2018-03-28 45 1 0 House of Reps 0 0

Wednesday, 28 March 2018

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

 

BILLS 3015 BILLS National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Mandatory Comprehensive Credit Reporting) Bill 2018 3015

National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Mandatory Comprehensive Credit Reporting) Bill 2018

First Reading 3015 Second Reading 3015 09:32 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill will amend the National Consumer Credit Protection Act and the Privacy Act. This important reform will require our four largest banks to participate fully in the comprehensive credit reporting system, delivering benefits to lenders and borrowers alike, while preserving and enhancing the important security and consumer protections enshrined in the Privacy Act. In introducing this bill today, we are implementing a commitment that the government set out in its response to the Productivity Commission's landmark inquiry into data availability and use, as announced at the time of the 2017-18 budget. In that report, the Productivity Commission recommended that we move to mandate participation in the comprehensive credit reporting system if less than 40 per cent of accounts were being reported in mid-2017. We agreed with this recommendation, giving industry a further six months to meet the target. When the government announced our commitment to legislate in November 2017, there was simply no prospect that the target would be met by the end of the year. Australians have been waiting for comprehensive credit reporting for a long time. The amendments to the Privacy Act establishing the voluntary comprehensive credit reporting system were passed by this House in 2012, following extensive consideration by the Australian Law Reform Commission. The financial system inquiry recommended that the financial system take up comprehensive credit reporting in 2014. The industry standard for comprehensive credit reporting—the Principles of Reciprocity and Data Exchange—was authorised by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission in 2015. And yet, as of last year, Australia was still waiting for industry to move forward on this issue. This is why we are committing to this legislation. Australia is an international laggard in credit reporting. Many of our largest trading partners—including the United States of America, the UK, New Zealand and Japan—have well-established comprehensive credit reporting systems. On this matter, we are falling behind even developing economies such as South Africa and India. But movement forward in Australia has been stymied by the lack of a 'critical mass' of credit reporting data. There is a critical first mover problem at play here—without sufficient data in the comprehensive credit reporting system, there is very little benefit for any individual credit provider to invest the time and capital required in building systems and arrangements to access it. This lack of data means that lenders have a more difficult task meeting their responsible lending obligations. It means that more loans are declined by lenders who simply cannot verify a customer's creditworthiness. And it means that many loans are mispriced, leaving borrowers with good credit histories paying higher interest rates than they otherwise would. With this legislation, we are changing that equation. The major banks account for more than 80 per cent of household lending, and hence hold a huge quantity of credit information. Our expectation is that the inclusion of this data in the system, alongside the industry-established principles of reciprocity, will create a 'critical mass' of credit data that provides strong incentives for smaller credit providers to participate in the credit reporting system. This bill sets out the mandatory credit information fields that must be provided by the major banks to eligible credit reporting bureaus—identification information, payment information, default information, credit liability information, repayment history information, and new arrangement information. The major banks must supply mandatory credit information on 50 per cent of all eligible accounts within a 90-day window from 1 July 2018, and on their remaining accounts within a 90-day window from 1 July 2019. This information must be supplied to every eligible credit reporting body—that is, every credit reporting body that meets the standards under the Privacy Act, and had a contract with the bank on 2 November 2017. This means in effect that every major bank will be required to supply the mandatory credit information to Australia's three largest credit reporting bodies—Equifax, Experian and Illion. While the bill limits the initial mandatory bulk supply to these three bodies, nothing in the bill prevents additional credit reporting bodies from entering into supply agreements with credit providers and competing with the established bodies. The government strongly supports competition in the credit reporting market. Once the major banks have supplied the required information, credit providers will be able to access the information from the credit reporting bodies in the event that a customer makes a credit inquiry, alongside analysis and credit scores based on this information. This means that credit providers will be able to make lending and risk pricing decisions on the basis of comprehensive information, rather than a small fragment of the overall picture. All lenders who participate in comprehensive credit reporting will have an enhanced capacity to meet their responsible lending obligations. Those obligations are an important part of consumer protection arrangements. Small credit providers, including innovative fintech firms and new entrants, will be better able to serve customers and assess the lending capacity of potential borrowers. Placing smaller lenders on a more level playing field with the major banks, in respect of access to credit information, will drive competition in the consumer lending market. Greater competition in the lending market should benefit consumers, by being offered greater access to finance and better pricing. Those customers who are currently disadvantaged by the existing negative system—by having a thin credit file, or by having a single default marked against them—will have a better chance to build and repair their credit history prior to applying for a major loan. Small-business owners, entrepreneurs, and sole traders will be empowered to borrow to build their businesses on the basis of strong consumer credit histories. We are alert to risks for vulnerable consumers. Nothing about this bill changes the important protections in the credit act against predatory or misleading conduct by credit providers. ASIC retains all its powers to act to protect customers from misconduct in the lending sector. Customers who suffer from temporary hardships should not be impeded or discouraged from making appropriate arrangements with their credit providers. To ensure that the provisions in the Privacy Act dealing with hardship cases remain appropriate, the Attorney-General has asked his department to conduct a review of the arrangements for hardship reporting under the Privacy Act and credit reporting code. In this legislation, we are building on already-established frameworks to build the comprehensive credit reporting of the future. Through regulations under this bill, we will ensure that those banks and credit providers that are already supplying comprehensive credit data, including NAB, will continue to benefit from the protections and principles embedded in the existing industry established framework. Where credit providers and credit reporting bodies are subject to requirements under the bill, they will be subject to penalties if they fail to comply. Enforcement of these requirements will be responsibility of ASIC, who will be granted the appropriate powers to collect information and require audits to confirm that these requirements are ultimately being met. Credit providers and credit reporting bodies will also be required to provide statements to the Treasurer in January of 2019 and 2020 certifying their compliance with the initial supply provisions of the bill. Clearly, industry is well placed to meet the timeframes and requirements set out in this bill, which align closely to existing industry standards. The security of consumer information is of high importance to the government. This bill strengthens the privacy and security provisions established under the Privacy Act. We are well aware of the risks of data breaches and privacy infringements in the credit-reporting environment. The government has already acted to strengthen the Privacy Act's approach to data breaches, with the mandatory Notifiable Data Breaches scheme coming into effect in February of this year. That scheme introduced serious penalties for failing to appropriately notify customers of a data breach. The Australian Information Commissioner will continue to have oversight of the management of Australians' personal data, including credit information. All requirements for credit providers and credit reporting bodies to maintain security standards and protect data against unlawful access or misuse will continue to operate. In addition, we are extending the security provisions under the Privacy Act to ensure that all credit reporting bodies store their data in Australia, or in a secure cloud service certified by the Australian Signals Directorate. And we are requiring credit providers to satisfy themselves that a credit-reporting body is meeting reasonable security standards, before they supply the mandatory credit information. Under their existing bilateral arrangements, banks already perform audits and ensure that the credit-reporting bodies continue to upgrade their security systems to meet the changing environments of various threats. These important activities will continue under the comprehensive credit-reporting system. The inclusion of these provisions follows extensive consultation with industry, consumer groups, and security agencies, and will allow Australians to rest easy, knowing that their credit reporting information is stored safely and securely. In addition to the security provisions, this bill allows for innovation and change in the credit-reporting sector. Should new means of information exchange be developed, or new industry frameworks for credit sharing come into existence, the bill will allow for that through the prescribing of regulations. If it becomes apparent that mandatory supply should be extended to cover second-tier credit providers, the bill will allow for that through, again, the prescribing of regulations. The bill also contains a statutory review provision, with a review to be completed by 1 January 2022. We expect that this review will provide an opportunity for the government to confirm that the system is operating as intended; and to consider the impacts of the system on consumers and industry, whether the scope of the system should be expanded, and whether alternate frameworks for credit reporting would be more appropriate given technological changes or, again, changes in the security environment. In closing, I note that this bill will bring Australia into line with our international peers, by ensuring that our largest banks participate fully in the comprehensive credit-reporting system. We expect that consumers and small businesses will see the benefits of this scheme, as the lending market becomes more competitive and more effective at delivering loans. The extensive consultation undertaken in developing the bill will ensure that the approach taken is both workable and effective. As always, full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2018 3018 First Reading 3018 Second Reading 3019 09:45 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill represents another important step in the government's efforts to protect Australia's tax base from multinational tax avoidance. The bill also improves the integrity of the small-business capital gains tax concessions, contributes to the government's digital innovation agenda and makes the taxation of Defence abuse reparation payments fairer. Schedule 1 of this bill amends the income tax law to toughen the multinational anti-avoidance law. The law took effect from 1 January 2016 and prevents large multinationals from avoiding tax on their Australian business profits by artificially structuring their affairs in a way that results in them not having a taxable presence in Australia. Schedule 1 will improve the integrity of the multinational anti-avoidance law by bringing schemes involving the interposition of certain trust or partnership arrangements within its scope. This is a further demonstration of the government's strong track record on tackling multinational tax avoidance. Together with other key government initiatives, such as the diverted profits tax, country-by-country reporting, updated transfer pricing rules and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development multilateral instrument, this measure will ensure that multinationals pay the right amount of tax on their Australian income. The government is committed to assisting small businesses. With over three million small businesses in Australia, the small-business sector plays a significant role in the Australian economy. Small businesses contribute around $380 billion to the economy. A strong small-business sector means more jobs for Australians and, ultimately, more opportunities to build vibrant local communities across our country. Schedule 2 of this bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to improve the integrity of the small-business capital gains tax concessions. These important concessions provide small-business owners with relief from CGT on the disposal of assets related to their business. This helps them to grow and reinvest their profits, as well as contribute to their retirement savings through the sale of their business. Currently, though, some taxpayers can access these concessions for assets which, in the end, are unrelated to that particular small business. That is why, in the 2017-18 budget, we announced that we would take action to improve the integrity of these concessions. Schedule 2 of this bill will introduce additional conditions that must be met where a taxpayer sells their share in a company or interest in a trust. These conditions will test the size of the business being disposed of so that taxpayers can only obtain the concessions in respect of genuine small businesses. Additional tests will apply to prevent the concessions from being available for shares in companies or interests in trusts where most of the value of that company or trust is unrelated to the respective small-business activities. The concessions themselves, though, are not changing. They will continue to be available to genuine small-business taxpayers with an aggregated turnover of less than $2 million or business assets less than $6 million. The government is also committed to supporting the Australian innovation ecosystem by providing a tax and regulatory environment that will help innovative Australian businesses raise capital, grow and, we hope, ultimately succeed. Schedule 3 of this bill amends the income tax law to clarify that early stage venture capital limited partnerships and venture capital limited partnerships can make investments in fintech businesses. These amendments will provide certainty to investors in innovative fintech businesses and Australian innovation more broadly. The amendments allow early stage venture capital limited partnerships and venture capital limited partnerships to invest in entities with predominant activities that include the development of technology for use in finance, insurance or making investments. The development of technology is not intended to be narrowly interpreted and extends to adapting existing technology to a new purpose, such as in developing a novel product or service. The amendments also allow Innovation and Science Australia to make public and private findings on the eligibility of investments, to ensure stakeholders can obtain certainty around the eligibility of their investments and improve integrity. This is a further illustration of the government's ongoing commitment to support Australia's fintech sector and help establish Australia as a leading global fintech hub. Schedule 4 of this bill amends the income tax law to ensure the reparation payments, recommended by the Defence Force Ombudsman, are exempt from income tax. Defence has zero tolerance for abuse and has well established frameworks to encourage individuals to report abuse. Reparation payments recognise that abuse is wrong and should not have occurred. The payments are not intended to be compensation and complainants are not required to release the Commonwealth from liability. As announced in the 2017-18 Budget, the Defence Force Ombudsman role has been expanded to make recommendations for reparation payments related to complaints of abuse in Defence. This bill ensures that the recipient of a reparation payment receives the full benefit of the payment by making it exempt from income tax. In this way this bill aligns the tax treatment of reparation payments recommended by the Defence Force Ombudsman with the tax treatment of reparation payments made through the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce. Full details of all of the measures contained in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 3021 BUSINESS Rearrangement 3021 09:51 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I move: That business intervening before notice No. 6, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 3021 BILLS Statute Update (Autumn 2018) Bill 2018 3021

Statute Update (Autumn 2018) Bill 2018

First Reading 3021 Second Reading 3021 09:52 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Statute Update (Autumn 2018) Bill 2018 makes minor and technical changes to the Commonwealth statute book to improve its quality and accuracy. Statute law revision acts and statute stocktake acts have been passed on a regular basis since 1934 as a means of removing obsolete and spent provisions from the statute book and correcting mistakes in drafting. They are traditionally non‑controversial and regarded as an essential means of keeping the Commonwealth statute book accurate and up-to-date. The process of statute law revision and update aims to enhance the clarity and efficient use of the statute book. These bills: make improvements to legislation to take into account changes to drafting precedents and procedures correct technical errors in legislation that have arisen from drafting clerical mistakes; and repeal spent and obsolete acts and provisions of acts. This bill contains six schedules. Schedule 1 corrects errors in five principal acts and makes minor technical improvements to clarify the text of the law. Schedule 2 amends four acts to replace outdated references to 'the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia' with references to 'Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand'. Schedule 3 to the bill makes amendments to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 which are consequential to the enactment of the Acts and Instruments (Frameworks Reform) Act 2015. These amendments provide additional guidance on the application of sunsetting and disallowance provisions of the Legislation Act 2003 and update superseded references to the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 to the Legislation Act 2003. Schedule 4 repeals 22 obsolete references to the Crown in right of Norfolk Island, reflecting the abolition of that body politic on 1 July 2016. Schedule 5 repeals spent provisions in two acts. Schedule 6 repeals 40 amending acts which are now obsolete. These ongoing corrections and improvements to legislation are important to ensure that the Commonwealth statute book remains up to date, accurate and user friendly. Debate adjourned. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payments for Carers) Bill 2018 3022

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payments for Carers) Bill 2018

First Reading 3022 Second Reading 3022 09:56 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is to introduce an income test for carer allowance and for the carer allowance (child) healthcare card only. In 2017-18, the government expects to spend $8.5 billion on payments for carers. This includes $5.4 billion on carer payment, $1.7 billion on carer allowance for those caring for an adult and almost $600 million for those caring for a child. Unlike most other social security payments, which are income tested and targeted to those most in need, there is currently no income test associated with carer allowance. The carer payment, the age pension, and family benefits are all subject to an income test. This bill will keep our welfare system strong and sustainable into the future. Carer allowance is an income supplement for people who provide daily care and attention in a private home to a person with a disability or severe medical condition. The current payment is $127.10 per fortnight. Carers caring for a child under 16 years with disability or a medical condition get a healthcare card for that child with their carer allowance. Those caring for children under 16 years who do not provide the qualifying level of care required for carer allowance but who provide at least 14 hours a week care are provided with a healthcare card in the name of the child. There is currently no assessment of financial need to qualify for carer allowance and the healthcare card. This bill will introduce an income test with a high threshold of $250,000 per annum to both carer allowance and carer allowance (child) healthcare card from 20 September 2018. From 20 September 2018, eligibility for the carer allowance payment and the carer allowance healthcare card will be restricted to carers whose own income, and that of their partner, if applicable, is below $250,000. This will be based on adjusted taxable income from the previous financial year. The income test will apply to new recipients and those who are receiving carer allowance or who have a child healthcare card only on 20 September 2018. Carer allowance adjusted taxable income, or ATI, includes taxable income, employer provided fringe benefits, foreign income, net investment loss, reportable superannuation contributions, tax free superannuation income, tax free pension or benefit, and paid parental leave income. It will exclude deductible child maintenance expenditure. Income from long-term financial assets will also be included in the income test for people who receive tax-free income streams. In most cases, the ATI of the carer and partner (when applicable) from the previous financial year would be used by Centrelink to assess the claimant's eligibility for carer allowance. However, a carer would be able to provide an estimate of current year ATI if they have experienced a change in financial circumstances. The Department of Human Services, Centrelink, will provide current carer allowance recipients and new claimants of carer allowance information on the income test prior to 20 September 2018. The $250,000 per annum income limit will apply to both singles and couples. The income test will be a fixed limit with no indexation. Around 6,500 carer allowance recipients will be affected by income testing in the 2018-19 financial year because their own income combined with that of their partner's, when applicable, is above $250,000. An estimated 400 people with a carer allowance (child) health care card only will be affected by the income test. To put this in perspective, as at September, 608,873 people received carer allowance, 16,579 people received a carer allowance health care card only, and 264,157 people received carer payment. As we announced earlier this year, the Australian government will invest the $85.6 million raised through this measure to introduce a range of new early-intervention and tailored services to ensure carers get early support to manage the stresses their role places on them. Carers Australia, the peak body for carers, has worked with the government over a two-year consultative process to design a new and improved model to deliver support services for carers. The integrated carer support service will provide a national integrated approach to service provision for carers as opposed to the current fragmented system. Carers Australia supports the introduction of a $250,000 income test threshold for carer allowance to finance reforms to carer support services. The introduction of the integrated carer support service represents the biggest reform for carers in over a decade. Welfare expenditure on carers in the form of payments and services is an important part of the Australian welfare system. In addition to the $8.5 billion the government expects to spend on payments to carers in 2017-18, the government will also provide around $162 million for the delivery of programs and services that assist and support carers. The government recognises the very significant contribution carers make to the lives of the people they care for and to the broader community. Their dedication in overcoming what can be daily challenges is an inspiration. Many of us would personally know someone who provides care to a relative or friend; care that can enable social participation and independence for the person receiving that care. The need for carers is increasing so it is essential we get the balance right in the welfare system between financial support and availability of services. The introduction of the integrated carer support service will focus on providing early-intervention, prevention and skill-building support, aimed at helping carers before they reach crisis point. We value the immense contribution carers make to our community, and understand the challenges they face in helping others, in their homes and in their communities. The introduction of a generous threshold for income-testing carer allowance makes the introduction of these new services possible. This bill allows the government to provide financial assistance to those who most need it and increase support services for carers in need. Debate adjourned. MOTIONS 3024 MOTIONS Taxation 3024 10:04 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House— (1) notes: (a) on Monday, the Prime Minister guaranteed to the Australian people that "lower business taxes result in higher wages"; (b) on Tuesday, a secret survey of big business revealed that over 80 per cent of big businesses ruled out increasing wages or employing more Australians because of the Prime Minister's $65 billion handout; (c) that today, in the last half hour, a leaked draft of a statement from the Business Council of Australia reveals the commitments that big businesses were unwilling to give: (i) a commitment to "create more Australian jobs" was in the draft but deleted from the final statement; (ii) a commitment to "increase wages" was in the draft but deleted from the final statement; and (iii) a commitment to pay tax was in the draft but deleted from the final statement; and (d) the Prime Minister is still claiming his $65 billion handout to big business will create jobs and increase wages when even big business says it won't; and (2) therefore, calls on this out of touch Prime Minister to admit his $65 billion handout to big business is another example of this Government choosing the top end of town over ordinary Australians. Leave not granted. Mr BURKE DYW I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Watson from moving the following motion immediately—That the House— (1) notes: (a) on Monday, the Prime Minister guaranteed to the Australian people that "lower business taxes result in higher wages"; (b) on Tuesday, a secret survey of big business revealed that over 80 per cent of big businesses ruled out increasing wages or employing more Australians because of the Prime Minister's $65 billion handout; (c) that today, in the last half hour, a leaked draft of a statement from the Business Council of Australia reveals the commitments that big businesses were unwilling to give: (i) a commitment to "create more Australian jobs" was in the draft but deleted from the final statement; (ii) a commitment to "increase wages" was in the draft but deleted from the final statement; and (iii) a commitment to pay tax was in the draft but deleted from the final statement; and (d) the Prime Minister is still claiming his $65 billion handout to big business will create jobs and increase wages when even big business says it won't; and (2) therefore, calls on this out of touch Prime Minister to admit his $65 billion handout to big business is another example of this Government choosing the top end of town over ordinary Australians. The Prime Minister has been caught out red-handed. Big business have made it clear what this handout is all about. (Flinders—Minister for Health) (10:08): Mr HUNT 00AMV I move: That the speaker be no longer heard. Mr Burke DYW Point of order: if it is moved and carried that the Speaker cannot be heard, the parliament can't function. The parliament can't function. Why don't you move the correct motion? Because what they're wanting to hide— Mr Hunt interjecting— Mr Burke DYW You don't have the call. You should know the rules by now; you've been here longer than me. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The Manager of Opposition Business has the call. Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The motion is that the member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no further heard.  

The House divided. [10:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 72 AYES Abbott, AJ Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR 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 Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 68 NOES Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE 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 Katter, RC Kearney, G Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC Sharkie, RCC Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:18 The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 10:18 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon It is seconded, Mr Speaker. There's been a bit of tampering going on and the government is completely— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon will resume his seat. The Minister for Health has the call. 10:19 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the member for McMahon be no further heard.  

The House divided. [10:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 72 AYES Abbott, AJ Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR 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 Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 68 NOES Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE 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 Katter, RC Kearney, G Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC Sharkie, RCC Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:22 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.  

The House divided. [10:22]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 67 AYES Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE 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 Kearney, G Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 72 NOES Abbott, AJ Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR 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 McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Robert, SR Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 3031 BILLS Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 3031

Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

First Reading 3031 Second Reading 3031 10:29 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Private health insurance is an essential and valuable part of Australia's health system. This government is committed to making private health insurance affordable for the more than 13 million Australian families, young people and older Australians with private health cover. People with private health insurance have the benefit of their choice of doctor, timing of treatment and, in many cases, shorter waiting times. They also obtain coverage for some health services not included under Medicare. Last October, I announced the most significant package of private health insurance reforms in over a decade to make private health insurance simpler and more affordable for Australians. The reforms will help strengthen the viability of the private health system by addressing concerns about affordability, complexity and lack of transparency of private health insurance. The private health insurance reform package was the result of extensive consultation, including through the Private Health Ministerial Advisory Committee and with a wide range of organisations representing service providers, hospitals, insurers and consumers. The reform package has already resulted in lower premiums for consumers. From 1 April 2018, health insurance policyholders will face an average weighted premium increase of 3.95 per cent; the lowest premium change in 17 years—lower than any year under the ALP's previous government by a considerable margin. And, of course, the government continues to spend over $6 billion per year on the private health insurance rebate which helps to make private health insurance affordable. I am introducing three bills today: the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2018; the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018; and the Medicare Levy Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018. The first bill I want to introduce is the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. This bill will amend the Private Health Insurance Act 2007(the act) and associated legislation to support a number of the reforms I announced last year. Specifically, this bill will: allow for discounts of up to 10 per cent for Australians under 30 years of age for hospital cover, which will help bring young people into the private health system and provide them discounts right through until they are 40 and, in some cases, beyond; strengthen the powers of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman; allow private health insurers to cover travel and accommodation costs as part of a hospital product for people attending health services, in particular benefiting Australians in rural and regional areas; improve information provision for consumers; reform the administration of second-tier default benefits arrangements for hospitals; increase maximum excess levels for products providing an exemption from the Medicare levy surcharge; and facilitate the termination of closed products and migration of people to new products. This bill will also improve consumer transparency by removing the use of benefit limitation periods in policies and ensure that consumers who have purchased benefit limitation period inclusive policies since the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 was introduced do not need to repay premium rebates they have received, are not retrospectively liable for the Medicare levy surcharge and are not liable for lifetime health cover loadings. I thank all of the members of the House for their work in supporting this process. I particularly thank all of the consumers and policyholders who have provided feedback and all of the members of the advisory committee. I particularly want to acknowledge the work of Rachel David and Matthew Koce, representing both small and large insurers right across the spectrum. Also, the hospitals and the device makers. The MTAA has played a critical role in the ability of Australians to have the lowest change in premiums in 17 years. I specifically want to acknowledge the work of my principal adviser, Alex Caroly, in my office, who has moved heaven and earth to help bring about these reforms to ensure not just that private health is more affordable but that there is better mental health coverage, better rural and remote coverage and better transparency in terms of simplicity. Above all else, I want to note that it is essential for the health of our nation that we continue to maintain a strong and competitive private health insurance market. The proposals from those on the other side of this chamber, for what would amount to a 16 per cent increase in private health insurance costs by taking away the most affordable entry-level private health products, would be utterly devastating to private health insurers, therefore to private hospitals and therefore to public hospital waiting lists. By contrast, we believe deeply and passionately in the Australian hybrid model, which ensures that people have choice, people have the ability to elect into private health and, from that, they also have peace of mind. That protects our system and it protects individuals. Therefore, the measures outlined in this bill will support these reforms and that system. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Medicare Levy Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018 3033

Medicare Levy Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018

First Reading 3033 Second Reading 3033 10:37 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Medicare Levy Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018 is part of a package of three bills, each containing necessary amendments relevant to implementing reforms relating to increased maximum excess levels for private hospital cover. The other two bills are the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 and the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018. Changing excess amounts to allow increased excesses of $750 for singles and $1,500 for couples and families will mean insurers can offer lower premium prices, improving affordability for consumers. Importantly, consumers can choose—and I emphasise 'choose'—a higher excess in return for lower premium costs. It is a matter of choice for them which will be available. This will be the first time the opportunity to choose higher excesses in return for lower premiums has been increased since 2001. The government has also decided to remove grandfathering provisions that provided the Medicare levy surcharge exemptions for certain policies that predate the commencement of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007. This means that, consistent with existing government policy, individuals will need to hold an appropriate complying health insurance product in order to access the Medicare levy surcharge exemption. As the removal of the grandfathering arrangements may have a flow-on effect where some individuals become liable to pay the Medicare levy surcharge, the schedules effecting tax must be presented as separate bills. This bill deals solely with taxation related aspects of this reform and amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986. Changes will mean that the application of the Medicare Levy Act 1986, insofar as it relates to the Medicare levy surcharge exemption for private health insurance will be consistent with the updated Medicare levy surcharge exemption requirements that allow for higher excesses. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018 3034

A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018

First Reading 3034 Second Reading 3034 10:40 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018 is part of a package of three bills, each containing necessary amendments relevant to implementing reforms relating to increased maximum excess levels for private hospital cover. The other two bills are the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 and the Medicare Levy Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018. Changing voluntary excess amounts to allow increased excesses of $750 for singles and $1,500 for couples and families will mean insurers can offer lower premium prices, improving affordability for consumers. Consumers can choose—and I emphasise the fact that it will be a matter of choice for them—a higher excess in return for lower premium costs. This will be the first time such choice in the level of excesses has been increased since 2001. The government has also decided to remove grandfathering provisions that provided the Medicare levy surcharge exemptions for certain policies that predate the commencement of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007. This means that, consistent with existing government policy, individuals will need to hold an appropriate complying health insurance product in order to access the Medicare levy surcharge exemption. As the removal of the grandfathering arrangements may have a flow-on effect where some individuals become liable to pay the Medicare levy surcharge, the schedules effecting tax must be presented as separate bills. This bill deals solely with taxation related aspects of this reform and amends the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999. These changes ensure that individuals purchasing appropriate complying health insurance products for private hospital cover with increased excess levels will be able to claim the Medicare levy surcharge exemption. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Amendment Bill 2018 3034

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Amendment Bill 2018

First Reading 3034 Second Reading 3035 10:42 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In particular, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (the institute) is recognised as a world leader in the production of data and statistics in health and welfare. For 30 years, the institute has been at the forefront of supplying the evidence we need to inform national priorities. The institute has significant data holdings and publishes around 180 reports annually. These reports are used to help inform evidence based policy in the health, housing and welfare sectors. In 2015, the Independent Review of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare(the independent review) made a number of recommendations to improve the way the institute operates. Most of the recommendations related to internal processes or administrative arrangements with its main partnering departments. Consistent with the recommendations of the independent review, this bill proposes a skills based board appointed by the Minister for Health for terms of up to five years. This will provide the necessary strategic governance of the institute to ensure it grows its role across governments. Members collectively will have skills or experience or significant standing in a range of fields including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and welfare, statistics, finance, business and law, as well as expertise in health, welfare and housing. The board will comprise 12 members, including a chair, a deputy chair and the institute's chief executive officer. I would note for the benefit of the House that both the current leader, Barry Sandison, and the current chair, Louise Markus, are doing, in my view and in the broad view of the government, an outstanding job, as are the other members of both the executive and the board. The institute could not do its job without the strong cooperation of the states and territories. To ensure that this continues, up to three members of the board will be nominated by state health ministers. This will ensure that the board maintains its linkages to the key policy advisers of governments to keep the institute aligned with broader national policy. The bill will also ensure that decisions on the terms of employment for members, including terminations, resignations and leave of absences, will be the responsibility of the Minister for Health. This is consistent with the change in responsibilities for appointments from the Governor-General to the Minister for Health. Other amendments include changing the title of the head of the institute, changing responsibility for the appointment of the chief executive officer from the Minister for Health to the board, removing the need for contract limits to be approved by the minister, removing the requirement for the institute to seek agreement from the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the collection of health and welfare related information and statistics and providing transitional provisions to ensure that the chair and the institute's chief executive officer can continue in their positions for the balance of their current terms as well as specifying delegation powers under the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Act 1987. The institute has rightfully earned its reputation across all levels of government as an independent leader in the provisions of health, housing and welfare information. This bill therefore seeks to make the necessary improvements in governance and administration to ensure that its reputation and, most importantly, its performance continue to grow. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Corporations Amendment (Asia Region Funds Passport) Bill 2018 3036

Corporations Amendment (Asia Region Funds Passport) Bill 2018

First Reading 3036 Second Reading 3036 10:47 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In 2009, the Australian Financial Centre Forum completed a report titled Australia as a financial centre. The report later became known as the 'Johnson report', named after Mark Johnson who led both the forum and the Australian Financial Centre Task Force. The Johnson report observed that Australia had arguably the most sophisticated and advanced financial sector in the Asia-Pacific. The financial services sector remains the largest single contributor to GDP of any sector in the Australian economy and employs over 450,000 Australians. Australia also has the sixth-largest pool of managed funds in the world, and the largest in Asia. The report noted that our financial sector would benefit substantially from greater exports; only four per cent of funds in Australia in 2016 were sourced from overseas. It recommended a package of reforms to make it easier for Australian fund managers to attract overseas investors. One of these recommendations was the establishment of an Asia Region Funds Passport. The passport would provide a multilateral framework allowing eligible funds to be marketed across member countries, with limited additional regulatory requirements. The model for the passport has been developed since 2010 through a series of policy and technical workshops attended by representatives from a number of APEC economies. Subsequently, the Australian government, along with Japan, Korea, New Zealand and Thailand, signed a memorandum of cooperation on the establishment and implementation of the Asia Region Funds Passport, which took effect on 30 June 2016. Since then, signatories have each been implementing the memorandum into domestic law. The passport will support the development of the Asian funds management industry through improved market access and regulatory harmonisation. This will bring many benefits for our region, and for Australia in particular. It will allow Australian managed funds to become passport funds and sell their products into other participating economies. This will enable them to market their products to Asia's expanding middle class, and to the growing numbers of high net worth, and ultra-high net worth individuals in the region. Australian fund managers will be able to sell a single product across Asia and achieve greater economies of scale. This should allow lower costs for consumers. The passport will also allow managed fund providers from other participating economies to become passport funds and sell their products into Australia. This will increase competition and choice for Australian investors. It will provide cost-effective opportunities to gain investment exposure to a wider range of assets, whilst ensuring protection for consumers. This bill introduces legislation to give effect to agreements made under the memorandum and to prepare Australia for the passport. Schedule 1 establishes a new chapter 8A in the Corporations Act, which mainly implements the common regulatory arrangements in annex 2 of the memorandum. Chapter 8A, among other things, sets out the process whereby Australian managed investment schemes may be registered by ASIC as passport funds. It also sets out the process whereby foreign passport funds may notify ASIC of their intention to offer interests in their respective funds to Australian investors, and the circumstances in which ASIC may reject such notifications. The new chapter also provides for a mechanism to incorporate the passport rules in annex 3 of the memorandum into Australian law through the making of a legislative instrument. These rules form a common set of obligations on all operators of passport funds. It imposes an obligation on passport funds and operators registered in Australia, as well as foreign passport funds and operators offering interests in Australia, to comply with these rules. Finally, schedule 2 makes amendments to other parts of the Corporations Act clarifying, among other things, how the obligations in those parts are to apply to foreign passport funds, as allowed under annex 1 of the memorandum. Key areas in which statutory obligations are made to apply to foreign passport funds in this manner include financial reporting, licensing and disclosure. The passport complements two other initiatives recommended by the Johnson report and supported by the Australian government: an investment manager regime and a new corporate collective investment vehicle. Parliament already passed legislation establishing the investment manager regime in June 2015. This has clarified that investments by nonresidents in foreign assets would generally be exempt from tax in Australia, ensuring that Australian fund managers can compete with overseas financial centres, including Hong Kong, Singapore, London and Tokyo. The corporate collective investment vehicle bill is to be brought before parliament later this year. It will allow Australian fund managers to market their funds, including through the passport, using a globally consistent corporate structure. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to amendments in the bill, as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002, and has approved them. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum to the bill. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (ASIC Governance) Bill 2018 3038

Treasury Laws Amendment (ASIC Governance) Bill 2018

First Reading 3038 Second Reading 3038 10:54 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I introduce a bill that bolsters the effectiveness of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). ASIC is Australia's integrated corporate, markets, financial services and consumer credit regulator. ASIC is an independent Commonwealth government body set up under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (ASIC Act). In support of the government's ongoing commitment to combatting misconduct in the financial services sector and boosting consumer confidence, the government is strengthening ASIC. We are doing so by implementing recommendations from the Financial System Inquiry and the ASIC capability review, that will provide new tools and powers to ASIC, as well as making it more accountable. We have provided ASIC with a stronger funding base through the introduction of the industry funding model. This will ensure that the costs of regulation are borne by those that have created the need for it, rather than the Australian public who too often bear the costs of financial sector misconduct. In December 2017, the government released draft legislation to give ASIC the power to intervene in the sale and distribution of financial products, where there is a significant risk of consumer detriment. In February 2018, the parliament passed legislation giving ASIC new directions powers to strengthen its oversight of the new one-stop-shop dispute resolution body, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. Soon, ASIC will also be responsible for the management of expected additional disclosures following reforms to whistleblowing laws. Along with the new powers, ASIC also has new responsibilities. For example, it will soon be responsible for administering the new Asia Region Funds Passport regime, including the regulation of a new collective investment vehicle that will be available under the passport framework, the Corporate Collective Investment Vehicle. To fulfil its role, ASIC needs to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible, and for that it needs strong leadership and internal governance. Given the breadth of ASIC's responsibilities, it's also crucial that ASIC's leadership has the right mix of skills, knowledge and experience. ASIC is led by a commission consisting of between three and eight members. At present, one member must be appointed chairperson, and another member may be appointed deputy chairperson. This bill amends the ASIC Act to allow ASIC to have two deputy chairpersons. This is entirely appropriate. Having two deputies will assist ASIC in operating as an effective and efficient regulator by improving oversight of ASIC by its leadership. It will also provide greater flexibility for the commission to determine how it undertakes its functions. It reflects the greater scope of ASIC's responsibilities and ensures that the commission has the necessary depth of knowledge, skills and experience in its leadership team. Finally, taking this important step will also support ASIC in engaging more closely with its stakeholders and better communicating its role, priorities and resource allocations. This is an essential part of ASIC now being funded by industry. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing ASIC's Capabilities) Bill 2018 3039

Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing ASIC's Capabilities) Bill 2018

First Reading 3039 Second Reading 3039 10:58 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I introduce a bill that implements a series of enhancements to the capabilities of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). ASIC is Australia's integrated corporate, markets, financial services and consumer credit regulator. ASIC is an independent Commonwealth government body set up under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. This bill enacts key recommendations from the Financial System Inquiry and the ASIC capability review. It is further evidence of this government's commitment to strengthening ASIC and to ensure the financial system delivers fair outcomes for Australians. It builds on other key steps taken by this government to improve ASIC's performance, including: providing ASIC with a stronger funding base through the introduction of the industry funding model. This will ensure the cost of regulation is borne by those that have created the need for it, rather than the Australian public who too often bear the costs of financial sector misconduct; implementing other recommendations of the Financial System Inquiry that will provide new tools and powers to ASIC including the power to intervene in the sale and distribution of financial products, where there is a risk of significant consumer detriment; and considering the recommendations of the ASIC Enforcement Review Taskforce, established by the Turnbull government in October 2016 to assess the suitability of the existing regulatory tools available to ASIC. Schedule 1 to this bill amends the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 to mandate that ASIC must consider the effects that the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers will have on competition in the financial system. An explicit reference to take competition issues into account will require ASIC to consciously consider how its actions may impact on competition in the financial system. This government considers that competition, not regulation, is the best means of ensuring consumers get value for money in financial services. This measure complements other key initiatives undertaken by this government to support competition, including tasking the Productivity Commission to review competition in Australia's financial system and funding the ACCC to undertake in-depth inquiries into specific financial system competition issues. This measure fulfils the government's commitment to implement recommendation 30 of the Financial System Inquiry. This recommendation stated the government should include consideration of competition in ASIC's mandate. Schedule 2 to this bill amends the ASIC Act to remove the requirement for ASIC to engage staff under the Public Service Act. Consequential amendments are also made to the Business Names Registration Act 2011, Corporations Act 2001, and the Mutual Assistance in Business Regulation Act 1992. Removing the requirement for ASIC to employ people under the Public Service Act will promote greater operational flexibility, bringing ASIC into line with Australia's other financial regulators—the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Reserve Bank of Australia. To be able to perform their roles effectively in accordance with their legislative mandate, financial regulators need to be able to attract and retain suitably skilled and experienced staff. In ASIC's case, this means recruiting staff with knowledge of financial markets and financial services. ASIC is therefore often competing against the private sector, as opposed to other public sector agencies, when recruiting suitable staff. Removing the obligation for ASIC to engage staff under the Public Service Actmeans ASIC will be able to compete more effectively for suitable staff. It will also allow ASIC to tailor management and staffing arrangements to suit its needs, ensuring it is fit for purpose to deliver effectively on its mandate. ASIC staff who are APS employees immediately before the commencement of the bill on 1 July 2019 will maintain their continuity of service with ASIC, but cease to be employed under the PSA. They will become employed on the same terms, conditions and will maintain the same accrued entitlements under the ASIC Act. This measure fulfils the government's commitment to implementing recommendation 24 of the ASIC Capability Review report. This recommendation stated that the government should remove ASIC from the Public Service Act as a matter of priority, to support more effective recruitment and retention strategies. A similar finding was also found in the context of the Financial System Inquiry. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was notified in relation to the measures in this bill as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. In conclusion, this government is committed to ensuring Australia has strong and effective regulators governing our financial system. This is the best way of ensuring our financial system meets the needs of Australians and assists them in promoting their financial wellbeing. The measures in this bill will ensure that ASIC can consider competition when undertaking its activities and can recruit staff with appropriate capabilities. Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (OECD Multilateral Instrument) Bill 2018 3041

Treasury Laws Amendment (OECD Multilateral Instrument) Bill 2018

First Reading 3041 Second Reading 3041 11:04 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill represents another important step in demonstrating the government's ongoing commitment to tackling multinational tax avoidance. TheMultilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, commonly referred to as the multilateral instrument, is a key element of the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, otherwise knowns as the BEPS project, which identified 15 specific areas in which countries should take action to address multinational tax evasion. The multilateral instrument is the output of BEPS Action 15. Under the government Australia has been a strong supporter of the BEPS project, and remains at the forefront of global efforts to ensure that multinationals' profits are taxed in the jurisdiction where economic value is added or created. Since coming to office, the government has implemented a comprehensive suite of integrity measures designed to prevent multinationals from shifting untaxed Australian profits offshore. The multinational instrument is a multilateral treaty that will modify the majority of Australia's bilateral tax treaties to include new integrity rules that will help prevent those treaties from being exploited for tax avoidance purposes. More specifically, and from an Australian perspective, it will include rules designed to: ensure that income derived through fiscally transparent entities (such as partnerships and trusts) will only be eligible for treaty benefits, such as reduced taxation, in appropriate circumstances; prevent entities from changing their jurisdiction of residence for tax purposes in order to obtain treaty benefits; ensure that tax-treaty based relief from double taxation does not result in double non-taxation (that is, no tax paid in either jurisdiction); clarify that Australia's tax treaties are not intended to facilitate tax avoidance or evasion; provide Australia and its treaty partners with specific treaty based anti-avoidance rules; prevent entities from inappropriately increasing their shareholdings in Australian companies in order to obtain reduced taxation on dividends; prevent entities from avoiding capital gains tax by diluting their ownership interests in Australian land-rich entities shortly before disposing of those interests; clarify that Australia's tax treaties do not restrict its right to tax its own residents; prevent entities from fragmenting their business related activities or engaging in contract splitting to avoid having a permanent establishment (a taxable presence) in Australia or in a treaty partner. The multilateral instrument will also improve the effectiveness of tax-treaty based dispute resolution mechanisms, including by allowing taxpayers to refer unresolved disputes to independent and binding arbitration (where Australia's treaty partners agree to adopt these optional arbitration rules). These features will provide greater certainty to taxpayers in relation to tax-treaty related disputes. To date, 78 jurisdictions have signed the multilateral instrument. Australia signed it on 7 June 2017. Pending its ratification by other jurisdictions, the multilateral instrument will modify the application of 31 of Australia's 44 bilateral tax treaties—that is, Australia's tax treaties with Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Chile, China, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. This innovative multilateral approach will generate significant time and cost savings for Australia, by avoiding the need to bilaterally renegotiate each of these treaties individually to achieve similar outcomes, a process that could take decades. Effective international cooperation is critical to maintaining the integrity of the international tax system and the multilateral instrument clearly demonstrates the results that such cooperation can produce. The government is committed to continuing this cooperation and to working actively with the OECD and the G20, and bilaterally with Australia's tax treaty partners, to ensure that Australia's tax system remains fair and open, and keeps pace with international best practice. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 4) Bill 2018 3042

Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 4) Bill 2018

First Reading 3042 Second Reading 3042 11:09 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Turnbull government is today introducing an important suite of reforms to protect workers' superannuation entitlements by improving compliance with the superannuation guarantee. It is fundamentally unacceptable for people not to be paid their superannuation entitlements. This bill introduces very serious consequences for employers who break the law by short-changing their employees. For the first time, the ATO will be able to apply for court-ordered penalties where employers defy directions to pay their superannuation guarantee liabilities. These penalties can extend, in the most serious cases, to up to 12 months imprisonment. This is one of a number of new enforcement options available to the tax office for action against employers who breach their obligation to pay superannuation for their employees. The bill also enhances early detection of superannuation guarantee noncompliance. In the past, employee complaints have been a primary driver of superannuation guarantee enforcement activity. The ATO will continue to act on employee complaints. This bill gives the tax office improved visibility over superannuation guarantee obligations and payments, allowing it to detect and act on noncompliance often before the employee has become aware of a problem. Single Touch Payroll will be extended to all employers from 1 July 2019, giving the ATO near real-time information about an employee's superannuation guarantee entitlements. Additionally, from 1 July 2018 superannuation funds will commence near real-time reporting to the ATO of contributions they receive. Combined, these measures provide the ATO with more timely information, supporting earlier detection and enabling quick action against employers detected as not paying the superannuation rightfully owed to employees. The Turnbull government is also strengthening the ATO's powers to collect debts on behalf of employees where it uncovers cases of unpaid superannuation guarantee by strengthening the director penalty notices regime and tightening arrangements for security deposits not just for superannuation obligations, but also for other tax-related liabilities. The bill will provide employees with greater ability to check they are receiving the superannuation guarantee rightfully due to them by allowing employees to view more up-to-date information about contributions and balances through their myGov account. The ATO will also be able to notify employees when it is undertaking collection activity on their behalf. Further, the bill enables the ATO to pre-fill new employees' tax file number declaration and superannuation choice forms, helping them make informed decisions about their superannuation when beginning new jobs. These measures, which enhance the information given to individuals, will encourage greater member engagement with their superannuation. This bill will also amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to improve data matching to help ensure the right people are receiving welfare payments. Increasing the powers of the ATO to verify a tax file number to another Commonwealth agency, where that agency has an existing right to ask for its collection under Commonwealth law, will offer greater data assurance and integrity across government. This will lead to lower levels of incorrect adjustments in welfare payments and a reduction in welfare payment leakage. Further, the bill makes minor amendments to Treasury portfolio legislation to ensure that the law operates as intended by clarifying the law, correcting technical or drafting defects, removing anomalies and addressing unintended outcomes. Finally, the bill adds three specifically listed deductible gift recipients (DGRs). DGR status allows members of the public to receive income tax deductions for the donations they make to these organisations. The organisations are: Australian Philanthropic Services Limited; Foundation 1901 Limited; and Sydney Chevra Kadisha. Together, the measures in this bill represent a substantial enhancement to the tax and superannuation system, ensuring employers make the contributions they owe to employees, protecting the system against misuse, and supporting philanthropy. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2018 3044

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2018

First Reading 3044 Second Reading 3044 11:15 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill contains important measures making amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. The bill will transfer regulatory oversight for offshore greenhouse gas storage environmental management and well operations from the responsible Commonwealth minister to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, or NOPSEMA. Currently, NOPSEMA is the regulator for offshore petroleum environmental management and well operations. The reason for the division of petroleum and greenhouse gas responsibilities is largely historical. NOPSEMA did not have any environmental management functions in 2008, when the greenhouse gas regulatory provisions were introduced into the act. With the potential for an increase in greenhouse gas storage activities in future, there is a renewed focus on the adequacy of regulatory arrangements. NOPSEMA has developed expertise in the regulation of offshore environmental management and well operations through its responsibility for regulation of offshore petroleum activities. The Australian government therefore proposes to transfer regulatory oversight for offshore greenhouse gas storage environmental management and well operations from the minister to NOPSEMA. This will ensure we have an experienced and independent regulator for offshore greenhouse gas operations. The proposal will be effected through a suite of amendments. The minister will retain responsibility for major resource related decisions concerning the granting of greenhouse gas titles, the imposition of title conditions and the cancellation of titles, as well as core decisions about resource management and resource security. The amendments in this bill will also strengthen and clarify the powers of NOPSEMA inspectors to determine whether regulated entities are compliant with their obligations under the act and associated regulations. The amendments will expand and clarify the categories of premises that inspectors may enter without a warrant to monitor compliance with environmental and occupational health and safety obligations. This will include premises of a body corporate that is related to a titleholder, such as a parent company which may make decisions about operations carried out under that title. It will also include the premises of titleholders' contractors, including entities who have agreed to provide response equipment in the event of an oil spill. The amendments in this bill will also enable inspectors to undertake inspections without a warrant to monitor compliance by titleholders with well integrity related obligations under the act and regulations, equivalent to existing powers that inspectors may exercise to conduct environmental or OHS inspections. In the context of a high-hazard industry, it is particularly important that the regulator has sufficient powers to ensure regulatory obligations are being complied with. Noncompliance may increase risks to health or safety or to the environment, with potentially serious consequences. Given the difficulty in accessing offshore facilities and changes to titleholders' operational decisions on the timing of well activities, the requirement to obtain a warrant may impede NOPSEMA's ability to conduct inspections. It would also impede NOPSEMA's ability to respond quickly in an emergency. Inspectors will still be required to obtain a warrant before exercising any powers to search for or gather evidence of contraventions of provisions. The bill further amends the act to introduce enforceable undertakings. This will enable the minister, the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator and the CEO of NOPSEMA to accept and enforce undertakings in relation to compliance with provisions of the act and regulations, as part of a graduated enforcement framework. Although regulators currently have access to a range of enforcement tools, enforceable undertakings offer a unique benefit. While existing tools can require a duty holder to cease an activity or reach a minimum standard of compliance, enforceable undertakings can go beyond this to effect meaningful changes to overall compliance culture. Enforceable undertakings allow the regulator to secure more timely and cost-effective outcomes than a prosecution. For example, a prosecution may take months or years to achieve a result, whereas an enforceable undertaking can require the duty holder to take steps to comply as soon as the undertaking has been accepted by the regulator. Enforceable undertakings remove the need for the regulator to pay the potentially sizeable costs associated with prosecutions. Undertakings also enable the regulator to tailor the enforcement response, taking specific titleholder and broader industry considerations into account. The bill also amends the act to retrospectively designate particular areas as 'frontier areas' for the purposes of the designated frontier area tax incentive, to correct a recently discovered historical administrative oversight. The DFA tax incentive was designed to encourage petroleum exploration in Australia's remote offshore areas. It was active between 2004 and 2009. Under the scheme, the resources minister could designate up to 20 per cent of each year's offshore petroleum acreage release areas as 'frontier areas'. Where a permit was awarded over an area designated as a frontier area, the registered holder or holders of the permit could claim up to 150 per cent of exploration expenditure as a deduction for the petroleum resource rent tax. Under the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987, the resources minister was required to formally designate frontier areas in writing. Due to an administrative oversight, this requirement was not met for the 2005 acreage release. As a result, four petroleum exploration permits were awarded over areas promoted in 2005 as frontier areas which were not validly designated. This bill will amend the act to retrospectively designate these areas as frontier areas. This will remove any doubt that the relevant titleholders are entitled to the uplifted PRRT deductions. No persons will be disadvantaged by retrospective application. Overall, this bill underscores this government's ongoing commitment to the maintenance and continued improvement of a strong and effective regulatory framework for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage, and to ensuring the regime's currency and alignment with international best practice. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2018 3046

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2018

First Reading 3046 Second Reading 3046 11:23 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Act 2003 as a consequence of related amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 to transfer regulatory oversight for offshore greenhouse-gas-storage-well operations from the responsible Commonwealth minister to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, or NOPSEMA. NOPSEMA operates on a fully cost recovered basis through levies and fees payable by the offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage industries. This includes well related levies imposed in relation to petroleum titles. To ensure NOPSEMA can also recover the cost of its oversight of well operations under greenhouse gas titles, this bill will amend the levies act to extend the application of the well related levies to greenhouse gas wells. This bill also amends the levies act as a consequence of amendments made to well related regulations under the OPGGS Act which commenced on 1 January 2016. Prior to the amendments to the wells regulations, a new 'well operations management plan' was required to be submitted every five years. The amendments instead provided for a single plan to cover all stages of the life of a well, and require revision of the plan every five years. Currently, under the levies act, well activity levies are only imposed on applications for acceptance of a new plan. To ensure NOPSEMA continues to be fully cost recovered, this bill will amend the levies act to also impose a well activity levy on submission of five-yearly revisions of plans. The amendments to the wells regulations also removed the requirement for a titleholder to apply to NOPSEMA for approval to commence well activities. This bill therefore removes well activity levies that relate to those applications. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2018 3047

Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2018

First Reading 3047 Second Reading 3047 11:26 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Australia's agricultural sector is a fundamental pillar of Australian society and one of the largest contributors to our national growth. The gross value of farm production is forecast to reach $59 billion in 2017-18. Australia's agricultural levy system is one of the foundations of the profitability and competitiveness of our primary industries. The levy system allows primary producers to respond to challenges and opportunities and embrace innovation through collective investment and cooperation. This bill makes amendments to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 to support the effective operation of the levy system into the future. The act sets out arrangements for the collection of levies and charges on primary products. Levies are collected by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources and disbursed to 18 levy recipient bodies. These bodies invest in research and development, marketing, residue testing and biosecurity for the benefit of levied industries and the broader economy. By value of production, about 92 per cent of agricultural industries have chosen to have a levy. There are currently 113 levies collected across 77 commodities. Depending on the structures of each industry, levies are generally collected from individual primary producers by intermediaries at a narrow point in the supply chain—usually at the first point of transfer of the primary product. An intermediary might be a wool broker, or an abattoir. These intermediaries are then required to pass the levies they have collected on to the department. Australian agriculture's uptake of new technologies means that primary products are now being bought and sold in ways that do not clearly fall within the legal framework established in 1991. To provide clarity for industry, the bill will allow the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to determine certain acts which, when performed, would make a person liable to collect and report levies. The bill also amends the act to further support the effective operation of levy payer registers. Levy payer registers will allow the 15 rural research and development corporations, as key levy recipient and investment bodies, to identify and engage directly with the primary producers who pay the levies that fund their activities. In 2016 the government amended the act to allow the department to disclose levy payer information to the RDCs for the purpose of establishing levy payer registers. A pilot levy payer register project for the grains industry has since been completed in partnership with the Grains Research and Development Corporation. Australia's agricultural industries are diverse and there cannot be a 'one size fits all' approach to levy payer registers. The bill allows for the collection of commodity-specific information in addition to basic levy payer information, in limited circumstances and where it will be of clear benefit to the levy payers. The act currently allows the disclosure of levy payer information by an eligible recipient to a third party only with the written approval of the secretary. The bill facilitates the further protection and proper use of levy payer information by allowing the secretary to impose conditions on such a disclosure, and revoke the approval if conditions are breached. These decisions will also be made subject to the act's reconsideration and review provisions. The bill will allow the department to publish statistics about levies and their collection to inform industry about the cost effectiveness of individual levies and the system generally. This bill will further support the effective operation of Australia's agricultural levy system. The government is committed to a levy system that continues to enable agricultural industries to invest collaboratively and drive future productivity gains. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 3048

Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018

First Reading 3048 Second Reading 3048 11:31 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Australia's biosecurity system is critical for the protection of our agricultural industries, human health, the environment and the broader economy. Our biosecurity system is critical for the protection of our unique environment, our lifestyle, our health and of course our agriculture industries. The Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018will help in our continuous fight to manage biosecurity risks, and further strengthen Australia's already enviable biosecurity status. The biosecurity system must deal with a broad range of risks posed by the possibility of pests and diseases entering and establishing in Australia. It is essential that we continue to maintain and improve our biosecurity legislation to enable us to manage these threats. The volume of goods and people entering Australia is projected to almost double between now and 2025. It is essential that our biosecurity system keeps pace with the risks posed by these increased movements. We are continually bringing about incremental and real improvements to our risk management arrangements. It is vital that we continue to invest in our biosecurity system. In this vein, the coalition government has delivered up to $200 million over four years to strengthen Australia's biosecurity system through the Agricultural competitiveness white paper, on top of an additional $100 million to fight pests and weeds. Since 2013, the coalition has increased biosecurity investment by over 29 per cent, totaling $783.2 million this financial year. Along with the increased traffic at our borders, one of the key challenges we face in the effective management of biosecurity risk is difficulty collecting the necessary information we need about goods after they have entered the country. This can occur particularly when a good is imported, and later in time importation of that same good is suspended or prohibited based on an updated biosecurity risk assessment. This occurred in January 2017 with the suspension of uncooked prawns. This bill aims to address this difficulty by providing information gathering powers that allow for faster and more accurate identification of 'at risk' goods. These powers will enable the director of biosecurity or the director of human biosecurity to issue a general requirement for persons in possession of goods (such as uncooked prawns) that have been released from biosecurity control to provide information to the relevant director about the goods (such as their current location). Having this information would then enable a 'secure' direction to be issued regarding the goods, which can prevent their further movement and will support targeted operational responses to control biosecurity risks. It also addresses recommendation 2 of the Senate committee reporting on biosecurity risks associated with imported seafood, including uncooked prawns. When used with existing powers in the Biosecurity Act, the new information gathering powers contribute to a more robust biosecurity system. Further, this bill will allow for the gathering of information about goods imported into Australia that may have breached import conditions, so that the department can assess and where required manage biosecurity risk. The bill also enhances our ability to update alternative import conditions quickly and easily in response to changes in biosecurity risk. Here in Australia we are vulnerable to a huge range of pests and diseases entering our country. With these risks continuously changing and evolving it is essential that our legislation enables us to rapidly respond to these changes. Enhancing Australia's biosecurity system gives us the best chance of keeping damaging pests and diseases from establishing on our shores. It is up to all of us to respect our biosecurity laws so we can continue to enjoy our unique environment, our agricultural industries, our health and our way of life and continue to be justifiably proud of our biosecurity system. Debate adjourned. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund Bill 2018 3050

