2018-08-16 45 1 7 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 16 August 2018

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

BILLS 1 BILLS Customs Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018 1

Customs Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:32 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Customs Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018 amends the Customs Act 1901 to implement Australia's obligations under chapter 3 of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus (PACER Plus). Australia and the Pacific island countries are longstanding partners, with common interests in economic progress and regional stability. Our partners in the region range from countries richly endowed with people and resources to small atolls with geographically isolated populations. PACER Plus reflects this diversity, as a comprehensive free trade agreement tailored to help Pacific island countries address their specific development challenges and better participate in global trade. The Turnbull coalition government has the most ambitious trade agenda in Australia's history. PACER Plus, a unique trade agreement to drive economic prosperity and raise living standards in our region, will complement our trade agreements already in force which are delivering record export growth and creating more local jobs. Creating more opportunities for Australian businesses in global markets is at the core of this government's economic plan. PACER Plus has been signed so far by Australia, the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and2 Vanuatu. In addition to covering trade in goods and services, investment and movement of natural persons, PACER Plus also has a regional development focus. As set out in Australia's 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper, the stability and economic progress of the Pacific island countries are of fundamental importance to Australia. Pacific island countries face a range of economic challenges which impact upon their development. These challenges include small markets, narrow production bases and high costs of business and trade. PACER Plus will better enable Pacific island countries to meet these challenges. Implementing PACER Plus will create new trade rules that will mark a significant improvement on the trade rules that have been in place since the 1980s. This will improve the ability of exporters from the Pacific island countries that are party to the agreement to access both the Australian and New Zealand markets, which will in turn encourage development of export industries and job creation. Implementing PACER Plus will also create opportunities for Australian businesses in a range of sectors. Over time the benefits of greater openness and transparency are expected to strengthen these opportunities. The amendments to the Customs Act 1901 contained in this bill will implement the provisions of chapter 3 of PACER Plus. Chapter 3 sets out rules-of-origin criteria and related documentary requirements for claiming preferential tariff entry for goods imported from Pacific island countries that accede to PACER Plus. Under PACER Plus, preferential tariff treatment is available based on declarations regarding the origin of goods based on information provided by the importer, the exporter, the producer or their authorised representative. This will reduce the amount of red tape for importers of goods originating in Pacific island countries. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, under the chairmanship of the member for Fadden, has finalised its report on the PACER Plus, recommending binding treaty action. In recognition of our ongoing commitment to the development of Pacific island countries and the benefits to Australian businesses, we are introducing the implementing legislation at this time. Debate adjourned. Customs Tariff Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018 2

Customs Tariff Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018

First Reading 2 Second Reading 2 09:36 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018 is the second bill required to implement the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus (PACER Plus). This bill contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. Under PACER Plus, Australia has committed to providing a 'free' rate of customs duty for all eligible goods from the date the agreement enters into force. This bill implements this commitment by ensuring that only those goods that are subject to an excise-equivalent customs duty are specified in the new schedule of preferential customs duty rates. This is to ensure that these goods are treated consistently with equivalent goods produced in Australia. The bill also amends several items in schedule 4 to ensure that the scope of these concessional items are maintained. The amendments contained in this bill complement the amendments to be made to the Customs Act 1901by the Customs Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018, which implements the agreement's rules of origin and related documentary requirements for claiming preferential tariff entry for goods imported from PACER Plus parties other than New Zealand. 2 The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, under the chairmanship of the member for Fadden, has finalised its report on PACER Plus, recommending binding treaty action. In recognition of our ongoing commitment to the Pacific island countries and the benefits to Australian businesses, we are introducing the implementing legislation at this time. Debate adjourned. Farm Household Support Amendment (Temporary Measures) Bill 2018 2

Farm Household Support Amendment (Temporary Measures) Bill 2018

First Reading 2 Second Reading 2 09:38 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Farm Household Support Amendment (Temporary Measures) Bill 2018 is a bill to amend the Farm Household Support Act 2014. The bill proposes two temporary changes to the farm household allowance program. Firstly, we will increase the farm assets threshold to a net $5 million, and this will take effect between 1 November 2018 and 30 June 2019. Secondly, the bill proposes to pay a supplement to all eligible farm household allowance recipients that is in addition to their fortnightly income support payments. These temporary measures are designed to help our farmers in need in the short term while we undertake an independent review of the program. The review, to be completed in the first half of 2019, will provide further guidance on the design elements of the farm household allowance into the future. Australian agriculture is a story of success, resilience and prosperity. It is a significant contributor to the Australian economy and continues to be a strong performer. But right now Australia's farming families across a lot of the east as well as parts of the west are going through tough times. And when times are tough, the government listens and lends a hand to those in need. The farm household allowance has always been more than a social security payment—it's a package of assistance comprising income support, an independent financial assessment of the farm business, individualised case management, and an activity supplement that pays for advice and training. The safety net provided by this program ensures the government can appropriately support farmers in hardship while they take steps to improve their situation. Increasing the net farm asset threshold to $5 million will give more farmers access to the farm household allowance during times of hardship. It will help those farmers who have little or no cash flow access to assistance—assistance that provides them an allowance as well as breathing room to prepare for and adapt to change. It means these farmers will not have to sell their assets and risk taking away some or all of their future income-producing capacity of their farm business. It also recognises that farm assets can be difficult to sell quickly and, during tough times, are often sold for less than they're worth. Increasing the threshold also helps those recipients already on the program. They can be secure knowing they will remain eligible for the program even if their farm assets experience an increase in value, but their cash flow remains low. They will not be placed in the situation of having to urgently sell assets to support themselves, potentially to the detriment to their future. Our proposed FHA supplement will be payable to all farm household allowance recipients in addition to their existing payments, in two lump sums between 1 September 2018 and 1 July 2019. Each lump sum will be $3,000 per person for members of a couple and $3,600 for singles. This means that, if both members of a couple are receiving farm household allowance between 1 September 2018 and 1 July 2019, they will receive $6,000 each, or $12,000 per household. For singles the maximum amount payable will be $7,200. Everyone who is on farm household allowance is eligible for the lump sum payment. They don't need to apply for it; it will automatically be paid. If they receive FHA at any stage between 1 September 2018 and 1 December 2018, they'll get the first payment. Farmers on FHA at any stage between 2 December 2018 and 1 June 2019 will also receive a payment. People on FHA for both periods will receive the two payments. No farmer who lodges a claim for FHA on or before 1 December will be disadvantaged. Subject to being eligible for FHA they will be back paid their FHA allowance to the date of lodgement and will also receive the supplement. Also, if they receive any FHA during the second payment period (2 December to 1 June 2019), they will receive the supplement. The FHA supplement will give farming families what they sorely lack right now—cash. The additional disposable income will help put food on the table and cover basic expenses such as bills and school fees and will flow through to businesses in country towns doing it tough. As with the increase to the farm assets threshold, it will provide a safeguard for farm families that might otherwise be forced to liquidate farm assets to support themselves, and deliver significant benefits to them and their communities. These changes to the farm household allowance will be supported by an additional $5 million to the Rural Financial Counselling Service. The RFCS is there to assist farmers, to help them understand what's available. They sit at the kitchen tables and get under the bonnet of farmers' businesses to help them make strategic decisions. The RFCS is not a bricks-and-mortar service. Staff are highly mobile and can visit people on farm or in town. These funds will provide additional financial counsellors and support for farmers, particularly those applying for FHA for the first time. This will be of enormous value to farmers who are eligible but have not yet applied. The Department of Human Services also has specialist staff available through the Farmer Assistance Hotline (132 316) and Farm Household Case Officers who provide assistance and support to farmers and their communities. Where a farmer is facing genuine hardship, and full claim details have been received by the Department of Human Services, a decision can be prioritised. As a result of the continued dry conditions we are experiencing a surge in applications for FHA. The Department of Human Services has been working to identify ways to make this application process simpler and quicker for farmers. In the meantime, to ensure that much needed money gets to our farmers as quickly as possible, the Department of Human Services will be looking at a risk based approach for processing applications. Post-claim checking will limit the risk of overpayment that would need to be repaid to government. In June this year, we extended the Farm Household Allowance program from three to four years, as we knew some farmers and their families had been, and continue to be, subject to pressures extending beyond a cumulative three-year period. We are also investing $11.4 million in mental health support initiatives with additional funding for Primary Health Networks and community-led initiatives through the Empowering Communities program. All of these measures are immediate and material. This brings our commitment to farmers experiencing drought to $576 million, which is in addition to concessional loans now available through the Regional Investment Corporation. In seeking to increase the net farm assets threshold and introduce the FHA supplement, this bill further demonstrates this government's ongoing commitment to ensuring farming families and communities get the support they need for the conditions they are facing in rural and regional Australia, to recover and get back on their feet. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 4 COMMITTEES Public Works Committee 4 Reference 4 09:46 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins On behalf of the Assistant Minister for Finance, 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: A9022 LAND 200 Tranche 2 Battlefield Communications Systems Facilities project. The Department of Defence is proposing to construct and refurbish facilities to support the training requirements for the battle management systems being introduced under the Land 200 Tranche 2 capability which will modernise the command and control of the joint land force. The 2016 Defence white paper identifies the importance of providing defence with enhanced situational awareness and decision-making superiority. This project will ensure that the land force can achieve these functions by providing the soldier, the heart of land force capability, with a leading-edge digital communications capability. This project will enable the land force to achieve an unparalleled level of networking across the battle space. The project will employ a diverse range of skilled consultants, contractors and construction workers and provide opportunities for small and medium enterprises through construction trade packages. The estimated cost of the project is $24.3 million, excluding GST. This includes management and design fees, construction costs, information and communications technology, furniture, fittings, equipment, contingencies and a provision for escalation. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in early 2019 and be completed by late 2019. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. Reference 4 09:48 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins On behalf of the Assistant Minister for Finance, 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: Myall Vale New Cotton Breeding Research facilities project. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is proposing to build a new cotton processing facility, a laboratory research facility and a plant and equipment workshop at its existing site Myall Vale site in New South Wales. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's work in the cotton industry is world leading, with the organisation responsible for delivering new cotton varieties and researching crop management strategies for delivery to the Australian industry. The cotton industry is the largest natural fibre industry in Australia, with strong demand from overseas markets. The works proposed will resolve work health and safety issues, increase productivity and allow the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to undertake research to assist the Australian agricultural industry to be sustainable, productive and profitable. The total estimated cost for the infrastructure project is $18 million, excluding GST. This includes management and design fees; construction costs; furniture, fittings, and equipment; information and communications technology; demolishing existing buildings; associated road infrastructure; contingencies; risk and escalation provisions. The project will employ a diverse range of skilled consultants, contractors and construction workers. It will also provide economic opportunities for the local area through construction contracts. Subject to parliamentary approval of the project, construction is planned to commence in mid-2019 and to be completed by early 2021. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. Reference 5 09:50 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins On behalf of the Assistant Minister for Finance, 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: Naval Guided Weapons maintenance facilities project. The Department of Defence is proposing to construct a purpose-built integrated weapons facility to increase the maintenance capability and alleviate constraints within the naval guided weapons sustainment system at Defence Establishment Orchard Hills located near Penrith, New South Wales. The 2016 Defence white paper reinforced the necessity for guided weapons maintenance, stating that Defence must maintain a technological edge while simplifying maintenance of equipment. The project expects to employ a diverse range of skilled consultants, contractors and construction workers. The project is also anticipated to provide potential economic benefits to the local region through the procurement of construction materials and labour. The estimated cost to deliver the project is $95.5 million, excluding GST. The costs included management and design fees; construction costs; information and communications technology; furniture, fittings and equipment; contingencies; and a provision for escalation. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in early 2019 and to be completed by mid-2020. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. BILLS 5 BILLS Migration (Validation of Port Appointment) Bill 2018 5

Migration (Validation of Port Appointment) Bill 2018

Second Reading 5 09:52 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the frequency of poor drafting of legislation and associated instruments in matters relating to immigration by successive Coalition Governments, and the resulting unintended consequences". I rise to speak on the Migration (Validation of Port Appointment) Bill 2018. We're debating this bill in this place today because successive coalition governments have a very poor track record when it comes to drafting immigration matters. Poorly drafted immigration legislation or regulations can create unintended consequences for the safety and security of Australia and Australians alike, with the potential to undermine the integrity of Australia's migration framework. The current Minister for Immigration and Border Protection—although I'm pretty sure he'd prefer just to be called the Minister for Home Affairs—regularly brings into this place broad, poorly drafted and even erroneous legislation that is littered with unintended consequences. This has become a consistent theme of the out-of-touch Turnbull government. I urge them, especially the Minister for Home Affairs, as well as his junior ministers, to take extra-special care in their work. In cleaning up the Turnbull government's mess and the mess of successive coalition governments, Labor will support this bill. The Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands is located off the north-west coast of Western Australia between Australia and Indonesia. The islands are located in the Indian Ocean. There are a few small islands and some reefs, and they're uninhabited. Under the Migration Act 1958, the minister may, by notice published in the Gazette, appoint ports as proclaimed ports for the purposes of the Migration Act and fix the limits of those ports. Under the powers, the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands is considered an excised offshore place for the purpose of the Migration Act after 21 September 2001. Any person who enters Australia by sea at this territory without a valid visa is considered an unauthorised maritime arrival under the act. The bill before the House fixes up errors, quite simply typos, made by an immigration minister of a former coalition government in the relevant Gazette. On 23 January 2002, then immigration minister Ruddock published a gazette that erroneously omitted the number '12' before the word 'degree', the letter 's' from the word 'degrees' in the latitude coordinates and the word 'longitude' before 122 degrees 59.0 minutes. The bill will correct these poor-drafting errors by this minister of the former Howard government. The specific quadrant of the earth's surface in which the coordinates occur will be inserted with these amendments by including the words 'south' and 'east' in the description. In correcting these errors, the amendments will retrospectively validate the 2002 Gazette notice which authorises the waters surrounding the Ashmore territory and Cartier Islands as a port for the purposes of the Migration Act. These errors could have been avoided in the very first instance, if it wasn't for the poor drafting by the former coalition government. In this place we've seen poorly drafted legislation on numerous occasions, including in instruments, by successive coalition governments, including by the current Minister for Home Affairs. The minister is a tick-and-flick minister incapable of managing his department, which is inherently complex and has many challenges and responsibilities. Despite this inability to perform the job ahead of him and expected of him, the minister never seems to miss a trick to misrepresent our position on asylum seeker policy. I want to take this opportunity, when we're dealing with legislation that deals with this very topic, to reiterate Labor's policy on asylum seekers. We will never let people smugglers back into business. Every time the Liberals misrepresent our strong position on border protection, they're playing into the hands of people smugglers and criminal syndicates who prey on vulnerable people. We on this side of the chamber believe in strong borders, offshore processing, regional resettlement, and turn-backs when it's safe to do so because it saves lives at sea. Every time the current minister undermines Labor's strong position on border protection, it is a walking, talking billboard for people smugglers, and he should be ashamed of himself. When speaking about the threat of people smugglers, the minister has said: What I would say is that anybody, when they're talking about these matters, needs to be careful and circumspect about what it is that they're saying because it will be interpreted a particular way by people smugglers … People need to be mindful of what they are saying publicly. The inconsistency of the Minister for Home Affairs is obvious and rank. I suggest to the minister he should be actually doing his job and negotiating other third-country resettlement options for eligible refugees on Manus Island and Nauru. Manus and Nauru were set up as temporary regional processing centres. They've become places of indefinite detention because of this out-of-touch government's failure to negotiate other third-country resettlement options. The minister's failure to negotiate third-country resettlement options has meant genuine refugees have languished in indefinite detention. As they've languished, they've suffered because of the Turnbull government's terrible incompetence in managing Australia's funded offshore regional processing centres. On 30 May 2018, the Queensland coroner handed down findings into the 2014 death of an asylum seeker from Manus Island. The coroner found the death was preventable and the result of compounding effects of multiple errors in their health care, including ineffective processes relating to medical transfers. These are serious findings that cannot go unanswered or ignored by the Turnbull government, and Labor will always hold this out-of-touch government to account for failures such as this. Ensuring Australia maintains strong borders does not absolve the government of its obligation to provide appropriate health, security and welfare services to people living in Australian funded offshore regional processing centres. If the Minister for Home Affairs is incapable of doing his job, then the Prime Minister should find someone else who's capable or should step in himself. Labor has repeatedly called on the Turnbull government to accept New Zealand's offer to resettle eligible refugees from Manus and Nauru. The government should negotiate conditions similar to the US refugee resettlement agreement to prevent people smuggling and the exploitation of vulnerable people. If the government were able to negotiate conditions for the US deal, they should be able to negotiate similar conditions with the government of New Zealand so that genuine refugees are resettled in third countries as soon as possible. Labor believes in strong borders which prevent deaths at sea while committing to a more humane and compassionate approach. The poor drafting of immigration legislation and associated instruments should not happen in this place in the first place. However, poor drafting such as this has become a hallmark of successive coalition governments. The unintended consequences that come as a result of poor drafting have the potential to undermine the integrity of Australia's migration framework. Given this, Labor will support this legislation as the government attempts to clean up this mess of its own creation. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the amendment seconded? Mr Bowen DZS I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the member for Blair has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted, with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. 10:00 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I hope that the press gallery and the public are paying attention to this, because the day after the parliament unites to say, 'We do not want discriminatory migration practices enforced in this country', the day after we have people reaching across the chamber and saying that the parliament stands united against people who want to do things that most people in Australia would find abhorrent—the day after that happens—Labor joins with the Liberals to stop up to 1,600 people having the right to even apply for asylum in this country, people who have committed no sin other than to come and seek from us protection and a better life. Many of these up to 1,600 people have been kept in detention—and, we now find out, without any legal basis. And what do we do? Labor comes in here and joins with the Liberals and says, 'We will now pass a law to retrospectively justify the unlawful detention of people.' They dress it up as saying, 'We're going to hold the government to account, because we don't like typos'. Well, this wasn't a typo. We are in this situation because the previous government, a Liberal government, took the step of trying to circumvent the rule of law. The previous government said, 'We are going to circumvent the rule of law by pretending that parts of Australia and the waters surrounding them and islands surrounding them aren't Australia.' They said, 'We will find a place around the Ashmore Reef, 600 kilometres away from Broome, and we'll draw a circle around it and we will say that it's no longer part of the migration zone, so if you happen to come there or through there, then don't seek Australia's protection.' The fiction that they used to justify it at the time was to say: 'We'll call it a port. We know we're doing something dodgy and taking away a basic human right from people'—namely, the right to seek protection—'How will we justify it? We'll call it a port.' Of course, it's not a port. It's a reef. It's a set of small islands. A court held the government to account and said: 'That fiction that you used to circumvent the rule of law and take away basic rights of people and then subsequently detain many of them cannot be upheld. It is an unlawful fiction.' They said that as a result there are people—we estimate up to 1,600—who now have the right to come to Australia and seek asylum. They won't automatically be granted it, but they've now got the basic right to come and seek asylum. As I said, many of these people have been unlawfully detained because the government never had a legal basis to do it. I think we probably owe these people compensation, because it turns out that we have denied them their basic human rights without any legal basis to do so. But even if you don't agree that we owe them compensation, at the very least we now owe them the right to process their claims for asylum, because the court has said, 'You were wrong, Parliament'—Minister Ruddock and Prime Minister Howard—try to circumvent the rule of law.' So, we've now got an opportunity to stand with people who have been treated not only harshly but in violation of their fundamental human rights and give them the opportunity to make an application for asylum in Australia and have that assessed according to law. Here's an opportunity for Labor, who came in yesterday and moved a good motion in this parliament, to say, 'We do not support discriminatory migration practices in this country. We support human rights.' Here's an opportunity, the day after that, to do something about it. But what do they do? They say, 'We will retrospectively authorise a decision of a former Howard government minister to circumvent the rule of law, even if it means retrospectively detaining people and taking away their basic human rights.' The best that Labor can muster, as they walk into this chamber, is to move a second reading amendment to say, 'We're going to support the legislation but, jeez, the government are poor drafters.' What is Labor saying? Are Labor saying that, if they were in government, they would manage this system of cruelty more efficiently and get the drafting right? Is Labor's only criticism of the government that they make typos? Labor should join with the Greens and with the Independents who are standing up for human rights and saying, 'When it comes to basic principles of the rule of law, if the government can't get it right, then the benefit should flow to the individual.' If you are taking someone's liberty away and if you are taking their legal rights away, then you've got to get everything right. You shouldn't be doing it in the first place, but at a minimum the courts have upheld a fundamental principle of Western democracy. The courts, in this decision that the government and Labor are trying to overturn, have said very, very simply: 'If someone has got a right to do something, especially if it affects their fundamental human rights, and the government wants to try and take that right away, including by locking them up and including by taking away their human rights, you'd better get it right.' No, Labor cannot even bring itself to defend one of the basic principles of Western democracy and one of the basic principles of the rule of law. Labor is showing itself, at the first available opportunity, to be a craven supporter of the policies of torture that have now become a joint Labor-Liberal stain on this nation. We are wrecking people's lives with this horrendous offshore detention system that has now become a bipartisan policy. We are wrecking people's lives. We now have, as we speak, people on Manus and Nauru who are giving up and who are attempting to kill themselves. We have young children who are now switching off. Doctors and support staff are crying out, saying, 'We have not seen this before. We have not seen young children effectively give up on the basics of life.' We know this because we have had inquiry after inquiry—even though the government, with Labor's support, tries to keep the media out of what is happening in these hellholes where persecution is happening in our name. We know that what we are doing is breaking people. We say, 'Oh, well, it's somehow justified.' Labor has just stood up this morning and said, 'We accept the government's argument and we accept Minister Dutton's argument that somehow we need to break people and torture them in order to stop deaths at sea.' I, for one, think our country is better than that. I do not accept that the only way to stop deaths at sea is by torturing and killing people—by torturing children. I do not accept that false logic. Labor should not accept it either. There is a better way. Going back 40 years, the government of Malcolm Fraser knew that there was a better way. If we update what was done then and apply it now, we will find that we can remove the incentives for people to get on boats by increasing the number of people we bring to Australia, by having proper processing of their claims and by supporting, in places like Indonesia and Malaysia, the UN and others to process their claims there. Once the message gets through in many of these camps that Australia is taking people again and once we start seeing not a trickle, not dozens, of claims, as we are at the moment, but claims in the thousands being processed in Indonesia and Malaysia and elsewhere, people will understand that there's no point in getting on a boat and risking their life to come to Australia, because they will start to understand again that there is some order being put back in and that, ultimately, if they wait, their claim is going to be assessed and they may well come here. But that doesn't exist at the moment. So you've got people languishing in the countries surrounding us and in other countries where they are fleeing war and fleeing persecution. They don't see any way to come into Australia, because we have closed our doors. So when someone comes along to them and says, 'If you give me a bit of money, I'll pop you on a boat and you can come here,' they do, because they see no other way. We're not taking people. We're not processing them. I tell you what, if I were in that situation, if I were stuck in Indonesia where I could only get an appointment with the UN every six months and they told me, 'Nothing has changed,' even though I had been found to be a refugee, I would probably jump on a boat as well if I thought that was the only door that was open to me, if I thought it was the only way of keeping my family safe. If you really are concerned about deaths at sea then invest in processing and start taking more people here. The fiction that Labor and Liberal perpetuate is that they've somehow stopped the deaths at sea by turning back boats. Labor have got up this morning and said, 'We love boat turnbacks as well.' When you turn back boats, people can still die; they just die elsewhere. It doesn't happen on our watch and it happens out of the media glare, or it means they have decided not to make the trip to Australia and to go to another country, and they die on that journey. We are seeing people dying on boats as they try to get to Europe from Africa. That's because, out of desperation, they have no other choice. It's happening in our region as well. Just because it is happening out of sight does not mean it is not happening. So, this fiction that somehow the government has stopped the deaths at sea is one that has to be punctured, because deaths are still happening. We just don't see them. And the government has stopped counting them, as if those people don't matter. I have come to expect the Liberals to adopt this approach where they are prepared to torture children for the sake of improving their position in the polls. Nothing surprises me about the Liberals anymore. But what is becoming crystal clear is that every time you think, 'There's a little moment where maybe Labor might change their mind'—no, no. When given a choice, a day after we have a debate about what kind of migration system we want in this country, it's back to business as usual. It's back to backing the death camps. It's back to saying it's okay to torture and maim people, even though there are other decent alternatives. I must say, I am very, very gutted not to see the member for Batman, who has a good heart, coming in here and speaking against this bill, because this is an opportunity to make life better for roughly 1,600 people who just want to come here and seek our help. It's a concrete opportunity to say to the government, 'You tried to get around the rule of law and you failed, so, bad luck, you have to process their claims.' To the member for Melbourne Ports and the member for Wills, we are going to remind everyone in your electorates that when you had the chance to stand up, concretely, for up to 1,600 asylum seekers, you said no. You failed at the first test. As I said, I do believe that the member for Batman has a good heart in this respect and I believe that she believes what she said, but what matters when you come to this place is your vote. It's no good to say one thing to people to win a seat and then to come up here and shut the door on 1,600 people who are seeking nothing more than the right to put in their claim to seek asylum. I suspect that this snap-back return to bipartisan cruelty the day after we saw handshakes across the chamber is going to be repeated in the Senate as well, where the prospect of having an inquiry into the condition of these children who are dying in death camps under our name probably won't even be supported by Labor either. I know that this is something that many people in this country feel very passionately about, and rightly so. And what is becoming crystal clear is that Labor and the Liberals will join together to take away people's human rights, justify torture and even retrospectively justify locking people up without authority if they think it will win them votes. Shame on them. 10:15 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank all members for contributing to the debate on the Migration (Validation of Port Appointment) Bill 2018. The bill confirms the validity of the appointment of a proclaimed port in the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands contained in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. GN 3, 23 January 2002. The bill upholds the purpose of the impugned appointment, which was designed to ensure that the unauthorised boat arrivals who entered certain waters of the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands, an 'excised offshore place' for the purposes of the Migration Act 1958, would thereby become 'offshore entry persons', now 'unauthorised maritime arrivals' under the act. The appointment was critical to determining the status of persons as unauthorised maritime arrivals under the act who entered Australia via this proclaimed port between 23 January 2002 and 1 June 2013. In addition, those who became unauthorised maritime arrivals by reason of having entered the proclaimed port at Ashmore and Cartier Islands between 13 August 2012 and 1 June 2013 and were not taken to a regional processing country also became fast-track applicants under the act. Government policy around the management of unauthorised maritime arrivals has been highly effective in responding to the enduring threat of maritime people smuggling. It is unacceptable for individuals to seek to undermine this policy and circumvent Australia's migration laws by challenging minor and inadvertent admissions in the wording of the appointment. A successful challenge to the appointment could potentially nullify affected persons' status as unauthorised maritime arrivals and fast-track applicants who entered Australia via this proclaimed port between 23 June 2002 and 1 June 2013. If these risks are not addressed, the validity of the appointment will continue to be challenged and potentially undermine public confidence in our border protection arrangements. The bill addresses these risks by confirming the validity of the appointment to put beyond doubt that there was a properly proclaimed port at Ashmore and Cartier Islands at all relevant times and by confirming that things done under the act, such as actions taken or decisions made, which rely directly or indirectly on the terms of the appointment are also valid and effective. The bill reiterates the government's original intention that the appointment is, and has always been, valid. The effect of the bill does not amend or affect the operation of Australia's migration laws but, instead, maintains the status quo for the processing of unauthorised maritime arrivals and, where relevant, fast-track applicants under the act who entered Australia via this proclaimed port between 23 June 2002 and 1 June 2013. In summary, the bill protects the integrity of Australia's migration framework and deserves the support of all members. I commend the bill to the chamber. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Blair has moved the amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. Question negatived. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The question now is that this bill be now read a second time. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Ms McGowan and Mr Wilkie voting no. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 9 10:24 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Underwater Cultural Heritage Bill 2018, Underwater Cultural Heritage (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 10

Underwater Cultural Heritage Bill 2018

Underwater Cultural Heritage (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018

Explanatory Memorandum 10 10:25 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong by leave—For the information of members, I present an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the Underwater Cultural Heritage Bill 2018 and related bill responding to concerns raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018 10

Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018

Second Reading 10 10:25 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Before I start, I want to acknowledge the young people in the gallery of the chamber this morning and implore you to listen to what I have to say very, very carefully, because this will impact on not just you but also older people. There are some very salient lessons in what I'm about to say in relation to a bill which deals with the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. This is a continuation of a speech I was making yesterday on the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018, so it may not make sense because you are coming into it two-thirds of the way in. Australians want immediate action on this bill. Those impacted do not want to wait for a lengthy criminal trial process. In general, their first priority is not a criminal conviction but getting wrongfully-shared images removed from public display as quickly as possible. And, if possible, they want to prevent the images from being posted in the first place—but, if you don't want intimate images of you posted, don't take intimate images of yourself or allow intimate images to be taken of you. As the minister has outlined in detail, this bill will achieve that with significantly expanded civil powers for the eSafety Commissioner, which will send a clear message that this behaviour—that is, the non-consensual sharing of intimate images—will result in swift and substantial penalties. At every stage, without interfering with or disrupting existing state and Commonwealth criminal powers, this legislation will act to prevent offences and help to get content removed immediately. First, it will provide a significant deterrent for anyone considering sharing such an image, with penalties of up to $105,000 for an individual perpetrator and $525,000 for corporations. This is three times greater than the existing financial penalty for similar offences under the Criminal Code. Further, the government's amendments this morning will nearly double the maximum prison sentences for anyone who uses private sexual material in the course of menacing or harassing a victim online. Second, where an individual has threatened to share an image of this kind, the bill allows a complaint to be made directly to the eSafety Commissioner, who can take action within hours. The commissioner would be able to issue an immediate remedial direction to the potential perpetrator, requiring them not to share the image as threatened. An infringement notice would be available as an option to be issued for even making the threat, while the bill also allows the commissioner to seek a court injunction to prevent the sharing of the images once and for all. Where an image has already been shared, the bill allows complaints to be made directly to the eSafety Commissioner and for the commissioner to issue removal notices not only to perpetrators but, importantly, to the social media services, websites and content hosts who facilitate the sharing. These notices would require the images to be taken down within 48 hours. Finally, in the case of ongoing offences where perpetrators have multiple complaints, where they've ignored notices to remove the content or where the perpetrator has repeatedly offended, the bill allows the commissioner to seek a civil penalty order in the Federal Court for the full six-figure sums I previously stated. This is what Australians want. We know because, across months of consultation on this issue, they told us in no uncertain terms. Complainants want as many of these offences as possible to be prevented and, where they have occurred, they want the content taken down within hours. With a series of pragmatic civil powers informed by stakeholders' feedback and granted to the agency, which is already achieving great things in this field, that is what this bill delivers. Yesterday, when I delivered the bulk of my speech, there was a lady in the gallery who was sitting and watching proceedings. She was a victim of these heinous offences. Where someone has been taken advantage of as an adult, in instances where they haven't taken a photo of themselves or allowed a photo to be taken of themselves—where the person is absolutely innocent or wasn't even reckless in their behaviour but someone took advantage of their particular circumstance—this is what this bill will do: this bill will counter that sort of conduct, and it will hopefully change the culture of some in our community by showing that this behaviour is absolutely unacceptable. We collectively—this parliament and the courts—will throw the book at these people and impose very significant penalties on them. This bill will ensure that that sort of content can be taken down very, very quickly, as is only appropriate. I commend the bill to the House. 10:32 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham It's a pleasure to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018. I want to thank the member for Fisher for his contribution. He had a good go there at explaining some of the reasons why this bill has bipartisan support and why we think this bill is such an important contribution to our federal criminal law. It's terrific to talk on bills like this, because I find that so much of what we do as a federal parliament feels really remote from the lives of the people that we represent. I have responsibilities on my side of politics to speak about issues of federal criminal law and issues of financial services, and a lot of the legislation that I'm in charge of on the Labor side of things probably couldn't be understood by very many Australians. It's highly technical, highly detailed stuff. I think that a lot of the time, when I talk to my constituents, they look at our parliament and wonder why it is that we spend our time dealing with those things. They're really important and they're often really urgent, but it doesn't feel like they're going to the heart and soul of the issues for the people we represent. But the bill before us is very different to that. It tackles a problem that is affecting a lot of people in this country, and particularly a lot of young people. If Labor has any criticisms about the way this has unfolded, it's just that it's taken us a long time to get to a point where these four or so pages of legislation are going to create a completely different pathway, an opportunity for Australians to seek justice when a criminal wrong is done to them. The issue that we're discussing today in the debate on the bill is called non-consensual sharing of intimate images. That's generally known to the public as revenge porn. We try not to use that terminology anymore when we discuss this issue, because it's seen to trivialise it in some ways, but I use that term for the benefit of people who might be watching at home or up in the gallery, because that's probably how they talk about and understand this problem. It describes something that's become incredibly common today, and that is people sharing intimate images of each other. It could be in the context of a relationship; but, when the relationship falls apart and things go sour, those intimate images are retained, and then they're shared without the consent of the person they are of. We see other examples of this. For example, there have been some very high profile incidents where intimate images of women have been captured without their knowledge and those images have been shared. What is crucial to understand is that up until this point, subject to various complications in the stories, people having criminal acts done to them have had no recourse under federal law to have these wrongdoers held to account. That is wrong. That is our parliament not keeping up with the way people are living their ordinary lives. I enjoyed the contribution of the member for Fisher, but I want to pick up on a couple of points he made, just to clarify that I have a slightly different view about things. The member for Fisher stood up and said to the young people who were in the gallery earlier, 'You have to stop sharing these images.' That's not how we should be approaching this problem, because that is saying that the person at fault here is the person who shared the image. That's what we call victim blaming. It's also not appropriate because the horse has bolted on this one. Those of you who have teenage kids are probably having this discussion with them around the kitchen table. Young people are sharing intimate images in the context of a relationship. It is very hard for adults to stop that practice. Adults have been trying to control the behaviour of young people for thousands of years, to no real avail. We need to have a federal criminal law that says to those young people, 'Look, we don't really want you to share these images, but when you do and when your trust is fundamentally broken by a person who might have been in an intimate relationship with you, then the federal law is here to protect you, and we're not going to tell you that it's your fault and that you made the mistake by sharing that image to start with.' Before I get into the substance of the bill I want to talk about two people in this parliament who I think have more to do with the fact that this bill has been brought on than anyone else. They are the member for Gellibrand and the member for Griffith. The members for Gellibrand and Griffith were both elected with me; we came into parliament in 2013. They understood that there was this problem out there in the Australian community whereby intimate images were being shared widely, peoples' lives were being destroyed as a result of their most vulnerable images being shared without their consent, yet there was no recourse available for the victims. This is an issue on which they drafted a private member's bill in 2015. For three years since that time we have been pushing the government to move forward with either that bill or a new piece of legislation that would help us tackle this problem that's affecting the lives of so many Australians. It's taken us three years to get to this point. The legislative process is not always as fast and furious as we'd like it to be. But I do want to pay tribute to those two members of parliament. I think they draw to light the importance of having fresh voices and fresh thinking coming into this chamber consistently. I think those two people had their ears to the ground a little bit more, were perhaps involved in more conversations dealing more frankly with constituents about these issues, than perhaps some of the other members of parliament who have been here for a bit longer. So, I really want to credit those two members of parliament, and I think it's appropriate that this chamber does so. I talked about my role as providing a voice for law enforcement issues on our side of the parliament. One of the things I come upon frequently in this area is the complaint that this parliament is not keeping in touch with the way that our criminal law is changing. One thing that changed pretty much every aspect of federal criminal law was the advent of the internet. Technology has completely changed almost every aspect of crime, and the one that we're discussing today is no different. Can you believe that today we live in a world where just about everyone has a camera sitting in their pocket? In conjunction with that, social media has created this potentially limitless audience for the images taken on those phones and cameras. The path that this has led us to is that the problem of sharing non-consensual images has become prolific. Think about the extent of victims of crime in the community. Some pretty good academic studies would suggest that one in five Australians has been the victim of revenge porn at some point. So, one in five of the people living in this country at some point have had an intimate image taken of them. They've provided an intimate image to someone else in the course of a relationship and that image has been shared without their consent. I think all of us in this parliament have watched a dramatic cultural shift occur on this question. I can remember people talking about the sharing of intimate images five or six years ago, when this problem really started to accelerate. At the time, it was treated as a bit of a joke almost. I think there's been enormous public discussion about how this is not a joke, and I'm going to talk about some instances—shocking instances—where people's lives have been destroyed by the taking of these images and the sharing of them, in some instances, with tens of thousands of people. We also know from academic studies that the victims of these crimes are more likely to be the most vulnerable Australians. We know that one in two Australians with a disability and one in two Indigenous Australians have in some way been affected by the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. We also know that members of the LGBTIQ community are more likely to have been affected by this than the wider community. I also need to point out to the parliament the gendered aspect of a lot of this. We see this non-consensual sharing of intimate images as an integral part of a new way that domestic violence is being perpetrated against mostly female victims. I want to speak about one case which was reported by the victim support service in the discussion about this bill. A woman was forced by her husband into having sex with a third person, which her husband recorded. The woman was in an abusive relationship. She felt that she was not able to refuse, and then her husband posted the image online and used it to blackmail the woman: he threatened to send that image to the woman's family and friends. You can see how these images are being used to control the behaviour of women who are in abusive relationships. What is incredibly shocking about this situation was that, even though the woman was eventually able to report to the police this crime that had occurred—I say 'crime', because it should be a crime—at that time, there was no relevant law in place and her husband was not subject to any legal consequences for his behaviour. There we have the perfect example of where the failure of this parliament to keep up with the way this crime is being perpetrated in the community completely failed that victim, and it failed the community. The non-consensual sharing of intimate images relates to another area that's of great concern to me in my role as the shadow minister for justice—that is, human trafficking. We know, through various studies that have been undertaken, that images and films of victims are often used by human traffickers as a tool to manipulate women—similar to that case of domestic violence that I referred to earlier. Project Respect has reported several such cases, including the case of a Thai woman who said her trafficker possessed a nude photo of her and threatened to use it to deny her access to her child. These are some of the sharper edges of the crimes that are being committed using technology to create enormous distress and enormous hurt for individuals and the community, and the bill that's currently before us is going to help us bring some of these people to justice. I want to address an important point about a disagreement that the two major political parties in this country have had about this bill, and we've managed to find a common solution. I want to refer to the importance of having criminal offences contained in the bill that's before the parliament. I mentioned that two Labor backbenchers, the members for Gellibrand and Griffith, originally proposed a law that would see the non-consensual sharing of images elevated to criminal offences in Australia. The proposal that was put forward by the government took a different tack, which was to keep the offences within civil law. I am very pleased to see that the government has decided to make a change to the bill and agreed that the offences that are under discussion today are indeed matters that should be dealt with under our criminal law. I've waded into territory that, again, is not necessarily being discussed around the dinner table of Australians—whether something should an offence under civil or criminal law—but it is of enormous importance that we as a parliament make the statement that we see this problem in society. The difference between civil and criminal law is whether we see this as a private matter between two people where redress can eventuate through our justice system, or whether we believe that this is an act that deserves punishment—that is, a criminal offence—where something is not going to be fixed by some compensation being paid between one party and another. This is a crime; it is an act that is worthy of punishment. I think that it is absolutely the case that this should be a crime, and the federal parliament will shortly agree on that matter. I say that because what is different about this to a matter of civil law is that there is a victim here and that victim needs to feel that there is some sense of justice in the system. There is a crime being done to society. What we're seeing here is not a civil matter. It's not a dispute between two parties, like an issue where they're debating who owns a piece of property. This is a crime: there is a victim here who is being violated in the most profound of ways. It is appropriate that we acknowledge that the crime is not just being done to the victim but being done to our whole society. When a person shares a non-consensual image, they are doing something that is completely unacceptable to this parliament and completely unacceptable to the Australian community. That is why we see this as a criminal matter. I'm very pleased that the government was able to get to the point where they saw this as a matter of criminal law. I might just finish by speaking a little bit more about some of the victims and the impact that this has had on them. What we know is that when victims come forward, they're often intensely ashamed by the things that have happened to them. I'm lucky that this has never happened to me. I just can't even imagine the shame and distress that a lot of people, and particularly women, feel when the most private images of them are taken from them without their consent and shared potentially with the whole world. We've seen websites that have been created to facilitate this kind of conduct. These are websites that have been created where angry ex-boyfriends can take intimate images of their ex-girlfriends and punish them by sharing the most intimate images of them. It is despicable and disgusting behaviour. It is entirely appropriate that the federal parliament say so, and I'm pleased to see us doing that today through this law. 10:47 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I rise to make a brief contribution in support of the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018. The rise of the internet has by and large brought great benefits to our society. It's now more convenient to pay our bills, do the banking, find out what's happening in the world and keep in touch with family and friends. These things are all easier. I think, on balance, we are better off for them. Little more than a decade ago, we didn't have Facebook and we were just beginning to search with Google. A decade ago, the first iPhone was launched, and it transformed the mobile phone into an app-driven computer and connected it to a camera. Nowadays, people use their phones to capture images of every occasion. It's now more common for someone to snap a picture or shoot some video with their phone than it is for them to actually make a phone call. Capturing the moment, so to speak, has become the new normal and accepted form of shared communication and belonging. Amongst the millions of images captured in Australia every day, many will be shared and enjoyed, some will be celebrated and, sadly, some will take on a far more serious meaning and could be the subject of threats, intimidations and bullying. The threat of regret and potential embarrassment, humiliation, shame or something worse is all the greater in the case of intimate or private images. Whilst some might suggest that people just shouldn't share images, the reality in the world we live in today is that this is what happens and this is what people do. As I've noted, these days everyone has a camera. Whilst people may have regrets when these images are shared, it's just a part of life. Unfortunately, video images and the stills can be very public and hurtful evidence of what happens when images are taken with or without consent, and they can be used against the subject of those images. I'm no fan of the nanny state, but it is our job as lawmakers to evaluate where we as a society are with this issue and to act without prejudice to protect the interests of the community as best we can. Given that victims can't always rely on other parties to act in good faith, we have to create rules and mechanisms to limit the potential harm. A huge amount of damage can be wrought by the publication of intimate images. It can devastate someone for the rest of their lives. The consequences can be extremely serious and dire. It can devastate someone not just within their social circles but within the wider community. It can potentially cruel their chances of employment and dog them throughout their days—let alone the criminal aspect and the spectre of the use of these images for criminal purposes, blackmail, bullying or intimidation. This is something that society shouldn't tolerate. I too am glad to see that the elements of this bill have been incorporated into the Criminal Code Act. I think it's appropriate, and the fact that the parliament is willing to legislate these elements into the Criminal Code sends the message that the Australian people do take this issue seriously and that there are serious consequences for flouting the rules. Society and the community demand it, because the humiliation and the hurt that can arise from this behaviour is something that you wouldn't wish upon anyone. I commend all the parties who've worked on this bill and put it together. It is in the community interest that we've done this. It's a timely piece of legislation, because a perpetrator can publish harmful images in seconds, yet cause damage which can last a lifetime. This bill sends the clear message that, if you're going to do that, you'll be hit with the full force of the law—indeed, the full force of the criminal law. I think that's really important, and I commend this bill to the House. 10:52 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Criminalising image based abuse and combating the rise of this new form of violence is a very important and overdue change. Labor welcomes the government's backflip and will support the amendment to the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018 to introduce aggravated offences for the offensive use of a carriage service where conduct involves private sexual material, because it reflects Labor's clear and longstanding position. It's almost three years now since my colleagues the members for Griffith and Gellibrand introduced a bill into the parliament to criminalise the sharing, without consent, of private sexual material and images. Labor took a policy to the last election, over two years ago, that, within the first hundred days of government, we'd make image based abuse a crime. We said that it was urgent to make this change at that time and that there was no time to waste; however, the government, sadly, killed off Labor's bill. It was removed from the Notice Paper in May last year after the government refused for eight consecutive sitting weeks to call it on for debate. Labor has continually called on the government to criminalise image based abuse, and the government has continued to make excuses that defy sense and fly in the face of the evidence. In April 2016 the COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children released a report including this recommendation: To clarify the serious and criminal nature of the distribution of intimate material without consent, legislation should be developed that includes strong penalties for adults who do so. Both the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Federal Police have supported the introduction of a criminal offence. The Director of Public Prosecutions said a Commonwealth offence targeting so-called revenge porn would 'fill a gap within the existing law'. The Australian Federal Police said 'Uniformity in legislation would be most helpful for the police so that they can investigate and charge perpetrators.' Family violence advocates, sexual assault services and law enforcement services have overwhelmingly called for the introduction of a specific criminal offence. Four out of five Australians agree that it should be a crime to share sexual or nude images without permission. The only people who didn't think image based abuse should be a crime were the government. The former Minister for Women, Senator Michaelia Cash, insisted, 'People don't want to go down the criminal path.' Further, she said, 'The civil penalty regime is more attractive.' The government has repeatedly justified its failure to introduce a specific Commonwealth offence for image based abuse on the basis that there is an existing offence under section 474.17 of the Criminal Code for misuse of telecommunications services to menace, harass or cause offence. They have insisted again and again that a criminal offence is not necessary. I welcome the government finally changing its position with this amendment. Making image based abuse a specific Commonwealth crime will make a huge difference. It's important because we will no longer need to rely on a patchwork of different laws across the country. It's important because it will make it easier for victims to go to the police and to have their complaint taken seriously. It's also important to draw a line in the sand and acknowledge that this is criminal behaviour. It's essential that the Australian parliament send a clear message to the community that the non-consensual sharing of intimate images is not acceptable. Sharing intimate images of someone without their consent is a horrific violation of that person's right to privacy. It's an action absolutely designed to humiliate and attack. It's a form of sexual violence, and it's a form of abuse. It's a way that people are exercising power and control over their partners and former partners. So-called revenge porn websites or messaging groups circulating intimate images of young women against their consent are an abhorrent sign that attitudes towards women in some parts of our community are still hopelessly outdated and even malign. The impact on the victim can be terrible. This violation and invasion of privacy can affect people's reputation, their family, their employment, their current relationships and, of course, even their personal safety. Queensland woman Robyn Night found out from a friend that her head had been photoshopped onto the body of a naked woman surrounded by men. Attached to her photoshopped image were her name, her address and even a picture of her home. She called the police. Because they didn't have these powers, they told her that they could do nothing. The fraud squad never called her back. It took four years—four years of strange men turning up on her doorstep—before she got a positive response from police. Mrs Night told her story through the Senate inquiry investigating Labor's image based abuse legislation. She wanted a criminal offence and jail time for perpetrators. Over 60,000 people signed Mrs Night's petition calling on the government to change the law. Image based abuse has become scarily widespread. Most of us look back with some wistfulness to our younger days but, when I think about the new challenges that young people today face that we didn't have to face when we were younger, this is near the top of my list of the things that I'm really glad I never had to think about or deal with. In 2017, a study suggested that one in five Australians, both men and women, have experienced image based abuse. We have to make it perfectly clear that this sort of violation and abuse is criminal behaviour. We need to make it clear to people who are contemplating taking this kind of action that they could be sent to prison for it. Creating a specific criminal offence sends a clear message that this behaviour is not okay, that it's not acceptable and that it has the harshest possible consequences. Labor supported this bill in the Senate because a civil regime was a step in the right direction, but we did so, at the time, noting strong concerns that a civil regime did not go far enough in recognising the seriousness of image based abuse, which should be criminalised. Labor is deeply committed to keeping Australians safe online, and I'm very pleased that we can support the bill, now amended and improved, in the House. I want to thank all of the stakeholders in the community—all of the groups who fight every day against violence against women and who have campaigned for this change. I want to particularly acknowledge my Labor colleagues who have fought so long—for years!—for this change, including Terri Butler, the member for Griffith; Tim Watts, the member for Gellibrand; Clare O'Neil, the member for Hotham; and Mark Dreyfus, the member for Isaacs. Each one of them has made a strong contribution to seeing this legislation now. The Turnbull government wasted more than three years insisting that Australians didn't need this protection, that Australia didn't need a specific criminal offence for image based abuse. So I'm very pleased that they've finally accepted the evidence, listened to Australians' views and followed Labor's lead. I commend the bill to the House. 11:02 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong We obviously strongly support this bill given that it was first introduced into the Senate at the end of last year. The Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018 will facilitate the quick removal of intimate images that have been shared without consent, which is the primary concern of victims. The government is strengthening Australia's laws against technology facilitated abuse, and this bill will complement and extend existing criminal offence provisions at the Commonwealth and state and territory levels, and provide victims with another option for timely and effective redress. It will send a clear message to the community that the sharing of intimate images without consent is not an acceptable practice. This bill is the result of extensive public consultation with many stakeholders, including women's safety organisations, mental health experts, schools and education departments, victims, the eSafety Commissioner and members of the government's Online Safety Consultative Working Group. This is something that many people in this House, regardless of their political persuasion, do support. They think it's necessary. Our communities are calling for it, and hence the parliament is acting. There will be a civil penalty regime to be administered by the eSafety Commissioner, and there are a variety of measures that will be available to address the instances where there has been the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. This will include a formal warning, infringement notices, a civil penalty order from the relevant court, enforceable undertakings or the seeking of an injunction. The commissioner will have the option to issue removal notices to perpetrators, social media service providers, and website and content hosts. These removal notices will mean that the intimate image must be removed within 48 hours after the notice has been given, or, if the commissioner allows, there may be a provision for a longer period. Penalties of up to $105,000 for individuals and just over half a million dollars for corporations can be incurred for the breach of the provision, prohibition or failure to comply with a removal notice or other remedial action. This is important legislation. It will make a difference to our community and will ensure that the community's interests are protected and enhanced. I'm glad to see that there is bipartisan support for this piece of legislation. 11:05 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'm very pleased to get the unexpected opportunity to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018. This bill is a really important step in the right direction. Like the member for Sydney, who spoke earlier, something I did not have to deal with as a young person was the difficulty and some of the challenges posed by having a phone, a camera and the internet. Of course, there are a lot of benefits with the internet, but there are also some risks, and one of those risks is having intimate images of yourself shared when that is out of your control. I've spoken to a number of people to whom this has happened, and they've said that they felt so disempowered. That lack of control has a really big impact, along with shame and along with humiliation—I think those are the right words for it. It is very, very distressing. So, this bill is an important step in making sure that shame, humiliation and some of the dangers that come along with the internet and the ability to share these types of pictures are addressed. It is important that our legislative framework keeps up with technological change and keeps people safe and protected. I think anything this parliament can do to make sure that happens is an important thing. This is a new phenomenon. When I speak to people in the school setting they raise it as an issue. The sharing of images in a school environment, which particularly impacts young women, is deeply concerning. Therefore, we need to do everything we can. As other members who have spoken on this bill have said, we need to do everything we can, and an individual who has privately shared their image, for private purposes, should not be shamed. The problem is when control over that image is taken away and the image is inappropriately used to humiliate and control and a range of other things, and we need to be very vigilant as a parliament. I commend the bill to the House. 11:08 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I really wish we didn't need this legislation, the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018. I wish it wasn't necessary. I wish everyone using devices would choose not to use the internet to share intimate images and videos. I wish people didn't choose to photoshop other people's faces onto pornographic material. I encourage everyone who's using a device to think very seriously about how they use that device, irrespective of their age, given that much of the material can and will be there forever. This is something people need to think seriously about before they hit 'send' or 'post'. I hope and encourage both individuals and the police to use the laws that we're enacting through this legislation. According to the Deloitte Mobile Consumer Survey, 88 per cent of Australians own a smartphone. The internet is a vital tool for education, research, entertainment and social interaction. But the internet is also being used for the wrong purposes, and it leads to very tragic circumstances. One of those wrong purposes is the non-consensual sharing of intimate images of other people. Creating a safer online world involves various platforms. Everyone who uses the internet is responsible in this space—the industry itself, schools, parents, children, support agencies and government. We need to do, as this government is, everything we can to ensure that Australians are safe in their online activities, as much as is possible. As members of this House know, for many years I've delivered cybersafety presentations to schools, the community and businesses. I can tell this House from firsthand experience that image based abuse in its various forms is rife. And I can tell you that it ruins lives, which is why the legislation before the House is so necessary. Around 20 per cent of Australians have been victims of image based abuse, regardless of their age, their race, their gender, their sexual orientation, their education or, indeed, their bank balance. There are young people in my electorate and elsewhere in Australia who have actually attempted suicide after someone they thought they could trust with those very personal, intimate images, chose to share them without their consent. The under-18 age group caught in this space are covered by our child pornography laws. The Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018 reflects part—just part—of the government's ongoing commitment to keep Australians safe online. It deals with a very specific form of abuse when private, intimate, nude or sexual images are shared without the consent of those pictured. It also includes those that are photoshopped, deep fakes and morph porn. This happens sometimes when a current or an ex-partner shares an intimate image of you on social media without your consent. Perhaps it's to hurt or humiliate you. Perhaps it's just that they don't care anymore. Don't forget that, even if you have sent someone an intimate image of yourself, it does not mean that you have agreed that this image can be shared or be sent viral on a social media site. Image based abuse can also be referred to as technology-facilitated violence, cyber exploitation and intimate image abuse. Threats are made as part of this. They're made in an attempt, often, to control, to blackmail, to coerce, to bully, to punish and sometimes just to hurt the victim. Sometimes it's just because we can, because we've got those photos. According to a recent RMIT research paper, images are being used in highly diverse and complex ways as a form of control, abuse, humiliation and gratification that goes well beyond the jilted ex-lover scenario. There are revenge porn websites that actually encourage users to upload nude or sexual images of others, and personal information along with it, such as names, addresses and links to personal profiles. The victim can then be forced to pay to remove the images. This is blackmail or what's known as sextortion. The most well-known of these websites are hosted overseas, and they may not be willing to take down the images. This is a really important reason not to do it in the first place. Please don't do it. They've got a business model, and it is based around hosting this type of image that you, as the market, their market, provide. Think of the consequences if you were the one in the photos—the damage to your reputation and your relationships and the effect on your family, your employment, your social relationships and your personal safety. This is what people forget when they take and share these types of photos. I've actually seen it far too often in my years of doing these presentations. People come to me because they know I'm active in this space. I live in a small rural and regional community. I've seen so often the community's loss of respect for an individual whose photos have been distributed. In a small rural and regional community where everyone knows everyone, how would you feel, having to walk down a small local street and go into your local shops or local businesses, like the newsagent you go to every day, where everyone in that shop is looking at you and having a bit of a laugh because they've seen the images? What if you were the person in the business behind the counter or providing the service and someone had photoshopped your face onto someone else's naked or pornographic image and sent it viral in your small community? How would you feel if you were the 14-year-old girl in my electorate who shared intimate photos with her boyfriend—it was a very precious relationship to her—only to find out that he sent them to everyone after they broke up? Is anybody here really surprised that she attempted suicide, at 14? She is just one of many that I've dealt with, but it's both young people and adults who have been victims. There is the adult who sent an intimate image to a beautiful woman overseas only to receive a response that said, 'Thanks for that. If you don't pay me $10,000, I will show this to your wife, your work and the local newspaper.' That's what happens when you make the choice to share this type of image. Snapchat is just one of the apps that encourage sexting—sending naked and semi-naked selfies. It's really rife among young people. And young people thought, because Snapchat told them so, that their images would simply disappear and they could do this with impunity. They were told, 'No-one's going to know you did it.' That's not what happened, of course. Others took screenshots of these photos, and there are apps that automatically save every single Snapchat photo. One of the other concerns—and I have seen this far too often—is that young people think they're only sharing their images with a friend or with a small group of people, but we also know that this is a paedophile's paradise. They find these images, access these images and use these images in ways that would horrify people in this House and elsewhere. Sharing can occur over electronic services, email, text, multimedia messaging, social messaging services, message boards, forum websites and websites specifically designed to share images without consent. These are the reasons this bill will create a prohibition against non-consensual posting or threatening to post an intimate image. It covers social media services; relevant electronic services, such as email or text; or any designated internet service, which includes websites and peer-to-peer file-sharing services. It establishes a complaints and objections system, to be administered by the eSafety Commissioner. I just wish everybody in Australia, including young people, knew to use the resources of the eSafety Commissioner's office. There's an extraordinary amount of assistance—advice, help, support and access to counselling—available to people through the eSafety Commissioner. Through this legislation, victims or persons authorised on behalf of victims will be able to actually lodge a complaint with the eSafety Commissioner. The first thing parents scream down the phone to me when they know that the images of their young people are viral is, 'I just need to get them taken down, as a first step.' Sometimes there are more steps that they want after that, but the first step is: 'Just get it down. It's my child that the world is seeing this way.' The first thing is go to the eSafety Commissioner, and the eSafety Commissioner will help to get these images removed. The bill will facilitate this removal, especially where a person who initially perhaps consented has changed their mind. They will be able to lodge an objection notice with the commissioner. Very importantly, the bill will introduce civil penalties. How important is that? The eSafety Commissioner will actually enforce these. The penalties will be up to $105,000 for an individual and up to $525,000 for corporations, as they should be. If you make a choice to share these images without consent, there will be consequences for that action. There needs to be a change of culture on the internet. Having consequences is part of changing that culture. These penalties can be incurred for a breach of prohibition or a failure to comply with a removal notice. Take it down. Last year, through the eSafety Commissioner, the government launched a pilot of a world-first new national portal for reporting non-consensual sharing of intimate images. It provides immediate support to victims of image based abuse. Image based abuse is something that eats away at you when it happens to you. The portal gives victims a place to seek assistance and report instances of image based abuse, with clear and concise information about the practical steps. You just want to get action when this happens to you. Since the launch of this, the eSafety Commissioner's office has received over 115 reports of image based abuse. That is a drop in the ocean. Report this, please. It doesn't matter if you are a young person or an adult. Report it. There are 220 separate URLs and locations where the images were made available. In addition, the eSafety Commissioner's office has received almost 60 queries regarding the non-consensual sharing of intimate images and has had over 48,000 total visits to the image abuse portal. It's telling its own story, isn't it? That's only the people who actually know at this time that that's where you can go and report those instances. They might be significant statistics, but I can tell this House it is a drop in the ocean to what is happening. I keep saying to people: please don't do this. Please don't come to me after the damage is done. Make a conscious decision that you're not going to share these images in the first place. This civil penalty regime targets the perpetrators and the content hosts who knowingly engage in this behaviour. This is a real concern more broadly in the community, and parents are the ones who have been very vocal with people like me and with the government. We've listened to them and responded, and that's what you can see the minister has done through this legislation. Young people are very much aware of this, but it doesn't stop them. But the minister and the government are sending a very clear message to all Australians: the non-consensual sharing of intimate images is unacceptable in our society. That is the message through this legislation. The bill has been developed in consultation with many stakeholders, including women's safety organisations, mental health experts, schools and education departments, the victims, the eSafety Commissioner and members of the government's Online Safety Consultative Working Group. I want to commend the government for forming the eSafety Commissioner's office. I was strongly involved in this. But we're always playing catch-up because of what people choose to do and what people choose to share online. The importance of this legislation cannot be overstated. In closing, I will go back to where I started: please do not share any of these images. Make a conscious decision. Encourage your families and your young people. Tell them that it's not okay and what can actually happen to them once they click 'send' or 'post'. 11:23 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Labor supports the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018. In starting, I will just note that in the schools galleries we've got young children in one gallery and older teenagers in another. If there's any bill before this House that impacts young people, it's this bill. This bill introduces both civil and criminal penalties to combat the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Labor believed criminal penalties should apply from the get-go, and I am very pleased to see the government has taken our concerns on board and agreed to amend its own bill in order to now provide criminal penalties. This is a great example of this parliament working at its best. What is known colloquially as 'revenge porn' is a particularly insidious feature of the internet and smartphone age. The act of recording someone doing something private and intimate and then disseminating, without that person's consent, a recording in order to cause them harm is, unfortunately, widespread. It is foul. We are not here to judge how those images came to be taken. It's possible they were taken between consenting adults for private use or recorded for a laugh between consenting friends. What is clear is that the recording of such events should not be shared without the consent of all parties concerned. Too often, we have seen instances of spurned or jealous lovers using the existence of such recordings as blackmail or currency in campaigns to hurt and humiliate. I am particularly concerned by the potential to cause harm to young people and, as the father of a 19-year-old daughter, especially the harm that can be caused to young women. Once an image or a video has been uploaded to the internet, it is there forever. I know that we are seeking orders from the eSafety Commissioner to have these things taken down, but that takes down the original recording. If somebody caches that image or sends it on, it can be almost impossible sometimes to track that back and have it taken down. I do echo the sentiments of the member for Forrest in this. Think carefully before you undertake these activities. You may be having a laugh in that moment or sharing an intimate moment, but you never know where relationships end up. It may have been a jealous or immature impulse that causes a perpetrator to hit send, but feeling sorrow or regret after the fact does not make the harm go away. Perpetrators must understand that sharing intimate images without consent is a crime and that they are criminals. This parliament has been debating this issue for some time—for too long, in fact. In October 2015, Labor introduced a private member's bill to criminalise revenge porn. In April 2016, the COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children released a report recommending: To clarify the serious and criminal nature of the distribution of intimate material without consent, legislation should be developed that includes strong penalties for adults who do so. Labor went to the 2016 federal election promising Commonwealth legislation to criminalise revenge porn within the first 100 days of being elected. In October 2016, Labor reintroduced its private member's bill in the current parliament, but this was removed from the Notice Paper on 23 May 2017 because the government refused to call it on for debate for eight consecutive sitting Mondays. Finally, in November 2017, the government undertook to consult on a proposed civil penalty regime targeted at perpetrators, social media services and website content hosts that share images without consent. The government's bill has been informed by a public consultation process with a cross-section of stakeholders including the Australian Federal Police, women's safety organisations, mental health experts, school and education departments, victims and the government's Online Safety Consultative Working Group. During the public consultation process, there was broad consensus amongst stakeholders that the primary concern of victims is, indeed, the rapid removal of offending images. I say 'rapid removal' because the longer those things are on the net, the longer they'll stay and the more they are distributed. It is virtually impossible to get rid of them if they're there for any more than—well, I don't know how long, but it doesn't take long for them to spread. In June 2017, Labor moved a second reading amendment in the House calling on the Turnbull government to criminalise the sharing of intimate images without consent. In December 2017, the government introduced this bill following the public consultation. It is worth noting that, in January of this year, Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk called for a national conversation on the related issue of cyberbullying in the wake of the death of Amy 'Dolly' Everett earlier this year. The Premier said she would host a round table to discuss strategies that could be taken to the COAG meeting in February. The right to protection from exploitation, violence and abuse is primarily contained in article 20.2 of the ICCPR, which requires Australia to take measures to protect persons from exploitation, violence and abuse. As the Australian Information Commissioner stated in a submission to the department's consultation on the bill: The non-consensual sharing of these images is a serious invasion of privacy, which has the potential to cause severe harm, distress and humiliation to the victim. Further, the harm that can be caused through the sharing of such images is exacerbated by rapidly increasing technological capacity for capturing images and making recordings, and the ability to distribute digital material on a vast scale. In calling for laws to address revenge porn Tasmania's Sexual Assault Support Service submitted several incidents to a Senate committee and highlighted others in the media. In 2015 a Tasmanian man was convicted of raping a young woman, having threatened to publish a photo that she had sent him of her breasts. That threat was enough to tell the court that sex had not been consensual. Recently images of high-school students in Canberra were posted to a revenge-porn website where users swapped intimate photos of girls and women without their consent. One thread on the site is marked 'Hobart, Tasmania'. Some participants go as far as requesting images of particular women. Other threads are marked with different locations, individual names, Snapchat screenshots and requests for images of schoolgirls. It is a foul subculture which, I'm sorry to say, is popular with far too many male teenagers. I shudder to think what sort of men they turn into if this is their view of women as young men. The impact of revenge porn on Tasmanian victims is intensified by our island's relatively small and discrete population. Without seeking to perpetuate an offensive stereotype, it is fair to say that most of us in Tasmania know each other by perhaps one or two degrees of separation. You don't have to go far to bump into somebody who knows somebody. Word gets out fast, especially in the regional towns, and material like this spreads like wildfire through kids' social media networks. Sexual Assault Support Service Tasmania chief Jill Maxwell says her organisation is seeing increasing numbers of young women and girls reporting image based abuse. She reports that many perpetrators appear to be on a power trip, seeking to intimidate their victims. Others want to punish women either as individuals or as a gender. Sometimes it's just because perpetrators, usually younger teens, both male and female, think it's funny and either don't realise or don't care about the consequences to their victims. Cyberbullying and revenge porn kills kids. We've all heard the evidence of the devastating effects that this stuff has on young people, and, when it's compounded by isolation and teasing, it can be lethal. This parliament's actions today have the support of the Australian public. According to a study: 4 in 5 Australians agree it should be a crime to share sexual or nude images without permission … (80%) agreed with the statement: 'It should be a crime for someone to share a nude or sexual image of another person without that person's permission'. Females (84%) were slightly more likely than males (77%) to endorse the criminalisation of image-based abuse. Both victims and non-victims of image-based abuse were just as likely to agree that it should be a crime, indicating that there is a broad agreement within the Australian community as to the seriousness of this issue, regardless of whether someone has experienced it personally. Alarmingly, one in two Australians with a disability and one in two Indigenous Australians report having experienced the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Labor welcomes the government's change of heart on the criminalisation of image based abuse online and supports the government's amendments to its bill to introduce aggravated offences for the offensive use of a carriage service where the conduct involves private sexual material. This amendment reflects Labor's clear and longstanding position, and it expands upon the civil prohibition and civil penalty regime in the bill—which is, as the member for Forrest noted, a $105,000 civil penalty, so it's not small bickies; if you engage in this sort of activity, put $105,000 aside because that's what you'll be paying the victims of your conduct—and applies increased criminal penalties to the most serious instances of the sharing of intimate images. It is a pity that the government wasted so much time insisting that Australia did not need a specific criminal offence for image based abuse, but we are pleased it has finally accepted the evidence, changed its tune and followed Labor's lead. I would like to congratulate all members of this House and the Senate for their work. I know there are a lot of people on our side who have worked very hard to bring this about—in particular, the member for Griffith, the member for Hotham, the member for Gellibrand and the member for Isaacs—and I'm sure there are members on the other side who've worked just as hard. All of us want this issue dealt with. We know how serious it is. It is a modern problem. The internet has delivered great things for us, but this is one of the insidious sides of what the internet age has brought. I think the member for Forrest is right; we are playing catch-up to a degree. Technology and culture overtake laws, and we have to play catch-up, but I can assure all the parents and any victims in the public gallery that we are taking this issue seriously; we are tackling it head-on. We think these issues need to be dealt with, and we are dealing with them. Thank you. 11:36 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley As the father of a young daughter and as someone who is still close in age to the younger generation, being the youngest member of the House of Representatives, I feel that it's incredibly important that the subject matter of this bill receive as much attention and publicity as possible. I feel that I can address this issue not only from the perspective of a parent but also from the perspective of someone who, at least partially, grew up in the digital world. For example, ICQ and MSN Messenger, later known as Windows Live Messenger, started in the late nineties, when I was still a teenager—around the age of 14 to 16. I remember the interactions that started between youth of that age over those platforms. And Facebook, for example, started in 2004 when I was 21. As parents we sometimes want to wrap our children up and protect them from the world; however, it is inevitable that as they grow older they will face more and more contexts where they face more and more risk, which is in itself essential to growing, maturing and learning how to face and deal with difficult situations. But I do want the situation for my daughter and others growing up today to be better than it has been in the past. While we as MPs may wish to sometimes take on the role of parents protecting their children as much as possible, there are certain angles from which to tackle an issue like this so we can be as effective as possible. There are many areas of life where, quite frankly, it is not appropriate for MPs to act like parents. Raising children is, first and foremost, the right and responsibility of parents and families. However, what we can do is work to address the outcomes of situations that children may find themselves in or to try to prevent those situations from arising where possible. This becomes even clearer when the matter in question verges on severe civil legal matters or indeed criminal matters. This subject, the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, is one that has wide-ranging outcomes and some very serious ramifications stemming from peer pressure, jokes, malicious intent, revenge or something in between. My colleagues will note my references to this legislation so far have been in the context of people of school age. While this legislation clearly has aspects that protect adults, it is particularly the effect this legislation will have on young people that I want to discuss today. Online platforms become more and more advanced every day, and from speaking to students in my electorate I have become even more acutely aware of how quickly internet sharing platforms advance. While we may attempt to teach our children about the dangers of oversharing—whether it is initially online or in person, voluntary or involuntary—I would argue that the government has an important role to play by extending its oversight where a parent's reach ends. The internet is a wonderful tool for education, commerce, advocacy, health and so many other issues and areas, but we all know that it can also be used for the wrong reasons. It not only provides a platform for private material; it makes it very easy to spread and cause significant harm to an unsuspecting individual. Revenge porn, the distribution of images for entertainment, even images that are spread beyond what was thought to be a small group in confidence, is covered by this legislation. It is important that we work to address these situations before the impact on victims reaches a stage that it affects their reputation, employment prospects, relationships with family or friends, or their physical wellbeing and safety. It is very easy to look at legislation and see simply words, but there are always people behind these bills. I urge my colleagues across the House to consider the impact of a scenario like this on them, their friends, their family or their neighbours. If we have the ability to prevent such serious harm coming to those individuals, we have an obligation to act. In May last year I spoke on a related bill, also working to keep children and teenagers safe. The Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017 sought to address the threat to young people frequently posed by adults pretending to be teenagers who prepare or plan to cause harm to, procure or engage in sexual activity with a person under the age of 16 by the means of an online platform. Also, throughout my work leading the inquiry into modern slavery I've worked closely on issues around sexual slavery and the exploitation of children both in Australia and in the supply chains of Australian businesses and organisations. While the protecting minors online bill had a different focus, that legislation from a year ago is directly related to the matter we are discussing today as well. Carly's Law, as this bill became known, was brought about by the horror of what befell Carly Ryan, who, as I'm sure I don't need toremind my colleagues, fell victim to an online predator posing to be someone her age and was raped and murdered. We have so much to do to attempt to keep pace with the internet and to keep our young people safe online. The important point is we can do something. The first person has already been charged under Carly's Law. We in this place are all elected to work for our constituents and to keep our children safe to the greatest extent that the law allows, and we are continuing that important work again today in addressing the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. I would like to thank my Victorian coalition colleague the Minister for Communications, Senator the Hon. Mitch Fifield, for his work in bringing about the bill we have before us today, as well as the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Paul Fletcher, and the then Minister for Communications, now Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who also contributed to the wider context that this legislation is in today. I'm aware that a number of amendments to this bill have been discussed and debated, which I'm pleased about, as it acknowledges the importance of this subject and shows that there is a significant commitment in this building to getting this legislation right. It is important to acknowledge that the approach and sentiment behind these amendments is first and foremost with concern for those involved and about minimising the harm done by individuals of malicious intent and empowering victims to take control over these situations. My concern over the amendments that involve criminal penalties, as well-meaning as they may be, is that it risks revictimising people who have already gone through some awful experiences. Women's advocacy groups have been consulted in the formation of this legislation and we've seen from statistics relating to other offences of a sexual or intimate nature that, for many people, having to testify about what has happened to you or having to give evidence or provide detail to the police can be incredibly distressing. I have my reservations about any components of the legislation that may force victims to relive these experiences but certainly acknowledge that we are all coming from the same perspective in this debate—that is, ensuring and preserving the welfare of people, primarily women and girls, whose trust is betrayed or who have no control over the situation. Why are these changes important? These changes are important because they are enabling people to take a proactive approach and to regain some control of a situation that previously was not within their control. Extending a parent or individual's reach and power over removing images I believe is a natural continuation of our existing legislation on the abuse of carrier services, because unfortunately these days it is far too easy for technology to invade all of our private lives, whether we're aware of it or not. In debating, and I hope soon passing, this legislation, the government is strengthening Australia's laws against technology facilitated abuse, which will complement and extend existing criminal offence provisions at the Commonwealth and state and territory levels and will provide victims with another option for timely and effective redress. The bill sends a clear message to the community that the sharing of intimate images without consent is not an acceptable practice. The civil and criminal penalties facing perpetrators of these offences are important, but, most of all, this bill will facilitate the quick removal of images that have been shared without consent, which is the primary concern of victims and advocacy groups who have been heavily involved in this process. The eSafety Commissioner can even have photos that have been photoshopped removed. I understand that this is the result of extensive public consultation with many stakeholders, including women's safety organisations, mental health experts, schools, victims, the eSafety Commissioner and members of the government's Online Safety Consultative Working Group. I also recognise the contribution that a number of social media platforms have made towards these changes. I read a few months ago, for example, about the ongoing collaboration between the Office of the eSafety Commissioner and Facebook. Facebook has been testing a proactive reporting tool in partnership with the eSafety Commissioner, and I hope that that relationship and the ability to stop these images coming up improve even further. Social media really is central to this legislation, and it's fantastic that we have support in protecting Australian users. As I said, we need to improve the goodwill and work in this space. I'm also incredibly passionate about this area of the law and policy not only because I'm a father but because, as a human being, I'm compassionate about the fact that we need to stop these activities happening and to protect not only children but the wider community from these activities. I don't want to see people's lives ruined either due to a situation getting out of their control or due to the abuse of trust by someone they thought was close to them. I've had this legislation on my radar since the bill was passed by the Senate back in February. My office, in conjunction with my friend and colleague the Chief Government Whip, Nola Marino, coordinated several school visits for the National Day of Action against Bullying and Violence back in March. This allowed us to speak to students of varying ages in my electorate of Dunkley about cybersafety, to spread the message of caution and education about the reach and impact that social media and online hosting services can have. As many school assemblies do, our visit started off with many students restless and possibly distracted. But as Nola progressed through her talk, particularly raising the situation of Carly Ryan, the students became still and fixed on her words. I believe that at least some students were thoroughly impacted by our conversations that day, particularly noting some of the conversations that occurred with students coming up to the Chief Government Whip and me after the presentation. I would hope that, if it changes behaviour or actions and perhaps prevents even one decision that may not have been thought through, we will have helped to make a difference. As the Chief Government Whip said at the time, young people know, and think they know, a lot more than their parents about being online, and they need to also help younger people, including younger siblings. The initial restlessness that we were met with at the forums that we held demonstrated this. This is why it can be hard to get these messages through, but I'm optimistic that this bill helps address situations that people may find themselves in while we also work to change attitudes and behaviours. The Chief Government Whip at the time also drew the children's attention to the risk of such incidents of cyberbullying and revenge porn and the impact that this may have on future careers. Unfortunately, having mobile devices in our rooms 24/7 means not only that there's so much more risk of having material spread around but also that bullying, especially cyberbullying, has a much greater reach and can continue to harass and intimidate people when they are in what should be the most private environment. This material not only provides an avenue for bullying but can have serious repercussions for victims' futures, leading to anger, embarrassment, fear, defamation, poor performance at school or work, and even self-harm or suicide. But we can hand some of the power back to victims with this legislation. Around 20 per cent of Australians have experienced image based abuse. One in five Australians aged 16 to 49 has experienced image based abuse, although women aged 18 to 24 are more likely to be targets. This issue is far more wide reaching than I think many of us would like to admit. With our world becoming increasingly centred around the internet and increased connectivity and accessibility, the risk will only increase. This legislation works with victims and victims' advocacy groups, addressing a variety of civil and criminal penalties to protect Australians. Today our online reputation can be our greatest asset. Lastly, I refer to the support that the Chief Government Whip, Nola Marino, has shown for students in my electorate and across Australia. No police investigation will ever undo the harm, but we as a government will do what we can to limit it and, with a civil law focus, empower those who have been victimised by predators by passing the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018, which I wholeheartedly support. 