorate significant defence anniversaries. They truly are the heart of our community, and I'm delighted to see so many significant milestones this year. One of the great privileges of being a member of parliament is to join my residents in my electorate to celebrate significant milestones and honour those who contribute so much to our community. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The time for the grievance debate has expired and the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192(b). The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:07