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund Bill 2018

First Reading 3050 Second Reading 3050 11:36 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I introduce the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund Bill 2018. The bill establishes the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund, an investment fund managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians, which will ensure the financial sustainability of the Indigenous Land Corporation. The existing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Account was established to provide ongoing funding for the Indigenous Land Corporation to assist Indigenous Australians acquire and manage assets. However, the land account's restricted investment mandate prevents it from generating the investment returns needed to sustain the annual CPI-indexed payments to the Indigenous Land Corporation. From July to September 2017, the Indigenous Land Corporation conducted nationwide consultations with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on this issue. A clear majority of stakeholders supported changes to improve the sustainability of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Account—by transferring the investment function to the Future Fund Board of Guardians and allowing the investment of land account funds in a broader range of financial assets. The government has listened and now seeks to implement this recommendation. The bill would establish a new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund, to be comprised of the funds of the land account. The new fund will place this important Indigenous endowment fund on a sustainable footing so it can deliver on its purpose—to provide long-term funding to the Indigenous Land Corporation to purchase assets on behalf of Indigenous Australians. The current arrangements for land account investments make it all but impossible for the land account to generate the investment returns needed to sustain the annual payments from the land account to the Indigenous Land Corporation. Land account investments are restricted to low-earning cash and cash-like products by section 58 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. Investments are currently made by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Moving the investment responsibility of the fund to the Future Fund board will allow these funds to be invested in a broader range of financial assets, increasing the likelihood of more sustainable returns. The increased range of investment products and the ability to take on more risk requires a specialist investment manager. The Future Fund board, a trusted and proven investor of public money, would manage these investments. The government's proposed legislation would enhance the Commonwealth's ability to make payments to the Indigenous Land Corporation. Further, additional payments can be made by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, after considering advice from the Future Fund Board of Guardians and any other matters that those ministers consider relevant. This would allow the ministers to decide whether to make an additional payment based on the impact it would have on the financial sustainability of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund. Securing sustainable funding arrangements for the Indigenous Land Corporation will provide significant benefits to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, enhancing their economic and social wellbeing and contributing to closing the gap. Debate adjourned. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018 3051

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018

First Reading 3051 Second Reading 3051 11:40 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018 facilitates the establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund through amendments to: the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005; the DisabilityCare Australia Fund Act 2013; the Future Fund Act 2006; the Medical Research Future Fund Act 2015; and the Nation-building Funds Act 2008. The bill also includes minor technical amendments contingent on the enactment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Amendment (Indigenous Land Corporation) Act 2018, which relate to the re-naming of the Indigenous Land Corporation as the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation, reflecting the entity's wider remit effected by that act. Taken together, the consequential amendments in this bill would enable the effective operation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund Act at commencement. Debate adjourned. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Amendment (Indigenous Land Corporation) Bill 2018 3052

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Amendment (Indigenous Land Corporation) Bill 2018

First Reading 3052 Second Reading 3052 11:42 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I introduce the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Amendment (Indigenous Land Corporation) Bill 2018. The bill makes a number of amendments to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 to expand the remit of the Indigenous Land Corporation's functions to enable it to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to care for, manage and benefit from freshwater and sea country. The Indigenous Land Corporation is currently largely restricted to land based activities, preventing it from realising the economic opportunities that could be available on and in freshwater and sea country. This restriction is in contrast with traditional understandings of country, which often do not strictly distinguish between land and sea. It is also inconsistent with developments in native title case law that has now recognised native title rights over sea country. In some cases, this includes rights to take resources (such as fish) for commercial purposes, subject to applicable licences and permissions. From July to September 2017, the Indigenous Land Corporation consulted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across Australia on whether the remit of the Indigenous Land Corporation should be expanded to include functions in relation to waters. A clear majority of stakeholders supported such reform. Consistent with the Indigenous Land Corporation's land related powers, the new water related functions would be for the purpose of providing economic, environmental, social or cultural benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Expanding the Indigenous Land Corporation's remit to freshwater and sea country, will enable more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to start businesses, get jobs, strengthen their connection with their culture and engage in environmental management. For example, the Indigenous Land Corporation could assist an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person to purchase a fishing licence or assist a sea ranger business that might bid for contracts to manage a marine environment or conduct patrols for the purpose of biosecurity. To support these new functions, and consistent with its land related functions, the Indigenous Land Corporation would be able to make grants of money, guarantee loans or make loans. This will boost economic development for Indigenous communities as well as provide employment and training opportunities. The new powers would not interfere with existing Commonwealth, state or territory water regulations nor will it grant the Indigenous Land Corporation any new or additional rights over existing players in relevant markets. In line with these measures and in acknowledgement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's connection with sea country, the bill also proposes changing the entity's name to the 'Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation'. Along with the proposed changes to its funding arrangements, the government is confident that the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation will be well placed to continue to deliver economic, cultural and environmental benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples into the future. Debate adjourned. Interactive Gambling Amendment (Lottery Betting) Bill 2018 3053

Interactive Gambling Amendment (Lottery Betting) Bill 2018

First Reading 3053 Second Reading 3053 11:46 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Traditional lotteries and keno games are popular and longstanding recreational gambling products that form an important income stream for thousands of small businesses across Australia, including newsagents, pharmacies, pubs, RSLs and community clubs. They provide millions of dollars in tax revenue to every state and territory in Australia and help fund important services and infrastructure for the community, such as hospitals, schools, public transport and roads. Every time a customer buys a ticket in an official lottery draw, a percentage of the ticket price goes towards supporting community services and small-business owners. Official lotteries and keno games have been a feature of the Australian gambling product landscape for a long time, and are well understood and accepted by consumers. In contrast, lottery and keno betting services are relatively new. They provide little taxation revenue and no benefits to the thousands of small-business owners across Australia. Furthermore, with the light regulation imposed on these services, they can entice customers away from traditional lotteries and keno games which further impacts the benefits to the community and small business. Many Australians have voiced their concerns about the emergence of lottery and keno betting services. The government has carefully considered these concerns. Last year, the Minister for Communications raised these concerns with the responsible minister in the Northern Territory, which so far is the only jurisdiction to license lottery betting. The Northern Territory government responded by introducing a partial prohibition on lottery betting, such that betting could not be offered on Australian lotteries. Whilst this was a positive step, the Australian government believes stronger and more comprehensive action is required. The Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2018 will amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001to prohibit the provision of lottery and keno betting services to Australians. State tax and small - business revenue Traditional lotteries are heavily regulated and pay a considerable amount of tax to all states and territories. For every lottery ticket sold, up to 28 per cent is allocated to state and territory taxes to support regulatory oversight and government services, whilst up to nine per cent is paid to agents for relevant sales costs and income requirements. In 2016-17, it was estimated that official lotteries paid $1.1 billion in state and territory taxes. Over $350 million is earnt by some 4,000 newsagencies and official lottery agents across Australia from sales of official lottery products. Newsagents rely on this money to run their businesses. Traditional keno services conducted in clubs and hotels across Australia help support community services and sporting initiatives. In comparison, lottery and keno betting services contribute significantly less tax and only to one jurisdiction in Australia. They do not pay any commissions to small businesses. It is clear that a shift away from official lotteries will have a negative impact on state taxation revenue and small business. Traditional lotteries are built on guaranteed prize pools from ticket sales and are required to comply with strict audit and consumer protection measures. Unlike official lotteries, lottery betting services are not required to comply with the guaranteed prize pool model—instead, their major prizes are covered by insurance policies. This allows lottery betting service providers to offer bigger prizes more frequently which further impacts on the financial benefits of traditional lotteries. IGA amendments The intent of the Interactive Gambling Act is to minimise the scope of problem gambling in Australia by limiting the types of interactive gambling services to Australians. Lottery betting services allow consumers to bet on the outcome of up to 25 lottery draws being conducted around the world each week, with the promise of massive jackpots ranging in the hundreds of millions, which could lead to problem and at-risk gambling. This bill will prohibit the provision of lottery and keno betting services to customers physically present in Australia. It will also prohibit the betting on a 'contingency that may or may not happen in the course of the conduct of a lottery' to ensure that bets cannot be accepted on the outcome, or any aspect, of a lottery or keno draw. N ationally consistent regulation The Commonwealth is responsible for online gambling matters and is best placed to implement a national position in relation to lottery betting services in Australia. This is consistent with the important work being done to establish the National Consumer Protection Framework, which aims to standardise harm minimisation controls for wagering services across all states and territories. These amendments to the Interactive Gambling Act will also enable the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to enforce compliance, and respond to any complaints about lottery betting services being provided by other Australian or international operators. The government recently expanded ACMA's powers to take stronger action against the provision of illegal interactive gambling services to Australians. Conclusion Many Australians enjoy lotteries and keno as a recreational activity, and the government is committed to ensuring online gambling takes place under a robust legislative framework with strong consumer protections and within the boundaries of community standards. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Amendment Bill 2018 3055

Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Amendment Bill 2018

First Reading 3055 Second Reading 3055 11:53 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The government is committed to bringing Australian border legislation into alignment with the country of origin labelling safe harbour defences under the Australian Consumer Law. In 2017, the government enacted the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Act 2017 to simplify and clarify the safe harbour defences under section 255 of schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act. This is part of our broader reforms on country of origin labelling. These defences enable a person to make a claim about the origin of the goods sold domestically without contravening the provisions of schedule 2. These defences are currently not available to importers who are required to apply a trade description on goods proposed to be imported into Australia. The Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Amendment Bill 2018 would amend the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905 to enable importers to make a claim about the origin of goods, similar to those permitted under the Australian Consumer Law, without contravening the offence against a false trade description. The alignment would reduce the complexity of enforcing origin marking requirements at the border, allowing the Australian Border Force to focus compliance activities on goods that don't meet the safe harbour defences. The bill would also insert an express head of power in the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act to enable the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Regulation 2016 to be amended to incorporate information standards that are in force or existing from time to time. This is currently not possible without an express head of power. As information standards are amended from time to time, the bill will enable the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Regulation to be amended to automatically incorporate changes to information standards. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Customs Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Offences) Bill 2018 3056

Customs Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Offences) Bill 2018

First Reading 3056 Second Reading 3056 11:55 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The government is committed to closing down the illicit tobacco market, introducing new and strengthened enforcement measures to deter those who profit from the trade in illicit tobacco. In the 2016-17 budget, we announced a suite of measures to address the growing trade in illicit tobacco and improve health outcomes for all Australians. The government announced annual increases of 12.5 per cent in tobacco duty that will continue until 2020. It also announced funding for the Australian Border Force (ABF) Tobacco Strike Team. These measures have helped to reduce the harmful impacts illicit tobacco has on society, and the deliberate and highly calculated defrauding of the Australian public by criminal organisations smuggling illicit tobacco into the Australian market. It's evident, however, that these measures alone are not enough. While an increase in the price of cigarettes has contributed to the wellbeing of the Australian community, it's also fuelled the illegal activities of the black market. Increasing cigarette prices has inadvertently created a profit motive for those involved in smuggling activities due to the 'low risk high return' view of criminal groups. This has led to a surge in new black market activity. Illicit tobacco smugglers undermine the government's strategies to promote good public health outcomes, and threaten the viability of law-abiding, local business operators, like the many convenience-store operators who do the right thing every day and have to compete against illicit tobacco. To disrupt these criminal groups, the government has today introduced the Customs Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Offences) Bill. The bill is the final, critical piece of a framework that not only promotes the health of all Australians but also serves as an effective deterrent to criminals involved in the illicit tobacco trade. The bill provides the means by which ABF officers can investigate and enforce the illicit tobacco offences and strengthened penalties proposed in a related bill led by the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Together the two bills create a comprehensive set of offences targeting the importation, possession, purchase, sale and production of illicit tobacco. The bill strengthens the illicit tobacco enforcement regime by allowing the ABF to investigate offences in the Treasury-led bill where the origin of the illicit tobacco is unknown. This will open opportunities to prosecute illicit tobacco offences as it will not be necessary to establish whether the illicit tobacco was imported or illegally manufactured. Currently, the ABF can only prosecute tobacco-smuggling offences under the Customs Act if knowledge or intention to evade customs duties can be proven. While the penalty is high, the standard of proof has created a barrier for enforcement and it's created a barrier for prosecution and is not an effective deterrent to those involved in the illicit tobacco trade. This bill also creates new offences in the Customs Act for those who are reckless as to whether importing tobacco results in the defrauding of revenue. The standard required to establish recklessness entails a lower level of culpability than that associated with intention or knowledge, alleviating any barriers to enforcement or successful prosecution of these criminal offences which are quite often committed by organised crime syndicates to fund other criminal activities. This bill provides an effective deterrence to those who defy Australian laws for their own personal gain, risk the health of the Australian community, and cheat the tax system. This has consequential impacts to the revenue available to put back into the Australian community and threatens law-abiding local business operators that provide jobs to everyday Australians. Illicit tobacco is a serious problem that only lines the pockets of organised crime. Criminal syndicates see the illicit tobacco market as a lucrative high-return and low-risk venture. The profits made by these syndicates can also potentially be used to fund other criminal activities. This needs to be addressed, and has been, through the proposed measures in this bill and those led by the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Without these measures the trade in illicit tobacco will only continue to grow. Debate adjourned. Education and Other Legislation Amendment (VET Student Loan Debt Separation) Bill 2018 3057

Education and Other Legislation Amendment (VET Student Loan Debt Separation) Bill 2018

First Reading 3057 Second Reading 3057 12:01 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Education and Other Legislation Amendment (VET Student Loan Debt Separation) Bill 2018 enables the separation of VET student loans debts from other forms of Higher Education Loan Program debts. This bill also enables a clearer and more effective transition of approved courses eligible for VET student loans. Vocational education and training is central to Australia's economic prosperity and employment outcomes for students. Income-contingent loans in VET help achieve this prosperity by assisting students to access higher-level VET qualifications. The government supports income-contingent loans—without them, students would miss out if they could not afford to pay full tuition fees to undertake higher level VET qualifications. The VET Student Loans program provides capped income-contingent loans to students undertaking higher-level VET qualifications. With over a year of the program being in force, it is clear that it is meeting its objectives. Completion rates are up, and the course list is successfully balancing industry needs, employment outcomes and student choice. The capping of loans to $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000—with an exception for aviation courses given their high cost of delivery—has limited the excessive price gouging experienced under VET FEE-HELP. In addition, payments in arrears and student progression requirements are ensuring loan amounts are being paid for genuine students, putting an end to unacceptable enrolment practices in the now closed VET FEE-HELP scheme. With these measures successfully achieving their objectives, this bill will better measure the program's fiscal sustainability. There is currently limited capacity to measure the sustainability of the VET Student Loans program because a debtor's HELP repayments are not disaggregated by loan type. Irrespective of whether the debt applies to HECS-HELP, FEE-HELP, SA-HELP, OS-HELP, historical VET FEE-HELP or VET student loans assistance, loan repayments are made towards a single, aggregated HELP debt. This means the government cannot accurately determine what proportion of which form of HELP assistance paid by the government has been repaid by debtors. Similarly, where a HELP debt is not being repaid, it is not possible to identify the form of HELP assistance the debt relates to. This bill will separate VET student loans debts from other forms of HELP debts, providing greater transparency of repayment rates for VET students and better information to inform policy decisions and the public. From 1 July 2019, individuals who incur a VET student loans debt will access a separate statement of account for their VET student loans debt. And from 1 July 2020, the individual's notice of assessment will display VET student loans repayment details. This bill will enable more timely, transparent and accurate reporting on the fiscal sustainability of the VET student loans program, and support greater public accountability of the program. The repayment thresholds, repayment rates and indexation with respect to VET student loan debts will be the same as the repayment thresholds, repayment rates and indexation for HELP debts. A person must start repaying a debt in relation to a VET student loan once they have finished repaying any HELP debts. Consistent with existing arrangements for HELP debts, persons residing overseas who have a VET student loan debt will be required to make repayments in respect of those debts. A key feature of the success of the VET student loan program is the course list—the VET Student Loans (Courses and Loans Caps) Determination 2016. This bill also enables better continuity and more flexibility in delivering approved courses for VET student loans providers—providers who have proven their quality through the rigorous application process. Loans are only available for courses on the course list. This list ensures students are only incurring a debt for courses that have high national priority, meet industry needs, contribute to addressing skills shortages and align with strong employment outcomes. This list is updated twice yearly. Courses are specified by reference to their course code. If a course becomes superseded, non-current or is reaccredited, students cannot be approved for loans to undertake the new version of the course until the next course list update. Each time the list is updated, a number of courses are replaced by the superseding or reaccredited version. This bill lays the groundwork for the course list to refer to the national register as defined in the section 3 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011. The national register is the authoritative information source on nationally recognised VET courses and training packages and their status. By enabling the course list to refer to the national register, students will be able to be approved for a loan when a course on the list is replaced, without having to wait months for the list to be updated. It is not possible to include anticipated replacement courses on the list. We considered alternatives before coming to the conclusion that referring to the national register is the best approach. The VET system is dynamic. A key feature is its capacity to provide nationally recognised training to build skills across almost every industry and sector in the Australian economy through over 2,000 courses. Qualifications developed under training packages are reviewed by industry on a regular basis, with the Australian Industry and Skills Committee meeting six times a year to consider course updates. A qualification only gets a course code once it is included on the national register. The reaccreditation of accredited courses is considered by the relevant VET regulator. The regulator can determine to extend the currency of a course until the reaccreditation of the course is reviewed and approved. Reaccredited courses are assigned course codes once approved and put on the national register. It is not possible for the course list to predict what courses will be considered and approved by the Australian Industry and Skills Committee or VET regulators in advance, nor will those courses be allocated a course code until they are approved. Updating the course list to refer to the latest version of the course on the national register won't open up the course list and it doesn't change the methodology for adding courses to the list. It just ensures that students are not disadvantaged when a course is replaced. The national register already has clear linkages between current and superseded or expired training package courses. This ensures that students will only be able to access loans for courses that supersede training package courses on the national register. We are working to make further changes to the national register to ensure the reaccreditation of accredited courses is also clearly indicated on the national register. These changes are expected to be made before the determination is updated to refer to the national register. The integrity of the VET Student Loans program will not be compromised. As I've discussed, targeting access to higher level VET qualifications that have industry need and strong employment outcomes is a key objective of the VET Student Loans program. I commend the bill. Debate adjourned. Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2018 3060

Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2018

First Reading 3060 Second Reading 3060 12:11 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill, the Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2018, and the Education and Other Legislation Amendment (VET Student Loans Debt Separation) Bill 2018, work together to separate VET student loan debts from other forms of Higher Education Loan Program debts. The two bills achieve this while maintaining and aligning the fundamental repayment features of the HELP program with the VET Student Loans program. This includes the requirement for debtors who reside overseas to make repayments against their debts. Vocational education and training is central to Australia's economic prosperity and employment outcomes for students. Income contingent loans in VET help achieve this prosperity by assisting students to access higher level VET qualifications. The government supports income contingent loans—without them, students would miss out if they could not afford to pay full tuition fees to undertake higher level VET qualifications. The VET Student Loans program provides capped income contingent loans to students undertaking these qualifications. The Education and Other Legislation Amendment (VET Student Loans Debt Separation) Bill 2018 provides for the ability to better measure the program's fiscal sustainability, in conjunction with this bill. There is currently limited capacity to measure the sustainability of the VET Student Loans program because a debtor's HELP repayments are not disaggregated by loan type. Irrespective of whether the debt applies to HECS-HELP, FEE-HELP, SA-HELP, OS-HELP, historical VET FEE-HELP or VET student loans assistance, loan repayments are made towards a single, aggregated HELP debt. This means the government cannot accurately determine what proportion of which form of HELP assistance paid by the government has been repaid by debtors. Similarly, where a HELP debt is not being repaid, it is not possible to identify the form of HELP assistance the debt relates to. The Education and Other Legislation Amendment (VET Student Loans Debt Separation) Bill 2018 separates VET Student Loans debts from other forms of HELP debts, providing greater transparency of repayment rates for VET students and better information to inform policy decisions and the public. That bill will ensure the repayment thresholds, repayment rates and indexation with respect to VET student loan debts will be the same as the repayment thresholds, repayment rates and indexation for HELP debts. Consistent with existing arrangements, the two bills together ensure that persons residing overseas who have a VET student loan debt make repayments in respect of those debts. This is not a substantive change from the existing circumstances. VET Student Loans debtors who reside overseas are already required to make repayments of those debts. This is by virtue of VET student loan debts being HELP debts. The two bills will support more timely, transparent and accurate reporting on the fiscal sustainability of the VET Student Loans program, and support greater public accountability of the program. I commend the bill. Debate adjourned. Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 3061

Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018

First Reading 3061 Second Reading 3061 12:15 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 is an omnibus bill that makes a number of amendments to the Migration Act, the Customs Act, and the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act. Schedule 1 of the bill will amend the Migration Act to ensure that, when an attempt is made to remove an unlawful noncitizen from our country, that noncitizen does not enter the destination country and is instead returned to Australia, the noncitizen can be returned to Australia without a visa. In addition, they will be treated as if they had never left Australia for the purposes of the visa application bars imposed by sections 48 and 48A of the Migration Act. Currently the Migration Act allows an unlawful noncitizen who has been removed from Australia to return without a visa, if the unlawful noncitizen was refused entry into the destination country. The Migration Act does not currently allow for the return without a visa of a noncitizen who we have attempted to remove from Australia in other circumstances where it may be necessary. For example, there is no facility to return a person to Australia without a visa, if a transit country refuses to allow the removed person to transit or if the United Nations Human Rights Committee makes an interim measures request that the removal not be completed. The amendments in schedule 1 to this bill will address this inconsistency. Similarly, the current law provides that, when a noncitizen is returned to Australia without a visa because they were refused entry to the destination country, the bars on making further applications imposed by sections 48 and 48A of the Migration Act will continue to apply as if they had never left Australia. The amendments will ensure that the same rule applies to a noncitizen who is returned to Australia without a visa in any circumstance covered by these amendments. Schedule 2 of the bill will amend the Migration Act to make it clear that the department can provide correspondence to a person by making it available through their online account. The bill represents another step in the government's Digital Transformation Agenda, by permitting the department to make greater use of its online facilities. Already, visa applicants can provide visa applications and additional information to the department by uploading that information into the person's online account in the department's online system. However, the current provisions in the act for giving documents to visa applicants and other persons do not clearly allow documents to be given through the department's online account system. This bill corrects that by adding this additional communication method to those already available to the department. Schedule 3 of the bill will insert a new power into the Customs Act to enable the department to refund duty or drawback of duty in circumstances where a person has been paid a refund or drawback they were not entitled to. This amendment is proposed in order to reduce the risk of breaching section 83 of the Commonwealth Constitution which may result from refunds and drawbacks of duty being made otherwise than in accordance with legislation. Schedule 4 of this bill amends the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act to introduce a new head of power that will allow the department to recover the merchant fees that it incurs where a person pays passenger movement charges with a credit card. Schedule 5 of the bill makes minor technical amendments to sections 58A and 208DA of the Customs Act to ensure these provisions operate as originally intended. I recommend the bill. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Bill 2018 3063

Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Bill 2018

First Reading 3063 Second Reading 3063 12:20 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Bill 2018 On 1 January 2011, the Australian Consumer Law commenced operation as Australia's first nationwide consumer protection law. Well-informed, confident consumers are a key element of a strong and efficient economy. The introduction of the Australian Consumer Law has been good for both consumers and business—consumers are more empowered, business compliance costs have reduced and there are fewer disputes. Indeed, the Australian Consumer Law has been an important microeconomic reform that has provided substantial benefit to all Australians. To ensure that the Australian Consumer Law continues to deliver, the Australian Consumer Law Review identified opportunities for reform and areas where the law can be clarified and strengthened. This bill amends the Australian Consumer Law, contained within the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and the consumer protection provisions of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, to implement a series of recommendations made in the final report of the Australian Consumer Law Review. Schedule 1 to this bill amends the Australian Consumer Law to ease evidentiary requirements for private litigants through expanded 'follow on' provisions, enabling litigants to rely on admitted facts from earlier proceedings. This will improve and enhance access to remedies and promote consistency with comparable 'follow on' provisions in the competition law. Schedule 2 to this bill amends the Australian Consumer Law to extend the Australian Consumer Law and ASIC Act's unconscionable conduct protections to publicly listed companies. The existing exclusion sought to confine the unconscionable conduct protections to those traders likely to lack the size and bargaining power to protect their own interests. Public listing was seen as a reasonable indicator of a trader's size and ability to protect its own interests. However, public listing is not necessarily a reflection of a trader's size, level of resourcing or its ability to withstand unconscionable conduct. Where there is a significant imbalance in bargaining power, a publicly listed company could find itself subjected to conduct that is unconscionable. The amendments improve both the clarity and generic application of the unconscionable conduct protections and ensure they apply equally to all traders and support the Australian Consumer Law's objective of fostering effective competition and fair trading. Schedule 3 to this bill amends the Australian Consumer Law to amend the definition of 'unsolicited services' to allow the protections of the false billing provisions to apply to false bills for services not provided. Current interpretations of the false billing provisions make it difficult to enforce against suppliers of unrequested and unsupplied services, even where the supplier has falsely represented that they have supplied services to the recipient. This amendment remedies this issue. Schedule 4 to this bill amends the Australian Consumer Law to ensure that the unsolicited selling provisions operate as intended by clarifying that the provisions can apply to public places. Schedule 5 to this bill amends the Australian Consumer Law to enhance price transparency in online shopping by requiring that any additional fees or charges associated with pre-selected options are included in the headline price. This amendment ensures that consumers are made aware from the start of the online payment process of the total possible amount they would pay if they do not opt out of pre-selected options. The amendment also reduces the potential for consumers to be misled. Schedule 6 to this bill amends the Australian Consumer Law to strengthen the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's powers to obtain information about product safety, by broadening the power to apply to third parties likely to have relevant information, rather than only the supplier. This amendment will help regulators to respond to product safety issues in a more timely manner and promote consistency between the ACCC's compulsory information gathering powers for product safety investigations and its existing powers for enforcing other Australian Consumer Law provisions. Schedule 7 to this bill amends the Australian Consumer Law and the ASIC Act to enable regulators to use their existing investigative powers to better assess whether or not a term of a standard form contract is unfair. Schedule 7 to this bill amends the Australian Consumer Law and the ASIC Act to enable regulators to use their existing investigative powers to better assess whether or not a term of a standard form contract is unfair. Currently, the ACCC and ASIC are restricted in their ability to investigate compliance and take enforcement action with respect to unfair contract terms. This is because their investigative powers are triggered by 'contraventions' or 'possible contraventions' of the law. However, as the use of unfair contract terms is not prohibited by the law, it is not possible to breach or contravene these provisions. These amendments extend the ACCC and ASIC's respective investigative powers to enable those regulators to undertake investigations to determine if a term in a contract may be unfair. Schedule 8 to this bill amends the Australian Consumer Law to allow third parties to give effect to a community service order where the trader in breach is not qualified or trusted to do so. The Australian Consumer Law allows regulators to apply to a court for community service orders as a remedy for breaches. These orders typically require a positive action by a trader to perform a service. However, there may be circumstances where the trader is not qualified or trusted to perform the specified service. For example, it would be inappropriate for a trader who has caused financial harm to low income or vulnerable consumers to provide financial counselling to those consumers. This amendment will allow regulators to seek community services orders as a remedy to a breach in more circumstances because they will no longer have to rely on the trader to carry out the order but instead can rely on a qualified third party. Schedule 9 to this bill amends the Australian Consumer Law to clarify the scope of an existing exemption from the consumer guarantees regime for the transport or storage of goods where those goods are damaged or lost in transit. This amendment means that individual consumers will no longer bear the full risk in circumstances where they have no control over who ships their goods to them. The amendment also ensures that consumers do not have to rely on traders to raise issues with the shipper, they are instead able to use their rights to seek a remedy directly from the shipper. Schedule 10 amends the ASIC Act to address inconsistent terminology in relation to the sale or grant of land. These amendments will make terminology more consistent throughout the ASIC Act. Schedule 11 amends the ASIC Act to clarify that all Australian Consumer Law related consumer protections that already apply to financial services also apply to financial products. The current provisions explicitly cover financial services and indirectly apply to conduct related to financial products. This is because financial services has a broad definition. However, the absence of an express reference to financial products creates uncertainty. This amendment provides clarity that a financial product is a financial service. These amendments, taken together, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Australia's consumer protection regime. They strengthen and clarify the law to ensure that consumers are well-informed, and will help consumers and traders to better understand their rights and obligations and improve outcomes across Australian markets. The Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations was consulted in relation to the amendments and has approved them as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details of the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Underwater Cultural Heritage Bill 2018 3066

Underwater Cultural Heritage Bill 2018

First Reading 3066 Second Reading 3066 12:28 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill will continue the policy framework of the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976, but broaden it to extend protection to all Australia's underwater cultural heritage. The Historic Shipwrecks Act is to be repealed. The bill clarifies present and future jurisdictional arrangements for protecting and managing aircraft and other underwater cultural heritage consistent with the 2010 Australian Underwater Cultural Heritage Intergovernmental Agreement. For the first time it gives distinct recognition to discovered human remains. It also recognises the important role of the public in underwater cultural heritage. It strengthens the regulatory framework for better day-to-day protection of sites and associated articles. Several key policy elements in the bill result from public feedback given during a review of the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 and Australia's consideration of ratification of the UNESCO 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. The bill is consistent with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and positions us to participate in the global community's response to threats to underwater cultural heritage. Participation would give Australia an international legal basis for protecting our underwater and shared underwater cultural heritage outside 24 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline but in the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone, such as the recently located USS Lexington, which was lost in the Battle of the Coral Sea in 1942. Subject to consultation with the relevant coastal state, this bill enables the protection of underwater cultural heritage significant to Australia that is located outside of Australian jurisdictional waters, such as HMAS AE1 in Papua New Guinea. It also regulates actions by Australians on these sites by permit. Other policy elements continuing from the 1976 act include the capacity to give effect to the 1972 Agreement between the Netherlands and Australia Concerning Old Dutch Shipwrecks, mandatory reporting of new discoveries, and retaining the delegated framework that has enabled effective collaborative administration with the states and the Northern Territory since 1983. All shipwrecks that have been under water for 75 years remain protected, and this level of protection will now be extended to sunken aircraft and their associated articles. Shipwrecks and aircraft that have been under water less than 75 years and other types of underwater cultural heritage can be protected through individual declarations based on an assessment of heritage significance. Consistent with recommendations from the 2015 review of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986, this bill enables the regulation of Australian and foreign persons in regard to importing and exporting protected underwater cultural heritage. In line with the government's commitment to minimising regulatory burden, this bill simplifies the sale or transfer of protected articles by introducing a transferable permit. The bill also aligns with government compliance policy, strengthening and broadening the range of investigation and enforcement powers, and includes a graduated approach to compliance and enforcement to better protect underwater cultural sites. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Underwater Cultural Heritage (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 3067

Underwater Cultural Heritage (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018

First Reading 3067 Second Reading 3067 12:33 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill supports the implementation of the Underwater Cultural Heritage Bill 2018. This bill ensures a smooth administrative transition from the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 in regard to such matters as automatically and individually declared sites and articles, notified relics, notices of possession, custody and control of articles, applications for and issuing of permits, and the continuation of the register. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 3067

Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

First Reading 3067 Second Reading 3067 12:34 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 includes four key changes relating to the superannuation arrangements for parliamentarians, judges and civilian employees of the Commonwealth. The first key change concerns a measure announced in the 2012-13 budget relating to a reduction in the tax concessions on superannuation contributions of very high income earners, which is known as the division 293 tax. In 2013, the legislation for several Commonwealth superannuation schemes was amended to allow a person to request that they be paid a lump sum amount from their scheme to meet their division 293 tax liability. This is done using a division 293 tax release authority. The Judges' Pensions Act 1968 was not amended as judges are exempt from the division 293 tax for constitutional reasons. However, there are a small number of nonjudges that have been granted the same status as judges for the purpose of membership of the Judges' Pensions Scheme. These non-judge members, and any future non-judge members, are subject to the division 293 tax. The bill therefore includes amendments to the Judges' Pensions Act 1968 that are similar to those made to the legislation for other Commonwealth superannuation schemes. The second key change included in the bill is to amend the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 to ensure that in all circumstances in the future the calculation of any lump sum superannuation guarantee safety net benefit payable to an estate is enough to ensure the superannuation guarantee requirements are met. The actuary for the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme has advised that, in certain limited circumstances, in the future, the current calculation method would not produce a benefit that would meet the statutory minimum superannuation guarantee requirements. Under the current provisions of the scheme, this could potentially occur in the future, where a scheme member dies who had retired after age 65; had very long service; who had converted a significant proportion of their pension into a lump sum; and has no spouse. The bill therefore includes amendments to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 to change the calculation method to ensure that any lump sum superannuation guarantee safety net benefit payable to an estate will meet the statutory minimum superannuation guarantee requirements. The amendments do not increase any parliamentary pension entitlements for any individual members. The third key change included in the bill concerns reversionary superannuation benefits payable to or in respect of children. The Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, the Judges' Pensions Act 1968, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, the Superannuation Act 1976 and the Superannuation Act 1922 provide for benefits to be payable to, or in respect of, a person who is the child of a deceased member of one of the schemes established by those acts. Generally, the requirement is that the child must prove that from the age of 16 and above, they remain in formal full-time education to be eligible for a reversionary benefit. In addition, in some schemes where the child is between age 16 and 25 the child must also not be ordinarily in employment. The amendments increase the minimum age that a child will have to meet the test of being in full-time education from age 16 to age 18 and remove the requirement for an eligible child to not be ordinarily in employment. This reflects that the majority of current children do not leave formal education until at least the age of 18 and that part-time and casual employment is common. These changes are consistent with those that have already been made to the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme. The fourth key change included in the bill is in relation to the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation board. Under the changes, the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation board will be reduced from 11 to nine directors. The bill also includes two minor amendments to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948. The first provides the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust with the flexibility to pass a resolution without a meeting. However, this flexibility is subject to the trust first determining in writing that it may make decisions without a meeting and setting out the way in which trustees are to indicate agreement with proposed decisions. The second allows an actuary other than only the Australian Government Actuary to provide advice in relation to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme. The bill also corrects a misdescribed amendment relating to the Judges' Pensions Act 1968. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Australian Astronomical Observatory (Transition) Bill 2018 3069

Australian Astronomical Observatory (Transition) Bill 2018

First Reading 3069 Second Reading 3069 12:40 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce the Australian Astronomical Observatory (Transition) Bill 2018, to support and give effect to the government's 2017-18 Budget measure 'Maintaining Australia's Optical Astronomy Capability'. The new measure ushers in change, growth and a bright new era for Australian optical astronomy. Astronomy and astrophysics are major scientific strengths for Australia. The spectacular discoveries and images created by our astronomers advance scientific understanding, stimulate interest by young people in scientific careers, and inspire all of us to think about our place in the universe. Astronomy also leads to technological innovations with important spin-off applications valued by society, such as digital cameras, satellite global positioning systems, medical image processing software and the CSIRO's development of wi-fi technology. The Anglo-Australian Telescope at Siding Spring Observatory, near Coonabarabran, has, since 1974, served generations of Australians and visiting overseas astronomers as one of the world's most productive observing facilities, in scientific output, publications and citations. In 2010, the Australian government assumed full ownership of the telescope and established the Australian Astronomical Observatory as our national optical astronomy organisation. The AAO, as it is known, continued to serve the astronomy community as a division of the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, providing our astronomers with excellent observing facilities and services. At its North Ryde headquarters in Sydney, AAO scientists and technical specialists continued to develop innovative instruments and technologies to keep the telescope at the forefront of discovery, and provide sought-after scientific capabilities to overseas telescopes. The 3.9 metre Anglo-Australian Telescope is no longer in the top tier of telescopes globally as it had been in its earlier decades. In the last two decades, larger, more powerful telescopes have been dominating overseas: the so-called 'eight-metre' class telescopes (a reference to their primary mirror diameters) and the even larger 'thirty-metre' class telescopes now under construction. These large telescopes and their high-performance instruments extend the boundaries of scientific discovery, seeing farther into the cosmos, detecting fainter objects, and resolving finer details. These are the telescopes of the future. Through its decadal planning process, the Australian astronomy community highlighted a pressing, unmet national need for a stable, long-term partnership in a multi-national optical observatory. Such a partnership would provide Australia's astronomers with access to the world's best suite of eight-metre class telescopes and, through this access, enable them to remain internationally engaged and relevant in addressing the most important scientific questions of the era. Recognising the transformation in the global astronomy sector and this pressing need to maintain our place in the discoveries of the future, the government is prioritising Australia's partnership in front-line multi-national astronomy infrastructure and working with the university sector to ensure that our domestic capability supports this. On 11 July 2017, the government entered into a 10-year Strategic Partnership with the European Southern Observatory. ESO, as it is known, operates the world's foremost collection of optical-infrared telescopes on high mountain summits in Chile's Atacama Desert. This includes the renowned quartet of eight-metre telescopes that comprise the Very Large Telescope, with their many advanced scientific instruments to analyse the light they collect from distant reaches of the cosmos. The Australia-ESO strategic partnership gives our astronomers long-term, stable access to ESO telescopes at La Silla and Paranal observatories in Chile. It will enable our institutions to collaborate in developing new instrumentation, and open the door to Australian companies to tender competitively for ESO contracts at La Silla and Paranal. The government recognises the ongoing value of the domestic astronomical facilities and the expert capability in the Australian Astronomical Observatory. Prior to the government's optical astronomy measure in 2017-18, funding for AAO operations was due to terminate by 30 June 2020. With strong, strategic backing from Australia's university sector, the government's optical astronomy measure is supporting the transfer of the AAO's critical domestic astronomical activities, assets and expert staff from the Commonwealth to a new university-led consortia. The Australian National University will lead a consortium to continue to operate the Anglo-Australian Telescope into the mid-2020s. By extending its operations by a further five years, we are extending the benefits of the telescope as an observing platform to astronomers, a testbed for new instrumentation innovations, and a community treasure for Coonabarabran. The government is working with Macquarie University to develop a national optical instrumentation capability that will continue and further develop the AAO's renowned instrumentation activities. This work will be supported by Astronomy Australia Ltd—a not-for-profit company that manages a range of research infrastructure programs for astronomy—through the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. The new consortium in Sydney will link with other Australian centres of expertise to design and build excellent optical instruments for observatories here and overseas. The capability will have an industry focus to address technical challenges, commercialise Australian innovations arising from astronomy, and potentially develop new applications beyond astronomy. The Australian Astronomical Observatory (Transition) Bill provides for a smooth domestic astronomy transition from the Commonwealth to the new consortia. It retains key astronomical functions of the Australian Astronomical Observatory Act 2010to provide a legislative basis for future government initiatives to continue to enable Australian astronomy engagement and excellence. The government's optical astronomy measure will strengthen Australia's research and industry opportunities in the coming decade, extend the legacy of the Australian Astronomical Observatory and its global reputation, and ensure Australia remains at the forefront of global optical astronomy research. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 1 and Other Measures) Bill 2018 3071

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 1 and Other Measures) Bill 2018

First Reading 3071 Second Reading 3071 12:48 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill delivers the first tranche of the Turnbull government's commitment to review and reform our intellectual property arrangements, ensuring that they provide an appropriate balance between access to ideas and products, and encouraging innovation, investment and the production of creative works. The bill proceeds following extensive consultation, giving stakeholders an opportunity to reflect on their experiences and ensure that costs, barriers and red tape are reduced for businesses seeking to bring great ideas to the market. This consultation has indicated that the measures in this bill have been welcomed by stakeholders, and will modernise and improve Australia's intellectual property system. The continuing success of the Australian economy will depend on our ability to innovate, lift our productivity, and compete in the global market place. The intellectual property system is an important element of the economy because it promotes and incentivises investment in creativity, innovation, research and technology. It rewards great new ideas and helps businesses to grow and expand, entering new markets and creating more Australian jobs. The government is committed to ensuring that Australia has a world-class, effective and efficient intellectual property system. To this end, in 2015 we asked the Productivity Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of the intellectual property system, including copyright, trademarks, patents, designs and plant breeder's rights. The government responded to the Productivity Commission's recommendations in August 2017 and we have acted quickly to implement a number of recommendations that did not require legislative changes already. Schedule 1 to this bill will implement the government's response to several of the Productivity Commission's recommendations that do require legislative changes, and which are ready for immediate implementation. Part 1 clarifies the circumstances in which the importation of genuine trademarked goods do not infringe a registered trademark. Recent legal decisions have increased the difficulty for importing legitimately marked goods into Australia. This bill will amend the Trade Marks Act 1995 to reduce uncertainty for importers, which will ultimately strengthen competition, benefiting the market and consumers. Part 2 closes a loophole that allows free riding to occur on protected plant varieties. This bill will amend the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 to expand the circumstances where an essentially derived variety (EDV) declaration can be applied for, providing greater protection for plant varieties. As EDV declarations can currently only be made where a second breeder has filed a plant breeder's right (PBR) application on the new variety, breeders can avoid an EDV declaration by not filing a PBR application. This bill will allow an EDV declaration to be made on a new variety regardless of whether a PBR application has been filed or not. Plant breeder's rights encourage breeders to invest in developing new, improved varieties and are a significant export industry. Part 3 changes the period that must elapse before third parties can seek the removal of a trademark registration on the basis that a trademark has not been used. This bill will amend the Trade Marks Act 1995, helping to reduce the number of unused registered trademarks. This aims to reduce barriers to competition while achieving greater alignment with international standards for this type of action. Part 4, the last in schedule 1, will repeal section 76A of the Patents Act 1990 to remove a requirement for owners of patents with an extended term to provide certain data about their research and development costs such as Commonwealth funding. This requirement has become unnecessary and duplicative, as this type of information is being collected more efficiently by the government from other sources, including through the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Schedule 2 to this bill will amend the Patents Act 1990, the Trade Marks Act 1995, the Designs Act 2003, the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994, the Copyright Act 1968, and the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987 to implement a number of measures to streamline and modernise aspects of the Australian intellectual property system, reducing barriers and regulatory costs for Australian businesses. Technological developments have and will continue to change the way government does business. This schedule seeks to futureproof the intellectual property system, updating written and filing requirements to allow greater flexibility and allow communication with clients and stakeholders through the most efficient and effective means. The schedule also allows the use of computerised decision-making to assist with the efficient administration of intellectual property rights, with appropriate safeguards. Schedule 2 will provide protection from unjustified threats of infringement in the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 and reinforce the protection in the Designs Act 2003, the Patents Act 1990 and the Trade Marks Act 1995 by allowing the courts to award additional damages. Such threats from owners of intellectual property rights can hinder competition. A number of provisions in this schedule will strengthen plant breeder's rights and better align them with other intellectual property rights. This bill will amend the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 to allow the award of additional damages for particularly wilful or blatant infringement, and allow exclusive licensees to take infringement actions. I am very pleased to introduce this bill, which builds on and enhances Australia's intellectual property system and further supports innovation, creativity and business growth in this country. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 3073 BUSINESS Rearrangement 3073 12:54 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That notice No. 29, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 3073 COMMITTEES Public Works Committee 3073 Reference 3073 12:55 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Facilities to support naval operations in the north. The Department of Defence proposes to construct a new wharf at HMAS Coonawarra in Darwin to support the Navy and the Australian Defence Force more broadly. Darwin is strategically vital for Australia's defence, being the only port capable of providing war facilities to support naval maritime activities conducted in the region. Competition for wharf space in Darwin has increased a lot over the years, and the new wharf will alleviate current constraints. The project will also include the construction of a new fuel facility that will store larger quantities of fuel for berthed vessels. This project aligns with the 2016 defence white paper's advice on the importance of key enabling capabilities of defence bases. The paper foreshadows the upgrading of HMAS Coonawarra to support the new offshore patrol vessels. This project will employ up to 240 skilled contractors and construction workers. The estimated project cost is $272.6 million, excluding GST; future personnel and operating costs are estimated at $4.1 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to start in October 2019 and be completed by mid-2023. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. Reference 3074 12:57 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Larrakeyah Barracks redevelopment project. The Department of Defence proposes to redevelop the Larrakeyah Defence Precinct in Darwin, Northern Territory, which encompasses HMAS Coonawarra and the Larrakeyah Barracks, to address shortcomings in engineering services, accommodation and infrastructure. Addressing the deficiencies in infrastructure will allow for future expansion and population growth in the area. The 2016 defence white paper identifies the importance of key enabling capabilities of defence bases and foreshadowed the upgrading of Larrakeyah Barracks and HMAS Coonawarra to support more offshore patrol vessels and enable ADF operations and exercises. This project also supports HMAS Coonawarra as a key maritime precinct and home port for 12 Armidale class patrol boats. The precinct provides support functions to ADF troops, and major fleet units for joint and combined operations as well as humanitarian and disaster relief. The estimated cost to deliver the project is $223 million, excluding GST. The cost includes upgrading North-West Mobile Force accommodation, a new shared user facility, upgrade to the base entry precinct, and improving electrical potable water and firefighting infrastructure, sewerage, and stormwater works, and ICT infrastructure. The project will employ a diverse range of skilled consultants, contractors and construction workers. Opportunities for upskilling and on-the-job training are anticipated. The project will employ about 290 personnel and an average construction workforce of 130 personnel. The Larrakeyah Barracks is home to 700 personnel, which comprise ADF personnel, contractors, public servants and United States Marine Corps. It also supports 147 Defence Housing Authority homes. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in September 2018 and be completed by June 2023. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. Reference 3074 13:00 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Stage two of the Garden Island (East), Critical Infrastructure Recovery Program, Sydney. The Department of Defence is proposing to undertake repairs, installation and replacement works to wharfs and base-wide engineering services at Garden Island in Sydney. Stage 1 of the project addressed the remediation of the cruiser wharf and oil wharf. Following consideration by the Public Works Committee, the parliament agreed that it was expedient to carry out the work on 14 June 2017. Stage 2 of the Garden Island infrastructure recovery program will address the condition, capacity and compliance issues with the remaining wharves, engineering services and supporting infrastructure to ensure they are fit for purpose and able to support the Royal Australian Navy's current and future operational requirements. The proposed work will include an upgrade of the electrical services and fuel network, and upgrade and repair selected portions of the hydraulic services. The work also extends to repair and upgrade the fleet-based east wharves and the east and west dock wharves. The 2016 defence white paper identified the important of key enabling capabilities of the Defence estate, including bases and wharves, and foreshadowed the upgrading of Garden Island to continue to support an expanded fleet and accommodate larger platforms, such as the Canberra-class amphibious ships. This capital investment in infrastructure at Garden Island will bring economic benefits to the local New South Wales economy, with short-term employment opportunities predominantly in the building, construction and labour markets. The works will also provide opportunities for suppliers involved in the manufacture and distribution of construction materials and equipment. The estimated cost to deliver the project is $286.5 million, excluding GST. This includes construction costs, escalation allowances, professional service fees, design, and construction and design contingencies. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is scheduled from late 2018 to late 2023. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. Approval of Work 3075 13:02 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Engine Test Cell 1 Upgrade, RAAF Base Amberley, Queensland. The Department of Defence is proposing to upgrade the engine maintenance and testing facility at the RAAF Base Amberley, Queensland, to maintain the fleet of classic Hornets, Super Hornets, Growlers and new F-35 aircraft. The 2016 defence white paperreinforces the importance of investing in vital enabling capability, including upgrading of testing facilities. The proposed work minimises the need for new infrastructure, as it will use the existing purpose-built facility with an upgrade and will provide the best value for money out of all the options considered. It is anticipated that throughout the project up to 120 personnel may be employed on-site at various stages and that a significant percentage of the tendered work packages will provide opportunities for local small- to medium-size enterprises. The Public Works Committee has conducted an inquiry and is of the view that the project is value for money for the Commonwealth and constitutes a project that is fit for purpose and expedient to carry out. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for once again undertaking a timely inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval, consultation is scheduled to commence mid-2018 and is expected to be completed by late 2019. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. Approval of Work 3076 13:04 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Joint Health Command Garrison Facilities Upgrade Project. As advised when this project was referred to the Public Works Committee on 7 December of last year, the Department of Defence is proposing to provide health facilities on Defence bases to meet its requirement of maintaining the health and wellbeing of Australian Defence Force personnel for operational preparedness. The 2016 defence white paper reinforced the importance of health care as a key military enabler. Defence proposes to upgrade existing Joint Health Command healthcare facilities at 13 locations around Australia. The Joint Health Command provides the Australian Defence Force with pre and post deployment and proactive health care for operational preparedness. Existing health facilities have several issues affecting Joint Health Command's ability to deliver effective healthcare services, including ageing buildings, non-compliance with building codes and infection risks due to outdated facilities. A key objective of this project is to deliver facilities to support consistent and efficient health care across Defence. The project proposes to refurbish five existing health centres and construct eight new health centres, where it is not possible to refurbish or upgrade existing facilities. The project will generate employment opportunities in the construction sector in regional areas, including sites across most mainland states and territories. The committee has conducted an inquiry and is of the view that the project is considered value for money for the Commonwealth and constitutes a project that is fit for purpose and expedient to carry out. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for, once again, undertaking a timely inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in mid-2018 and be completed by mid-2020. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. Approval of Work 3076 13:07 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Joint Project 157—Replacement aviation refuelling vehicles infrastructure project. As advised when this project was referred to the Public Works Committee on 7 December, the Department of Defence is proposing to undertake infrastructure works to support the upgrade of the existing aviation fuel tankers and elevating hydrant vehicle fleets. The proposed work is consistent with the fuel infrastructure upgrade policy set out in the 2016 defence white paper. This project will deliver new and upgraded facilities across 14 military air bases within Australia, and at the Royal Malaysian Air Force Base Butterworth. The new aviation refuelling fleet will require supporting facilities, including fuel-spill containment, fuel-treatment systems, vehicle shelters, and vehicle circulation and access roads. The extent of the infrastructure works by site varies as a result of the differing allocations of equipment and the availability of appropriate space within existing infrastructure. The works will also sustain and provide training to the required deployable Australian Defence Force workforce to operate Defence or allied aviation refuelling vehicles. The proposal will generate short-term employment opportunities and opportunities for suppliers, predominantly in the building, construction and labour markets, at 14 sites across Australia. The committee has conducted an inquiry and is of the view that the project is considered value for money for the Commonwealth and constitutes a project that is fit for purpose and expedient to carry out. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for, once again, undertaking a timely inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in mid-2018 and be completed by late 2019, and I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. Approval of Work 3077 13:09 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Maritime Operational Support Capability facilities project. The Department of Defence proposes to upgrade the facilities and infrastructure at HMAS Stirling in Rockingham, Western Australia, and the Garden Island defence precinct and Randwick Barracks in Sydney, New South Wales, to support the Maritime Operational Support Capability, MOSC, project. The Australian Defence Force will replace the ageing HMA ships Success and Sirius with a single class of auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels. The MOSC project will provide fit-for-purpose facilities and infrastructure to support the new vessels. The project will employ a diverse range of skilled consultants, contractors and construction workers and will include opportunities for upskilling and on-the-job training to improve employability prospects on future projects. The project will employ a construction workforce of about 65 personnel, with 50 at HMAS Stirling, and 15 at the Randwick Barracks. The committee has conducted an inquiry and is of the view that the project is considered value for money for the Commonwealth and constitutes a project that is fit for purpose and expedient to carry out. On behalf of the government, I would once again like to thank the committee for again undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 3078 MOTIONS Parliamentary Papers 3078 13:11 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks On behalf of the Leader of the House, I move: That unless otherwise ordered, and provided that they conform to the printing standards, the following documents shall be made Parliamentary Papers upon their presentation to the House of Representatives: (a) substantive reports of parliamentary committees; (b) annual reports of Commonwealth entities; (c) a report of a royal commission; (d) a report of the Productivity Commission; (e) a report of the Auditor-General; (f) a report of the Australian Human Rights Commission; (g) a report of the Australia Law Reform Commission; (h) a report of the Australian Electoral Commission on the redistribution of electoral division boundaries; (i) Australian Government white papers; (j) a report in a series that has previously been included in the Parliamentary Papers Series on the recommendation of a Publications Committee; and (k) budget papers and ministerial statements presented following the presentation of the appropriation bills. Question agreed to. BILLS 3078 BILLS Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2017 3078

Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2017

Report from Federation Chamber 3078 13:12 The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM The question is that the amendments made by the Federation Chamber be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 3084 13:12 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017 3084

Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017

Report from Federation Chamber 3084 Third Reading 3084 13:13 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 3084 COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport 3084 Report 3084 13:14 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney On behalf of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, on the inquiry into the use and marketing of electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 by leave—Approximately 2.4 million Australians smoke cigarettes daily, and it has been estimated that two out of every three smokers will die prematurely due to their smoking. Given these stark figures, reducing the number of Australians who smoke is one of the nation's most important public health objectives. This committee has spent close to a year examining whether e-cigarettes could assist in meeting that objective. The Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport has a long history of delivering consensus and bipartisan reports. On this occasion, that has not been possible and I find myself in the unusual position as chair of co-authoring a dissenting report. The committee has been presented with starkly conflicting views during this inquiry, and I respect those committee members who have formed different judgements to my own. I do, however, disagree with the conclusions reached by the majority of my colleagues. The majority on the committee made five recommendations, including two-yearly reviews of the evidence, an international gathering of experts, a national approach to non-nicotine e-cigarettes, including greater regulation of colours and flavourings, and a continuation of the Therapeutic Goods Administration's role in classifying nicotine. I present a dissenting report, along with my colleague the member for Goldstein. The member for Bowman has also submitted a dissenting report, which concurs with our conclusions. Australia has been a global leader in developing tobacco control policies. This approach has been very successful. Between 1991 and 2013, the proportion of Australians smoking daily dropped from 24 per cent to 12.8 per cent. If recent years, however, progress has stalled, with the daily smoking rate only dropping from 12.8 per cent to 12.2 per cent between 2013 and 2016. It is highly unlikely Australia will reach its 2018 target of reducing smoking to 10 per cent of the population. In these circumstances, a new approach is needed for those smokers who have been unable to quit smoking using the assistance currently available. We need another weapon in the arsenal. That's why our dissenting report recommends that e-cigarettes containing nicotine should be made legal. We know that nicotine is highly addictive. Quitting is hard and many smokers have unsuccessfully tried repeatedly. Based on the evidence presented to the committee, e-cigarettes may be an answer for many of these people. While the evidence base regarding e-cigarettes is still emerging, there are clear indications that e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful to human health than smoking tobacco cigarettes. If long-term smokers who have been unable to quit smoking tobacco cigarettes switched to e-cigarettes, thousands of lives could be saved. One medical researcher whom the committee met in New Zealand put the choice starkly. As she said, if a patient has earnestly tried existing ways of quitting but failed, then, knowing the consequences of that patient continuing to smoke, how could a medical practitioner morally and ethically not recommend they consider e-cigarettes? Despite the potential health gains, Australia's public health community has been resistant to the idea of making e-cigarettes legally available. This stands in contrast to many of their counterparts in the United Kingdom and New Zealand who gave evidence to the committee. Many members of our health community are concerned that legally available nicotine e-cigarettes may, by extension, make smoking attractive to young people. This is what is referred to as the 'gateway effect'. In those countries where nicotine e-cigarettes are legally available, however, there has not been an increase in youth smoking. In fact, smoking rates among young people continue to fall in jurisdictions where e-cigarettes are available. If e-cigarettes are made legal, we need the right regulatory environment, particularly one that recognises the need to prevent young people from taking up vaping. Restrictions should be imposed to limit the appeal of e-cigarettes to young people and nonsmokers. In this regard, the European Union and the United Kingdom provide excellent regulatory models. In conclusion, I would like to thank the organisations, agencies and individuals who participated in this inquiry, especially those individuals who shared their personal experiences using e-cigarettes. The committee also heard from witnesses from the United Kingdom and New Zealand, and I thank them for the insight they provided. Finally, I would like to thank my committee colleagues for the consideration of the evidence during what has been a difficult inquiry, and the committee staff for their work, which is always exceptionally professional. I commend the report and, obviously, the dissenting reports to the House. 13:19 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh by leave—I stand here in the very unusual circumstances of being the deputy chair and member of the opposition presenting the majority report of the electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers in Australia inquiry in use and marketing. As deputy chair of the committee I would have preferred, and my preference would have been, to have nicotine e-cigarettes evaluated by independent health experts and not politicians. I don't think we're in a position to make scientific judgements on what is harmful and what isn't. We know conclusive evidence, for many years, has shown us that nicotine and tobacco cause cancer and many other illnesses. I respect the views of the chair of the committee and I congratulate him on chairing the inquiry, always giving everyone the opportunity to talk and ensuring that all views were heard. Having said that, once the committee made that decision and was commissioned by the government to investigate e-cigarettes, it was useful to hear from people around the country and overseas about the negative impacts of smoking and e-cigarettes and their usage here in Australia and in other parts of the world. This includes, as you heard from the member for North Sydney, New Zealand and the UK, where we heard evidence from their health departments, from people involved in this particular industry and from people who had done research in this area. The terms of reference into this particular report were the use and marketing of e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers and how they may assist people quit smoking, and the health impacts of the use of e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers. This is the area where the majority members of the committee felt that the evidence of health impacts of the use of e-cigarettes and that they cause no harm was not actually there. We accept the fact that they may cause less harm. But that is not a reason to go all-out and ensure that they are sold and marketed, because the evidence is still out. We don't know what the long-term effects are. One of the recommendations in the report says that more research needs to be done and that the research needs to be looked at, perhaps, by members of this committee or other committees every so often to see where it's up to. One of the other terms of reference was the international approach to legislating and regulating the use of e-cigarettes. We looked at the different jurisdictions around the world, including the UK and New Zealand, and the appropriate regulatory framework for e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers in Australia. In New Zealand we met with the Minister for Health, the select parliamentary New Zealand health committee, the acting high commissioner in New Zealand, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, the technical experts advisory group on electronic cigarettes, and the New Zealand cancer society. As a reformed smoker myself, I'm extremely wary of experts placed in front of the committee that are sponsored by big tobacco, or of people who, perhaps, receive some form of payment for work done by big tobacco. So I was very dubious of some of the so-called experts that were giving evidence to our committee. My office also received some odd calls during the report process from so-called concerned smokers who certainly had very well-crafted talking points which seemed to be very similar and very well-rehearsed. The committee does normally work in a coordinated manner, and it did. But this is, I suppose, the first time in my memory—or in my experience here in this House—where the chair has a dissenting report and the deputy chair is presenting the majority report. What I'd really like to note is that one of the things that we on the committee were fairly united on was the TGA—that if, in the future, there is evidence that shows there is no health impact on people, it should go through the TGA. We know that there has already been an application and one that's already been rejected by the TGA, which was an application to allow nicotine use in e-cigarettes. That was in March 2017, I think. There are paragraphs in the report that refer to this. Committee members also noted that the National Health and Medical Research Council concluded in April 2017: … policy makers should act to minimise the harm of nicotine e-cigarettes until 'evidence of safety, quality and efficacy can be produced'. That submission to the committee was very hard evidence saying that unless we have more evidence, unless there is more research, we should refrain from changing anything. This report also gave big tobacco what I think was an absolutely appalling opportunity to influence tobacco policy in Australia. We in this country have prided ourselves on being constantly at the forefront of doing all that we can as governments and agencies to ensure that people have the right information and the tools and assistance to give up tobacco. That is happening at a very fast pace, as we heard the member for North Sydney say earlier. The fact that big tobacco companies were not able to influence, because the committee took very seriously the evidence that we received, but were able to have a voice—to have a platform—is something that we should be wary of. We should ensure that we don't allow them to have a voice, because we've seen the way that they have acted in the past. We've seen the way that they have treated the Australian public for many, many years. I think the committee said that it wanted to follow the advice of independent experts on nicotine and e-cigarettes. We saw that hard-core smokers in some places could come off nicotine tobacco products and go on to vaping and e-cigarettes. Even though it was less harmful, we still don't have the evidence to show that there is no health impact from e-cigarettes. Until we get that evidence, until science and experts can say that there is no impact on health, we should be very cautious in this area. I would like to thank the secretariat and my fellow colleagues—the chair, the member for North Sydney—but especially Stephanie Mikac, the secretary; Caitlin Cahill; Timothy Brennan, who accompanied us to New Zealand; Carissa Skinner; and all the other staff members, because I think they do a great, great job in supporting committees. We have seen it firsthand. Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, you were the deputy chair of the Health and Ageing Committee when I was the chair a few years back, and you have seen firsthand the great work that they do. I make the point that without those people supporting and assisting us we wouldn't be able to do these things. 13:28 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney I move: That the House take note of the report. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 3088 13:28 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Public Works Committee 3088 Membership 3088 13:28 The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating a member to be a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. 13:28 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks by leave—I move: That Mr Wallace be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. Question agreed to. BILLS 3088 BILLS Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017 3088

Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Second Reading 3088 13:29 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017 amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and other legislation to introduce a new regulatory framework to regulate gambling promotions on online content services. The bill will also establish a regulatory mechanism that can be used to apply the new gambling promotions restrictions to broadcasting services if necessary. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 3088 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Donations to Political Parties 3088 13:30 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I recently met with local GetUp! members regarding their very legitimate concerns about the Turnbull government's proposed actions about donation legislation affecting charities and advocacy groups. The proposal by the government seeks to deny legitimate organisations, such as GetUp!, the right to contribute to the political landscape. It's also clear that many charitable and not-for-profit organisations will be prevented from advocating for a fairer and just Australia if the government persists with this action in this form. It's an outcome that would ultimately be bad for democracy and it has the capacity to silence legitimate political debate in this country. In my electorate of Richmond there are over 11,000 registered GetUp! members joining hundreds of thousands more across Australia. These people seek to engage Australians in the democratic process by giving them a voice on important issues. Members of these groups also want to show their support by making legitimate donations to these organisations, and the government's legislation would impose exacting compliance regimes on those organisations and the charity sector, making it difficult for people to provide the financial support needed to engage in the political debate. Labor's committed to reforming the political donation system to ensure our democracy is protected from improper influence from overseas. We're proud of continuously fighting for improved transparency and much greater accountability in Australia's political donation system. However, we are concerned the government has overreached with the legislation as it is in its current form. We want to find a sensible way to ban foreign donations without selling out charitable organisations that do incredibly important work right throughout our community. I'd like to conclude by thanking those GetUp! members in my electorate for taking the time to meet with me and sharing their concerns. I encourage them to keep up the great work they do— (Time expired) Pollard, Mr Sean 3089 13:31 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I want to acknowledge the courage and resilience of the inspirational young South West athlete Sean Pollard. As a young West Aussie man Sean loved football and surfing. He didn't think twice when he went on a trip to Esperance with his girlfriend, Claire Oakford, in October 2014. On the morning of the Thursday, 2 October he went surfing at Kelpids Beach; however, his life changed forever. He was attacked by not just one but two great white sharks. Tragically, he lost his left arm and right hand. Remarkably, he swam 150 metres back to shore, and four people came to his rescue. He got to hospital within an hour of the attack. He was flown by the amazing Royal Flying Doctor Service to a Perth hospital. He had seven blood transfusions, totalling three litres of blood. He had over 150 stitches. On a trip to Canada in 2015 Sean had a go at snowboarding for the first time. He took to it like a duck to water, and was approached by the Canadian para-snowboarding team coach. It was the start of a new chapter for Sean. He got involved in the sport when he returned to Australia and competed recently in the Paralympics in Pyeongchang earlier this month, where he finished fifth in his event. What a fantastic achievement and a great effort, seeing that he'd first seen snow only 30 months prior to that. What a wonderful testament to the courage and resilience of Sean Pollard. Employment 3089 13:33 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell Almost one in five young people on the Central Coast of New South Wales is currently looking for work. The coast has the eighth-highest youth unemployment rate in Australia, at 18.6 per cent, and joblessness is growing. Australia-wide, if you are under 24 you are three times less likely to have a job than if you are over 24. It's shocking and it's unfair. As this week's Brotherhood of St Laurence report highlighted, the prospects of young people are not improving. What is the government doing about it? It is slashing school funding, increasing student debt and promising tax cuts to the big end of town. Alarmingly, the jobless figures come hot on the heels of the youth homelessness figures in my community, which also show that on the Central Coast we are badly affected. Wyong and Gosford have a rate of homelessness that is twice the average rate in New South Wales, and many of those without a home are young people who are couch surfing and living rough. Homelessness and joblessness go hand in hand. We have dedicated services on the coast, such as the Salvation Army's Oasis Centre Wyong and Coast Shelter, working hard to help young people find homes and find jobs, but more must be done—this matters! I'm pleased that Labor's shadow minister for the future of work, the member for Chifley, will join me for a roundtable next week to talk about jobs for young people on the coast. This must be our priority. It is really important. We can do something about it. Schools 3090 13:34 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I rise in the House to add my voice to the many voices advocating for our school chaplaincies and the National School Chaplaincy Program. The chaplains make a real difference in our school communities, and, with the support of the Scripture Union chaplaincy, our chappies bring their listening ears and their caring hearts to provide social, emotional and spiritual support to our young people, their families and school staff. The school chappies enrich the social fabric of their schools with breakfast clubs and food programs, lunchtime activities and one-on-one support. In 2014, the coalition government committed $243.8 million over four years to fund the program until the end of 2018. Since then, more than 3,000 schools have been able to engage the services of a chaplain as a result. I am fighting to ensure that the funding extends beyond this year, and I'm asking for the help of my electorate of Wright and all Australians who know firsthand what a great job our chappies do. I've created an online petition and I encourage supporters to add their name so I can let the federal Treasurer and the education minister know how much our communities value the chaplaincy work. The local school chappies are great supporters of our schools, students, staff and parents, and now it's time for the community to show their support in return. Head to my website and sign my petition, and let's keep our school chappies. Coeliac Awareness Week 3090 13:36 Mr HART 263070 Bass I rise today to acknowledge Coeliac Awareness Week, which ran earlier this month from 13 to 20 March. This is an annual event that aims to educate people about the importance of getting tested early for signs of this autoimmune disease and the symptoms to watch out for. The symptoms of coeliac disease are extremely varied and include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, iron deficiency, brain fog, irritability and fatigue—all things that are often ignored or attributed to something else. This is one of the reasons that coeliac disease is one of Australia's most common underdiagnosed conditions—around one in 70 Australians are estimated to be affected. However, 80 per cent of this number remain undiagnosed. For those who have been diagnosed, a strict gluten-free diet is the only way to manage the condition. The abnormal response caused by gluten can be responsible for the onset of several associated conditions, such as diabetes, anaemia, gastrointestinal cancers, osteoporosis, infertility, multiple sclerosis and others. Adjusting to a gluten-free lifestyle can be a challenge for a person with coeliac disease. It is not just a matter of giving up your usual two slices of toast for breakfast; rather, it is being constantly vigilant about every potential source of gluten or cross-contamination in every single thing that you ingest. Even one crumb from a slice of bread is enough to cause long-term intestinal damage. I commend the work of Coeliac Australia in providing support and advocacy to people with this horrendous disease. (Time expired) Fatality Free Friday, Wide Bay Electorate: Bruce Highway Upgrade 3091 13:37 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay Today, members and senators are signing a pledge committing to safe driving as part of Fatality Free Friday, which is on Friday, 25 May. I thank the event organisers, the Australian Road Safety Foundation, as well as the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety group, Alex Gallacher, for putting together this year's pledge signing at Parliament House. Also today, Shelly Strahan, the editor of The Gympie Times, is releasing a petition urging this place to support the fast-tracking of the Bruce Highway Upgrade—Cooroy to Curra, section D. For too many years, too many families in Wide Bay have been struck by the devastating impacts of accidents causing death and serious injury along the Bruce Highway between Cooroy and Curra. If you have lived in Gympie for any length of time, you'll know a family who has felt the devastation of serious injury or death caused by an accident on the Bruce Highway. Section D is a game changer for Wide Bay and Queensland. It eases congestion through Gympie, improves access to the Cooloola Coast and enables faster travel between Cooroy and Maryborough. Above all, it eliminates one of the deadliest sections of the Bruce Highway. Show your support for section D and sign Shelly's petition on my website or on the parliamentary website. Lindsay Electorate: The Haven-Nepean Women's Shelter 3091 13:39 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay I always get up in this place and talk about how amazing the people are in the electorate that I get to represent. I am no prouder this week than I am on any other week, but in two weeks time The Haven-Nepean Women's Shelter, which I launched last year at the International Women's Day event that I held, will open. It will open for many women and children in my electorate who are victims of family and domestic violence. We put the shelter board together, and, in 12 months, the community that I get to represent provided donations, money and trades and services—they provided a home for this refuge. The refuge will fit up to six women and their children, which is much needed given that the statistics in my electorate are inordinately high and I have one of the highest rates of DV in metropolitan New South Wales. I am incredibly proud of all of the work of everybody that's gone into this shelter. In particular, I would like to pay special tribute to the board members, Sharon Levy, Natalie Falvey, Cristina Romeo, Annabelle Daniel, Rebecca Jarrett-Dalton, Rachael Browne, Trisha Hitchens, Karen Keogh, Samantha Anderson, Adrian Dowd, Neena Black and Mike Gale, who have all put in enormous amounts of hours over the last year to ensure that this shelter comes online and is available. It is not acceptable that we have 95 women and 108 children turned away from our women's shelter in the month of February, and this shelter coming online in my community in two weeks will make a huge difference. Dunkley Electorate: Frankston Parkinson's Peer Support Group 3092 13:40 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley Last week, I was invited to speak to our local Parkinson's peer support group, who meet monthly in Karingal Place, about my vision for Frankston and how our future projects will draw investment in health, education, infrastructure and employment in both the city of Frankston and the Mornington Peninsula, as well as helping people living with Parkinson's. What I had not expected to gain, though, was such a blunt and jarring insight into the experience of someone with Parkinson's disease. Before my turn to speak came Karen Beggs, who runs the Frankston Parkinson's peer support group. I was truly touched by her story, as she detailed how her Parkinson's had developed, month by month, over many years, and how it had affected her life and the life of her husband and her family. This reality includes a dozen different medications—including some to lessen the side-effects of others—occupational therapy, and working to maintain what most of us would consider to be as normal a life as possible. As members of parliament, we frequently go out to speak to groups, but these opportunities to learn from our constituents and hear about their experiences are worth much more. I'm grateful to Karen and the Frankston Parkinson's peer support group for inviting me and will work further to assist them into the future. Miller, Mrs Fay, Miller, Mr Jack 3092 13:41 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Many significant milestones have been acknowledged in this place. I would like to add one more, and congratulate Fay and Jack Miller of Victor Harbor, in my community, on their upcoming 70th wedding anniversary on 3 April, which is next week. My office has sent set out congratulatory letters for many 50th anniversaries, and even a few 60ths, but this is the first 70th anniversary to come across my desk. So, when I was in Victor Harbor last week, I dropped around and visited Jack and Fay to offer my congratulations in person. It was wonderful to see a couple so in love, and you could be forgiven for thinking they were honeymooners. I asked them what the secret was to a happy marriage and it was no surprise to learn that the secret was communication. Jack was one of eight children, and he told me he could never remember his parents having an argument. When he got married his father took him aside and told him that if he wanted a happy life, not to argue. He urged the couple to talk things out: never to go to bed if they had a difference but to sit down and talk it out, even in the wee small hours. Jack and Fay took his advice and they have never had an argument. They've had their differences but they've talked it out. I think this is good advice for all of us, and I again congratulate Jack and Fay on 70 wonderful years of marriage, and for the wonderful family, of many generations, that they have created together. Congratulations, Jack and Fay Miller. Murray Electorate: Pozieres Remembrance Association 3092 13:43 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray Pozieres is a small village in the Somme valley in France, and it was the scene of bitter and costly fighting for the 1st, 2nd and 4th Australian divisions in mid-1916, during World War I. The village was captured initially by the 1st Division on 23 July; by the time it was relieved on 27 July it had suffered 5,285 casualties. The 2nd Division took over from the 1st and mounted two further attacks, the first on July 29, and again the Australians suffered heavily from the retaliatory bombardments. They were relieved on 6 August and suffered 6,848 casualties. Then the 4th Division took over, and it too endured massive artillery bombardment and defeated a German counterattack on 7 August. This was the last attempt by the Germans to retake Pozieres. What was initially put forward as a diversion battle ended up lasting 42 days. Some 6,800 Australian men were killed or died of their wounds. This was Australia's greatest loss in any of our First World War battles. While the memorial park is getting built in Pozieres, Barry and Yvonne Gracie are requesting that every Australian donate a $50 brick. They are asking all parliamentarians to get on board this fantastic initiative and support the Pozieres Remembrance Association. (Time expired) Canberra Electorate: Manuka Pool Memorial Plaque 3093 13:45 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra In their haste to cool down or to do laps, many Canberrans would miss a very inconspicuous but very special bronze plaque that hangs in the foyer of the Manuka swimming pool. It's a plaque that was unveiled in 1947 and lists the names of nine members of the Canberra Amateur Swimming Club who made the ultimate sacrifice in the Second World War: Frank Browning, Mick Clemens, Bill Dullard, Wally Hall, Ian Ingram, Lindsay Knowles, Eric Peterson, Ian Ray and Harold Thorpe. These young men were high school graduates and university students. They were sons, they were brothers and they were boyfriends—they were much loved. Lindsay's brother, 95-year-old Merv Knowles, is with us here today. Thank you so much for joining us, Merv, with your wife, Beth. In Merv's words, 'They went to the Middle East with 3 Squadron and didn't come back.' Merv is joined by Martin Shafron, nephew of Bill, and Rebecca Scoulla and Kasey Tomkins from the Friends of Manuka Pool. After 71 years of the plaque on the wall, the Friends of Manuka Pool received a grant from DVA to restore the memory of these nine young men and the refurbished plaque was unveiled on the Canberra Day weekend. Thank you to the Friends for preserving, protecting and rededicating the roll honouring the service and spirit of these young men lost to a young Canberra. We will remember them. Lest we forget. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I acknowledge our visitors in the gallery. Rigby, Mr Flynn 3093 13:46 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I rise today to pay tribute to a brave young lad living in my electorate. Flynn Rigby and his twin brother, Jack, arrived in this world 16-weeks premature. Flynn weighed 720 grams and Jack was only 630 grams. Sadly, Jack didn't make it. He passed away after only 10 days. But Flynn survived, and went home after 112 gruelling days in hospital. Due to his extremely premature birth and a significant brain injury sustained from it, Flynn faced very long-term challenges. MRI results showed lesions to the cerebellum and areas of the brain that did not fully develop due to his early arrival, leaving Flynn with a mild cerebral palsy, developmental delays, motor skills difficulties, sensory dysfunction issues and intellectual impairment. At the age of three, Flynn was given a primary diagnosis of autism and, at the age of nine, Flynn still remained non-verbal. His parents' greatest wish was to hear him speak. In 2011 and 2014, Flynn received stem cell treatment in China and Thailand which produced amazing results. Flynn spoke his first words ever on New Year's Day 2012 and has been progressing ever since. Flynn is now 15 and in high school. He'll be travelling to Thailand again for another round of stem cell treatment this year, and I wanted to take this opportunity to wish Flynn and his family all the very best and all the success in this next treatment. (Time expired) Solomon Electorate: Air Travel 3094 13:48 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Up in the Top End, in Darwin, we've launched the #fairfaresnt campaign. As those in the gallery might know if they've been up to Darwin, it's not the cheapest place to fly to. We're appealing to the airlines, to the airport and to all the stakeholders involved to think about their social corporate responsibility in not gouging us and giving us a fair go at fairfaresnt.com. Having said that, it's almost the dry season, the water is beautiful and the barra are going to be running strong so come up, but just book a little bit in advance! I quote some feedback from one of Darwin's biggest business people, Grahame Webb, who said, 'We have the potential to be a gateway, but the lack of direct air connections between Darwin and Asia is a major constraint on development. We have no hope of getting tourists from South-East Asia and Japan to Darwin if it takes them 18 hours to get here.' What he means is that if they need to go via the south to get up to Darwin it's going to be a lot harder for us to build our tourism industry. I take the federal government at their word that they actually do want to develop the north. The fact that they're not going to sign up to a City Deal until next year says that perhaps that it's a bit of rhetoric and they're not really fair dinkum about it. But I appeal to them: if we are going to develop the north and if we are going to invest in our northern capital then we need to see some action from those opposite. Pizzey-Stratford, Mr Oliver 3094 13:49 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Imagine sustaining a spinal injury at birth and still dreaming to compete in the Paralympics for the great nation of Australia. That's the dream of one amazing 15-year-old Goldstein resident, Oliver Pizzey-Stratford. The initial outlook for Oli was grim. His family was told to expect the worst—that if he lived he'd need assistance to breathe and swallow—but that didn't stop Oli. He has endured extensive, invasive and draining treatments and continues with regular therapy today. Thankfully, he now spends less time at the Royal Children's Hospital and more time at home and school. He is not allowing setbacks to be his disability. In Oli's own words: I have always dreamed of representing Australia at the Paralympic Games … this year I agreed to have major spinal surgery … I am looking forward to working on my fitness and getting back on the court and track … to represent Australia in athletics, 100 and 200 metres sprints and/or tennis and if things get really desperate I'm prepared to play table tennis. Let's help make Oli's dream come true for Tokyo in 2020 and France in 2024. If you can help Oli, visit his mycause page and help him realise his dream. Higgison, Ms Debbie 3094 13:51 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Mount Druitt has got a stack of community champions and one of their greats is Debbie Higgison. Debbie's an inspiration with so much passion and dedication for an area that she loves so much. Over 20 years she's devoted herself to improving lives in the Mount Druitt area, particularly focusing on helping young people. She's been a vital member of the team at the Mt Druitt Learning Ground for the past 12 years, and that place offers programs for at-risk kids and their families, helping get the kids back into school and engaged in education. In 2012 the team learnt the terrible news that their funding would be cut, and you could see right then that Debbie was not going to give up on her community. She fought hard to hold the centre together and to work to get funding back. I was pleased to work with them to secure $100,000 of federal government funding to help the service continue. I want to thank the member for Franklin for her assistance in making that a possibility. Debbie has also helped out with the annual reconciliation walk, which is going to see its 21st walk this year on 19 May. She won the 2014 Chifley woman of the year award and was named the 2017 New South Wales female community hero. A couple of weeks ago she announced she will be moving on from Learning Ground. We were sad to learn of the news but we were happy to know she will continue to work as a big part of the 2770 community helping out. All the best to Debbie. Thank you for your contributions. You're an absolute legend! Special Olympics Australia 3095 13:52 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar A few weeks ago I had the great privilege to play cricket and present awards to athletes taking part in the Special Olympics festival of sport, held at the Narrabeen Lakeside Holiday Park in my electorate. Over 100 participants from all over New South Wales and the ACT stayed at the park for the weekend. Athletes were nurtured and encouraged to become part of the team by participating in a variety of fun games with an emphasis on involvement and achievement. I would like to thank Cameron Brownjohn, chairman of the Special Olympics Australia and my cricket partner, for his work with Special Olympics all over the country. I'd also like to pay special thanks to the chair of the Special Olympics Northern Beaches, Rex Langthorne AM; vice chair, Dave Walton; sports coordinator, Lorraine Clark; and secretary, Kim Savage, along with Andrea Werner and Cathy Vineberg, for their tireless work in organising such a great weekend. The work you do on the Northern Beaches to support people with disability is an example to all. Finally, I want to thank all the volunteers from NRMA, who gave up their weekends. Without you this weekend would not have been possible. Thanks also for support from Hireup, which is a fantastic digital platform that is changing the way we interact and support people with disability. Turnbull Government 3095 13:54 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam For the 29th time since the resurrection of the Liberal saviour we see the sad procession of government MPs dragging themselves into question time, saying, 'We'll all be ruined.' They are as happy as a house full of Hanrahans. They don't need to wait for another opinion poll to tell them what the people of Australia have already worked out: they've run out of gas. They have got no ideas and no agenda, just a Prime Minister who waffles on and on and on and shows absolutely no judgement at all. Take yesterday for example. Just hours after it was revealed that four out of five Business Council of Australia members would not pass on the $65 billion worth of handouts from this Prime Minister to workers in a pay rise or new jobs, the Prime Minister thought it would be a good idea to walk over there to the Great Hall and help the union for big business launch their 'big business is really nice' campaign. This is the campaign that is trying to convince Australians that $65 billion is better spent on handouts to big business than on hospitals for sick kids or schools or universities. Yesterday, the member for Warringah said that leaders are often better the second time around. Well, not this Prime Minister—he's the same guy. Brisbane Metro 3096 13:55 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane Yesterday, Infrastructure Australia announced that the Brisbane Metro has been added to its high-priority list. The Brisbane Metro is the next piece of our city's transport jigsaw, and it helps solve the most critical bottlenecks that exist in our public transport network—the river crossing and passenger movements into the CBD. At 21 kilometres long, with one end at the RBWH at Herston in my electorate, the Brisbane Metro will get hundreds of buses out of the CBD and back into the suburbs. The suburbs, in turn, can get additional and more frequent services from the existing fleet. By getting the buses out of the congested CBD and off the river crossings, travel times can be slashed for commuters as well as other road users. For passengers, we're talking about a 30 per cent faster commute in the morning peak traffic, and as much as 50 per cent faster in the afternoon peak. That could amount to over an hour of travel time saved each week—time that I'm sure everyone would rather spend with their families. Well done to the Brisbane City Council for their hard work on what is a compelling business case. The collaboration between different levels of government has been incredibly encouraging and productive, and I will certainly do my part and keep working hard to progress this project quickly. The Brisbane Metro is a great project for the great city, and I want Brisbane to remain the very best place in Australia to live, work, raise a family and do business. (Time expired) Gold Coast Commonwealth Games 3096 13:57 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong This is the last parliamentary sitting day before the 21st Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast. I want to take this opportunity to wish all 70 visiting teams and their supporters from around the world an enjoyable stay in a wonderful part of Australia. I want to wish the 473 members of the Australian squad every success, whether it's on the track, in the pool, on the beach, at the velodrome or, of course, on the netball court. The member for Lalor, who would wear the Diamonds scarf in here every day if she could, told me a great statistic about this year's games: this is the 21st Commonwealth Games, but it is the first Commonwealth Games where half the medals up for grabs can be won by women athletes. It is great news that the Gold Coast Games will include the largest para-sport program in Commonwealth history. As ever, the smooth running of this event will depend on thousands of cheerful volunteers, and I want to thank them in advance, because they are wonderful ambassadors for our nation. Australian sport needs a good story at the moment. I know that from the moment Sally Pearson and Kurt Fearnley carry the Australian flag into the stadium to start the games, our whole country will be inspired and uplifted. Good luck and go Aussies. Rural and Regional Health Services 3097 13:58 Mr GEE 261393 Calare There is a chronic shortage of doctors in the bush, and people of country Australia are tired of it. They're tired of having to wait weeks or months just to see a GP. They're tired of not being able to replace doctors when they leave town or retire. They question why it is we're so reliant on foreign doctors and why we can't be training more of our own to work in the bush. They're tired of the patronising city lobbyists who keep telling them that it will be okay if they just wait a little longer as each new strategy is rolled out. Country people are tired of waiting. It's been decades of waiting and a king's ransom in taxpayer funding. The problem is still there, and country people know it. Only about eight per cent of medical students trained by the big city universities go on to practice medicine in the country. Charles Sturt University has a plan to do something about this by starting a country medical school that will train doctors in the bush for practice in the bush. Eighty per cent of its places will be quarantined for country students. Charles Sturt University knows how to train a country workforce. It has repeatedly shown that students who train in the country are far more likely to live and work in the bush after they graduate. For example, 70 per cent of inland accountants in New South Wales are Charles Sturt University graduates. Country people are tired of the inequality between the city and the bush. It's time for action. The time for the Murray-Darling medical school has come. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG It being 2 pm, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 3097 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Taxation 3097 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Now that a majority of senators have rejected the Prime Minister's company tax plan, will the Prime Minister advise Australians—right here, right now—whether he will take his $65 billion tax giveaway to big business to the next election? 14:01 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth As usual, the Leader of the Opposition is kicking off question time with a misleading statement. The Senate has not voted on the enterprise tax bill. That's a minor detail of fact that the opposition doesn't seem to be able to come to grips with. But the reality is very, very straightforward. The Leader of the Opposition said in 2012 that 'any student of Australian business and economic history since the mid-1980s knows part of Australia's success was derived through the reduction in the company tax rate'. And, indeed, the member for Fenner—that economic wizard over there on the frontbench—said some years ago, in 2011: We recognise that, in a world of mobile capital— capital is even fleeter of foot than the marathon runner opposite— if we have high company tax rates our companies will not get the investment that they need to grow employment and boost wages. And, of course, it was the Leader of the Opposition himself, in that much celebrated statement, which I'm sure he wishes he hadn't said, who said back here, right where I'm standing, in 2011: Cutting the company income tax rate increases … productivity and … investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages. It's pretty straightforward. It was recognised by the honourable members opposite. I should not omit the honourable member for McMahon, who was so persuaded that he wrote a book about it. Copies are available in good bookshops wherever remaindering occurs. Don't worry; you can get a copy. They all knew that, they all recognised that, and now they're in economic denial. They want to pretend that companies' decisions to invest and employ have got nothing to do with the rate of taxation. Well, Australians are not so naive that they will be deluded by the Leader of the Opposition with his anti-business, anti-investment, anti-jobs campaign. He wants to hold back Australian business from making the investments, raising the productivity and creating more jobs. And that is why we are committed to giving Australian companies and businesses a competitive company tax rate. They need that to compete, in order to create the jobs in Australia, to create the opportunities and, I might add, to generate the taxation revenues to pay for all the necessities that Australians need. An incident having occurred in the gallery— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Capricornia has the call. Her microphone is on. Employment 3098 14:04 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the important policies that back business so they can create more jobs for Australians and pay Australian workers higher wages, including in my electorate of Capricornia? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:04 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. An incident having occurred in the gallery— Mr TURNBULL 885 I'm comforted that my microphone is the only one that's on at the moment! The economy is powering because Australian businesses are creating a record number of jobs—420,000 of them in the last 12 months. And if you want even more jobs, and that's our goal—it should be the goal of all the honourable members—business needs policies that support investment. More investment means more jobs for Australians. And that's why our economic policies are backing businesses to invest more here in Australia. The alternative is doing nothing or, in the case of the opposition, raising taxes and sending Australian jobs and investment offshore. As the member for Fenner said some years ago, 'Capital is very mobile and it will go where it gets the best return.' Why would we put lead in the saddlebags of Australian businesses in a competitive global environment where they want to get ahead, they want to invest and they want to employ? We need to make sure they have the energy to get ahead, the incentive to get ahead, while Labor, of course, wants to hold them back. If the tax rate for businesses with a turnover of over $50 million remains at 30 per cent, we will be holding those businesses back, holding them back from creating more jobs and higher wages. The Leader of the Opposition doesn't simply oppose lower taxes for all businesses; he wants to increase them. He wants to slug Australian workers, families and small business with more than $200 billion in higher taxes. That's the equivalent of $8,000 for every single Australian, $40,000 for a family of five. That's what the opposition leader wants to put on the backs of Australian businesses and families. And the only result that will have is the destruction of jobs. The reason he's doing that? He can't stop taxing, because he can't stop spending. He wants to reach into the pockets of Australian workers and pay for his spending addiction. He can't be trusted on any of these matters. He said his retiree tax only targeted millionaires. False! He then conceded. After repeated denials that his tax would take money from pensioners and trustees, now he's admitted that it will. He admitted it today. Yesterday pensioners were let off, he said. Now he recognises, acknowledges, that he's still hitting pensioners. And what about self-funded retirees? His pensioner guarantee was no more than a limited and 24-hour exemption. Australians can't trust a word the Leader of the Opposition says on their money. Taxation 3099 14:07 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to my previous question and the Prime Minister's public failure in question time to commit to taking his $65 billion corporate tax cut to the next election. We welcome an election on this issue. So I ask the Prime Minister again: will the Prime Minister commit to taking his corporate tax giveaway to the next election—yes or no? 14:08 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Our commitment is to get the tax enterprise plan passed in this parliament. And I can assure the honourable member that we are committed to it. We will be committed to it today and we'll be committed to it at the next election, and we welcome a contest with the Leader of the Opposition on tax. We welcome it. We welcome a contest on jobs, because that's what it's about. It's about creating jobs. It's about creating the incentives for jobs. We know that every statement the Leader of the Opposition has made about company tax will be used against him, and Australians will see what a turncoat he is! This is a man who stood up here and went on about company tax and creating more jobs. His partner there, the member for Lilley, stood up and said it would add hundreds of millions of dollars to government revenues, a big productivity dividend. He said it would put $450 extra into the pockets of Australian workers. That was only a one per cent cut in company tax. That's what the member for Lilley said. He said it standing here, just as the Leader of the Opposition said it standing here, just as Julia Gillard did and just as Paul Keating did. There was a time when the Labor Party recognised that lower business taxes result in more business. There was a time when they recognised that having an uncompetitively high company tax rate holds back Australian businesses. The member for Fenner made exactly that point. The member for McMahon wrote a book about it. And now they are all in denial. It is like some sort of Soviet-era blanking-out of the past. That's what they want to do. They want to pretend none of those statements were made. Well, they were. Australians remember them and they understand that. They understand not only the economics and they understand not only the need to give a business the opportunity to invest and employ: they understand that it means the Leader of the Opposition cannot be trusted. He has said one thing in government and now he says the exact opposite in opposition. He said lower company taxes encourage investment and higher wages in government, and now he says it's just a giveaway and we'll reduce the money available for hospitals and schools. What nonsense! Higher productivity, higher investment and more wages increases government revenues, just as the member for Lilley said in his budget paper in 2010. He did. He can't deny it. We've got it. We remember it all so well. Dividend Imputation 3100 14:11 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer explain why it is important for retirees to have access to tax refunds generated from the dividends they receive from the companies they have invested their savings in for their retirement? What are the risks of alternative approaches? 14:11 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Corangamite for her question. To respond, I think the best way is to give her an example of a constituent, Campbell, in her own electorate. Campbell's mother is 91. She lives in Corangamite. She owns shares. It's not a crime to own shares. She owns some shares. She's not on the pension. She uses the tax refund she gets from her share investments because of the tax that was already paid by the company. And she uses that tax refund that she gets from those share investments. She gets that and she pays her nursing home bills with that money. Even at the age of 91, Campbell's mum is looking after herself. She's paying her bills and she's used her investment to ensure that she has peace of mind in her retirement and that she has independence in her retirement. Mr Keogh interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Burt is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L That's why the government believes she should continue to get the tax refunds that she has put herself in a position to receive. Labor think Campbell's mum is a tax cheat. Labor think Campbell's mum has never paid any tax in her life. Labor think that Campbell's mum is the problem. I can tell you what: Labor are the problem. Labor are the problem because they don't get what Campbell's mum has done to put herself in a position where she can look after herself. And you know what's going to happen? Honourable members interjecting— Mr Keogh interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will pause for a second. Treasurer, don't resume your seat; this won't take long. I'm not going to keep repeating myself on members who are being warned. I've warned the member for Burt. He's continued to interject following that warning. He can leave under 94(a). For all those others who have been in identical situations time after time again, consider yourselves warned. We're not going to put up with this wall of noise when the frontbench of the opposition expect me to be listening to the answer as well as the questions when they are asked. The member for Burt then left the chamber. Mr MORRISON E3L What is going to happen now is that Campbell's mum is going to go to Campbell and say: 'I can't afford to pay those nursing home fees. Campbell, can you help me out?' Ms Chesters interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bendigo will leave under 94(a). The member for Bendigo then left the chamber. Mr MORRISON E3L Campbell will have to put his hand in his pocket to pay for the tax refund theft of the Leader of the Opposition. That's what he's going to have to do. This is not just going to hit people like Campbell's mum; it's going to hit Campbell too. And you imagine how Campbell's mum is going to feel after she has done everything to ensure she can look after herself and then has to go to her son and say, 'Can you help me out?' They do not understand the dignity that they are insulting through this insulting retiree tax, the brainchild of the shadow Treasurer, the prince of failures in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. This policy has become a shambles, and every time he changes it it gets worse. Taxation 3101 14:15 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. The leaked draft statement from the Business Council of Australia reveals that big business refused to commit to paying tax if the Senate passed the Prime Minister's $65 billion handout. When big business won't even commit to paying their tax, why is the Prime Minister so committed to giving big business $65 billion handouts? Ms O'Dwyer LKU Do you even pay tax? Mr Keenan E0J It's not an option. The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Human Services and the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services will cease interjecting. 14:15 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I remind the Leader of the Opposition that paying tax is compulsory. It would have been nice to have some help from the opposition with our multinational tax avoidance legislation. We won't take lectures from the Leader of the Opposition or his sidekick, the member for McMahon, on company tax payments. Let's face it: Labor had an opportunity to vote with us to pass the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015. Their only action on multinational tax was to not vote for that bill. They voted against it. What sort of consistency is that? We have implemented now, with no thanks to the opposition, some of the toughest anti-avoidance legislation in the world. In fact, the diverted profits tax, which built on this legislation, is the most advanced multinational tax avoidance legislation in the OECD. It is having the results you expect: when you crack down on tax avoidance, you get less tax avoidance. That's precisely what we've done. The bottom line is that our multinational tax avoidance law has allowed the Australian Taxation Office to identify 38 large companies that have brought or are bringing their sales to Australian customers onshore, where tax will be realised, in response to our tough new laws. As a result, the expert advice from the ATO is it expects that an additional $7 billion in income each year will be returned to the Australian tax base. That's action on multinational tax avoidance. That's ensuring everybody pays their fair share of tax. It is remarkable: when the opposition could have stood up and said, 'Yes, we agree, we're all on a unity ticket; everyone should pay their fair share of tax,' what did they do? They voted against it. It's yet another example of why Australians cannot trust the Leader of the Opposition. He stands up here and talks about companies paying tax and paying the right share of tax, and then, when he had the opportunity to vote for those tough anti-avoidance laws which are delivering $7 billion a year to the corporate tax base in Australia, that was done by the government in the face of opposition from the Labor Party. They have no credibility on tax, no credibility on economics. They cannot be trusted with Australians' money. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 3102 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:18 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Fred Chaney, a former senator and, more importantly, a former member of this House and a former minister. On behalf of the House, a warm welcome to you! Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 3102 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Tasmania: Public Housing 3102 14:18 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison My question is to the Prime Minister. You would be aware of my correspondence alerting you to Tasmania's housing crisis, especially in Hobart. I urged you to help remedy the situation. For instance, the Commonwealth public housing debt is costing Tasmania $15 million a year in interest payments and consuming a great chunk of the state's Commonwealth public housing assistance. Indeed, it's the biggest impediment to the Tasmanian government being able to significantly increase investment in public housing and give thousands of people a home. Will you axe Tasmania's housing debt to the Commonwealth, as was done for South Australia in 2013, and in doing so help do something about the housing crisis? 14:19 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question and, indeed, for his letter. Our longstanding position is that housing loans provided to states must be repaid. That's the government's position. Housing is fundamental to the wellbeing of all Australians, and we're providing practical solutions across the entire spectrum of housing policy to address some of the issues raised in the honourable member's letter. The government has committed $570 million to unlock supply, encourage more investment in affordable rental housing and deliver additional homelessness funding. Through our investment, we're supporting Australians struggling to put a roof over their head, by enabling older Australians looking to downsize their homes to put it into superannuation. We're assisting first homebuyers save for a deposit through the First Home Super Saver Scheme. That allows people, mostly young Australians, the ability to make voluntary contributions of up to $15,000 a year and $30,000 in total, within their existing contribution caps, to their superannuation account to go towards purchasing their first home. We've also tightened the rules that apply to foreign investors, so more homes are available for Australians, and we're better targeting tax concessions, to ensure people are using them correctly. Overall, our comprehensive housing affordability package will make housing more affordable for Australians in all parts of the housing market, to improve access to secure, stable and more-affordable housing. When the coalition came to government here in the federal parliament in 2013, Tasmania had an unemployment rate with an eight in front of it. It now has a six in front of it. Over this period 16,400 more Tasmanians are in work. Those precise figures are a reduction from 8.1 per cent unemployment in September 2013 in the honourable member's state to 6.0 per cent in February this year. Our sole focus is on providing a strong economy so that more Australians have the chance to gain employment and secure their futures. City Deals in Launceston and Hobart, investment in infrastructure and projects like the new Antarctic icebreaker are all about making sure the honourable member's state is a great place in which to live, work and invest. Economy 3103 14:22 Mr IRONS HYM Swan My question is to the Treasurer: Will the Treasurer explain why it is important to reward aspiration and encourage Australians to have a go in our economy, and what are the risks of alternative approaches? 14:22 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Swan for his question. The people who know about aspiration and having a go are small business owners. The member for Swan knows all about running small businesses and supporting investors in small businesses and about people having a go. It's a shame that the member for Cowan is not more like the member for Swan when it comes to understanding small business, because, in the member for Cowan's electorate, Cohen is a small-business owner. He is in the member for Cowan's electorate. He does not have a member of parliament who understands the pressures faced by small business. Dr Aly interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Cowan will cease interjecting. Mr MORRISON E3L He's not a retiree. He relies on the tax refund he gets from the shares that he bought to give him an income when his business is not seeing great days. Because in small businesses, like the member for Swan understands, some years you have good years and some years you have bad years. Small-business men and small-business women go out there, they buy shares, they get the tax refunds from those when the business is going through lean years, and that is their income. What those opposite don't understand is that the profit of a small business is the small-business owner's wage. That's what they live on. In some years they don't make a profit, and in those years they rely on investments they have put into shares and the tax refund, which is theirs, not the government's. It's theirs. It is owed to them. They have made the investment. Members opposite simply don't get this. They don't get small business. They don't understand what they have done with this clueless and gutless tax on retirees—and not just retirees, as I have just demonstrated with Cohen, a small-business owner in the member for Cowan's electorate. What they don't understand is that people make investments so they can support themselves and their families. Dr Aly interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Cowan is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L What the Leader of the Opposition has done, together with his clueless shadow Treasurer, is to just go in there and stomp all over their income, pick it all up and put it in their pockets, and off they have run. This shadow Treasurer is clueless when it comes to understanding small business. As we know, he's the shadow minister for small business, and now he is the shadow minister for making business smaller, making their profits smaller and making their wages smaller, because this shadow Treasurer cannot be trusted with the best interests of small business, of retirees, of pensioners and of any other Australian who is decently out there trying to earn a living. Taxation 3104 14:25 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. A leaked draft of the statement from the Business Council reveals that big business refused to commit to 'increased wages' if the Senate passed the Prime Minister's $65 billion handout. When big business won't commit to increased wages, why is the Prime Minister so committed to giving big business a $65 billion handout? 14:25 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth To quote one of the honourable member's heroines, Prime Minister Julia Gillard, she said right here in 2012: If you are against cutting company tax, you are against economic growth. That's what she said. She also said: If you are against economic growth, then you are against jobs. That's right. And what about the elder statesman Paul Keating? At his policy launch in 1993, he said: We lowered the company tax rate from 39 per cent to 33— that was a lot, six per cent— providing Australian industry with a business tax system competitive with any in the world. This is where the energy will come from. And we will do everything we can to stimulate it and, where necessary, provide strategic support. When Paul Keating said that, when Julia Gillard said that, and when the Leader of the Opposition, the member for McMahon and the members for Lilley and Fenner all said the same thing, they weren't relying on the altruism of company directors any more than we are. We rely on the economic logic that has prevailed through both sides of politics until very recently: that if you increase the incentives for businesses to invest then they will invest more. If they invest more, as the Leader of the Opposition said on one occasion, you get higher productivity, more jobs, and higher wages. It's pretty obvious. So I would leave the honourable member opposite just to reflect on the wisdom of her heroine, Julia Gillard. If you're against cutting company tax, you're against economic growth. If you're against economic growth then you're against jobs. So it follows that the member for Sydney and her leader and all her colleagues there are against economic growth and against jobs. I will tell you: the government is for economic growth and it is for jobs, more jobs and better paid jobs. Queensland: Infrastructure 3104 14:28 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on recent regional infrastructure announcements that are creating local jobs in rural and regional Queensland, including in Central and North Queensland? 14:28 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Dawson for his question and thank him also for his advocacy for Central and North Queensland. I visited the electorate of Dawson on 8 March to announce an important project. It was the Haughton River Floodplain project upgrade, and the contract was announced today. We've committed $411.4 million to this project. It includes 13½ kilometres of the Bruce Highway near Giru in the Burdekin, a new Haughton River bridge, two cane rail overpasses and nine rural intersections. More than just being part of the $6.7 billion Bruce Highway upgrade, this is going to save lives. I'm asked about jobs. There will be 544 jobs created from this particular project. Contractors have been asked to demonstrate their commitment to engaging local employees and businesses, which is good news for the Burdekin. The Haughton River Bridge will be built to withstand a one-in-100-year flood. This project will increase safety for families, truckies and the many visitors who go to that fine region. I was with Craig Lowndes today, a great sportsman, as well as Russell White, a road safety advocate, launching a road safety and Fatality Free Friday initiative. The government has also announced $32.9 million worth of additional spending to 144 black spot projects, half of which are going to be in regional areas. The members for Gilmore, Hinkler and Wide Bay were there at the launch. This is delivering infrastructure that Australia wants, needs, demands and expects. I'm asked about alternatives. The Leader of the Opposition, I have to say, is a man conflicted. Should he back workers or should he back his union mates? Should he back coalminers in regional Queensland, in the member for Dawson's seat, or should he vote for inner-city Greens with what he says and what he does? Should he back tax cuts—he used to believe in tax cuts—or will he throw out sound economics and damage people's hopes for a job, for a future? Should he raid the nest eggs of thousands of pensioners and retirees, or will he backflip on that too? The Australian people know this man cannot be trusted—not with the truth, not with his words, not with his actions, not with people's pensions, not with people's money, not with the economy, and certainly not with the jobs of our children and our grandchildren. Whether they are in the member for Dawson's electorate or wherever they might happen to be, people will always pay more under Labor. We know that. The member for Maribyrnong said he believed in jobs when he was in government. He doesn't say it when he is in opposition. Don't believe what this Leader of the Opposition says; believe what he does. (Time expired) Taxation 3105 14:31 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton My question is to the Prime Minister. A leaked draft of the statement from the Business Council of Australia reveals that big business refused to commit to 'create more Australian jobs' if the Senate passed the Prime Minister's $65 billion handout. When big business won't commit to creating more Australian jobs, why is the Prime Minister so committed to giving big business a $65 billion tax handout? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House on a point of order. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, the standing orders require that if a question has been fully answered it can't be renewed, and the question that the member for Gorton has just asked— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will pause. Members will ease interjecting. They've obviously got very poor memories. I've been reluctant to throw members out. I've been reasonable, I think, but if they want me to set a record I'm happy to. The Leader of the House will begin his point of order again. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, the standing orders require that a question fully answered can't be renewed, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's question was almost exactly the same, except maybe for the font. The SPEAKER 00APG I will stop you there. The problem is 'almost'. You're right that it needs to be identical, and it's not. Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Leader of the House, I can take you to the page of Practice if you would like, but it is very, very clear. There is more than one word different. It's very clear. In fact, I could even take him back—I've got a very good memory—to precedents from when he was on the other side and arguing against just the point of order he's made. The Treasurer has the call. 14:33 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The coalition government and the Liberal and National parties are backing businesses to create more jobs and to support higher wages. That's what our policies are about. That's what we're doing. We've always believed that, and we've always acted consistently with our beliefs by backing people in business from small businesses to large businesses. They are the engines of growth in our economy. That's where higher wages come from. That's where investment comes from. That's where jobs come from. That's why, as a government and as Liberal and National parties, we have been committed to following through on our convictions and our beliefs to ensure we do the right thing for the Australian economy so that jobs can be created. And jobs have been created: 420,000 jobs have been created in only the last 12 months. We're only a few thousand jobs shy of the one million jobs that we promised would be created under a coalition government when we came to office in 2013. We are close to hitting that mark six months in advance of the promised period. So we're sticking to our credentials. We're sticking to our commitments. We're sticking to our beliefs. But the Labor Party, the shadow Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition and all the others over there used to believe in these things. They used to write books about these things. They might even have written songs about them. I've got no idea, but I do know that they used to believe them and, when they are asked to vote for them, they scurry off like rats from a ship. This is the problem with Labor. They used to believe this because they used to listen to people that made sense on economic policy. So who are they listening to now? Who are they listening to now, and what other ideas do those people who they're listening to about tax in our economies? They are listening to GetUp! They are listening to the Australia Institute, that great middle-income champion of Australia. It's not a left-wing think tank, not at all! Of course it is. What's their view? They take much advice from the Grattan Institute. Here are some policies that the Labor Party are listening to. Put the family home in the assets test for the pension. Death duties. Death duties are what those they listen to propose. They propose scrapping the capital gains tax discount, putting capital gains tax on the family home and putting a tax on business for the fuel they use. These are the taxes that are being whispered into the ear of the shadow Treasurer, and he has demonstrated he has a great capacity to take up numpty ideas. National Security 3107 14:36 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the importance of well-designed border protection policies, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to policymaking? 14:37 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member very much for his question. As the Australian public knows, it's taken us a number of years, but we have tried our best to clean up Labor's mess in the border protection area. They allowed 50,000 people in on 800 boats and, tragically, 1,200 people drowned at sea. It's interesting to have a look at who the architect was behind the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years disaster on border protection policy. Everyone in this House knows and the Australian public needs to know that the man who wants to be the Treasurer in a Shorten government if Mr Shorten is to be elected leader at the next election is the person who was immigration minister, as it turned out, in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, and under the member for McMahon's reign we know that 25,000 people arrived on 400 boats. He's the man who wants to be the next Treasurer. He's designed this tax that we've just seen go down in a heap in the last 24 hours where he proposed to whack a tax on 300,000 pensioners, and who would have believed he presided over another mess? This guy, the member for McMahon—it's interesting to have a look at his background, because he was also a treasurer in the glorious periods of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. He was one of Australia's worst treasurers. It was one of Australia's worst periods in government in this country. And do you know? It was a glorious reign—a short reign but glorious nonetheless! He believes that he is the next Paul Keating. Is that a Zegna suit you're wearing? It is not an expensive suit. The SPEAKER 00APG I'm just going to say to the minister: if he asks questions, I may well let the member answer! Mr DUTTON 00AKI Let me pose this question, Mr Speaker: does he have any antique clocks at home? Does he have any dodgy investments in piggeries? These would be important questions because, as it turns out, the only thing this poor man's Keating across here has done in terms of walking in the footsteps of Paul Keating—Paul Keating in 1992 set up mandatory immigration detention in this country—is that the member for McMahon, when he was the Minister for Immigration, increased the number of detention centres by six. He put into detention 4,000 children, and he has been a failed member of the Labor Party at every turn. The Australian public should be reminded that it's not only the Leader of the Opposition that has a dodgy track record, both as a member of parliament and as a union boss in this country. The member for McMahon was a failure in the Labor government, and he would be a disaster if ever he were ever to occupy the crossbenches in this place. Taxation 3107 14:40 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. The leaked draft statement from the Business Council reveals that big business refuses to commit to increased wages when the conditions are right. When big business won't even commit to increasing wages 'when the conditions are right', why is the Prime Minister so committed to giving big business a $65 billion tax cut? 14:40 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I quoted the member for Sydney's heroine Julia Gillard on this subject when she said: 'If you're against cutting company tax, you're against economic growth.' And if you're against economic growth and you're against jobs—and we know she is a great admirer, as is the member for McMahon, of the former Labor Prime Minister and very distinguished Treasurer, Paul Keating. Of course his experience was, after many years in that job, that lowering company tax—as he did, very substantially—resulted in more investment, higher productivity, more jobs and higher wages. That was the consistent experience. But there was one other great saying of Paul Keating that the honourable member for McMahon would remember, and that is: in the great race of life you should always back self-interest, because it's trying. The reality is the reason businesses invest more and employ more and pay higher wages when there's more economic growth is because they want to make a profit. In other words, you give business the incentive to get ahead, you give business the ability to be competitive, and then it will get going and do so. Paul Keating could see that. Julia Gillard could see that. There were days when the member for McMahon could see it. But it's all got a bit cloudy now in the rear-vision mirror. He can't recall—that much admired book up there, being remaindered away—and neither can the Leader of the Opposition recall what he said in the House. The member for Lilley is entirely obliterated from his memory—the 2010 budget, although there are other compassionate reasons to do that, so we shouldn't perhaps go on too much about it. The bottom line is very clear. You give business the incentive to get ahead, and they will do so and hire and invest. We want Australian businesses to get ahead and compete and win. That's why we back free trade deals, whereas Labor opposes them. Remember the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement? The Leader of the Opposition said it was all dead. It was a vanity project. Do you know what? There are thousands of jobs in Australia that will be created by Australian businesses because of that free trade agreement. Just as there have been by other free trade agreements that we succeeded in negotiating. We know that right now thousands of jobs, in fact over 1,100 a day, are being created in Australia in large measure because of the enthusiasm of Australian small and medium family businesses who have had the encouragement of our corporate tax cuts so far. We want that right across the economy—more economic growth, more jobs. The Labor Party has forgotten economics. Economy 3108 14:43 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Jobs and Innovation. Will the minister explain why it's important to be consistent in designing and implementing policy that impacts on the lives and aspirations of Australians? Are there any alternative approaches? 14:44 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Berowra for his question. It's a very important question, because obviously a consistent approach to thinking about and implementing policy has a dramatic impact on what governments do in the lives of Australians, particularly in the economy. It's been that consistent approach to policy development in the Abbott and now Turnbull governments that has led to us being very close to achieving the million new jobs that we promised in 2013, when the government was first elected. We are only months away from hitting that figure and, in the last 12 months, it's been 420,000 Australians who have benefited from a consistent and methodical approach to policy. So we are getting the job done. I'm asked about consistent approaches to policy. What we see on the other side of the House is a completely shambolic approach to policymaking, and this week the Labor Party announced a guarantee for pensioners—a pensioners guarantee policy, a guarantee to save them from the Leader of the Opposition himself. That is the guarantee: to protect them from the Leader of the Opposition. But why would anybody believe that any policy held by the Leader of the Opposition would last very long in opposition, let alone in government? This man's career has been punctuated by consistent flip-flop approaches to policy and punctuated by completely doing a U-turn to suit his own expedient political ends. This year we've seen the debate about the Carmichael mine. He told Pauline Hanson, Senator Hanson, that he was the most pro-coal Leader of the Labor Party and the most pro-coal person in the Labor opposition, while he also told Geoff Cousins that he would block the Carmichael mine in North Queensland. He said in North Queensland to coal workers that he was pro the Adani mine, and in Melbourne he told the people of Batman that he was against the Adani mine. On the company tax cuts, he told the ACOSS conference in 2011 that company tax cuts grew the economy, increased wages and increased profits and jobs, and now we hear this Corbyn-esque claptrap from the Leader of the Opposition about what company tax cuts would do. But he was pinged in Paul Kelly's book, because his greatest duplicity is saved for his internal Labor Party dynamics. I quote the Paul Kelly book: The distrust between Rudd and Shorten was intense and enduring. The Gillard camp was contemptuous of Shorten, considering him weak and duplicitous … Neither side trusted him and neither side revised its view. That has been the hallmark of the Leader of the Opposition's approach to life, to politics and to the union. That's why he can't be trusted, and the Australian people know that and they don't trust him. Taxation 3109 14:47 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is to the Prime Minister: The leaked draft statement from the Business Council reveals that big business refused to commit to 'create more Australian jobs in the cities, suburbs, towns and bush'. When big business won't commit to creating more jobs in the cities, suburbs, towns and bush, why is the Prime Minister so committed to giving big business a $65 billion tax handout? 14:47 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The member must be completely unaware of the statements by Alan Joyce, the CEO of Qantas; Robb Scott, the CEO of Wesfarmers; Russell Zimmerman from the Australian Retailers Association; Peter Coleman, the CEO of Woodside; and Alison Watkins, the managing director of Coca-Cola Amatil. These are just some of the very large companies that employ tens—hundreds—of thousands of Australians, who have committed and have been out there making very clear this very simple principle: if you make business not pay as much money to the government, they're in a much better position to give workers a pay rise. The Labor Party are standing between workers in this country and a pay rise because they think businesses should pay the government more rather than pay their employees more. That's what Labor think. They think that the best way to increase wages in this country is to make businesses pay the government more. The member for Fenner this week actually put out research that he says he did himself which shows that, if you put higher taxes on businesses, you get higher wages and you get higher economic growth. Well, let's put it up to 35! Let's put it up to 40! Why not 45? The Labor Party believe the higher you tax the economy, the better the economy goes. What sorts of morons must they be listening to to think that this is good economic policy? I think the Leader of the Opposition and, in particular, the shadow Treasurer have somehow departed from the common sense they once understood earlier in their lives. We saw it most recently in an article in the Australian Financial Review where the shadow Treasurer was profiled. There he was with that pensive look in front of his voluminous bookcase with the hand on the chin, looking up, and he said: 'My own one great regret when I was at university, getting all of those high distinctions'—he happened to mention, very modest of him—'I just wish I'd gone out and partied more.' The shadow Treasurer must have been partying for the last three years, because he hasn't come up with a good idea in that entire time. He has been sitting around posing for photos. I love this one. How good's that! Aren't you a pretty boy, Zoolander! The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer knows the rule on props. Taxation 3110 14:50 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister update the House on the importance of ensuring taxation policies are sensible and well designed? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that pose a threat to the prosperity of hardworking Australians, including in my electorate of Grey? 14:51 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for Grey, and I note how hard he is working and advocating for his constituents. He recognises, as does the government, that we need to protect the prosperity of Australians and that every policy we pursue should be aimed at protecting that prosperity. A very crucial part of that is to design sensible policies that alleviate the tax burden acting as a handbrake on our economy. This government has cut taxes for small and medium-sized enterprises. We have relieved the tax burden on middle-income Australians, three million of whom will not pay higher taxes, as a result of our increase in the tax threshold. We remain committed to doing even more for those people. The contrast with those opposite could not be clearer. They have proudly announced their intention to take a $200 billion tax sledgehammer to the incomes, livelihoods and prosperity of millions of Australians. That will directly impact upon our economy. Not only are they doing that but they are also doing it in a completely unfair and illogical way. Take their retiree tax 1.0, originally announced and lauded by the shadow Treasurer as carefully designed, despite the fact that it robbed hundreds of thousands of pensioners of their tax refunds. Now they have relaunched it as retiree tax 2.0, and again have fallen over each other to say how carefully designed and progressive it is. As was the case the first time around, it's all spin and no substance. It will punish people on middle and lower incomes. Under their policy, someone on a $500,000-a-year salary who also receives hundreds of thousands of dollars of franking credits wouldn't be impacted at all. The total benefit of their tax already paid would offset their tax liability. What about an elderly, self-funded retiree with $18,000 in taxable income a year, including $2,300 in dividends, who has paid tax all their life? The Labor Party, under their policy, will pocket their $700 tax refund. Their policy does not make sense. Their policy will affect 875,000 retirees, wage-earners and even pensioners who dare to put their money into self-managed super funds from tomorrow onwards. Their retiree tax 2.0 is no better than 1.0. It is like putting mag wheels, a spoiler and a speed stripe on a Hyundai Excel. It's no good. Australians know it, and they know they can't trust this Leader of the Opposition with their money. (Time expired) Taxation 3111 14:54 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Prime Minister. The leaked draft statement from the Business Council reveals that big business wouldn't even commit to 'increase wages when the conditions are right'. Given that over the last two years wages have grown by only four per cent while company profits have increased by 32 per cent, has the Prime Minister had any discussions with big business about just how much more profit they need before they will give a fair share to their workers? 14:54 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The honourable member knows very well, since he put this question to me—or a question along the same lines—earlier in the week, that over the last year we've seen company profits and wages rise by approximately the same amount. Over the last six years, wages have risen considerably more than company profits. The figure he is using has been cherrypicked to take advantage of a spike in earnings because of the commodity boom. Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 The honourable member is an economist. He understands very well the principles in the 2010 budget papers. He knows very well the Treasury analysis that in 2010 said a one per cent cut in company tax would add 0.4 per cent to GDP. Dr Chalmers 37998 You opposed it. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin will leave under 94(a). The member for Rankin then left the chamber. Mr TURNBULL 885 The honourable member can interject as much as he likes, but the reality is that the same Treasury that advised his boss, the member for Lilley, Treasurer at the time, that it would add $450 into the pockets of Australian workers has given the analysis that says the company tax plan we are taking through to the Senate will deliver $750 into Australian workers' pockets. It's exactly the same analysis, probably by the same analysts. There was a time when the Labor Party understood and adhered to economic orthodoxy. It has all been thrown away in this chase after the savings of pensioners and self-funded retirees. To give the honourable members opposite the latest dispatch from their class war, I remind them of what Margaret Sykes, a lady in her 70s, said to me this morning. She said: 'My husband worked five jobs as a young man to make sure we were self-reliant when we were older. He died in 2010, still working, but said before he died that he worked so hard to make sure I was looked after. I'm a self-funded retiree. I have shares to supplement my income. I'm not one of Bill Shorten's millionaires. I don't go on holidays, smoke, drink or dine out; just a person who is not dependent upon Centrelink.' They are the people the Labor Party is after. Health Care 3112 14:57 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister outline to the House how the government's record investment in new medicines is underpinned by a strong economy? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:58 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I thank the member for Fisher, who has been a great advocate since coming to this place, not just for new medicines but also for investment in mental health and, in particular, recognising the scourge of eating disorders. He has advocated for health expenditure, but he understands that it fundamentally comes from the ability to manage the economy, as we see with the creation of over 400,000 jobs in the last year—over 1,100 jobs a day on average. Those things are good in and of themselves, but they also underpin social expenditure, social investment and, in particular, investment in health. It is only through a strong economy that you can support the health system. That means we are able to do things such as list $8.2 billion worth of new life-saving and life-improving drugs since coming to office. On 1 April another 11 new drugs are coming on board, in particular in areas such as diabetes, where the drug Xigduo will help over 170,000 Australians reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia, of having a hypo in the middle of the night, which for parents and sufferers is fundamentally important. Drugs for lung cancer, which would otherwise have cost up to $99,000 a year, will now be available on the PBS—for basal cell carcinoma, lymphoma, severe asthma and also for rheumatoid arthritis. On that front, I actually received a letter this week from Casey Gardner of Brisbane, a 35-year-old mum, who wrote: 'I'm one of the 2,000 or so Australian patients that will benefit from pre-filled methotrexate syringes being added to the PBS.' This is for rheumatoid arthritis. She goes on to say: 'This listing means I can spend more time doing what I love, on what matters to me, to be with my husband and my daughter. The PBS has made this possible and, again, I just want to express my gratitude.' Imagine, however, the alternative of being a party—and I mean the Labor Party—which deliberately deferred drug listings. They deliberately deferred drug listings! Look at every member of their frontbench who was on the frontbench of the previous government— Ms Catherine King interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Ballarat is warned! Mr HUNT 00AMV They deferred drugs for severe asthma. The very thing we are listing, they deferred: drug listings for asthma. They deferred drug listings for pulmonary conditions and for schizophrenia. What a bunch of people these are, that would pretend that they care about health! Opposition members interjecting— Mr HUNT 00AMV No, seriously. These are people with an utter disrespect for the Australian public when they cut medicines that are fundamental for mental health, severe asthma and pulmonary conditions. There are two different approaches, completely— (Time expired) Taxation 3113 15:01 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. We now know that big business has refused to commit to create Australian jobs and to increase wages; to avoid offshoring; to invest in remote and rural Australia; or, my favourite, even to pay tax. Why is the Prime Minister so committed to his $65 billion giveaway to big business when big business won't commit anything in return to him? 15:01 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Well, as I said to the House earlier in this question time, we don't rely on the altruism of company directors in framing taxation policy; we rely on economics—in fact, economics 101, something which seems to have been forgotten by the Labor Party. Business will respond rationally and will invest more when the incentives are to invest, and it will employ more. And, because you get stronger economic growth you get more jobs. As Julia Gillard said—the heroine of honourable members opposite—if you're against lowering company taxes, you're against economic growth, and if you're against economic growth, you're against jobs. But one thing that the Labor Party is really against is self-funded retirees and Australians who invest in those companies that need to grow strongly so that they can pay dividends to them. Our self-funded retirees generally invest in Australian companies because they benefit from the strong economic growth. I want to give the honourable member opposite another dispatch from the frontline of his class war from another self-funded retiree, Stuart. He is in his 70s. He is in his retirement and he has about $450,000 in his self-managed superannuation fund. He's in the retirement stage. It's less than $1.6 million, so it's not liable to the 15 per cent tax. He gets annual dividends, fully grossed up, of about $34,000, of which $9,000 is the franking credit. Now, he— Mr Conroy 249127 What else is he on? Mr TURNBULL 885 Oh, the Labor Party hate— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Shortland is warned! Mr TURNBULL 885 The Labor Party hate Australians that save! They hate Australians that work hard and save. Mr Conroy interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 Sneering! Sneering— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will pause! The Prime Minister is going to tell whatever he thinks to the member for Shortland as the member for Shortland leaves under 94(a). I can't make it any clearer. He's interjected repeatedly. He's warned and he even acknowledges being warned and then interjects within 10 seconds. He is unhelpable. The member for Shortland then left the chamber. Mr TURNBULL 885 One thing all of those self-funded retirees I was with this morning, with Senator Seselja, said—one thing they all knew and all agreed on—was that all of those Labor members that are going after their savings will have much more in superannuation and much better pensions than any of them will have. But let me return to Stuart. He has $34,000 coming in for his dividends. His fund does not pay tax—it's in the retirement stage—and $9,000 of that is franking credits. The Labor Party wants to take that off him. But if he had $34,000 in rent or in interest he would keep the lot. How crazy is that? What is this? It's penalising older Australians for investing in Australian companies. (Time expired) Energy 3114 15:05 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on how the government is creating a more affordable and reliable energy system that is so important to pensioners and those with low incomes, including in my home state of Victoria? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 15:05 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. I know she is concerned by high power prices and the impact they are having on household budgets and, particularly, on the most vulnerable—including Jennifer, a pensioner in Burwood who, like thousands across the electorate, is struggling with her power bills. Indeed, in a recent survey in Victoria it was found that three out of four households are making financial sacrifices to meet their power bills, and one in every four households in Victoria are now cutting back on their grocery bills merely to meet their power bills. That is why the Turnbull coalition government has taken action to deliver a more affordable and reliable power system, and I am pleased that both Alinta and Powershop have recently reduced they power prices in Victoria. There is the work we have done with the retailers to get a better deal for thousands of Australians; the work we have done with the networks to stop the gaming of the system under the limited merits review; our intervention in the gas market, which the ACCC said has seen a significant fall in the gas price; and, of course, the National Energy Guarantee, a recommendation by the independent experts that independent modelling shows will leave the average Australian household $300 a year better off than under the Labor Party's plan. I am asked, 'Are there any alternative approaches?' Well, we know what happened when the Labor Party were last in office: electricity prices doubled, we had the carbon tax, we had the citizens' assembly and we had the cash for clunkers. That sheer incompetence will return if Labor get any chance to sit on this side of the House. We know they have reckless renewable energy targets. We know they have no plans for storage and no plans for the gas market. We know they are reluctant to get on board with the National Energy Guarantee, because they didn't support it. We also know they are waging a war on coal and blue-collar workers. Graham Richardson, a doyen of the Labor Party, got it right when he said, 'Labor is playing games with people's lives' when it comes to energy policy. The pensioners and the poor rely on good energy policy for their heat and for their electricity. Millions of Australian retirees and pensioners could not depend on the Labor Party to protect their hard-earned savings, and they cannot rely on the Labor Party to introduce good energy policy. Only the coalition will get your power bills down and ensure a more reliable energy system. Taxation 3114 15:08 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister committed to a $65 billion handout for big business but making our fantastic early childhood educators, like those in the public gallery today, pay more tax, with an early childhood educator on $45,000 paying $225 a year more tax? 15:09 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. I want to say that we all admire early childcare educators, and I want to say that the government does not set the wages or conditions of childcare educators. The role of the government is to provide subsidies to hardworking Australian families so they can afford the care they need in order to balance their work and family responsibilities. And we are. As of 2 July this year we will provide up to 85 per cent of the cost of care for low-income families and record levels of investment. In fact, the increase in the overall subsidy for child care is well over $1 billion a year. It will be $8.8 billion in the first full year. Childcare reforms provide the highest rate of subsidy, 85 per cent to those with the lowest incomes, below or around $65,000 a year; provide the most hours of subsidised hours of care to those who work the most hours, 100 hours a fortnight; and remove the annual childcare rebate cap to families on less than around $185,000 a year. That's 85 per cent of families using child care, and the Labor Party voted against it. They voted against that reform. We note the decision of the Fair Work Commission. It is an independent umpire set up by the Labor Party and it determines these matters independently of government. We respect the independent decisions of the Fair Work Commission, and it's about time the Leader of the Opposition did too. Centenary of Anzac 3115 15:11 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC. Will the minister update the House on the establishment of that great project, the Sir John Monash Centre in France, and other activities that the government is undertaking to recognise the sacrifice of Australian service men and women? 15:11 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I thank the member for Fadden for his question and in particular I thank the member for Fadden for his service to the Australian Army for the best part of 12 years. I recall that in this place several years ago now the former member for Bradfield and the now the Australian War Memorial director, Brendon Nelson, once said something along the lines of: 'There's no greater service that a person can give to this nation than to put on the uniform of the Australian Navy, Army or Air Force and be prepared to place themselves in harm's way to help those who can't help themselves.' It reflected on the unique nature of their service to our country. While this chamber can often be divided on other issues, this is one topic where I think we are very much united, particularly as 2018 marks the culmination of the centenary Anzac commemorations. We honour and respect those brave service men and women who served our nation and fought for our country with our allies 100 years ago. Anzac Day does provide an opportunity for all Australians to reflect upon the service and sacrifice of both past and current service men and women and particularly those 102,000 souls who lost their lives in the service to our nation. It also marks the anniversary of the first major military action by Australian and New Zealand forces during the World War I, and there is a significant commemorative program currently under way which reflects the commitment from the government to acknowledge and commemorate the service and the sacrifice of all of those men and women, whether it be in peacekeeping missions, wars or conflicts for more than 100 years. The member for Fadden asked me about the Sir John Monash Centre, which is the most significant infrastructure project of the Australian government's Anzac Centenary program and provides a lasting international legacy for future generations. The official opening of that centre will be held on Anzac Day eve at Villers-Bretonneux in France this year. This is a state-of-the-art centre. It is designed to give visitors a unique understanding of the conditions endured by the Australian servicemen on the Western Front during the First World War. Monash himself was quite an extraordinary Australian. Upon his return to Australia, he was required to form the State Electricity Commission of Victoria, which led to the development of the Latrobe Valley power stations and drove the economic development of the state for decades into the future. Just as we strive today to make sure our modern-day veterans can transition into meaningful careers once they leave the Defence Force, with programs like the Prime Minister's veterans initiative and the awards ceremony which is on tonight, Sir John Monash certainly had an amazing career after he left the Army. When it comes to Anzac Day commemorations, I simply encourage all members in this place, as I am sure they will, to engage with veterans in their own communities and to attend their local Anzac Day services across the nation. Each of these services will include, no doubt, the immortal fourth stanza of the poem For the Fallen by Laurence Binyon: They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them. Lest we forget. 15:16 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong On indulgence: the opposition wishes to associate itself with the remarks of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and notes that the Prime Minister will be attending the commemoration. I thank him for his invitation to the opposition to join him. Perhaps this House can consider at some point in the future whether or not it is now time for Sir John Monash, arguably Australia's greatest general, to receive recognition as field marshal. Mr Turnbull 885 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 3116 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 33 of 2017-18 3116 15:15 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 33 of 2017-18, entitled Perfomance audit:implementation of the annual performance statements requirements 2016-17: across entities. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 3117 DOCUMENTS Presentation 3117 15:15 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BUSINESS 3117 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 3117 15:15 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. Question agreed to. Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 3117 15:16 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business) be suspended for this sitting. In moving the motion, I might explain that the House has a couple of bills that we're dealing with right now that we'd like to finish by the time the House rises for Easter. That's not the reason we'll be suspending the adjournment and the end of the sitting. There is a bill still being debated in the Senate, which will be amended. That bill will need to come back to the House of Representatives and be passed before the end of this session, which means that, while it's very unlikely that we will sit well into the night, we might have to sit till about half past eight or thereabouts, in which case we can't, unfortunately, arise at 7.30 for the adjournment and leave at eight. For the benefit of covering the government and for the parliament we're moving these motions. If that changes, of course, we'll immediately adjourn the House if there is an earlier reporting from the Senate, but there is an amendment to a government bill that we need to address before we rise. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 3117 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Taxation 3117 15:17 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government looking after big business and millionaires instead of ordinary Australians. I call upon 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— 15:18 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong For the opposition, attending question time is the triumph of hope over experience. We very rarely get answers from the government, but today we did get an answer. It was elusive. It was only one answer hidden in the thicket of government nonreplies, but the Prime Minister today has made it very clear that he will take his corporate tax cuts to the next election. Whilst I do not agree with his position, I do acknowledge that he answered the question. I just want to advise him and his representatives in this government that we are up for the next election being a referendum on whether this nation should give $65 billion to large corporations or whether we should be a nation that prioritises the needs of middle-class and working-class Australians. We will have this fight on the Turnbull government's corporate tax cuts. At the next election there will be two very different visions offered for the future of this nation to the people of Australia. The government's agenda is very clear: a $65 billion handout to multinationals, to big banks and to large corporations and raising the taxes for working Australians who earn less than $87,000 a year. Labor, by contrast, will offer the following vision to the Australian people: lower taxes for families, higher wages for workers, and better schools and hospitals for all Australians. We stand for the fair go. That's the choice. That's the contest, and the contest starts now. Let me make something very clear: Labor will go to the next election promising to repeal the Prime Minister's multibillion dollar handout for big business, if it passes the Senate. Let us not hear any more from the government about being 'the party for lower taxes', because the government actually have two pieces of tax legislation in the Senate. They've got their tax giveaway for their friends at the top end of town, but they have another piece of legislation. It's a tax increase for nurses and teachers, police officers, childcare workers and mechanics; a tax increase of $300 for someone who earns $60,000; a tax increase of $350 for someone earning $70,000. This Prime Minister wants to punish working Australians. Labor just chooses to protect them. Politics is all about priorities. The government wants the parliament to sign a cheque for $65 billion out of the nation's ATM, and it has to be paid for. This government loves to misquote Labor. Whenever Labor have supported changes in corporate taxation, we've replaced that revenue with other revenue. We hear this Prime Minister cherrypick our arguments: dishonest then, dishonest now, dishonest into the future. The reality is this government has pretended to the Australian people that it can take $65 billion out of the budget and there is nothing to be explained. It doesn't explain where the money is coming from. But we have a problem in this country. Our hospitals are still too crowded. Waiting lists for surgery are too long. Schools are not appropriately funded. TAFEs are still closing. Child care is still too expensive and too hard to find. Cities, suburbs and regions are crying out for new roads and ports, rail and bridges and airports, and a first-rate NBN. Older Australians are still waiting in greater numbers than ever for aged-care packages, and the wages for Australian workers are simply too low. What will we have at the end of Mr Turnbull's $65 billion tax giveaway? Nothing. We could be using that money to repair the budget and pay down the debt. We could be using it to invest in the future of our economy, in the luck we make ourselves, in our people, in education, in skills, in training and in apprenticeships. You do not deliver a prosperous middle class and working class in this country by throwing money at big banks. You do it by investing in new industries, skilling up workers and helping adults retrain for the jobs of the future. You do it by supporting a decent wage, including penalty rates for people who will be working on the upcoming public holidays this Easter. This is the Labor way: new industries, skilled workers, productive businesses and higher wages. Labor has a strategy for growth. We have proposed the Australian investment guarantee. We will support businesses to immediately deduct an extra 20 per cent of their investments in eligible depreciable assets. This means trucks and utes for tradies, and machinery, plant and equipment for productivity-boosting innovation in industry, and also depreciable intangible assets for purchases like software upgrades. We want to actually invest scarce taxpayer money on the direct promise that companies invest back in productivity. This government wants to give away $65 billion with no promises and no strings attached. We are happy to help companies invest in job creation, in productivity growth and better wages, but we want to see something for the taxpayer support they receive. Then we look at what this government wants to do with $65 billion. Sixty cents in every dollar of this government's $65 billion giveaway will go straight overseas. This wasn't a socialist think tank—it wasn't the Australia Institute, the 'Cuban Institute' or the 'North Korean Institute'—it was analysis from the former chief economist at Goldman Sachs. Sixty cents in every dollar—$39 billion taxpayer dollars—will go straight to multinational profits and overseas. I understand that the Prime Minister has always been a fan of sending money offshore, but I don't want him to do it with taxpayers' dollars! This is not a plan for Australian jobs or Australian wages. This is corporate welfare for multinational firms. This is foreign aid for foreign multinationals. Of course, our friends at the big Australian banks never go missing when there's Mr Turnbull in town. Some of the Australian businesses who will receive a benefit from this $65 billion of Australian taxpayer support will be the banks—Commonwealth Bank, Westpac, ANZ and NAB. This tax giveaway is a multibillion dollar bankers' bonus. This royal commission of the banks, which this Prime Minister and Treasurer mocked, attacked, ridiculed and sneered at—and with their fingernail marks on the concrete were dragged to having—every day reveals worse conduct. What we have seen already is simply shocking. What is the government's response? They want to give the same banks billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, money which could be spent looking after the hospitals and schools of Australia. There is nothing in this proposal guaranteeing wage increases for working Australians. Nothing. On the government's own numbers this $65 billion corporate largesse from the taxpayers of Australia to the big end of town is predicted to produce a 1.1 per cent increase in wages growth in 20 years time. That's $2 a working day, $10 a week, in 2037. Has anyone who dreamed up this corporate tax giveaway had a serious conversation with working Australians about the family budgets that they are dealing with every week? How on earth could this government dream up a scheme which gives away so much money to large companies for so little result and, indeed—to be fair to big business—they haven't even bothered pretending that they're going to do anything for the government in return. I knew that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister weren't bright, but I never imagined that they were so out of touch that even their friends would not do anything for the $65 billion. Never has a conservative government worked so hard to spend so much money for so little result. Of course, it's not just Labor saying this. What we saw, to justify the case—this clarion economic strategy of this beleaguered, one-trick-pony government—is that the government are running around with a two-lined letter from big business, 'Give us the money and we promise we will seriously consider thinking about an investigation into an inquiry into the potential to do something about wages one day.' This is only one step up from those email scams. Not as many typos, but the picture's the same. You know: 'Dear so-and-so, congratulations and hello my very good friend. Your long-lost relative, the prince of Nigeria, has died and left you everything. Just send money and we will release the funds.' But it gets worse. Today we've learnt more about this piece of corporate spam, that the commitment to the Senate wasn't the original; it was the sequel. It was the executive director's cut: I know the Prime Minister drives a hard bargain:. 'Hello Percy; hello Murgatroyd. I need you to back me up here.' 'Yes, what do you want?' 'Commitment to jobs.' 'No, you can't have that.' 'Commitment to wages?' 'No, you can't have that.' 'Commitment to not offshoring?' 'Absolutely not!' 'We want you to commit to tax.' 'Oh, my goodness, old chap. What is going on here?' I'll tell you one thing: we want to be internationally competitive but not on corporate tax— (Time expired) 15:28 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin This MPI talks about millionaires instead of ordinary Australians. Are the 875,000 retirees who will have to pay the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer's retirees' tax all millionaires? We've heard a succession of examples in the House today of self-funded retirees on ordinary incomes, on low incomes, who are going to have to suffer if this man, the Leader of the Opposition, is elected—him reaching his hand into their pocket and denying them credit for tax already paid. Now everyone in this chamber, I assume, puts in a tax return. Some people here, and, certainly, millions of Australians, expect a small tax refund when they lodge their tax returns. What the Labor Party is now proposing is that 875,000 retirees—people who have paid tax their whole lives, people who have built this country to make it what it is and people who have put small sums of money aside to provide for themselves or to provide for a loved one in their retirement—are now going to have the Labor Party saying, 'You do not keep your tax refund.' Tax paid on your behalf, everyone else gets credit for; you don't. It is theft. It is theft masked in very flowery words. Looking at the words of the shadow Treasurer just a fortnight ago in announcing this measure, when challenged, he said that this is a well-targeted measure and that Labor's reforms are carefully designed. He said Labor's reforms are properly designed and Labor's reforms are sensible. Then he got out and said: 'The government will run a scare campaign. We know that. This is a very well-designed policy.' What did we see yesterday? We saw the Labor Party admit this is a rotten, rotten policy. Changing it on the run, it's now so-called providing protection to 300,000 pensioners—protection from their own policy!—but, sadly, they are not going to protect 875,000 additional Australians who are now going to have their money stolen by the Labor Party. Despite this backflip, there is incessant talk from the Leader of the Opposition and his team about millionaires. Let's have a look at some of these so-called millionaires who are going to have their tax refund stolen by the Labor Party. We heard about a few of them in question time. We've got Alan from Bunbury, who has an income of $40,000 a year. I challenge any of those on the other side to live off $40,000 a year. Alan has a small share portfolio—a very, very modest share portfolio—and of his $40,000 of income, 25 per cent of that, or $10,000 out of the $40,000, is represented by this refund of tax paid on his behalf. So the Labor Party is saying to Alan in Bunbury, 'No, we're going to take $10,000 off you and you can live off $30,000.' Are these the millionaires the Labor Party are referring to? Are these the millionaires the Leader of the Opposition was just speaking about? What about Colin? We've got another person here. Colin is a self-funded retiree. He said: 'We don't want to receive any pension from the government. We have a small portfolio invested in Australian shares.' The franking credits—the tax refund—represents 30 per cent of his income. They will have $12,000 ripped out of their pocket every year due to the retirees tax put forward by the Labor Party. Is Colin, with 30 per cent of his income now stolen by the Labor Party, a millionaire? What about Graham? Graham said: 'My wife and I worked for over 40 years, diligently saving and placing funds into our super account to enable us to be self-funded when we retired. Now you and your Labor Party are proposing to change the rules if elected. Your proposal to take franking credits from our share portfolio will reduce our annual income—an income of under $40,000—by 20 to 25 per cent.' Are Graham and his wife the millionaires that the Labor Party keep incessantly talking about? The Labor Party might think this humiliating backdown has somehow salvaged this policy, but this policy is rotten to the core. What we saw yesterday in their humiliating backdown of what was called a well-calibrated, well-targeted policy just a fortnight ago, is just the first cut. There are 875,000 decent, hardworking Australians who have paid taxes their whole lives, who have contributed to this country and who have set aside, in most cases, small sums of money or small parcels of shares to provide for themselves or a loved one in the future. They are going to be hit hardest. They're not going to let the Labor Party get away with it. And we're not going to let the Labor Party get away with it. Every day you will hear examples of people like Colin, Graham or, for example, Campbell's mother, who we heard about today from the Treasurer. Campbell's mother is in an aged-care facility, is 91, has a small share portfolio and uses her tax refund to partly fund her nursing home fees. Is Campbell's mother, at 91, one of the so-called fat cat wealthy investor millionaires that the Labor Party keep incessantly talking about? Of course she's not. This is why, between now and the next election, we will lay bare the Labor Party plan. The Labor Party plan is very simple, and I will give them some credit: they're at least naked in their ambition about it. The Labor Party want to create a big bucket of money that they take from hardworking retirees, 875,000 retirees, so they can go and splash it around the electorate to their favoured groups. 'So what do we do? We go and hit the easy targets.' That's what Labor said. 'Let's go and hit the easy targets, those retirees who have paid tax their whole life.' The other part of this humiliating backdown from the Labor Party, attacking so-called millionaires, is that they said, 'We're protecting pensioners.' We all know the irony of pensioners requiring protection from their own policy, because 875,000 other people certainly aren't protected, but that was a lie as well, because if you're a pensioner from tomorrow, with a self-managed super fund, guess what: Labor's going to take your tax refund too. So after tomorrow we'll be back to square one: pensioners, low-income self-funded retirees and those with a self-managed super fund are in the gun from the Labor Party, just so the Labor Party can go and spend that on some favoured groups come election time, because they are addicted to spending and they cannot say no to any group who comes to them for money. So what do you do? You go and attack the people who are the easy targets. Well, I've got a message for the Labor Party. I don't think those 875,000 low-income self-funded retirees are going to allow themselves to be an easy target. They are going to fight hard against this grossly unfair tax grab. This is the first cut to try and salvage this disastrous policy, this very well-calibrated policy—well, it was very well calibrated two weeks ago. It is going to suffer another cut, because this is rotten to the core. This policy is rotten to the core, and 875,000 Australians are not going to allow the Labor Party to get away with it. We'll have one example after another of people like Colin, like Graham and like Campbell's mother—or what about Anthony, who said, 'I've got an income of $32,000, which will be reduced by $5,000'? The shadow Treasurer says, 'Anthony, on $32,000, you are a fat cat millionaire, and we want to take $5,000 off you.' Well, I can tell you: Anthony and his wife are not going to allow the shadow Treasurer to get away with this. Yesterday's humiliating backdown is just the first cut. This cannot be salvaged, and we're going to assure all of those 875,000 Australians that the only way to protect themselves against the shadow Treasurer is to vote for the coalition at the next election. (Time expired) 15:38 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney It's interesting, isn't it, that the member for Deakin doesn't want to talk at all about the $65 billion of big business tax cuts that his Prime Minister recommitted to today. I think it's really a tale of two letters, Mr Deputy Speaker. One is the letter that the Business Council of Australia finally sent to the Senate last week, which contains all of two sentences: We believe that a reduction in the corporate tax rate, as proposed through the Government's enterprise tax plan, is urgent and vital to keep Australia competitive. If the Senate passes this important legislation we, as some of the nation's largest employers, commit to invest more in Australia which will lead to employing more Australians and therefore stronger wage growth as the tax cut takes effect. It does not say, 'We will increase wages'—nothing as simple as that, no. The interesting letter is the letter that the Business Council of Australia members refused to sign, which actually is a very good letter. It's quite a detailed letter that sets the economic context and then says: 'Our commitment, the whole point of the Enterprise Tax Plan, is to create new and better jobs in Australia. Therefore the Business Council of Australia members offer the following commitment: if the Senate passes the Enterprise Tax Plan in full, we will (1) create more Australian jobs in the cities, towns, suburbs and bush.' Why couldn't they put that in the final letter? Why is it that this didn't make the cut for the final letter? We know that this tax cut won't lead to new jobs, and the Business Council of Australia are not prepared to say that they will create new jobs. In social security, we've got mutual obligation. The government gives you something; you do something in return for that. You do volunteer work. You look for work. There is no mutual obligation when it comes to a $65 billion big-business tax cut. In fact, the promise that they've given is about as convincing as the commitments contestants make on Married at First Sight. The next commitment that the Business Council were asked to sign up to was the commitment that they'll invest in more Australian projects and ideas, especially in remote and rural Australia. Were they prepared to sign up to that one? No, they were not prepared to sign up to that one. And how pathetically weak is One Nation that they were prepared to back the big-business tax cuts in return for 1,000 apprenticeships in the bush? There are 148,000 fewer apprentices across Australia right now than when we were in government, and One Nation's prepared to give away $65 billion in big-business tax cuts for 1,000 apprentices in the bush. It's incredible, too, isn't that, the National Australia Bank recorded a profit of $6.5 billion last year. Has that led to extra jobs? No, they actually cut 6,000 jobs. So here we've got the Business Council of Australia not prepared to create more jobs. They're not prepared to invest in more Australian projects and ideas. Were they prepared to commit to being in a stronger position to avoid the offshoring of jobs? No, that one didn't make the cut either. They couldn't commit to less offshoring of Australian jobs. Could they commit to increasing wages when the conditions are right? They weren't even asked to commit to flat-out increasing wages—no. They can't even commit to increasing wages when the conditions are right. I'll tell you what: profits have grown 32 per cent over the last two years, and how much have wages grown in that time? They've grown by four per cent in the same time. You've got a 32 per cent increase in profits and wages are not even really keeping up with inflation. When will the conditions be right if a 32 per cent increase in profitability is not the right time to increase wages? You've got the Secretary to the Treasury, John Fraser, saying that he is worried about the severing of the link between increased profitability, increased productivity and increased wages. When will conditions be right? Fifth, big business were asked to 'pay our tax and show our commitment by signing the ATO's tax transparency standard'. These people can't even commit to paying their tax. That didn't make the final cut of the letter they signed up to. I guess that it is no wonder because, in 2015, when we did tax transparency legislation, they fought us every step of the way and the Liberals and the Greens combined to vote against tax transparency. It's no wonder that they couldn't sign this letter, because they don't want to do any of this stuff. 15:43 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax The Leader of the Opposition made a very grand speech today, and he's painted the picture of a vision for two different Australias. Under a vision of a future with a Labor government, it is the everyday Australian being poorer. In a future under the coalition, it is everyday Australians being richer. In a future under Labor, small businesses are closing down. In a future under the coalition, small businesses are growing. In a future under Labor, job security is weak. In a future under the coalition, job security is strong. He talks of two visions, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who just gave her speech, was talking about, I think, two letters. I think the problem is that there are two worlds that the Labor Party are living in: the real world and the fake world. It's like when the little boy who is being naughty throwing stones at cars from the school playground suddenly smashes a window and is the first one in there to the teacher and saying, 'Sir, I saw somebody throwing stones at cars.' I think the psychologists call it something like psychological projection, where one decides to blame others for undertaking the unfortunate actions of oneself. Someone who is really rude might go around saying to everybody, 'Everyone else is rude.' This is exactly the strategy of the opposition because the Leader of the Opposition has stood up today and stated his future vision for this country—and he'll take it to the election—it is one of less tax, yet this is the party that is, in fact, opposed to lowering taxes. This coalition government is in the business of lowering taxes. The opposition is doing everything to oppose it. The opposition believes in increasing taxes. Why does Labor wish to have higher taxes? Because they wish to take money out of the pockets of individuals to suck it in to the vortex of big government because they know if they can make Australians poorer and if they can make Australians less secure, they're going to be more reliant on big government. That is precisely what the opposition believes in: it's all about big government so you punish hardworking individuals, you rip into their pockets and take out the money, and you make their jobs insecure so they will turn around and be reliant on big government and, therefore, the Labor Party. Then the Leader of the Opposition carries on saying he wants to protect people with hospitals and schools. So tell me this: why would the Labor Party ensure that teachers and nurses have to pay more money due to their taxes? How is that looking after teachers? How is that looking after nurses? Why should young families pay more money to buy a property—a family home—because of Labor's negative gearing policy? Why should young families be punished by Labor's taxes? Why shouldn't there be the right to deduct costs for managing one's own taxes? Again, it's everyday workers' money that will be stripped away by the Labor Party. We will have young entrepreneurs who will be forced to pay higher income taxes. We will have farmers who'll be slugged with higher capital gains taxes. Why? Because they want to suck it into the vortex of big government—that's all the Labor Party does. There is one exception—and let's give them credit—where the Labor Party actually did not try to take a higher tax revenue. You know what it was? They opposed the tax avoidance legislation for multinationals. Seven billion dollars a year is forecast but, no, they don't want to take it off multinationals; they want it to take it off mums and dads. They want to ruin the lives of individual Australians because they believe, by making them poorer and by making them weaker, they're going to turn to big government, and that's where Labor has its sweet spot. We will stand by lower taxes and we will absolutely fight Labor every inch of the way. 15:48 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I'm delighted to hear the member for Fairfax announce on behalf of the Liberal and National parties they're there for lower taxes. I'm delighted to hear they are going to stand for workers against higher taxes. And, therefore, I assume the honourable member is going to cross the floor and vote against the increase in income taxes that his government is proposing on every Australian earning more than $21,000. It's very Churchillian. They're going to take the money out of the pockets of individuals. Yes, they are. They want higher taxes on Australians who earn between $21,000 and $87,000 a year—teachers and nurses. This side of the House stands for lower taxes and that side of the House stands for taxing them more. The Prime Minister told the House today how much he admires childcare workers. Perhaps he could show that admiration by not taxing them more. Put aside their very legitimate industrial relations concerns, maybe he could start with not taxing them more. This week says it all about the values of this coalition government. There are 694 days since the last federal budget, and the next sitting day will be budget day. It says it all about this government that they've spent all their time trying to get a $65 billion corporate tax cut through the other House, at the same time as proposing a $44 billion tax rise on Australians—working Australians earning between $21,000 and $87,000 a year. A childcare worker earning $45,000 a year, not a generous sum, they want to tax $225 a year. With a deficit of $23 billion what they want to do is give away a corporate tax cut and tax Australians more, working Australians. So we'll have no lectures about tax from this mob over here. They don't believe in lower tax; they believe in different tax. They believe in taxing working Australians more and they believe in taxing business less. That's what they believe in. The other thing is those opposite love a good scare campaign. The Prime Minister's never happier than when he can launch a scare campaign. He's not very good at it—he's no Tony Abbott—but he still likes to try. The other thing they've done is launch their defence of the dividend imputation refundability policy. What they believe in is a system that no other country in the world has. What they believe in is a system in which people who own shares and who have paid no income tax should be paid a refund even though they haven't paid that tax. That's their big driving philosophy. That's what they believe. They believe that the budget emergency is so bad, that the debt and deficit disaster is so bad, that we should spend $6 billion a year sending refunds to people who haven't paid tax. Let us deal once and for all with this double taxation nonsense. The government says it's double taxation. They would be right if the Labor Party were proposing to tax dividends. If we were proposing to say, 'If you receive $10,000 or $20,000 worth of dividends, we will tax you at your marginal rate or we'll tax you at some special rate,' but that is not what is being proposed. Take the government's theory to its natural conclusion. Let's just live in a world for a moment where the shares in Australia are all owned by people over 65 who pay no tax and who have tax-free superannuation. The company paid—those companies that do pay tax—its tax rate and then distributed its dividends to its shareholders, retirees. Then, under this government's model, they sent a refund for all that tax paid to the shareholders. How much money would be raised from Australia's companies? Zero. It's their model of taxation in Australia—absolutely no tax paid under their model. Not only is Australia the only country in the world with fully refundable dividend imputation, most tax concessions are not refundable. If you're a tradie you can claim your expenses and you can reduce your taxable income, but once you're down to zero you don't get negative income tax. You don't get sent a cheque by the government. Malcolm Turnbull will defend the right of some of Australia's wealthiest investors to the death to get their tax refunds even if they haven't paid tax. Is he going to extend the same right to Australia's workers, to Australia's tradies? I don't think so. I'm not going to hold my breath for that to happen, because this Prime Minister knows whose side he's on, we'll give him that. We know whose side he's on. And we know whose side we're on and we're on the side of fairness in the tax system. We don't mind a fight when it comes to fairness and we'll fight this right up to the election. (Time expired) 15:53 Mr GEE 261393 Calare How ironic it is that those opposite would have the gall to move this matter of public importance about ordinary Australians at the very moment that they're seeking to rip off the tax refunds of ordinary Australian retirees. It's breathtaking. The gall and the front of those opposite to bring this into this House today is absolutely breathtaking. There are 875,000 retirees who are going to affected by their tax grab. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars, about $56 billion, that they are trying to grab from the retirees of Australia. The thing about it is, and you'd know from your own electorate, Deputy Speaker Hogan, that these are hardworking Australians who've spent their lives helping to build our nation, and helping to build our region and our communities. They have proceeded to do that with an expectation that the rules are the rules and that they would be able to retire on a certain amount of income, and all of that now has been snatched away from them by this extraordinary tax grab by those opposite. And you saw how badly planned the whole fiasco was when they've announced that they're backtracking on 300,000-odd pensioners. It's a flip flop. The people out there, the retirees, know that those opposite can't be trusted and they will be wondering what's next: what tax refund are they coming for next; how are they going to get their hands on my wallet next; and am I going to be able to retire beyond one, two, three, four or five years? Uncertainty now reigns supreme in Australia's retiree community. I think it's an extraordinarily shabby way to treat Australia's retirees, and those opposite should be ashamed of bringing this sort of MPI about ordinary Australians into the national parliament at the same time they're ripping off tens of billions of dollars of retirees' tax refunds. It's a shameful episode. What this government is doing for ordinary Australians is probably the best thing you can do: besides not touching their tax refunds, we're actually giving them jobs. The jobs growth that this government has overseen has been extraordinary: more than 1,100 new jobs a day—and this is 900 more jobs than the economy created under Labor each day. This is an extraordinary achievement. In the last year, the total number of jobs created was 420,700 compared with Labor's last year of government of only 88,900. On this side of the aisle, we believe in jobs and lower taxation; on that side, it's all about tax grabs—what tax can we impose next; where can we get more money to spend? We know how they're going to spend it. We know about their economic management. Who could forget the pink batts; who could forget that shameful episode—an episode which actually cost lives. Look at them all over there laughing about it. It cost lives. The Building the Education Revolution—who could forget how they handled that one? Overinflated school halls and classrooms; out-of-town builders getting all the work. People know that this government is the one that is delivering jobs. We've got an unemployment rate of 5.6 per cent—in Calare, it's 3.9 per cent. Since the coalition was elected in September 2013, the economy has created almost one million jobs—997,800—which is an increase of 8.7 per cent. Total employment and total full-time unemployment—and that's an important one—are at record highs. The current rate of jobs growth remains high at 3.5 per cent over the year and is more than double the decade average of 1.6 per cent—and they've all gone quiet, because they know the figures don't lie. They know this is a significant achievement and one which they never attained. They talk a big game, but all they're ever about is grabbing tax and finding out who they can rip off next. You saw that with their disgraceful display in which they hadn't thought out their policy and suddenly had to flip flop: are we going to take the tax refunds from pensioners or are we not? Nevertheless, 875,000 retirees are going to suffer. We've been hearing about them in this House all week. We believe in lower tax. We believe that everyone should pay their fair share, which is why we have extended the multinational anti-avoidance law that's been announced today. This makes sure that these entities are not dodging tax and are paying their fair share. This is another way that this government is driving the economy and economic growth. We're about growth and jobs; you people are about taxing and taking money from retirees— (Time expired) 15:58 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga It is extraordinary to follow the member for Calare, who's plainly forgotten that he voted to axe the energy supplement that will see two million Australians, including 400,000 age pensioners, lose their energy supplement. If you are a married couple, that means $550 out of your budget, and this member for Calare and every other National Party member and every Liberal has voted for that cut. Every single budget that this lot have brought down since 2014 has contained a cut to the pension—every single one. You're addicted to cutting the pension. You're absolutely addicted. Back in 2014, we had some real specials; some absolute specials. Talk about policy consistency— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 A point of order, Member for Corangamite? Ms Henderson ZN4 Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask that the member direct her comments through the chair. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Jagajaga will continue. Ms MACKLIN PG6 It is just an extraordinary display by this government that in every single budget they have tried to cut the pension. And here we have today the government, in the Senate, trying to give big business a $65 billion tax cut while, at the same time, they have legislation in the parliament to cut the pension—to cut the pension this year just like they had legislation in the parliament to cut the pension last year, the year before that and the one before that. We all remember that it was this Liberal-National government that sought to cut pension indexation that would have taken $23 billion out of the pockets of pensioners—$23 billion! That's what would have happened if Labor hadn't protected pensioners. Labor has had to protect pensioners every single year after this lot's budget. We have had to vote down the cuts to pensioners that each and every one of you have voted for. Of course, it was this government that took $1 billion out of pensioner concessions. That was done by this government with just a stroke of the pen. It axed the $900 seniors supplement. Of course, it was this government that came in here and changed the assets test arrangement. That actually knocked 90,000 pensioners off the pension. It took them off the pension altogether. There were 330,000 pensioners hurt by that decision by this government, which, of course, all the Liberal and National Party members voted for. All of them voted for it. I know there are some National Party members who don't agree with this policy. I don't know about the member for Calare. He might get up and tell us whether or not he agrees that the pension age should go to 70. Does the member for Calare agree with that? I know there are other members of the National Party who don't agree with that. Funnily enough, the government never bring this legislation into the parliament; they just keep the cut in the budget—so in fact their deficit numbers are all wrong. But what this would mean is that hundreds of thousands of Australians would not have access to the pension until they were 70. Anyone born after 1958 would be affected by that decision, which the government has already made—it's in the budget—and 375,000 Australians would have to wait longer for the pension. These are all your policies that will hurt the pension. I could go on for hours about the cuts to the pension this government actually has in the budget it's trying to get through this parliament, which would hurt hundreds of thousands of Australians. Of course, one of the other things that this government refuses to do—that so many pensioners are calling on it to change—is to fix the deeming rates. Interest rates keep going down. For three years this government has refused to adjust the deeming rates. That is pure theft from pensioners on the part of this government, and that just sums this government up. (Time expired) Honourable members interjecting — The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I will make the point to all members that it is disorderly to interrupt and doubly so if you're not in your correct seat. If anyone makes a sound and they are not in their correct seat, they will be removed under 94(a). 16:03 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite It's regrettable that the member for Jagajaga has so fundamentally distorted this situation with pensioners. Perhaps one of the Labor Party's greatest shames, when they were in government, was when they callously moved 80,000 single parents from the single parent pension onto Newstart. Even Kevin Rudd, the former Prime Minister, said that that was a day of great shame. The most vulnerable, mainly women but some men, in our community were savagely attacked by the Labor Party, and Kevin Rudd said sorry. What a shame that the member for Jagajaga has no sense of regret about that whatsoever. The Labor Party also increased the pension age from 65 to 67, so there is an enormous amount of hypocrisy. We joined with the Greens to pass a pension increase to the most vulnerable of pensioners. And, yes, there was an adjustment in the threshold to people on the part-pension, because we didn't feel it was appropriate that if you had assets of $1.2 million a part-pension was payable. We brought some fairness back into the system, and now that's just under $900,000. That is still a very significant amount of money. Many pensioners would love to have that amount of money in their bank account. When we made that adjustment, which was based on fairness, we also increased the pension to $170,000 of the most vulnerable low-income pensioners, and the Labor Party rejected that legislation. This reflects how little they really care about pensioners. We've seen that in spades with this shocking attempt to grab the cash, tax refunds, from pensioners and self-funded retirees. The Leader of the Opposition has bungled his own tax backflip. He can't even execute a backflip with any sense of clarity. He's now admitted that this is going to be a $3.3 billion or more tax on retirees every single year, if he gets his way. This is not just a shocking attack on the self-funded retirees around our nation, it is a shocking attack on pensioners. There is no pension guarantee. Anyone receiving a pension will still see their super fund lose its franking credits—potentially, costing pensioners thousands of dollars a year. The member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition, and Labor do not care about pensioners. They do not care about self-funded retirees. This, frankly, is a shocking mess of a policy. Our government's focus is on building a strong economy and standing up for those who most need our help. That's why we will fight this policy every step of the way. Very proudly, we have absolutely attacked multinational tax avoidance. Again, we have to join with the Greens to do so. This will include a range of legislation to ensure that multinationals pay their fair share of tax. As a result of this legislation, the ATO has identified 38 large companies and expects that some $7 billion in income will be returned to the Australian tax base. Our focus is on driving jobs for all Australians: increasing job opportunities; driving business investment; driving confidence. We are absolutely determined to pass our company tax cuts so that all companies, big and small, can share in this prosperity. This is, of course, a policy that Labor previously agreed to and supported. The member for Lilley, sitting opposite me, in 2010 banked $600 million in his budget, with a one per cent cut in the company tax rate, delivering $450, on average, to all workers for the year, and he bragged about how well that was for the economy. The member for Lilley has never explained that. He sits there shaking his head. What the member for Lilley doesn't understand is the absolute hypocrisy— (Time expired) 16:08 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I rise to support this matter of importance because it's absolutely vital that the people of Australia understand that their Prime Minister is so out of touch that he wants to give an unfunded, unconditional $65 billion to the big end of town and, at the same time, impose taxes on 80 per cent of the workforce. This is a Prime Minister who is so out of touch: former merchant banker, never met a worker in his life that he'd have a concern for. He thinks it's reasonable—at a time when there is wage stagnation in this country, when we have the lowest wage growth in a generation—to provide $65,000 billion to corporations without conditions, without being funded, without being explained. We know how it's going to be funded if it gets through. We know what's going to happen here. As we already know because they've already announced it, the government is going to impose taxes on all workers on between $21,000 and $87,000 a year. Every worker earning between $21,000 and $87,000 a year will be getting a tax increase as a result of this government. At the same time, if you earn $1 million a year, you get a $16,000 tax break. What sort of equity is that? What sort of equity and fairness is that? This could only be from a Prime Minister that's so out of touch, that's comfortable in the boardroom but awkward like a fish out of water in offices, depots and factories because he has no understanding, no empathy and no concern for working people in this country. That is the reality. It must be the reality because the only thing he seeks to do is to rob from workers and look after his mates—rob from workers by way of increasing their taxes, and at the same time provide an unconditional, unfunded $65 billion in taxes. What we heard today in question time, of course, was that there are no conditions—no commitment to wage growth, no commitment to employment growth, no commitment to stop offshoring, not one intention to do what is needed to look after working people in this nation. No wonder the Australian people have turned their back on this Prime Minister. He turned his back on them. He turned his back on them, and we saw it first, of course, when he chose to oppose the opposition's private member's motion to stop the cut to penalty rates. This Easter is the first Easter since the penalty rate cuts were brought in on 1 July last year. We will have retail and hospitality workers going to work on public holidays and on Sunday and receiving real wage decreases. Of course, next July they have further cuts in real wages to look forward to. And in July 2020 they have further cuts to occur as a result of that penalty rate decision. I don't know if people notice—certainly they wouldn't notice on the other side of the chamber—but hairdressers and beauticians are also going to get penalty rate cuts if the application before the Fair Work Commission is successful. That application was made last week. We have one application after another to attack working people at a time that wage growth is stagnant. Profits are up, wages are flatlining, and what is the answer from the Prime Minister? 'Well, we've got profits up, wages low; let's give a tax cut to big business.' That's all they contemplated. That's the only policy they have. As the Leader of the Opposition said, they are a one-trick pony, this government. They have one policy. As the Leader of the Opposition has made very, very clear, we're up for this fight. We're happy to have this fight from this day forward and every day until the next election, because we know the Australian people do not believe in unfairness and widening inequality in this country. We are seeing too many people missing out in this country. We do not need lectures from the government in relation to pensioners. They want to increase the pension age to 70 for working people if this country. Can you imagine nurses, construction workers—workers who actually work physically—working until they are 70 before they are even entitled to the pension? It would increase to the highest number in the entire world: 70 before you receive a pension. And yet this government wants to lecture us on pensioners? This government's unfair, the Prime Minister's out of touch and we can't wait till the next election. 16:14 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, I join with everyone that's congratulated you in the past on your recent elevation to high office. It's a great shame that those opposite now are abandoning their posts because they know that they are about to cop a shellacking. I'm very pleased to see that my friend the member for Fairfax is in the chamber with me, because this is a very important discussion that we're having this afternoon. It's important to bring this down to a local level. I'm sure the same situation applies in Fairfax as it does in Fisher—that is, in two federal seats on the Sunshine Coast. There are 741 people in Fisher alone that have been helped off welfare and put into work, including 181 young people, through this government's jobactive wage subsidies. The other side don't like to talk about that, do they? Another great thing on the Sunshine Coast is the record low unemployment: 5.1 per cent. I just seek to remind those opposite that success leaves clues. You can't argue with numbers like 5.1 per cent. I wonder if those opposite could say something similar about an employment rate under the previous Labor government. There is $266 million extra for schools in Fisher. I love it when they come up with these MPIs because it's just a free kick. There is $1.6 billion in extra funding for the Bruce Highway, member for Fairfax. There are millions for a business case which the member for Fairfax was instrumental in organising for the funding of the North Coast Connect rail project, a fast rail project from Maroochydore and Nambour to Brisbane. What have the Romans ever done for us? What has the Turnbull government ever done for us? The answer is $1.6 billion for roads and fast rail. These are groundbreaking projects that will change the lives of hardworking Australians—hardworking people living in Fisher, living in Fairfax and living in Wide Bay. I don't know about Fairfax, but I don't have too many big businesses operating in Fisher. I don't think there are too many big businesses operating in Fairfax. Perhaps we can change that. The other side are always keen to turn a big business into a small business, but on our side of the fence we have absolutely laser-like focus on looking after our small businesses on the Sunshine Coast. There is $5 million for the Thompson Institute. They talk about ordinary Australians. Ordinary Australians will receive some fantastic mental health care through the Thompson Institute—people who suffer from dementia; people who are at very, very low points in their lives and need help, particularly in relation to suicide prevention; and youth with mental health issues. We all want to care for the mental health of our young people. There is $5 million for the new Sunshine Coast community sporting hub in Kawana. This government cares for ordinary Australians. It puts its money where its mouth is. There is $3 million for upgrades to the Events Centre in Caloundra. The list continues to go on. Another great example is a commercialisation grant of $1 million that was provided by the federal government for a Caloundra business by the name of HeliMods. HeliMods will take this power stretcher loader to the world and it will revolutionise people being loaded into emergency services helicopters. I know that Will is heading off to the US in a couple of weeks time to try and sell this concept—it's like selling ice to the Eskimos—to the US National Guard. This is something that will revolutionise the transport of very sick and injured people. A million dollars as just been announced in relation to homelessness programs in Fisher alone. Those opposite talk about ordinary Australians. The Turnbull government gives a damn about ordinary Australians. It always has and always will. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The discussion is now concluded. COMMITTEES 3131 COMMITTEES Treaties Committee 3131 Report 3131 16:19 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 178: Bonn convention-amendments; Universal Postal Union-amendments. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ROBERT HWT by leave—Thank you for the opportunity to make a short statement in respect of Report 178. The report deals with two treaty actions: amendments to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals; and amendments to the constitution of the Universal Postal Union, the general regulations, the Universal Postal Convention, the final protocol to the convention, and the Postal Payment Services Agreement and Final Protocol, adopted by the 26th congress of the postal union. The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, called the Bonn convention, is a multilateral treaty protecting vulnerable migratory species. Migratory species that are in need of protection are listed in the appendices to the Bonn convention. There are two appendices: appendix I lists endangered species and appendix II lists species that have an unfavourable conservation status, but are not endangered. Amendments to the appendices of the Bonn convention come into effect automatically unless a party to the convention lodges a reservation. Australia is a range state for five of the species added to the appendices of the Bonn convention at the conference of the parties held in October last year. The Australian government advised the committee that Australia has lodged reservations in relation to the dusky shark, the blue shark and the white-spotted guitarfish, which have been added to appendix II of the Bonn convention. These reservations arise from an inconsistency between the Bonn convention and the EPBC Act. The EPBC Act extends the prohibition on taking endangered species listed in appendix I of the Bonn Convention to species listed in appendix II that are not endangered. This would unnecessarily prevent commercial and recreational fishers from taking the species being added to appendix II when those fisheries are sustainably managed in Australia. It's important to note that Australia already applies the conservation measures required under the Bonn convention in relation to these species. The committee acknowledges that, absent an appropriate amendment to the EPBC Act, there is no alternative for the Australian government but to lodge reservations in this regard. Australia has accepted the listing of the Christmas Island frigatebird or the whale shark, which have been included in appendix I. As the amendments to the Bonn convention come into effect automatically and Australia's reservations have already been lodged, the committee has not made a recommendation in relation to this treaty action. However, the committee agrees that the treaty action is in the national interest. The Universal Postal Union is a specialised agency of the United Nations responsible for formulating and setting the rules for the flow of international mail. The Australian government is proposing to ratify the amendments to the constitution of the Universal Postal Union, the general regulations, the Universal Postal Convention, the final protocol to the convention, and the Postal Payment Services Agreement and Final Protocol, adopted by the 26th congress. The documents adopted by the congress reflect incremental refinement and improvement of the regulatory framework and operations of the international postal system. Australia's ratification of the documents adopted by the 26th congress will ensure our continued participation in the international postal system, which these days plays such a pretty important part not only in day-to-day life but in international commerce. The committee supports the ratification of the treaty. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House. BILLS 3132 BILLS Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 3132

Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017

Report from Committee 3132 16:23 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Review of proposed amendments to the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr HASTIE 260805 by leave—I am pleased to present the committee's review of proposed amendments to the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. The committee reported on its review of this bill on 26 February 2018, making four recommendations that were accepted by the government. The proposed amendments will implement changes to schedule 1 of the bill to implement the committee's recommendations 1 and 2 in its previous report. The proposed amendments will also introduce a new schedule 2 to the bill that amends 33 acts to implement machinery-of-government changes relating to establishment of the Home Affairs portfolio and the Attorney-General's ongoing oversight role. The committee considered that the proposed amendments are consistent with the government's statements that they amend ministerial and department references to transfer responsibility for these 33 acts and amend provisions that either no longer make sense or are redundant, or to ensure that more than one minister can exercise a function. The committee considered the government should keep the relationship between security and oversight under review to ensure the division of responsibility between the two ministers remains appropriate. The committee will monitor the impact of the revised ministerial and departmental arrangements in its annual oversight inquiries. The committee has recommended that the proposed amendments be introduced and passed by the parliament. I thank the opposition for its assistance and spirit of bipartisanship during this process, particularly that of the deputy chair, the member for Holt. Thank you very much, and I commend the report to the House. COMMITTEES 3133 COMMITTEES Law Enforcement Committee 3133 Report 3133 16:25 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the following two reports: Examination of the Australian Crime Commission annual report 2015-16 and Examination of the Australian Federal Police annual report 2015-16. Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 by leave—The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement has a statutory duty to examine each annual report of the Australian Crime Commission, the ACC, under the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Act 2010. This is the sixth time the committee has examined the annual report. It is worth noting a few things from the report. The priorities the Australian Crime Commission focused on in 2015-16 were tackling criminal activity and profit-making; the Targeting Criminal Wealth No. 2 Special Investigation; the ACC-led Eligo 2 National Task Force; the contribution to the Criminal Assets Confiscation Task Force, led by the AFP; contribution to the multiagency Serious Financial Crime Taskforce; tackling high-risk criminals through the Highest Risk Criminal Targets No. 2 Special Investigation; the national criminal target list; the national target system; automated alerting; and state-specific special investigations into the highest risk criminal targets in Victoria and South Australia. In tackling criminal gangs, the priorities were the Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs Special Operation; the ACC-led Australian Gangs Intelligence Coordination Centre; the gangs intelligence hub; the national gangs list; and the national taskforce operation Morpheus. I have a couple of other important things to say in relation to the report that are worth noting about the international deployments of the ACC. The committee was advised that officers were currently deployed in Hong Kong, Dubai, the US and Canada. Officers are also currently deployed to Europol, The Hague and the National Crime Agency in the United Kingdom. Something that was of particular interest to the committee was the adoption of wastewater analysis. This is a coalition initiative which in May 2016 the Minister for Justice authorised the expenditure of over $3.5 million over three years to establish. Simply, wastewater analysis tests wastewater through the sewerage system to make an analysis of what drugs are being used in a particular area. Thirteen drugs—illicit and licit—were examined. The two licit drugs were alcohol and tobacco. Over time, this will give us some very good time-series analysis so we can see the trends in these drugs, both the illicit and licit. Further, when it comes to the work of the Australian Crime Commission Illicit drug data report, there are some interesting statistics. In 2014 there were 105,862 illicit drug seizures in one year. This was an increase from the previous year. Other findings: there were 514 kilograms of methamphetamine stimulus seized and 35,468 arrests. There were a record number of national cannabis seizures and arrests—59,271 and 75,105 respectively. There were a record number of cocaine seizures, weighing over half a tonne, and 2,092 arrests. There was also a decrease in the number of clandestine laboratories detected by law enforcement agencies. However, these figures can often be an indication of the trends of those particular drugs. Although we commend the ACC in their work, we need to acknowledge the extensive network of the supply chains supplying illicit drugs into this country. As has been said many times by many experienced officers, the problem of illicit drugs is not something that we'll ever be able to arrest ourselves out of, nor will we be able to prevent the problem through the interception of illegal drugs. In conclusion, the committee extols the Australian Crime Commission for its continued work to inform Australia's law enforcement agencies in their fight against serious and organised crime. In particular, the committee is supportive of the ACC's engagement with Australia's international partners, including the Five Eyes, Hong Kong and United Arab Emirates. The inquiries into crystal methamphetamines and illicit tobacco have shown the value of fostering a cooperative relationship with countries that are known as transit points for illicit commodities coming into Australia. On the second report—the AFP report: again, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement has a statutory duty to examine the annual report of the Australian Federal Police. Our AFP is the Australian government's primary policing agency and describes itself as: … a key member of the Australian law enforcement and national security community, leading policing efforts to keep Australians and Australian interests safe both at home and overseas. On staffing matters of the AFP: as at 30 June 2016, the AFP had 6,657 staff, including 3,481 sworn officers, 2,491 unsworn staff and 672 Protective Service Officers. Of these staff, 45 per cent are located outside the AFP's headquarters in the ACT, with 284 serving overseas and 28 serving in the Commonwealth external territories. One thing that is very pleasing to report is that the AFP continued to experience very low attrition rates in 2015. Overall, the adjusted attrition rate as at 30 June was just 2.61 per cent. In conclusion, we again congratulate the AFP for the work they do in keeping our community safe. One concluding comment I would like to make is that this parliament, as a bipartisan policy, has decided that the excise in cigarettes will be ramped up significantly. This is effectively a prohibition by price that this parliament has gone down the track of. Whenever we have a prohibition, it naturally leads to increased criminal activity—to increased smuggling. In the years to come, that will put greater demands on the resources of both the AFP and the Australian Crime Commission. We need to make sure, if we're going down this track and we're going to see these additional problems with increased smuggling and increased criminal activity, that these two agencies are given the resources to fight that problem. I thank the House. BILLS 3135 BILLS Intelligence Services Amendment (Establishment of the Australian Signals Directorate) Bill 2018 3135