11:50 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra It's a great pleasure to be speaking to the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018 today. All I can say to those opposite is: about time. Labor first put forward its private members' bill on the issue of non-consensual sharing of intimate images or revenge porn in 2015. It's now 2018. It's now three years later, and we're still discussing the form that this legislation should take. Technology is advancing at lightning speed. As the shadow assistant minister for cybersecurity, I know that regulators and public policymakers throughout the world are grappling with how to keep up with this ever-changing technology environment, which is changing on a daily basis in some sections. Who would have thought, even five years ago, we would have fridges or televisions or dolls that spy on us? It is a challenge for the regulators and it is a challenge for public policymakers to keep up with technology that is advancing so very quickly and with the risks and threats that come as a result of these technological changes. There are, as well, the many advances in technology that are used for good, that create a more engaged society, a more convenient and functioning society, a more connected society and a more equal society. There is a huge opportunity to use technology as a platform for good and there is a huge opportunity to use technology as a platform for the worst. As representatives of our community, we have an obligation to change our laws as technology changes, and this bill represents that. Non-consensual sharing of intimate images refers to the sharing or distribution of an image or video of someone portrayed in a sexual or intimate manner which has been shared online without consent. This includes social media and websites. This parliament needs to send a very clear message, a very strong message, to our communities that this is not acceptable. Labor know this, and we are committed to it. That's why we supported the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017, which introduced a civil penalty regime to combat the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. This bill provides victims of image based abuse with a single entry point to assist in providing redress, whether it's in the form of advice, information, the taking down of imagery or the protection of a person's privacy and reputation. It sets up a statutory regime to be administered by the eSafety Commissioner, including graduated responses from issuing removal notices to the issuing of a remedial notice or direction to ensure a person doesn't contravene the prohibition—a form of deterrence notice, if you like. Since 2015, Labor has been calling again and again on the Turnbull government to criminalise image based online abuse. This, we know, sends a strong message to the victims, the perpetrators, the police and the community that revenge porn is a crime. In 2016, we took a promise to the election that within the first 100 days of being elected we would make this happen, because we understood that this was a matter of urgency. We understood the prevalence of this in our community and we understood that dealing with it was urgent, because we knew it was a very strongly held view that was shared by the Australian people. Later in 2016, Labor reintroduced its private members' bill, but it was removed from the Notice Paper because this government refused to call it on for debate for eight consecutive sitting Mondays. Finally, we were given the opportunity to support this bill in the Senate, and we did so knowing that the civil regime was a step in the right direction. But it did not go far enough in recognising the seriousness of image based abuse. It needed to be criminalised. Less than 24 hours ago, this bill failed to send a message to the community that image based abuse is illegal. For years Labor has been saying there should be a specific criminal offence, and time and time again this government has maintained that existing criminal law is enough and that there is no need for a specific criminal offence. Until yesterday the Turnbull government disagreed with Labor, until yesterday this bill failed to criminalise image based abuse, until yesterday Labor was still calling on the government to get with the times, and until yesterday the Turnbull government continued to waste time insisting to Australians that they didn't need a specific criminal offence for image based abuse. Today, finally, we're pleased that the Turnbull government have finally backflipped. They have accepted the evidence. They've changed their tune and accepted Labor's advice and Labor's leadership on this for years. The government may have been dragged kicking and screaming, and I'm sure they have been, but we are relieved that they've done this. We are relieved that they have finally come to the table, come to their senses and listened to Labor, to the Labor leadership and to the experts on this. Experts, research statistics and the community all agree this amendment should have been a no-brainer. Research from the RMIT indicates that one in five Australians has experienced the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Those who have had their intimate images posted online include one in two Australians with a disability and one in two Indigenous Australians. RMIT has also reported that four out of five Australians agree it should be a crime to share sexual or nude images without permission. Experts agree that the sharing of intimate images without consent is a serious form of abuse and it can cause significant and ongoing harm. In April 2016, the COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children released a report recommending: To clarify the serious and criminal nature of the distribution of intimate material without consent, legislation should be developed that includes strong penalties for adults who do so. In a submission to the department's consultation on the bill, the Australian Information Commissioner stated: The non-consensual sharing of these images is a serious invasion of privacy, which has the potential to cause severe harm, distress and humiliation to the victim. Further, the harm that can be caused through the sharing of such images is exacerbated by rapidly increasing technological capacity for capturing images and making recordings, and the ability to distribute digital material on a vast scale. We've heard through the course of this debate about the increasing technological capacity for capturing images and making those recordings. What can be created—because that's what we're dealing with here in many cases—is just breathtaking and horrific. This research, combined with a lack of leadership from this government, forced the ACT government to lead by example when it comes to non-consensual sharing of images. Instead of waiting around for this government to stop dragging its feet on revenge porn, the ACT Legislative Assembly criminalised this behaviour in 2017. The ACT understood how important it was to stay up to date with technology, and the Crimes (Revenge Porn) Amendment Bill 2017 proves it. The ACT law states that people who publish or threaten to publish non-consensual intimate images online face up to three years in jail or a $45,000 fine. The penalty increases to five years in jail or a fine of up to $75,000 if the victim is aged under 16. In the first six months of this law, several people were charged or convicted. Some of these were convicted of multiple offences. One perpetrator was charged with at least four offences, including printing over 20 intimate images of his ex-partner and threatening to distribute them. The ACT revenge porn law prevented the reputation, dignity and modesty of this victim being destroyed. These laws matter, and the ACT has shown that. The ACT, by taking leadership on this and following federal Labor leadership on this, has proved that these laws matter and that what we have here is a serious problem. Unfortunately, those in the other chamber have decided that the ACT, despite its wisdom on this legislation and the fact that we have had a mature and logical debate about many, many issues since self-government, is incapable of having the full equality and the full rights of everyone in a state in Australia. Yesterday, they basically condemned those in the ACT and those in the Northern Territory to second-class citizenship. We do not enjoy full equality here in the ACT or in the Northern Territory. Despite the fact that we make up 700,000 of the people in the nation, we do not enjoy full equality compared to those in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia and compared to the 500,000 people in Tasmania. In 2018, in this democracy that is Australia, those in the other chamber condemned the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory to inequality, to being second-class citizens in our nation. I am deeply disappointed with what happened in the Senate yesterday, particularly because territory rights were voted down by two votes and particularly when, here in the ACT, we have a mature and logical debate about issues. We take a leadership role on many of these issues. We have taken a leadership public policy role in the context of this debate on revenge porn. I again remind those opposite that, in 2018, in a democracy, in Australia, the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory deserve to be treated as equal citizens to those in the states. Finally, I just want to add that Labor supports and stands by the victims of non-consensual sharing of intimate images, and, since 2015, we've proven that. We understand that revenge porn is not okay and has the capacity to ruin someone's life. I want to make special mention of the tireless efforts of a range of stakeholders in the community who have worked hard to make significant progress on this issue. I also want to acknowledge my colleagues, the members for Gellibrand and Griffith, for taking a leadership role on this. They have been prosecuting this issue and working diligently and tirelessly on this issue for years. Your work has not gone unnoticed; it has finally been noticed even by the Turnbull government. Labor welcomes the backflip from the government. After years of proving our commitment to this bill, I support the government's amendments, especially as they adopt Labor's clear and longstanding leadership and Labor's clear and longstanding position on this issue. 12:03 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein This important piece of legislation, the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018, is designed to target and tackle the problem of revenge porn. It is an incredibly important piece of legislation that should be supported by everybody in this parliament. Sadly, there are many Australians who have experienced the problem of intimate images being taken from them and used for nefarious purposes against their wishes and against their will. This legislation will crack down on that and make sure that there are penalties for people who do so. The bill provides for fines of up to $105,000 for an individual and more than $500,000 for a corporation, if they do not comply with the law. The important thing that this bill will do is enable individuals to register a complaint with the eSafety Commissioner that an intimate image has been taken away from them and used against their will and their wishes and provide for an investigation and an outcome. If an Australian has a problem with this issue, or an Australian has an intimate image that is taken from them, against their wishes, this law will make it possible for them to have a pathway for recourse by going to the eSafety Commissioner, which can be found at esafety.gov.au, to make sure that there is an investigation to have these images taken down. Thank you. 12:04 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie When I was young, there were some technologically-driven constraints on photographs you took. You knew that not only would the person who processed your film see the images but so would your pharmacist, including the sales assistant who opened your photos, flicked through them in front of you, and anyone else who was there, and asked you to check they were yours. To copy and share an image involved a laborious process of getting a copy made from a negative, also involving many people seeing it, and then a good old-fashioned envelope and postage stamp. My point is the likelihood of people feeling comfortable enough to take intimate images, even with consent, was significantly lower than it is today, and sharing those images was much, much harder. Of course, Polaroid changed this. When you could take a photo and see it develop right before your eyes, and your eyes alone, there was a bit more leeway, but the ability to share that image was still limited. It might be discovered by eyes you'd rather not have see it in your sock drawer, but it still wasn't possible for someone to give it wide distribution. However, we all know the digital world has torn away all those constraints. Most of us have a camera by our side almost 24 hours a day, which is why I'm so pleased to be able to support a bill in this House that takes strong action, including criminalisation, against image based abuse online. I want to raise the point that this is not an issue restricted to what is colloquially known as revenge porn. There are a variety of ways that breaches of privacy occur. It's not just kids. It's not only love affairs gone wrong. What this bill addresses is times when there is a breach of trust, a breach of privacy. This is not the fault of the people who have their images shared, and we have to remember that. We must never make the victims that feel they are to blame for someone else manifestly exploiting their privacy. Labor supports the government's amendment to this bill, including the criminal penalties, because this is a view we've held for a very long time, including in the lead-up to the last federal election. We promised that, within the first 100 days of being elected, we would act, because we felt a sense of urgency. This sense of urgency was shared by Australians, who appreciate the profound impact that non-consensual sharing of images has on someone. Four out of five Australians agree that it should be a crime to share sexual or nude images without permission, according to RMIT research. When the government failed to act, we reintroduced a private member's bill in October 2016, but the government refused to call it on for debate for eight consecutive sitting Mondays, so it lapsed. It is a shame that so much time has been wasted by this government in insisting that there was no need for a specific criminal offence for image based abuse. But I guess late is better than never. I want to pay tribute to the people who have worked so hard to make progress on this issue, both within this House and outside, over many years, including people who have been victims of non-consensual sharing of images. I want to speak about the human toll it takes, as people have shared their stories with me. One young man told me of his pain from an incident several years earlier of having an ex-boyfriend share images. They were teenagers, and he hadn't yet come out to his family. It was through seeing images that his younger brother found out that he was gay. It wasn't just the emotional impact of having nude images shared; it was the total loss of control over his own self-determination that was a consequence for this young man. It was, as is so often the case, an abuse of power. When we discussed what would be needed as a deterrent and how strong penalties would need to be to prevent the sharing of images happening in the first place, he agreed that it needed to be a crime for people to share sexual or nude images without permission. I am pleased that this parliament has reached that point. As I've spoken about this issue with young people, I've been saddened by the ease with which angry, vengeful former lovers or friends can harm someone's reputation, their employment, their social relationships, their family and even their personal safety with a single image. Let's be clear on what we mean by non-consensual sharing of intimate images. That's sharing or distributing by any social media service, electronic service or designated internet service an image or a video of somebody portrayed in a sexual or otherwise intimate manner without consent. The content might or might not have been obtained with the consent of the person who is in it. It isn't always revenge porn, but it is always intended to cause harm, distress, humiliation and embarrassment, even when it's just a threat to share that image. It can be an attempt to control, blackmail, coerce or punish a victim. But other motives exist: fun, social notoriety or financial gain. Whatever the reason, it is right that there should be severe penalties and that it should be a crime. RMIT and Monash researchers last year surveyed more than 4,000 Australians aged 16 to 45 and found that nearly a quarter of them reported having been victims of image based abuse. The most common forms were sexual or nude images taken of them without their consent; 20 per cent had experienced that. Eleven per cent said the images had been sent to others or distributed without their consent. Nine per cent had experienced threats that the images would be shared. Interestingly, the survey found that victims reported high levels of psychological distress—that is not surprising—but the impacts were highest for those who had experienced threats to distribute an image. Eighty per cent of these people reported high levels of psychological distress consistent with a diagnosis of moderate to severe depression or anxiety disorder. This demonstrates the severity of the harm associated with image based abuse victimisation. One of the advocates for strong action on this matter is a woman whose privacy was invaded during a gynaecological procedure in 2014. Brieana Rose, as she has chosen to be called in her advocacy role, woke in a hospital recovery suite and saw a nurse showing another nurse something on a mobile phone. Brieana's only thought was that it was strange to see a mobile phone in the recovery room. She didn't really give it much more thought than that. Weeks later, her surgeon rang to say that, while she had been sedated and in stirrups, a nurse had taken an explicit photo of her genitals. The nurse had shared the image with her colleagues, and two nurses had reported her to hospital executives. The nurse was dismissed immediately, but no other action could be taken. Brieana lives in my electorate. She's a mum and a daughter, like me. Brieana's journey for justice to ensure appropriate action can be taken against people who do this, to ensure that the photo is not going to turn up on the internet and to protect her privacy after this shocking invasion has led her to campaign vehemently for changes so that 21st-century laws match 21st-century technology. There was no legal recourse for her, and that's why this legislation is so important. I think this example also shows that a shocking breach of privacy can happen to just about any of us. I repeat: victims are not the cause of this issue. I want to pay tribute to Brieana, who I know personally. She has faced enormous personal pain and consequences from what was done to her, yet her driving force has been to make sure other people, including other women, don't find themselves in a similar place, without recourse. This is why the change to the bill—the latest backflip by the government, and the best one we've seen by far—to have criminal, not just civil, consequences is so significant. This behaviour requires a punishment. That brings me to the options for redress. Labor supports victims having a range of options. Not all victims of image based abuse will want to go down the path of criminal proceedings. Some may prefer to work with the eSafety Commissioner under the civil regime. Some may want to go direct to the service provider. We know that the more prominent social media service providers and content hosts are working to develop innovative technological measures, or already have some things in place, designed to assist victims whose images have been shared without consent. I'd encourage those social media providers to continue this work and note that the bill will not prevent victims from approaching these services in the first place rather than the Office of the eSafety Commissioner. The mechanism for people to do whatever they choose to do, particularly keeping in mind the distress that they will be experiencing when they do it, needs to be easy. I think it's vital that, with a strong legal framework in place, there continues to be a commitment by all parties to see a swift response to this abhorrent behaviour. 12:14 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin The Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018 prohibits the posting or threatening to post of an intimate image without consent on a social media service, relevant electronic service or designated internet service. It also establishes a complaints objection system to be administered by the eSafety Commissioner. It provides the commissioner with powers to issue a removal notice for offending material. As other speakers from this side of the House have made clear, this legislation is long overdue. Innovation in information and communication technology has changed the way society functions. Almost every facet of life is now transacted via the internet or a similar service. People have instant access to the rest of the world. Innovation has transformed the way we live and, in most cases, for the better. Regrettably, however, innovation can equally be used for bad as be used for good. Unfortunately, often it is. Sometimes it is unintentional, but most times it is deliberate. The deliberate misuse of information technology has ruined people's lives, whether it's through scamming people out of their life savings; bullying, which has often led to suicide; accessing a person's personal data; identity theft; the online denial of service, effectively sabotaging a business by affecting its internet connections; or the posting of pornographic materials. Finally, there is the matter we are dealing with today: the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, which this bill seeks to address. It is because of the widespread misuse of online information that there is so much widespread mistrust of the government's My Health Record system. It is because so many other systems have been mismanaged and how easy it is to do that for perpetrators who wish to use the internet system for the wrong purposes. For young people, the internet has become particularly problematic, connecting them to undesirables, sometimes leading to bullying at all hours of the day and night and the sharing of intimate images. I was a member of the inquiry that prepared the report High-wire act: cyber-safety and the youngin 2011, whichtried to address the very issues young people are confronted with each and every day through the use of the internet or cyber systems that we have in this country and around the world. As a member of that committee, I believe that little has changed since 2011 when that report and its 30-odd recommendations were presented. Perpetrators are also always finding new ways to circumvent the safeguards that governments and authorities try to develop. However, when the abuse results in a person being humiliated, shamed and embarrassed to a level that causes long-term psychological harm that can ruin a person's life and a person's relationships, it can be life-threatening. We have reached that point today. When one in five Australians, one in two Australians with a disability and one in two Indigenous Australians have experienced the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, we have a serious problem that must be addressed. It should have been addressed much sooner, as I alluded to earlier on. Labor attempted to do that in 2015 with a private member's bill. That bill included criminal offences for those who perpetrate such action. It has taken the government three years to do the same. One can only wonder: what was it about those original bills that Labor introduced that the government had a problem with? What didn't the government understand about the fact this was a serious matter that needed to be addressed urgently and that, if criminal sanctions did not apply, any other remedy would be less than satisfactory? The crossbenchers and others in this parliament all saw the need for this matter to be dealt with, and the government has finally come back to parliament with a bill that seeks to provide criminal penalties. It is only through the provision of criminal penalties that those people who have a mind to offend others by such actions might be prevented from doing so. They might think twice about doing so, because they know that the consequences will be very serious. However, the fact remains that, once material is shared through the internet, it can never be universally retrieved even if the image is subsequently taken offline. We don't know if those who have seen it have in some way copied and made permanent images of it which they will keep so that perhaps in a future occasion they can use those images for whatever sinister reasons they have in mind. I welcome the introduction of this legislation. As someone who participated in a long inquiry, as I alluded to earlier, with respect to the impact that these kinds of acts can have, particularly on young people, I believe it is a step in the right direction. I do have some reservations about whether this legislation will go far enough. I accept that the penalty provisions are quite adequate, but a couple of matters concern me. The e-Safety Commissioner can issue removal notices requiring images to be removed, and the images have to be removed within 48 hours if a notice is issued. My first concern is that 48 hours of using the internet service is a long time. In 48 hours considerable damage and harm can be done. I would have thought that, if it's possible—and perhaps it's not—the notice should require the immediate removal of the images. I see no reason why that can't be done, but I'd be happy to hear from the government as to why that might not be possible. My other concern is about how this deals with and manages the problem where people under the age of 18 put the images online. As we have heard from others who have spoken in this debate, it's not always adults that are the perpetrators of these kinds of offences; quite often it's minors who are the perpetrators, as well as being the victims. Again, I'm not sure whether this legislation adequately addresses that situation. The reality, however, is that the legislation is an important step towards having a deterrent in place that will prevent people in the future from abusing the opportunities they have to harm someone through the use of the cybersystems of this country and around the world. For those reasons I support this legislation and commend it to the House. 12:23 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I rise to support the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018. Labor supports this bill. We're committed to keeping Australians safe online. In relation to this bill we support the government's intent to combat the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Over several years we have demonstrated our commitment to opposing this insidious and hateful practice, as we have heard from other members this morning, so we support this welcome initiative by the government. However, as we've also heard, we're concerned that this bill does not go far enough. I will return to that point later. In 2015 Labor introduced a private member's bill that would make so-called 'revenge porn' a crime. At that time the sponsors of the bill, my friend the member for Griffith and the member for Gellibrand, made the case for the need to make revenge porn a crime. They described a case—regrettably, not an uncommon scenario—of a young woman who fell in love and shared confidences with her partner, but whose first, innocent and trusting love has turned into the partner's overly protective and controlling behaviour and whose trust has been betrayed. When the young woman suggests she needs to have her own life, perhaps see other people, he pulls out his phone and shows her a picture of them together naked and clearly having sex. That is clearly an intimate and private scene, something to share only with the man she loved. He puts the photo away and tells her that she needs to watch herself. He makes it clear that he has something to hold over her now. If she even thinks about disobeying him or disrespecting him, let alone leaving him, then the photo won't be private anymore. Perhaps the photo was her idea, perhaps his. Either way, she never thought he would betray her trust or would want to hurt her like that. As the members for Griffith and Gellibrand said, no-one wants private images sent around to their friends, family or workmates without their consent. It is beyond embarrassing. It's a horrible sexual violation that can have a serious impact on victims' health and even their personal safety. Revenge porn is an extreme example of how new technologies are being used to exercise power and control to shame victims and to silence them. It should be a criminal offence. Labor went to the 2016 election promising to legislate to criminalise revenge porn within 100 days of being elected. Unfortunately, that did not happen. We went close but did not quite get over the line. So, in October 2016, Labor introduced another private member's bill, but the government allowed it to lapse in 2017. Labor has a strong record in working to protect Australians online. That is why we support the intent of this bill. The Information Commissioner stated in a submission to the Department of Communications and the Arts: The non-consensual sharing of these images is a serious invasion of privacy, which has the potential to cause severe harm, distress and humiliation to the victim. Further, the harm that can be caused through the sharing of such images is exacerbated by rapidly increasing technological capacity for capturing images and making recordings, and the ability to distribute digital material on a vast scale. While the non-consensual sharing of intimate images can often occur as a result of the ex-partner of a victim distributing images of the victim for the purpose of seeking revenge, as in the realistic scenario described by the members for Griffith and Gellibrand, it can also involve acquaintances or complete strangers distributing the images. The practice is generally intended to cause harm, distress, humiliation and embarrassment, whether through the actual sharing and distribution of intimate images or the threat to share, often in an attempt to control, blackmail, coerce or punish a victim. This is sometimes referred to as sextortion. Other motives might include sexual gratification, fun, social notoriety or financial gain. As the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield, said in the Senate in speaking to this bill: … Australians are immersing themselves in the online world through social networking sites, online games, smartphones and tablets … the internet is a vital tool for education, research, entertainment and social interaction; however … the internet can be used for the wrong purposes, which can lead to very tragic consequences. He was referring to online bullying in particular. I agree with the minister that there need to be a range of responses to online abuse, which can take various forms and which can include education, civil and criminal responses and the efforts of government, non-government and community bodies. This bill is one response, and we support it. Several points made in the bill's explanatory memorandum can be highlighted. The non-consensual posting of an intimate image is a serious breach of a person's right to privacy. The posting of an intimate image without consent is also an attack on a person's reputation. It can have far-reaching consequences for the victim's personal relationships and friendships and may also impact a victim's employment or other prospects which are contingent on their reputation. The Australian public recognise the abhorrence of this practice and the significant harm it causes victims and expect an appropriate regime to be enacted to prevent and minimise harm to victims or potential victims. The bill amends the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 to, among other things, prohibit the posting on the internet of intimate images without consent, establish a complaint system to be administered by the eSafety Commissioner and establish a civil penalty regime to be administered by the eSafety Commissioner. This is where we believe the bill does not go far enough. We believe the bill should criminalise the posting of intimate images without consent. Civil penalties are not a sufficient deterrent for these abhorrent actions. The government says there is no need to introduce a new criminal offence because, under the Criminal Code, it is already an offence to use a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence. This is a very broad offence and is not well enforced in relation to image based offences. Labor sought information in Senate estimates about the enforcement of this provision of the Criminal Code. The Australian Federal Police told us that 844 charges have been proved against 410 defendants from 2004 to 2016. I'm sure members will agree with me that this is a very low number, given the pervasive nature of the internet into virtually every part of our modern lives. What is more, it is not possible to tell from these figures how many are offences related to the non-consensual posting of intimate images. We do not know how many of these charges related to this sort of vindictive and malicious posting of sensitive or intimate pictures or videos. There may have been no charges relating to that kind of action. Then there is the inherent issue with civil action. It puts the onus on the victim, already distressed and humiliated, to take action against the perpetrator, with consequent further distress and expense. In fact a civil regime may make this situation worse. It may encourage the police to refer cases to the eSafety Commissioner instead of prosecuting. In my electorate, the Top End Women's Legal Service in Darwin wrote in its submission to the Senate inquiry: … criminal offences effectively serve as a symbolic and educative function … a tailored offence … would clearly highlight and reinforce the 'wrongfulness' of … this behaviour … The government's refusal to make this a criminal offence is out of step with the Australian community. There is presently a piecemeal approach to this issue across Australia, with no nationally consistent criminal laws. I understand it is a criminal offence in Victoria and South Australia to share an intimate or invasive image without consent or to threaten to distribute such an image. I was pleased to see earlier this year that in the Northern Territory our Labor government has also taken action to criminalise the sharing of, or threats to share, intimate images without consent, introducing a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment. Our attorney-general, Natasha Fyles, said: We're sending a strong message to the community that image-based abuse is an unacceptable and serious offence with long lasting effects for the victim. Importantly, under the NT law the shared image does not necessarily have to be sexual in nature to be in breach if it is considered to be a significant invasion of privacy. Telecommunications services, constitutionally, are a Commonwealth matter. The area of online safety we are considering in this bill is clearly a telecommunications matter where the Commonwealth should take a strong leadership position. The Federal Police told a Senate hearing that 'uniformity in legislation across Australia would be most helpful to police' to be able to investigate and charge perpetrators. I acknowledge that the major social media platforms have policies and procedures to address the problem of bullying and image based abuse. However, the recent Four Corners program about Facebook has led to doubts about how effective these measures may be, particularly in relation to far right and extremist views. It may be in Facebook's commercial interest to include such extremist material, as it attracts followers and viewers and makes Facebook more attractive to advertisers. I say this because I realise we are not considering racist hate speech and provocative opinions specifically in relation to this bill and that they raise complex questions of freedom of speech, but they do raise doubts in my mind about how far we can rely on the social media platforms to regulate themselves. It reinforces the need to have strong Commonwealth laws to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Bearing in mind my misgivings about this bill's shortcomings and in particular the unsatisfactory consequence of civil rather than criminal prosecution, I support the bill. 12:34 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith It's been about three years since the member for Gellibrand and I first introduced a private member's bill seeking to deal with what was then colloquially known as 'revenge porn' but is now more accurately described as image based abuse or the sharing of intimate videos and images without consent. When we first tabled that bill, it's fair to say that we were surprised to receive a lukewarm response from the government. It seemed to us to be a no-brainer. There was a growing problem in the community where people were being targeted, harassed and victimised through either threats to share intimate images or videos, or the actual sharing of intimate images and videos. When something like that happens to a person, it can ruin them not just for a short period but for a very long time—because those things stay on the internet, don't they? You can imagine future employers googling someone—it's now pretty routine when someone applies for a job—and, when something like that comes up, it's pretty hard to understand the level of embarrassment and humiliation that it could cause. Of course there's the humiliation and embarrassment that the person suffers at the time because of the invasion of their privacy but also, more broadly, the reaction from family and friends that can occur. When the member for Gellibrand and I first moved the private member's bill, we were hearing from academics, service providers and individuals about the impact these things were having on peoples' lives, including causing serious psychological conditions for people. It was a fairly new thing in 2015 to legislate specifically against the sharing of intimate images and videos without someone's consent; however, a few jurisdictions in the United States had done it, and there was beginning to be some interest in doing it from some of the jurisdictions here in Australia. We were concerned that we'd end up with a patchwork of different forms of regulation if we left it to the states. We thought that there should be a very clear, unified message coming from the Commonwealth about the fact that this is not acceptable behaviour. When I say there could've been a patchwork of regulation, you see in some jurisdictions a requirement for the perpetrator to have intended to cause harm. In other jurisdictions, it's just the lack of consent—that's enough. These sound like fairly minor considerations, but in fact they can change the likelihood of success in a prosecution. We also thought that the broader question of leadership was a really important one. There was too much of a propensity at the time for people to excuse this sort of conduct, to say, 'You know, it's just kids. They're just having a laugh. It's just teasing. The person shouldn't have allowed the photo to be taken in the first place.' These victim-blaming or minimising views about the non-consensual distribution of intimate images and videos, we thought, were completely inappropriate, and what was required was for the nation's parliament to stand up and say: 'This is wrong. It's not a minor thing to do to someone. It's wrong, and it should be criminal.' That doesn't stop state jurisdictions from legislating and proscribing these things themselves, and I'm well aware that the minister at the time was doing some work with state attorneys-general and ministers to look at what could be done to have a harmonised scheme across the country in relation to this issue and other abuses of technology that harm people. I appreciate that work on the part of the government, but what we thought was needed was a very strong signal from the highest authorities in the country and from this parliament, the nation's parliament, to say: 'It's not right. You can't do this to someone.' We continued to persist with that private member's bill, and there was a very good Senate investigation into the bill. I want to place on record my gratitude to the senators who were involved in that Senate inquiry and to all of the submitters who took the time to make submissions in relation to the private member's bill that we moved on this issue more generally, including the CDPP, the Federal Police and a range of stakeholders, as well as stakeholders from civil society. As I said, at the time I thought it was a no-brainer that this was something that would be done eventually by consensus. Imagine my surprise that it's now three years later, and we're only just now debating this legislation as a government bill in the House of Representatives. We in Labor didn't want to wait. We took to the 2016 election a commitment to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of image based abuse. Obviously we didn't win that election, so we weren't in a position to bring government legislation to this House. But we took it to the election, and after the election, on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women—also known in this country at White Ribbon Day—the Leader of the Opposition made a further commitment that a future Labor government would criminalise image based abuse of this type if we were successful in winning the election. We have had an unwavering commitment to tackling head-on this pernicious form of abuse, and we continue to have that unwavering commitment. I was until very recently the shadow assistant minister for preventing family violence. In that capacity I spoke with a range of women's organisations and women's legal services who told me that this issue was rife. I've also spoken with young women who are facing this as an issue right now. I have to say, I'm 40 years old, and I really can't imagine what it would be like to be 20 years old, to be just growing into yourself, becoming who you're going to be but also having to face this really difficult set of circumstances whereby there is so much invasion, so much surveillance, such a lack of privacy and so much risk because of the communications technology that now exists, which simply did not exist when I was that age. Whatever we can do to show leadership about the proper use of those technologies and the proper respect that should be afforded to people in respect of their bodily autonomy, their right to privacy and their right not to be humiliated and abused, then we should do that. I want to also mention that as well as speaking to a lot of stakeholders about this issue I've had the opportunity to work with some really good people in our own ranks to come up with the original private member's bill that the member for Gellibrand and I tabled. I particularly want to record my appreciation to Stephanie Watkins, who was in my office at the time, and to Lara Freidin, who was in Tim Watts's office at the time. They can both be really proud of the work they've done to deal with this issue. They are both young women themselves and really have done so much to advance the cause of standing up against abuse of women in this country through their work here, and it's really an enduring legacy. I know we all have a lot of staff who work very hard, and I think sometimes we could do a bit more to acknowledge the work that they all do and the contributions they all make to changing the way this country works. I see that some of the minister's staff are here as well, and I'd like to express my appreciation to everyone who's worked on this bill and on the amendments we moved during the consideration-in-detail stage. This bill is something that has been a long time coming. For those who have been victims of what we now call image based abuse, I hope it brings them some comfort to know that their public advocacy, in some cases, has not been for nothing and that this bill will go at least some way to preventing what has happened to them happening to other people. There have been some really famous cases of sex tapes being leaked. There have been some really famous cases of women standing up in respect of ongoing abuse and harassment from former and current partners. Those cases have been appearing in the media for many years. This is an opportunity for us as a nation to stand up together in a bipartisan way and say: 'This sort of abuse is not on. It's wrong to use peoples' most-intimate moments, most-trusting moments as a weapon against them.' If a photo or a video like this exists, it's because someone has trusted someone else so much. For that abuse of trust to occur as a means of, for example, seeking to control someone or seeking to cause them harm because you're angry at them, it's particularly egregious and it deserves its own specific criminal offence. Obviously, we have the carriage service criminal offence. That's important. Some of the submissions in the Senate inquiry into our private member's bill noted that that wouldn't necessarily cover the full range of situations that a specific offence could cover. But the other important thing about a specific offence, of course, is not just the tools that it equips the police with but the message it communicates about what this parliament believes should be a criminal offence. I'm very grateful to everyone who's worked on this bill. I commend the bill to the House, and I certainly look forward to its passage. 12:45 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to support the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018. This bill criminalises the non-consensual sharing of intimate images and complements the earlier legislation passed by this House and by the parliament, the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Act 2017. I wish to use this opportunity to express my deep thanks and gratitude to my colleague, former Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore, whose contributions to the development of both bills were meaningful, heartfelt and significant. This was certainly an issue very close to the senator's heart. In relation to the previous bill, I spoke about the frequency of image based abuse in our society and the severity of its impact, and I'll briefly revisit and summarise those remarks. I noted that, sadly, the frequency of non-consensual sharing of intimate images, more controversially known as revenge porn, is increasing in Australia. I referred to an RMIT study that found that an astonishing one in five Australians have experienced image based abuse. The study found that people who were disabled, Indigenous Australians and younger Australians were more likely to be victims, although the issue does affect many Australians from all corners of our society. Women and men are equally likely to report being a victim, but women are more likely than men to fear for their safety due to image based abuse. The non-consensual sharing of intimate images causes real harm, not only to women but predominantly to women. It stigmatises victims, destroys social relationships, causes great anxiety and distress and leads to serious mental health issues. Despairingly, in some cases, these acts have led to self-harm and to people taking their own lives. Although revenge pornography has been the focus of most of the attention, the non-consensual sharing of images, as some fellow honourable members have mentioned today, is often used by perpetrators as a means of blackmail and control, to extract money, disrupt relationships and compel unwanted sexual acts. The same RMIT study found that four in five Australians agree it should be a crime to share sexual or nude images without permission. It is no surprise that the level of support for criminalisation is so high. I commend the parliament for working together to ensure that these atrocious acts become criminal offences. The government's amendments to this bill are a compromise. While the amendments do not introduce the additional offences proposed by Centre Alliance to specifically target image based abuse, they do build on and strengthen existing offences to punish those who use technology to share private sexual material. I strongly urge the parliament to support this bill. 12:48 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I rise with my colleagues to support the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018. I acknowledge, as other people have done, all of those who have been involved in drafting this bill and, in particular, the women and men that have been so brave in their advocacy for making this bill a reality today. Labor will support this bill, and we also support the amendment that is being suggested. We know that this bill will amend the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015. It will prohibit posting, or threats to post, an intimate image on social media without consent. It will establish a complaints and objection system to be administered by the eSafety Commissioner. It will empower the commissioner to issue removal notices and other remedial orders and will establish a civil penalty regime, which I think is one of most powerful aspects of this bill. Labor welcomes this bill. In supporting this bill we recognise that the sharing of intimate images causes humiliation, distress and absolutely real harm. It not only inflicts psychological harm but also affects relationships and employment, pervading all aspects of one's life. It is difficult to imagine the fear, shame, anxiety and humiliation, but it is very real. Many of us would know people that have been affected, who were in what they thought was a trusted relationship only to find that that trust has been breached. Perhaps that's the most difficult thing for so many people. We can all understand and have had experiences perhaps not in this sphere, but of having our trust abused. It is not something that is easy to come to terms with. In the day and age we now live in, we know these kinds of images can reach thousands, if not millions, around the world. It seems to me that part of the aim for this bill is about education and, getting young people to understand that what you post is not private and can never go away. This bill sends a clear message to the community and to young people: the sharing of intimate images without consent will not be tolerated in our community. The non-consensual sharing of intimate images is a breach of trust and of privacy, as I said. As the shadow minister for preventing family violence I emphasise that it is a serious form of abuse and a form of coercive control. Women are more likely than men to be victims of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The effect on women is significant, given that one in 10 Australians have had a nude or semi-nude image distributed online or sent to others without their permission. There are many misleading connotations that come with the term 'revenge porn'—that is, it is an act of vengeance and is somehow justified. It is not. Porn trivialises the act of abuse and implies there was some consent, and there is not. Let us be clear: the victims are never to blame, and the sharing of non-consensual intimate images is a serious form of abuse which inflicts grave harm upon those that have been affected. All abuse is concerning. All image based abuse is concerning. In the context of family or domestic violence, reports from groups such as the Women's Legal Service New South Wales or Victims Services have been particularly concerning. We now know intimate images are being used in abusive relationships as a mechanism of power and control. In some instances women are being coerced to stay in relationships out of fear, shame or humiliation that these images could be shared. We've heard the threat of sharing intimate images used as a means of pressuring women to settle disputes in Family Court proceedings. Image based abuse represents an emerging and escalating policy area in the prevention of family violence. We welcome the work that has been done on this. I finish by saying that, by criminalising image based abuse, we are saying that it is no less serious than any other form of abuse. I think that is a really important point to make in the passage of this bill. This is grave, has serious impacts and harms so many people. We know that. Labor called on the government to make the non-consensual sharing of intimate images a crime, and we welcome the government's cooperation. It has been a big effort for many, and education—teaching the importance of respectful and healthy relationships—is part of this discussion. Once again, Labor welcomes this particular piece of legislation. 12:54 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Let me begin by thanking all of those in this chamber who've contributed to the debate on the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018. It is pleasing that there is bipartisan support for this piece of legislation, although I could not help noticing, when listening to the debate, some rather misleading statements coming from the other side of the chamber—an assertion that the government had 'backflipped' in relation to bringing forward additional criminal penalties and an assertion that Labor had provided leadership by promising to legislate criminal penalties within 100 days of being elected. We do know that Labor is the 'gonna' party. Labor's always 'gonna' fix it; they're always 'gonna' get it done. They were 'gonna' deliver a National Broadband Network, but it was a chaotic mess. They were 'gonna' have a national pink batts scheme; we know what a disaster that was. They were 'gonna' end the double drop-off—Mr Deputy Speaker, you'd remember that one—and they didn't do well there either. The fact is, Labor is the 'gonna' party; the coalition is the party that gets it done. When it comes to enhancing online safety in relation to the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, we are getting it done. Let's be clear on the issue of civil penalties versus criminal penalties. The government stood ready to legislate a civil penalty scheme in February, and we said at the same time that we wanted to separately examine the introduction of criminal penalties. In our view, it would have been better, in the interests of victims of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, of revenge porn—for people who'd been subject to this terrible treatment, this terrible attack on their dignity and on their self-esteem—to legislate the civil penalty provisions. Had that happened, they would have been in force now for several months. They would have been delivering active protection to victims of this conduct—practical protection—for several months. Regrettably, thanks to Labor's political grandstanding, victims have had to wait. That, I think, is a matter for regret. I'd say to the other side of the House: let's remember that we're here to serve the Australian people, including those who are victims of revenge porn, rather than scoring political points. The Turnbull government, by contrast, has worked methodically through this issue, making sure that criminal provisions are properly developed, that they are based upon the outcomes that victims want to see. It is detailed work, and we've done that detailed work. That stands in contrast to grandiose but ultimately empty claims from the other side of the chamber. It has been common ground, rightly, amongst all participants in this debate to say that Australians are of course immersing themselves in the online world through social networking sites, online games, smartphones and tablet. That, on balance, delivers enormous social benefits. The internet is a vital tool for education and for research. It has great capacity to provide entertainment and social interaction. But it can also be used for purposes that are harmful, purposes that can have very tragic consequences. That's why the government has brought forward this bill, which reflects the government's ongoing commitment to keeping Australians safe online and sends a clear message to all Australians that the non-consensual sharing of intimate images is unacceptable in our society. This bill creates a prohibition against the non-consensual posting or threat to post an intimate image on a social media service, on a relevant electronic service such as email and text messaging or on a designated internet service, and that includes websites and peer-to-peer file-sharing services. The bill establishes a complaints and objection system to be administered by the eSafety Commissioner whereby victims or persons authorised on behalf of victims will be able to lodge a complaint directly to the eSafety Commissioner where there is reason to believe that an intimate image has been posted or there has been a threat for it to be posted without consent. The bill will facilitate the removal of an image where a person initially consented to an image being shared but has subsequently changed their mind and now wishes to have the image removed. People in this situation will be able to lodge an objection notice with the commissioner. The ability to take down intimate images quickly is a primary concern of victims and of support services. The bill will introduce a civil penalty regime to be enforced by the eSafety Commissioner. Penalties of up to $105,000 for individuals and up to $525,000 for corporations can be incurred for a breach of the prohibition or a failure to comply with the removal notice or other remedial direction issued by the eSafety Commissioner. In the Senate, the bill was amended by the inclusion of provisions to amend the Criminal Code 1995 to create new criminal offences for the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The government carefully examined the provisions moved by the Centre Alliance party in the Senate, and, through that examination, we identified a range of technical issues with the operations of the amendments and inconsistencies with the definitions and provisions in the civil penalty regime currently in the bill. Today, therefore, the government will move an amendment to the bill which retains the intent of the Centre Alliance amendments to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of intimate images but does so in a way that is more effective and more appropriate for the criminal justice system. This amendment creates two new aggravated offences in the Criminal Code that deal specifically with the non-consensual sharing of private sexual material and attract significantly higher penalties. The special aggravated offence sends a very clear message: if a perpetrator has been issued three or more civil penalty orders under the civil penalty regime established by the bill and still does not get the message that image based abuse has serious consequences, the court will have the discretion to impose a maximum penalty of up to seven years imprisonment. This bill demonstrates that the government and Australian society as a whole will not tolerate the sharing of intimate images without consent. This government is serious about protecting Australians online. This bill has been developed in consultation with many stakeholders, including women's safety organisations, mental health experts, schools, education departments, victims, the eSafety Commissioner and members of the government's Online Safety Consultative Working Group. Again, I thank all who have participated in this debate, and I call on all in the chamber to support the bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 33 13:03 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendment (1) on sheet LC173: (1) Schedule 2, page 28 (line 1) to page 35 (line 24), omit the Schedule, substitute: Schedule 2—Amendment of the Criminal Code Act 1995 Criminal Code Act 1995 1 Section 473 .1 of the Criminal Code Insert: private sexual material means: (a) material that: (i) depicts a person who is, or appears to be, 18 years of age or older and who is engaged in, or appears to be engaged in, a sexual pose or sexual activity (whether or not in the presence of other persons); and (ii) does so in circumstances that reasonable persons would regard as giving rise to an expectation of privacy; or (b) material the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction of: (i) a sexual organ or the anal region of a person who is, or appears to be, 18 years of age or older; or (ii) the breasts of a female person who is, or appears to be, 18 years of age or older; where the depiction is in circumstances that reasonable persons would regard as giving rise to an expectation of privacy. Note: For material that relates to a person who is, or appears to be, under 18 years of age, see: (a) the definition of child pornography material; and (b) the child pornography offences in Subdivision D. subject of private sexual material means: (a) if the material is covered by paragraph (a) of the definition of private sexual material—the person first mentioned in that paragraph; or (b) if the material is covered by paragraph (b) of the definition of private sexual material—the person mentioned in whichever of subparagraph (b) (i) or (ii) of that definition is applicable. 2 Section 473 .4 of the Criminal Code Before "The matters", insert "(1)". 3 At the end of section 473 .4 of the Criminal Code Add: (2) If: (a) a particular use of a carriage service involves the transmission, making available, publication, distribution, advertisement or promotion of material; and (b) the material is private sexual material; then, in deciding for the purposes of this Part whether reasonable persons would regard the use of the carriage service as being, in all the circumstances, offensive, regard must be had to whether the subject, or each of the subjects, of the private sexual material gave consent to the transmission, making available, publication, distribution, advertisement or promotion of the material. (3) Subsection (2) does not limit subsection (1). Definition (4) In this section: consent means free and voluntary agreement. 4 After section 474 .17 of the Criminal Code Insert: 474.17A Aggravated offences involving private sexual material—using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence Standard aggravated offence (1) A person commits an offence against this subsection if: (a) the person commits an offence (the underlying offence) against subsection 474.17(1); and (b) the commission of the underlying offence involves the transmission, making available, publication, distribution, advertisement or promotion of material; and (c) the material is private sexual material. Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years. (2) There is no fault element for the physical element described in paragraph (1) (a) other than the fault elements (however described), if any, for the underlying offence. (3) To avoid doubt, a person does not commit the underlying offence for the purposes of paragraph (1) (a) if the person has a defence to the underlying offence. Special aggravated offence (4) A person commits an offence against this subsection if: (a) the person commits an offence (the underlying offence) against subsection 474.17(1); and (b) the commission of the underlying offence involves the transmission, making available, publication, distribution, advertisement or promotion of material; and (c) the material is private sexual material; and (d) before the commission of the underlying offence, 3 or more civil penalty orders were made against the person under the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 in relation to contraventions of subsection 44B(1) of the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015. Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years. (5) There is no fault element for the physical element described in paragraph (4) (a) other than the fault elements (however described), if any, for the underlying offence. (6) To avoid doubt, a person does not commit the underlying offence for the purposes of paragraph (4) (a) if the person has a defence to the underlying offence. (7) Absolute liability applies to paragraph (4) (d). Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2. Double jeopardy etc. (8) A person who has been convicted or acquitted of an offence (the aggravated offence) against subsection (1) may not be convicted of an offence against subsection 474.17(1) or subsection (4) of this section in relation to the conduct that constituted the aggravated offence. (9) Subsection (8) does not prevent an alternative verdict under section 474.17B. (10) A person who has been convicted or acquitted of an offence (the aggravated offence) against subsection (4) may not be convicted of an offence against subsection 474.17(1) or subsection (1) of this section in relation to the conduct that constituted the aggravated offence. (11) Subsection (10) does not prevent an alternative verdict under section 474.17B. (12) A person who has been convicted or acquitted of an offence (the underlying offence) against subsection 474.17(1) may not be convicted of an offence against subsection (1) or (4) of this section in relation to the conduct that constituted the underlying offence. When conviction must be set aside (13) If: (a) a person has been convicted by a court of an offence against subsection (4) on the basis that 3 or more civil penalty orders were made against the person under the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 in relation to contraventions of subsection 44B(1) of the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015; and (b) one or more of those civil penalty orders are set aside or reversed on appeal; and (c) if the civil penalty orders covered by paragraph (b) had never been made, the person could not have been convicted of the offence; and (d) the person applies to the court for the conviction to be set aside; the court must set aside the conviction. (14) If: (a) a person has been convicted by a court of an offence (the aggravated offence) against subsection (4); and (b) the court sets aside the conviction under subsection (13); the setting aside of the conviction does not prevent proceedings from being instituted against the person for an offence against subsection 474.17(1) or subsection (1) of this section in relation to the conduct that constituted the aggravated offence. 474.17B Alternative verdict if aggravated offence not proven (1) If, on a trial for an offence (the aggravated offence) against subsection 474.17A(1), the trier of fact: (a) is not satisfied that the defendant is guilty of the aggravated offence; but (b) is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of an offence against subsection 474.17(1); it may find the defendant not guilty of the aggravated offence but guilty of the offence against subsection 474.17(1), so long as the defendant has been accorded procedural fairness in relation to that finding of guilt. (2) If, on a trial for an offence (the aggravated offence) against subsection 474.17A(4), the trier of fact: (a) is not satisfied that the defendant is guilty of the aggravated offence; but (b) is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of an offence against subsection 474.17(1) or subsection 474.17A(1); it may find the defendant not guilty of the aggravated offence but guilty of the offence against subsection 474.17(1) or subsection 474.17A(1), so long as the defendant has been accorded procedural fairness in relation to that finding of guilt. This government is deeply committed to providing a safer online environment for all Australians. The government has a duty to ensure that, with ever evolving technology and expanding communications methods, the Commonwealth laws provide a deterrent and sound basis for prosecuting offenders who would do Australians harm. Combating the non-consensual sharing of intimate images requires a national approach across education, victim support, civil avenues and law enforcement agencies. To that end, the government introduced civil penalties for intimate image abuse in the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill. This bill will create a civil penalty regime that will give victims a timely, accessible and effective means of redress to remove intimate images shared maliciously through a carriage service. This new civil prohibition regime will address the primary concern of victims, which is a legislative system that facilitates the rapid removal of images without having to rely on the criminal justice system. The government has now moved this amendment to the bill to introduce new offences that will create higher criminal penalties for the online distribution of intimate images, complementing the civil prohibition and penalty regime proposed in the bill. This amendment sends a clear message: this behaviour will not be tolerated. Where private sexual material is criminally distributed online, significantly higher penalties will apply. This government has a demonstrated history of protecting Australians online through enacting legislation creating the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, who champions the safety of all Australians online. This bill and this amendment represent a further step to protecting Australians online. It is important that the criminal justice system provides appropriate redress for more serious forms of image based abuse, such as perpetrators continuing to share intimate images after multiple civil penalty orders have been made. Repeated image based abuse is a significantly more serious and malicious form of online harassment that deeply affects a person's right to privacy and self-integrity, warranting a significantly higher criminal penalty. The amendment creates two new aggravated offences for the Commonwealth offence of using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence, which has been successfully used to prosecute image based abuse. The aggravated offences will apply higher penalties in two circumstances—firstly, where the use of the carriage service involves dealings in private sexual material and, secondly, where the use of the carriage service involves dealings in private sexual material and three or more civil penalty orders have been made under the civil penalty regime established by the bill. The current offence for using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence has a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment. This amendment will increase the maximum penalty to five years imprisonment for dealings in private sexual material and seven years imprisonment for repeat offenders of the civil penalty regime. The amendment also inserts a definition of 'private sexual material' and ensures that consent is taken into account when considering whether the use of a carriage service to distribute private sexual material is offensive. This bill and the amendment I have moved will ensure Australians have greater protections from online image based abuse and will serve as a significant deterrent to those who would exploit a person's trust and privacy in such a malicious fashion. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 36 13:08 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 36 COMMITTEES Intergenerational Welfare Dependence 36 Appointment 36 13:09 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin by leave—I move: That Ms Sharkie be appointed a member of the Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence. Question agreed to. BILLS 36 BILLS Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2018 36