Intelligence Services Amendment (Establishment of the Australian Signals Directorate) Bill 2018

Returned from Senate 3135 Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017 3135

Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Second Reading 3135 16:34 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin In continuation: the Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017 amends the Broadcasting Services Act and other legislation to introduce a new regulatory framework to regulate gambling promotions on online content services. The bill will also establish a regulatory mechanism that can be used to apply the new gambling promotion restrictions to broadcasting services, if necessary. The government has listened to community concern about the scheduling and quantity of gambling promotions shown during live sporting events, particularly in the context of its impact on child audiences. In response to this, the government's broadcast and content reform package included new community safeguards in the form of additional restrictions on gambling promotions shown or broadcast during live sporting events in children's viewing hours. Importantly, the government determined that these new restrictions should apply across commercial free-to-air television, the Special Broadcasting Service, subscription television, commercial radio and online content services. The additional restrictions will prohibit all gambling commercials and promotions during live coverage of sporting events from five minutes before the scheduled start of play to five minutes after the conclusion of play. It is intended that under rules made by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the restrictions will apply between the hours of 5 am and 8.30 pm. The restrictions will apply to all audio and audiovisual live coverage of sports. The types of gambling promotions covered will include advertising, sponsorship announcements and promotional content. The government intends that the new restrictions will be in effect across all platforms by 30 March 2018. The restrictions will be applied to broadcast services via changes to their industry codes of practice. As no equivalent industry arrangements exist for online content services, this bill will amend the Broadcasting Services Act to establish a flexible, fit-for-purpose regulatory framework that can be used to apply the gambling promotions restrictions to online content services. The gambling promotions reform will mean that, for the first time, broadcast-like program standards will be applied to online content services. This bill, once enacted, will add schedule 8 to the Broadcasting Services Act. Schedule 8 is an enabling framework that will allow the ACMA to make service provider rules which regulate gambling promotional content shown on online content services in conjunction with live coverage of a sporting event. The online content service provider rules will be a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003 and subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. A key objective of the policy reform is for, to the greatest extent possible, the same restrictions to apply to broadcast, subscription and online providers. It is intended that the online content service provider rules will be similar to existing code based gambling promotions restrictions that apply to broadcast services. Schedule 8 provides that the ACMA may make rules regulating or prohibiting gambling promotional content provided on online content services in conjunction with live coverage of a sporting event. Under schedule 8 an 'online content service' is one that delivers or allows the public to access content using the internet, where the service has a geographical link to Australia. A service will have a geographical link to Australia if an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that the service is targeted at individuals who are physically present in Australia or any of the content provided on the service is likely to appeal to the public or a section of the public in Australia. In addition, for the service to be subject to online content service provider rules, the end user must be physically present in Australia. Consistent with government policy, under schedule 8, gambling promotional content will be taken to be 'provided in conjunction with live coverage of a sporting event' where it is provided in the period beginning five minutes before the start of play and concluding five minutes after the conclusion of play. Where the content consists of promotions of betting odds by match commentators or the appearance of representatives of gambling firms at or around sporting venues, these time thresholds are extended to 30 minutes before and after play. This reflects the existing rules in broadcast codes of practice. It will also allow the online content service provider rules to better protect the community from the potential adverse effects of gambling promotions which link sports personalities and gambling products. Consistent with broadcast codes of practice, 'live' in relation to coverage of a sporting event would include both real time and delayed coverage where the delayed coverage is provided as if it were live and begins no later than the conclusion of the particular sporting event. However, the bill also provides that a program can no longer be considered live for the purposes of the rules once the sporting event itself has concluded. The term 'sporting event' is defined to include the Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games and other similar games. Given that new kinds of sporting events are constantly emerging, the online content service provider rules may also, for certainty, provide that particular events are or are not sporting events for the purposes of this schedule 8. The term 'sporting event' otherwise has its ordinary everyday meaning. The government recognises that there are a range of online content services with different business models and technical characteristics and that the online content service provider rules will not need to regulate all online content services. Accordingly, rules made under schedule 8 will not apply to simulcast services—that is, services that do no more than simultaneously stream a broadcast service that is already subject to code-based gambling promotion restrictions. This prevents such content from being subject to two separate regulatory regimes. Schedule 8 will also empower the ACMA to determine that a specific online content service or online content service provider is exempt from the rules. A refusal to make, as well as a decision to vary or evoke, an individual exemption determination will be subject to merits review by the AAT. In addition, schedule 8 will empower to the ACMA to, through a legislative instrument, determine that online content services or online content service providers included in a specific class are exempt from the online content service provider rules. In terms of compliance and enforcement, it's anticipated that investigations of potential breaches of the online content service provider rules will, as is the case with the broadcasting codes of practice, be largely complaints driven. The online content service provider rules may also require relevant online content service providers to keep records that will allow the ACMA to ascertain whether they've been complying with those rules or not. Schedule 8, in conjunction with existing provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act, sets out the mechanism that may be used to enforce compliance with the online content service provider rules, including infringement notices, civil penalties and remedial directions. The government doesn't consider that criminal penalties are appropriate sanctions for breaches of online content service provider rules, and I note that breaches of broadcast industry codes of practice do not, of themselves, result in potential criminal penalties. As noted earlier, the bill also includes a regulatory mechanism that can be used to apply the new gambling promotions restrictions to broadcasting services should industry codes of practice not be amended in time. The minister can report that broadcast sectors are working closely with the government and the ACMA to ensure that their codes are appropriately amended, and the minister anticipates that the government will have no need to mandate these important restrictions. The minister is grateful for the constructive engagement of the broadcast sectors to date. In conclusion, this enabling legislation which provides increased powers to the regulator and helps ensure a more consistent approach to regulating gambling promotions content across all platforms will send a clear message to the public that the government is committed to implementation of its policy to enact additional restrictions on gambling promotions. The announced gambling promotions restrictions will establish a clear safe zone during which parents and caregivers may have confidence that their children will not be exposed to gambling promotions by viewing live sporting events and, therefore, I commend the bill to the House. 16:43 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway Labor has a strong record on addressing community concerns around gambling promotions during live sport. Debate on this bill in this place comes a year after Labor called for stronger restrictions on gambling advertising during live sport. Labor supports the Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017 as a step in the right direction because it enhances consumer protections and sets up a platform-neutral approach to regulation in relation to gambling promotions during live sport. We welcome the government's move to extend restrictions to online platforms and minimise regulatory bypass. Australia is a sport-loving nation, and Australians should be able to enjoy watching live sport without the unwarranted intrusion of betting odds and gambling promotions. In particular, it is in everyone's interest to ensure that children don't associate betting and gambling as a normal part of enjoying sport. Labor's call for stronger protections last year was in response to ongoing community concern about these issues. In March 2017, in the context of debate on the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016, Labor moved a successful motion in parliament calling for stronger restrictions on gambling promotions during live sport, noting that industry should be given time to adjust to any changes. Despite the introduction of restrictions on live odds and gambling advertising in 2013, a number of reports found concerning trends around an increase in, as well as the impact of, gambling advertising. One of the reports Labor was cognisant of was research undertaken by Deakin University in relation to children and gambling advertising on television. The research found that over 90 per cent of children can recall having seen an advertisement for sports betting. About three-quarters of children aged eight to 16 can recall the name of at least one sports-betting brand. Approximately a quarter can recall four brands or more. Seventy-five per cent of children think that gambling is a normal or common part of sport, and parents conveyed concerns that gambling advertising is so prevalent it is actually changing the way their children think and talk about sport. At the time of Labor's call last year, even high-profile sports players were expressing concern. A February 2017 article in The Ageby Jon Pierik, in relation to the Western Bulldogs premiership captain, Easton Wood, states: Declaring "gambling advertising is out of control and I think it needs to change", Wood says he cannot understand why AFL players are warned about the dangers of gambling yet television broadcasts of men's and women's games are filled with advertising from betting agencies. Similarly, an ABC news story by Damian McIver quoted Geelong defender Harry Taylor as saying: I've got three kids at home and when my eldest can name a lot of the ads on TV that is a bit of a worry. Furthermore, a range of media reports, including from the ABC's Media Watch, presented data pointing to a marked rise in advertising spend. In the year since, concerns have not abated. Indeed, there has been some evolution in the nature of concern. Even in January this year UNICEF Australia expressed deep concerns about rates of teenage gambling when it made a submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill. UNICEF's actions prompted Associate Professor Samantha Thomas of Deakin University to state: This is a further indication that this is an incredibly important issue for children in Australia and that legislation is needed urgently to protect them from exposure to these advertisements. Further, media reports have noted a shift in the behaviour of online betting companies. An article by Nick Toscano in The Sydney Morning Herald earlier this year reported: … concerns over sports-betting advertising swelled again on Thursday after tennis player Nick Kyrgios's brother, Christos, wore a bright blue t-shirt printed with a gambling company's logo to a prime-time match and was shown on camera several times during the broadcast. Stephen Stockwell's piece for Triple j's Hack stated: The shirts are clearly an advertising ploy by the bookie to get its name on TV during the tournament … because cameras will often swing round to the player's family. When you look at these findings, you can understand why parents and the community in general are worried about their children being subjected to gambling advertising during live sporting events, and it is clear why both Labor and the government have acted on this issue. Turning to the bill at hand, the announcement the government went on to make, in May 2017, responded to Labor's call and was the only consumer oriented measure they announced in the raft of industry deals that were done to push their media law changes through the parliament last year. Unfortunately, it took the government another seven months before they introduced this bill into parliament in December 2017. Meanwhile, as I have noted, concerns about children's level of exposure to gambling ads, especially during live sporting events, continued. This delay means that new restrictions for online platforms contemplated by this bill are unlikely to commence at the same time as the new restrictions for broadcast platforms, given the time the ACMA will need to develop new online content service provider rules. Furthermore—and despite the length of time this government has taken to address community concerns—there is a high level of uncertainty amongst industry and consumers about what exemptions will be permitted by the ACMA under the new online content service provider rules. While addressing this issue has not been enough of a priority for this government, and a host of issues are yet to be worked through, Labor does support this bill. As I mentioned, Labor has a strong record in this area. And this bill builds upon the leadership of the Gillard Labor government in 2013, which took steps to address public concerns and bring in rules to restrict gambling advertising in live sports broadcasting and the promoting of betting odds in particular. The then Prime Minister Gillard and Communications Minister Conroy issued a joint media release on these issues on 26 May 2013. They stated: The Gillard Government has demanded that Australia's broadcasters amend their broadcasting codes in the following ways to ensure a reduction in the promotion and advertising of gambling during sport: They noted: All generic gambling broadcast advertisements will be banned during play. Advertisements of this sort would only be allowed before or after a game; or during a scheduled break in play, such as quarter-time and half-time. Most importantly for our purposes today, they stated: The Government will monitor the intensity of generic gambling advertisements within the allowed periods. If it is found to go beyond reasonable levels, the Government will impose a total advertising ban. In response, the broadcast television industry developed rules to restrict gambling advertising in live sports broadcasting and the promotion of betting odds. The updated codes of practice were then registered by the ACMA in July 2013, almost five years ago now, satisfied they contained the appropriate community safeguards. While the provisions in these new codes of practice served to limit the promotion of live odds and in particular to restrict gambling ads during play, they continued to allow promotion of betting odds half an hour before play and in the half hour after play by clearly identified gambling representatives and commercials relating to betting or gambling before play has commenced, during scheduled breaks, during unscheduled breaks and after play has concluded. That is to say, the codes of practice allowed significant windows of opportunity for gambling advertising around live sports broadcasts. It is notable that in the background of its media release announcing the code registration the ACMA stated: … the codes do not cover the field of community concerns around gambling advertising and general sports programming. For example, ACMA research also indicates just over 60 per cent of the community find unacceptable the presentation of odds and general gambling advertisements during sports-related programs. Back in 2013 both the Labor government and the ACMA noted that further action in this area might be necessary in future once the effectiveness of measures to address community concerns at the time could be examined. In 2017, and in view of ongoing community concern about the level of gambling advertising, Labor called for stronger protections, and the government went on to bring this bill before the parliament. The aim of the government's approach is 'to create a clear and practical safe zone where parents can be confident children can watch live sport without experiencing messages that normalise gambling as part of sport.' While the government's approach is intended to cause a reduction in gambling promotions during live sports, it remains to be seen whether this clear and safe zone will satisfy the Australian public in practice, given it cuts out at 8.30 pm, a time when high-profile sports programming is often in play. According to research commissioned by the ACMA, the majority of Australians—61 per cent—do not want gambling advertising during live sports broadcasts no matter what time of the day. However, the Turnbull government has acted to restrict gambling advertising during live sport between the hours of 5.00 am and 8.30 pm as well, as provide for a host of exemptions from the online scheme when the majority of Australians don't want gambling promotions during live sport at all. While selecting the hours of 5.00 am to 8.30 pm does address the time that children are most likely to be consuming media, it does not address the timing of sports programming so neatly. Even the explanatory memorandum to the bill acknowledges this. It states: … many sports events commence between 7pm and 8pm or take place on weekend afternoons when there are significant child audiences. Children are thus exposed to significant levels of gambling advertising on television which risks increasing adolescents' desire to experiment with gambling. Increased exposure to gambling advertisements has also been associated with more positive youth gambling attitudes and intentions towards gambling. It further states: … the Department has received and continues to receive a significant amount of correspondence from the community, expressing concern about the impact of gambling advertising on child audiences. In a recent campaign the Department received over 1150 emails calling for gambling advertising in association with live sport to be banned. Here I would like to make some brief comments on the broadcast industry codes of practice that have recently been updated to reflect government policy in this area. Labor welcomes additional restrictions on gambling advertisements during the broadcast of live sports between 5.00 am and 8.30 pm on commercial TV, pay TV and commercial radio as a step in the right direction. I note that questions remain about inconsistencies in the approach taken under these codes. The broadcast codes of practice, which have been registered with the ACMA and which were announced on Friday 16 March, permit exemptions for low-audience share channels on subscription television and, for technical reasons, treat time zones differently as between platforms. While these differences may be justifiable under the regulatory policy of the Broadcasting Services Act, the simple fact is the broadcasting platforms have not been treated in the same way under the government's approach when both industry and consumers actually want consistency. The regulatory policy provides that the parliament intends that different levels of regulatory control apply across the range of services, including broadcasting and online content services according to the degree of influence that different types of services are able to exert in shaping community views in Australia. Further, it provides that services be regulated in a manner that enables public interest considerations to be addressed in a way that does not impose unnecessary financial or administrative burden on providers of broadcast and online content services amongst other things. Overall, Labor is mindful of the regulatory policy and is pleased that the ACMA has stated that it will closely monitor the operation of the additional restrictions in the updated broadcasting codes and, after 12 months, will consider whether to conduct a formal review of their effectiveness. I turn now to the platform-neutral approach. In the name of consistency, Labor welcomes the move to extend restrictions to online services. The bill seeks to introduce a platform-neutral approach to the restriction of gambling promotions during live sports coverage across broadcast, subscription and online platforms to achieve a level playing field and consistency in consumer protection. However, the bill to restrict gambling promotions during live sport on online platforms permits all manner of exemptions, the detail of which is yet to be worked through after the legislation has passed parliament. Under this government's approach, neither industry nor consumers enjoy clarity or consistency around the application of the additional restrictions. Turning to the issue of exemptions: while Labor acknowledges the aim of the measures in this bill is to reduce gambling promotions online, the wide range of exemptions permitted under this bill and the lack of policy guidance on those exemptions cause many to wonder what this bill will actually end up achieving in practice. For a sport-loving nation like Australia, the new online provisions are cast very broadly indeed. Schedule 8 covers the internet well. It applies to any service that delivers or allows users to access content using an internet carriage service to the public and has a geographical link to Australia, if the service is targeted at individuals physically present in Australia or any of the content is likely to appeal to the public or a section of the public in Australia. In recognition of the wide variety of online content services with different business models and technical characteristics, the explanatory memorandum to the bill states that 'the online content service provider rules will not need to regulate all online content services', and the bill provides for a very broad range of exemptions. The exemptions to the online content service provider rules will be considered by the ACMA, as I said, once the legislation has passed the parliament. I would like to note some industry concerns around some of these matters and, in particular, highlight the concerns of the Digital Industry Group, DIGI, about inconsistent regulation. DIGI submits: There has been limited consultation with the digital industry about the implementation of these restrictions and the proposed introduction of a new Schedule 8 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. DIGI has a number of overarching concerns with the proposed amendments— including that the legislative regime is to be enforced by the regulator, as opposed to industry codes of conduct as for traditional broadcasters. It states: This significant discrepancy could lead to inconsistent regulation of the broadcasting industry versus the digital industry, and subsequently an uneven playing field. It is concerned that the approach taken by the government may: … undermine the ability of online content service providers to manage the services they deliver and place undue and unnecessary burden on content providers by providing a shifting and uncertain legal landscape in which to provide their services to consumers. There is a degree of complexity in the business models for online content that the terms in the bill may not address. DIGI contends further: The use of the term "online content service provider" presumes that it will always be one entity that delivers the content, the service on which the content appears and any advertising, or gambling promotional content, that appears alongside content. This is a misguided presumption as an online service provider can deliver content that is not produced or created by the online service provider. In some cases, the online service provider may not even be aware of the exact content that is being delivered. Furthermore, advertising appearing alongside or within online content can be sold, programmed and served by a third party who is also separate from the online service provider. Ultimately, an online service provider can be a separate entity to the online content creator … This separation of roles and functions in the digital context is rather different to the broadcasting context where the broadcaster typically has direct control over the content being delivered over its spectrum and the advertising that appears alongside that content. On the definition of a geographic link to Australia, DIGI submitted: This Clause is vague and creates an incredibly wide link to Australia—potentially all content online may be of interest to Australians. In the context of sport, this means that broadcasts of sporting events originating from outside Australia that appeal to Australians such as American football or basketball would potentially fall within the scope of these restrictions. On the matter of time based restrictions to online content, DIGI submitted: It may not be possible to place time-based restrictions on the delivery of all online content especially considering the increasing preference by users to consume video content on demand. Furthermore, ad insertion technologies have wide ranging functionalities and are likely to differ from service to service. By way of background, ad serving technology companies provide software to Web sites and advertisers to serve ads, count them, choose the ads that will make the Web site or advertiser the most money, and monitor progress of different advertising campaigns. These technologies are highly customisable and enable the serving of ads to users to be based on a number of criteria that can be determined by the ad serving company, an online service provider, an advertiser or the online content provider. Further, I note the reasoned concerns of Responsible Wagering Australia, who submitted to the inquiry into this bill that the government's approach to enacting a framework bill that leaves the detail of the actual rules to be made to the ACMA creates a high level of uncertainty. RWA stated: From industry’s perspective, this results in a disjointed process under which the entity responsible for the legislation (the Department) cannot speak to nor provide assurances around which exemptions will apply—despite this being a pivotal issue for industry. Similarly, the proposed entity responsible for the consideration of exemptions (the ACMA) is awaiting finalisation of the legislation before it will discuss possible exemptions in any great detail. Then they stated: The Bill takes an expansive view of what constitutes an 'online content service' for the purposes of the legislation, with the legislation providing a mechanism for exemptions to be made by the ACMA. In our view, this approach provides no certainty to industry. As I mentioned earlier, while the Turnbull government made its policy announcement back in May 2017, the legislation was not available publicly until the bill was introduced in the final sitting week in December 2017. And even now a raft of question marks still hang over this bill, a number of which were canvassed during the inquiry into it and will continue to play out. Moving now to the proposed regulation of the Special Broadcasting Service by this bill: Labor moved an amendment to remove the operation of the SBS from this bill in the Senate which was negatived by only one vote. Clearly Labor is not alone in thinking that the Turnbull government should not be able to pick and choose when the SBS has independence. Let's start with the facts. SBS content is regulated by the SBS Codes of Practice, codes which apply to the SBS's radio, television and online services. Unlike the commercial broadcasters, whose codes of practice apply only to TV and radio services, SBS's online services are regulated by the SBS Codes of Practice. The SBS is committed to implementing appropriate restrictions on gambling promotions during live sporting events in accordance with government's policy by 30 March 2018 on both its broadcast and online platforms. Consistent with past practice, SBS will incorporate the new gambling advertising restrictions by reference to the free TV and CRA codes of practice that have been registered, so there will be consistency between services. In the online space, SBS will be ahead of the rest of the market by implementing restrictions to its online platforms this month. This is likely to happen ahead of the making of any rules by the ACMA, which is yet to be empowered under this bill, to develop and implement online content service provider rules. However, despite all this, this bill proposes to regulate SBS programming with rules developed by the ACMA. This implementation mechanism is inappropriate for application to a public broadcaster such as SBS. It permits a level of ACMA intervention over SBS programming that is actually inconsistent with SBS's independence and the co-regulatory framework set out in the Broadcasting Services Act. The Special Broadcasting Service Act requires the SBS board to maintain the independence of SBS and limits the matters on which SBS can be directed by the minister. In turn, the Broadcasting Services Act, which this bill seeks to amend, recognises the independence of SBS and contains distinct processes for code notification, the investigation of complaints and any actions the ACMA may take in relation to the SBS. These actions are quite distinct from the actions the ACMA may take in relation to the commercial and subscription broadcasters. It is straightforward. Labor's view is that the SBS should not be captured by the regulatory regime set out in the bill. Instead, implementation of new restrictions for the SBS should be achieved by establishing one set of rules in the SBS codes that cover both broadcast and online platforms. While in theory the bill permits the ACMA to exempt SBS from the online content service provider rules, there is no assurance the ACMA would do so and, in any event, with all respect to the ACMA, rules around SBS programming should not be a matter of ACMA discretion. Furthermore, subjecting SBS to this bill is contrary to the stated policy objective of the government to pursue opportunities for self- and co-regulation to a greater, and not a lesser, extent. Recent examples of government support for self- and co-regulation, which are being ignored in this bill, include the ACMA's work on optimal conditions for self- and co-regulatory arrangements. First published in June 2010 and updated in September 2011 and April 2015, this occasional paper notes: Self- and co-regulation are promoted by key international and government organisations as alternatives to direct regulation. The Australian Government encourages the use of light-handed regulatory options, such as self- and co-regulatory mechanisms, as part of its best-practice regulation agenda. In 2014, the Department of Communications published Regulating harms in the Australian communications sector, a policy background paper which notes that the telecommunications and broadcasting legislative frameworks both enunciate a preference for co-regulation and that there is an industry-wide assumption that co-regulation 'should be the first port of call when new concerns emerge'. Furthermore, in relation to the broadcasting industry, the paper noted: It may be timely for industry to ask itself about how it could make greater use of self‐regulation … More recently, in the final report of the Department of Communications and the Arts review of the ACMA, it is noted: Best practice regulatory design … suggests that in the communications sector, with its fast pace of change and innovation, greater reliance on co-regulatory and self-regulatory models should lead to better outcomes for consumers and industry. In days gone by, the Liberal government made a great song and dance about deregulation and cutting red tape. Yet today they wish to force the SBS, which is currently self-regulating effectively, to submit to direct regulation. This is costly, duplicative and inconsistent of the Turnbull government. As a matter of law and government policy, and in order to alleviate the burden on taxpayers, the SBS should in fact be encouraged to regulate by codes of practice where possible, which it is already doing. In closing, in essence this bill highlights the ongoing failure of this government and this minister to adapt the regulatory framework for media and communications in the 21st century. The bill proposes to regulate online platforms by tacking yet another schedule for online services onto the outdated, pre-internet Broadcasting Services Act, now over 25 years old, and clumsily draws the SBS into the regime. This government hasn't done the intellectual hard yards to address the many broken or strained concepts in the regulatory regime; nor has it worked out how to restrict gambling promotions during live sport online, having handballed the problem to the ACMA. If the Turnbull government wants to regulate both broadcast and online platforms coherently, or alter the co-regulatory framework in the Broadcasting Services Act vis-a-vis the SBS, it should conduct full and overdue reform of the Broadcasting Services Act. Clearly, Labor's concerns about the inclusion of the SBS and the concerns of the DiGi group and others in relation to the capacity of online services to self-regulate would indicate there is further work to be done to update the regulatory framework and think through the implications of the government's policy intent that self- and co-regulation be pursued. In the meantime, in the absence of this government having done those hard yards in the past nearly five years, and on the issue of consumer protection in relation to gambling advertisements during live sport, Labor regards this bill as a step in the right direction. It is in everyone's interest to ensure that children don't associate betting and gambling as a normal part of enjoying sport. 17:13 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Labor knows there is a deep community concern about the level of gambling promotion during live sport. We have a strong record on this side of the House of seeking to address these concerns. Indeed, more than a year ago, Labor called for stronger restrictions on gambling promotion during coverage of live sport. The government did make a policy announcement a little after we went public—I think at around the time of last year's budget—but it took them till December to bring a bill before the parliament. And a number of question marks do remain about the Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017, but, as the shadow minister has said, it is at least a step in the right direction. On this side of the House, we remain concerned that, despite the restrictions, the gambling lobby will still be able to broadcast gambling ads during live sport events when many children will still be watching. Australians—adults and children—should be able to watch live sport without the intrusion of gambling ads. Australian parents deserve the confidence of knowing that their children can watch sports without being subjected to a barrage of betting odds. This legislation goes some way to providing that with the so-called safe zone, but, as we all know, kids do stay up a bit later than we otherwise might like. Children should not be rattling off the odds of their team and how much money can be made by beating their opponents. That should not be the talk of the playground. Kids' brains are sponges. If anybody thinks gambling ads and betting odds are not worming their way into children's brains and affecting the way they think about gambling then they need to think again. Australians do not want gambling ads aired during live sport—full stop. And if we want a lesson on how seriously Australians take their sport, we only have to reflect on the past few days of the test in South Africa, and that's about all that needs to be said on that subject! Labor will not stand in the way of this bill progressing through the parliament. It's not as good as it should be, but it's as good as the government will give. A ban on ads between 5 am and 8.30 pm is at least a start. The Australian Communications and Media Authority commissioned research that showed 61 per cent of Australians do not want gambling advertised during live sports broadcasts, regardless of the time of day. The restrictions that the government has placed on broadcasting during the live events do not go far enough and, indeed, even the government's own explanatory memorandum to the bill states: … many sports events commence between 7pm and 8pm or take place on weekend afternoons when there are significant child audiences. Children are thus exposed to significant levels of gambling advertising on television which risks increasing adolescents' desire to experiment with gambling. Increased exposure to gambling advertisements has also been associated with more positive youth gambling attitudes and intentions towards gambling. It also states: Further, the Department has received and continues to receive a significant amount of correspondence from the community, expressing concern about the impact of gambling advertising on child audiences. In a recent campaign the Department received over 1150 emails calling for gambling advertising in association with live sport to be banned. As the explanatory memorandum says, many events start at 7 or 8 pm. So this bill will restrict advertising for the first quarter or first half of a match, but I don't know many sports fans who will be switching off before the end of the game, and I don't know many parents who would risk telling their young ones that it's bedtime, when their team is still on telly. From 8.30 pm those banners and those flashy ads will appear, telling viewers the odds and encouraging them to place a bet. Having a punt is part of Australian culture. Whether it's goldminers and Anzacs chucking coins into the air, the nation stopping work at 3 pm on the first Tuesday in November or millions of us in the draw for the Lotto each week, we enjoy risking a few bucks in the hope that we'll rake in a lot more. Gambling, like drinking, has a legitimate place as a pleasurable pursuit, in moderation. But like drinking it can also be a curse for individuals caught in the grip of addiction and a scourge on the community having to deal with the impacts. The people who own the casinos and the pokies make a lot of money from the rest of us, and good luck to them. They know that for every dollar they pay out on a jackpot they are collecting $10 or $100 more from folk who lose a lot more than they win. The thing about people who make easy money is that they want to keep making it and not be told by governments that the community interest is best served by limiting their ability to continue to make such big profits. Earlier this month there was a state election in Tasmania. On the Labor side, we have never seen its like before and I hope for the good of public discourse that we never see it again. Labor announced months before that election that a Labor government would remove poker machines from pubs and clubs by 2023 and restrict them to the state's two casinos. The five-year gap would allow pubs and clubs with pokies to transition their businesses. Some could apply for transition-assistance funding. We know that pubs don't need pokies to survive or even thrive. There are plenty in Tasmania without them and, of course, over in WA the pub scene, which is entirely pokie-free, is thriving. So getting pokies out of pubs and clubs in Tasmania was the right decision for the community, and it was evidence based, but it was a politically-courageous decision because Labor knew that it would unleash the gambling lobby. I'm sorry to say that the re-elected state government did the gutless thing and backed in the gambling lobby, despite all the evidence so clearly stating that to do so was not in the best interest of the community. I don't think that anybody foresaw the ferocity, the desperation and the naked power and wealth of the gambling lobby, but it was unleashed and we have never seen anything like it before in Tasmania. Pubs with pokies brandished giant 'Vote Liberal' signs and staff at pokies pubs and clubs were directed—not all of them, but some were absolutely directed—to wear 'Vote Liberal' shirts. Full-page ads were published day after day after day after day in the daily newspapers. I've heard, anecdotally, that the pokies lobby spent $10 million on that campaign and that they had another $10 million in the war chest in reserve, ready to be spent if necessary. And because of Tasmania's weak electoral financial disclosure laws we may never know the true amount. But that's how desperate the pokies lobby was to stop Labor's plan to put community interests ahead of corporate profit. They stopped at nothing. Blatant lies about the number of jobs affected were told and repeated again and again, despite proof—hard proof—being offered that the true figure was less than one-tenth of what had been implied and claimed. It was a startling illustration of the power of wealth in distorting public discourse and it gives us some insight into the stakes at play. It is our job in parliament, whether it's this chamber or in a state legislature, to act always in the best interests of the community, not in the narrow interests of one section of the community with skin in the game. The fact is that gambling can be a curse for those caught in the grip of addiction, and a curse for their loved ones. Homes can be lost, marriages fail and children become estranged. There can be a spiral into alcohol and other drug addiction. Gambling used to be something we only got exposed to as adults, but now it's potentially in front of our children whenever they're before a screen, whether it's a smartphone, tablet, laptop, PC or TV. We do struggle as parliamentarians to regulate the online universe, with so many websites hosted overseas, often via opaque accountability, but that doesn't mean we should shrug our shoulders and give up. I'm pleased to see that online gambling is being captured by this legislation, albeit with a raft of exemptions. It does concern me, as a parent, that my children can be exposed to gambling advertising during sporting events. It normalises the gambling experience for young, inquisitive minds. If they are exposed to it enough, they automatically associate betting and gambling with sport. Like popcorn and movies, one becomes unthinkable without the other. Deakin University did some research which points out a number of very concerning issues in regard to children and gambling advertising on television. It found that more than 90 per cent of children can recall having seen an advertisement for sports betting. The research found that three-quarters of children aged eight to 16 can recall the name of at least one sports betting brand, and approximately 25 per cent can recall four brands or more. This is the sort of recall that any teacher would be proud of after months in the classroom. Also, 75 per cent of children think gambling is a normal or common part of sport. Parents conveyed concerns that gambling advertising is so prevalent that it is changing the way their kids think and talk about sport. I know that's what this legislation seeks to address, and we are supporting it. My concern is that it simply does not go far enough. It also concerns me, as a representative of some of the most vulnerable people in our community, that gambling is promoted so readily. Access to it is absolutely as simple as owning a smartphone. Long gone are the days when you had to head down to the pub or to the local TAB to put a couple of dollars on an event. Regardless of your opinion about gambling, a visit to the pub or the TAB to place a bet is at least a bit of a social event—you talk to your mates and catch up with people, and it gets you out of the house. But now you don't even have to leave your lounge room to bet on a race, a match, the cricket, the footy or even an election. An ad flashes on the screen for a betting company while you're watching a test match or grand final, you reach for your phone, you press the app and you place a bet. It's that easy. I bet, with the algorithms in those apps, the more you bet the more they flash, so there could be a spiral there too. We're not in the business of telling people what to do with their money, but we're also not in the business of being bag men for the gambling lobby. Let them make their money, but let them work that little bit harder for it. This bill also permits broad exemptions with regards to online advertising and online content providers. It's a bit of a shame that in seeking to draw online content in that these exemptions are there. What exactly those exemptions or their impact will be, we're not quite sure, because the criteria is still to be developed. It will be considered by ACMA once the legislation is passed. We can only hope and pray. The government announced this policy in May last year, yet there was no legislation forthcoming until the final sitting week of last year, so we still don't know the full effect and impact this bill will have. But there's no doubt that this government has failed to bring its legislative framework into the 21st century. Instead, it's tinkering with outdated, pre-internet law that is no longer relevant, and adding yet another schedule—bolting it on like Frankenstein's monster—for online services onto the Broadcasting Services Act. It's yet another example of this government failing to plan, failing to look ahead to the future and failing to develop policy and legislation that will be as relevant tomorrow and the day after that as it is today. I will just say three letters: NBN. That speaks for itself about what happens when you don't plan for the future. It shows a complete disregard for the concern of Australians to continue to allow gambling during live sports events and to not properly address the issue of online content. In fact, online platforms were only included by the government at the urging of the broadcast sector, who saw the need for a level playing field. So at least we've come some way. Broadcast services will be regulated by industry codes of practice while online platforms will be regulated directly by ACMA. It's not the best situation, but that's the best we can hope for. As the shadow minister said, we also have concerns about the impact on the independence of the SBS. I'm sure further speakers will address those points. 17:28 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam In 2012, something occurred in this country which significantly changed the way that we think about the issue of gambling and, particularly, the marketing and advertising of gambling. In mid-2012 a brash young bookmaker from a very famous family blasted his way into just about every living room in the country. You couldn't turn on the TV, let alone watch a sports broadcast, without seeing this particular character's smiling face thrusting through the screen of your television. It was marketing saturation like we had never seen before. Of course, it came after the advent of mobile phone applications, which effectively mobilised the way that gambling can be done and, particularly, placing a bet—having a punt—can be done in this country. In the gambling days of my youth, you would have to go to an oncourse bookmaker or the TAB or one of the other approved bookmakers to place a bet. But with the advent of mobile phone applications you literally could do it anywhere, at any time, on just about any code that a bookmaker was willing to take a bet on. What we had was the ubiquity, or mobilisation, of punting with the absolute saturation of advertising around a particular bookmaking service. Other bookmakers responded in kind. They couldn't be left behind in what was becoming a very competitive market. It would be very easy for us to just point the finger at the bookmakers and say, 'There is where the fault lies.' It's a legal business. I have a punt occasionally myself. I didn't particularly like the way they were going about their advertising but, you know, you can't really blame that person—that's the way the rules allowed it to occur. I do have a slightly different view, I have to say, about the codes themselves and the broadcasters, because if they have concerns about the provisions that are in the Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017, and the provisions that were in the 2013 measures, they need look no further than themselves and their own behaviour. They were greedy, they saw a new stream of money coming in the door and they thought, 'This is fantastic.' For the codes, it enabled them to pump up the rights or the costs that they were demanding of the broadcasters for their games. For the broadcasters, they saw this as a new stream of revenue to either supplement their income to pay for the increased broadcasting rights or to fill the gap where other sources of advertising income had fallen over. We saw a combination—you had the bookmaking integrated into absolutely every aspect of a sports broadcast. It was to a point where you could not tell the difference between commentary and spruiking the odds. In fact, there was a deliberate attempt to blur the lines between the commentary and the gambling promotion and advertising. It was the complete gamblification of sporting—particularly elite sport—broadcasts. There was an overwhelming public reaction. I don't care whether you're a member of the Labor caucus, a member of the Liberal or National caucus or an Independent. You would have received a wall of complaints from sports fans around the country. You could not take your kid to the match without having gambling advertising thrust down their throat. It sent a very clear message not only to the adults in the stadium or in the living room but also to the kids who were there with them: if you aren't having a punt on this game, on this fixture, you aren't really a fan. If you're not gambling as a way of watching and engaging in your particular sporting code then you're not really a fan. The reaction from families and citizens around the country was overwhelming. I was a junior backbencher in this place at the time and I prepared a private member's bill to address the issue. I was active within my caucus. I worked with the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the then communications minister, Steven Conroy, to come up with a solution. Otherwise, I thought, a private member's bill was the answer to the problem that all MPs in this place were confronting: a public backlash. I was very pleased that a solution was brokered, and that solution persists to this day. In part, it is a solution which limited the times and the places in which TV advertising for bookmaking, for the gambling within a sport, could be conducted. At that time, all generic gambling broadcast advertisements were banned during play, and advertisements of this sort could only be allowed before and after the game or during scheduled breaks in play, such as at quarter-time and half-time. The machinery for implementing this ban was an Australian Communications and Media Authority regulated—or authorised, or approved—code. So there was a co-regulation measure, the same sort of measure that is being used to enliven the provisions anticipated in this bill before the House today. A good example of co-regulation would be getting the broadcasters and the codes in the room, knocking some heads together and saying: 'What you are doing today is out of step with community expectations. Change has to occur. It will either occur with you, it will occur by you or it will occur to you.' That is the choice that has to be made. I think parliament acted very, very responsibly. Across the divide, we were unified on this particular issue. In July 2013 the Australian Communications and Media Authority registered the new codes. They were satisfied that they contained the appropriate community standards, the expectations that government had put to the industry. It is notable that a media release that accompanied the code registration from the authority stated: … the codes do not cover the field of community concerns around gambling advertising and general sports programming. For example, ACMA research also indicates just over 60 per cent of the community find unacceptable the presentation of odds and general gambling advertisements during sports-related programs. So at that the point in time there was a signalling that there would in all likelihood be a second step. So the broadcasters and the codes themselves have seen this coming. This is another step, a good step, in the process of ensuring the regulation and the practices in these sports and in the broadcast of these sports is in step with community expectations. We have to be very clear with the community. If, like me, you believe that some of our most popular codes should be available on free-to-air broadcasting—they should be available for anybody to watch, whether they have a pay TV subscription or not—then the corollary of that is that there has to be advertising, because you have to pay for broadcasting rights. You have to pay for the right to be a broadcaster and to broadcast. That money has to come from somewhere, and in free-to-air television the business model is that money comes from advertising revenue. So what this measure is saying, and what the previous measures have said, to the industry and to the codes is: 'You've got to get the balance right. We do not think it is within community norms that within the hours of 5 am and 8.30 pm these advertisements are appropriate during sports broadcasts. Outside of those hours, the 2013 code provisions still apply.' So we think the measure is right. We think we have got a good balance in these measures. It may not be the last word on the matter, because I think this is an issue where the community is clearly saying to the politicians, to the members of parliament and to the government, 'We want to ensure that the regulation matches our expectations'. I support the provisions—Labor supports the provisions—within the bill. They will, as I said, ensure or propose to restrict gambling advertising during live sport between the hours of 5 am and 8.30 pm. It provides for a corollary set of regulations for online broadcast. This is important. The regulation in this area needs to be platform neutral, because, increasingly, people are watching their sports broadcast on a mobile phone. One of the large telecommunications carriers famously has the ability and provides the package to broadcast certain sporting fixtures over mobile phone devices. People will watch it on the beach on an iPad, so we have to have a platform-neutral way of regulating these provisions. I support the fact that there are provisions within the scheme for regulating online broadcasting as well. It provides for some exemptions. Time will tell whether these exemptions are going to work properly or not. We agree with the government, there may be an argument for some exemptions to occur in relation to some very niche and very small provisions, but we'll want to watch and see how these operate. We clearly foreshadow that there may be an issue for further reform in the future. The new online provisions are cast very broadly. Schedule 8 covers the internet. It says that any service that delivers or allows users to access content using an internet carriage service to the public and has a geographical link to Australia and if: … the service is targeted at individuals physically present in Australia or any of the content on the service is likely to appeal to the public, or a section of the public, in Australia. It is very broadly cast. The explanatory memorandum to the bill states that the online content service provider rules will not need to regulate all online content services, and the bill provides for a very broad range of exemptions, as I have already identified. The exemptions may be appropriate because we recognise there is a wide variety of online content services with different business models and different technical characteristics. Exemptions to the online content service provider rules will be considered by the ACMA and an exemption must be in writing for it to be valid; otherwise the general rules will provide. There has been some discussion within this debate and alternative mechanisms proposed in relation to the SBS, the Special Broadcasting Service. Of course, unlike the ABC, the SBS, under its charter, has a limited provision to attract paid advertising to help its government supplementation. It is not conceivable that we would put in place a scheme such as this and not anticipate that the SBS would also be covered by it. However, the SBS does present itself as a slightly different category of broadcasting entity because of its own charter, and we simply say that our changes are directed at ensuring that the SBS has the same restrictions placed upon it and is able to comply with those restrictions. However, we need to do that through a different mechanism to ensure that the integrity and the independence of the SBS, vis-a-vis the parliament and the government of the day and the ACMA, is respected. The intent is the same. How we get there, and how the Labor opposition proposes we get there, are slightly different. With those comments in mind, Labor thinks that this is an important piece of legislation and regulation. It has a long history—a history that I have been integrally involved in. We want to see this work. We want to see the commercial model for free-to-air broadcasting of sports fixtures continue. We want to see that available on free-to-air television, but we want community expectations to be respected as well. Debate adjourned. Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2018 3152

Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2018

First Reading 3152 Second Reading 3152 17:44 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. Critical infrastructure is integral to the prosperity of the nation. Secure and resilient infrastructure underpins the effective functioning of Australian society—ensuring we have continuous access to essential services for everyday life, such as food, water, energy and communications. Foreign involvement in Australia's critical infrastructure plays an important and beneficial role in supporting economic growth. It can also improve productivity by enabling the development of much-needed infrastructure, introducing new technology, allowing access to global supply chains and markets, and enhancing Australia's skills base. However, while recognising its many benefits, increasing foreign involvement in our national critical infrastructure means that Australia's critical infrastructure is more exposed than ever to sabotage, espionage and coercion. In January last year the government established the Critical Infrastructure Centre. The centre, housed in the Department of Home Affairs, is a central point for government and industry to better understand and mitigate national security risks to Australia's critical infrastructure. The centre was established to develop a deeper understanding of the national security risks across our high-risk critical infrastructure sectors, and to develop and implement mitigation strategies. The centre works collaboratively with industry and states and territories to ensure national security risks are being managed in a way that does not inhibit the ability of business to operate in a global economy. To enhance the centre's ability to manage national security risks, the government introduced the Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2017 and the corresponding Security of Critical Infrastructure (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017 into the Senate in December last year. This bill will ensure that the government has the necessary powers to protect Australia from national security threats of sabotage, espionage and coercion stemming from malicious foreign involvement in our critical infrastructure. The Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill will apply to a specified set of critical infrastructure assets in the high risk electricity, water, gas and ports sectors—approximately 106 assets in total. These reforms build upon and complement measures the government has already taken to manage these same risks to the telecommunications sector, by passing through the parliament the telecommunications sector security reforms in September last year. Overview of key measures The bill will establish a register of critical infrastructure assets, which will enhance the capability of the centre to understand who owns, controls and has access to Australia's critical infrastructure. This register will support more proactive management of the risks faced by assets in our high-risk sectors. The bill will require owners and operators of specified critical infrastructure assets to provide specific, high-level information concerning the ownership and operation of the asset. This will include information on ultimate beneficial owners. This information is essential to informing a deeper understanding of who has access to, control of, or the ability to influence, the critical infrastructure on we which we all rely. Ministerial directions power The bill also contains a ministerial discretions power. This will enable the Minister for Home Affairs to ensure and issue a direction to an owner or operator of a critical infrastructure asset to mitigate national security risks that cannot be managed through cooperation or existing regulatory mechanisms. It is modelled on a similar power in the telecommunications sector security reforms. This 'last resort' directions power could be used to direct asset owners and operators to undertake or refrain from certain actions. Importantly, this power is limited to instances where: there is a risk identified which is prejudicial to security through collaboration, the owner and operator does not or cannot implement mitigations to address the risk, and there are no existing regulatory frameworks that can be used to enforce mitigations. Safeguards The bill includes a range of important safeguards. Before a direction is able to be issued, the minister will be required to be satisfied of certain matters, to consult with stakeholders, and to give consideration to a number of factors, including: giving primary consideration to a mandatory ASIO adverse security assessment being satisfied that the government has negotiated in good faith consulting directly with, and considering any representations made by, the relevant first minister and state or territory minister and the entity to which the direction applies considering the cost to the entity and consequences to services in implementing the mitigation, and ensuring the direction is a proportionate response to the risk. The minister's directions power is also subject to judicial review, while the ASIO adverse security assessment will be subject to merits review. Following introduction, the bills were referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for inquiry. The committee released its report into the bills on 15 March this year, and the government thanks the committee for its comprehensive and timely work on the bills, particularly the hard work of the committee chair, Andrew Hastie. The government was pleased to accept all of the committee's recommendations. Accordingly, the bills currently before the House incorporate the necessary amendments to give effect to the committee's recommendations, including, in short, an amended and clarified definition of 'direct interest holder'; an exemption from the bills' obligations for money lenders where they are not in a position to influence or control the asset; a requirement that the affected party receives written notice if they are the subject of an ASIO adverse security assessment; and a requirement that the committee review the bill within three years of it receiving royal assent. Conclusion The Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill aligns with the government's clear intention to continue to cooperate and collaborate with all levels of government, regulators, owners and operators of critical infrastructure, including under the government's Critical Infrastructure Resilience Strategy. It strikes an appropriate regulatory balance by acknowledging the shared responsibility for managing national security risks, while empowering the Commonwealth to intervene to mitigate a risk where existing regimes cannot be used. While maintaining competitiveness in a rapidly changing global market is essential, with this bill the government is taking the steps necessary to strengthen the security and resilience of Australia's critical infrastructure. Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately. 17:51 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs Labor have a long track record, stretching back to the foundation of our party, which reflects our understanding that it's the paramount responsibility of all parliamentarians, whether in government or in opposition, to keep our community safe and our nation secure. That's why Labor has consistently worked, both in government and in opposition, to ensure that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the powers and resources they need to carry out their vital roles. We know that the security threats we face are changing and we will continue to work constructively with the government to ensure that our laws are adapted to meet those threats. Consistent with our commitment to national security, Labor supports the Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2018 and the related Security of Critical Infrastructure (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018. We support these bills because we recognise the need to manage national security risks arising from the possibility of malicious interference in our critical infrastructure. Labor believes these bills strike an appropriate balance, imposing only the necessary and relatively minor regulatory requirements needed to improve the management of potential threats to our critical infrastructure. The Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill provides 'a risk based regulatory framework to manage national security risks from foreign involvement in Australia's critical infrastructure'. The bill focuses primarily on the risk of sabotage, espionage and coercion in Australia's highest risk critical infrastructure sectors of electricity, gas, ports and water. Labor recognises that involvement in the Australian economy by foreign entities and individuals, particularly in the development and maintenance of Australian infrastructure, plays an important and beneficial role in supporting economic growth, creating employment opportunities, improving consumer choice and promoting competition. It also makes Australia an attractive destination for investment in foreign markets. However, with increased privatisation of Australia's critical infrastructure, frequent outsourcing and offshoring of supply chain arrangements, and the fact that Australia's international investment profile is changing, critical infrastructure is increasingly exposed to the risk of sabotage, espionage and coercion. This bill is an appropriate step to inhibit malicious conduct undertaken covertly which may have damaging implications for Australian society. The regulatory framework in the bill is modelled substantially on the telecommunications sector security reforms, which were enacted last year as the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2017. These reforms include, first, a security obligation on all telecommunications carriers, carriage service providers and carriage service intermediaries who will, under the reforms, be required to do their best to protect networks and facilities from unauthorised access and interference, including a requirement to maintain competent supervision and 'effective control' over telecommunications networks and facilities owned or operated by them. All carriers and nominated carriage service providers will be required to notify government of planned changes to their networks and services that could compromise their ability to comply with the security obligations. This is markedly similar to the notification concept that is contained in the bill that's now before the House. Further, the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department has the power to obtain information and documents from carriers, carriage service providers and carriage service intermediaries to monitor and investigate their compliance with the security obligations. Similarly, in the telecommunications sector, the Attorney-General has a new directions power to direct a carrier, carriage service provider or carriage service intermediary to do or not to do a specified thing that is reasonably necessary to protect networks and facilities from national security risks. Labor supported the telecommunications sector security reforms because Labor considered the codification of pre-existing beneficial relationships between government and the telecommunications sector would give greater certainty that as ownership of Australia's telecommunication infrastructure changed, the government would continue to process the appropriate mechanisms to work constructively with the sector to safeguard vital infrastructure. It's worth saying about the telecommunications sector security reform that it was a long time in the making. Labor commenced the work on the telecommunication sector security reforms in around 2010. They were the subject of consideration by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in a lengthy inquiry in 2012, and recommendations were made in a subsequent report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that further work be done to develop the telecommunication sector security reforms. They eventually came forward and became law in the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2017, when that was finally brought forward. No harm occurred because of the time that it took to bring to the parliament the codification that's bound up in the telecommunications sector security reforms legislation for the pretty simple reason that there is a very high degree of cooperation between telecommunications sector companies and the government of Australia. There has been a very high degree of cooperation for a very long time in relation to national security matters, and the purpose of the telecommunications sector security reform legislation was actually not to deal with any problem that had arisen up to that point—or even up to now—with cooperation from telecommunication sector companies and the government in relation to national security matters. Rather, the purpose of the legislation was to ensure that if any problem did arise in the future where a national security issue arose and action was needed from a telecommunications sector company, and in the event—and I'd have to say in the unlikely event—that the telecommunications sector company declined to cooperate with a request by government, the government would have not only the necessary powers to require that information be produced but, in addition, the necessary power to direct the telecommunications sector company to undertake actions that were required to protect Australia's national security. The TSSR legislation applies to around 280 active carriers and a further number of carriage service providers. What's occurred in the Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2018 that's now before the House is that the model that was devised for the telecommunication sector security reforms has been applied here in relation to critical infrastructure. The Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill adopts a very similar regulatory structure to the telecommunications legislation. In contradistinction to the rather larger number that the telecommunications law applies to, the Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill will apply to the owners of around 140 critical infrastructure assets. As I've said, those critical infrastructure assets are ports, electricity, gas and water assets. Some of them are owned by private sector entities and some of them are owned by state government entities. As with the telecommunications sector, Labor supports the need for regulation of the sectors which have these critical infrastructure assets. This will ensure that critical infrastructure assets, where they are partly owned by foreign entities—perhaps I should say particularly where they are partly owned by foreign entities—are still subject to control and direction by the Commonwealth. It's fundamental to the maintenance of the security, safety and prosperity of Australians that the owners of critical assets can be required to provide relevant information to government and that in times of emergency they can be directed to ensure that the needs of Australian society are met. This was a sentiment shared by state and territory governments and by industry and peak organisations, who have all expressed support for this bill in submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This sentiment was not a new resolve but, rather, the agreement for a mechanism that allows both information gathering and directions powers for critical infrastructure assets. In essence, this bill is a formalisation of longstanding conventions under which industry assists the government of the day to ensure control over electricity assets, gas assets, water assets and ports—of course, always in relation to any national security problem that might arise. As I pointed out in relation to the telecommunications sector security reform, this legislation is not being introduced to deal with any actual problem that has arisen in dealings between the owners of these around 140 critical infrastructure assets and the national government. Rather, the legislation is being introduced to ensure that in any future eventuality, where the owner of one of those critical infrastructure declines to cooperate with a government request in relation to a national security matter or declines to cooperate with a government request for information about some aspect of a critical infrastructure asset that relates to a national security issue, the government will have the power to compel the production of information and to ensure that the government will have the power to direct an owner of a critical infrastructure asset to take a particular action that is needed for Australia's national security. The bill presently sets out water, electricity, gas and ports above a certain threshold as critical assets. It will be obvious to the House that these assets are all fundamental to the daily functioning of households and businesses. The bill defines a 'critical water asset' under clause 5 as 'a water or sewerage system or network that is used to ultimately deliver services to at least 100,000 water connections or 100,000 sewerage connections under the management of a water utility'. That will give the House some idea of the scale of assets that are dealt with in this Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill. It's self-evident that all Australians require a clean and reliable supply of water and that disruption to Australia's water supply or water treatment facilities could have major consequences for the health of citizens, the viability of all institutions in Australian society, and the economy. Similarly, a critical electricity asset is set out in clause 10(1)(a) as: (a) a network, system, or interconnector, for the transmission or distribution of electricity to ultimately service at least 100,000 customers. That provides the criticality for an electricity asset. The proper functioning of the Australian economy requires electricity, self-evidently, and keeping the lights on in Australian homes is a fundamental and basic necessity. It's clear that electricity assets providing transmission and distribution services across the country also form a core part of the nation's critical infrastructure. A critical gas asset is defined in clause 12 of the bill as: (a) a gas processing facility that has a capacity of at least 300 terajoules per day or any other capacity prescribed by the rules; (b) a gas storage facility that has a maximum daily quantity of at least 75 terajoules per day or any other quantity prescribed by the rules; (c) a network or system for the distribution of gas to ultimately service at least 100,000 customers or any other number of customers prescribed by the rules; (d) a gas transmission pipeline that is critical to ensuring the security and reliability of a gas market, in accordance with 3 subsection (2). It is axiomatic that gas in Australia—like the other two services that I mentioned, water and electricity—is important. It is a required element for a wide range of industrial, commercial and residential uses, and it is an increasingly important export commodity as well. Gas is particularly important for gas powered electricity generators, which account for approximately 20 per cent of Australia's electricity, and for manufacturing, which relies on gas for approximately 40 per cent of net energy requirements. We expect these numbers will grow as Australia transitions to a clean energy economy. Accordingly, the protection of gas infrastructure as a critical asset will grow, not diminish, over time. By defining the level of criticality, the bill limits the regulatory burden to Australia's largest and highest-risk critical assets. That is how we get to the 140 assets that are going to be the subject, potentially, of this regulatory scheme. The bill will supplement the existing Foreign Investment Review Board's mechanism through which the Commonwealth can implement mitigations. However, because this only applies to foreign investments above certain thresholds at the time of the proposed transaction, it is not possible to use the FIRB mechanism to address risks in outsourcing or offshoring for assets owned by domestic entities or where sales fall outside of the FIRB screening thresholds. Accordingly, the creation of the security of critical infrastructure framework will improve upon existing safeguards that protect critical assets. In practice, the Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2018 will add to the work currently undertaken by the Critical Infrastructure Centre, which collaborates with asset owners, asset operators and state and territory regulators to identify risks, implement asset-specific mitigation strategies and develop sector-wide best practice guidelines. The Critical Infrastructure Centre engages with asset owners and operators through the Trusted Information Sharing Network and directly, as needed. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security conducted an inquiry into this bill and heard from a range of affected industries, including peak industry bodies and other interested parties. I thank the members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for the customary cooperative work that the committee was able to undertake on this inquiry, which resulted in nine recommendations that the committee has made to the government and the parliament. In recommendation 1, the committee recommended that the Department of Home Affairs, in consultation with the Department of Defence and the Department of the Environment and Energy, review and develop measures to ensure that Australia has a continuous supply of fuel to meet its national security priorities. As part of developed measures, the committee recommended that the Department of Home Affairs should consider whether critical fuel assets should be subject to the regulatory regime which is being established by this bill. The committee considered that the department should conclude this review within six months. As a member of the committee, I note that the committee would like the department to brief the committee on the outcomes of the review, following its conclusion. There was some consideration in the inquiry about fuel as an additional aspect to critical infrastructure. Again, it's self-evident that Australia is highly reliant on fuel infrastructure. Australia is presently almost entirely reliant on imported fuel. There are issues about storage of fuel in Australia. The purpose of this first recommendation of the committee was to invite the Department of Home Affairs and the other government departments mentioned to consider seriously whether or not fuel related infrastructure should be added to the categories dealt with by this new regulatory regime. In recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that the Department of Home Affairs examine the viability of developing a common data entry portal for use across Commonwealth, state and territory databases that require information from the same reporting entities. This would limit the amount of reporting and allow the distillation of relevant information used by governments at Commonwealth, state and territory levels. A number of submitters to the inquiry made the point that all of them operate in highly regulated environments already. That, again, is self-evident: gas, water, electricity and ports are regulated by not only a range of Commonwealth laws and regulations but also a range of state laws and regulations and, in some cases, local council by-laws. All of those laws and regulations at local, state and Commonwealth levels require the owners of these 140-odd infrastructure assets to provide both a whole lot of information when they are setting up these particular assets and a whole lot more information to local, state and federal governments on an ongoing basis, often with annual reporting requirements. It's obviously desirable that these owners of critical infrastructure assets not be burdened with yet another disparate level of regulation or information provision requirement. If it's possible to develop some kind of standardisation of the information they're required to provide to local, state and federal governments, it will not only make the task of the owners of these critical infrastructure assets easier but also probably improve comprehensibility of the information provided and ready access by the national government to the information relevant to national security issues. It's desirable that the viability of a common data entry portal at least be examined, as the recommendation suggests. In recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that the Department of Home Affairs develop guidelines for entities subject to the Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2017. The guidelines should: enable an entity to determine whether it is a reporting entity, and provide the entity with an understanding of the specific information it is required to report. These guidelines should be made available prior to the end of the three-month transition period. Again, this is consciousness on the part of the members of the committee that it's very important that ease of use and lightness of application be considered with any new regulatory scheme, that the obligations cast on the owners of critical infrastructure assets should not be any heavier than they need to be and that, in aid of that lightness of touch, guidelines ought to be developed so that owners of critical infrastructure assets immediately understand exactly what is required of them by this new regulatory scheme. In recommendation 4: The Committee recommends that the Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2017 be amended to more appropriately define direct interest holder in order to capture the intended full range of ownership arrangements. Further, the Explanatory Memorandum and the Bill should clarify that: moneylenders are not direct interest holders, where they hold an interest in a critical infrastructure asset through a financing arrangement, and intermediate and ultimate holding entities are not direct interest holders. The government has implemented this recommendation in amendments passed in the Senate today. In recommendation 5: The Committee recommends that the Department of Home Affairs include in guidelines to be developed for entities subject to the Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2017, information regarding: the high-level criteria by which the Department will assess risk, and the process and the engagement that entities should reasonably expect from the Department as part of a risk assessment. In recommendation 6, the committee recommended that the explanatory memorandum to the bill be amended to list the factors that the secretary must have regard to when deciding whether to disclose protected information under proposed sections 42 and 43 of the bill. Factors should include whether the disclosure is consistent with the object of the bill, and whether the purpose of the disclosure is proportionate to the sensitivity of the information being disclosed. The government has implemented this recommendation in tabling the explanatory memorandum in the Senate today. In recommendation 7, the committee recommended that the explanatory memorandum to the bill be amended to clarify that the bill does not affect the operation of existing privacy obligations. In particular, the explanatory memorandum should clarify that proposed section 39 does not affect the operation of Australian Privacy Principle 11.2, and that the Department of Home Affairs as the administering agency would need to destroy personal information if it were no longer necessary. The government has implemented this recommendation in tabling the supplementary explanatory memorandum in the Senate today. In recommendation 8, the committee recommended the bill be amended to require the relevant minister to provide to the subject entity notice of an adverse security assessment given in connection to the bill and merits review rights. The committee considered that the bill should be amended to align with requirements under section 38A of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. The government has implemented this recommendation in the amendments passed in the Senate today. In recommendation 9, the committee recommended the bill be amended to require the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to review the operation effectiveness and implications of the reform, commencing within three years of the bill receiving royal assent. The review should consider the appropriateness of a unified scheme to cover all critical infrastructure assets, including telecommunications assets. As I indicated at the start of these remarks, this particular regulatory scheme is modelled on, and is very close to, the regulatory scheme that forms part of the telecommunications sector security reforms. In conducting the review, the recommendation was that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security should also consider circumstances where the minister has used the declaration power under section 51. The government has implemented this recommendation too in amendments passed in the Senate today. Regulatory schemes such as that proposed in this bill work best in a dialogue between government and the affected industries. Industry, government and the community all benefit from asset owners knowing in advance what is required of them and taking necessary steps without government needing to resort to regulatory enforcement. Labor believes that the committee's recommendations make it easier for the bill to achieve these ends. Accordingly, Labor supports the amendments which have been made by the government, which give effect to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Those recommendations not requiring amendments to the bill or amendments to the explanatory memorandum were also all accepted by the government. It's a demonstration of the value of the collaborative and bipartisan processes of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Labor members worked collaboratively on the PJCIS, and we thank the government for its acceptance of the recommendations made in the inquiry. These bills are a useful addition to the regulatory architecture that protects and maintains critical infrastructure assets which are important to Australia's security and its continuing economic and social wellbeing. I commend these bills to the House. 18:14 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher The Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2018, now before the House, will help to preserve Australia's national security by ensuring that the Australian government has the information and the powers it needs to protect the functioning and integrity of some of our critical infrastructure. Specifically, the bill would establish a register of critical infrastructure assets and require the owners of those assets to provide the Critical Infrastructure Centre with specific information about the asset's ownership and operation. This will allow the government to know who has access to, influence over, and control of our vital infrastructure. Secondly, the bill grants the minister a power to direct owners or operators of these assets to mitigate against any identified national security risk which cannot be managed through existing mechanisms. In the last resort, it gives the minister the power to direct the owners to undertake, or refrain from, a particular action in order to avoid this national security risk. Along with a number of my colleagues, I had the opportunity to see the importance of security around some of our critical infrastructure this month when I visited the Open Pool Australian Lightwater research reactor, or OPAL, in Lucas Heights with my colleagues from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. OPAL is one of the world's most effective, multipurpose research reactors. Without OPAL, it would be considerably more difficult for Australia to acquire the radioisotopes it needs to detect and treat cancers. Every Australian owes a debt of gratitude to the work that is being done by ANSTO. If ever we personally have—or a friend or family member has—been treated for cancer using radiotherapy we owe it to our researchers and scientists at OPAL. Our capabilities in materials research and a wide range of industrial activities, including our ability to manufacture semiconductors for use in advanced electronics would be severely impacted if OPAL were not to function. Were the operation of OPAL to be disrupted, the consequences for Australia, whilst they wouldn't be catastrophic, would be very serious in terms of the lost productivity and the impact they would have to the health of all Australians. However, we can't forget what the opal reactor is. Though small and very safe, it is, fundamentally, a nuclear reactor, with many of the inherent dangers that may result from a malevolent interference. The reactor also uses low-enriched uranium fuel, containing just under 20 per cent uranium-235, and it generates a modest amount of nuclear waste, both of which must be kept out of the hands of anyone who would misuse them. ANSTO describes itself as the custodian of Australia's landmark infrastructure. Despite being a civilian science and research facility, it takes its security responsibilities very seriously. As parliamentarians, we were not exempt from the strict security imposed on anyone who wishes to visit OPAL, and nor should we have been. The site is patrolled 24 hours a day by armed Australian Federal Police, who were a very visible presence during the time we were there. Indeed, whilst we were there we could hear AFP officers on the firing range, which makes up part of the large ANSTO campus. ANSTO is a statutory authority and it reports to this parliament. It maintains a risk and audit committee and its security processes have been subject to independent review and approval by the relevant Commonwealth bodies. In short, the Commonwealth has considerable control over the OPAL reactor, and, of course, its security. However, not all of our critical infrastructure is so comprehensively owned, operated and secured by the Commonwealth. Foreign investment into Australia currently sits at $3.2 trillion. Most of this investment derives from close strategic and military allies like the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union. However, our fastest growing source of overseas investment is China and Hong Kong. By the end of 2016, this investment had reached the total of $188 billion. This investment is very welcome, and China is one of our most important trading partners. However, we must recognise that our national interests with a number of countries are not always aligned. In the area of infrastructure in particular, foreign investment has been particularly active. In September 2016, the Port of Melbourne was sold to a consortium of foreign and domestic investors for $9.7 billion. This complex group included directly and indirectly the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, New York based Global Infrastructure Partners, the California Public Employees' Retirement System and the China Investment Corporation. Indeed, the biggest coal export facility in the world, the Port of Newcastle, has been 50 per cent owned since 2014 by China Merchants Union, a majority Chinese government-owned enterprise. Similarly, the right to operate the Port of Darwin was sold to Chinese company Landbridge in 2015 for $506 million. Media reported last year that Landbridge were considering seeking a loan of $500 million from the Chinese government, with the port as security. Reports last month of a change in ownership structure proposed for Newcastle highlighted the potential lack of transparency involved in ownership by a foreign government. When it comes to our liquid natural gas, an analysis by the Tax Justice Network last year revealed that overseas state owned corporations will own more than a 30 per cent stake in all Queensland production by 2020. The Chinese government, through its China National Offshore Oil Corporation and Sinopec, will own 17.3 per cent of production, while Malaysia's Petronas and South Korea's Kogas make up the rest. The same analysis found that five offshore LNG projects—Gorgon, Wheatstone, Pluto, Ichthys and Prelude—are 87 per cent foreign owned. In electricity generation and retail, there is already substantial foreign ownership. Energy Australia, one of our trio of companies which together supplied nearly 70 per cent of retail customers in 2015, is owned by China Light and Power. In the ACT, 50 per cent of the power distribution company ActewAGL is owned by a joint venture of the Chinese company State Grid Corporation and Singapore Power International. State Grid Corporation also partly owns three of the five distributors in Victoria, as well as the largest stake in South Australia's energy transmitter, ElectraNet. The Hong Kong listed Cheung Kong Infrastructure likewise own a 51 per cent share in two of Victoria's distributors, and in South Australian Power Networks electricity distribution network. Overseas investment in electricity generation is also growing. The recently completed Ararat Wind Farm, which will generate 240 megawatts for Victoria is owned by a consortium of UK, US and Canadian companies. Just in the past few weeks, German energy corporation Innogy has acquired two solar projects at Limondale and Hillston, which add to more than 450 megawatts in generation. French firm Neoen will be working on three renewable energy projects at Hornsdale and Dubbo, adding up to more than 250 megawatts, while Goldwind, a Chinese wind turbine manufacturer, will be developing a $400 million energy plant at White Rock to generate 175 megawatts. The list goes on: ESCO, ThyssenKrupp, Canadian Solar, Acciona, Engie—all are currently engaged in building hundreds of megawatts worth of new energy generation in Australia. Most of this critical infrastructure does not have the obvious safety and security implications of a nuclear reactor. However, in each of the critical infrastructure categories listed in this bill—that is, ports, electricity, gas and water—malevolent interference from a foreign power could have very serious consequences. A safe, secure and clean water supply is vital for our citizens' health—without considering the substantial economic impact on the huge number of businesses that rely on water for their processes. For anyone who has watched the increasingly desperate situation playing out in Cape Town, the consequences of being unable to supply a city with enough water have been dramatically illustrated. Australia's water supply is highly concentrated in just three drainage divisions, making the risk even higher. Our ports, on the other hand, facilitate more than a third of Australia's GDP, and are our major conduit for liquid fuels and for substantial parts of our civilian and military supply chains. Any important disruption to the operation of these ports would be devastating for our national economy. When it comes to our electricity supply, the 2016 blackouts in South Australia—caused, unfortunately, by South Australia's own then Labor government rather than by any foreign power—resulted in costs of $367 million to local businesses, according to Business SA. There were 400,000 dosages of life-saving vaccines destroyed, while the health and wellbeing impact on those consumers left without power for days is hard to quantify. Overseas, aggressive foreign powers have shown a strong interest in disrupting electricity supplies. Cyberattacks against the electricity grid of Ukraine in 2015 and 2016, for example, left more than 200,000 citizens without power. Electricity providers, like gas companies and water providers, also hold substantial quantities of data on their customers. Recent media reports regarding the activities of Cambridge Analytica in the US and UK, and reports of Russian interference in elections in the US and elsewhere, suggest the major compromising impact that a large-scale data breach by a hostile power could have on our economic and political life. Gas is a vital Australian export asset. Australia is set to be the world's largest exporter of LNG by 2019, with the ABS estimating that these exports will be worth $36.3 billion in that year. It's also critical to a great many industrial and commercial processes: driving commercial boilers, which are used in manufacturing; food processing; dairy; and construction. Finally, LNG accounts for around 20 per cent of Australian electricity generation and for 40 per cent of the energy used by manufacturing. Any significant disruption to our domestic gas supply could cause blackouts, shut down factories and cost millions in lost export revenue. Foreign investment in infrastructure across Australia is welcome. On the Sunshine Coast alone we already know of at least $6 billion worth of infrastructure upgrades that our community urgently needs. The Turnbull government has committed to spend a record $75 billion on infrastructure over the next 10 years, but more funds will always be needed. Foreign investment offers one of the best options for finding those funds and for delivering projects quickly and efficiently. Foreign investment also helps to increase our ties with other economies in our region and encourages greater prosperity for all of us. However, as I have sought to outline today, this overseas investment comes with risks. We cannot ignore the fact that there are growing threats to Australia's national security from some of the very nations with which we trade. The world strategic situation is fast changing and competition between nations for exports and investment is ever increasing. We cannot guarantee that a state which is our friend today will not have powerful incentives to act against our national interest in the future. 18:33 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan As the shadow Attorney-General mentioned in his speech earlier, Labor agrees to support the Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2018. We are in full support of this bill, and this bill, once enacted, would do two things. It would establish a register of critical infrastructure assets that will include information about who owns and operates those assets, which must not be made public, as well as allowing the minister to give a direction to a reporting entity, or to an operator of a critical infrastructure asset, to do or refrain from doing a specified act or thing within a certain time frame. That power may be used if the minister is satisfied that there is a risk that it is prejudicial to security that cannot otherwise be mitigated. This bill takes into account the contemporary environment in which we operate here with the fragmentation of ownership of critical infrastructure. It is, in many respects, a precautionary bill which formalises the effective cooperation between the private sector and the government in the protection of critical infrastructure. It is heartening to see that the recommendations made by Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which tabled its report on the bill in March this year, have been amended and have been passed in the Senate today. I'd like to draw the House's attention to some of those recommendations and, specifically, to those recommendations that were passed earlier in the Senate, and the impact on the cooperation between the private sector and the government in the protection of critical infrastructure. One of those recommendations was an amendment requiring the relevant minister to provide to the subject entity notice of an adverse security assessment made under the bill as well as the right to seek merits review of such an assessment. Another one of those recommendations was that within the three-month transition period the Department of Home Affairs develop and make available guidelines for entities subject to the bill that enable an entity to determine whether it is a reporting entity, and provide the entity with an understanding of the specific information it is required to report. Both those recommendations that were passed as amendments are vital in ensuring that the cooperation between private industry and government in the protection of critical infrastructure continues and continues in ways that provide a robust regime for the protection of critical assets that are defined specifically within the bill to cover water, electricity, gas and ports. There are a range of threats to those particular assets, including terrorism and cyberattacks. And we must not forget insider threats, which are threats or attacks carried out by people within an organisation. I refer to a paper—it's a fairly old paper but still a very relevant one—by the University of Pennsylvania. I recall several years ago being at a conference that brought together academics and practitioners in security. We discussed, at length, cooperation between the private sector and the government in the protection of critical infrastructure—particularly in this contemporary environment where you have the fragmentation of ownership of critical infrastructure assets—and where the responsibility lies, and how the communication between the private sector and the government enhances target hardening and enhances the protection of critical infrastructure. This paper makes some pretty interesting points and really emphasises the importance of having a very robust framework for private-public coordination in protecting critical infrastructure. In one point, it says: For many large technological network systems, the challenge of ensuring reliable operations has increased because operations both within and among firms have become increasingly interdependent. Elements of infrastructures in particular have become so interdependent that the destabilization of one is likely to have severe consequences for others. This points, of course, to the interrelationship between different forms of critical infrastructure, or different assets within critical infrastructure, and the need to protect them all in a way that coordinates communication between the private sector and the government as well as intercommunication in the private sector. Another point made in this paper is that strategies to protect critical infrastructure are not viable unless they are politically and economically sustainable. That's why I believe this bill creates that political environment, that political sustainability, for this ongoing critical relationship between the government and the private sector in the protection of critical infrastructure. I also note that the National guidelines for protecting critical infrastructure from terrorism, which were published by the Commonwealth government in 2015, have an attachment that outlines the responsibilities of owners and operators of critical infrastructure and the Australian government in the protection of critical infrastructure. They note that the Australian government has a responsibility to identify national critical infrastructure and develop and maintain a database of national critical infrastructure, which is one of the things that this bill will do, to work closely with state and territory governments and owners/operators to identify critical infrastructure that if disrupted or destroyed could have significant multijurisdictional or national impacts, and to liaise with overseas governments on critical infrastructure protection issues and promote critical infrastructure research as a priority. It states: Governments expect that owners/operators should: maintain an awareness of their operating environment provide adequate security for their assets, based on threat and risk actively apply risk management techniques to their planning processes conduct regular reviews of risk assessments and security, emergency and contingency plans report any incidents or suspicious activity to State or Territory police develop and regularly review business continuity plans, including identifying interdependencies conduct training and exercise their security, emergency and contingency plans participate in government exercises … So at a very practical level the bill will allow for a formalised framework in order to do that. Finally, I refer to a report from the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate of the United Nations Security Council, published in March last year. It's one of their trends reports. I'd recommend this to anyone who's interested in critical infrastructure, which can often be bit of a dry subject, let's admit it, but it can also be very fascinating as well if you're into that kind of thing. This report makes some very pertinent points, particularly around prevention and preparedness for critical infrastructure. It says: In order to ensure better preparedness and response, an international network of "PCI focal points" can be appointed by Member States and relevant international, regional and subregional organizations. Policy guidance containing operational aspects, including early-warning systems and information-sharing, could also be developed. I think this bill puts Australia well on its way to being able to cooperate not just nationally, between private sector and the government, but also internationally on an international network of physical critical infrastructure. What's interesting in this report as well is that the CTED, or Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate, of the United Nations Security Council also recommends that: Some States undertake stocktaking exercises to: 1. Determine existing means and capabilities. 2. Centrally compile and store this information. 3. Compare existing capabilities against identified requirements. 4. Outcome of comparison = areas for improvement. These issues of critical infrastructure protection have been on the radar of international security professionals for several years now, as evidenced in some of the quotations I have taken from these reports. And it's heartening to see that, through bilateral cooperation with Labor through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, we've come up with amendments to this bill to undertake and implement the recommendations made by the PJCIS. It will ensure that this bill is actually quite comprehensive in how it delivers, at a practical level, commitments to ensure continued cooperation between government and the private sector to ensure that our critical infrastructure is effectively protected and targets that would be attractive to those who wish to do us harm are effectively hardened. I would like to see that, three years down the track or a couple of years down the track, once this bill is implemented, the results of this bill and of the amendments made in implementing the recommendations made by the PJCIS help us to improve the regime that we currently have in the protection of our critical infrastructure assets here in Australia. So I do commend this bill to the House, and Labor does very much support this bill. I would also like to commend the PJCIS and the way in which that committee worked in a bipartisan manner to come up with recommendations that would enhance the bill and ensure that the bill delivers and develops that robustness to the regime, particularly in this contemporary environment, where we are seeing and will continue to see a fragmentation of ownership of critical infrastructure. As a precautionary measure, there can be, in my mind, no more important move to make, as we go forward with further fragmentation of ownership of our critical infrastructure, than to ensure that we have the capabilities and the framework in place to ensure that our critical infrastructure continues to be protected and that we are prepared for any risks to our critical infrastructure. 18:46 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning I'm very glad to rise and speak on the Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2018. As Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I worked very closely with my coalition colleagues and also the opposition to improve this bill. There was unanimous bipartisan support for it and I think it's an excellent bill, and the Australian people can be confident that it has the full support of this parliament. The bill introduces new measures to protect Australia's critical infrastructure from threats of sabotage, espionage and coercion. It goes without saying that the security of critical infrastructure is essential to the effective functioning of Australian society. The government must be able to provide continuous access to essential services for everyday life in Australia, such as access to water, energy, power, communications and the like. Of course, we include ports as critical infrastructure because we do import a lot of things, particularly fuel. Almost all our fuel is entirely imported from overseas. This bill fulfils the two key tasks of the federal government, as I see it: national and economic security. The bill establishes two key measures: a register of critical infrastructure assets and a ministerial directions power. The register will enhance Australia's capability to understand exactly who owns, who controls and who has access to our critical infrastructure, and the directions power will enable a minister to issue a direction where existing mechanisms and cooperation cannot be used to mitigate national security risks. I think that's very, very important because, ultimately, the government's responsibility is to the Australian people and ensuring their interests are secured. Before I move on, I want to frame this bill in the larger strategic context. A lot of Australians see the last 15 or so years as having been defined by 9/11. That looms large in the public mind. It certainly does for me. However, I think more pertinent now to Australia's situation are the events of 1 April 2001, and let me tell you why. It was the day of Hainan Island incident, where a United States Navy EP-3E Aries signals intelligence aircraft collided in mid-air with a People's Liberation Army Navy fighter jet. It sparked an international dispute between the United States and the People's Republic of China and was an early test for President George W Bush, only 10 weeks into his first term. I needn't go over the details of that, but it was a significant incident. The US crew were forced to land on Hainan Island and were detained for about 10 days before being released back to the US. It's important, because I think it signified China's rise as a strategic competitor to the United States in the Asia-Pacific region. That rise has been happening for a lot longer than public discussion might suggest. Only in the last two years have we really started talking about China, its economic importance to Australia and, more importantly, some of the national security implications we're now dealing with. Hainan Island sits in the South China Sea, the maritime zone whose political reality China has changed through the building and militarising of artificial islands. That's the important strategic context. China is also setting about expanding its economic interest through the 'One Belt, One Road' initiative. That involves the acquisition of infrastructure in other countries. Very recently a port in Sri Lanka went into Chinese hands. There was a lot of public unrest or anxiety about the 99-year lease of the port of Darwin a few years ago. Considered in that strategic framework, this bill is very important, which is why I support it. I share the unease at the idea that foreign states would have almost exclusive control and ownership of critical infrastructure like ports, considering our fuel security situation. We're almost entirely reliant upon the importation of liquid fuel, both crude and refined. This bill mitigates the risk of foreign ownership. Australia has always been a net recipient of foreign investment. Our wool industry kicked off with foreign investment. Our resources sector has grown through foreign investment. In Canning we have a lot of foreign investment. I have two Alcoa refineries and an Alcoa mine. I have Newmont goldmine, Australia's largest. There's nothing wrong with that, but the key point is that where there is foreign investment in our critical infrastructure that provides essential services, the government should be in a position to mitigate that. We are in the middle of a discussion about foreign interference, espionage and sabotage. As a bit of backdrop to what we're discussing, I have here the Hansard evidence ASIO's Director-General of Security, Mr Duncan Lewis, gave to the PJCIS in Melbourne, 10 or so days ago: Hostile foreign spies are currently conducting harmful activity against Australia on an unprecedented scale … Put simply, there are more foreign spies today, and they have more ways of attacking us … Our open democracy and the features of globalisation involve hitherto unimagined movement of money, movement of people, movement of information—which I hasten to say enrich our country and our society but nevertheless provide an unprecedented array of vectors that foreign spies can and do use to attack us. The most obvious example of this is the widespread use of the cyber vector to conduct espionage and interference. As we grow in our technological sophistication, particularly with critical assets, we become increasingly vulnerable to cyberattack. He went on to say: Cyber is a vector that simply did not exist during the previous high point of intelligence activity against Australia, the Cold War. The point here is that we are in a new and unexplored cyberthreat environment. Similarly, cheap and easy international travel, globalised communication technologies, and the global trade and finance systems that we take for granted in our modern society have also opened the door for hostile foreign spies, and they are, necessarily, ruthlessly exploiting these vectors to covertly harm our Australian interests. This bill is part of a larger suite. There is still legislation before the committee, and it would be improper to discuss that, but this bill came out of the committee with unanimous bipartisan support. It's designed to protect our national interest and critical infrastructure. Before I close I want to talk a bit more about the need to protect our economic security. It's just as important as our national security. Of course, in the foreign interference and espionage legislation there is a new offence that targets theft of trade secrets, and I think that will very nicely complement what we have here in this Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill. The point that the director-general of ASIO made is that we're increasingly vulnerable to cyberattacks and a lot of our critical infrastructure assets have increased cyberconnectivity and a reliance on global supply chains, with many services now offshore. So the bill does protect assets in the electricity, water, port and gas sectors. Importantly, it does not apply to the telecommunications sector, which is covered by other legislation that passed last year—another piece of legislation that received strong bipartisan support. Before I close I do want to talk a bit about the fuel security recommendation that we made as a committee. I have mentioned already we're almost entirely reliant upon the importation of liquid fuel, both crude and refined, and so as a committee we are concerned when we see our fuel stocks. They sit at about 47 days as of November 2017. When you think about the US, they have something like 330. Greece has about 130 days. New Zealand has 90. The UK is somewhere in the vicinity of 200 days. When you consider us and benchmark us against other Western democracies, we are well behind the pack. And so one of the recommendations to come out of our review into this bill was that the Department of Home Affairs in consultation with the Department of the Environment and Energy and the Department of Defence look at our fuel supply chain and mitigate the national security risks that are present. I think it's important to note that most of the threats to our liquid fuel security come from foreign governments and, therefore, securing it requires a government response. We can't just rely upon the market. I think that is foolish thinking to say the least. In any case, to sum up: this is a good bill. It addresses many of the concerns that the Australian people have raised through their MPs and senators over the last few years, particularly as we've had public discussions around the sale of the port of Darwin, for example, and so I commend this to the House. Thank you very much. 18:57 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro It's a great privilege to be able to speak on behalf of the Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2018 and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I'd particularly like to acknowledge the leadership of that committee by the chair, who has been doing an excellent job on that committee. But I have reflected before that this is a committee that I think embodies and exemplifies the best of bipartisanship in this building. It's made up of people with tremendously relevant experience from three of us who are all ex-Army. There's the Green faction and there's an ex-Attorney-General and an ex-policeman, and we've got a current shadow foreign affairs minister who is also in Finance and brings the dollars and cents side to the table. Senator Bushby makes great contributions. It's been a very positive experience for me in a building that's often portrayed as being one of great contest and partisanship. So this bill is a representation of that process working well—a process that's been underway for a few years to address our critical infrastructure needs and, as the member for Canning has spoken about, the threat that we face in terms of the heightened and industrial-scale cyberattacks in particular that we're seeing developed by governments such as that of Vladimir Putin, who has become quite a significant threat to the world at the present time. The latest incident involving the nerve agent attack on a former Russian citizen on the soil of the United Kingdom illustrates the depths to which they will go. Of course, there are the revelations about the influence in the US election and the French election attempts there as well. This is a real and present threat not only to the sorts of cyberattacks we've had in terms of industrial espionage in the past—where we've had regular and daily attacks in that respect—but now we're seeing this evolve into the potential of a state, like Vladimir Putin's, adopting the Sun Tzu principle that the acme of success is to win without fighting; bring down all of your adversary's infrastructure without even having to fire a shot in some cases. So we do have to have robust systems of protection. This legislation is a good start, of course, but it is legislation. We will need to follow through with a lot of practical measures to ensure that we can secure our infrastructure. I do applaud the government's establishment of the regional cybersecurity centres. I think that's going to be important for outreach to business. They're going to be a back door and a vulnerability as we go through this if we can't ensure that we're all secure in our networks. That is going to be absolutely critical. The assets that this legislation deals with has been enumerated by previous speakers. It is now running parallel with a process that was put in place earlier in relation to the telecommunications sector security reforms, which began in September last year. One thing we reflected on in the committee was that we do have these parallel infrastructure aspects. And as we move through and review how this system is working we'll need to determine whether or not there is not a benefit perhaps, in a unilateral approach, rather than this bifurcated approach. There are differences in the types of infrastructure we're talking about. However, the experiences of both will definitely be very relevant. And there is an issue associated with the telecommunications aspect, which is that a lot of it will depend on the industry self-regulating, or self-providing, for the security measures that we know we need and that they have talked about. The progress from this legislation is great, and it has reflected things that have been revealed as failures of the FIRB process—the Foreign Investment Review Board. There have been specific incidents that have given great cause for concern, not just internally but amongst our allies, like the United States. The port of Darwin has been a salient issue, and it did reveal some of those concerns. Also, the sale of Ausgrid in New South Wales highlighted the deficiencies in that FIRB process and the need for this measure to fill that gap. What was most concerning about that was that the purchase of Ausgrid, potentially by a Chinese investor, was not done in consultation with Defence. Defence found out about this through media reports. What we had was a situation where critical Defence infrastructure would have been subject to this transaction. It's essential for Defence to be involved in that process. Hopefully, we will address that through this legislation in the future. Another example was Global Switch, where we had the situation of potential Chinese investors acquiring a data centre complex which hosted a lot of very sensitive material—and not just our sensitive material. That also will be something to monitor closely in terms of the effectiveness of this legislation. The member for Canning referred to another issue that is critical. It was subject to quite a bit of discussion within the committee, and there was interest in perhaps being a bit more robust in our recommendations about it but we tempered them. It comes back to this issue of energy security, particularly in relation to our transport fuels. I know the member for Wakefield has also commented on this in the past. We have this situation where, as the member highlighted, we have this strategic vulnerability created by the fact that our strategic resources of oil and transport fuels come across our sea lanes. There is some disaggregation of the sources of supply of the crude oil; however, we know that the sources of crude oil are concentrating more and more in the Middle East as dwindling oil resources in the world create that dynamic. We know the vulnerabilities of political circumstances and conflict in the Middle East. We've seen oil used as a political weapon in the past by bad faith actors in the Middle East in relation to the crisis in 1973 and, again, in 1979, or simply by wars. That is a concern. Also, I know from my time in Strategy Group in Defence, monitoring influences from the Middle East in our region, that the petrodollar investment in radical madrasahs and in funding terrorist movements was of great concern to me. One of the things we need to do to ensure that our own security, our strategy vulnerability, is minimised in the future is to be more aggressive in pursuing alternative fuels for our country. The Pentagon is driving very hard in this direction, creating the Great Green Fleet in their ambition to move to biodiesel and other biofuels. We have really been left behind in a lot of this and we need to take this issue more seriously and be more urgent about it. It also conflates with our battles against the health effects of these fuels and the climate change issue. We know that emissions in this country from vehicles are around 17 per cent of carbon emissions. On some reports, the toxicity of these emissions kills about 3,000 Australians a year. Overseas, we've seen that being amplified even more by greater population concentrations. In Scotland they've set themselves the goal of getting off oil fuels by 2032, and they'll ban diesel and petrol cars. Sweden set up an independent commission for the establishment of their independence from oil by 2025 and are well down that track, noting, in their circumstances, that they were concerned about their strategic vulnerability to Russia. The UK have now set themselves a goal of getting off petrol and diesel by 2040, noting, in their own analysis, that those fuels kill about 40,000 British citizens per annum; that's the estimate in the UK. France have set the same goal, 2040. Norway have set it at 2025; the Netherlands, 2030; Germany, 2030; and India, 2030. In India, it's interesting that the estimate of deaths per annum caused by these toxic fumes is 1.2 million. In China, where similarly they're now moving down this road to ban petrol and diesel, the deaths are estimated at 1.6 million per annum. Across Europe the estimation is 70,000 per year. From a simple health perspective and the estimated cost to the systems here in Australia, that could be upwards of a few billion dollars, maybe as much as $6 billion. So it's in our economic and health interests to get off fossil fuel as quickly as possible. There are alternatives out there. When I was Minister for Defence Materiel I took some Defence logisticians with me to visit a site down at Nowra, a company called Algae.Tec. They had developed a technology that I had first seen in Israel, where they were strapping a facility to the Ashkelon coal-fired power station. It was a pond based system where they were, effectively, sucking in the carbon emissions from the coal-fired power station and rapidly growing this algae—which really is hungry for carbon—and turning it into a biodiesel fuel, which is a straight drop in fuel. There is no blending or conversion required. The problem with the pond system was that it required a great space. It was hungry for space. But the beauty of what Algae.Tec in Nowra were doing was that they had taken that technology and refined it and turned it into a containerised process. This could eliminate 100 per cent of the emissions from the Bayswater power station with, approximately, a 10-hectare site facility and produce millions of litres of this biodiesel fuel. You can imagine what this could do for regional Australia's economy, for our energy security, for plugging into existing distribution systems and for ensuring our complete independence in relation to biodiesel fuels. Obviously, we need a mix of technologies to achieve the goal of getting off this stuff, and I've been excited about the reporting of proton developments, in terms of battery storage, which will take lithium storage to a whole new level and eliminate the need for lithium batteries. These proton batteries will be incredibly efficient. They will be revolutionary applied to storage for housing and the motor vehicle space. There's a lot going on in that space. The world is getting more aggressive and determined to achieve an outcome that will ensure we have dealt with the range of issues I referred to. From a national security point of view, I would urge the government—I would urge the Department of Home Affairs, who were a little bit dismissive of this in their response to the evidence in the committee process—that this is an urgent matter for our nation: for our security, for regional security, for undermining terrorism financing and in terms of our strategy vulnerability. I would urge perhaps replicating what the Swedes have done, and setting up a commission to establish our independence from oil as soon as possible, and setting a target date for that. When we're talking about vulnerabilities of energy systems, there's no question in my mind that the privatisation process that a lot of people were concerned about has created vulnerabilities as well. I have mentioned the circumstances of the Ausgrid privatisation process and potential sale. It's worth noting that we've heard a lot of talk about Snowy 2.0, which I fully support and which will move us towards energy security and be a vital asset. It's worth noting that when Ben Chifley launched the Snowy Hydro Scheme, he did so under the defence power. Energy security in this nation is vital going forward. What we're seeing revealed is that the privatisation process has created great vulnerabilities in terms of the effective maintenance of the system and in terms of its security. Unfortunately, this seems to have played out also in major bushfires in this nation, like the fires in Victoria in 2009 and the fires in the Blue Mountains in 2013. Now it appears that the fire we've just experienced down at Tathra was caused by power line failure; the situation down there seems to be pointing clearly in that direction, and that was the RFS preliminary assessment. We need to drill down on that incident because there are concerns and issues that have been raised in relation to this latest incident about the question of maintenance of those power lines. We had a regime previously where we talked about asset maintenance, and now we hear language of asset management. In this pure profit-driven approach to it, we're seeing situations of a lot of this infrastructure being left to go to its last legs before something is done about addressing that and maintaining the system to the standards it needs. So I would urge the regulatory regimes that are being placed in the privatisation process which has occurred to ensure that we are maintaining these power lines and this infrastructure at the levels at which they must be maintained, and doing more, hopefully through this process of the critical infrastructure bill, to assess the need to provide systems integrity as well in terms of vulnerability to future cyberattack. I salute the work of the committee on this process for the critical infrastructure bill. We have a lot more work in front of us and a lot more challenges in front of us. Life in this space is all about measures and countermeasures, so we have to continually revise and review what we're doing and how things operate together, and to work together in a bipartisan way for the benefit of our nation. 19:12 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I echo the comments made by my colleague and friend the member for Eden-Monaro with regard to the fact that we need to be ever-vigilant in this space. The technology is changing rapidly, and the threats at the non-state actor and the state actor level are changing rapidly. So we need to be constantly looking at legislation and regulation to ensure it's responding to the threat environment and the attack environment as quick as possible. That is challenging, because the development of legislation and regulation can quite often operate at a very glacial pace—not exactly a speedy pace. That's why we do need to be ever-vigilant. We need to be constantly assessing the environment, constantly looking at what the threats are, constantly looking at anticipating possible attacks. We need to see this bill as the first step in a very long journey to ensure that we continue to protect our national security and the prosperity of our nation. As we know, the facilities that are called critical infrastructure addressed in the Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2018 are the facilities, supply chains, systems and networks that keep our country operating and which are amongst our most precious assets. Referred to as our critical infrastructure, these are those physical assets, supply chains, information technologies and communication networks which if destroyed, degraded or rendered unavailable for an extended period would significantly impact the social or economic wellbeing of the nation or affect Australia's ability to conduct national defence and ensure national security. What this definition means in real terms is that these facilities and services are what keep our hospitals operating, our homes heated and our stores stocked. They're facilities that keep the lights on, our water running and clean and safe, and our economy operating. The disruption of this infrastructure—of these facilities, supply chains and technologies—either from physical or cyber-related threats can have a serious impact on our national security and our economic stability. As such, government must ensure that these assets are well protected from threats of foreign espionage, sabotage and coercion in an ever-evolving threat environment. Currently, over 80 per cent of Australia's critical infrastructure is privately owned, and therein lies a challenge: how do you get the balance right ensuring that we have economic prosperity and national security while also acknowledging the fact these are private outfits with their own imperatives? Ensuring we have the adequate oversight of the risk exposure of these assets is vital in assessing and protecting them from interference, but the challenge is ensuring that we get the oversight and the balance right, especially given the fact that 80 per cent of these are private outfits. The committee, as we've heard, made nine recommendations in its review of this bill, and this committee, as has been acknowledged by everyone who has spoken this evening, is very bipartisan. There is largely a common sense of mission, so I'm pleased the government has indicated support for these nine recommendations. Protecting our nation's critical infrastructure is an important national security responsibility that requires the cooperation of many arms of government and the private sector, and that's why Labor supports this bill. The Critical Infrastructure Centre, which was established in January 2017, is intended to provide a central or culminating point for cooperation. It's tasked with collaborating with asset owners, operators, and state and territory regulators to identify risks, to implement mitigation strategies and to develop sector-wide best practice guidelines. It's a big task because that centre is quite a small outfit. I went to a conference recently where one of the senior managers of the centre said one of their biggest challenges is resources. I put that out there for the government. I've made this point on many panels before and at other conferences that this is a big job for the centre. I understand it's been absorbed into Home Affairs now, so it will be interesting to see where it finds its place there and also to find out whether it will be appropriately resourced because it's a big job. Liaising with the private sector, government, regulators—state, territory and local—is a big job. The bill proposes the creation of a private register of critical infrastructure assets, and extends ministerial powers to give direction to individual reporting entities or operators of a critical infrastructure asset to do, or refrain from doing, a specified act or thing within a certain time frame. Such a power may be used if the minister is satisfied that there is a risk that is prejudicial to security that cannot otherwise be mitigated. Both the creation of the asset register and the extension of ministerial powers are good first steps. But as I said, and as the member for Eden-Monaro has mentioned, they are first steps. This is a journey; this is an iterative process. This bill is welcome but it is just one marker in that process. We do need to be open-minded, flexible and responsive in this environment. There is still a need for baseline assurances that networks and systems running our critical infrastructure are adequately protected. The fact that the bill does not specifically include cyber and digital systems is, from my perspective as the shadow assistant minister for cybersecurity, disappointing. But I'm acknowledging the fact that we are taking those first steps and this is an iterative process. I will be looking to the government and to this committee to look in future at how we can include cybersecurity in more detail. The Australian Cyber Security Centre's 2017 threat report noted that CERT Australia responded to 734 incidents affecting private sector systems of national critical infrastructure within the 2016-17 financial year. This equates to a significant cyberincident occurring on these networks more than twice a day. According to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation 2017 annual report, Australia continues to be a target of espionage through cyber means. The cyberthreat is persistent, sophisticated and not limited by geography. The report also notes that the clandestine acquisition of intellectual property, science and technology, and commercially sensitive information is increasing. This highlights the need for a greater focus on the security of the cybersystems underpinning our critical infrastructure. Given that cyberattacks are being perpetrated against our critical infrastructure systems on a daily basis, timely action needs to be taken. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't discuss this in much detail. It doesn't go into detail about the threats that critical infrastructure operators are struggling to repel. The explanatory documents do provide an example in which the minister could issue a direction to a company, compelling them to reduce their vulnerability by implementing extra cybersecurity protocols, but it doesn't provide further clarity to the private sector on how to protect their systems appropriately and comprehensively. If we are to effectively safeguard our critical infrastructure, we need to think about more than the issue of who owns what, and the issue of physical assets such as ports, poles and wires. It's vitally important that we start thinking beyond just the physical. This is the first step; I appreciate that, but we do need to sit up straight and get onto this quick smart. We need to think beyond just critical infrastructure and the protection of it from a physical perspective; we also need to start thinking about it from a cybersecurity perspective. As more and more essential systems are managed electronically, interdependence between physical systems and cybernetworks needs to be clearly understood to ensure that services continue to be provided and that our people and interests continue to be protected. This isn't adequately explained in the bill. Another element that is not adequately explained is why the bill only applies to four out of eight currently identified critical infrastructure sectors. US CERT released a report in October 2017 which stated: Since at least May 2017, threat actors have targeted government entities and the energy, water, aviation, nuclear, and critical manufacturing sectors, and, in some cases, have leveraged their capabilities to compromise victims' networks. It's disappointing that this bill does not include all identified critical infrastructure sectors which are clearly at threat. I made submissions on this point to a number of inquiries, stating this issue, because our transport, telecommunications, banking networks, healthcare providers and subcontractor entities associated with critical infrastructure are all subject to the same risks of espionage, sabotage and coercion that are outlined here. This bill identifies electricity, water and ports as the highest-risk sectors, yet there are other equally important sectors being overlooked. Eight critical infrastructure sectors are identified in the Critical Infrastructure Resilience Strategy. These are banking and finance, communication, energy, food and grocery, health, transport, water services and Commonwealth government. The Trusted Information Sharing Network, the primary national mechanism for business-to-government information sharing and resilience-building initiatives on critical infrastructure, states that each of these critical infrastructure sectors are, 'vital to Australia's social cohesion, economic prosperity and public safety'. If each of these sectors are vital to Australia's social cohesion, economic prosperity and public safety, why aren't all of them included in the bill? Each of these identified critical infrastructure sectors have experienced some form of cyberthreat in the past 12 months. We've only got the four here. Compared with our international partners, eight is a conservative figure. The US critical infrastructure security and resilience strategy identifies 16 sectors. The UK identifies 13 sectors. Canada has 10 and Singapore 11. The sectors recognised by these nations but not currently recognised here in Australia include emergency services, information technology infrastructure, chemicals, manufacturing and electoral systems—and that's a whole different speech on electoral systems, particularly after what with we have seen in the US and what we have seen in France. Why aren't electoral systems in Australia treated as critical infrastructure? This is a big question. To improve the security of our critical infrastructure, there needs to be a very careful evaluation of what sectors fall within our definition of 'critical infrastructure'. The bill also doesn't appear to consider supply chain security. Subcontractors and vulnerabilities in supply chain networks pose a significant threat to all forms of critical infrastructure. Last year, the then Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security made the announcement that a small defence contractor's network was compromised in 2016. An unknown hacker was able to steal 30 gigabytes of sensitive defence data, including information on major, multibillion-dollar defence projects. Data relating to the JSF, P-8 surveillance craft project, C-130 transport planes and several current naval vessels were all compromised. The revelation highlights the risk that a vulnerable supply chain can have when it comes to protecting our national critical systems. Subcontractors are low-hanging fruit when it comes to foreign influence and interference and are often seen as the easy 'in' to protected networks and systems. One weak link is all it takes to expose sensitive information and introduce attack vectors into larger systems. Our US ally recognised the supply chain threat long ago and has already taken steps to rectify it. In May 2017, an executive order was passed requiring all US government agencies to comply with a national cybersecurity standards framework. This includes cybersecurity risks facing the defence industrial base, including its supply chain. As the member for Eden-Monaro has said, this bill is the first step in many ways. I commend the bill to the House but do make a number of recommendations for improvements in the future. 19:28 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I thank the House and I thank all members for their contributions. In particular I say to the opposition member for Canberra: thank you for your contributions. Many good points have been made in this debate, and the government is aware of the need to continue this process of working together in the House to ensure that we do take these matters most seriously and cooperate with and take advantage of the experience of members in this House in so many of the important fields of national security to ensure we have world-leading legislation and world's best practice in our security laws. Critical infrastructure is integral to the prosperity of our nation, and we know that security and resilient infrastructure underpins the functioning of Australian society. It ensures that we have continuous access to essential services for everyday life—food, water, energy, communications—and the Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2018 supports Australian government efforts to safeguard Australia's critical infrastructure. It will supplement existing federal, state and territory regulations and ensure the government has the necessary powers to protect Australia from the national security risks of sabotage, espionage and coercion stemming from malicious foreign involvement in our critical infrastructure. The bill reflects consultation with states and territories and with industry stakeholders. Importantly, it also incorporates all nine recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I wish to thank the committee for its comprehensive review of the bills. I'm pleased to say the government has accepted all of the nine recommendations. The bill currently before the House incorporates the amendments to the bill that were necessary to give effect to all of the committee's recommendations. In particular, I want to thank the chair, the member for Canning, again, and the member for Holt, who is here as well, for their excellent cooperation in driving this committee process, but I thank all of the members who made their contribution today—government members, opposition members; the member for Isaacs, the member for Eden-Monaro—all of the people who've made a contribution. It is vital that we work together on this matter and it's vital that we do recognise that this is a journey that we're on. We will continue to put forward good quality legislation and have the committee drive improvements to Australia's laws. The Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill aligns with the government's intention to continue to cooperate and collaborate with all levels of government in Australia and regulators, owners and operators of critical infrastructure. It will strike that appropriate regulatory balance by acknowledging shared responsibility for managing national security risks while empowering the Commonwealth to intervene to mitigate a risk where existing regimes cannot be used. The bill will of course allow the government to take the steps necessary to strengthen the security and resilience of our critical infrastructure. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 3176 19:31 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Security of Critical Infrastructure (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 3176

Security of Critical Infrastructure (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018

First Reading 3176 Second Reading 3177 19:32 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Security of Critical Infrastructure (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017 will deal with the consequential and transitional matters in connection with the enactment of the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2017. Additionally, it will amend the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975. Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 3177 19:34 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Bill 2017, Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 3177

ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Bill 2017

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

Returned from Senate 3177 Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill 2017 3177

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

Consideration of Senate Message 3177 19:36 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I move: That the amendment be agreed to. 19:36 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I am pleased to rise on this amendment to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill 2017, which puts in place an Indigenous Productivity Commissioner, announced more than a year ago. The post, alas, is yet to be filled. The concern Labor raised was that for decades Indigenous Australians have been identified for administrative purposes using a three-part modern definition covering descent, self-identification and community recognition, but this bill maintained the use of an old-fashioned, outdated, race based definition. When we raised this with the Treasurer's office, they indicated they were amenable to using a modern definition of Indigeneity. By contrast, Senator Scullion accused us of 'disgraceful politicking'. There's nothing disgraceful about updating a definition of Indigenous Australians to reflect the modern way in which Indigenous Australians are referred to for administrative purposes. As Senator Dodson put it: These changes in terminology are not minor … They are part of our nation maturing and moving towards a more enlightened approach to how we deal with people from different cultures. Race is no longer accepted as a meaningful category to define our human species. Senator Dodson went on to say in the other place: On the longer term question of how Indigenous peoples want to be defined and how they want to be known—this is a matter that we should be consulting First Nations peoples about, rather than retaining the colonial process of attributing definitions to First Nations peoples that go way back to the old 'stud book', as it was called, or the various other ways in which derogatory language was used in relation to First Nations people. Members of the House will be aware the studbook was used in the 1930s to 1950s by the so-called 'Keeper of Aborigines' to measure Indigeneity by things such as blood content. Senator Dodson continued: … there is a need for us as a parliament to come to terms with this and to engage with First Nations peoples on how they wish to be identified. Secondly, we have to remove the concept of race. It's a big exercise—I understand that—and a huge legacy, but, as a mature nation that seeks to uphold international standards, we ought to be moving further towards a recognition of the common nature of our humanity, rather than distinguishing people on the basis of race. I'm pleased to say the government has seen reason on this and agreed to omit the old-fashioned definition of race. This could have been done many weeks ago, but we are pleased the government has finally seen sense and updated the bill so that it doesn't use that outdated definition. In this place we often do our work supported by staff who go unseen, but in this particular instance I do want to acknowledge a member of staff in my office, Nick Green. He is one of many thoughtful and talented advisers on both sides of politics in the building, but I'm not aware of another staffer who is more engaged, more creative and more idealistic than Nick Green. He is detail focused and he is hardworking. I am grateful for his very careful and principled work on this important matter. As we as a nation continue to mature in our approach to our First Nations people, it is important that we get this right. I put on record in this place how grateful I am to Nick Green, who while dealing with this has also been dealing with about 50 other taxation matters, using his enormous brain in order to work through many of those issues, engaging with stakeholders as he does. I have also very much appreciated the work of Senator Dodson and his staff. We've finally arrived at the right place on this bill, omitting the old-fashioned definition. We hope on this side of the House that it is possible in future to go one step further and begin incorporating into future pieces of legislation of this kind the three-part definition used in administrative practice. I commend this amendment championed by Labor to the House. Question agreed to. Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017 3179

Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Second Reading 3179 19:42 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I have stood in this place before to talk about how Australians are fed up with live betting odds appearing during their sporting programs while watching live TV. We get a lot of complaints, particularly from parents, who want to enjoy sport on the television, sit down and have an afternoon or an evening with their children and not get live betting odds on the TV. Last time—of course, over a year ago now—I moved in this place an amendment that the government did not support in relation to prohibiting gambling and betting ads during live sporting broadcasts, with a view to their prohibition. The government didn't support that at that time, but I'm really pleased to see that the government has finally listened and has gone some way to actually dealing with this issue, because, frankly, Australians have had enough, and all the evidence, sadly, points to the need for the government to act. Last time I talked in this place about research by Deakin University that points to a number of very concerning issues regarding children and gambling advertising on television. I went through some of the findings at that time, and I think it's worth reiterating those. They are that 90 per cent of children can recall having seen an advertisement for sports betting. That is huge. Three-quarters of children aged eight to 16 years can recall the name of one sports betting brand, and approximately a quarter can recall four brands or more. It is really disturbing that this continues to go on. Seventy-five per cent of children think that gambling is a normal or common part of sport. We don't want children in Australia growing up thinking that. As I've said, parents, of course, have also conveyed their concerns that gambling advertising is so prevalent that it's changing the way children think and talk about their sport, particularly when they sit down. To give you bit of an idea, I want to quote a 15-year-old boy who said: 'I don't think they're good for kids. They're trying to make it cool. They put them on during sport when the kids are watching.' A 13-year-old boy said: 'They shouldn't be allowed during sport because a lot of kids watch it. The ads pull you in. It's bad.' A 10-year-old boy says, 'The advertisement convinces you to bet and you can get your money back if you lose by eight points.' Eight- to 15-year-old children who have been watching TV, watching their favourite sport, know this information and they know it's wrong. They know it's wrong, the parents know it's wrong and now even the people playing sport at the elite level know it's wrong. We have had AFL footballers and NRL players coming out saying that they don't even want to watch TV with their own children because it is so prevalent. So it's good to see that the government is going to go some way to dealing with that. But, as my colleague the shadow minister for communications said, there are a few concerns around exactly what the government is going to do, and that it's only acting to restrict the advertisements between the hours of 5 am and 8.30 pm in terms of online live content. And then there are other sports events that start between seven and eight but continue to go on at night, and a lot of children watch them. Indeed, the government has even acknowledged that in its explanatory memorandum, where it says: … many sports events commence between 7pm and 8pm or take place on weekend afternoons when there are significant child audiences. So, the government knows children are tuning in at these times, yet this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017, doesn't take that into account. The explanatory memorandum even says: Children are thus exposed to significant levels of gambling advertising on television which risks increasing adolescents' desire to experiment with gambling. Increased exposure to gambling advertisements has also been associated with more positive youth gambling attitudes and intentions towards gambling. So the government acknowledged this in its own explanatory memorandum to the bill, yet it is only banning it from the hours of 5 am to 8.30 pm. I think the government needs to have a bit of a look at this and whether or not it needs to do more. We've also had the shadow minister for communications talk about the difference between TV content and online and downloadable content and how the government is treating those a little bit differently in this piece of legislation. Indeed, it's got ACMA looking at gambling advertising during live broadcasts in terms of downloadable content. It's a bit of an issue that there's not consistency across the platforms with the downloadable online content, the live TV content and, I assume, the pay TV content. While there are all those mediums, I think that we need to have some consistency between all of the different ways that people now access live sport. The bill regulates online services but it has created uncertainty in that industry, and consumers are concerned that it's treating people a bit differently depending on who's going to be exempt and how this is going to work. So there are clearly some issues around that in the bill to date. We acknowledge that some of these differences might be justifiable in terms of the regulation policy for the Broadcasting Services Act. The broadcasting platforms have not been treated the same way under the government's approach but, clearly, industry and consumers would like some consistency so that they know the restrictions are the same regardless of the platform. Even waging industry operators think the restrictions should apply across the board so that they can have some consistency in that. It's good to see that ACMA is going to closely monitor the operation of the additional restrictions in the updated broadcasting codes and will consider whether or not to conduct a formal review of their effectiveness. Really, I would have thought we could have looked at this. We moved our amendment in this place over a year ago, so the government have had plenty of time to do a fair bit of work on this. I acknowledge they have done some, but I am concerned there are still matters outstanding when it comes to this bill. The shadow minister, when she was at the dispatch box, also talked about some of the online restrictions in the bill and about the services: who's going to be exempt and what the government is going to do there. Obviously, we called for stronger protections, and we think the government should have done more work and worked with ACMA over that time to make some decisions. Whilst parents are worried about their kids and gambling ads during live sporting events, gambling promotions continue to pop up and come in whilst people are online during those times. We don't think addressing the issue has really been a priority for the government. Australians love sport. We all tune in to major sporting events. We go out to venues around the country to watch live sport. I think that people are pretty attuned to sport in Australia. We have seen this week, with what's happened in cricket, how Australians are concerned about what happens in sporting codes across our country. When you've got parents, children, players and some people in industry concerned about what is happening, in terms of live sporting betting, I think that we need to do more and we need to look at it really seriously. I think the government has got a lot more work to do. I think that there are concerns. I think that parents and children have said that they're concerned. The research shows that children are being affected by this. Whilst the government has done some work, I think there's still a lot more work to be done yet. 19:50 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith Labor, as you know, has a strong record on addressing community concerns in relation to gambling promotions during live sport and, accordingly, we support the Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017 as a step in the right direction. The member for Franklin, in her contribution, told the House some of the grave concerns that parents and families have in respect of the way that gambling has become pervasive across sport. It's become almost ubiquitous in all sporting codes to see the odds being described, to see the opportunities for gambling being offered across the spectrum of sport. It is important that we look at the ways in which we can ameliorate some of the potential for damage that arises as a consequence of the ubiquitousness of gambling in sport. The people that this bill is particularly aimed at, in our view, are children. We are worried about some of the influences that gambling and gambling advertising can have on children and we're very concerned about the influence that gambling and gambling advertising can have on families as well. I've had reason recently, in part of my family violence portfolio work, to talk with Financial Counselling Australia. They spoke to me about problem gambling, and the impact that problem gambling has on households and on families. It's particularly terrible when you think of the fact that often you have one member in the family who is a problem gambler but is a gambler in secret and so, by the time the other partner finds out about the extent of the damage, it's far too late to be able to stop it. What you then start to see is partners offering to take on debts, because they love their husbands or wives. They're horrified at what's happened to them, the consequence of the problem gambling. So, as anyone would do for a loved one, they seek to help them and that means that the gambling debts that people have worked up then become the problem of both partners. They both end up in debt as a consequence of some of that problem gambling. We do need to confront gambling as an issue in this country. We need to make sure that we are very careful in the way that we allow gambling to be promoted, and this bill goes to that. I'm not someone who opposes all gambling. I don't want to see it outlawed. I have a flutter on the Melbourne Cup myself—not very successfully, I have to admit. The last time I had a win on the cup was when Might and Power won, and I'm sure people remember that incredible race in 1997. I don't think the member for Mackellar was necessarily following the Melbourne Cup that day, maybe he was. I can see him laughing over there. It was an incredible race, and I know that many people had quite a good time having a win on that horse in 1997—one of the best horses. I think it had won the Caulfield Cup the week before. It had done a great job, but I digress. My point is that I'm not opposed to all gambling and I'm not opposed to all online gambling, but I am very much in favour of ensuring that we as nation take a responsible attitude to gambling and to gambling promotion. I was pleased when Labor called for stronger restrictions on gambling promotions during the coverage of live sport. I agreed that industry should be given time to adjust to any changes and to adapt its practices. It's a pragmatic approach to this, and we do need to take a pragmatic approach. We have to remember that gambling is an industry and it's also an employer. When changes are made we need to think about the people who will be impacted as a consequence on that side of the ledger as well. Actually, just yesterday we were speaking with a woman who had been working in the gambling industry for a very long time. It's certainly an industry I have an affinity with. About 20 years ago I worked for the clerks union in Queensland, and they covered the TAB workers who were being quite disrupted at that time by technological change rather than by regulatory change—although they were being disrupted by moves to privatise the TAB at the time as well. We have to remember when we make disruptive change that there should be appropriate time for adjustment for industry participants in their capacity as businesses and also in their capacity as employers. As said, I agreed with Labor calling on that to occur some time ago—more than a year ago—and I also agreed with the proposition that there should be an adjustment period. The Turnbull government made its policy announcement in May last year. We didn't see any legislation until the final sitting week in December and there's still a raft of question marks hanging over this bill, unfortunately. The Labor-lite announcement that the government eventually made is a step in the right direction, but it may not go far enough to address community concerns because it continues to permit gambling ads during live sport, on the SBS, on commercial and subscription broadcasting and online at times when children may still be watching sport. The only reason, in our view, that the Turnbull government even announced these measures is because they were starting to get desperate and had to go back to the drawing board to get their changes to media ownership laws through parliament. Having said that, we think the bill is a step in the right direction and are pleased to support it. It's just a fact that both adults and kids should be able to enjoy watching live sport without constantly having the odds rammed down their throats or gambling advertising rammed down their throats. Sport is a thing of beauty in and of itself. It is a public spectacle in which we can all participate. It is something that can create a shared experience for us as a nation. That's why I strongly support the bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 3182 19:57 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. House adjourned at 19 : 58   The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ) took the chair at 10:00.