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2018

Second Reading 36 13:09 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I rise to speak on the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2018. The bill before the House contains a number of small amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995, and from the outset I will say that Labor will support this bill. These amendments are consistent with the Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2018 tabled in parliament on 7 February 2018 and the Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2018 tabled in parliament on 31 May 2018. The bill also makes a technical amendment to schedule 12 of the Customs Tariff Act. These changes will support business, including Australia's agricultural industry, ensure ongoing relations with Indonesia and clarify the framework relating to tariffs. Whilst Labor welcomes these amendments, I note that it has taken this out-of-touch Turnbull government a long time to implement these changes—much longer than was expected by industry. Some of these commitments were first announced by the Prime Minister and the President of the Republic of Indonesia on 26 February 2017. Then, on 20 September 2017, the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, and his Indonesian counterpart, had what Fairfax described as a 'groundhog day' moment, announcing these commitments again, the same commitments announced some seven months earlier by the Prime Minister. Matthew Busch, a research fellow at the Lowy Institute, described the announcement in The Interpreter: Somewhat incredibly, these were essentially the same items the leaders announced in February. That it took seven months to draw up the rules makes one wonder if they were hastily thrown together at the end of a visit otherwise devoid of concrete economic progress. The Turnbull government stated they were going to have a free trade agreement with Indonesia, the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership, finalised by the end of 2017, but I note they failed to achieve that, continually shifting the goalposts as negotiations with Indonesia continued. We would expect that any free trade agreement would be in the best interests of Australian businesses, consumers and local workers and urge the government to do it with utmost diligence and competency. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill implements an earlier outcome of the Indonesia-Australia closer economic partnership agreement. The bill repeals certain items in schedule 8, bringing forward the removal of customs duties for several herbicides and pesticides. These measures are outlined in Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2018. By repealing those items, duties on certain imports are removed, including rodenticides, fungicides, antisprouting products and plant growth regulators, disinfectants containing a certain range of active substances, and all insecticides and herbicides imported from Indonesia. Previously the duty for these items was set at five per cent, reducing to 'free' from January 2020. By bringing the removal of these items forward, Indonesian pesticides and herbicides used by Australian farmers will be more competitive in the Australian market, offering greater choice to consumers. I note the application of these duties is retrospective to 20 September 2017—and I might call that the date of groundhog day announced by the minister for trade. I urge the government to monitor any impacts of the removal of the duty on these items, including ensuring illegal and counterfeit pesticides do not enter Australia. In return for these measures, Indonesia will reduce customs duties on Australian sugar exports from Australia into their country, which I will detail the benefits of shortly. The bill creates a new schedule to provide a 'free' rate of customs duty for placebos imported for certain clinical trials and clinical trial kits containing either or both medicaments and placebos. Currently, these are classified to separate parts of the Customs Tariff Act and must be separately identified and quantified under reporting requirements. These changes simplify import reporting requirements for these items imported for use in clinical trials, with the aim of promoting Australia as a destination for international clinical trials. As mentioned, this bill makes a technical amendment to schedule 12 of the Customs Tariff Act. Section 12 of the Customs Tariff Act relates to originating goods for which there is or was a customs duty other than 'free' at the time that the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement entered into force. Table item 135 is now redundant. The amendments before the House remove the table of preferential customs duty rates. The removal of table item 135 aligns schedule 12 and schedule 3. I note that the financial impacts of the bill before the House are very minimal—a total of $3 million over the forward estimates—with zero financial impact from 2020-21 and financial years onwards. Following Australia's commitments that I detailed earlier, the Indonesian government has agreed to reduce the customs duty on Australian sugar exports in return. I'm pleased that the Indonesian agreement has been welcomed by Australian sugarcane growers. In 2015 the Indonesian government reduced the tariff on sugar exports from Thailand to Indonesia to a rate of five per cent. By comparison, the tariff rate for Australian sugar exports remained at eight per cent. Whilst these percentages may mean little to the average Australian or layperson, the three per cent rate means that Thai sugar was around $30 per tonne cheaper to import into Indonesia than Australian sugar. In early 2017 canegrowers said that the result of this was that Australian sugar exports to Indonesia fell from one million tonnes per annum to 200,000 tonnes per annum. This loss of sales into Indonesia between 2015 and 2017 alone meant a financial burden on Australian sugarcane growers, with exporters forced to look to other countries to export to. Australia is the second-largest raw sugar exporter in the world, with countries in Asia, such as South Korea, Indonesia, Japan and Malaysia, being some of our most important markets. Throughout regional and rural Queensland, my home state, and northern New South Wales there are 4,000 farmers, who grow 35 million tonnes of sugarcane each year. As a proud Queenslander I can say that 95 per cent of Australian sugarcane is grown in Queensland, and it's vital for country towns such as Bundaberg, Mackay, Ayr and Gordonvale. Sugarcane production is worth $2.5 billion to the Australian economy, and hopefully these tariff changes—and Indonesia has also committed to allow further exports—will mean growth and revenue for an industry that's vital to the Australian economy and vital to my home state's economy. Whilst it may take some time for the economic benefits of Indonesia's tariff reduction to flow through, we on this side of the chamber welcome Indonesia's commitments, because they mean opportunities for Queensland and Australian sugarcane growers. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2018 makes some very small albeit very important amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. Labor will always hold the Turnbull government to account, even in matters such as tariff proposals. to ensure that our complex and important tariff framework is clear and functional. I would urge the Turnbull government to continue its work with its Indonesian counterparts to ensure the best possible trading environment for Australian business and consumers alike, particularly for sugarcane growers in my home state of Queensland. I commend the bill to the House. 13:17 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2018 contains a number of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act that will assist Australian businesses and consumers. The first set of amendments in the bill implement an early outcome of the Indonesia-Australia Closer Economic Partnership Agreement by providing a free rate of duty for certain herbicides and pesticides imported from Indonesia. These amendments are consistent with Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2018. The second set of amendments in the bill create a concessional item for eligible blinded clinical trial kits and placebos used in clinical trials. This will make the importation of these goods into Australia cheaper through the removal of customs duty while also simplifying the import process and reducing red tape. These amendments are consistent with Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2018. The final amendment made by the bill realigns schedule 12 with the other schedules of the act by removing a redundant item. I therefore commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 38 13:19 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 38