Wednesday, 28 March 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ) took the chair at 10:00.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 3184 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Cooper, Professor David, AO 3184 10:00 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I rise today to offer my condolences on the death of Professor David Albert Cooper AO, a great Australian physician, who died on 18 March this year. David's had many accolades bestowed upon him from Australia and overseas. He was head of the Kirby Institute at the University of New South Wales and a past president of the International AIDS Society. With Professor Ron Penny, David diagnosed the first HIV case in Australia, in 1982, following his experiences in the United States of America. He was also the first to describe HIV transmission during breastfeeding, in 1985, and produced many papers of huge medical importance in immunology and infectious diseases. David led the Australian response to the HIV epidemic and the AIDS epidemic, and I and many others attribute the Australian response, often described as the best in the world, to David's calm, non-judgemental, compassionate and reasoned clinical skills. I had occasional contact with David over the years in my role as a paediatrician. However, on a recent trip to Thailand and Myanmar with the Global Fund I came to know him on a much more personal level, and I'm very grateful for that experience. David was a proud Jewish Australian who loved his family, and we compared grandparent stories on that trip. He loved his work, his patients and science. He has given much to many organisations here and overseas and will be deeply missed, both here and in many places where he provided ongoing support, such as Thailand and Myanmar. He was revered by everyone on our trip to Thailand and Myanmar. It was amazing, as we went around to the different medical institutes and hospitals, how well he was known and how he was revered, with almost godlike status. His work and his support in these places will continue for many years as one of his legacies. To David's wife, Dorrie, and his daughters, Becky and Ilana, I offer my sincere condolences. I know how much he cared for them and loved them. To Professor Tony Kelleher and the staff of the Kirby Institute: I know how much you meant to David, and I know your work will continue to honour him in many ways for many years to come. To his wide circle of friends, medical and scientific colleagues, political acquaintances and patients, I say: we should all be grateful for the contact we've had with David and honour his legacy by continuing to support the work he has done and the work that will continue into the future. Thank you. Mitchell Electorate: Clean Up Australia Day 3184 10:03 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell It's my pleasure today to speak about some of the voluntary traditions in my electorate of Mitchell. We have one of the highest volunteer rates in the country, and many of the suburbs of Mitchell are always leading the top of the charitable donations list in Sydney. I want to praise the community spirit that was on display on Clean Up Australia Day recently, on Sunday, 4 March, out in the Third Settlement Reserve in Winston Hills. It's a great part of the electorate of Mitchell, Winston Hills, and Northmead in particular. It was a great coming together of the community, particularly the children from the Winston Hills Girl Guides and the Winston Hills Scouts—the work ethic to roll up their sleeves and get involved in taking care of their local environment. The Third Settlement Reserve of Australia is so named because Toongabbie was the third settlement of the colony of New South Wales, so there is some great history and onsite heritage of our nation there. I want to thank Norma O'Hare from the Winston Hills Girl Guides and Des Saunders from the Winston Hills Scout Group for their assistance in getting so many young people involved—so many members of the community. I've run a Clean Up Australia Day site for about 15 years now, before I was in parliament and while I have been in parliament. I find it a fantastic endeavour because it really motivates people to do something themselves, to get out there and take part in their local environment and make sure it is well looked after. It's vital, of course, to continue this tradition of helping ourselves and helping each other, getting involved in good environmental practices as human beings in those communities, looking after our local creeks and waterways, getting into recycling and waste disposal practices—within our homes but also as good citizens within the environment we live in. It's important for our children to understand the importance of this and of pitching in for our local environment, given the fabulous environment we have in the Hills District, particularly Northmead and Winston Hills. I'm so grateful to everyone who turned up. We had a big turnout on the day. We filled a lot of rubbish bags. We pulled a lot of things out of the creek. We certainly did a lot of local environmental restoration at the same time. We joined half a million locals around the country and community groups that work together to pick up some 16,000 tonnes of rubbish across Australia on the day. Really, when you think about the impact of doing that every single year, it's a great, powerful vision for Australia—where we all get together and do something ourselves, not rely on the government, not look to other people, but say, 'We can do something to make a difference every single year and help our environment.' Clean Up Australia Day has now been running for 28 years. That's 33 million volunteer hours and 350,000 ute-loads of rubbish. There's so much more to be done. But the tradition of bringing up our young people to take care of the local environment themselves, and to have that ownership of the local creek, the local park, the local bush and their local environment as a whole, is even more important in the big cities that we have now in Sydney and Melbourne, where people sometimes don't have a lot of experience of living in the regions or on the land. It's a great day. I want to thank everybody involved. I want to thank my community for being such a great volunteer community. I look forward to doing it all again next year and every year to come. Petition: Spinal Muscular Atrophy 3185 10:06 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt I table a petition from Spinal Muscular Atrophy Australia with 11,201 signatories. It has been considered and approved by the Standing Committee on Petitions. The petition read as follows— To save lives and radically improve the quality of life for all patients with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), the childhood version of Motor Neurone Disease. It is requested that the Australian Government urgently fast track the availability of the life-saving drug nusinersen (Spinraza) on to the PBS list for all patients with Spinal Muscular Atrophy by June 2018. This time frame is critical because SMA is a progressive disease. Timely access to this treatment will mean the difference between living and dying, walking or not walking and either minimising the loss of motor function or rapidly losing the motor function that allows people to have any independent quality of life. This is the first and only treatment worldwide for this rare disease population. The SMA Community requests that the Australian Government approves nusinersen (Spinraza) for PBS listing for all patients with Spinal Muscular Atrophy by June 2018, outside of the normal Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee meeting dates. This action would ensure that families within this rare disease population could gain timely access to urgent life-saving treatment and radically improved quality of life for patients with SMA. From 11,201 citizens (Petition No. EN0462) Petition received. Mr BYRNE 008K0 SMA is the No. 1 genetic killer of infants under the age of three. It's the childhood version of motor neurone disease. I'm pleased to be able to table this petition, and I wish to congratulate Julie Cini on all of her hard work and persistence in campaigning on behalf of the SMA community: thank you. And thank you to the families who are here supporting her today. An example of this tireless campaigning is the recent announcement by the Minister for Health proposing that the government will subsidise genetic testing to families to determine if they are carriers of diseases such as SMA. This announcement, however, is a long-term goal, with the minister admitting that this kind of universal access to genetic testing could take up to 10 years. We need to do something before that. As of today, 25 families have received access to nusinersen, known as Spinraza, which has changed their lives dramatically. The young children to whom this drug has been administered are now reaching developmental goals and experiencing a better overall quality of life. However, there are over 200 families, some of whom are here, that are still waiting to gain access to this life-changing treatment. Every day that passes without this drug means that parents have to watch their children's motor skills deteriorate—unable to do simple tasks, such as feed themselves, brush their teeth or even sit up unsupported. These families live in hope that one day soon they will be able to access this vital drug. Therefore, as I said, I'm pleased to present the petition to this house on behalf of the people standing behind me and those that will be listening. The petition reads that they want to save the lives and radically improve the quality of lives for all patients with spinal muscular atrophy, the childhood version of motor neurone disease, and they request that the Australian government urgently fast-track the availability of the life-saving drug Spinraza onto the PBS list for all patients with spinal muscular atrophy by June 2018. This time frame is critical because SMA is a progressive disease. Timely access to this treatment will be literally the difference between living and dying, walking or not walking, and either minimising the loss of motor neurone function or rapidly losing the motor function that allows people to have any independent quality of life. This is the first and only treatment worldwide for this rare disease population, as demonstrated by the people behind me and the 11,200 signatures. We need this drug. We need this drug on the market as soon as possible, and listed so that families like those behind me can have access to this life-saving drug. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I thank the honourable member and I acknowledge our visitors in the gallery. Easter 3187 10:09 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I rise today on what is set to be the last parliamentary sitting day for a number of weeks to speak briefly about what for many is one of the most significant festivals of the year, particularly for the many Christian believers in my electorate on the Central Coast. I speak, of course, about Easter, an opportunity for all of us to pursue and reflect on our shared values, the love that we share for our family and friends, the challenges before us and the significance of the events that happened around 2,000 years ago. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:10 to 10:30 Mrs WICKS 241590 Starting on Good Friday, churches across the Central Coast are celebrating, reflecting, worshipping and welcoming people to their services with open arms. Across the Central Coast, churches big and small in places like Gosford, Erina, Terrigal, Kincumber, Woy Woy and beyond are putting together a whole range of activities for Central Coast residents as they proclaim the message of grace and hope this Easter. Of course, there are also many other great events happening across the coast, including four days of free activities being run by Central Coast Council at The Entrance. There's free music at the waterfront plaza every day from 11 am to 3 pm, while children will have the chance to meet the Easter Bunny in Memorial Park and receive a free Easter egg, as well as getting to enjoy some arts and crafts activities. Memorial Park will also host the region's Easter Monday festival from 9 am to 3 pm, including market stalls, entertainment, food stalls, a funfair and more. Of course, many families from around the coast are visiting, and I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage anyone who doesn't yet have plans for the Easter long weekend to join us on the Central Coast. We have beautiful beaches from the peninsula over to Killcare and up to Wamberal. We have incredible bushwalks, and there's plenty of fantastic food and entertainment. The appeal of the Central Coast is backed up by the latest tourism figures. In the year to December 2017, more than 1.7 million domestic visitors visited the Central Coast according to new figures released today through the National Visitor Survey. The figures show a growth of 15 per cent over the last three years. It's the same trend with international visitors as well, with data that we released last week showing 63,000 international visitors flocked to the Central Coast in the same period. That's an increase of 32 per cent, while spending went up by 91 per cent year on year. I suspect that this Easter long weekend will be no different, with so many expected to come to the Central Coast to enjoy their break. Finally, if you are travelling on the roads this Easter, please take extra care. Double demerit points are in force in New South Wales, and it's really worth ensuring that you slow down and drive safely for all our sakes. Have a safe, refreshing and happy Easter, and enjoy chocolate in moderation if you can. Ethiopia: Oromo People 3188 10:33 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I stand in the federal Parliament of Australia today to draw the attention of my colleagues and the government to the serious human rights concerns raised by members of the Australian Oromo community. The Oromo people make up the largest ethnic group in Ethiopia, but the human and political rights of the Oromo people have been under attack. For the second time in two years, a state of emergency has been declared by the Ethiopian government. Media reports quote the government as stating that the state of emergency was necessary to stem a wave of antigovernment protests. The state of emergency imposes curfews and bans on protests, displays of political signs or messages and distributing political material. According to Human Rights Watch, the first state of emergency, declared in 2016, brought 'mass arrests, mistreatment in detention and unreasonable limitations on freedom of assembly, expression and association'. Popular protests became widespread, but these Oromo protests were met with lethal force by the government. Over 1,000 people were killed and tens of thousands arrested as political prisoners. The second state of emergency, declared on 18 February this year, has brought with it more violence. Killings of civilians by security forces have been reported across the Oromia region, including recently in Moyale, where 10 people were reported killed. There's been large-scale displacement, both internal and external, to neighbouring countries, from which many face forcible repatriation or refoulement into danger. And while the Ethiopian government states that it released 30,000 Oromo people arrested during the Oromo protests of 2016-17, reports indicate that tens of thousands more people are held as political prisoners. Oromo community members in Melbourne have informed me of reports that over two years 70,000 people have been arrested on political charges, on top of 42,000 people already imprisoned and considered to be political prisoners. In Melbourne yesterday hundreds of members of the Australian Oromo community held a rally to call for an end to the violence and for the protection of the human rights of the Oromo people. Victorian Greens member for Melbourne, Ellen Sandell, addressed the rally. Many Oromo people in Melbourne are forced to watch on as family members or loved ones are affected by violence or forced to flee for their safety. I'd like to acknowledge leadership of the Oromo community in Melbourne and all of those who are taking action in solidarity. The message from the rally was very clear: the violence must end, political prisoners must be released and the Australian government must take a stand for the human rights of the Oromo people. Australia must speak out. Not only has Australia failed Oromo refugees and made it hard for families to be reunited but the government has not spoken out clearly in defence of the human rights of the Oromo people. Already the US, the UK and the EU have condemned the Ethiopian government's conduct, and today I support the call of the Oromo to stand up for their human rights. (Time expired) Fisher Electorate: Fisher Community Awards 3188 10:36 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise this morning to talk about the great community awards that we held in Fisher just last Thursday night. I want to make Fisher the place to be for education, employment and retirement. We held the most amazing community awards just last week and I want to talk a little about some of those award recipients. The first recipient was the Fisher Educator of the Year, Simon Richardson. He's a teacher at Chancellor State College, and he leads a robotics program with the kids there at Chancellor State College. These kids have been off to the US. They've won Australian titles for robotics and, indeed, they've won a world title. This is all happening on the Sunshine Coast. Simon is an inspiration to all teachers; he's actually teaching other teachers around the country how to be effective teachers in the robotics sector. And all the while he's been doing this, he's been doing it with Parkinson's disease. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, there was not a dry eye in the house when he received his award. Simon, you are an absolute legend and you're an inspiration to us all. The next award recipient was the Fisher Student of the Year, which went to Tea Carter. She's one of the college captains at Kawana Waters State College. She's been described by her peers as an exceptional role model to the college community and one who is an absolutely tireless worker. Congratulations, Tea. The Fisher Education Provider of the Year was won by STEPS Pathways College. Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can tell you as a father of a child who lives with disability that as a parent one of your greatest fears is: 'What will happen to my child when I drop off this mortal coil?' STEPS Pathways' program teaches young people in their 20s and 30s how to live independently away from mum and dad. Carmel Crouch: you do an absolutely sensational job. The work that you do is incredible for the disability sector. Thank you so much for what you do. Thanks from the disability sector to you and to all your great workers. You do a great job; thanks very much. The Fisher Business of the Year was won by All Love Pest Control and Carpet Cleaning. Deb and Paul Warrington-Love had their son die of cancer, and so 10 per cent of the money that they make in their business they put back into that— (Time expired) Lord Howe Island 3189 10:39 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney One of the best things about being the member for Sydney is the fact that I get to represent Lord Howe Island, which is one of the most beautiful places on earth. A major issue in recent years has been the rodent infestation on the island. There is estimated to be between 63,000 and 150,000 rats and between 140,000 and 210,000 mice on Lord Howe Island and its associated islands and rocky islets. The rats are implicated in the extinction of at least five species of endemic birds and 13 species of endemic invertebrates. Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E I bring to the attention of the Chamber that the member for Sydney is speaking and deserves to be heard in silence. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Every resident of the island wants to get rid of these rats and mice, but there is a debate on the island about the best method. In April 2016, the Lord Howe Island Board applied for a licence to use the rat poison brodifacoum throughout the island through a series of special airdrops and baiting. After first undertaking a feasibility study on this proposal in 2001 and first obtaining funding in 2011, the idea was to do it once and do it properly to eradicate the rats and mice from the environment, as other invasive species have been eradicated and as has been done on hundreds of islands around the world. The licence was approved in August 2017 by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, but, due to issues with the permit and the legal enforceability of some conditions around non-target species, the board was requested to surrender their permit. They did so on the understanding that, when the new application was submitted in November 2017, it would be dealt with expeditiously, allowing plenty of time for the poison drop to occur this coming winter. Sadly, this had not occurred despite this being a program which the agency has previously approved. In March this year, I wrote to the CEO of APVMA seeking an assurance that the licence would be issued promptly to allow the bait drop to occur this winter. On 16 March, I received a response from the CEO, who was unable to confirm when the licence would be issued, only that it would be dealt within a six-month time frame. Of course, that is too late. In light of this response and the delay, the Lord Howe Island Board decided last week that it would not have time to proceed with the planned winter drop in 2018. Once again, this puts this program under a massive cloud of doubt. The irony, of course, is that about 4¾ tonnes of poison, including brodifacoum, is already used every year by the board and private residents on this island covering about 10 per cent of the island. The only difference is the delivery mechanism. All residents accept that the drop must be done carefully to protect humans and non-target species. However, this delay is inexplicable, given this poison is being used so extensively already. As was reported in TheSydney Morning Herald on 24 March, the reason for this delay may be the forced move of APVMA to Armidale by the former Deputy Prime Minister, which has meant that some staff have had to work from the local McDonald's in order to access wi-fi. This decision to move this agency has caused underresourcing, disruption and uncertainty in the agency. This delay will cost a great deal of money, and the environmental costs are incalculable. For example, the Lord Howe Island phasmid cannot be released back into the wild from its breeding program until the rats and mice are eradicated. Women's Health 3190 10:42 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm This week I and my colleague Dr Mike Freelander, the member for Macarthur, launched Parliamentary Friends of Women's Health. When I first flagged this idea of an umbrella parliamentary friendship group for women's health to the Minister for Health, the Hon. Greg Hunt, and to the Minister for Women, the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer, they were both incredibly supportive, as were my colleague and co-chair, Dr Freelander, and various members from both sides of politics. In addressing women's health issues, Australians always show their generosity and spirit. A great example of that is Jane McGrath Day held at the SCG, where you see a sea of pink in Sydney and where, as a nation, we get together and provide the support needed. The purpose of this group is to provide an umbrella vehicle for discussion around women's health issues more broadly, encapsulating health issues which pertain to women specifically as well as health issues where there is a need for an increased awareness, where the symptoms manifest differently in women than they do in men and/or where the incidence of certain diseases is higher in women, such as multiple sclerosis. Among the many issues where the symptoms manifest differently in women than in men, a key issue is heart attacks. The symptoms of a heart attack in women are often completely different, and heart disease in women, sadly, is often undiagnosed. The desire and passion to improve women's health issues were also supported and attended to by some amazing leaders. The attendees at the event included Dr Linda Worrall-Carter, founder and CEO of Her Heart; Jane Hill, Chief Executive Officer of Ovarian Cancer Australia; Lucinda Nolan, Chief Executive Officer of the Ovarian Cancer Research Foundation; Janet Hailes Michelmore, Director of Jean Hailes for Women's Health; Amanda Lynch, National Manager, Government Relations, for the Pharmacy Guild of Australia; Donna Ciccia, Director and Co-founder of Endometriosis Australia; and, of course, the Hon. Dr Michael Wooldridge, former minister for health, former member for Chisholm and former member for Casey. I established this group as I believe it's critically important that we establish an umbrella group which focuses, and ensures the continued focus, on women's health issues. The Turnbull government's groundbreaking policies are saving lives, and will continue to save lives, by significantly reducing the incidence of health challenges such as diagnosis of ovarian, cervical and breast cancers, and indeed by addressing mental health issues such as postnatal depression, which impacts women. I am proud to be part of the Turnbull government, which has implemented pragmatic policies and measures which in fact all seek to improve women's health issues. Taxation, Dividend Imputation 3191 10:46 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand Young Australians should feel angry about our tax system. Since the Howard government, it's been set up to screw them, and now the bill is coming due for the federal government. While young Australians are trying to work out how to save to get a deposit to buy their first home, wealthy property investors, wealthy boomers, get a tax break for buying their second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth investment property. At every property auction around Australia there are two classes of bidders—young people and property investors with a tax lurk in their back pocket. The government spends more than $11 billion a year on tax concessions like this for property investors. That's more than we spend on universities and TAFE every year. No wonder home ownership for young Australians is at a 60-year low. There's an even bigger tax lurk in our tax system for wealthy investors in shares. While all young Australians pay tax on every dollar they earn over 18K, and many of them have an ever-increasing HECS debt taken out of their back pocket to boot, wealthy boomer retirees who don't pay tax get given free money by the government if they own shares. Seriously—not a tax refund—free money, cash. The richer you are, the more you get given. You could own a house, you could own an investment property, you could have a million dollars in superannuation, and the government would still give you free money. We're the only country in the world who does this. Today's wealthy boomers are the only people who'll get this free money, because there's no way we can afford to keep doing this. Some government of some persuasion is definitely going to get rid of this in the decades to come, but today's young Australians won't enjoy it—it will be gone. The free-money-for-shareholders policy already costs Australia more than $5 billion a year and in the near future will cost more than $8 billion. That's more than we spend on public schools. All of this is money that we could be spending on schools, hospitals, public transport, fighting climate change or even paying down the debt that this government has doubled since coming into government. The kicker here is that this isn't an old versus young fight. These tax lurks don't make our country fairer or more prosperous now or in the future; they just help the rich get richer. This is a haves versus have-nots fight. Under the Howard government, the wealthy set up a tax system to transfer billions of dollars from working Australians, from young Australians, to property investors and shareholders who don't pay tax. But I say: don't hate the player, hate the game. As Wu-Tang Financial said, protect your neck. Young Australians will have a choice at the next federal election, a choice between a Turnbull government that wants to protection the tax advantages of wealthy shareholders and wealthy property investors and a Labor Party, led by Bill Shorten, that has a plan to fix our tax system and make it fairer for all Australians, to shut down these tax lurks and give young Australians a fair go. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM Before I call the member for Page, I might speak to the member for Gellibrand about his opening statement. He might want to consider the terminology he uses in some of his speeches; it's not that parliamentary. Page Electorate: Constituents 3192 10:49 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I would have thought the member for Gellibrand might want to consider a few things there, Deputy Speaker Irons. Today I'd like to congratulate the Glenugie boxing brothers, Logan and Mason Slis. Logan is 15 and Mason is 13, and they both won their respective weight classes at the Boxing New South Wales state championships earlier this month. They will now represent New South Wales at the Australian titles in Perth. For Logan, this marks his third consecutive state title win—a great achievement. Congratulations to both of these brothers, and I wish them all the best of luck at the Australian titles. Local fisherman Bryce Ellis put his own life at risk when he went to the aid of seven tourists who were caught in a rip on Yamba's Main Beach. Bryce had been fishing on the beach and was leaving when he noticed the group had been swept out to deep water by the rip. He immediately returned to the water and swam out to the group, where he grabbed two of them and took them to nearby rocks. After making sure that they were okay, he returned to the deep water and continued to rescue the remaining swimmers. As he did this, the now rescued swimmers made their way back to the beach, where they were met by Lachlan Major. Lachlan had been attending a staff party at the Yamba Shores Tavern. He was dressed appropriately as Baywatch lifesaver David Hasselhoff. Lachlan was then able to help the swimmers all the way to safety, while Bryce continued his deepwater efforts. In Lachlan's words: He— Bryce— did all the heavy lifting. Lachlan also said that Bryce: … did an incredible job and should be commended for how quick he acted. I thank Bryce and Lachlan and all the others who assisted in that rescue. Nola York has been helping the community of Glenreagh donate to charity for nearly 20 years. Eighty-one-year-old Nola converts the front three rooms of her home, which is part of the old bakery, into a series of caves and passages full of colour and thousands of toys and hundreds of Christmas lights and other decorations. Nola spends the two months leading up to Christmas preparing her home for the many hundreds of people who come to look at the display. Nola has a donation tin so that visitors can make a donation, which she then passes on to the Mid North Coast Cancer Institute. Nola began her association with the institute when her late husband, Ron, was diagnosed with cancer. Locals like Bessie Webb are behind Nola, who is also well supported by the local community and the visitors from afar, including many repeat visitors. Nola is a very special person in our community, and I would like to thank her for her outstanding community spirit. I know that the patients and staff of the Mid North Coast Cancer Institute are very appreciative of her dedication. International Women's Day 3193 10:51 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell On 8 March, I celebrated International Women's Day with a wonderful group of women in my electorate. It was held at the Good Samaritan Catholic Primary School, who also co-hosted the event with the Roxburgh Park Football Club. We joined to celebrate with the newly arrived migrant and refugee women, predominantly from Iraq and Syria, who have settled in our area. We pay tribute to the women who have mentored our local women in the community and recognise the tireless efforts of the school community and the community workers in assisting and supporting them and their families. I want to thank our local sponsors of the event, BRITE Services, Naturally Good Products and Nestle for their kind donations. I want to thank in particular the school and football club for all their hard work in setting up and facilitating this event, which we all agreed on the day should become an annual event on International Women's Day. The theme for this year's International Women's Day was 'Press for progress'. I am proud to say that nowhere is that progress more evident than in my electorate of Calwell. The kind donations and the goodwill of the Calwell community show how willing our local schools, settlement agencies and community in general are in assisting in the settlement of our newly arrived migrants and refugees. I especially want to thank the women who came along to the event and who shared their stories with us. For almost all of them, it was their first ever International Women's Day event and they were truly overwhelmed and excited. I want to thank the Mayor of the City of Hume, Geoff Porter, and the Deputy Mayor, Carley Moore. I want to thank the Good Samaritan Catholic Primary School Principal, Paul Sedunary, and Deputy Principal, Helen Smith, as well as the wonderful Ban Shamun, who assists the school as a sort aid between the newly arrived and the school community. I also want to thank Vicki Short from the Roxburgh Park Football Club; Connie Manglaviti from Naturally Good Products, a local small business; Antoinetta Farrugia for the wonderful pink cupcakes that she made for us on the day; Ms Najwa Farakis from the El Telegraph Newspaper; the members of the Pakistani Welfare Organisation of Australia; Eileen Kelly, the human resources manager at Nestle; and Leanne Meddings, who is also from Nestle. My many thanks also go to the Northern Community Legal Centre, Attwood House, Lentara Uniting Care, and Dianella Health. I want to especially thank Mary Elizabeth Calwell for attending as our special guest on the day, and the Museum of Australia Democracy for providing us with greeting cards from their latest exhibition titled The Gift: Art, Artefacts & Arrivals. All the women present were encouraged to write a message of hope to the newly-arrived migrants. I want to read out Mary Elizabeth Calwell's message of hope: My father welcomed hundreds of thousands of people after 1945 to Australia and millions have followed, so we welcome you to our great South Land. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM Before I call the member for Leichhardt: if no member objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a total of 90 minutes. I call the member for Leichhardt. Leichhardt Electorate: Helicopters 3194 10:55 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I rise today to talk about a serious situation in my electorate that will, sadly and inevitably, cost someone their life on our Great Barrier Reef and damage our international reputation in the process. If the situation eventuates—and, let me tell you, it will—the Queensland Labor government and its Cairns based Minister for Fire and Emergency Services, Craig Crawford, will have blood on their hands. Mr Crawford has flatly refused to engage the services of a highly respected Cairns based helicopter company, Nautilus Aviation, during recent wet weather events, purely because the company had the hide to hold a media opportunity with the now opposition leader during a state election where they committed to using these machines. The Queensland government would rather spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money tasking helicopters from Brisbane to Far North Queensland than use the privately owned Cairns based rescue helicopter. In fact, recently they tasked a government helicopter from Townsville for a medical emergency on the reef. The helicopter broke down mid rescue, and, instead of tasking the Nautilus rescue chopper sitting 20 minutes away, they made the doctor, the paramedic and the passenger travel more than two hours by boat back to the mainland. On 21 March the government helicopter was tasked from Cairns to Mornington Island to look for the body of a person who had been attacked and killed by a crocodile. This was a 10-hour round trip that left Cairns without a rescue helicopter for that full day. Nautilus had a helicopter based in Normanton and would have completed the mission in less than two hours. What makes this matter even worse is the fact that, on 22 March, the government chopper was offline for maintenance, as it regularly is, and could not assist in a time-critical emergency patient transfer from Mossman Hospital. That person died as a result, very sadly. They weren't given the chance, because of Mr Crawford's refusal to engage with Nautilus Aviation. Only on the weekend, the Labor government tasked three privately owned choppers from the Sunshine Coast to help the recovery efforts in Cape York. How much taxpayers' money was blown out on the decision due to Mr Crawford's petulance? What makes the situation even more ridiculous is the fact that Nautilus Aviation is regularly engaged by other Queensland government departments. Its services are used by New South Wales Ambulance, New South Wales police, New South Wales emergency services, Fire & Rescue New South Wales, Surf Life Saving Australia and the SES. Nautilus choppers are fitted out with the latest state-of-the-art medical and rescue equipment. Its helicopters are also state-of-the-art machines and are the same as the Queensland government operates in Townsville. Serious questions need to be asked about Mr Crawford's conduct. Should we just let this body count continue to rise under his watch? Richmond Vale Rail Trail 3195 10:57 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I stand here today to share my great excitement about plans for the Richmond Vale Rail Trail. This will be an active transport corridor that will link the city of Newcastle with the glorious vineyards of the Hunter Valley. The trail will follow the old coal line through parts of the Cessnock LGA, Newcastle and Lake Macquarie. The Richmond Vale Rail Trail echoes what is becoming a global trend for disused railway lines to be transformed into pathways. The slopes are gentle, and they create a route that's friendly to humans and the environment. Earlier this month I met with a number of others who share my commitment to making the dream of a Richmond Vale Rail Trail a reality. Representatives from Newcastle and Cessnock city councils and Lake Macquarie council, the Donaldson Coal Conservation Trust, Rotary, and the Richmond Vale Rail Trail gathered at the Station Hotel in Kurri Kurri to plot our next steps. It was wonderful to hear from Newcastle council's project manager, Geoff Wickens—Geoff reaffirmed the commitment of Newcastle council to the project—and to also have Cessnock's acting strategic planner, Emma Crosdale, join the discussions in such a positive way. Soon-to-be-district-governor Brian Coffey, of Maitland Rotary, shared fabulous news that his organisation is willing to sponsor a toilet block. Yes, the trail presents us with a unique tourism opportunity, but first and foremost, however, I am passionate about it being built for local people in our area. It will give us a place to get moving, the perfect spot for walking and cycling. By using two feet and a heartbeat we're burning more of the right fuel—that's right: body fat—and less of that which produces carbon emissions. It's so important to many people in my electorate, particularly young people, who are looking to get out and about and have something to do. In late 2016 a survey released by the Australian Health Policy Collaboration revealed that more than 68 per cent of those who live in my home town of Kurri Kurri and Abermain were obese—68 per cent! Now, more than ever, it is so important that we take every opportunity to encourage activity—incidental activity, organised activity, outdoor activity. We must look to genuine people power to move about our daily lives. So while the trail will be an important nod to our industrial heritage and a great boon for our tourism sector, it will be a wonderful gift to the health of the people of the lower Hunter Valley. I thank everyone, including Billy Metcalf, who's worked so hard on this concept. You have my gratitude and my utmost support—and a big shout-out to all the people who were involved in the Richmond Vale Rail Trail. Get on the Facebook page; get behind it. We need to make the trail an absolute reality so that it can be another part of the glorious Paterson electorate. Canning Electorate: Roads 3195 11:00 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning I rise today to further advocate for the extension of the Tonkin Highway in my electorate of Canning. The Tonkin Highway was first laid in 1980 and since then has been extended both north and south. In 2005 its southern extension was complete, terminating the highway at Thomas Road in the shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale. Since that time the population of the shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale has more than doubled. With many more motorists on the road, the Tonkin Highway/Thomas Road intersection has become a severe bottleneck, causing heavy congestion to spill out onto many adjoining local roads. It forces existing heavy haulage trucks onto local roads networks, impacting their safety and capacity. And with its terminus at the northern end of the shire boundary, the Tonkin Highway in its current form is restricting industrial growth and the development of the local economy. No-one understands this issue better than John Mitchell, owner and operator of Mitchell's Livestock Transport. In any given year, Mitchell's is responsible for moving over 500,000 cattle across 1,500 pick-up and delivery locations across Australia. With his business based out of Waroona in the southern end of Canning, John has an intimate knowledge of the road network in the Peel region and beyond and how it could be improved. At present, any of John's trucks driving through Perth from the Great Southern and beyond have to use one of the following east-west links to get to the freeway and out to Kwinana: South West Highway and Armadale Road, Thomas Road, Mundijong Road, Karnup Road, Lakes Road, Pinjarra Road and Greenlands Road. Most of these links are main streets and country roads running through the Peel region. They are unsuitable for heavy transport like John's, because the roads are either already heavily congested, are dangerous to navigate by virtue of their topography or act as the main streets in local communities. And even if they do use these roads, the trucks still need a north-south corridor. The only current options are the Kwinana and Mitchell freeways, but these are even more heavily congested. In fact, yesterday Infrastructure Australia released its national report noting that congestion on the freeways will increasingly result in nationally significant losses to productivity. There is an obvious solution. Extending the Tonkin Highway from Thomas Road down to Lakes Road would solve a number of these problems. First and foremost, it would allow heavy haulage to travel along an interior pathway, reducing the number of big trucks on the freeways. It would strengthen north-south and east-west links in Perth and Western Australia as well as provide an opportunity to create better transport routes between the east and west coasts of Australia. It would cut down the number of trucks currently passing along local roads and through communities, such as the Byford CBD, which is rapidly growing. It would improve heavy haulage access and also provide a significant boost to the local economy. The Tonkin Highway extension would create the right conditions for industrial growth in places like the West Mundijong industrial park. The Tonkin Highway extension is vital for the long-term future of Serpentine Jarrahdale and indeed the whole Peel region. We need to prioritise this project as one that will encourage local development and growth. (Time expired) Health Care 3196 11:04 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton In the last financial year there were 7.8 million presentations to public hospital emergency departments across Australia, an average of 21,000 presentations each day. One of my sons and I contributed to that tally—and I'll just do a shout-out to Julia Dreyfus and the VEEP staff and crew! But, thanks to the wonderful service provided at my local public hospital, we were given the care that we needed. We were patched up and sent back home. Obviously, that's what all Australians expect, but our public hospitals can't continue to give that great service if their funding is ripped away from them. Already, more than 50 per cent of public hospital doctors are working unsafe hours that put them at significant risk of fatigue, and fatigue means that they can make poor decisions. The Australian Medical Association has said: The strain and the pressure on our public hospitals is having a detrimental impact on the health of our doctors. This out-of-touch Turnbull government seems to not care about the health of Australians. This out-of-touch Turnbull government seems to not care about the health of our doctors. This out-of-touch Turnbull government seems to not care about protecting our health system. It is ripping $160 million out of Queensland's public hospitals, which is the equivalent of 240,000 emergency department visits, or 44,000 cataract extractions, or 6,150 knee replacements, or 26,500 births, so this will affect every Queenslander. The next time Queenslanders are cradling their child in an emergency ward, soothing their distressed sobs and wiping their fevered brow, that child will have to wait longer to receive the health care they need. For people living on Brisbane's south side—and I see the member for Oxley here—in my electorate of Moreton, the hospitals that service the needs of their families will have their funding slashed by this uncaring Turnbull government. The QEII Jubilee Hospital will suffer a funding cut of more than $3 million. The Princess Alexandra Hospital will endure a funding cut of more than $13 million. The Mater Hospital will be burdened with a funding cut of more than $4 million. The Mater Mothers' Hospital will have to brave a funding cut of more than $2 million. The Lady Cilento Children's Hospital, the major specialist children's hospital for Queensland, will have to sustain a funding cut of more than $6 million. When Queenslanders are sick and have to wait longer for, or be turned away from receiving, the health care they need, I'm sure they will not be thanking this out-of-touch Turnbull government for cutting the funding to our hospitals while giving big business, banks and multinationals, a $65 billion tax giveaway. Every dollar cut from Queensland's hospitals is a dollar cut from our sickest and most vulnerable patients. The Turnbull government is tripping over itself to give big business $65 billion but can't find a fraction of that to properly fund the south side's public hospitals for the next three years. Labor created Medicare. We'll always fight to protect Medicare. We'll fight this out-of-touch and inept Turnbull government's cuts to hospitals. Australian Natural Disasters, Hume Electorate: Infrastructure 3197 11:07 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume In the last two weeks, we've seen natural disasters at either end of the country. We've seen two category 2 cyclones hit the north of the country; we've seen the south ravaged by bushfires; and we've seen floods on the North Coast of New South Wales. Of course, this year is the first anniversary of Cyclone Debbie, which ravaged the Whitsundays, in Queensland. The Commonwealth government provides funding to assist those communities with rebuilding infrastructure and environmental recovery. We've also provided disaster assistance for the communities in the Northern Territory and Queensland, following the cyclones, and for Tathra and Cobden, which were both devastated by fires. I managed to visit, with the Prime Minister, Tathra and Cobden in the last week, and we saw firsthand that devastation, but we also saw extraordinary selflessness, courage and resilience. Seeing these impacts firsthand has highlighted to me the importance of having resilient communities and resilient infrastructure. We have a role as the Commonwealth to work with state and local government to make sure that we do have that resilient infrastructure. Ensuring that we have good roads and mobile phone coverage, fixing blackspots, means that our communities are not isolated, which becomes crucial in times of disaster. Just last month, 29 new mobile-phone towers were switched on under the coalition's $220 million program. That's 29 more regional communities in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria getting reliable phone coverage. In my electorate of Hume, towers are now live in Mayfield, not far from where we are here today, and Mount Hunter, near Camden. Blackspot towers will also be servicing communities around Tarlo and Dalton, two locations at serious risk of bushfire in extreme conditions. In fact, we saw a fire at Tarlo in recent weeks. I know that locals, many of them volunteer firefighters, will welcome them. We all know that access to safe roads is essential, particularly in times of emergency, and that's one of the reasons why we invest as a federal government in programs like the Black Spot Program for roads, providing $60 million a year from 2021 onwards. I can announce for the first time today that two more locations in my electorate, at Gunning and Blakney Creek, will receive more than $570,000 for fixing road blackspots. The community's input has been essential in identifying these locations. Under the Bridges Renewal Program, we're also announcing more than $162 million to fix another 186 bridges, including the Nadgigomar Creek Bridge, near Tarago, and the Matthews Creek bridge near Thirlmere. The coalition's unprecedented investment— (Time expired) Oxley Electorate: Competitions 3198 11:10 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley This week is not only the last sitting week for parliamentarians but, for Queensland students, the last week of term 1, which can only mean one thing: Easter is now just a few days away. To celebrate Easter this year, I was proud to launch the first Oxley Easter colouring-in competition. The competition was open to early childhood centres in Goodna, Redbank Plains and the Centenary suburbs, with over 100 entries received. I was amazed to see just how enthusiastically children, early childhood centres and their early childhood educators embraced the competition. With many fantastic and colourful entries received, the judging of this competition could have been done only by certified experts, and my special thanks go to Ann Egan and Mrs Anne O'Shea, from the Inala Pensioners League; Mrs Margaret Mullins, from the South West Progress Association; and Marilyn Thurtell, from the MTR Property Group, who visited my office to cast their eye over the entries. My congratulations go to all the children who entered the competition, along with our winners Lucinda and Zayn from Jamboree Heights, Natalie from Sinnamon Park and Marcus from Redbank Plains. All entries also received a special parliamentary certificate of appreciation. The talents of young people in Oxley don't stop there. At the beginning of this month I was thrilled to launch the 2018 Oxley Electorate Spirit of Anzac Award at host school Redbank Plains State High School, alongside hardworking principal Mr Tom Beck, student leaders, President of the Redbank Plains RSL Sub-Branch Mrs Florence Scott and Secretary of the Redbank RSL Sub-Branch Mr Gary Gibson. Now in its second year, this competition is open to students in year 11 throughout the Oxley electorate, who are invited to submit a short essay, a poem or a piece of artwork on what the spirit of Anzac means to them. After feedback from students last year, the person judged to be awarded first prize will receive a new Apple iPad. A selection committee consisting of representatives from the hardworking local RSL sub-branches will select the most worthy recipient to be awarded first place, along with five other highly commended awards. Entry for students is now open, and the closing date for entries has now been extended to Tuesday, 17 April. The recipient, along with five other highly commended entries, will be announced in the lead-up to Anzac Day. We know that Anzac Day holds a special place in the hearts of many Australians as we pay our respects to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our country. This is clear to see from some of the entries already received and also from last year's competition, where the entries were amazing in their detail and commitment. Here is a small excerpt from last year's recipient, Mr Sam Wallace, from Centenary State High School: Anzac Day represents the courage, unity and strength shown by Australian and New Zealand soldiers as they were fighting for the very preservation of our society. This sentiment is so profound in our history that today, the values shown by these soldiers are strong in our modern society. Murray-Darling Basin 3199 11:13 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray I take great optimism from the fact that we now have a Liberal government in South Australia and therefore will have a new Minister for Environment and Water, by the name of the Hon. David Speirs, in that state. We have an enormous amount of work to do in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. In recent interviews, I've heard the new minister talk about the need for a whole raft of goodwill in relation to getting the Murray-Darling Basin Plan completed. Early in the plan, it was assumed that we would pick up around 2,000 gigalitres through buybacks. It soon became apparent that the government simply going into the market and indiscriminately buying the amounts of water held by various irrigators was an absolute disaster, with stranded assets right throughout the Murray-Darling Basin. What has become apparent now is that many of the irrigation communities have already given up far too much water, and the damage that is clear for everybody to see, with this water that has already left these communities, needs to be addressed. This goodwill that the minister from South Australia has mentioned needs to apply to the Northern Basin Review, an independent review that looked into some of the southern Queensland areas and made the very clear and obvious assessment that too much water has been taken out of Goondiwindi, St George and Dirranbandi and that, in their scientific opinion, 70 gigalitres that was previously set aside for environmental flows has to be recommitted to productive agriculture. The Labor Party and the Greens in this federal parliament have disallowed this 70-gigalitre correction, and the goodwill that we need is to see that Northern Basin Review amount of 70 gigalitres put back into productive agriculture. The 605 gigalitres that has been set aside for environmental works and measures and that is going to come off the original 2,750 plan also needs to be put through at the very first opportunity. I am hoping the new minister extends this goodwill to making sure that there is a rigorous and credible filter and assessment applied with a social and economic rider associated with 450 gigalitres of additional water that is going to be required by South Australia. I understand South Australia has a heavily piped and efficient system, and a sprinkler system, right throughout its Riverland. They look upstream to see what they consider to be a wasteful system. I understand that. However, to take more water out of the regions of the irrigators, the three million people that rely on the basin, is simply untenable. Veterans 3200 11:16 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Last Sunday I attended a profoundly moving headstone dedication for Mr August Nicolai, who served on the Western Front in 1918. He died by suicide 12 years after returning from the war and, with no immediate family to pay for a headstone, has lain in an unmarked grave for 87 years. The funding for this headstone was raised by both the Macclesfield RSL and the Meadows Community Association. Despite the wind and the cold, over 60 people, including me, paid our respects to this soldier, whose sacrifice for our country had not been acknowledged for almost a century. I recognise that there is a provision for the Department of Veterans' Affairs to pay for headstones where death can be directly linked to a person's active service, under specific guidelines. With our more sophisticated understanding of the impact of post-traumatic stress disorder, arguably Mr Nicolai's death could have been attributed to his war service, but my purpose here is not to push the boundaries of the guidelines. However, I believe that a strong case can be made for the government to provide grant funding for headstones for World War I veterans who are currently in unmarked graves in cemeteries across Australia. In many cases these men died during the Great Depression, when, if there were surviving family members, their choice was to pay for a headstone or to put food on the table for the children of the veteran. Had these men been receiving DVA pensions, the department would have paid for headstones. However, many servicemen did not apply for pensions, even though many were likely entitled to one. Every Anzac Day we say 'lest we forget', yet these servicemen in unmarked graves have, indeed, I believe, been forgotten. In Tasmania, because of the community work of the great Andrea Gerard, supported by the member for Denison, many headstones have been laid, but this is one state of many, and I believe we need a national response, a national leadership. So I would ask the government to consider establishing a capped program to provide for headstones for World War I veterans currently in unmarked graves. I understand that there are an estimated 12,000 World War I veterans lying in unmarked graves in Australian cemeteries and that the average cost of a headstone is approximately $500. If the program were to be funded over four years and capped at $6 million, it would be only $1.5 million per annum. This would be a small investment to provide appropriate recognition for the men, like August Nicolai, who were willing to sacrifice their lives for Australia. If we mean 'lest we forget', we must not forget them. Flynn Electorate: Community Events 3200 11:19 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn As Easter approaches, the excitement builds across all corners of Flynn. The Central Highlands Easter Sunflower Festival in the west has been going for 42 years, Emerald being the main centre in the Central Highlands. In Proston, in the South Burnett area of my electorate, they will have the Regatta in the Park. This is always well attended by the people in the South Burnett and the North Burnett, who enjoy the weekend. There is also the popular Gladstone Harbour Festival, which has been very popular for many, many years—it's been going since about 1948. It includes the Brisbane to Gladstone Yacht Race, which is a very famous sporting event in Australian history. Although my electorate of Flynn spans twice the size of Tasmania, there are many events, too numerous to mention, that will take place throughout the electorate. Distance does not stop locals wanting to celebrate Easter, and communities from all corners of the electorate come together as family and friends to celebrate the occasion. The Central Highlands Easter Sunflower Festival is 42 years old. It's on the Central Highlands, as previously mentioned. It's a week-long festivity, with the biggest day celebrated on Easter Saturday. It starts with the Easter Parade, followed by the crowning of the 2018 Central Highlands Sunflower Queen and Princess. In the evening, there is a rodeo event which attracts many horse men and women from all over Central Queensland. In the afternoon there is horseracing at Pioneer Park. Gladstone Harbour Festival has been around since 1948, and it's very spectacular. A lot of carnival activities take place on the marina, but I guess the yacht race from Brisbane to Gladstone is the highlight of the whole Easter week. It nearly had a disastrous beginning in the early years. In 1949, a big cyclone had hit Gladstone. It wiped out every church in Gladstone, but every pub was left standing. I don't know what that message was! But it's a fact that we survived that and the race has gone on every year since then. It has really been of great moment—it's second only to the Sydney to Hobart race. Western Australia: Royal Flying Doctor Service 3201 11:22 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth Last week, I had the great pleasure and privilege of visiting the Perth base of the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Western Australia, located at Jandakot Airport, in the Perth southern suburbs. As members may or may not know, Jandakot is actually the second biggest airport in the Southern Hemisphere and is the primary transfer airport for Flying Doctor Service patients from all over the state to and from hospitals in Perth. There are also Flying Doctor Service bases in Kalgoorlie, Meekatharra, Port Hedland and Broome. It's also noteworthy that not only do they provide an amazing service all across the state and indeed the country but also they are a powerhouse when it comes to employment. The Royal Flying Doctor Service employs up to 400 people, with over 45 doctors, over 40 nurses and 41 pilots. Geographically, as we know, Western Australia is a huge state and has some of the world's most remote and isolated communities. The RFDS spans over 2.5 million square kilometres, making it one of the largest aeromedical service areas in the entire world. In Western Australia, the Flying Doctor Service responds to around 25 patients per day, every day, at all hours. The truth is that a modern, First World health system simply could not be delivered equitably throughout our state without the amazing work of the Royal Flying Doctor Service and all of those who are incredibly committed to its cause. In the course of my tour at the RFDS, I was struck by speaking to so many employees who had been working there for so long. The stability of their workforce is really a testament to the common commitment at the RFDS to providing world-class medical service all over the state. It's not just about treating acute illnesses at times of crisis. Heart attacks and other life-threatening diseases are, as we know, prevented through regular access to good primary health care such as GP services. The RFDS have released a report today in relation to cardiovascular disease. It's great to see them also committed to the cause. In terms of the nuts and bolts, I can tell you that the centre down at Jandakot has everything in it, even a flight simulator aircraft. I was amazed at the amazing work done in such small confines on these planes for patients often in life-threatening situations. If I didn't already hold them in high enough esteem, I certainly did after that tour, I can tell you. I also got a chance to learn more about their new and improved airline, the Pilatus PC-24—the first of its kind in aeromedical treatment anywhere around the globe. The innovations that are being led from the front by the RFDS WA's Rebecca Tomkinson are to be applauded. To Rebecca, well done. To the entire team, well done. You are doing a marvellous job. Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 I just remind members that, if they wish to hold conversations in the Chamber and continue those while other members are speaking, they should take those conversations outside the Chamber for the benefit of all members present. Calare Electorate: Education 3202 11:25 Mr GEE 261393 Calare The Clontarf Foundation and the Girls Academy are two wonderful initiatives that work to support young Indigenous men and women across Australia. In Orange, the academies work in collaboration with Canobolas Rural Technology High School, and I would like to recognise Principal Kate Wootten for facilitating the establishment of those academies at the school. The Clontarf Foundation was launched in Australia in 2000, and now almost 6,000 boys from 96 schools across the nation are involved. The foundation focuses on education, leadership, employment, healthy lifestyles, life skills, self-esteem and sport. It also continues to support students after they leave school by helping them to find employment. The Clontarf Foundation was launched at Canobolas Rural Technology High School in 2016, and in a short time the academy has gone from strength to strength. I would like to recognise Regional Manager Ryan Woolfe; Canobolas Clontarf Academy Director James Grant, a former Wallaby; and also operations officers Ben Benton and Matthew Georgiou. I have seen their work firsthand. They go to extraordinary lengths to support the students at the academy. I attended the 2017 awards presentation night and I was witness to the great outcomes achieved by the students. At the end of 2017, 82 students were involved in the Orange academy, and this year the number has grown to 101. The Girls Academy was established in 2004 through Olympic basketballer Ricky Grace and also Role Models and Leaders Australia. It is similar to the Clontarf Foundation and focuses on supporting young Indigenous girls. It does this through leadership training, mentoring, sport and a range of extracurricular activities. Last year, 2,000 young Indigenous people were involved in the academy in 32 schools across the country. I was honoured to attend the launch of the Canobolas Girls Academy in Orange in November last year. I would like to recognise the New South Wales Regional Manager, James Madigan, and Louise Lawler, as well as Canobolas Girls Academy Program Manager Nikita Mason and Development Officer Belinda Langlo. I met both Nikita and Belinda at the launch of the academy, and the work that they do is truly inspirational. They are passionate, caring and devoted and wonderful role models. Both Nikita and Belinda believe that their involvement in the academy is a chance for them to show the girls that they can do anything that they put their minds to, with the support network along the way. Despite the Canobolas Girls Academy launching only at the end of the 2017 school year, 55 students enrolled and 17 eager year 7 students have joined this year. I congratulate all involved in the Canobolas Clontarf Academy and also the Girls Academy. I can't speak highly enough about these programs and the positive impact they are having on the lives of young people. They are part of the many innovative and exciting programs at Canobolas Rural Technology High School. I thank them for their work. Macquarie Electorate: Science at the Local 3203 11:28 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie Sunday afternoon in the Blue Mountains doesn't always mean a bushwalk. For 70 locals in early March, it was the first of the 2018 series of Science at the Local at the Springwood Sports Club, which I was proud to launch. It is the fourth year of the community science event, assisted by a small amount of federal funding and backed by the Springwood and Winmalee neighbourhood centres, the brain child of Western Sydney University bushfire academic Hamish Clarke and Springwood High School science teacher Kevin Joseph—a great example, which you won't see anywhere else, of scientists bringing their science down to a level that even I can understand. They share their knowledge in a really accessible and interactive way. The first one for the year looked at cancer research with Professor Graham Mann from the Westmead Institute for Medical Research, and Paolo Escudero from Western Sydney University explored how infants learn speech even before speaking. It is vital that the decisions we make in this place are informed by good science and it is vital that the community gets to know about that science so they understand why we are making the decisions that we do. I'd urge Blue Mountains residents and visitors to check out the Science at the Local program for the year. The next one is on 20 May, and it's about how we inherit dad's diet—that's a bit of a worry—and myth-busting the NBN. I think I can guarantee that that one's going to draw a crowd. It is that time of year again, when the Hawkesbury Show rolls into town, and I'm getting ready for three days of fairy floss, dagwood dogs, Ferris-wheel rides, watching the showjumping and the hacking, and seeing the CWA and Macquarie Towns Arts exhibitions in the pavilion, which I have to say put to total shame any effort that I have ever made to bake a cake or take a photo. This year, the Hawkesbury Show will run from Friday, 20 April, to Sunday, 22 April, and, like last year, I'll be there with a stall and a team of wonderful volunteers. With an incredible team from the Hawkesbury Agricultural Show Society, this is the biggest show in the state outside the Royal Easter Show, but it has all the charm of a country show. You know that even the small parking fee you pay is actually raising funds for local causes, thanks to groups like Rotary and the Hawkesbury City Chamber of Commerce, who are volunteering their time. The special thing about the Hawkesbury Show is you can do it really easily in a day with the kids or the grandkids. Forget the traumas of having to get to Sydney and the hassle with parking. This one is an easy drive from anywhere in my electorate. So, if you're looking for something to do that weekend, the Hawkesbury Show is the place to be—and of course I urge you to stop by the Susan Templeman stall and say hi. Petrie Electorate: Griffin 3204 11:31 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I wanted to talk a little bit about the suburb of Griffin in my electorate Petrie. Griffin is a great suburb in the Moreton Bay region, in the Moreton Bay Regional Council area, just north of the state capital, Brisbane. The origin of the name of the suburb is the Griffin family, who migrated to Australia from Scotland many years ago. In Griffin, we have seen some great wins locally. There's the Osprey House Environmental Centre, and we've also managed to build, through the federal government, the bird observation hut at the Griffin lagoon, where people can go along and watch many different types of birds. I was down there last week, and there were pelicans, ibises, spoonbills and a whole lot of different birds. I have fond memories of Griffin, growing up around that area, of mud-crabbing with my father down at Dohles Rocks. There used to be a boat hire down there—really great family memories. There are a lot of residential houses. There also used to be a lot of agricultural land. If you go back to the 2011 census, the population of Griffin was only around 2,358. Now there are well over 5,000 people, so we've seen a lot of growth in the suburb. When I was down there just the other day, I was speaking to people on the street, down at the local gym and at Cafe 63. I was filling up at the Mobil petrol station and just chatting to locals. A lot of them were telling me about local roads that need upgrading, like Henry Road, and also Dohles Rocks Road, which runs right near Greens Road. There needs to be a lot of work. I have spoken to a local councillor, Julie Greer, who is looking at an upgrade. There needs to be a full upgrade because it does flood a bit, but the problem is they're waiting for the state government to make a decision in relation to another crossing—over the South Pine River. But I want people to know that as their federal member I have actually raised that with the local council, and there will be an upgrade of that soon. I'm trying to source some Black Spot Program funding, too, to help with a larger upgrade. Griffin is also close to the freeway, and on the Bruce Highway we have a southbound entry to go to Brisbane, and a northbound exit. But I really would like to see a northbound entry onto the freeway for people who are heading up to the Sunshine Coast. When I was talking to those different people the other day, I talked to Tracy White and Jack Vicory, who both gave me feedback about the area, and I want to thank them, as well as Aiden from Griffin, who has been travelling to the Sunshine Coast for work for 12 months. He said it would be great to have a northbound entry. Mark, Tiffany, Annika and Skye all wanted it to the Sunshine Coast. There are about 75 per cent who want it northbound, and 25 per cent who want it southbound. I'll keep fighting for it. Women of Lindsay Awards 3204 11:34 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay Once again this year I was proud to host an annual International Women's Day event, the Women of Lindsay Awards, in my electorate. It was a great day. We had 130 people come along to a venue that can only fit 120, with a waiting list. I think that shows the strength and courage of the women in my local area to stand up and be counted. Jane Caro was our special guest speaker, who came and inspired everybody who was present at the breakfast. We weren't just joined by women in the electorate. There were a few blokes there to support our women, and I'm very pleased to say that they were also included. The Women of Lindsay Awards go to people in our electorate who have demonstrated leadership in advocating for and enhancing the lives of women in our community. I'm pleased to announce this year's Women of Lindsay Awards and to read these women's names into Hansard. Educator of The Year goes to Mandii Clark, who is a student at WSU studying a Masters of Teaching. She's also dedicated her time to run a number of projects which have benefitted both students and members of the community and students. The most notable, for me, was Who Bleeds Wins, an event that encouraged university students to donate blood to the Red Cross. Coming into the long weekend, I would encourage everybody who can donate blood to do so. Young Woman of the Year goes to a younger person this year—quite often we overlook young people, but I think young people doing amazing things are quite exceptional. Georgia Wood, from Caroline Chisholm Society, has raised funds to purchase and assemble welcome packs for clients of the Haven women's shelter. As I said to Georgia on the day, and I'll repeat it here, it's often the case when you're young that it's hard to be different from your peers. To be different from your peers and to stand out from them sometimes means taking a risk, and sometimes standing up for other people when you're 15 is not the cool-kids things to do. So I applaud Georgia for all of her work. Emma Hogan was Junior Woman of the Year. I've known Emma since before I was elected. She's the JDRF advocate in my electorate. She's doing amazing things. She comes to me with a scrapbook and adds all the things she's been doing, including visiting overseas, coming into parliament as a delegate, and supporting and fundraising for people living with type 1 diabetes. Businesswoman of the Year went to Rebecca Jarrett-Dalton, who is the amazing woman behind Two Red Shoes mortgage broker. She's challenging the status quo of the male dominated mortgage broking industry, and she's doing great. She also holds a voluntary position on the Haven. Sportswoman of the Year went to Linda Cerone. Over many years, Linda has served her local club as a volunteer and the association as a well-respected employee. She's the deputy chair of a Football NSW standing committee and sits on the steering committee for the development of the entirely new Nepean Referees Group. She has a special interest in developing female referees. Artist of the Year went to Celeste Cannell, who is the author of Emily and the VERY Big Feeling and director and creator of Project Emily. She's an ambassador for RU OK? That book is incredible, and I urge you all to have a look at it when it comes out. Volunteer of the Year went to Nat Ballard. She's a lawyer, a mum and a champion for many community organisations in our electorate. There are so many amazing women that I'll have to come back and read you the next lot. Armistice Centenary 3205 11:37 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra This year marks the centenary of Armistice, so it's right that we reflect on the tragedies and the triumphs of the final year of the Great War. While we so often rightly recognise the legacy of Gallipoli, the Somme and Passchendaele, the story I'm about to share is one which is less told but no less worth honouring. In the early hours of 31 May 1918, two German artillery shells hit a barn in the town of Allonville, France. Inside, sleeping at the time, were soldiers of the Australian Imperial Force, who formed part of the 14th Battalion within the 4th Division. The barn was far behind Allied lines and close to the 4th Division headquarters. In the context of war, it was considered a relatively safe place to sleep. Sadly, it wasn't. Historians speculate that German intelligence led them to target the barn directly. Tragically, 17 Australian soldiers were killed instantly by the two shells and a further 12 were mortally wounded and died later from their injuries. With the terrible toll of 29 lives, it remains one of the greatest losses of life from a single bombing in Australian military history. The youngest killed was George Powell, just 18 years old, barely an adult, yet he gave to his country more than many of us could expect to give in a lifetime. Another of those killed was the 31-year-old Bertie George Englert. He died when the second shell hit the barn. Last year I had the privilege of meeting Bertie's great nephew, Jason Smith, from Berowra Heights in my electorate. It was Jason who shared his great uncle's story with me, and I am proud to share it now on his family's behalf. In honour of his great uncle, Jason and his cousin Greg Englert conducted extensive research over three years to identify the exact location in Allonville where the barn once stood. Incredibly, Greg and Jason had never met before they stumbled across each other when conducting their separate research into their great-uncle Bertie. As a result of their extensive research, Jason and Greg identified the barn site in Allonville where Australia suffered that terrible toll. Such remarkable research has now produced an equally remarkable result. This year, Jason's family will for the first time make a proud pilgrimage to Allonville. On 31 May, 100 years after the day of the bombing that killed Jason's great-uncle and 28 Australian mates, Jason's mother, Merryl Smith—Bertie's niece—will travel to Allonville and stand on the ground where Bertie's barn stood. This no doubt will be emotional for the family and of great significance. Ahead of both Anzac Day and the Centenary of Armistice, I want to honour people like Jason, Greg and Merryl who are keeping the memory of our soldiers and their sacrifice alive. Our soldiers honoured us with their service, so it's right we honour their memories 100 years on. I wish Merryl Smith and her husband well for their trip. May Australia's proud and longstanding tradition in recognising our soldiers' service long continue, and may we never forget those lost to war, not least those 29 young Australians sleeping in a barn 100 years ago in a small French town called Allonville. Cooper, Professor David, AO 3206 11:41 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Today I rise to offer my condolences on the passing of Professor David Cooper on 18 March. I particularly want to offer my condolences to Professor Cooper's daughters, Ilana and Becky, and to his wife, Dorrie. Professor Cooper's groundbreaking research into infectious diseases saved countless lives across Australia and right across the world. Working in Boston in the early 1980s, Professor Cooper saw the early signs of what soon would become the global HIV epidemic. Returning to Sydney to work at St Vincent's Hospital, Professor Cooper was at the forefront of efforts to combat the epidemic, diagnosing the first Australian case in 1982 and releasing a seminal case report in The Lancet in 1986 on HIV seroconversion illness, which defines initial HIV infection in many people. Professor Cooper made a contribution to the development of every single therapeutic drug used across the world to fight HIV. During a time of stigma and ignorance, when some staff refused even to take food into the rooms of patients, Professor Cooper's approach was driven by his belief that every patient deserved dignity, care and compassion. This approach extended beyond patients to the wider LGBTI community, as he remained publicly accessible, attempting to ease the fears and anxieties of a group of patients who were losing so many of their friends and partners. As effective HIV treatments brought the epidemic under control in the developed world through the 1990s, Professor Cooper expanded his work, openly questioning why the accident of birth should decide the level of treatment for HIV that someone would receive. As President of the International AIDS Society, Professor Cooper was a driving force behind the paradigm shift towards an internationalised effort to combat the virus. Professor Cooper's work and legacy has expanded beyond HIV treatment, through the Kirby Institute, a body he founded in 1986 that now carries out research into a whole range of infectious diseases. Professor Cooper summed up his own working life by saying: I feel valued to be involved in this work and to have been able to make a difference for so many people. The work of Professor Cooper has enabled countless people all around the world to live long, happy and healthy lives. It is truly a legacy to be proud of. At a personal level David Cooper was just a thoroughly decent human being. I know his loss is very deeply felt by his family, and it is very deeply felt by the entire medical research community and the health community, and particularly through the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations, and the many people who knew and loved David. Vale, Professor Cooper. Berowra Electorate: Infrastructure 3207 11:44 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My first duty in this place is and always will be to advocate for the people of Berowra. It's my job to make my electorate the best it can be, from Wisemans Ferry down to Cheltenham. The best way to achieve a better Berowra is by working with my constituents to create the community we want it to be. That's why every year I send out a community survey in which I invite people to tell me about the issues that matter most to them. Having received over 2,000 responses to my 2018 survey, it's clear the people of Berowra are politically engaged nationally and community focused locally. Their responses help me to shape a vision for the future of Berowra and actively address community concerns. Overwhelmingly, the most critical of concerns were infrastructure issues. Australia's immigration rate nationally and overdevelopment locally were also raised. My constituents rightly told me that they want more roads, better public transport, proper footpaths, parking-space options and community facilities to keep up with population growth. It's clear that people are spending too much time in traffic and not enough time at home with their families. There was a clear cry for roadworks to help cut congestion, and it's an area where, I'm proud to say, there is relief in sight. The federal government's $412 million NorthConnex investment is a game changer for the worst road in Australia—Pennant Hills Road. Thirty per cent of light vehicles will use NorthConnex to travel between the M1 and the M2, along with 5,000 trucks that will be taken off Pennant Hills Road every day. This returns a critical road in my electorate to the local community, allowing us to reclaim it for our shopping trips and school drop-off runs. NorthConnex will be warmly welcomed by those who raised traffic concerns with me, but I acknowledge that there's more work to be done in other locations. I know and my constituents know that Newline Road needs to be widened. It's a matter I'll keep bringing to my state colleagues as it's a state road. Another issue is that development needs to be matched by infrastructure investment. While many of these issues fall under state and council jurisdiction, I know how important these concerns are to local residents. Development should never come at the cost of the character of our area. Power prices was another issue raised, and I'm pleased that the National Energy Guarantee will mean that households are on average $300 a year better off. Additionally, many told me that they support the coalition's strong border policy and are keenly awaiting the results of our religious freedom inquiry, conducted by my predecessor. I was pleased that many constituents support our progress in areas like reducing Labor's legacy of debt and deficit, helping small businesses through legislated tax cuts, fully funding the NDIS, boosting education investment through Gonski 2.0 and stopping welfare cheats from gaming the system. While I've not been able to mention every single issue, I say to the people of Berowra: thank you for sending your feedback to help us shape the future. It's clear there's always more work to be done, but I'm enthusiastic about working hand in hand with my community to realise their vision. Herbert Electorate: Economy 3208 11:47 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert Last year's federal budget was nothing short of a huge disappointment to the people of Herbert. My community did not receive one thing in last year's budget, which is a disgrace, as the Herbert community needed urgent government attention. The Herbert community has been doing it incredibly tough after successive LNP federal governments. We experienced record-high unemployment rates. Townsville's unemployment rate currently stands at 8.5 per cent, and youth unemployment is around 20 per cent. The number of apprentices has declined by 1,591, with youth unemployment, as I said, sitting at 20 per cent. And that's all happened since Labor left government in 2013. Under the Abbott and Turnbull governments, our manufacturing jobs have nosedived, with more than 3,000 job losses, not to mention the cuts to public sector jobs—110 ATO jobs, gone; 50 Defence jobs, gone; 40 aviation jobs at 38 Squadron, gone; 30 customs jobs, gone; 19 jobs at CSIRO, gone. The Townsville workforce report, commissioned by TP Human Capital, showed that Townsville had 442 fewer construction industry business registrations last year compared with 2012. There was also a loss of 153 retail business registrations in the same period. I want to put the Townsville situation into perspective. During the global financial crisis Townsville's unemployment rate was 4.4 per cent. The GFC almost brought the nation to a standstill. Larger cities were really struggling. But it was the foresight of the Rudd Labor government that prevented this nation from moving into recession. Right now Townsville is experiencing its own financial crisis, and instead of being the epicentre of government attention we have been completely ignored by the Abbott and Turnbull governments, who have instead made further cuts to our community. I have written to the Treasurer, Scott Morrison, demanding that Townsville receives our fair share in this year's budget instead of being ignored. I am demanding that the Turnbull government matches Labor's commitments to $100 million for long-term water security, $200 million to develop hydroelectric power on the Burdekin Falls Dam and $75 million to put towards the Townsville Port Expansion Project. These are vital infrastructure projects that will create and deliver local jobs and attract investment into Herbert. I say to the Treasurer: enough is enough. We are sick of your cuts. It is time that Townsville gets its fair share, and it's time for the Turnbull government to match Labor's commitments to infrastructure for Townsville. The neglect of Townsville in the last budget is a very clear indication that the Turnbull government is completely out of touch with regional Queensland. Petrie Electorate: Roads 3209 11:50 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I'm calling on the state Labor government in Queensland to fund the Linkfield Road overpass at Bald Hills and Carseldine. This is in desperate need of an upgrade. I want to thank the people of Bald Hills, Carseldine and Bracken Ridge who have written to me calling for this upgrade. At the moment, it's a small, two-lane bridge over Gympie Road. It needs to go to a four-lane bridge urgently. I've been fighting for this for at least five years now. I wrote to the newly appointed Queensland Minister for Transport and Main Roads, Mark Bailey MP, as well as to the previous state minister. In the last 30 years, since the National Party left government, we've had 25 years of Labor government, and nothing has happened with this road. In relation to the Bracken Ridge Telegraph Road overpass, I wanted to congratulate former member Kerry Millard, and Brisbane City Councillor Amanda Cooper, because they did a significant upgrade there when the Newman government was in. Previously we had Gordon Nuttall as the state member for Sandgate, and he and others in Labor actually did nothing for years and years. This is a really important issue to the people in my electorate, and I want to let them know that I'm fighting for a full upgrade of the Linkfield Road overpass, not some sort of cheap fix. It needs to be done properly. I also met with the former state member for Aspley, Tracy Davis, asking her to fully try and make sure that the state Labor government got that overpass funded, and once again they didn't. I have also written to and met with the Hon. Darren Chester MP, who is the federal minister, asking him to speak to the state Labor minister because we're just not seeing any funding from the state Labor minister in this area. It's been neglected for far too long. I want to thank Minister Dutton, the federal member for Dickson—because the people of Strathpine who use Linkfield Road are also being neglected by this not being fixed urgently. This is very important. I call upon Mark Bailey to fund it in this year's state budget, the 2018 budget. I've also asked the state member for Aspley to go in to bat for this upgrade. It's very important. This will help the people who live in Bald Hills who travel along Gympie Road, heading into Bald Hills every day, as well as those people in Carseldine on Lacey Road, Raynbird Place, Highbridge Circuit and Macaranga Crescent. They would benefit from a proper four-lane overpass over the highway. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. COMMITTEES 3210 COMMITTEES Corporations and Financial Services Committee 3210 Report 3210 11:53 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 Before I call the member for Griffith, could I just remind members in the Chamber that we had an earlier general conversation about— Mr Dick interjecting— Mr Howarth interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 Member for Oxley and Member for Petrie, could you take that conversation outside the Chamber. Thank you very much. 11:54 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith I rise in respect of the recent report on life insurance that was tabled in the House this week. It's a report that was released by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, of which I'm a member, and I was part of the inquiry that gave rise to the report. I wanted to make just a few observations about some of the issues that we canvassed in the submissions and hearings in this inquiry. Of course, there were a really wide and interesting range of issues raised by submitters, so I certainly can't touch on all of them in the short time available to me, but there are a few that I thought would be worth commenting on today. The first one is mental health. Mental health is an issue that affects many Australians. Understanding of mental health has been evolving over recent decades. The way mental health interacts with life insurance and with insurance generally has attracted significant attention in our inquiry and more broadly. There is significant value in continuing discussions about the role of insurers in respect of prevention when it comes to mental health. Once someone has developed a mental health issue, it's complicated to have insurers involved in rehabilitation, for various reasons, the obvious one being the potential for conflict of interest: if you're paying the claim and are also responsible for determining whether somebody has been rehabilitated then that can give rise to some fairly obvious concerns. Prevention is a different category of work. It is worthwhile giving some thought to what contribution insurers might be able to make towards work preventing people from developing mental health issues in the first place. That won't be determined in any kind of hurry, but it should be considered and further discussed. We also had significant material before us about mental health exclusions—provisions in insurance policies that exclude people from coverage in respect of mental health issues—and obligations to disclose pre-existing mental health issues. We had a useful discussion on that in this inquiry. We need to ensure that (1) people can get coverage in respect of mental health issues and (2) people are not dissuaded from seeking help and getting diagnoses in respect of mental health issues because they're concerned about the potential impact on their insurance. I look forward to continuing public debate about what can be done to make insurance and mental health prevention work better and to ensure that people are not prevented from obtaining insurance because of mental health issues and, similarly, not dissuaded from seeking help with mental health issues because of insurance issues. There was some discussion about doctors on one hand and insurers on the other having different perspectives when it comes to the production of medical information and records. I encourage doctors and insurers to work together on this issue. There are recommendations about it in our report, but disagreements over disclosure will ultimately lead to poorer outcomes for consumers and patients, because the cost of disagreement will be visited upon them. I encourage doctors' organisations, whether it's the AMA or the RACGP, and insurers' representatives to collaborate, open a dialogue and continue to discuss what can be done to serve consumers' and patients' interests. The next issue is genetic testing. This was probably one of the most hotly contested issues in this inquiry. Patients who have genetic tests don't want a potential propensity towards a particular disability, illness or disease to affect the premiums they pay or their ability to get insurance in the first place. Similarly, those who undertake genetic testing for research reasons have legitimate concerns about the potential for insurers' use of genetic testing to lead to a chilling effect on people's willingness to participate in genetic testing for research purposes. There are also, quite rightly, concerns about the potential impact on consumers more broadly. If insurers are unable to consider genetic testing results, will they assume that a proportion of the insured population have particularly propensities and price that risk into premiums for everyone, and if so, is that fair to all consumers? The use of genetic testing is not a simple issue. We have sought to strike a balance in respect of this issue in the report. I think that reasonable minds could quite easily differ about how this issue could be dealt with. I wanted to put on record my thanks to all submitters who raised issues about that particular topic, genetic testing, because it is a complex question and it can have a real impact on people's lives—patients, consumers, beneficiaries of research, potential beneficiaries of research, people who undertake research, and, of course, firms and shareholders. A range of different interests arise, and we need to make sure that we take them into account. The other thing I briefly wanted to touch on before ceding the floor to my friend the member for Forde, who was also on the inquiry, is the issue of insurance in superannuation, particularly insurance that is a default product in superannuation. There have certainly been some concerns raised with people in the public debate about the potential for insurance premiums to eat away at your superannuation balance, particularly if you have a low balance. I just wanted to mention the corollary to that perspective, which is that, if you were to take away default insurance products, that would leave people in a situation where they are quite likely to be uninsured in the event of some catastrophic injury or illness. For example, if you develop cancer and have to take a year off work, you might never have thought about income protection insurance, life insurance, TPD—the insurance products that might be in your superannuation. You might never have bought those insurance products. But suddenly you've got multiple sclerosis or you have cancer or you've had a terrible injury that's not covered by workers compensation or motor accident compensation, and it can be an absolute godsend to have that insurance that you never would have thought to get and you wouldn't have if it weren't for it being a default product in your superannuation fund. So I am very pleased that we considered this issue in the inquiry. I certainly have had family members who've had to take long periods of time off work unexpectedly because of serious illness. If you don't have the insurance and you are then forced to refinance your house because you couldn't afford to work and you didn't have any income support, that's a pretty significant issue. I wanted to mention that, again, I think there are a range of considerations in this question, but I did want to emphasise my own perspective on that particular issue and my concern to ensure that people do have the support that they need in the event of catastrophe. I want to record my thanks to the chair of the committee, the deputy chair of the committee, the other members of the committee and of course the secretariat. We have an excellent secretariat in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, and I am very grateful to them for all the work they continually do. I also want to express my thanks to all of the submitters to the inquiry, particularly those who took the time to come and give evidence in person. But my thanks go to everyone who made a submission; some made more than one submission. These were complex, detailed issues that we dealt with over a long period of time. We received significant support from experts in the community, many of whom were just there out of altruism and community-mindedness. Some also had some private interests that would be served by recommendations made, but I have to say there was a lot of willingness to be involved in this inquiry and to really give time and effort to try to help us to reach the right conclusions and give the right recommendations. I place on record my appreciation for all of them. 12:03 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I would like to associate myself with the remarks just made by the member for Griffith. I think this report really demonstrates the great work that is done in this parliament across party-political lines, where committees take the time to thoroughly investigate a particular issue or a set of concerns that are raised from whatever the source may be and produce a report such as this, which has covered a wide range of issues on a bipartisan basis. I think it is a great testament to the quality of the work and the willingness of the committee to work together to get this outcome. I think it's a pity that more of the work that is done in this place is not seen by the public at large, instead of some of the other things that they see. The reason this inquiry is so important is that insurance is incredibly important to the lives of Australian people. And, at the end of the day, that was what the focus of this inquiry was about. It was about how we seek to craft a set of recommendations that will improve the operation of the industry for the benefit of the Australian people, particularly at a time when they need it. We have spent a lot of time over the last few years focusing on the provision of advice, the initial up-front component at the beginning of a process with the life insurance industry or the investment industry—for the sake of this contribution, we'll focus on the life insurance industry. The advice part is incredibly important, because there is a requirement for advisers to ensure that the products they recommend or the strategies they recommend are in accordance with the client's best interests. We never know really, at the outset, whether that's the case, but where the rubber hits the road is at the time of claim. This, in part, was one of the catalysts for this inquiry in the first place—issues in the claims process as identified in the media. That is where the focus of this report has been. How do we improve the claims process? How do we improve the quality and the clarity of the terms and conditions within life insurance or income protection policies? They are very complex and wordy documents and there are a variety of definitions across all of the 29 different companies that provide insurance in Australia. That is where the complexity arises. I can well understand the difficulty many Australians have in understanding what they actually have in their insurance policy. I think it's fair to say that we in this place know the complexity of these documents and how much reading is involved, and I'm sure that even we would admit that, with all of the reports and other things that we get across our desks, we don't necessarily read everything, because it's actually impossible to do so. I would suggest that it's the same for consumers. They get documents that are wordy. They are legal or are legalistic in their wording. They don't take the time to read through them in great detail. And, even if they do, they'd probably find them hard to understand. That's what some of the recommendations in here are around—improving understandability, transparency and ease of reading for consumers so that they can actually understand what they are getting in their cover. I think that is critically important. As I said, it's at claims time when the rubber hits the road, and a lot of our time was focused on how we improve that process. One of the issues that was identified was the issue of definitions of medical conditions, and one of the recommendations specifically addresses that issue. It's the responsibility of insurance companies to ensure that the definitions in their products are regularly kept up to date, not only in retail life insurance products but also, importantly, in group life. The media reports leading up to this particular inquiry identified a number of circumstances involving policies in a group life setting. The committee did a tremendous amount of work around: how do we improve the understanding for consumers of what insurance cover they actually have within a group life setting, particularly within their superannuation fund? The member for Griffith touched on this in her contribution. It is very, very important, because people in a very difficult circumstance in their life need to understand or have the understanding that they have some security in the event of a terminal illness or cancer or in the event of an injury where they can't work for a period of time. They need to be able to ensure that the process of protecting their financial situation is robust. Medical definitions not being up to date doesn't assist with that. In the group life setting, we also discovered a number of instances where people actually had cover but, due to the conditions and terms within the super fund, couldn't make a claim, because they weren't getting contributions or the balance wasn't at a certain limit et cetera. So we had situations potentially where people were paying premiums on insurance policies which they couldn't actually claim on. What benefit is that to those people? They are the things that we want to see removed from the industry, because people should be getting what they pay for. A number of the recommendations in this report focus on those issues around group life insurance about ensuring that people are getting clear information from the trustees of the super fund but also via the ATO, where possible, of not only what their superannuation account balances are but what insurance cover they have within their superannuation funds, because many people don't even know they have insurance cover. The fact that people have something they don't know about is, I think, a breakdown in the level of communication by the superannuation funds to educate their members about what they actually have in their fund. One of the interesting recommendations, which I haven't seen much commentary on so far, is something that I have discussed at length with the industry over the years—this is more in the retail insurance space than in group life policy—and that is legacy products. Legacy products have been around for a long period of time. I think one company said they had a product from 1928 or something like that; that was when it was first written. So they have got these very old systems that don't talk to each other and that probably have old definitions and old terms and conditions. One of the issues we discussed was how we work with the industry to rationalise this book of legacy products and through that process ensure there is a no-disadvantage test to ensure that, where policies are moved to a new policy, the current policyholder is no worse off. This was looked at on the basis of putting people into newer products with better terms and conditions, reducing the cost of managing these complex, long-term books for the insurance company and, hopefully, reducing the long-term cost to consumers in Australia. I commend this report to the House. (Time expired) Debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 12 : 14 to 16 : 06 ADJOURNMENT 3214 ADJOURNMENT Burt Electorate: Broadband 3214 16:07 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Less than 20 kilometres away from the Perth CBD sits the electorate of Burt. It's not out in the sticks, despite what you may hear from many of my university friends. It is indeed in metropolitan Perth, and it is the year 2018. And in 2018, students are expected to do their homework and research their assignments online. We are required to pay our bills online, bank online and work online. We even watch TV online. The government even asks us to report to Centrelink online and to complete passport applications online. And, of course, we all have to pay our tax—unless you're some of Australia's biggest companies—online. In Burt, we have areas on the NBN, areas getting the NBN and a whole lot of areas that will be sitting in a technological dead zone without the NBN or, in fact, without even ADSL for quite a while. Until recently, suburbs like Thornlie were just a big blank space on the NBN rollout map. They may now be coloured in, but there isn't any NBN coming to them or surrounding areas until at least 2019, and, on current performance, that's more realistically 2021 if they're lucky. The types of issues that I hear from my constituents about the Prime Minister's failed 'fraudband' network are many and varied, from service class 0 homes that, for whatever reason, cannot and, seemingly, will not be given access to the NBN, to slow internet speeds—slower, in fact, than people had on their ADSL—to rollout dates that keep on getting pushed back. The availability of ADSL services across Perth's south-eastern suburbs was already patchy at best. Plenty of my constituents pay for expensive mobile data plans on their phones or a dongle, so that they can access the internet from their computers at home, assuming they aren't living within the various mobile black spots that also cover many parts of my electorate. Many resort to staying back late at work or school to download large documents or complete tasks that they could otherwise have been doing at home. Some even have to walk their children to sit outside their school in the evening so that they can access the school's wi-fi to get their homework done. But what happens when these households do eventually move onto the NBN? If your area isn't one of the many that has had their rollout delayed, you'll probably start to notice your mailbox filling with paraphernalia from telcos reminding you that now is the time to switch, often advertising speeds and prices that seem just too good to be true. And, often, they are. We now have the ACCC conducting an inquiry into misleading claims made by internet service providers over the kinds of speeds that consumers could expect. Some constituents are telling me that they are lucky if they can get the speed test itself to download in less than 10 seconds. About one-fifth of Australians are getting fibre-to-the-premises connections, but the majority are being connected using the older technology such as copper telephone wires and pay television cables. The end result is that some households and businesses are unable to access the high speeds which they pay for. Some are told they can get a refund; others suffer not knowing. NBN Co has been blunt about this: if you want high speeds and you have fibre to the node, you had better be prepared to pay for it. You can drive down streets in my electorate where people on one side get fibre to their home—it's much faster and much more reliable—and people on the other side of the street are connected by copper, which limits their internet speed. NBN chief Bill Morrow has been quoted as saying: Fibre medium is better than copper medium … You can't argue any other way, but do we need that fibre today? I'm sure that, when the first copper wires were laid in Australia, the telecommunications company installing them—that was the government—didn't expect that the same copper wires would be used to download movies, play video games—I don't think they even knew what video games were—stream music, publish graphic-heavy online content or interact with social networks around the clock. By limiting achievable speeds and reliability of our broadband to what we think we may need today, we limit the ability of Australian businesses and individuals to innovate into the future. We do not know what the internet will or could be used for in 10, 20, 50 or even 100 years time, and we need the capacity to accommodate the growing needs of the Australian community, its businesses and its future leaders. We should not constrain ourselves and condemn the next generation—indeed, my generation—to having to pay to do all of this again at a much higher cost. To the members of my community in Burt: I would like to assure you that we will continue to advocate for a timelier, better quality NBN rollout for Perth's south-eastern suburbs. We deserve better, and I'm here in this place to make sure we get it. Intergenerational Reports 3215 16:11 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane In less than six weeks, the federal budget will be handed down by the Treasurer, and tonight I'd like to briefly reflect on one aspect of budgets past. It was 16 years ago that the then Treasurer, Peter Costello, handed down his seventh budget, and amongst the budget papers tabled that night was the landmark Intergenerational report, budget paper No. 5. This was a visionary report, for the first time setting out to highlight for debate and to consider the long-term fiscal implications of government outlays and the implications of Australia's shifting demographics. Governments are often criticised for being short term in their thinking, and these criticisms are sometimes fair, which makes the conception of and the making of intergenerational reports an embedded part of Australia's budget framework all the more visionary and impressive an achievement. Australian governments are now required to produce such a report every five years. The central purpose of the report is to assess the fiscal implications of continuing current policies and trends over the next four decades—a 40-year forecast of sorts. In addition to the original Intergenerational report in 2002, subsequent reports were handed down in 2007, in 2010 and the latest in 2015. The original Intergenerational report in 2002 looked ahead to 2042, and we're rapidly approaching now the halfway mark for those original long-term fiscal projections. The seismic demographic changes, particularly the ageing population, that were starkly set out in that first Intergenerational report are fast becoming a reality. As one of the younger MPs in this place, I have a particular interest in ensuring that the crucial issue of intergenerational equity is properly considered when we make or evaluate government programs. Of course, projections of revenue and expenditure and population shifts over 40 years are inherently uncertain—the intergenerational reports certainly make no bones about that fact—but the trend is our friend, so to speak, and successive reports have been very important in focusing public attention on some of the longer term challenges ahead for Australian policymakers. Of course, one of the greatest threats to the budget at this point in time, to the Future Fund reserves and to intergenerational equity is the opposition—the Labor Party. So it's of great concern that the Labor Party, addicted as it is to spending taxpayers' dollars with little regard for the longer term implications, might raid the Future Fund if it were ever returned to government. This isn't an idle prospect. The Labor Party has form when it comes to raiding these funds. When last in government, it took Labor almost no time at all to raid the Education Investment Fund and the Health and Hospitals Fund, both of which are administered by the Future Fund, and deplete them almost to zero. The capital funds in them that had been earmarked for nation-building funds and programs were squandered by Labor to fund its so-called stimulus packages. It was short-term thinking— Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr EVANS 61378 at its worst. The member for Moreton interjects to suggest that he is a huge advocate of that sort of short-term thinking. Needless to say, the former Labor government did not add to the capital of the Future Fund, because they never delivered a surplus. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Order! The member for Moreton? Mr Perrett HVP Deputy Speaker, I claim to be misrepresented. I'm taking the earliest opportunity to point out that he's misrepresented what I have said. That is not what I interjected at all. I'd ask that the record reflect what I interjected, not the words that the member for Brisbane put into my mouth, which suggested that I was supporting a different policy. Mr EVANS 61378 I don't believe that's a point of order, Deputy Speaker— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 No, it's not. Please continue. Mr EVANS 61378 so I'll continue. The capital funds that had been earmarked for nation-building funds were squandered by Labor, and they didn't add anything to those funds, because they never delivered a surplus. So the problem is that, no matter what Labor say in terms of delivering a surplus over the budget cycle, their heart's not really in it, so it never happens, and we all pay the price, especially the upcoming generations of young Australians. Unfortunately there is a day of reckoning for reckless spending, and the intergenerational unfairness of Labor's reckless spending sprees needs to be given more, not less, focus as we head towards the next election. The clear lesson is that Labor can't be trusted with managing either the budget or the capital funds in the Future Fund. I'll have more to say on future occasions about the progress that we as a nation make in meeting the long-term budgetary challenges set out in the intergenerational reports, but tonight I pause to pay tribute again to Australia's greatest-ever Treasurer, Peter Costello, for conceiving and delivering the intergenerational reports and the long-term vision underlying them. Longman Electorate: Telecommunications 3217 16:17 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman I rise today to call once again on the government to fix the mess that they've made of our nation's communications infrastructure. My office receives telco and NBN related complaints every single day of the week—that's right—including Saturdays and Sundays by email. And I'm sure we'd receive more if our constituents could actually make some calls. Just last week, I hosted the shadow minister for regional communication, Stephen Jones, in Longman. I asked him to come along to talk to residents and business owners about our appalling infrastructure. Together we visited Palm Lake Resort Beachmere Sands. It's a retirement village at the beautiful seaside town of Beachmere. We visited there after having heard from their tireless advocate Pauline Holehouse. I might just take a moment to commend Ms Holehouse. The amount of energy she's put into trying to get this issue resolved is truly impressive. It was great to speak with Pauline and the other residents at Palm Lake Resort, but it was horrible to hear what this government expects them to put up with. You see, they cannot get mobile phone coverage in their own homes. This isn't some remote area. They live about an hour's drive north of Brisbane's CBD. In fact, one resident told me that he had far better reception on a recent trip to Papua New Guinea than he gets in his own home. Well, Deputy Speaker Goodenough, as I'm sure you'd understand, not having cellular coverage is having an adverse effect on their day-to-day lives. They can't receive a call from their kids or their grandkids without reception. They can't call their doctor without reception either. As they have had a number of landline dropouts over the last few months, it's not like they can rely upon the landline either. It's an absolute mess, and this government just does not seem to care. The residents have been waiting for a new mobile-blackspot tower for some time now, but we're still waiting. I've tried writing to the Minister for Regional Communications about this, but nothing much has eventuated. 'Soon' is all I've ever been told—'soon'. 'Soon you'll get it.' But 'soon' isn't good enough. It's not good enough for the many seniors living in Beachmere who have to live with this inferior infrastructure. It's not good enough for one of the residents, who told me she has to stand in the corner of her backyard to get reception. Imagine being elderly and having to stand outside to make or receive a call. It could be the dead of night. It could be the middle of winter. This lady has to leave the comfort and safety of her own home just to take or make a call. What if she had a fall? What then? This just isn't good enough. Earlier today, Ms Holehouse delivered a petition to my office in Caboolture calling for action. The petition has 163 signatures and I expect that it will have many more shortly as the wider community of Beachmere get involved. It's not just the Palm Lake Resort people who are suffering because of this. Beachmere deserves a communication infrastructure that is fit for 2018. Many of the seniors that live in Beachmere and the surrounding areas, including Bribie and Ningi, out to Caboolture and Morayfield, would have had more reliable communications, I'm sure, when they were born than they do now. It's unreliable and unsafe for many of the residents who live there. Residents at the resort also told me that they have safety links in their home that are connected to their landline. When the landline goes down, as it has three to four times in the last couple of months, and you need to be able to pick up your mobile phone in time of need, that can't happen when you live in a black spot. Can I finish by saying that this House is not the quiet carriage on a Queensland Rail train. This House is where the voices of Australians are heard. So, as the member for Longman, my job is to represent the people of Beachmere, to bring their voices down here to Canberra. I will not be quiet until this is resolved and people get the telecommunications infrastructure they need and deserve. Mackellar Electorate: Rural Fire Brigades 3218 16:21 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar We've had so much negativity in this debate that I thought I would raise the standard by saying that, over the last month, I have attended many of the AGMs for the 19 rural fire brigades that exist across my electorate. Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr FALINSKI G86 At the risk of the member for Moreton calling a point of order on me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will continue. The people you meet in the RFS are just everyday folk doing extraordinary things, giving up their time to keep their community safe. In Mackellar, an electorate surrounded by bushland and sea, there could be no more important task. Fortunately, we are never short of people willing to lend a hand. This summer, like most past, has seen days of scorching temperatures and high winds, days of extreme risk and total fire bans. Every day through summer, there is a team of dedicated volunteers that stands ready to brave the heat and face the very real dangers of a bushfire. The RFS in New South Wales is a great example of what public and private partnerships can achieve—volunteers, ably supported by government with equipment and resources, ready to meet challenges faced in the community. Within this team, everyone plays a part, from frontline firefighters braving the elements to those often unsung heroes feeding the troops and manning the communication channels. All play a vital role in keeping our community safe. While time does not permit me to name every volunteer, every single one is worthy of mention. I would like to thank the captains and presidents of each brigade who have stepped up to the plate to contribute to the day-to-day running of the brigade. It's a task that requires an enormous commitment, and without you the RFS would not function. Congratulations and thanks to John Watson and Mark Wilkinson of Tumbledown Dick Hill, Brad Kelly and Gary Sambridge of Ingleside, Todd Wildman and Mark Casper of Terrey Hills, Trent Dowling and Richard Stewart of Davidson, Rick Jones and Bernie O'Rourke of Duffy's Forest, Chris Harmer and Troy Shelsher of Beacon Hill, Mark Stevenson and Brian Geach of Belrose, Jon Russell and Chrys Maoudis of Cottage Point, Luke Robinson of Headquarters, Roy Atkins of West Pittwater, Peter Lalor and Graeme Crayford of Scotland Island, Hugh Mackin of Coasters Retreat and Bob Mitchell of Mackerel Beach. Hugh has been president for 20 years and gets elected without anyone even having to cast a vote. On behalf of the whole community, I thank you for your efforts and dedication. I would also like to acknowledge the many volunteers who received awards at their AGM, from those receiving long service awards to those being acknowledged for their highly commendable service over the past year. It's a constant reminder of the dedication these volunteers give to protect the community. It would be remiss of me to not also mention the many younger volunteers who give up their time to join their local brigade. It is impressive to see so many of our community's youth wanting to give back to their local community. I would encourage others to sign up and give back to a community that gives so much to them. Finally, I would like to make special mention of Dave 'TC' Cordery, who was recently, though too late, awarded an Australian Fire Service Medal. Dave been a member of the New South Wales rural fire service for over 60 years. His primary brigade has been Ku-ring-gai, where he continues to serve and where he earned the moniker 'TC'. Dave worked as a volunteer at brigade level. He has also held numerous positions, including captain and president for 16 years, senior deputy captain, deputy captain and secretary. He was one of the primary leaders of the brigade who guided its evolution from the community origin into the professionally trained brigade of today. In 2005 he was appointed a member of the district committee formed to evaluate the establishment of a logistics brigade for the Hornsby-Ku-ring-gai district. He holds the rural fire driver and community safety assistant qualifications and has regularly presented safety information to the local community. TC has worked for 60 years to make our community a better one, fighting fires, back-burning, chopping and just cleaning up the station, when no doubt he could have had his feet up at home or at the beach. A community relies on people like Dave. As Dave said to me, 'This is an award as much for me as it is for the people I worked with day in and day out.' South-East Asia: Human Rights 3219 16:26 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler This evening I'd like to speak about the outcomes from the ASEAN-Australia Special Summit and the responsibilities we have as a nation not only to ensure that we achieve trade and economic prosperity but also to promote the rule of law, good governance and the principles underlined in international human rights law throughout our region. Following the recent ASEAN summit, it's clear that the relationship that we have with many Asian countries is well established. We have reaffirmed our commitment to our strategic partners to continue the effort in shaping a secure, stable and prosperous region. Our regional leaders have pledged cooperation to counter terrorism and to enhance trade and investment within our region, and leaders have also declared in a joint statement their resolve to promote and protect human rights of our peoples. Coincidentally, this year is the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The universal declaration is grounded in the principles that all human beings are born free and are equal in dignity and rights. We should be able to call out any of our regional partners who suppress the basic human rights of their citizens, including the rights of freedom of speech and expression as well as rights to association and assembly, and we should also be able to call out those that blatantly disregard the rule of law. These are, after all, fundamental rights that underpin our democracy. If Asian nations and Australia are genuinely committed to promote common values as embodied in various international human rights instruments then we need to acknowledge and condemn the human rights violations, particularly when they occur within our region. In Vietnam, for instance, the government maintains a monopoly on political power, supported by a justice system that is fully responsible to the government and no doubt reflects in many instances the will of the government. Is the number of prisoners of conscience that are currently locked up in Vietnamese jails any wonder? For example, a blogger named Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh, also known as Mother Mushroom, has criticised the authorities for their response over the Formosa environmental disaster and has also written on many occasions about human rights violations in Vietnam. She received 10 years jail on charges based on vague national security laws. In Cambodia, Prime Minister Hun Sen, in the lead-up to a national election, has launched a broad crackdown against Cambodia's citizens, particularly in relation to critical independent voices. This includes the jailing of the opposition leader, Kem Sokha; the dissolution of the main opposition party; and the closure of media outlets and NGOS that have had the temerity to criticise government policies. Hun Sen even went so far as to threaten to have followed and beaten protesters who might turn up in Australia to protest against him. In Myanmar today, we see a human rights crisis occurring, with more than 650,000 of the Rohingya minority fleeing systemic violence from the country's military, including murder, rape, forcible displacement and the razing of villages. For those of us who have supported Aung San Suu Kyi and her voice of reason over many years, it is incredibly disappointing to watch her feign ignorance and offer only silence concerning the plight of the Rohingya. The ethnic-cleansing campaign against the Rohingya Muslims is a reprehensible crime against humanity and should not be tolerated under any circumstances. However, the ASEAN longstanding principle is for nonintervention, which means that, regardless of the circumstances, ASEAN nations are reluctant to intervene or criticise fellow members. There has been some suggestion that Australia might become a member of ASEAN, particularly based on the strong speech given by the President of Indonesia. We need to be careful, and we certainly need to consider what it means for us to become more than an ASEAN dialogue partner. Increasing global security and deepening economic integration across the region is a benefit—and, no doubt, a great benefit—to us. But, as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, we must have the right to promote the principles enshrined in international human rights law. Therefore, we have a moral, if not a legal, responsibility to act to protect the fundamental human rights of others. (Time expired.) Boothby Electorate: Old Government House 3220 16:31 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby Occasionally, as a member of parliament, you get to participate in a particularly special and historic event. This was the case for me on 15 March when I joined the Governor of South Australia, His Excellency the Hon. Hieu Van Le AC; his wife, Mrs Le; the Mayor of the City of Mitcham, Glenn Spear; Mayoress Tracey Spear; my state colleague Sam Duluk MP, the local member; and the wonderful volunteers of the Friends of Old Government House and the Friends of Belair National Park for a tour of Old Government House in the heart of Belair National Park in my electorate. Our tour of Old Government House, which was once the summer residence of South Australian governors in the early years of South Australian settlement, included a tour of the house, the servants' quarters and the gardens. The reason this was a particularly special and historic event is that His Excellency is only the third governor to visit the former vice-regal summer residence since it ceased to be the formal summer residence of governors. The house was used by South Australian governors between 1860 and 1880 to escape the vicious summer heat on the Adelaide plains. It comes complete with an indoor pool, which is rumoured to be one of the very first indoor pools in Australia, so it's quite a special building. The Victorian-style building was fully restored during the 1970s and upgraded again in 2001, and it represents a significant period of South Australia's history. There is a collection of original and donated antiques throughout the house that are used to illustrate the history of the house, the residents and those who holidayed there in the late 19th century. The gardens surrounding the residence are approximately one acre and have been thoughtfully redesigned to complement the building. When the site was used as the vice-regal summer residence, of course, the garden was natural bushland surrounded by a simple post-and-rail fence. I wish to acknowledge all of the incredible volunteers who helped to mark the visit by His Excellency and Mrs Le by working to ensure that the house and gardens were absolutely immaculate and impeccably presented and who also joined us for morning tea. The Governor remarked to the guests and the volunteers that the residence had been so well maintained that he might have to consider returning for an overnight stay. I'm not sure that Mrs Le was quite so keen on the idea—nor would I be, might I say. This is testament to the hard work of all the volunteers who contribute so much to our community. I want to thank the Friends of Old Government House, who not only play a vital role in maintaining this historic site but also conduct tours for tourists and the general public for a small, gold coin donation and have a wealth of knowledge about the site, the broader area and our state history to share. In particular, I would like to acknowledge president Dene Cordes, vice-president Wayne Gallasch, and Tina Gallasch; all of the Friends of Old Government House; and the committee members and volunteers. I would like to acknowledge another of my wonderful community groups, the Friends of Belair National Park, who do so much to help care for the Belair National Park and also the beautiful gardens of Old Government House. They were instrumental in helping to do a lot of gardening before the Governor's recent visit to Old Government House. The Friends of Belair National Park do all sorts of work throughout the park, from weeding and bushland protection to hosting visitors and letting people know about the wonderful flora and fauna we have right in the heart of Adelaide. I particularly thank president Mark Pedlar, vice-president Mike Cerchez and treasurer Carol Parrott, and the Friends of Belair National Park committee and volunteers for their ongoing commitment to this beautiful landmark. I would also like to acknowledge the incredibly hard work of the Department for Environment and Water and Natural Resources staff, and all that they do to care for the park and to support the volunteers. The National Parks staff do go above and beyond in helping our volunteers, and they are always in attendance at Friends of Belair National Park meetings or Friends of Old Government House meetings, anniversary celebrations and significant events, most of which are usually after hours on weekends or at night. So I really do want to acknowledge the wonderful staff. I think their dedication is in part because Belair National Park is such a remarkable natural resource. It is the second-oldest national park in Australia—it's 127 years old. I'm very proud to have this wonderful natural resource right in the heart of my electorate. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 16:36   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 3223 QUESTIONS IN WRITING National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 898) 3223 898 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 5 February 2018: In respect of under age 18 participants of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, how many have requested funding for voluntary out-of-home care, and (a) what number of these requests were funded, and (b) what (i) average, and (ii) total, level of funding was granted. Mr Tehan 210911 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Commonwealth has agreed with state and territory governments that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is not responsible for funding out-of-home care placements for children. This falls outside of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act2013. States and territories retain responsibility for out-of-home care arrangements for children, including funding requirements, separate to disability supports. National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 899) 3223 899 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 5 February 2018: In respect of under age 18 participants of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, how many have requested funding for independent supported living, and (a) what number of these requests were funded, and (b) what (i) average, and (ii) total, level of funding was granted. Mr Tehan 210911 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Independent supported living in the context of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) refers to assistance with and/or supervising tasks of daily life away from family, typically in a shared living arrangement or in some cases living alone. The NDIS legislation requires that funding takes account of what is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide. Therefore, in the case of under age 18 participants, the day-to-day care of a child is the ultimate responsibility of the parent. The National Disability Insurance Agency will ensure adequate disability supports are provided to children under 18. The number of participants that request funding for a particular support is not recorded in structured data. The number of under age 18 participants with an active plan (as at 31 January 2018) that have received funding for disability accommodation supports outside the family home (excluding centre-based respite) is estimated to be less than 20. The cost in the plan budget depends on whether the participant is in such an arrangement on an ongoing basis, or for a fixed period of time. Exact figures cannot be disclosed due to the small numbers involved and potential impacts on privacy. National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 900) 3223 900 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 5 February 2018: In respect of under age 18 participants of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, how many have requested funding for six-plus months of respite, and (a) what number of these requests were funded, and (b) what (i) average, and (ii) total, level of funding was granted. Mr Tehan 210911 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The number of participants that request funding for a particular support is not recorded in structured data. Participants have the capacity to exercise choice and control with their plan budget. This includes indicating how much is spent on each support. All participants (under and over 18) are able to spend plan budgets designated as 'core' on respite or other (non-respite) supports as they choose. Therefore, data is not available on respite funding as a standalone support. National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 903) 3224 903 Mr Katter HX4 asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 5 February 2018: (1) Is there a plan to review the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) zero to six years of age sector in respect of funding for support hours, given the vast gap in the caring role a parent provides a newborn compared with a six year old. (2) Has a sliding scale of parental caring been considered for assessing the zero to six years of age NDIS applicants and their access to support hours. Mr Tehan 210911 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The National Disability Insurance Agency has partnered with Early Childhood Partners to deliver the Early Childhood Early Intervention (ECEI) approach. Early Childhood Partners demonstrate experience and expertise in supporting children with a developmental delay or disability and their families through family-centred and capability building approaches. The ECEI approach recognises that families/carers are the key educators for children in their early years and the importance of sustaining the role of these people in a child's life. Early Childhood Partners will take a holistic view when working with the child and family, recognising that developmental delay or disability do not affect only an individual, but their whole family. In considering in-home support needs, Early Childhood Partners will assess the individual responsibility of a family member or carer caring for an infant or child with disability in daily life activity, in comparison with the caring role and responsibility for all parents. In-home supports can be funded in plans for children aged 0-6 years with developmental delay or disability, when this additional support need is evidenced and meets the National Disability Insurance Scheme's reasonable and necessary criteria. Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board (Question No. 906) 3224 906 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for the Environment and Energy, in writing, on 05 February 2018: Has the Government now fully delivered on its 2016 federal election commitment to provide $500,000 of funding to the Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board for on-ground action to tackle feral cats; if not, (a) why not, and (b) when will the full sum of this funding be delivered. Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The 'Eradicating feral cats on Kangaroo Island' project undertaken by the Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board with Australian Government funding of $500,000 has been delivered. Road Safety (Question No. 909) 3225 909 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 5 February 2018: 1. How many Mass Management Accreditations (MMAs) have been issued by the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) since its creation in 2014. 2. What total number of accredited heavy vehicle operators have been found to be non-compliant by NHVR audits. 3. What sum of revenue has been generated by the NHVR through the issuing of MMAs. 4. Can he advise why the NHVR is now issuing permits for Road Trains and B-Triple combinations in states where these vehicles have not been able to operate in the past. 5. Can he advise what measures the Government has implemented to reduce the amount of damage caused by the increasing amount of heavy vehicles on Australian roads. Mr McCormack 219646 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. 2702 accreditations as at 8 February 2018. 2. 2000 operators (6856 audits conducted on all 5608 Mass Management participants where a non-conformance/corrective action was identified and addressed). 3. Revenue of $2.895 million 4. The issuing of permits for Road Trains and B-Triple combinations by the NHVR reflects the COAG-agreed productivity agenda to open up road access for restricted access vehicles. Issuing of permits requires the consent of states, territories and local government road managers. 5. In addition to supporting the work of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator's Performance Based Standards program to deliver higher productivity vehicles through innovative vehicle design, the Australian Government is investing $75 billion in infrastructure from 2017-18 to 2026-27. The Australian Government also provides road maintenance funding, including $350 million per annum to state and territory governments for roads such as the Bruce, Calder, Hume and Pacific Highways, which form part of the National Land Transport Network. The Government also provides funding to councils through the Roads to Recovery Program to help meet the cost of building and maintaining roads. Councils throughout Australia will receive $4.4 billion from the Australian Government under this program from 2013-14 to 2020-21. Therapeutic Goods Administration Complaints Resolution Panel (Question No. 912) 3225 912 Mr Zappia HWB asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 06 February 2018: Have all annual reports of the Therapeutic Goods Administration Complaints Resolution Panel been released; if not, (a) why not, and (b) when will they be released. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Complaints Resolution Panel (CRP) do not publish annual reports. They do however publish an annual summary of complaints. The complaints summary documents are available on the CRP website (www.tgacrp.com.au). Summaries are available from 2007 through to the 2016-17 financial year. Health (Question No. 913) 3226 913 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 07 February 2018: (1) What Australian Government programs provide subsidies for personal medical supplies for healthcare card holders.(2) What are the uptake rates for these programs, and what measures have been taken to ensure awareness amongst eligible recipients.(3) How effective are these programs in addressing poverty and financial distress amongst older Australians. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Government funds a number of programs that subsidise personal medical supplies for eligible Australians, including those on Health Care Cards. Examples of programs include the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), the National Diabetes Services Scheme (NDSS), the Stoma Appliance Scheme (Stoma scheme), the Life Saving Drugs Program (LSDP) and the Hearing Services Program (HSP). Each of these programs provide partial, or in some cases fully subsidised products to eligible patients. The PBS provides timely, reliable and affordable access to necessary medicines for eligible Australians. From 1 January 2018, a patient with a concession card, including a Health Care Card, Pensioner Concession Card, Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, or Department of Veterans' Affairs White, Gold or Orange Card, pays a maximum of $6.40 (known as the co‑payment) for a medicine listed on the PBS with the Government paying the remaining cost. The co‑payment for non-concession card holders is $39.50. A pharmacist may also choose to discount the PBS patient co-payment by up to $1.00. For high medicine users, when a concessional patient or their family exceeds the safety net threshold, they no longer pay a co-payment. In 2016-17, Government expenditure on concessional patients for general schedule medicines was approximately 75 per cent of total PBS expenditure. The NDSS delivers subsidised syringes and needles, blood glucose test strips, urine ketone test strips, and insulin pump consumables to Australians with diabetes. The NDSS also provides fully or partially subsidised education, information and other services to assist in the best use of products and self-management of diabetes. Through the NDSS, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems are fully subsidised for eligible children and young people under 21 years of age with type 1 diabetes. As at 31 January 2018, over 7,600 people have been approved to access fully subsidised CGM products. The Stoma scheme assists people with stomas to better manage their condition by providing subsidised access to stoma-related products. This includes access to fully subsidised products on the Scheme's Schedule. The products are distributed to people with stomas through 22 stoma associations across Australia. Participants pay a small annual fee to their stoma association to access the Scheme. The LSDP provides fully subsidised access for eligible patients to expensive and life saving medicines for very rare and life-threatening medical conditions. There are currently thirteen medicines available for the treatment of nine conditions. There are currently around 400 patients accessing this program. Eligibility includes being a permanent Australian resident qualifying for Medicare and that the patient must satisfy the relevant criteria for treatment with the medicine. The HSP provides a range of fully or partially subsidised hearing services to eligible Australians to manage their hearing loss and improve their engagement with the community. The HSP has around 300 contracted service providers who see both program and private clients, comprising of the Community Service Obligations component and Voucher component. Eligibility for the Voucher component of the HSP is for Australians over the age of 21 who are, in the main, Pension Concession Card (PCC) holders or DVA Gold or White card holders. While Health Care Card holders do not automatically qualify for a Pension Concession Card and subsequently eligibility to the HSP, some recipients of Newstart, Youth Allowance or parenting payments may qualify for a PCC and be eligible for the HSP.