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018

Second Reading 38 13:20 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin The Therapeutic Goods (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 amends the Therapeutic Goods Administration Act 1989, primarily to introduce a mandatory reporting scheme for medicine shortages and medicines that will be discontinued. The bill also includes a number of minor unrelated amendments to the act to improve regulatory efficiencies. Presently, there is a voluntary notification scheme known as the Medicine Shortages Information Initiative, or MSII, which, along with its website, was launched in 2014. Whilst this voluntary notification scheme was a positive step, the need for a mandatory reporting scheme for medicine was clearly demonstrated by the recent EpiPen shortage. Indeed, there are still ongoing issues with the supply of EpiPens, with the TGA's latest update on 6 August advising of 'a continued constrained supply'. My understanding is that, although the supplier was aware of a short-term interruption to the supply of EpiPens in November 2017, this was not reported to the TGA until January of this year. I understand that supply interruption was due to manufacturing delays. Fortunately, it appears as though the version of the pen for children was unaffected, with the shortage being confined to EpiPens for adults. EpiPen was the only adrenaline autoinjector available in Australia. Adrenaline is a life-saving medicine for people who are at risk of a serious allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis can be life threatening and, for those who are at risk, the trigger is often an allergy to a food, a medicine or an insect sting. Right now in this parliament, there is a meeting of the National Allergy Strategy Steering Committee talking about these very matters. I welcome that committee to the parliament and congratulate it on the work that it has been doing over recent years—in particular, Professor Richard Loh, Ms Maria Said and the National Allergy Strategy Coordinator, Sandra Vale—trying to bring to the public attention the issues surrounding anaphylaxis—matters of awareness, education and training, prevention and management. Now, perhaps, creating a national database of people who have suffered an anaphylactic episode would also be a good idea. I understand that there is a database that is now held by the Victorian government. They have started that initiative, but it is perhaps something that could be rolled out across the country. That discussion is taking place right now. As one of the two co-conveners of that group, I'm pleased to be speaking about this legislation at a time that they are here in Parliament House and to lend my support to their discussions that will take place over the next hour or so. Some users of the autoinjectors that I referred to earlier on are advised to carry them at all times. As with most medicines, EpiPens have an expiry date. That means that those who need them need to obtain new ones every so often, even if they haven't actually used their autoinjector. Shortages are not uncommon. There was a worldwide shortage of meningococcal B vaccine which hit Australia in 2016. I'm not suggesting that this was a failure of voluntary reporting. However, the minister may be able to advise whether that shortage was or was not reported through the voluntary scheme. The meningococcal B vaccine is still on the agenda, with a question in this place only this week about its inclusion on the National Immunisation Program. Prior to the South Australian state election, the former state Labor government had committed to providing that vaccination for free to all South Australian children aged two and under. I acknowledge that the new South Australian government has now also followed state Labor's lead. Whilst I appreciate there are legal requirements which the Prime Minister, in his answer earlier this week, described, there are also precedents to facilitate faster access. In 2001, the Howard government bypassed the PBAC to subsidise the breast cancer drug Herceptin. In 2006, approval for Gardasil's HPV vaccine was fast-tracked after pressure from then Prime Minister John Howard. Presumably, the federal government could also fund the states to provide the vaccine, if it so wished. This matter of the meningococcal B vaccine is one that needs to be addressed, and I have just cited some examples in previous years where the government acted quickly to address matters of public health concern. I return to the substance of this bill. In their submissions during the government's consultation on a mandatory scheme, the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia said: Despite the launch in 2014 of the Medicine Shortages Information Initiative (MSII) to assist with information on prescription medicine shortages, generally pharmacists have not found it to be the most helpful resource in terms of the currency and timeliness of information. It has not adequately supported professional practice for pharmacists who have a core role in assisting with continuity of therapy and care for patients. Repeatedly pharmacists have reported of a mismatch between information made available through the MSII and the actual medicine stock availability situation they have encountered through wholesalers. Issues pharmacists have raised with PSA included: medicines indicated as 'out of stock' through wholesaler portals were not on the current shortages list of the MSII the expected supply date listed on the MSII was often inaccurate (e.g. did not reflect the expected stock availability date indicated by wholesalers) updating of information on the MSII appeared to be infrequent. As the primary point of contact with patients in the supply … of medicines, information relating to the availability of a prescription medicine and the reasons behind any shortage situation are critical for pharmacists. Patients, carers and families can experience significant stress when they cannot receive their medication in a timely manner. The situation is worsened if the pharmacist is unable to provide accurate information regarding the expected length of shortage period or steps that could be taken to source an alternative medicine. Accurate and timely communication with the prescriber is also critical in such circumstances, particularly where decision-making around change in ongoing therapy may be required. That sums up why we need to have a compulsory reporting system in place. As the Pharmaceutical Society quite rightly point out, information about medicine availability is critical and medicine shortages can be very stressful to patients. We live in a world with increasing globalisation, and, in many sectors of the economy, this has led to manufacturing moving overseas. This is also true in the pharmaceutical sector and means that we are now more reliant on events and decisions which occur overseas. Furthermore, a number of different brands of a particular medicine, all of which contain the same active ingredient, are sometimes manufactured in one facility. Where this occurs, if there is a manufacturing disruption, several different brands may all be affected at the same time. We should, therefore, be ready to expect more supply disruptions to medicines than was the case in the past. It is obvious that knowing as soon as possible about medicine shortages or discontinuations of supply will enable patients, health professionals and public health authorities to source alternatives earlier or at least better plan for and manage the shortage. For all of these reasons, and given that the voluntary scheme is unsatisfactory, a mandatory scheme is considered necessary. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Makin will be given leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 39 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Australian Broadcasting Corporation 39 13:30 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga The Liberals are waging the biggest war on the ABC in a generation. Despite promising no cuts to the ABC, they've cut $282 million from the ABC since 2014, with 800 jobs cut. This year, they cut another $84 million from the ABC. At the Liberal Party's Federal Council recently, not a single person stood up to oppose the sell-off of the ABC. Australians love and trust our public broadcaster. From Bananas in Pyjamas to the Hottest 100 to getting critical warning messages about local floods and fires, the ABC is part of who we are. We on this side will not stand for the ABC being attacked just so the Liberals can fund their big tax cuts to the top end of town. Labor in government will reverse the Liberals' latest cut of $84 million. We'll keep fighting against the Liberals' war on our public broadcaster right through to the next election. I'm glad to say that Labor has preselected Kate Thwaites to be the Labor candidate to replace me in Jagajaga. She's a former ABC News journalist. She understands we love the ABC and will fight to keep it safe. Page Electorate: Ken Orr Memorial Shield 39 13:31 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page The Coramba based Orara Valley Axemen and their fans enjoy a fiercely competitive rivalry with the Coffs Harbour Comets. The Axemen and the Comets have been battling for the Ken Orr Memorial Shield since its inaugural year, 1989. The shield is considered Group 2 Rugby League's most revered interclub trophy. Going into the 2018 season, the tally stood at Comets 15, Axemen 14. This year, with 15 minutes to go and trailing six to 20, the Axemen came home strong in a nailbiting finish to get the points required to hold the Ken Orr Memorial Shield for the first time in a decade. Congratulations to the coach, Colin Speed, and the 2018 Axemen squad: AJ Gilbert, Alex Bunt, Breeze Fuller, Brenden Downton, Cain Bunt, Clyde Awesq, Christopher Shears, Cody Berry, Denzel Briscoe, Dion Marr, James Bellamy, Jared Roberts, Jedaiah Katal, Joseph Wrigley, Kyle Ackroyd, Liam Dunn, Luke Beaumont, Marley Weller-McCulloch, Michael Hart, Nathan Moran, Nelson Mooney, Rhys Walters, Riley Davey, Ryan Gill, Steven Cetinich, Thomas Hall, Tom Garratt, Troy Robinson and Vincent Williams. The Axemen were a little disappointed with the result of the semifinals but nevertheless had a great season. Well done, Axemen. Live Animal Exports 40 13:33 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman I rise today to speak about the government's abject failure to deal with live sheep exports. This is an issue that hundreds if not thousands of my constituents have contacted me about, expressing their horror at the ongoing torture of live sheep through the export trade. Today I want to add my voice to theirs and ask: when is the government going to act? Malcolm Turnbull said he'd show leadership. He hasn't. He said he'd follow the science on live sheep exports. He hasn't. The science is in. The northern summer sheep trade and animal welfare expectations cannot be reconciled. As the Australian Veterinary Association and the RSPCA have told us, no matter what standards or stocking densities are applied, sheep will continue to suffer in the searing heat on these long summer voyages. For too long we have watched the systemic mistreatment of sheep in the mistaken belief that the live export trade is a natural, acceptable and economically necessary form of agricultural export. It's none of these things. Unlike the government, Labor has shown leadership on this issue. I'm incredibly pleased that Labor have announced we will phase out live sheep exports. We have also said that we will support a total and immediate ban on the northern summer live sheep trade. Incredibly, the government is refusing to allow the parliament to vote on Labor's proposal. The industry has had plenty of chances to clean up its act, and it's failed. The government has had plenty of chances to properly regulate the industry, and it's failed. I want to thank everyone who's contacted me about this. Science 40 13:35 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt Last week, I had the privilege of spending the morning with year 9 students at St Augustine's College in Cairns to participate in their STEM classes and activities. It absolutely amazes me what our young men and women can do these days. There's certainly no limit for this generation. The things young Australians are achieving on a daily basis in this space are staggering. I have absolutely no doubt that STEM will become the building block for learning, driving innovation and creating new opportunities across aspects of society and the economy. STEM is and will continue to be a powerful economic driver. A recent report from PricewaterhouseCoopers has estimated that a change of just one per cent of Australia's workforce into STEM-related roles could add some $57 billion to our GDP over the next two decades. STEM is all around us and relevant in everything that we do. Hopefully our young Australians will be curious and adventurous in discovering how these critical skills will enrich and impact their lives into the future. Finally, I'd like to thank St Augustine's College's head of science, Kastelle Gane, and the principal, Brother Darren Burge, for inviting me to participate in this class. It was great to be afforded the opportunity to engage with young minds in my electorate. Congratulations to that entire year 9 class there. They were absolutely outstanding. Sutton, Mr John 40 13:36 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I wish to congratulate Maroubra local and Rabbitohs legend John Sutton, who on 20 July this year played his 300th game for the pride of the league and the NRL's most successful team, the mighty South Sydney Rabbitohs. Loyalty in first-class sport in this day and age is a rarity. Most players will understandably play for the highest bidder, but not John Sutton. He always dreamed of wearing the red and green and playing for the club that represents his home and the area that he grew up in. John could have played, and was offered to play, for others clubs for more money, but he stuck by the Rabbitohs. That loyalty was rewarded in 2014 when he lifted the premiership trophy as the captain of the Rabbitohs to win their 21st premiership. He started his junior rugby league at Kensington United. That is same club that my father played for as a junior. Two weeks ago, I was privileged to join many members of our community at Kensington Oval for the unveiling of a mural honouring John and his 300th game for the Rabbitohs. In front of family and friends, John spoke with great passion and emotion that day about what the Rabbitohs mean to him. He's the only Rabbitohs player in their 112-year history to reach this historic milestone. On behalf of our community, to you, Sutto, and to your family, thank you and congratulations. You represent everything that the Rabbitohs stand for. Meningococcal Disease 40 13:38 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I was honoured to attend a special lunch in Brisbane a few weeks ago to raise funds and awareness to fight meningococcal. The Brisbane event was organised by Kirsten McGinty, a local mother who, tragically, lost her 20-year-old daughter Zoe to meningococcal last September. Zoe developed no telltale rash or blotches. She went from being fit and healthy at breakfast to tragically dead just 16 hours later. What an amazingly strong woman Kirsten McGinty is. Her response to losing her beautiful daughter was to raise her hand and become the Queensland representative for Meningococcal Australia. Thanks to Kirsten's hard work and the support of so many great people around Brisbane, over $30,000 was raised at that event. That will go directly to raising awareness and education programs in nearly 3,000 schools. The government has recently moved to strengthen the National Immunisation Program with a vaccine covering four of the five contagious strains of meningococcal. More remains to be done, including with respect to the B-strain vaccine, which the federal government has now committed to list if the application receives a positive recommendation from the experts at the PBAC. Keep up the good work, Kirsten. You're a hero. Thanks to the health minister for his excellent message of support at the event, finishing his remarks with Kirsten's catch phrase: 'Goforzo.' Canberra Electorate: Multiculturalism 41 13:39 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Canberra is a culturally diverse people. Sixty thousand people living in my community were born outside of Australia; 20 per cent of them speak a language other than English at home; and almost 9,000 Canberrans practise a religion other than Christianity, including Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. My community is diverse, but it is not unique. Apart from our First Australians, I remind everyone in this place and everyone in the other place that we are all migrants. Migrants help drive Australia's economy, shape our society and support our communities. Australia is a better place for having a rich migrant population and history. I stand with Canberra, with Labor and with millions of Australians when I say the comments made by Senator Anning this week were completely and utterly unacceptable, not only because his words were racist but also because his words were bog ignorant. His words were ill-informed. His words were offensive. And they were wrong. They were wrong on so many fronts. A Canberran wrote to me overnight and expressed what those comments can do to every Muslim, Sudanese or Chinese child who is struggling to fit in and what discrimination does to the millions of people from hundreds of backgrounds who are proud to call Australia home. Labor stands with those who condemn Senator Anning, and most of this parliament does too. National Science Week 41 13:41 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore I wish to thank the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash, for visiting Lake Joondalup Baptist College in my electorate, as part of National Science Week, to promote the learning of science, technology, engineering and mathematics in schools. It is great to see students engaged in experiential learning, with technologies such as robotics, three-dimensional printing, coding and programming. Special guest, Dr Marcus Zipper, Managing Director of CSIRO, delivered a presentation to students, encouraging them to consider STEM subjects as a potential career path. Lake Joondalup Baptist College has a distinguished record of providing a balanced and holistic education to students by encouraging academic learning, sporting achievement, as well as nurturing cultural, social, and spiritual values. The school has made a substantial investment in preparing its students for the workforce of the future through its innovative STEM learning areas, curriculum and dedicated staff. I would like to welcome the new Principal, Mr Daryl Pollard, to the local community, and acknowledge the Head of Technologies, Daniel Theunissen, as well as student Sian Williams, who thanked the minister and presented her with flowers. LJBC is a nurturing and dynamic place for the young workforce of the future. Racism 41 13:42 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I and other members across parliament spoke yesterday to condemn the hateful words of a senator—and his words must indeed be condemned. But they can't be condemned in isolation, because racism is on the rise in Australia. The bullhorn racism of the senator is taking place against a backdrop of dog-whistle racism and institutional inequality that extends well beyond him. Last week, over 150 Melburnians came together at a public meeting to say no to the racialised law and order agenda that has been driven by cynical politicians and media outlets. I especially want to thank Matoc Achol, Flora Chol, Deng Maleek Deng and David DeWitt for speaking about the impacts on communities targeted by racism, along with Greens MP Ellen Sandell and the Greens candidate for Richmond, Kathleen Maltzahn. I would also like to thank the Somali Australian Melbourne resident who shared via a statement—read anonymously, because of the consequences faced by too many people of colour when speaking out—about her pain of having political figures playing politics with her life. Recently her nine-year-old son asked her: 'Hooyo'—which is 'mum' in Somali—'why do they always talk badly about Africans on the news?' This meeting followed a rally led by young people in the South Sudanese community outside Channel 7, who stood up to say 'Enough is enough'. To the rally organisers, I express my support and solidarity today in parliament. Melbourne is a place where we stand together and where we know that we all belong. Our community will stand together against racism. Canning Electorate: Mandurah 42 13:44 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning I rise today to call out the lies being peddled by all levels of the Labor Party in Mandurah, local, state and federal. Labor lie No. 1 is that public education in this nation has seen massive funding cuts. The truth is that, under the coalition government, school funding is increasing by more than $11 billion over the next 10 years. That's more than 31 per cent extra for every kid at a public school in Mandurah over the next three years. Labor lie No. 2 is that the government is cutting hospital funding. The truth is that, under the coalition government, public hospital funding is increasing by more than $30 billion thanks to our new five-year public hospital agreement. Even though WA Labor signed up to this agreement, they have failed to allocate any funding to the Peel Health Campus, the only hospital in Mandurah. It's dishonest and disgraceful, but it's not surprising. Now the state member for Mandurah, David Templeman, is lying about his commitment to the Lakelands train station. Mr Templeman claims to be in support of the coalition-backed project in his electorate, which is also in the federal electorate of Canning, yet a leaked motion from the WA Labor state executive, motion C.07, shows the Mandurah branch of the Labor Party advocating for a train outside of Mandurah instead. Is Labor for Mandurah or not? This government has put money on the table for better public transport, better schools and better hospitals in our city, but it seems Labor would prefer to play politics. I will always back the people of Mandurah, and this side of the House will— (Time expired) Broadband 42 13:45 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon Last night, thanks to the good work of my colleague the member for Lyons, we learnt of plans by NBN Co to slug customers on fixed wireless in regional Australia with an extra $20 per month in comparison to those on fixed lines, particularly those people in cities. People in cities will be paying a wholesale price of $45 per month, but those in regional Australia will now be paying $65. NBN Co, under questioning from the member for Lyons, admitted they intend to charge those customers more. By any measure, this is not fair. In my electorate, the communities of Tullah and Strahan will be paying more. In fact, 8,383 premises in Braddon will pay more. The north-west and west coasts of Tasmania already suffer with poor connectivity and poor access to services. The digital divide between cities and regions continues to grow under this Liberal government. Why should businesses and households in towns on the west coast of Tasmania be treated as second-class citizens under this Liberal government, with one rule for Point Piper and another for those living in regional Australia? I am just wondering what those jelly-backs opposite who claim to represent regional Australia will do about this. Will they stand up for their communities, as I am doing? Will you get your leader, the Deputy Prime Minister, to take action? Now is the time to do that. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I remind the member of parliamentary language. Member for Corio 42 13:47 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I raise concerns about a member of the Australian parliament who has refused to provide his constituents with a portrait of the Queen unless they answer a quiz about the Australian Constitution. Tomorrow afternoon, the member for Corio will set up a stall outside his office in Geelong. Anyone wanting a portrait must attend the stall, where they will be subjected to the humiliation and embarrassment of being required to correctly answer questions about the Constitution. The member for Corio told the Geelong Advertiser this is to gauge how genuine people are about celebrating Australia's head of state. If they fail this quiz, they will be denied a portrait and offered, as some sort of consolation prize, a copy of the Constitution. What a pompous, demeaning, patronising, arrogant display of self-entitlement from someone who was lucky enough to graduate with a law degree from Melbourne university! Not everyone who lives in Geelong or the Bellarine has studied constitutional law, but this arrogant Labor MP considers it appropriate to discriminate against those who are not as well educated as he is. Judy-Anne, a nurse from Leopold, wrote to the member, saying, 'I'm an Australian citizen, yet you expect me to jump through hoops for your pleasure and entertainment.' Imposing these conditions on nationhood materials paid for by the taxpayer is the height of arrogance from an out-of-touch Labor MP who's taken his constituents for granted for far too long. Cowan Electorate: St Stephen's School 42 13:49 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan One of the great privileges that we get when we're in our constituency is to visit our schools. I've visited every school in my electorate of Cowan, and in this last break I had the great pleasure of meeting the year 12 ATAR politics and law students at St Stephen's secondary college, where I spent an hour or so having a wonderful chat with these highly engaged young people, who give me hope for Australia's future. I'd like to do a shout-out today to Ellie Fletcher, Ellie Jones, Amalia Archer, Nikolaj Sentow, Marcus Ferguson, Alex Cordell, Cat van der Meer, Olivia Duncan, Amy Wilkinson, Brayden Smith and their wonderful teacher, Joshua Plumber. Thank you so much for having me speak to you at your school. You had some wonderful questions for me, and we enjoyed an hour of very deep discussion about politics and about what goes on in this place. It was wonderful to see young people engaged and concerned about the future of their country and expressing those concerns in that forum to their elected member. As I said earlier, it is one of the great privileges that we have in this place—that we get to go out and speak to young people. I'm consistently heartened about the future of our country every time I go and meet young people, of all ages, particularly those in the schools in my electorate, and I wish them all the best with their ATAR. Petrie Electorate: Hospitals 43 13:50 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie The federal coalition government has delivered increased funding for Metro North Hospital and Health Service by 38 per cent, which is good news for the residents in Petrie, in my area. The government has delivered an increase of $120 million to Redcliffe Hospital alone. I was recently up at Redcliffe Hospital because my father-in-law had a fall. I want to thank the Queensland Ambulance Service and all the staff at Redcliffe Hospital for looking after him—they really did a great job—including all the auxiliary staff, administration staff, nurses, doctors, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and even the groundsmen and maintenance workers. Thank you for what you do to keep the Redcliffe Hospital going well and operating well. It's really important. The truth is that the coalition federal government, as I said before, is investing record amounts in health. We're able to do it because we've had strong economic growth in Australia, including an increase in the number of jobs, and we're putting that extra income tax back into health services. At the same time, despite the 38 per cent increase for metro north health services in Brisbane, we've seen the Queensland Labor state government cut funding by $21 million to the Redcliffe Hospital. I'd ask the Labor Party to call on Steven Miles to increase that funding back to the Redcliffe Hospital. Lalor Electorate: Schools 43 13:52 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor In the break I had my second student leaders forum for Lalor, and I wanted to share with the House that story today. I want to thank Nadia Bettio, who's the principal of the brand new Tarneit Rise Primary School, which opened this year in my electorate. So far it only goes to grade 2, but they warmly hosted schools from across the electorate. We had 160 students across the day. I spent the morning with primary students and the afternoon with secondary students, as usual, and I heard about their leading journeys. They shared stories about their school and about what they've been doing in their schools to improve their school culture and school community, having planned that at the first session in March. It was a great day, one I obviously enjoyed. It gets me back with students talking about the things they care about. I also want to thank the schools that attended—the primary and secondary schools—for going out of their way, as well as the staff who came with the students and the parents who are sometimes dropping off their children at a different school. It gives us the opportunity to pull all those schools together, share stories across our community and share with one another what our school values are. This is one of the most important things about doing this forum—not only do the kids get prepared to be leaders and get to share those stories; they get to talk to one another about what their school values are, they are surprisingly positive and consistent. Western Australia: Goods and Services Tax 43 13:53 Mr IRONS HYM Swan It's good timing because the Treasurer has just walked into the chamber and I'm rising to talk about the GST and, more so, about how the coalition government has made the biggest reform to the redistribution of the GST since its introduction. I've banged on about the GST and WA's unfair share all the way back since 2009, along with the former member for Canning, the member for Curtin and many of my colleagues from WA on this side of the chamber. I'll simply say that it was an immensely unfair distribution, and I don't think anyone ever envisaged it would drop to so low a rate. The coalition knew it was unfair, and it was this side that brought in the GST top-up payments as a stopgap measure. Those opposite ignored the issue all the way through, except for in 2007 when Kevin Rudd said he'd fix it, but he didn't. I'll correct that because those opposite did more than ignore the unfairness; they even argued on the east coast that the distribution for WA was fair. However, it didn't pass the pub test at Mt Henry Tavern in Salter Point, nor at Boab Tavern in High Wycombe. The coalition have, unlike those opposite, taken the GST problem out of the too-hard basket and guaranteed a fair share of the GST for WA, but Young Labor are still out in my electorate lying to people while doorknocking, saying that we will do nothing about the GST. The coalition is bringing in real reform on personal income tax and GST, while those opposite continue to take WA for granted, just like the last time they were in government. Energy 44 13:55 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam In a few moments, the Treasurer will jump up in question time and demand that the Labor Party support the National Energy Guarantee. This is despite the fact that they're unable to corral enough votes on their own side of the House to get their policy through the parliament. This has been an inglorious episode indeed. By my count they have had four energy plans in the last three years, yet they are demanding today that we buy a pig in a poke by voting in favour of a plan that they can't get through their own party room. Their four plans include the latest inglorious episode, which involved getting some of the smartest guys in Australia to put together a robust plan and then swapping it out for some of the ideas of the biggest blockhead in the coalition party—and he's sitting right behind you! If the government really wants to do something about making power more affordable then they will dump their plan to axe the clean energy supplement. This is $8 a fortnight for singles and $14 a fortnight for couples. If they want to do something to make power more affordable in this country then they'll axe that plan. It's pretty simple. Vote for it: $8 a fortnight for singles and $14 for couples. If you want to do something about energy prices, vote in favour of this, withdraw your plan and stop playing games. (Time expired) Great Barrier Reef Foundation 44 13:56 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Many in this place will be well aware of where the electorate of Capricornia is situated, but for those opposite, who always ignore the region, I will remind you. Capricornia is located in the heart of Central Queensland, taking in the region from the beef capital, Rockhampton, up to the historic mining town of Collinsville in the north. Capricornians have access to some of the most pristine and breathtaking sections of the Great Barrier Reef. It may surprise some of you to know that the electorate which, quite rightly, claims the title of coal and cattle capital is also something of a major player in coral—the relationship between our land and sea resources is of vital importance—which is why I'm pleased to be part of a federal government that takes all three seriously. The most recent contribution to help protect the future of the reef—half a billion dollars—is very welcome. One has to wonder why those opposite are so critical of sensible investment in one of the natural wonders of the world. This major investment in the future of the reef means working with organisations that know what they are doing. One of the best aspects of our investment is delivering more resources to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. GBRMPA do an excellent job of managing and protecting our coastline. This funding will help them to do this more and better. The Great Barrier Reef is an asset for the entire east coast of Queensland. I, for one, wholeheartedly back the government's investment in its future. Welfare Reform 44 13:58 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton In yet another shambolic chapter of government's ongoing botched robo-debt debacle, the Minister for Human Services was forced to make an embarrassing backdown. The Turnbull government's targeting of the most vulnerable Australians with its failed robo-debt program was a new low for a government that seems to have an endless appetite for demonising vulnerable Australians. Get this, everyone: this government wanted to expand its robo-debt program to people with mental illness, intellectual or cognitive conditions; people requiring medical treatment; and people experiencing homelessness. How did the minister honestly think a homeless person was going to fetch their pay slips to respond to one of the government's robo-debt queries? This is truly cruel. Over 29,000 Australians have been issued with false or inflated robo-debts. What was the minister thinking to extend this to a group of people who don't have the capacity or resources to respond? If the minister wants to save himself further embarrassment, he should not just pause the program but cease it. And, Minister, while you're at it, get your people out of Werribee. Stop terrifying them. Leave them alone to get on with their lives. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 44 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 44 13:59 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Hinkler, has refused to deny reports that he's considering resigning to protest against the Prime Minister's energy policy? Can the Prime Minister assure the House that no other members of his executive are considering resigning to protest against the Prime Minister and his energy policy? 14:00 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. He's raised the matter of energy, and he has the opportunity to stand up for lower electricity prices. He has the opportunity to support the National Energy Guarantee, which will contribute to a $550 reduction in the electricity bill of the average family in the National Electricity Market. So he knows that every single leading industry group, consumer groups, and even unions and experts are all supporting the National Energy Guarantee, because they know it will reduce energy prices. But there's a difference. On this side of the House, we want electricity prices to be lower than they are today, and they're starting to come down already. We've taken decisive action that has resulted in them coming down. Already, we've seen reductions in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia, but there's more to be done. However, on the Labor side, we know what they think. They want energy prices to be higher, and, of course, that's the natural consequence of a 50 per cent renewables target, but they're proud of it. The Labor Environment Action Network said, just a few days ago: 'Higher prices are not a market failure. They're proof of the market working well.' That's what Labor wants. I'm reminded, on the subject of the Labor Environment Action Network, of what Senator Keneally said in her first speech. She said that, 15 years ago, she and Jenny McAllister started the Labor Environment Action Network. She said— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat— Mr Frydenberg interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for the Environment and Energy will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW It's on direct relevance. The question is about the member for Hinkler, and the Prime Minister is studiously not referring to him. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister is referring to energy policy, which was also part of the question. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr TURNBULL 885 Senator Keneally went on to say LEAN, the Labor Environment Action Network, had successfully campaigned within the party for a 50 per cent renewable energy target. Scott Morrison once described LEAN as an infiltration of radical activists within the Labor Party. Mr Morrison interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 The Treasurer confirms that that's exactly what he said, and he was right. 'A solar cell, if you will,' said Senator Keneally, and then, turning to her comrade Senator McAllister, she said, 'Now that we are both here, I guess the infiltration is complete.' It'll be complete if Labor could ever get a 50 per cent target and have the sign of high prices, because that, according to Labor, is a proof of the market working well. Cost of Living 45 14:03 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the actions the government is taking to reduce cost-of-living pressures, including in my electorate of Murray? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:04 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. Everything the government is delivering is designed to drive down the cost of living, whether it's in child care, medicines or energy, so that families and households get the help they need. We are delivering on lower prices. Labor's policies will drive prices up. On energy, as we've just heard, the Leader of the Opposition says he supports cheaper energy publicly, and yet the Labor Environment Action Network says price increases are a sign of the market working. We know that Labor's own 50 per cent renewable energy subsidy will drive prices up. How can forcing more and more renewables into the market do anything other than force prices up? If renewables are cheaper, as many on the Labor side and many in the industry contend, then there'll be more of them and prices will be lower. As Rod Sims has said again and again, subsidising one technology or another leads the way to higher prices. We have to ensure that the market works, and, if it works competitively, you get lower prices. It is not just on energy that Labor is fighting Australian families. Our plan for child care benefits up to a million families, with a typical family receiving $13 more support every year per child. Labor opposed those changes. Labor voted against them despite calling for action and despite the greatest level of support going to families who need it most. When it comes to affordable medicines, Australians know that, when a drug is recommended to be listed on the PBS, we will list it because we can afford to. That's why we have been able to list one new or amended PBS item every day since October 2013, more than 1,700 items in total. That includes the listing this month of Imbruvica, a treatment for a form of lymphoma cancer which would otherwise cost patients $134,000 for a year's treatment. Compare that to Labor's record: they had to freeze the listing of some medicines because, according to the former health minister, Nicola Roxon— Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 there are financial consequences which Labor failed to manage. When it comes to tax, we believe Australians should keep more of the money they earn. Labor, on the other hand, voted to increase the tax that working Australians pay. Our plan for personal income tax relief means lower and middle-income earners will be better off by up to $530 this year and better off in the future with our elimination, for the vast majority of Australians, of bracket creep. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 46 14:07 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer on PBS listings. How can the Prime Minister boast about the government's record when, in fact, this government has delayed recent listings of cancer, epilepsy and other drugs by an average of eight months after they've been recommended by the independent experts? Mr Bowen interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon is warned and has been a number of times this week. Take the hint. 14:08 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders Let me make it absolutely clear: this government has, does and will list everything— Ms Catherine King 00AMR Delayed listings! The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Ballarat is warned. Mr HUNT 00AMV that the PBAC recommends. In fact, she may not have caught up on this: on 1 August, that included new medicine for epilepsy. When someone approaches the despatch box and they have not done even the most basic homework, that's an embarrassing fail. If I were the member for Ballarat, I'd be a little bit embarrassed on this day. When it comes to epilepsy, it is done and dusted, and patients are to benefit—already on the PBS. This is one of those moments where perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might look around and say, 'That was an error'. Let me also quote something. This is the very thing to which the Prime Minister referred: Labor's 2011 portfolio budget statements. I quote: … given the current fiscal environment, the listing of some medicines would be deferred until fiscal circumstances permit. Those are not our words and not a paraphrase. That was the exact budget position. What were those medicines? They were severe asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease medicines, and blood clot medicines to treat deep vein thrombosis. They are medicines for the treatment of endometriosis, the treatment of in vitro fertilisation and the treatment of schizophrenia. Of the hundreds of questions an opposition could ask, I cannot think of a less wise, more hypocritical or more foolish question that someone could ask when we have listed the very thing that they are talking about, with more to come—trust me on that—and without them being aware that on 1 August new medicines were listed for precisely the issue of epilepsy. What a poor moment. Let me go further than that, because only yesterday I talked about the new head and neck cancer medicine, Opdivo, at $50,000, which was listed on 1 August, along with epilepsy; the new lymphoma cancer medicine at $134,000 for Imbruvica; and the 1,500 patients who benefited from Neulasta. These are all things which are happening on our watch. Labor are hurting because they know they are 'medifrauds' and we are 'medifriends'. They know that they were caught out delaying listings. When it comes to the PBS, we have a record of— (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Ballarat is seeking to table a document? Ms Catherine King 00AMR Yes, Speaker. I'm seeking to table a document which shows all of the drugs that have been delayed for over eight months from recommendation from the independent PBAC. The SPEAKER 00APG Is leave granted? Leave is not granted. Taxation 46 14:11 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how tax relief for hardworking Australians is helping families and small businesses in regional Australia, including in my electorate of Mallee? What are the risks to regional Australia getting ahead? 14:12 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Tax cuts for small business, including Mallee, including all over Australia, are good for regional Australia and good for Australia in general. Income tax for hardworking Australians means they can have more money in their pockets to spend on themselves, on the things they want to do in life. More jobs for hardworking Australians, whether it's in the Mallee, wherever it is, means that there are going to be more people gainfully employed. We saw the employment statistics out today—unemployment down. We heard the Prime Minister in question time today saying that power prices are down and they are going to go down further. We are making sure that the economy is strong. When the economy is strong, when the economy is going well, you can provide more money for hospitals and more money for schools, and that's exactly what we're doing. Mallee is doing it tough at the moment with the drought. Mallee is doing it tough, as are a lot of areas right throughout New South Wales, right throughout the member for Maranoa's electorate and right throughout Queensland. People are doing it tough with the drought. That's why we are providing more money for farm household assistance, more money for rural financial counsellors, more money for, indeed, mental health services to help out those drought-stricken farmers, to help out drought-stricken communities. One example of a business which is doing particularly well, despite the troubled times, is Interlink Pumps and Sprayers at Mildura. It sells spot sprays, vine sprays, weed sprays and row crop sprays throughout Victoria and southern New South Wales. I know that it sells a lot of these sprays into the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area—that great food bowl in the member for Farrer's electorate. I recently met with the team in Mildura, alongside the member for Mallee. Its CEO, Peter McWilliams, who employs 28 people, said that the money that they'll be saving from the company tax cuts has not only enabled his business to do more in the innovation space, redirecting to further research for spraying technologies to reduce drifts in spraying, but, indeed, it has helped them to put on an extra employee. Isn't that fantastic—an extra employee despite the drought, despite the troubled times? He is taking confidence from the tax cuts and from the economy growing to put on an extra employee. Throughout the Mallee, we are investing in infrastructure—economic-enabling infrastructure—with better roads and better rail: the Calder Highway, the Bendigo to Mildura upgrade, $10 million; the Murray Basin freight rail project, $240 million; the Western Highway, Stawell to the South Australia border upgrade, $10 million. We are investing in the infrastructure that our regions need, that our regions want, that our regions deserve. But we look at those opposite, who stand for higher taxes, higher power prices, less infrastructure. If they get into government, all that will go. All the money that we're spending on infrastructure will go. (Time expired) Prime Minister 47 14:15 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of media reports that, during a briefing on his energy policy, the Prime Minister said to the member for Warringah, 'Please do me the courtesy of allowing me to finish my sentence'? The member for Warringah replied, 'I would have if you allowed me the courtesy of finishing my term.' Was the Prime Minister again speaking merchant banker gobbledygook? The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wakefield will resume his seat. That question is out of order. We'll go to the next question. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flags 47 14:15 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Prime Minister, one of my constituents, an Indigenous man— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Mayo will pause for a second. Members on my left, you can cease interjecting. I can't hear the member for Mayo. If you could start your question again. Ms SHARKIE 265980 My question is to the Prime Minister. One of my constituents, an Indigenous man, named Mr Hedley Vogt, has approached me regarding an issue close to his heart. There are four flagpoles in this chamber and none of them carry the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander flags. We've seen over the last two days that language matters and action matters. Yesterday this House united to condemn racism and discrimination. In a continuation of that spirit and in the spirit of reconciliation and recognition of the history and culture of Australia's First Peoples, will the government support flying the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags in this chamber? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House on a point of order. Mr Pyne 9V5 The Prime Minister is probably more than happy to remark on it. It's not actually within his responsibilities, but that's a matter for the standing orders and, therefore, the House. And, with that clarification, the Prime Minister might like to— The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call anybody, I've listened to the question and it's certainly not the Prime Minister's responsibility. I'd need to check where the responsibility lies, whether it is the standing orders or—the Leader of the Opposition? Mr Shorten 00ATG I thought the question by the member for Mayo—I didn't hear all of it—ended on whether or not the government supports such a measure and, if it's of assistance to the Prime Minister—as these things should be, as they were yesterday—we'll offer bipartisanship if you choose to take up the member for Mayo's offer. The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Mayo, if you could just repeat the last part of the question. Ms SHARKIE 265980 Certainly. In continuation of that spirit, the spirit of reconciliation and recognition of the history and cultures of Australia's First Peoples, will the government support flying the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags in this chamber? The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister has the call. 14:18 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. I imagine the honourable member will seek to move a motion to amend the standing orders for that purpose, assuming that is necessary. It is within the Speaker's responsibility, as we understand, but we take the honourable member's suggestion on board. But I have to say, Mr Speaker, and remind the honourable member, while we pay great respect to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags, the flag hanging in each corner of this room is the flag of Australia. Economy 48 14:18 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please update the House on the release of today's jobs data? Treasurer, how is the government's economic plan creating more jobs while supporting Australian taxpayers with lower, fairer and simpler taxes so that they can keep more of what they earn? 14:19 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Robertson for her question. I'm sure all members on this side of the House and, I hope, all members on that side of the House will be pleased to know that unemployment has fallen to 5.3 per cent. That is the lowest level of unemployment we have seen since November 2012—almost six years. Unemployment fell to 5.3 per cent, with 19,300 extra full-time jobs created in July of this year, the month just passed. That's great news. It's also great news that 300,300 jobs have been created in just the last 12 months, and 65 per cent of those jobs, almost two-thirds of them, are full time. It is great news that around 600,000 jobs have been created since the last election, under the economic policies of the Turnbull government, and there are 21,300 fewer unemployed Australians today than there were at the time of the last election. So, fewer people unemployed, almost 600,000 more people in work and unemployment falling to 5.3 per cent—this is good news for the Australian economy and it's very good news for people out there seeking work. But it goes further than that. More than a million jobs have been created by the coalition government since we were first elected, in 2013—since 2013, more than a million jobs, as we promised, as has been delivered and as has been exceeded in the time frame that we pledged at that election. Youth unemployment is down to 11.1 per cent. That is the best result— Mr Bowen interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L I hear the shadow Treasurer question whether this is an achievement. He questions whether youth unemployment falling to its lowest level since March 2012 is an achievement. How could you have a shadow Treasurer, a person who wants to be Treasurer of this country, who thinks Australians getting jobs—young people getting jobs and youth unemployment falling—is not an achievement? It is an achievement for those young people and it is an achievement for the businesses who put them into those jobs. Let's not forget that it was the Labor Party who opposed the Youth Jobs PaTH program, which has put 28,000 young people into jobs. This government is a jobs machine, working together with the Australian economy. It is a jobs machine that is responding to the economic policies. I'm asked what has been happening with earnings. I can tell you that, from the weekly earnings data released today, they're up 2.7 per cent. That is the strongest result since November 2014. The full-time ordinary time earnings wage is now $82,700. The gender pay gap has fallen to 14.5 per cent—down from 17.2 per cent under Labor. (Time expired) Energy 48 14:22 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning the former Deputy Prime Minister, the member for New England, said of the Prime Minister's energy policy, 'I've heard the stories in the past about how it was going to drive down prices, and it didn't.' Why should Australians believe promises from this Liberal-National government when even the former Deputy Prime Minister has confirmed the government lied on power bills before? The SPEAKER 00APG I just caution the member for Port Adelaide on some of the language in that. I will happily hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW On that point, the phrase, with respect to Labor, has been used many times in answers. If there's to be a new ruling, we're not objecting in any way to the new ruling but simply want to note that this, as I understand it, would not be a ruling with respect to questions but a ruling with respect to what is parliamentary. The SPEAKER 00APG I will call the Minister for the Environment and Energy. I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Yes, and I can go through the Practice again about how the Prime Minister is entitled to refer the question to any minister. Mr McCormack interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will cease interjecting. The minister for the environment has the call. 14:24 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong The parliament knows that, when the carbon tax was abolished, the Australian Bureau of Statistics confirmed there was the single biggest drop in electricity prices ever recorded. That is the fact of the matter. Yesterday, in the MPI debate, I read into Hansard an ACCC press release which said that the $550 reduction that was coming from the abolition of the carbon tax, and estimated by Treasury, was absolutely reasonable. But what the member for Port Adelaide fails to tell this House is that, when Labor was last in office, electricity prices doubled. They went up each and every year. The member for Port Adelaide comes from a state where a Labor government completely wrecked the energy system, and South Australia was left with the highest prices in the country. In the member for Port Adelaide's own electorate, companies lost their power and lost jobs and lost millions of dollars as a result. What did the member for Port Adelaide call it? He called it a hiccup. As the Prime Minister has made clear, everything's been revealed by LEAN Australia, who said, 'High prices are not a market failure; they are proof of the market working well.' What do you think the shadow minister for energy thinks about LEAN? He says: In my nearly 30 years in the Party, I have not seen an organising effort on a policy issue like LEAN has delivered. It was phenomenal … It gave Bill, I, and the rest of the shadow cabinet the assurance that the Party was behind us as we stepped out to lead on climate change. So LEAN speaks for the Labor Party. LEAN directs the shadow minister. Just to finish, today there was a very revealing front page in The Australian Financial Review, which made it very clear that higher emissions reduction targets will mean higher prices for Australian consumers. The Grattan Institute said, on Labor's claims that prices would go down as a result of higher emissions reductions target, that this is 'unlikely to be sustainable', would 'accelerate plant closures', 'requires higher consumer prices' and would be 'inherently uncertain'. This is what the Labor Party is promising the Australian people: higher power prices, lower stability, reckless renewable energy targets and recklessly high emission reduction targets which the business community and the people of Australia reject. Energy 49 14:27 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the importance of affordable energy in maintaining Australia's international competitiveness and how Australian energy prices compare to other nations? Is the minister aware of any other suggestions? 14:27 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I thank the member for Boothby for her question. She is a great advocate for employers and employees in her electorate and has been for many, many years. Australia is a global energy superpower. Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wakefield is warned. Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P We are a leading exporter of coal, LNG and uranium. We are a leading researcher into the technologies surrounding solar power, pumped hydro storage and battery power. Yet under successive state and federal Labor governments, paradoxically, this global energy powerhouse, this superpower, has amongst the highest electricity prices in the world because of Labor policies. Indeed, the ACCC report commissioned by the Treasurer into electricity affordability has shown that South Australia has the third highest electricity price in the world. Across the planet, South Australia had the highest electricity prices. It's also shown that the average National Energy Market price is higher than the average of the entire European Union. So these are monumental failures by Labor governments. The independent Energy Security Board has warned that high electricity prices will impact on Australia's international competitiveness. That will harm our economic growth. That will harm our jobs growth. That is why the Turnbull government has intervened in the gas supplies to secure them. That is why the Turnbull government has taken on the electricity generators and the retailers. As a result, we are seeing prices coming down. That is why the big businesses in Australia who employ thousands and thousands of Australians back our National Energy Guarantee, because they know it's a mechanism to bring prices down. In fact, it's estimated that wholesale electricity prices will decrease by 20 per cent. Of course, in addition, we will see the forecasts of average household bills coming down by $550. That poses the question: why does Labor support policies that will harm our international competitiveness and destroy jobs? It is because Labor is captive to the Greens. That is why Labor has an ideological, irresponsible, 50 per cent renewable energy target and an irresponsible 45 per cent emissions reduction target. They will harm Australian industries. They will harm jobs. That is why we back a National Energy Guarantee, because the Turnbull government stands for affordable and reliable power. Labor stands for higher prices, higher costs, fewer jobs. Energy 50 14:30 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Energy Security Board modelling reveals— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition Leader will resume his seat. I heard an unparliamentary and unsavoury term. I want to ask the member for Eden-Monaro whether he uttered it. Dr Mike Kelly HRI If it was, Mr Speaker, I withdraw. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right! I'm waiting for members to cease interjecting. The Leader of the House. Mr Pyne 9V5 One of the hallmarks of this house is robust debate, but it should not degenerate into that kind of gutter language in the chamber. The member should do more than withdraw; he should apologise and withdraw. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House makes a fair point. The practice makes it clear that a withdrawal is regarded as an apology, but, I think, given the circumstances, it would assist the House if the member for Eden-Monaro did both. Dr Mike Kelly HRI I apologise and withdraw. The SPEAKER 00APG I will call the Leader of the Opposition to begin his question again. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG My question is to Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Energy Security Board modelling reveals that, under the National Energy Guarantee, residential electricity bills will increase by $210 between 2024 and 2030, and that wholesale electricity prices will actually rise from 2024? 14:32 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong What is absolutely clear from the Energy Security Board's modelling is that power prices with the National Energy Guarantee will come down by $550. That's why the member for Port Adelaide described it as a very good design. That is why he described it as being a Rolls Royce. That is why the International Energy Agency said this would be a model for other countries around the world. That is why every large miner, manufacturer, farmer and industry group from around the country has got behind the National Energy Guarantee. The Leader of the Opposition talks a big game. He wrote to the Prime Minister last year, and said, 'I want to reach across the political divide. I want to end the climate wars. I want to lower power prices.' But, when it comes to walking the talk, he goes missing. It's maybe because they don't even know what their own policy is. They went to the last election promising an emissions intensity scheme. That will drive power bills up by $300, compared to the National Energy Guarantee. They went to the last election with a 45 per cent emissions reduction target, which the Business Council of Australia, representing a million-plus workers across the country, described as economy wrecking. They went to the last election with a 50 per cent renewable energy target, but they don't know what their own policy is. You'd think the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, would know about their renewable energy target. He went on Sky with David Speers, and David Speers asked: 'What about the renewable energy target? You have heard Bill Shorten on radio this morning, I'm sure, unable to say what it would cost. Are you able to say what it would cost?' Member for McMahon: 'W-w-w-well, what we have i-i-i-is two Labor policies: the renewable energy target; and then there's the goal of getting to 50 per cent renewable energy.' 'Hang on', says Speers, 'There's a difference between a goal and a renewable energy target?' 'Well, there's a renewable energy target, um, and then we have the 50 per cent aspiration, which is separate to our renewable energy target.' 'Hang on,' says David Speers, 'That sounds like an important nuance.' Member for McMahon: 'Well, there's nothing new here, David; nothing new. You asked me about the renewable energy target, and I don't want to mislead you.' David Speers: 'Your colleague Mark Butler does refer to it is as the 50 per cent renewable target.' 'Oh, well, then there's the RET, and I'm being precise with, you know, you know, intentionally.' The Leader of the Opposition, the member for McMahon and the member for Port Adelaide don't even know what the policy is. But what the Australian people know is one thing: under the Labor Party, you'll always pay more for your power. Energy 51 14:35 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation. Would the minister update the House on how small businesses will benefit from the implementation of the government's National Energy Guarantee? Could the minister also advise on how these businesses would be adversely affected if alternative proposals are implemented? 14:36 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid I thank the member for Cowper for his question, acknowledging that he has a regional seat. In the winter recess I had the opportunity to travel around Australia and visit places like Cairns, with the member for Leichhardt; Noosa, with the member for Wide Bay; Lismore, with the member for Page; Mount Gambier, with the member for Barker; and Shepparton, with the member for Murray. In all these places, it didn't take long, when talking to small and family business operators, for the conversation to turn to power prices. In fact, in the member for Leichhardt's seat, one store owner told me that power is now his biggest monthly expense, overtaking his rent for the first time. That's why the moves by the Minister for the Environment and Energy—the work he's done so far—have had great results. Wholesale power prices are 25 per cent lower this year. In my home state of New South Wales, as of 1 July, power prices decrease both for small and family businesses, and residential. But the National Energy Guarantee is the missing piece of the puzzle, the piece that we need to introduce, so that small and family businesses Australia-wide will have the opportunity, as the modelling shows, to enjoy 20 per cent, on average, of wholesale electricity price decreases in the lead-up to 2030. This would allow small and family businesses to have more of their own money kept in their pocket. What happens then—and we've seen it today with the latest unemployment figures; we've heard it from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister with the million jobs created by the economy over the last 4½ years—is that small and family business owners will reinvest in themselves, back themselves, take on bank debt and employ more people. That's what happens. The minister for the environment has mentioned already today: it's not just business groups representing businesses, irrespective of size, that are saying that this is a policy position that should be adopted; it's all across the board. Ben Davis, the Victorian secretary of the AWU—the Leader of the Opposition's own union, from his background—said in the last 24 hours, 'This must be passed through parliament.' Mr Rob Mitchell M3E The CFMEU. Mr LAUNDY 247130 I note the interjection of the CFMEU. It's not often that you'll find me standing at this despatch box agreeing with something that they say. But the national president of the CFMEU, Tony Maher, in the last 48 hours has come out in support of the National Energy Guarantee. For the sake of households and small and family businesses across Australia, irrespective of size, it is vital that the Leader of the Opposition, for once in his life, shows he's more interested in political outcomes than political games. Pensions and Benefits 51 14:39 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister claims that his National Energy Guarantee will lower power prices by $150 by the 2020s by removing uncertainty. But the Prime Minister's cutting the energy supplement, which will cost a single pensioner $365 a year—a cut which his own backbench, including the member for Dawson, have told him to reverse. Isn't the only certainty for pensioners that they'll always be worse off under this Prime Minister? 14:39 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The answer is no. The Australian government, my government, supports pensioners and provides them with the support that they deserve. We are not, as Labor is proposing to do, stealing their savings. Let's not forget that the Labor Party, the honourable member's party, wants to go after the savings of pensioners and self-funded retirees. They do. There used to be a bipartisan agreement that people on low incomes were entitled to get the cash benefit of those franking credits—and that was Labor's policy. Labor took it to an election, in fact. It was passed through this parliament by Peter Costello, with bipartisan support. Now the Labor Party wants to go after it. Who is going to pay? The people that will pay will be self-funded retirees. They think they will be getting $5 billion a year— Ms Rishworth HWA Talk about the pensioners! Mr TURNBULL 885 And pensioners, yes. Pensioners that come on now will be getting it as well. Mr Bowen DZS You're wrong. Ms Plibersek 83M You're wrong. Mr TURNBULL 885 You're misleading the House. Labor are going after the savings of older Australians in a shameful cash grab, and they should be appalled at the injustice of this assault on older Australians' savings. Defence Industry 52 14:41 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister update the House on how the government's strong management of the economy enables job-creating investment in our defence industry, such as the Henderson shipyard in my state of Western Australia, which employs many workers from Canning? What are the consequences for industry and workers of following a different course of action? 14:41 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Canning for his question. He's a very proud Western Australian and represents a large part of the area where the workers of Henderson are drawn from. The very good news for Perth, and Henderson particularly, is that the government's decision to build nine anti-submarine warfare frigates in Australia—by BAE and ASC shipbuilding, at a cost of $35 billion—that we announced a few weeks ago will have an enormous impact in Henderson and in Perth generally because we will build $670 million of new infrastructure to support the Hunter class frigates, driving jobs, driving growth and supporting Western Australian businesses. The HMAS Stirling will become the home for the Hunter class anti-submarine warfare frigates training. Henderson will become the hub for the maintenance and sustainment of the Hunter class frigates in the future, when they are completed. The investment in Stirling and in Henderson includes an extension of existing wharves; construction of maintenance and storage buildings, new medical facilities and accommodation; and the new Navy training systems centre—all because of this government's decision to make Henderson the centre for those parts of the anti-submarine warfare frigate project. This is in addition to other commitments that we've announced and made to Henderson over the last couple of years: $300 million in upgrades to HMAS Stirling and Henderson because of the offshore patrol vessels, many of them being based in Perth; $150 million in upgrading the wharves and accommodation because of the new supply ships being based as well at Henderson and Stirling; and a $367 million commitment to redevelop the HMAS Stirlinginfrastructure, including power and water upgrades. And that's just the Commonwealth spending. There's also the $70 million new shipbuilding facility that Civmec is building to build the offshore patrol vessels. Dr Mike Kelly HRI They should've been built here. Mr PYNE 9V5 I hear the member for Eden-Monaro interject. The reality is that, if Labor had stayed in power, none of those— Dr Mike Kelly interjecting— Mr PYNE 9V5 10 offshore patrol vessels would have been built in Australia— Dr Mike Kelly interjecting— Mr PYNE 9V5 not one. The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Defence Industry will just pause for a second. The member for Eden-Monaro is lucky to still be in question time—very lucky to still be in question time. He'll cease interjecting. Mr PYNE 9V5 The 21 Pacific patrol boats would never have been built. They're being built at Henderson. The last ship for the Navy that was built in Australia is the HMAS Sydney, the air warfare destroyer. Because of the decision of first the Abbott government and now the Turnbull government, we're building 54 vessels in this country. The nine Hunter class antisubmarine warfare frigates are the latest, but there are also the submarines, the offshore patrol vessels and the Pacific patrol boats. Economy 52 14:45 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Wages growth has never been lower under any other Prime Minister. Australians are struggling with costs of living. Their out-of-pocket health costs are going up and up, out-of-pocket childcare costs are increasing for at least one in four Australian families, and, of course, power bills are going up and up. Why, under this Prime Minister, does everything go up, except people's wages? 14:45 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth On a matter of recent financial information from the Treasury, the average weekly ordinary time earnings for full-time adults increased by one per cent to $1,585 in the six months to May 2008, to be 2.7 per cent higher through the year. This is the highest through-the-year growth rate since November 2014. There is more work to be done, but we are seeing the results of a stronger economy and more jobs. More demand for labour is creating skill shortages, as the Reserve Bank governor observed the other day. We're starting to see wages increases, and they are reflected in the numbers. But I note the Leader of the Opposition has talked about the take-home pay of Australian workers. And we want Australians to keep more of the money they earn. In that case, why is he opposing us bringing down electricity prices? Why does he want Australians to pay more for electricity? Why did he oppose lower income taxes for every working Australian? Why is he opposing pay rises for workers by opposing tax relief for Australian businesses? Why did he oppose our new childcare subsidy that gives a typical family $1,300 more support for each child each year? And why, when he was a union leader, did he spend his time trading away penalty rates in order to put workers at a disadvantage in return for support from their employers? Why did he turn a blind eye to the big unions that bankroll the Labor Party, while slashing the pay of Australia's lowest-paid workers? Why did he deny 7,400 workers a pay rise last year, when he chose to play political games and block a government bill that would have ensured those workers received a pay rise? Why did he oppose our multinational tax legislation, which cracks down on tax avoidance? Why, if he's so concerned about hardworking Australian families, did he oppose our corrupting benefits legislation, which cracks down on secret deals, of the kind he used to be very good at, between unions and big business? Why is he seeking to impose over $200 billion in higher taxes on Australian families, targeted at low-income families, including, perhaps most shamefully of all, those self-funded retirees who would be stripped of up to 30 per cent of their income by this shameless, high-taxing Labor leader, were he ever to be Prime Minister. Ms Burney interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Barton will cease interjecting. Women: Economic Security 53 14:02 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services and Minister for Women. Will the minister update the House on the steps the government is taking to improve women's economic security? Is the minister aware of any suggestions that might undermine this success? 14:49 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for Bennelong for his question and recognise his deep commitment to ensuring that Australian women can have equal opportunity to participate in our economy and his deep commitment to their economic security. He understands, just like everybody on this side of the chamber, that it is important to give women choices and to give them more options in their life. You can do that by ensuring that they are more economically secure. On this side of the chamber, we actually believe in aspiration. We believe that it is good to help people to get ahead. That's why it's so pleasing that I can advise the chamber that today we are having more women employed, in record numbers, than ever before. Of the more than one million jobs that have been created under this government, the majority of those jobs have gone to women. It's also important to note that this government has been making an impact when it comes to closing the gender pay gap. They won't talk about this, but when Labor was in office, the gender pay gap was 17.2 per cent. Under this government, I'm pleased to report that it is down to 14.5 per cent. We know that that number is still too high, but it is trending in the right direction and the government is getting on with even more practical measures to be able to lower it even further. I'm pleased to report that, as Minister for Women, I will be delivering for the very first time ever, in the history of the parliament, a women's economic security statement that is focused on these practical measures. The government is making great strides when it comes to women's economic security and their retirement income. We have lifted the restrictions preventing women from making personal deductible contributions to their superannuation, no matter who employs them or how they are employed. We are also helping those women who have taken time out of the workforce to be able to catch-up on their superannuation contributions with a catch-up contribution on a rolling five-year basis. The member for Bennelong asks, 'Are there any risks, any suggestions or any plans that may threaten this?' Yes, there are. It's the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party. They would scrap these catch-up contributions because they have a plan to harm the retirement savings of Australian women. They would no longer see a levelling of the playing field and would not allow the personal deductions that I spoke of. Worse still, Labor would impose a mega retiree tax that would disproportionately impact Australian women. Why on earth does Labor have this plan against financial security— (Time expired) Great Barrier Reef Foundation 53 14:52 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Treasurer. Gross debt is at record half a trillion dollars under this government. Why is the Treasurer giving away at least $11 million in public debt interest in the first year alone, as a result of the government transferring almost half a billion dollars in taxpayers' money to a small private foundation in a closed-door meeting with the Prime Minister? 14:52 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I could ask of the shadow Treasurer this: why did their government give money to dead people and pets and all of these things? But he has asked the question. I also want to know what the Labor Party has got against Nemo! This is a government that has invested half a billion dollars in saving the reef. The minister brought forward a proposal to save the reef. It was not just to save the reef but to work in partnership with others outside of this building and outside of government to save the reef. Maybe the Labor Party thinks the Australian people are like Dory: they just forget everything. They think they will forget that it was the shadow Treasurer, when he was the immigration minister, who racked up $11½ billion in additional deficits because he can't control the borders. They think they will forget grocery watch, they will forget fuel watch, they will forget Cash for Clunkers or they will forget the economic record of the member for Lilley—but they won't. What we have done on the Great Barrier Reef is creating jobs on the reef up there. The member for Leichhardt knows all about that. The member for Capricornia knows all about that. The member for Herbert is hiding under the desk when we talk about the Great Barrier Reef, because they know that this government has gone out there and invested in the future of the reef. We think it's the right thing to do that in partnership with others out there in the community who are working to do the same thing. The Labor Party think all of the answers reside only in sitting around public service desks and sitting in government buildings. Maybe that's why the member for Rankin wants to put up taxes so that we can have more and more public servants. His great idea is to increase efficiency by abolishing the efficiency dividend. That's the genius of the member for Rankin. We know that they want to increase taxes for one simple reason: they want more desks in Canberra, not more desks in schools. They want a bigger Public Service. It'll go back to the ballooning Public Service we've seen in Victoria and in Queensland. They cannot control their spending. This is a government that has invested half a billion dollars, and the shadow Treasurer wants to deny them the extra $11 million that comes from them being able to invest that money into more success on the reef. This government makes no apologies for (1) investing in the reef and (2) doing it in partnership. That was the proposal. That was the deal. That's what we put in the budget. That's what the member for Sydney welcomed on the night, but maybe she has a memory like Dory as well. Endometriosis 54 14:55 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to support the more than 700,000 Australian women currently living with the debilitating condition of endometriosis? 14:56 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Forrest, who, along with the member for Canberra, the member for Boothby and many others, has been a powerful advocate for action on endometriosis. She brought to this parliament the story her daughter Kylie, how Kylie's condition destroyed so much of her life and how as a consequence she became a passionate advocate. But I also acknowledge, as I have earlier, the member for Canberra, the member for Boothby and many others. This is an example of this parliament working at its very best. The result of their collective work plus the work of many others, a Parliamentary Friends group was created for endometriosis. At that meeting the government gave a long overdue national apology for the silence that had confronted so many women and that they themselves had been forced to adopt in relation to this condition. Endometriosis is a menstrual condition that can have a debilitating impact, not just for Kylie but for 700,000 women—if not more, because of underdiagnosis. Their lives can be deeply affected. They can lose fertility, they can suffer from chronic pain and of course as a consequence they can also be exposed to mental health conditions. As a result of that joint Parliamentary Friends group, in which people of all sides are involved, the government agreed to put forward and develop with the community and the sector a National Action Plan for Endometriosis. People from all sides of parliament, the community, the women's movement and the medical profession came together to develop that. There were four key elements. One was in relation to education for women and girls to acknowledge the condition, to identify the signs and to seek help, but also for the medical profession, where there had been too little information for too long, as many have acknowledged. The second one was better approaches to diagnosis, the third was better approaches to treatment and the fourth was the search for a cure through research. In response to that plan, the government has committed about $4.7 million to the treatment of endometriosis and to pursuing those four goals. That includes $2½ million for clinical trials, seeking new treatments and working with women who are afflicted with endometriosis. This is a profound and important step forward. It's accompanied by the funding of $1 million for GPs—working with the medical profession to assist them in better understanding and in earlier diagnosis. All of these things come together. This has been a tough week in some ways, in the sense that the parliament has been at its most conflictual. But when we look at this topic we see the parliament working, we see democracy working and we see outcomes for women around Australia. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Ballarat on indulgence. 14:59 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek to associate the opposition with the remarks of the minister. I do think it is an example of the parliament at its best, when a Parliamentary Friends group is established to highlight such an important disease for women. And I do, as the government has said and as the opposition has said on many occasions, particularly the member for Canberra and the member for Boothby, commend the government for its actions in recognising endometriosis, and we certainly want to continue that fight ourselves as well. Great Barrier Reef Foundation 55 14:59 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, even under its own figures for private fundraising, it took the Great Barrier Reef Foundation more than 18 years to raise $58 million, and just 18 minutes with the Prime Minister to get almost half a billion dollars? 15:00 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth This question's been asked so many times and it's been answered by the minister again and again. I just remind the honourable member a submission was brought by the Minister for the Environment and Energy in the normal way through the cabinet process. The Great Barrier Reef Foundation, as the honourable member knows very well, is extremely well known to the Department of the Environment and Energy, having dealt with it for many years and particularly in the administration of a grant made to the foundation at the time the honourable member was minister. So the grant was made pursuant to a cabinet process. It's been fully documented. The due diligence process the minister has described. But the important thing is it is going to protect the Great Barrier Reef. This is the point that the honourable member fails to pay due regard to. The Great Barrier Reef, under the Labor government, got to the point of being on the edge, as it were, of falling onto the endangered list of UNESCO. A very, very considerable effort had to be undertaken in order to persuade UNESCO that the policies and programs being applied to the reef, both currently and prospectively, were going to maintain its health. This is part of that commitment. The money is going to a foundation very well known to the department and indeed to the minister and it will be administered over six years to protect the Great Barrier Reef. And you would think that that is an outcome that honourable members opposite would be supporting. Construction Industry 55 15:01 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer update the House on any recently initiated actions regarding cartel conduct in the construction industry? 15:02 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for his question. I can advise the House that the ACCC has advised that criminal charges have been laid against the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union and its ACT divisional branch secretary, Jason O'Mara, in relation to alleged cartel conduct. The statement says: "The CFMMEU and Mr O’Mara are each charged with attempting to induce suppliers of steelfixing services and scaffolding services to reach cartel contracts, arrangements or understandings containing cartel provisions in relation to services provided to builders in the ACT in 2012 to 2013" … "These charges follow a joint investigation between the ACCC and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) as part of the AFP’s role in coordinating and contributing to the Joint Police Task Force following the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption"— which those opposite will be very familiar with. It continues: The charges are being prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP). The first mention of the charges before the ACT Magistrates Court is scheduled for 27 September 2018. I am reading from the ACCC's media statement. I'd be happy to table it for you in a written form. You may want to read it; you may want to be advised of it. What does it take for the Labor Party to stop taking money from the CFMMEU? Some $2.4 million in donations have been funnelled to the Labor Party under this Leader of the Opposition, and some $11 million or thereabouts over their period of time. What does it take for the Labor Party to say to the CFMMEU: 'No more money for us. We're over your criminal and corrupt and thuggish and bullish conduct'? They've got to stop giving awards to these thugs and they should be supporting the government in ensuring they're prosecuted by the courts. This is a Labor leader who is so weak-kneed when it comes to the union movement, he makes Dan Andrews look like a corruption fighter— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Grayndler, on a point of order. Mr Albanese R36 The Treasurer, in his answer, began by outlining in great detail that a matter was before the courts. He has then proceeded to prejudice matters that are before the courts with his comments. The SPEAKER 00APG I want to rule on the point of order. I've got to say that, as I was listening to the answer, I was becoming concerned. The Practice writes up the approach to sub judice, and there's a scale, depending on whether something's before the court, whether there's a jury and what stage it's at. I'm not aware of, obviously, all of the details of every case and what stages they're at, but certainly, when it comes to criminal matters, the Practice makes it very clear that those matters are more high risk. I've just cautioned the Treasurer because there's a long history on the sub judice rule on these matters. Mr MORRISON E3L Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I agree, obviously, with your ruling because the Labor Party seems to think that this is the only matter the CFMEU have ever been involved with. My comments in relation to the broader activities and the other activities of the CFMEU should have been reason enough for the Labor Party to turn its back on that thuggish bunch of crooks that occupy the CFMEU. But, instead of doing that, what this mob over there do is they move their wheelbarrow into the money! The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will resume his seat. I'm going to hear the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW In relation to the earlier point of order: if the Treasurer hadn't crossed the line at that point, I would suggest that he well and truly has now. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members will cease interjecting! The member for Grayndler's made his point of order. The Manager of Opposition Business is now making his. I don't need stereo on the subject. Mr Burke DYW If the principle of the words of Practice is meant to be that we don't prejudice cases, when he begins by referring to someone having been charged and then starts invoking words like 'crooks', it's a bit hard to see how the Treasurer is doing anything other than trying to prejudice a case. The SPEAKER 00APG I think we'll just move to the next question. I think that would be the most prudent thing to do. Great Barrier Reef Foundation 56 15:07 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. It is now a matter of record that the Prime Minister offered the Brisbane based, private Great Barrier Reef Foundation almost half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money in a closed-door meeting on 9 April. Prime Minister, why weren't the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Australian Institute of Marine Science or the CSIRO even invited to tender for the half-a-billion-dollar contract of taxpayer money? The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for the Environment and Energy. Mr Shorten interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition catcalling across the dispatch boxes is not going to occur. 15:08 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong It's an inconvenient truth for the Leader of the Opposition that the coalition government is saving the reef when Labor abandoned it. That's the inconvenient truth for the Labor Party. That's because we've heard from the Prime Minister that, when the Labor Party was last in office, they put the Great Barrier Reef on a fast track to the endangered list. They failed to put in place a long-term plan to secure jobs in the member for Capricornia's seat, in the member for Dawson's seat, in the member for Herbert's seat and in the member for Leichhardt's seat. They failed to put in place a long-term plan. They had five capital dredge disposal projects planned for the marine park. That's what they had. They failed to allocate funding. In fact, funding was about half of what it is under the Turnbull government today. We have put in place the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan in partnership with the Queensland government—that's $2 billion. We've committed this $500 million. Do you know who is on the board of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation? The chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for the Environment and Energy will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW The question itself went entirely to who was invited to tender for the contract—entirely to that. I'd simply put it you that this is not directly relevant in any way. The SPEAKER 00APG I'll call the minister back. He does need to be relevant to the question. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL The best partner for the Commonwealth government was the foundation because of its proven track record and its ability to leverage off the philanthropic sector. The fact of the matter is the foundation works closely with the CSIRO, with AIMS and with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—so much so that, when Labor was in office, Labor decided to provide money to the foundation. Again, Labor abandoned the reef, and the coalition is saving it. National Security 57 15:10 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I ask the Minister for Home Affairs if he would update the House on the importance of strong border protection measures for Australia. And, secondly, is he aware of any alternative plans that would weaken Australia's borders? 15:11 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. It is the case that this government have worked day and night to keep our borders secure. We've sought to clean up Labor's mess, and we really regret the fact that Labor is still proposing a policy which would allow the boats to recommence, allow the deaths at sea, sadly, to recommence and allow detention centres—we've closed 17 of them—to reopen. I want to mention a name that my colleagues won't be familiar with. It's the member for Blair. You may not have heard of him. You've certainly not heard from him, but he has been the shadow immigration minister now for 750 days. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right! Mr Littleproud interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister for agriculture! Mr DUTTON 00AKI He's been the shadow minister for immigration for 120 question times. He's not asked one question on boats; nonetheless, I've got a bit of a soft spot for the member for Blair. I've got to say, I've just been advised that, after all this period of time, the member for Blair has asked for his first briefing on Operation Sovereign Borders from my department. I feel almost like a proud father. You know when your child takes a first step, or a milestone? He's not yet speaking; he's a little slow at speaking, but he has taken one baby step. It's too little too late, I fear, because he's out there, he's already announced the policy, not having been properly briefed, he's provided advice about how they'll change the policy, how they'll water down our policy and how they'll allow the boats to get back into business—and now he asks for a briefing on how we've stopped the boats! Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Sydney! Mr DUTTON 00AKI Wouldn't it have been a better move to ask for the briefing first? Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney is warned. Mr DUTTON 00AKI Wouldn't it be better to ask the government: how did you clean up Labor's mess? 'When we were in government, 50,000 people arrived on 800 boats,' he would say. 'How did you stop them? How did the Liberal government stop the boats?' How did we get kids out of detention? How did we close 17 detention centres that Labor opened? Why is it that I've not had a death at sea on my watch, and yet under Labor 1,200 people tragically drowned? Wouldn't these have been logical questions for the shadow minister for immigration to ask? You can only imagine what the first 750 days of a Labor government would bring. You can imagine what the first 750 hours would bring—boats, boats, boats. Mr Turnbull 885 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 57 DOCUMENTS Presentation 57 15:14 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 57 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:14 The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has indicated she wishes to make a personal explanation. 15:14 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do seek to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Do you claim to have been misrepresented? Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Yes, I do. The SPEAKER 00APG You may proceed. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M In question time today, the Treasurer claimed that on budget night I had welcomed the government offering almost half a billion dollars in taxpayers' money to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation and suggested that I'd forgotten welcoming it. That's incorrect. In fact, on the morning of the government's pre-budget announcement, on 29 April 2018, I said: … any extra help and support for the Great Barrier Reef is something to be welcomed. In that statement, I welcomed money to help protect the Great Barrier Reef. I did not welcome the fact that almost half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money was offered by the Prime Minister to a small private foundation in a closed-door meeting, with no public servants present, without tender and with no serious due diligence. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 58 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Rural and Regional Australia 58 15:15 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Whitlam proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government letting down rural and regional Australians. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:15 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam It's very difficult to talk about a matter that concerns rural and regional Australia without mentioning the circumstances of drought-stricken communities. This morning I was reminded of the impact that it's having in the Illawarra and on the South Coast. I spoke to Labor's candidate for the seat of Gilmore about the circumstances facing the dairy industry on the South Coast. Fiona Phillips, Labor's candidate for the seat of Gilmore, comes from four generations of dairy farmers on the South Coast. Her family is still involved in the dairy industry. She reminded me that the drought is affecting the industry on the South Coast enormously. She told me a story of one farmer who was taking 80 cattle to the abattoir every week. There are very real concerns that on the South Coast over 50 per cent of the family-owned dairy farms will not be in operation by Christmas. So we know that this is having a devastating impact on families, on communities and on businesses in rural and regional Australia. Against that background, we have to consider what the obligation of government is. We know that governments cannot make it rain, but we are quite certain that governments have an obligation to ensure that we do not make life harder for communities and businesses and farmers in rural and regional Australia. We need to ensure that our response is adequate to the challenges at hand. And I have to say: while the response from the government, announced during the midwinter break, was welcome, it was not adequate. The response has been criticised, quite rightly, by farming communities as overly bureaucratic, slow and inadequate to the challenges that farming communities are meeting. Communities from regional Australia, whether they send a National Party MP, a Liberal Party MP or an Independent or a Labor Party MP to this place, expect us to stand up for the needs of rural and regional Australia—not just in crisis but in normal times as well. We know that rain will come. And we know that, as every day goes past, we are one day closer to the drought breaking. That is why we need to set our minds to the task of what needs to be put in place to sustain those communities through the drought, and to set rural and regional Australia up for the future. That is why we, on the Labor side of the House, were so concerned when we had confirmed last night that a plan was afoot between the NBN and the government to slug rural and regional consumers of NBN products up to $20 extra a month for accessing wireless internet services from the NBN. We had it confirmed, late last night at an NBN committee, that there was a plan afoot to slug the 240,000 premises throughout the country who access their broadband internet services through a fixed wireless NBN service up to $240 extra a year. This is for a substandard service. This is for a service that we now know, as each week goes by, is suffering more and more congestion. And we know that the NBN is putting in place plans to, in their own words, try to groom or throttle the access to those internet services, to ensure that the demand matches the bandwidth that is available. Charging those consumers is not the right answer. If anybody doubts that this plan was afoot, they need look no further than the words of the NBN and the government spokespersons themselves. At 8 am today on ABC radio in Hobart the presenter asked an NBN spokesperson: Is it fair that customers why just, by I guess where they live, have to pay more for a service that's available in the city? The answer from the NBN spokesperson was: Well this is one of the realities of the internet. The answer from this government at eight o'clock this morning was: 'That's just the reality of the internet. You just have to get over it.' By 11 o'clock this morning the backflip was in full swing. I have to pay credit to the member for Lyons, who was instrumental in putting a spotlight on this plan in the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network in this place last night. It was not a member of the National Party—because no member of the National Party even turned up to the committee to put pressure on the NBN and to put a spotlight on the plans that we knew were afoot from the NBN and the government. It wasn't a member of the National Party. It was not even one of the regional Liberal representatives who are members of that committee. It was the member for Lyons who exposed the plan. It was the member for Lyons, representing a regional community in Tasmania, who exposed the plan that was afoot. By 12 o'clock today the minister was shamed and embarrassed into withdrawing the position. But what is absolutely clear is that, had it not been for the pressure applied by the member for Lyons and the Labor Party, regional and rural consumers would have been paying $20 a month more from Monday—not from next year—for accessing exactly the same services as people in the cities. The minister cannot pretend, as he has attempted to do today, that he knew nothing about it. Members opposite who pretend to represent rural and regional communities cannot pretend to have known nothing about it, because members opposite would have had available to them—as I have had available to me and as all members for rural and regional communities have had available to them—submissions that have been made by every telecommunications company in the country to the regional and rural telecommunications review. Every telecommunications company has put a submission into that review saying that the government has a plan for differential pricing for NBN services accessed over the wireless internet platform and that this is going to have an iniquitous impact on rural and regional communities. They cannot claim to have had no knowledge. It was in the written submissions. I am sure the telecommunications companies were raising the same objections with the Minister for Regional Communications, who is not interested in anything unless it has got a hockey stick strapped to it. She is supposed to be the Minister for Regional Communications, but she has been completely missing in action on this issue. Members opposite have been caught out. They were but days away from implementing a new plan that would have had regional consumers slugged a minimum additional $240 per annum on their internet bills. These guys talk about the costs of living. Here is a cost-of-living impact that they have a direct responsibility for. This whole episode makes it clear that you cannot trust the National Party and you cannot trust the Liberal Party—in fact, you cannot trust anyone on that side of the House—when it comes to providing internet services, broadband services and telecommunications services for regional and rural communities. You cannot trust them. They are either ignorant of the facts or asleep at the wheel and doing nothing about it. Labor has a plan and Labor will ensure that these communities get the internet services they deserve. It was Labor that conceived of the National Broadband Network after a decade of inaction from those on the other side of the House—a decade of inaction. It was Labor that conceived of the NBN. It was Labor that had a plan to ensure that they would get a fibre-optic cable connection to every premises in those large towns, villages and cities throughout regional Australia. It was the National Party and it was the Liberal Party who sold them out. Not only have they sold them out on the plan and on the rollout, they have not had the strength, they've not had the attention to the subject matter, to ensure that the plan is thoroughly rolled out in their regional and rural communities so that they get the services they deserve. When you talk about prices and the cost of living, this is something which is directly within your control, and you have been found wanting. Once again, not one National Party member and not one Liberal Party member has done their job and stood up to the government— (Time expired) 15:25 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom Here's Labor again. They hate it when someone from regional Australia stands at this dispatch box, representing the whole country, such as the National Party and the Liberal Parties do. We have heard from Labor today, once again leading by the chin, once again misleading the public on the NBN. They claim that NBN intends to charge more for fixed wireless services compared to the fixed line services. This is not the case. It will not occur. We've heard from the member for Whitlam. What a display! Here he is wanting to mislead Australians about the challenges, the fortunes and the opportunities in regional Australia and getting on and helping them do it for the future. He's grandstanding once again. Whereas the coalition—the Liberal Party and the National Party—are getting on with the job. We're 100 per cent focused on delivering more secure jobs and a stronger economy for all of those who call regional Australia home. We're focused on supporting nearly eight million people who live outside of our capital cities. From Busselton to Boulia, the coalition has a plan and we are focused on getting it done. Building up regional Australia is all about what the coalition plan is focused upon—not tearing it down as those opposite would do. They're more focused on destroying jobs, pouring on more tax and destroying confidence throughout regional Australia. We're backing regional Australia with more jobs. More than one million jobs have been created since the coalition government was elected. That's up to one million more families spending more and investing more. We're building communities up, not tearing them down. We're providing tax relief to families and businesses right across Australia. It would be interesting to consider what the contribution would be from the member for Whitlam and those opposite, because they continue to miss the facts. They continue to ignore the fact that 61,000 locals in the electorate of Whitlam, for example, are benefitting from the very tax relief, thanks to the coalition, that I refer to, or the more than 12,000 small- and medium-sized businesses in that electorate who are already spending more and investing more, thanks to that tax relief. We're building them up, not tearing them down. A key part of our plan for regional Australia is the Building Better Regions Fund—local infrastructure, vibrant communities, more jobs. Last month, I travelled right across Australia, as I do quite regularly, and saw some of the 240-plus projects supported, thanks to the $212 million fund that we've invested in the second round of this vital program. Hundreds of local communities have benefited over the years due to this program under coalition leadership, and they do not feel let down. They feel that we are building them up. For example, there are the projects in Baradine, in the member for Parkes electorate; Mercy Aged Care in Rockhampton; or delivering support for the transformational Middleton Beach Foreshore project in Albany, in the member for O'Connor's electorate. That is the coalition developing and delivering on this plan for regional Australia. Of course, all regional electorates are not missing out. We're building them up; we're not tearing them down. We are generating jobs—more opportunities in a stronger economy. The Regional Jobs and Investment Packages have done exactly the same thing in 10 key regions across our great nation—10 key regions that are benefitting from those projects. Let's think about those opposite just for a moment. Let's think about the six years of Labor shamble in government. Unlike Labor, we are getting it done on the NBN. About 96 per cent of all homes and businesses outside major urban areas either can order NBN based services or have new network construction under way. We're getting it done on the Mobile Black Spot Program. There have been three rounds of this program, investing over $680 million to deliver 867 mobile base stations. Nearly 600 of those have already been turned on and are changing and saving lives. When those opposite were in power for six years they did not spend one single dollar on improving mobile phone coverage—zero, zip. They had six years in government and there was not one mobile phone tower. That's tearing down regional communities, yet again. The member opposite referred to the drought. Let's talk about the drought. Let's talk about the fact that when we came to power the drought cupboard left to us by the former government was bare. It took the member for New England to lead the charge and respond properly to drought circumstances right across the country, just as our government is stepping up to do again in the conditions now enveloping much of western New South Wales and western Queensland and into Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. As well, we're getting feedback on Blackall, Boulia, Charleville, Trangie, Dubbo, Moree, Narromine. The list goes on. From the farm household allowance and, of course, the Drought Communities Program that I administer through to local governments in order that they might support their local communities, we have invested more than $1.3 billion in support for farmers in need since 2013. Farmers are resilient. The National Party and the Liberal Party know farmers. Many of us are farmers. We know that we will be there simply to give them a hand up when they need it, unlike those opposite. The history books have shown that Australian farmers can do that, and have done it time and time again. Let's think of Labor's debacle with the live cattle export industry, which is still being felt right across the east coast of Australia and through cattle markets right across the nation. In contrast to that, let's think of our efforts to open up new markets in China, Korea, Japan and Peru—free trade deals that those opposite have either ignored or not supported. In fact, they've argued against them in the past. They want to attack regional economies. They continue to plan to let them down. We have a very significant decentralisation agenda on behalf of this government. Those opposite don't support it. They don't think that the opportunities for public servants in Sydney's CBD, Melbourne's CBD and here in Canberra should be shared across regional Australia. They don't understand that opportunity. Let's think of the $75 billion infrastructure program, the pipeline that this government is leading for the benefit of regional Australia, be it billions for the Bruce Highway or for the Pacific Highway—the roads of strategic importance. Let's think of stepping into individual regional economies: the $7 million Rockhampton riverfront redevelopment; $5.3 million for Ronald Macdonald House, for example, in South Brisbane— Opposition members interjecting— Dr McVEIGH 125865 You know what? Because it supports regional families in need of support when they come to get health care in our cities such as that one. There is $2.8 million—why does the opposition hate these sort of projects in regional communities—for Kingston Park community hub in the electorate of the member for Franklin. For the Moss Vale Enterprise Corridor in the electorate of the member for Whitlam there is $4.6 million. Those opposite are not interested in regional Australia. If the Labor Party got back into power, can you picture them in regional Australia? You'd have the Leader of the Opposition there, jumping in the front seat of the ute. He'd be wondering how to get a regional economy going. He'd turn to his colleagues and say, 'How do we get it going? Why won't it go?' He'd say, 'We must have the brake on.' Regional Australia knows that is the potential under a Labor government in the future, should that dreaded outcome happen. They talk a big game but, when the rubber hits the road, the contrast is stark. The shoddy, shambolic Leader of the Opposition may be able to hoodwink his party room. He might be able to take a two-faced approach, saying different things in Melbourne's CBD to what he may say in regional Queensland in relation to the infrastructure and resources industries, the very industries providing jobs and opportunities for the regional families of the future. How dare the opposition talk about regional Australia? They have no idea. The coalition, the National and Liberal parties, which represent the bulk of regional Australians—that's right: the bulk of regional Australia—will continue to support them going forward, because they are the future of our country. The opposition do not get that. Regional Australia dreads the opposition. They have shown their shortcomings in the past so many times. 15:36 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell The Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government is letting regional Australia down. Come to my electorate and speak to the 18.6 per cent of young people who are looking for work while TAFE has been gutted. Talk to them and then represent regional Australia. The government is letting down regional and rural Australians and this is certainly the case in my electorate of Dobell on the New South Wales Central Coast. It's letting down regional Australians in health care, education and employment. On the Central Coast, one in five of us is aged over 65 and one in five of us is aged under 15. These are the regional Australians who you're supposed to represent, who need your help. The very young and the very old are the people who most use and need health care and yet Medicare rebates are not keeping pace and people are paying higher gap fees to access the healthcare services they need, after the New South Wales government tried to sell off our local hospital in Wyong. Our oldest are waiting too long for home care packages and too long for their pensions to come through. Some have been waiting since last December. Our youngest, especially those from vulnerable families, risk missing out on important early childhood education because of the harsh changes that this government has made to childcare subsidies. On the coast, our population is hollowed out in the middle, as people of working age are forced to travel to work or study outside of our region—to Sydney, Newcastle or further. Young people are forced to travel away for TAFE to Sydney or Newcastle. Under this government, Central Coast TAFE has been gutted. Our schools have lost $33 million. Yes, $33 million to Central Coast schools has been cut. And our university, the University of Newcastle, has lost $69 million that would have supported regional Australians to get a better education, a better start and a better job. There is no doubt this government is letting down rural and regional Australians and it's not fair. We're not wealthy on the coast. We're decent people, we work hard and we support one another. Young people, in particular, are struggling to find work. We have stubbornly high youth unemployment, sitting at 18.6 per cent, and yet this government is doing nothing. It's sitting on its hands, doing nothing to help them get a job, nothing to help them acquire skills or education and nothing to help them get apprenticeships. Only Labor is interested in young people and in education, skills and apprenticeships for young people. Labor will commit $100 million to rebuilding TAFE with our Future Fund to reverse the decline in TAFE and rebuild campuses across regional Australia. Labor will ensure two-thirds of funding for vocational education goes to TAFE and will scrap up-front fees for 100,000 students. Labor will provide pre-apprenticeship programs and advanced adult apprenticeship programs, and Labor will ensure one in 10 jobs on Commonwealth priority projects are filled by apprentices. In regional areas like mine on the Central Coast of New South Wales, the chance to gain skills through an apprenticeship is a trusted pathway to a secure career. Behind health care, manufacturing is our second biggest value-add sector on the Central Coast, worth nearly $1 billion and employing nearly 10,000 people. What is the government doing to support manufacturing in regional and rural Australia? Nothing. The manufacturing sector is crying out for support to grow, expand and employ more people, and the government is doing nothing. The manufacturing industry needs skilled workers and willing apprentices and the government is cutting them off at the knees. Our regions even more than our cities need TAFE, and Labor will work to rebuild TAFE. We will rebuild education and we will rebuild health care. What could be more important to anyone, whether they live in the city or in the regional and rural areas of Australia, than access to quality health care, a good local education and a secure job? This is what is necessary for anybody in our country. Before I finish, I want to turn to something that this ideologically driven government is fixated on: trickle-down economics. It has let down the people of regional and rural Australia. It has let them down badly. I want to talk to you about Enid and Warren. Enid is 94 and vision impaired. Warren is 97 and living with dementia. Last April they were assessed for a level 3 home care package. They are still waiting. When my office contacted My Aged Care, we were told that they'd look at another assessment, to hopefully move them from a medium priority to a high priority. It is just outrageous that someone who is 94, is vision impaired and is the carer for her husband, who is 97 and living with dementia, has to struggle. Do you know what they said? 'Don't bother, Emma. We'll be dead before this gets fixed.' That is how this government is supporting struggling regional Australians who are suffering. It must do better. This is not fair. 15:41 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I am quite astounded at the Labor Party bringing on this MPI today about rural and regional Australia. It's always amusing to listen to the member for Whitlam talking about regional Australia. I know he has a great knowledge of regional Australia—he drives through it on his way from Canberra to Wollongong every couple of weeks and has a clear understanding of what's going on! He comes in here without a real issue but with a made-up issue, about telecommunications. I've been here for a while. I sat on that side of the House while his party removed the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund and gave people $900 cash flashes to put through the poker machines and buy things from Kmart—all gone; not one mobile phone tower. But the people at Yellow Mountain, west of Condobolin—a vast area that had been neglected by the opposition—are now getting telecommunications services thanks to the Mobile Black Spot Program. The member for Whitlam mentioned drought. I've got to know a bit about drought. I was a farmer for 33 years before I came here, and I've been through a few. This is as bad as it's been. I've seen as bad as this, but it's as bad as it's been. I can tell you farmers are handling this a lot better because of the policies put in by the member for New England when he was the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— Mr COULTON HWN I can point you, Member for Hunter, to grain storages, water systems and farms that have been properly fenced because of the tax incentives that were put in place for that white paper. You've got to be able to speak about regional Australia because you understand regional Australia, and we don't see any of that from the other side. I sat in this place—I think it was in 2008—when the member for Watson as agriculture minister said, 'We're not going to use the word 'drought' anymore.' Remember that? He said, 'We're going to change 'drought' for 'dryness'. We've just got dryness now. We'll put in a bit of a $60,000 scheme.' Remember the scheme in Western Australia, where they were going to do trials about farmers managing dryness? That was it. That was their drought policy. This is not a place for negative speeches. I want to talk about the positives in regional Australia. The member for Dobell might want to send her young people to the electorate of Parkes, where youth unemployment is in single figures. The unemployment level of Dubbo is 2.2 per cent. Last year 58 Indigenous kids did the HSC at Dubbo College Senior Campus and have gone into employment or education because of the funding of things like Clontarf, Girls Academy, Sista Speak—all these things that the federal government is funding for young people in regional Australia. She might want to go across the road a bit, to the campus of Dubbo Base Hospital, and have a look at the construction of the cancer centre—thanks to the help of the member for New England once again. That cancer centre is going to serve the people of western New South Wales. Go a little bit further round, to the medical school, where country kids can do their full training—from students right through to specialisation—in the bush. It is training doctors for the bush. There is the Inland Rail. We heard a lot of talk about the Inland Rail. I can actually take you out there now and show you where the tracks have been laid out, where the earth's been dug up, for that corridor of commerce that's going to link Melbourne with Brisbane, right through— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The assistant minister will take his seat for a second. The member for New England on a point of order. Mr Joyce E5D It's absolutely disorderly to interject from outside your seat, and I would remind the member for Hunter that he might want to sit on the very back of the backbench because he's such a hopeless minister he should get in front of it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I take the member for New England's point. I do warn the member for Hunter. He has been warned. He is outside of his seat and he will be removed if he does that again. I give the call to the assistant minister. Mr COULTON HWN Inland rail is going to boost the economy of the entire country, but particularly of regional Australia. Regional Australia is a land of opportunity. One thing that I know unites the people of regional Australia is they're absolutely terrified of this group sitting opposite. They can remember the shemozzle that was the government when those opposite were in. They can remember the raiding of the money that was set aside for telecommunications infrastructure and changing— Mr Stephen Jones A9B And building infrastructure. Mr COULTON HWN Not a cent! (Time expired) 15:46 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond Here we are, yet again, talking about how the National Party has abandoned rural and regional Australia. I always find it interesting— Mr Coulton interjecting— Mrs ELLIOT DZW I'll get to coal seam gas and how you're pushing full steam ahead with that, don't you worry about that. But I always find it interesting that the National Party members can come here and yell at us, but they can't walk down the hall and yell at the Prime Minister in defence of regional Australia. They're too scared! They'll come in here and carry on about us, but they've done nothing to help the people of the regions. Why don't they tell the Prime Minister what they need in regional and rural Australia? They don't do it, because they've abandoned the country. Time and time again they've done that. This government continues to fail people from the regions. It was long ago that the National Party abandoned them. But people are onto you; people are onto the National Party. They know what you've done, and they also know what you haven't done. As we know and as we say in this House quite often, government is all about choices and priorities. The Turnbull government has chosen to give the banks that $17 billion tax handout. That's what the government has chosen and that's what the National Party have chosen too. When we say that National Party choices hurt; they really do hurt! They really do hurt when they choose to give the big tax handout to the banks instead of funding vital services in the bush. That's why people have had it with you. That's why people know you've abandoned them. Let's run through of some those harsh National Party cuts, shall we? Cuts to hospitals and healthcare, cuts to aged care, cuts to pensions, cuts to education, cuts to the ABC, cuts to penalty rates as well, and of course, the government's NBN debacle. We haven't heard any of their speakers talk about the NBN, have we? Because it's a complete disaster! Let's have a look at some of those education cuts and cuts to families. We've got increases in childcare fees, cuts to school funding, cuts to apprenticeships and TAFE, and also cuts to university funding. It's interesting when we look at those cuts to schools. What is that figure again? They have cut $17 billion from schools whilst they're giving $17 billion to the banks. The National Party aren't talking about that too much out in their seats, are they? No. Those harsh cuts to universities really hurt people in the regions. If you live in a regional or rural area, it's already hard enough to get to university, with all the added costs of transport. The government's cuts to universities and the increase in fees make it extra hard for kids from the country to actually get to universities. Look at my area in northern New South Wales. For Southern Cross University, the cuts from the academic years 2018 to 2021 are $25 million. How hard does it make it for kids then from the regions to actually get to uni? Let's get back to the NBN. Let's see if any other speakers following us today are actually going to mention those words, because it is a total debacle. People in the country have a right to access good reliable broadband. They don't have that. The government's NBN has been a disaster—$20 billion over budget and four years behind schedule. We need to have the NBN in the regions. We need an effective NBN for our students at universities, for our small businesses to connect to the world, for our flourishing creative industries, and for our health and hospital services as well. We've already heard from some of the speakers today about the debacle over the government's increase for fees in the regions. Goodness me! They certainly were caught out, weren't they? They did a big backflip with that. It just shows that you cannot trust the National Party and you cannot trust them with their NBN as they try to slug those extra charges. I will just point out what it would have meant for my electorate in Richmond: nearly 12,000 homes would have been slugged $240 extra a year with their secret plan to increase the NBN in the regions. Mr Coulton HWN You're making it up! Mrs ELLIOT DZW Don't worry—we're onto you! We're onto you! We also see these members across here constantly attacking penalty rates. That's what's hurting families in the regions: your constant war against penalty rates for people in the regions who rely on them. We have here a National Party that supports cuts to penalty rates. Time and time again, we hear them supporting it. Let's never forget that every single National Party member in this House has had eight opportunities in this parliament to protect penalty rates. And what have they done each time? They've voted against them. Every single time, they've abandoned the people of the regions. Eight times they had that opportunity and they chose not to protect penalty rates, each and every single time. It's very clear that there's only one way to protect penalty rates, and that's to elect a Shorten Labor government. As I said, governments are all about choices and priorities. The Turnbull government has abandoned Australia and the regions by choosing to give the banks that big handout. But it's the National Party that has really abandoned those people in the regions. It's only Labor that will stand up for the country—only Labor. 15:51 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Today may very well be known in the future as the day the opposition finally went mad. All week, we've seen them argue about serious funding that this coalition government has delivered to help secure a strong future for the Great Barrier Reef. We've also seen them sit on the fence when it comes to setting up an energy system that actually works and that provides affordable, reliable energy for everyday Australians and employees alike. Energy prices are of vital importance to people in the bush, but this opposition just does not care. And then, today, we have this. The very idea that a motion such as this could come from the Australian Labor Party—the very same party that's done everything within their power, in living memory, to ruin and demonise those who live and work in the bush—is entirely confusing. Labor has never shown any interest in the needs of the people in the bush, nor do they now. They simply find an excuse to talk about themselves. It was the Labor Party which halted the live cattle export to Indonesia overnight, on a whim. Graziers and communities across the Top End are still reeling from this stupid decision made in haste by people who had no idea about the industry they were in charge of. If you combine this with the radical hatred those opposite have adopted when it comes to coalmining then there is very little remaining for regional and rural Australians to rely on in getting a good job under a Labor-Greens regime. On the matter of the cruel, crippling drought grasping much of Queensland and almost all of New South Wales, I'm confident that the government, while unable to perform miracles—although we sometimes may like to—is delivering what is needed for farming families in desperate situations. There is a range of assistance out there for farmers and graziers, from financial to therapeutic. We need people to reach out and take advantage of what is being offered, though, and I hope that more take up those opportunities in the near future. What is more important and appropriate for a government to get stuck into, though, is to continue to develop the infrastructure that our regional and rural communities and businesses need to thrive. There is no good in fighting to get through a drought and then not have the infrastructure you need to bounce back and thrive. That's why I have led such a crusade for two vital forms of infrastructure: water and roads. There is not a Central Queenslander who has not heard of Rookwood Weir, the state's No. 1 water infrastructure priority. Rookwood has been a passion of mine since I entered parliament back in 2013. And when we know what it will do for CQ, we can understand why. There will be 200 to 400 jobs through construction, 2,100 ongoing jobs, a $1 billion boost to the economy and opportunities for all sorts of agriculture development—feedlots, tree crops, timber plantations, small crops, vegetables and agriculture. The sky is, indeed, the limit. Clearly, what this project can do for the region is immense, and it is only the coalition who are serious about making it happen. It is only the coalition that has invested real money into feasibility studies across the country for new dams and weirs. It is the coalition that has led the process all the way with Rookwood Weir. It was us who delivered the original $130 million to get Rookwood built, as well as $2 million for the state government to complete a business case. We waited over 600 days until the Queensland government finally dragged themselves up to the table, and eventually all of the $352 million needed has been placed on the table. We are ready to go, but for some reason nothing is happening. It's clear the state government continues to drag its feet, and I for one have had enough. Foot dragging is not confined to the Rookwood Weir project either, with a range of infrastructure projects on the go-slow across the region. We have serious issues with sections of the Fitzroy Development Road, a remote highway responsible for carrying heavy loads for the mining and grazing sectors—utterly ignored by the state government that owns it. Motorists and their properties are in real peril. Meanwhile, major upgrades to the Capricorn Highway are sitting on the books, once again waiting for action by the state government. We're doing what we can to improve local infrastructure, while the state colleagues of those opposite simply don't care. Today's MPI suggests the government is letting down rural and regional Australians, but I can only see one government doing that: the Queensland Labor state government. 15:55 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons To have lessons about rural and regional Australia from the National Party, the party that's abandoned the regions, is just beyond the pale. This is a party that has voted multiple times against a banking royal commission, against investigations into banks that are hurting farmers and hurting regional communities. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming, after the work done by this side of the House, into getting a banking royal commission up and running. Look at what that banking royal commission has uncovered: crime after crime after crime. Yet they sat over there with their Liberal counterparts and did nothing for years. You should be ashamed. The same party voted against action on penalty rates. I'll tell you what: young people in my community who work in hospitality, retail and other services across the regions need penalty rates not just as pocket money but to survive, to pay the rent and to put food on the table. So don't sit there, National Party, and lecture us about rural and regional Australia. You haven't been doing your job, and that's why people are voting more and more to elect Labor MPs into regional seats. Shortland, Richmond, Hunter, Paterson, Bass, Braddon, Lyons, Newcastle, Whitlam, Herbert, Solomon, Lingiari, Dobell—and I'm sure there are more. We are on the march for rural and regional Australia, and we're coming for you. I will just say this about the drought in New South Wales and Queensland: I'm proud to say that Tasmanians have really delivered the goods here. Dairy farmer Michael Perkins, his mate Robbie Edwards, dairy farmer Paul Lambert, Glenn Phillips in Smithton, and Ruby Daly from Marion Bay potatoes in my electorate are all doing their bit to help the farmers and regional communities who are doing it very tough out there in New South Wales and Queensland—in some respect repaying the debt to mainlanders from when Tasmania suffered a drought and also floods in recent years. This is what rural and regional Australians do. They act together . They work together for the common good. I've got a long speech here, which I have completely blown, on the myriad failures of this government on rural and regional Australia, and I'll try to get to some of it. But I tell you what: I'll come to the NBN, because those opposite have been saying about the NBN that we're not telling the truth. Well, let me say this. This is the recorded Hansard of my question to the NBN yesterday: I … want to confirm what you were saying … I represent a country electorate. A lot of my people are on fixed wireless. I want to be crystal clear: are you saying that, if somebody who lives in the centre of Hobart and is on a 50-meg bundled service and paying $45 wholesale moves out to my electorate and gets a fixed wireless tower, under the new bundled service you are talking about they would be paying $65 wholesale? Is that the essence of what you're saying? Mr Stephen Rue of NBN Co said: If the RSP chooses to purchase a 50-20 bundled product from us, that would be $65, yes. So there it is in Hansard: a big difference between what NBN Co is going to charge people on fixed wireless, $65 wholesale, and what they're charging people in the city on a fixed line, which is $45 wholesale. That was last night. Then today we've had the press release from the minister: 'Oh, no, nothing to see here. We're not really doing that. That was just sort of a plan—maybe something we were thinking about.' I truly hope that the government and NBN Co have changed their minds and have backflipped on this, because that means that, thanks to Labor questions at the committee last night, Labor have saved country people $240 a year on their NBN—240 bucks a year, a Turnbull tax, a tax from Malcolm Turnbull because of his rank incompetence in delivering a workable NBN. Labor has saved country people $240 a year that they otherwise would have had to pay. I'm sure The Nationals will be thanking us for that—certainly, there were none of them there. Health, schools, universities, penalty rates—wherever you look, in every single instance the National and Liberal parties are failing rural and regional Australians. From tomorrow, one in four families will be worse off under the Liberals' unfair childcare system, which will disproportionately affect women and families in rural Australia. 16:00 Mr JOYCE E5D New England It has never been so much of a joy to talk about regional Australia and the National Party as it is today. You'll see in the Hansard how many times the Labor Party have mentioned the National Party—because they obviously acknowledge the work we do and are fearful of the work we do. I commend the new National Party senator for Tasmania, Senator Martin, for the hard work he is doing. Let us start. Who banned the live cattle trade? The Labor Party. Who's going to ban the live sheep trade? The Labor Party. Who fought against us on the decentralisation of things, such as the APVMA to Armidale? The Labor Party. Who's taking money out of our portfolio for building dams and driving investment? The Labor Party. Who had no money on the table for the Inland Rail in their last budget? The Labor Party. The member for Hunter, who stood up and proposed this MPI, was sitting down the back and has now left the chamber. He's not even here anymore; he doesn't believe in it. Where is the Labor Party's drought policy? I haven't seen it; it doesn't exist. What about mobile phones? How much did the Labor Party spend on mobile phones in their term? Nothing. They are absolutely hopeless. They will do nothing. Who's going to get rid of the Regional Investment Corporation we set up? The Labor Party. The Labor Party have the temerity to come in here and say that they represent regional areas. When you listen to them closely, you don't hear one thing about regional Australia, just a grab bag of issues. Who decided to set up one of their regions as Parramatta? The Labor Party. Aren't they remarkable? Today they had the chance to come in here and say that the National Party did a great job on decentralisation. They should support it. They should say, 'We like the way the National Party is building dams, and we support them.' God knows how long we had to wait for them to come to the party on Rookwood Weir! They should support us on the Inland Rail and say where in their budget the money to build it is. They should support us on rolling out mobile phone towers, but they never do. They have no vision for regional Australia. Now we have the drought. I would have thought that, in a time of drought, you would have had myriad questions about the premier issue in regional Australia. I would have thought you'd have the dignity and the decency, during question time, to be firing question after question to us about the drought—not one. This is all theatre. They don't have it. They don't care. Even whilst this MPI is going, the member for Hunter has gone. Even he doesn't think he belongs here. He doesn't even support you. Your own shadow minister for agriculture is not here. He doesn't even care. He has left. He's the most hopeless shadow agriculture minister we've ever had. He is a complete and utter joke. He can never get a question up in question time, and leaves during the MPI—and you stand there and say that you're representing regional Australia? It is a total absurdity. I'll reflect on the drought. I hope that there is a bipartisan view on the drought. Fires, floods and cyclones are bipartisan issues, and so should drought be too. I commend the minister for his incredibly important changes to the farm household allowance. I want to make a couple of suggestions about things we could do, if we worked in a bipartisan way. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder has a huge resource in water, and we have a crisis—a national crisis. There should be the capacity for the Commonwealth Environmental Water holder to put water into irrigating fodder. If you want to be serious, you could actually work towards that. You could lobby for that. I'm absolutely stating: that is something that should be put on the agenda now, so we can start growing the lucerne that is needed. We need a huge amount of feed, and it is literally running out. We have got to be able to make sure that we move the infrastructure projects forward that are required so that towns that are in the epicentre of the drought at least get the commercial benefit from the infrastructure projects, such as road projects, which would have to be done in any case. They could be moved forward and dealt with now. I commend the Leader of the Opposition on something he suggested the other day, when he talked about the use of agronomists for the sowing down of country that is, in some instances, virtually sterilised. I'll close with this: guess what the rainfall for Tamworth has been this year? A bit over four inches. Guess what the rainfall has been for Riyadh in Saudi Arabia? Four inches. 16:06 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert That was a very entertaining speech from the member for New England. If you want to talk about water, Member for New England, you might want to ask your government where the money is for the second stage of water security for Townsville. We are currently having to pay $34,000 a day to pump water into our city. Seventy per cent of Queensland is drought declared. If we want to talk about the LNP, which we believe are letting down rural and regional Australians, let me tell you, it's not a matter of letting us down; it's a matter of totally destroying us. This government is cutting our health funding, cutting our education funding and cutting remote Indigenous housing, which is a major issue for me as Palm Island is in my electorate. The only thing this LNP government has increased in my community is unemployment figures. Unemployment in Townsville has almost doubled under the LNP government. Townsville has the seventh highest unemployment rate in Australia. We have experienced the highest unemployment figures in our recorded history, thanks to the Abbott and Turnbull government. But we weren't always this way. No, we were not. Under a federal Labor government, Townsville thrived. Townsville's unemployment rate, when Labor left office in 2013, was lower than both the state and national averages. Now Townsville's unemployment rate is higher than the state average and almost double the national average. However, the picture only gets worse. Since the LNP came to power, Townsville has lost 3,000 manufacturing jobs. We have lost 149 Australian tax office jobs. We have lost 50 Defence staff jobs, 40 aviation jobs, 19 CSIRO jobs and 30 regional Customs jobs. We've lost 442 construction businesses and 153 retail businesses. We are now the insolvency capital of Queensland, and I haven't even finished painting the nightmare picture that consecutive LNP governments have caused in my home town. Let's not forget how this government hates to fund health and education in regional Australia. If you live in Townsville and you don't have a job let's hope that you or your family do not get sick under this government, because this government is cutting funding to our hospitals and making it harder for families to visit a bulk-billing GP. The Turnbull government is cutting $9 million to the Townsville Hospital and Health Service. These cuts mean the loss of four beds, 12 doctors and 25 nurses—more job losses for Townsville, the home of the only tertiary health service outside the south-east corner. Then there's the Medicare freeze, which we now know is impacting on regional Australians more than any other citizens. The people in Townsville are paying double to see their GP, according to the national health report released today. And, with the increases in fees, guess what that leads to? The front page of today's TownvilleBulletin reads, 'Minor health concerns flood hospital.' Because, at our hospital, we are treating 55 people a day for minor ailments—ailments that people would normally take to their GP. But now they are flooding to the emergency department, because they cannot afford to go to a GP. Around 26 per cent of patients—that is, 6,475 people—just over the last six months presented to the Townsville hospital with minor ailments like coughs. This is ridiculous, and it is putting absurd pressure on a hospital that this government is already taking an axe to. Then there are our schools. This out-of-touch Turnbull government is cutting $17 billion from our schools whilst giving the big banks a $17 billion handout. This government puts banks before children. This cut is the equivalent of losing almost one in three teaching positions. The picture is one of job cut after job cut under this government. In Herbert we will lose $14.8 million from our schools. Let me get to the universities. James Cook University will experience a cut of $36 million and Central Queensland University a cut of $38 million. This attack on JCU, a genuine regional university, has resulted in the axing of the only on-campus arts degree in a university in North Queensland. As well, 14 people are losing their job at James Cook University because of this government. The picture for regional Australia isn't pretty under the Turnbull government. And the Turnbull government has done absolutely nothing for the NBN in Townsville. That will require a Labor government. Without a Labor government, the picture for Townsville becomes bleaker and bleaker, as the picture is one of job cuts and funding losses under the LNP. There is absolutely no good news for regional Queensland in the seat of Herbert under this government. 16:11 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite It's no wonder that Australians are so disheartened by the state of Australian politics at the moment, when they hear the sort of contribution that we've just heard from the member for Herbert. Regrettably, what the Labor Party does is make a whole lot of claims—I would have to say very untruthful claims—about cuts to schools, cuts to health. It goes on and on and on. We just heard the member for Herbert say that we're imposing the Medicare rebate freeze. Let me say very clearly to the member for Herbert that it was the Labor Party which imposed a freeze on the indexation of the Medicare rebate. We are lifting that freeze. So that is an absolutely unmitigated untruth from the member for Herbert, and that is the standard and calibre of the contribution we have from the Labor Party. We've heard very little from the Labor Party today about how it would stand up for regional Australia. As we know, Labor's plan is all about imposing more than $200 billion of taxes over 10 years on nearly every aspect of the economy—and we saw the Leader of the Opposition on television the other day looking for a handbrake. The only handbrake he would be looking for is a handbrake on the Australian economy, because that's what would happen if Labor were elected. We know that because we can see that Labor is planning to impose considerable taxes on electricity. Capital gains tax would go up. There would be increased taxes on family trusts, on housing, and of course on our retirees and pensioners—on self-funded retirees, with the shocking retiree tax, which is the single biggest tax that would be imposed on Australians. We've heard very little about infrastructure from the Labor Party today in this MPI. If I look at and consider what's going on in my electorate of Corangamite, we are rolling out massive investments, not just in regional roads but also in rail. That's happening across the nation under a $75 billion infrastructure plan. I say shame on the Labor Party for the way in which it is failing to fund rail in the Corangamite electorate. We have actually announced and committed $254 million to upgrade local rail, and we have received a very small proportion of funding from the state Labor government—only $20 million. It took two years to create a business plan. There is no plan, no construction—it is an absolute joke. The member for New England rightly called out the member for Hunter, who was in the chamber before, for slinking out of the chamber. When the member for Hunter was in charge back in 2008, along with the member for Corio, he presided over one of the worst economic decisions for our region, which was to stop Avalon Airport building an international terminal. That was an absolutely disgraceful decision for our region. Proudly, we are now building, with $20 million announced in this year's budget, an international terminal, creating Victoria's second international airport at Avalon. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, we're rolling out a program with $245 million to combat mobile black spots around the country, including 18 in Corangamite, and I'm fighting for more mobile base stations for Teesdale, Armstrong Creek and Moggs Creek. Opposition members interjecting— Ms HENDERSON ZN4 As we hear from the interjections opposite, what an embarrassment they are. What an embarrassment the Labor Party are. When they were in government there was not one single dollar for mobile base stations. We know how critical this infrastructure is for regional Australia. Farmers, families and regional communities cannot get on and do their business—cannot run a business and go to school—without mobile communications. If anyone wants to know how poorly Labor stands up for regional communities just look at what they committed to mobile base stations when they were in government: a big fat zero. It is a disgrace. In Corangamite, 94 per cent of homes now have the NBN available to them. We are rolling out the NBN. It was an absolute shambles under the Labor Party. In Corangamite and across regional Australia there has been massive investment for jobs in manufacturing and in wonderful regional businesses. We're putting millions and millions of dollars through the Building Better Regions Fund. They are really important projects. As I say, look at Labor's record on mobile base stations, such important infrastructure for regional Australia, and that tells you everything you want to know about this disgraceful Labor Party. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The time for the discussion is concluded. BILLS 68 BILLS Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 68

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018

Second Reading 68 16:16 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin For the benefit of anyone who has just tuned in and is listening, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 is legislation which provides for mandatory reporting of medicines that might be in short supply or be discontinued. It's a measure that has been brought in because the current way of dealing with matters, which is basically a voluntary reporting system, has proved to be unsatisfactory. The new mandatory scheme will apply to both medicine shortages and any decisions to permanently discontinue supply of a currently available medicine. The bill does include civil penalties for non-compliance with the scheme; however, I understand the intent is more so to educate suppliers in doing the right thing. If there are to be any penalties applied, the focus will be on those suppliers who have a history of non-compliance. Again, I think the intent here is not necessarily to go out there and make things difficult for the suppliers but rather for them to take the responsible action and provide information to the health department where a medicine is going to be discontinued or where it's likely to be in short supply. The new scheme will mainly apply to prescription medicines; however, there is the capacity for the Minister for Health to include other medicines that are registered in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods if the minister is satisfied that their inclusion would be in the interests of public health. In either case, it will be a reportable medicine, for which the sponsor would be required to notify the secretary of any shortage or permanent discontinuation of their product. For a shortage of critical impact, the intent is that as soon as possible, but no later than two working days after the supplier knows about the possible shortage, they have to provide advice to the department. For any other shortage, it's within 10 working days after they know or ought to have reasonably known of the shortage. For a discontinuation of critical impact, it's at least 12 months before the discontinuation would occur or, if this is not possible, as soon as practicable after the sponsor's decision. For any other discontinuation, it's at least six months before the discontinuation would occur or, if this is not possible, again, as soon as practicable after the decision to discontinue. A medicine is considered to be in shortage if its supply in Australia will not or will not likely meet the demand for it at any time in the next six months for all the patients in Australia who will take it or who may need to take it. A shortage only applies at a national level, so instances of unavailability or short supply that occur at a particular location within Australia would not necessarily be considered shortages under the bill. In relation to the reporting of shortages within the stated time frames, the requirement to do so would only apply after the sponsor has considered all of the information that it needs to take into account for the purpose of identifying if its medicine will or will likely be in shortage. A shortage or a decision to permanently discontinue a reportable medicine would be of critical impact, meaning that the shorter notification time frame would apply where either the reportable medicine is included in the medicines watch list—a legislative instrument that is prepared, signalling that the minister is satisfied that a shortage or permanent discontinuation of that product could cause significant morbidity or death for patients in Australia—or there are no other registered medicines that could reasonably be used as a substitute for the medicine, or, if there are, it is not likely that there would be enough of such substitutes to meet the demand for them as a result of the reportable medicines shortage or discontinuation. The bill also makes a number of unrelated miscellaneous amendments to the act, mainly aimed at reducing inefficiencies in the regulation of therapeutic goods for industry and the Therapeutic Goods Administration. These include allowing standards to adopt other documents as enforced from time to time. Standards for therapeutic goods sometimes rely on Australian or international standards, which are specified in documents issued by the standards organisation. The bill provides the capacity to use the current version of the standard instead of the present situation whereby only a specific version of the document is specified, which may later be superseded. The Special Access Scheme is also a matter that is covered by those amendments, and the intent is to streamline health practitioner notifications under the Special Access Scheme. This scheme follows a pathway for patients to access therapeutic goods that are not on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods and aren't exempt from being on the register. The bill will allow notification, as required by the TGA, to be submitted by another health practitioner on behalf of the treating practitioner rather than the current situation in which the notice can be submitted only by the treating practitioner. That will make the system much more flexible—and, quite frankly, it's a commonsense change to the regulations. With respect to variations to the medicines register through notification, again, a medicine on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods can have its entry changed at the request of the sponsor in certain circumstances without the need for preapproval. Some of these variations are very minor but would nonetheless result in the creation of a separate entry on the register. Creation of that new entry would also require a new application for marketing approval. The bill allows these types of variations to be made, avoiding the need for additional marketing approval applications—another commonsense provision, because presently if a minor amendment or a minor change is made to a medicine that is listed then it may warrant a full application process, which, quite frankly, in most cases is simply unjustified. Again, for the suppliers, that's going to streamline the process and make the medicine available much more quickly, and it will obviously cut back on some red tape and costs. Finally, the bill will also remove the requirement for a particular type of application relating to therapeutic goods advertisements to be signed and allows these applications to be submitted online again, which is common practice across most areas of government these days, where online applications and the use of online systems is slowly taking over the use of hard copies. In closing, Labor believes that the need for a mandatory reporting scheme for medicine shortages is in the public interest, and Labor will be supporting this legislation. 16:23 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I rise to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018. From the outset, I want to say that I'll be supporting this legislation. This bill enacts measures that will introduce a mandatory reporting scheme, as has already been discussed, for instances when there are medicine shortages in Australia, and it allows application for several penalties for noncompliance. Shortages in medicines have become more and more of a problem in clinical practice in recent years. Such shortages can arise for a number of reasons and can be very difficult to deal with on a clinical basis. Up until fairly recently, in spite of there being some legislation involving medicine shortages, it's been very difficult to deal with. As an example, as a practitioner, I'm not infrequently required to ring the PBS Authority's hotline to request a phone approval for the use of a medication. The classic one has been methylphenidate, or Ritalin, and its derivatives, for use in children with ADD. I've been required to ring the hotline to get an authority number. You often have to wait on the phone a considerable period of time, sometimes 15 to 20 minutes, to get that authority number. So I've done that and got the authority number for the patient that I'm seeing, only for the patient to come back 20 or 30 minutes later to say that the medication has not been available from the pharmacy, and we would then have to go through the procedure again to get an alternative medication which, as you can imagine, is extraordinarily frustrating and time wasting for myself, the patient and the pharmacist. This has happened time and time again. In particular, there were shortages of the long-acting form of Ritalin from time to time during the last couple of years. We're usually given very little notice by the pharmaceutical companies that this is the case. In fact, sometimes, the first time that we know that there's a shortage of medication is when the patient returns from the pharmacist or the pharmacist rings and says, 'I've not been able to get this medication anywhere.' This legislation will require better notification of medication shortages, and it will also enact significant penalties for the pharmaceutical companies themselves for not informing the government and, secondarily, medical practitioners and pharmacies about the medication shortages. In my time in practice, these medication shortages in Australia have become more and more frequent. Part of the problem has been the virtual absence of pharmaceutical manufacturing in Australia for many of the major medications. Many of the bigger companies—Faulding's, for example, is one that I remember was an Australian manufacturing pharmaceutical company—have gone out of business or been taken over by multinational corporations. The multinational pharmaceutical corporations themselves have amalgamated. There were about 30 major international or multinational pharmaceutical companies when I started in practice. There are now about half a dozen. So the number of manufacturers has reduced, manufacturing in Australia has virtually disappeared, and we're reliant on a whole lot of supply chain difficulties before we do get medications in Australia. The other thing that's happened is, with many of the older medications that are off patent, particularly if they're not used very frequently, there's very little incentive for the generic manufacturers to produce these medications. So they very often stop manufacturing, or the supply is so small that it's not worth importing them into Australia. Australia is really only about one to two per cent of the world pharmaceutical consumption, so there's not a huge incentive to develop really good supply chains for pharmaceuticals in Australia, particularly for the rarer drugs, so this has become a major problem. In fact, yesterday, my office was contacted by a local pharmacist in Macarthur saying that there was an Australia-wide shortage of one of the older diuretics called amiloride, which is often used these days and is mainly reserved for use in people with renal failure. He didn't know what he was going to do to get supplies for this patient who'd had a renal failure and then had had a renal transplant with very poor renal function. It's increasingly a problem, and this legislation will go a small way to alleviate it. But it's something that needs further thought, I think, and further exploration because, in Australia, we are really struggling at the moment with some of these drug shortages. Some of the other common drugs that have been in Australia-wide short supply in the last 12 months include an antibiotic called vancomycin, which is used for very severe staphylococcal infections that are resistant to some of the common intravenous antibiotics used in hospital. The shortage of vancomycin is a major problem. Another is metronidazole, or Flagyl, which is used for some of the organisms that can be involved in wound infections that are treated in hospital and for some of the parasitic infections. Another antibiotic called norfloxacin, again, is used for multidrug-resistant staphylococcal infections— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 70 ADJOURNMENT Housing Affordability, Anning, Senator Fraser 70 16:30 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Tasmania is gripped by a housing availability and affordability crisis. Hobart is the second most unaffordable Australian city in which to rent. It has gone up by 15 per cent in 12 months. Relative to wages, it costs more to rent in Hobart than it does in Melbourne or Brisbane, and that's if you can find somewhere to rent. We've had lines of people desperate to secure a rental, offering over and above the odds. It's not just in the capital city. Things are tight in the regions too. In recent weeks, I've been dealing with a constituent in Westbury who faces being homeless in a week. Mel lives in a Meander Valley town, in Westbury, with her elderly mother and their ponies. They've rented their home for 4½ years. They've always paid the rent on time and they've never had an issue. But a couple of months ago, Mel mentioned to the council that their sewerage wasn't working properly. The council inspected and said the septic system was noncompliant and ordered the landlord to fix it. Mel and her mother were then given a notice to vacate on the basis that major works had to be done. Mel said the septic works shouldn't need her to leave her home, and that she and her mother were prepared to put up with the inconvenience. But the landlord, through the property manager, insisted that he wanted them out. Mel has learned that he intends to relet the property and that she need not bother applying. Mel believes the landlord is annoyed at having to pay for a new septic system and that he blames her for the cost. Mel, her elderly mother and their ponies have to be off the property by next Friday. They have sought help from the courts, but the courts have sided with the landlord, who is within his legal rights. Mel and her elderly mother have been searching desperately for somewhere to rent in Northern Tasmania but have had no luck. They are both pensioners and currently pay $320 a week in rent, in a regional town. They have found a new place nearby, where rent is $360 a week, which they are adamant they will be able to manage, as they live relatively frugally. They just need assistance with the bond. Anglicare had initially said yes, but now they believe the rent is too high for them and that it puts them well over the line of rental stress—and they're probably right. They will be in rental stress. But what is the alternative? Shooting the ponies? Living under a bridge? This couple, this elderly mother and daughter, will have nowhere to live in a week, unless they are given assistance. Mel can manage the two-weeks rent in advance, and one week's bond, but without Anglicare helping with the three-weeks bond, which she gets back at the end of the lease, she is afraid she will lose this new house. Anglicare's management is having an emergency meeting, and I can only hope, with fingers crossed, that it approves the bond payment. I know that they're doing the right thing and that they've got policies to put in place to keep people out of rental stress, but I implore Anglicare to help this couple, who have been trying so hard to find a new place. I have tried in vain to speak to the landlord. When you have stable, long-term tenants who look after a place and cause no trouble, I think it's pretty rank to turf them out, especially when one of them is elderly, if it's your intention to simply let the place out to someone else. But I do accept it's his legal right. This one case underscores the depth of the housing availability and affordability crisis sweeping Tasmania, and the federal government has not helped. It has abolished affordability assistance schemes, slashed funding for homelessness and failed to appoint a minister with specific responsibility for housing. The state government in Tasmania is, frankly, floundering. A 20-week wait for public housing has blown out to 72 weeks, after just four years of Liberals in power. Waitlists have grown from 2,400 to 3,500—and that's just for public housing. More than 150,000 Tasmanians are in housing stress, with their rent or mortgage costing more than 30 per cent of their income. It has become the new normal. We need to build more houses. We need to focus more on the welfare and health of buyers and renters, and less on investors. Labor has a suite of measures that we plan to introduce if elected to government, and I look forward to seeing them enacted, so we that can get on top this terrible crisis. In the few seconds left, I'd just like to add my two cents to the parliament's united response to the disgraceful speech by Senator Anning. That speech may well turn out to be one of the great own goals of politics: in seeking to divide Australians, Senator Anning has forged us closer together. Thank you. Wright Electorate 71 16:35 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I think it's timely that I stand and acknowledge some of the amazing champions in my electorate and advocate how beautiful my electorate is: from the Gold Coast Hinterland, bordering up to Robina, Mudgeeraba, Tamborine Mountain, South Nerang, through the amazingly fertile communities of Beaudesert, Boonah, the Fassifern Valley and the Lockyer Valley—one of the top 10 fertile valleys in the world—producing the vegetables for Australian and overseas tables. Nestled in the heart of that picturesque electorate are some amazing people doing some amazing things. My electorate benefits from many things: natural wonders, such as Tamborine Mountain; the vast grazing and growing areas, from Aratula and the Lockyer Valley; and the amazing sportsmen and women who have grown up in rich towns like Laidley and Gatton. In Wright, we have it all. I'm happy to say, due to the continual lobbying of my ministerial colleagues, Wright has been the benefactor of some very welcome grants that help our councils and community organisations to uphold the wonders that visitors find so appealing. For instance, I recently announced, under the Building Better Regions Fund, $30,000 for upgrades to the Gatton Hawks football club's amenities. The Gatton Hawks are one of the toughest rugby league teams in the Lockyer Valley, and these funds will ensure that many spectators will enjoy facilities while watching the game. The two primary drivers of the Hawks committee are Judy Schmidt and Anne Bichel, and I acknowledge both of them for their contributions. The Building Better Regions Fund also made a contribution of just under $260,000 to the Canungra sports and recreation grounds to install adequate sewerage systems to their facilities. Wayne Reither, the 20-year-plus caretaker of these tranquil sports and rec grounds, said it hosts more than 30,000 caravan nomads annually. That figure is rising rapidly. Wayne said that more and more people are stopping off for a few nights to view the wonders that surround this village. If you ever do leave this place, hook a caravan up and decide to travel around Australia, I suggest that Canungra showgrounds is one of the destinations that you should have on your list. It's truly a picturesque locality. Not to be outdone, the Scenic Rim Regional Council was also successful in receiving a $1.59 million grant to redevelop the town square of Boonah. Both Mayor Greg Christensen and local Councillor Rick Stansfield are excited that the grant would allow the old council chambers to be transformed into a local community arts hub, provide connectivity to the precinct in the main street and help preserve the important heritage and culture of the town centre. This village will be one of the absolute jewels in the Scenic Rim area. Partnering with local council will ensure the success of stage 2 of the project. Our community groups, organisations, and sports clubs play an enormous part in our lives, and that's why this government continues to support, by way of community grants, our grassroots organisations. Recently, more federal government grants have opened, I strongly urge all interested parties to make applications. The local community has significantly benefited previously from funding rounds of these programs, and I want to encourage all community groups and organisations to make applications. If you can't find them on the internet, simply ring our office in Beaudesert, and I'll have someone help you out—even if it means I have to allocate some of my staff to help fill out the forms for you. The three programs open for community groups include: the Stronger Communities Program, volunteer grants and the sports infrastructure grant program that goes out to $500,000. This is an opportunity for organisations to be in the running to secure funding for these projects. Over the years, we have witnessed some fantastic outcomes in Wright from the successful applicants. I can't wait to see the benefits delivered from this round when this program is finalised. By ensuring that the government lives within its means, we can continue to invest in these sorts of grants for our community groups and guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on and that my electorate of Wright rightly deserve. I thank the House. Centrelink 72 16:40 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen The government's attacks on Centrelink and ordinary Australians just keep getting worse and worse and worse. They've ruthlessly cut the Centrelink budget, leaving the service severely understaffed, which means people in our communities face agonising wait times to access much-needed support. I've spoken to members of our community who have been told by Centrelink staff, 'We're just like a post office now.' So they really can't actually solve problems. They're being told to use the phones in Centrelink offices or pushed to the myGov website. Instead of helping those in need, this government is moving them on—turning a blind eye and leaving people without answers. Elderly McEwen residents tell me they can't afford to pay their winter utility bills because of Centrelink delays, yet this government also want to slash their winter energy supplement each fortnight. I've lost count of the number of stories from my constituents about their horrific Centrelink experiences, but today I'm going to highlight a few. Last November, Cesare from Sunbury applied for the disability support pension. He submitted all the extra documentation in December, yet in April this year he still had no outcome and was told his application was simply waiting on a backlog. In July, I wrote to the minister urging him to progress this application because the delay was causing distress and impacting on Cesare's day-to-day life. It took seven months of calls, emails and daily struggles with Centrelink for Cesare to get an outcome—a period that has become the norm under this government's war on the social safety net. Kerry and Lorraine, a South Morang couple in their 70s, made an application in May last year after finally retiring. For more than two months neither of them had an income. When they went back to check their application, they noted that they had mistakenly logged only one of the partner's applications, yet, through the months of contact with Centrelink, no-one bothered to even mention this. Like many older Australians, the technology barrier at Centrelink has left them frustrated and confused. It's now been over three months, and their application is still pending. Their treatment by this government and these ridiculous delays are utterly demeaning and insulting. Terry in Sunbury applied for the DSP in June last year but was rejected due to lack of evidence. He requested a review and supplied even more documentation. But, in November, it was once again rejected. Feeling hopeless and helpless against a system that makes it almost impossible for people who are in need to get help, he turned to Legal Aid, who brought the decision to the AAT. It took another three months to get an outcome. Terry was successful, but his payments didn't start for another month. So they've dragged this process on for over a year, which has taken an enormous personal toll on Terry, his wife and his children. Callum applied for youth allowance in February. Despite ongoing communication with Centrelink, no-one told him that his tax file number had been omitted until five months later. He supplied it the next day, and his application was again rejected. Callum came to see me, and our team worked very hard to make sure his application was approved. The five-month wait caused Callum and his family major financial and emotional stress. They have told me their poor treatment has left them upset and feeling very distressed with the whole process. So many in my community have told me they've waited for three hours to see a Centrelink service officer. One resident was told at 2 pm, 'There'll be a three-hour wait, so why don't you just go home and, if you can, just come back tomorrow?' That's not easy in country areas where you have to drive for 40 minutes to get to a Centrelink office—where trains, if they run, run on an hourly basis. In some areas, if you think about places like Kilmore, it's a 40-minute walk before you get to a train station. It's not as simple as, 'Just get on the website or come back tomorrow.' It may be okay in the city but not in regional areas. This is not a crack on the staff. They are under absolute pressure because of the government's hapless handling of Centrelink—cutting staff numbers and trying to privatise it out to companies like Serco, who we know has an appalling reputation. This side of the House is here to lend a helping hand to those in need. We know that, when times are tough, Australians should be able to rely on the government to make sure they get a fair go. The endless stress of Centrelink applications and payments must end. This government needs to take a good hard look at itself, get off its backside and do something that helps people, not hurts them. I will continue to fight to make sure we get a Labor government who will bring reliable access— (Time expired) Queensland: Water 73 16:45 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn Today, I want to talk about water infrastructure for North and South Burnett, two big shires in my electorate. In 2011 and 2013, we saw major floods of the Boyne and Burnett rivers and Barambah Creek, in their catchment areas. The water flowed over Paradise Dam, past Wallaville and into Bundaberg, where it did very, very destructive damage to the city. They had two floods in two years—record flooding; one-in-100-year events twice in two years. That was the situation then. Since those days in 2013, it's been relatively dry, and the dams are getting low. There was little capture of water back in those flood times, and I think that is the problem in that area. We need bigger dams and bigger catchment areas and on-farm storage to stop this dryness of our crops. Many, many crops are grown in that area, and it's sometimes called the food bowl of Central Queensland—in that Gayndah and Mundubbera area, famous for citrus fruit. The Boondooma Dam and the Claude Wharton Weir in Gayndah are the two main sources, and they do supply a lot of farmers with water. But when we get these dry times, like the droughts we're seeing in New South Wales and Queensland, you realise that water is paramount to successful farming. In January of this year I took my agriculture minister, David Littleproud, to visit some parts of Flynn, but mainly Mundubbera. I showed him blueberry farms, packing sheds—they were packing mangoes at that stage. Of course, the citrus industry is nearly three-quarters finished in that area at the moment. We also had a town meeting with farmers from the North Burnett Region. There is a big potential for much more fruit and vegetables to be grown in that area, and the farmers made David aware of that very point. Coulson Lakes, for instance, has very rich soil—probably some of the best soil in Australia—but they have no water supply and no water security. Isis Central Sugar Mill near Childers is looking at growing sugar cane in Reid Creek, but, again, water supply is the issue. The macadamia nut is now a crop that continues to grow in strength and is very popular with our Chinese importers and in other places around Asia. The farmland, which was formally cane farmland, is now being taken over by macadamia farmers. This is pushing the cane-growing areas out to places like Gayndah and Reid Creek. The question is: how do we address these problems? I think spending money on water infrastructure in North and South Burnett is the answer. Building a new weir on the Boyne is one project that has been popular with the farmers in that area. Putting extra height on the Boondooma Dam at Proston will favour farmers downstream and also upstream around that Proston area. Extending the height of the Claude Wharton Weir at Gayndah will give potential cane farms in that area the water they need. And I think we need a complete study on the potential of the new weir on Barambah Creek, which comes down from Kingaroy into that Bundaberg area. These are four projects I'd like to see go ahead that would not cost a lot of money in real terms, but they have the potential to produce so much more cropping in that area. The blueberry farm covers 100 hectares, and that's a lot of blueberry bushes. The owners have said they would double the size of their farm if they had a reliable water offtake out of the Boyne River. So I urge the government, my government, David Littleproud as minister for agriculture, to find money for these properties and get on the with the job, especially in these drought times. I think now is the time to strike. Bangladesh: Rohingya People 73 16:50 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Last week I had the privilege of visiting Bangladesh with a bipartisan delegation organised by Save the Children Australia. The aim of the visit was to provide a direct exposure to the Australian aid program. It was an opportunity to go to the camps where some one million of the Rohingya people are currently living, having been displaced from Myanmar. The violence, human rights abuses and destruction have been well documented and the camps are the direct result. The Rohingya people are now living largely on cleared land from the Bangladeshi department of forestry in an area roughly the size of a federal electorate in Sydney or Melbourne. The camps are located at Cox's Bazar, one of the poorest areas of Bangladesh. The government as well as the people of Bangladesh have been extraordinarily generous and humane in helping the Rohingya. Mohammad Abdul Kalam, the Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commissioner, has been vital in coordination in his role. The commissioner made the point to us that there had been waves of Rohingya displaced across the course of the last decade. We visited the UNHCR senior protection coordinator, Bernadette Castel-Hollingsworth. Both of these impressive individuals were candid in their assessment, evaluation, of the challenges ahead. In the camps we visited a Save The Children learning centre. Save the Children run 110 centres supporting children's learning and wellbeing. We also visited numerous healthcare centres. I found the work of Save the Children and CARE Australia very impressive, particularly through the Australian humanitarian partnerships. CARE Australia were providing numerous women-friendly spaces in the camps for women and girls to gather, meet and access services. Many of them have experienced gender based violence in addition to violence they faced in Myanmar. Some of us also visited the Mahji, or community leaders, in the camps. We discussed the issues of governance and service delivery. Oxfam and other NGOs are providing water pumps, toilets and massive recycling and sanitation upgrades. I was struck by the sympathy and kindness of the Bangladeshi women we visited at the BRAC Community Empowerment Program. I was impressed also by the World Food Program and the new multi-wallet assistance card pilot and its ability to improve flexibility, integrity and the operation of food distribution. In the camps 80 per cent of the population are women and children. Sixteen per cent of households are headed by women and four per cent of households are actually headed by children. There are obstacles such as social seclusion during the day for women and girls, as well as safety and security issues when they go out at night. Shelters often lack separate places for bedding, changing and cooking. This is one of the major issues in the camps. Bangladesh is not a signatory to the UN refugee convention, and the Rohingya are classified as forcibly displaced Myanmar nationals. This has consequences for services, protection, humanitarian responses and other issues. Australia has contributed $70 million in humanitarian funding, and we continue to work with NGOs to achieve change. In 1982, the Myanmar government stripped the Rohingya of their citizenship. We must continue our efforts as a country to assist the voluntary, safe and sustainable return home of the Rohingya people. The conditions for return are not there and are not expected in the foreseeable future. In the interim, education and employment must be addressed. We heard that the Australian government's voice is just as important as contributions of financial aid. Schools must be built, qualified teachers employed and accreditation of school qualifications implemented. Currently the level of learning afforded in the camps is primary school level. There is a need also for secondary and tertiary pathways to help bring about improved options for the future of the Rohingya people. Without certified formal education and equipping people with portable skills for employment, I fear a lost generation. I fear idleness will lead to further vulnerability, criminality and extremism. Access to livelihood is important for self-reliance and self-esteem. As I've said, gender based violence, the protection of women and children, governance of the camps, washing issues and infrastructure issues all persist—although, on the evidence we received, it's getting better. The Rohingya people are not going anywhere any time soon. I implore the Australian government to maintain our efforts, continue our aid and assistance, and participate with the international community to find solutions so the Rohingya people may return home and live in peace as citizens. In the meantime, let's do all we can as a country to show our humanity, decency and compassion by helping those in need in Bangladesh, including those in the Rohingya camps. Sunshine Coast 74 16:55 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Like, I'm sure, every member of this House, I love my job. Sure, there may be those late nights and those early starts, and the travel away from home can sometimes get a little too much, but I have to say it is such a humble honour to be in a position where you have a real opportunity to help your local community. To maintain the way of life for people on the Sunshine Coast, we need critical transport infrastructure. That's why, in my first two years in this place, my focus has been on delivering infrastructure—road, rail, and air. While this has been my focus over a two-year period, I've been doing this with my federal colleagues and good neighbours the member for Fisher and the member for Wide Bay, and we have done some great work in those two years. Working closely with local stakeholders, and with support from the Turnbull government, we've delivered many outstanding projects for the Sunny Coast. The Bruce Highway upgrade from Caloundra from the Sunshine Motorway, 80 per cent funded by the federal government, is well underway, as is the Sunshine Coast international airport, thanks to a concessional loan from the Turnbull government. But we don't rest on our laurels, because in our region we're growing quickly, and there is just so much to be done. My FY 2017-18 annual report that I recently sent to constituents in my electorate is jam-packed with more good news and funding commitments from the Turnbull government. Few regions in Australia can boast the funding coming from this federal government that the Sunshine Coast can—unprecedented amounts of funding from a federal government going to the Sunshine Coast, with well over $2 billion committed in the last year alone. This is all exciting, game-changing stuff. Let me point out just some of the stand-outs from the last financial year alone: $1.68 billion to upgrade the Bruce Highway between Pine Rivers and Curra, and $390 million to upgrade the North Coast rail line. And let's not forget $6½ million to fund a business case for fast rail connecting Brisbane all the way through to Nambour and Maroochydore. However, it's not just about building critical infrastructure. The Turnbull government is backing business, boosting exports and guaranteeing vital services from health to education and disability support. This government has also delivered over $5 million of federal funding to community groups and businesses in the seat of Fairfax alone just last year, including $2½ million in business grants, such as a $900,000 grant to support the Sunshine Coast Food and Agribusiness Network. Then there are the men's sheds, the Landcare groups and the support given to sporting and community groups who received over $890,000 in federal grants. Each of the recipients has a great story to tell. They are passionate about what they do, and they genuinely make a real difference in their marketplace, in their chosen field of excellence and, most importantly, in our local community. That's what it's all about. Long gone are the days when people could even suggest that the Liberal-National Party took the Sunshine Coast for granted. Indeed, we look at the scoreboard and we see unprecedented amounts of funding. We, the members for Fairfax, Fisher and Wide Bay as a team, continue to fight on a daily basis to ensure that the Sunshine Coast is at the very top of the agenda for the federal government. As I look to the future, it's imperative that the coalition remain in government, because let us not forget that it's only through a strong economy that we can continue to deliver. (Time expired) House adjourned at 17:00   The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Vamvakinou) took the chair at 10:00.

Thursday, 16 August 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Vamvakinou) took the chair at 10:00.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 76 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Broadband, Telecommunications 76 10:00 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt The absence of connectivity has a profound effect on social and economic inclusion, and in many parts of the country—indeed, many parts of my electorate—it could literally be a matter of life and death. Across the country, the NBN rollout has been embarrassing. People were told they were going to be connected to this fantastic network by the end of 2016. Now we're hearing that many people won't be connected for years yet. In the electorate of Burt the rollout of the NBN has been pitiful. Residents have been told for the last five years that their NBN is two years away. Now many residents won't be connected until 2021. Given this government's record on NBN, who would know if that connection will be worth the copper it's connected to? My office received a call last week from a family whose NBN connection has been connected and, like so many through fibre to the node, is highly unreliable. The household is located, like much of my electorate, in a mobile black spot zone. The house is also located in a bushfire-prone area. In the case of a bushfire, these homeowners wouldn't have any method to communicate with the outside world—no home phone, no mobile phone and no internet connection if the power goes out. In my electorate, the Haynes, Hilbert, Kelmscott, Thornlie and Canning Vale areas all have mobile black spots. With the NBN rollout, we can see that a vast majority of the properties in these areas—indeed, across my entire electorate—are using fibre-to-the-node technology or the service is yet to commence at all. This means that, in the time of a blackout or perhaps a storm, given that these nodes seem to be so prone to filling with water, these residents will have no communication with the outside world at all. These homes will not have the same opportunity as those with medical alarms in times of a power outage, as they can't connect to the mobile phone network, which was intended to act, for most people, as a backup. If the NBN rollout had been conducted in accordance with Labor's proposal for fibre-to-the-premises technology, then each household could have been provided with a five-hour buffer in the form of battery backup at the home and, of course, power back at the exchange. Now if the power goes out it affects not only the home but, of course, the node that they are connected to, and it robs them of connectivity. If the Mobile Black Spot Program had been rolled out on a needs basis rather than a 'which Liberal member needs to be re-elected?' basis, then we would possibly have a backup option available to these households. Instead, in times of blackout these families are being left in the dark, left in silence, left isolated from their friends, workplaces and families, and, worse, left in real danger. The real shame of it is that not only is the Turnbull government delivering an inferior broadband source but, by the time of the next election, most of the people will have already had this inferior service foisted upon them, locking them into services where blackouts will rob them of essential connectivity. The job of addressing mobile black spots is clearly not complete. Work remains to be done here to make sure that these people are protected. Forrest Electorate: Lithium-Processing Plant 76 10:03 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest WA is home to the world's most accessible new energy metals, such as lithium and rare earths—metals that are essential in energy storage devices. The American company Albemarle is planning to invest over $1 billion to construct a lithium-processing plant in Kemerton in my electorate of Forrest. I understand that this is the company's first investment in Australia. There was a lot of genuine support at a recent community meeting held in Australind, close to Kemerton, particularly from those who want a job and from businesses that will be suppliers or contractors to the project both during the construction process and when the plant is operational. The plant will process high-grade spodumene ore from the Talison mine at Greenbushes, in the south-west, to produce lithium hydroxide product. Through this mine, there is an absolutely reliable supply for 20 to 25 years. The lithium industry in Western Australia now is very much reminiscent of the beginnings of the aluminium industry in Western Australia. This is a very sound project. We will see between 300 and 500 jobs—local jobs, which is what this government is focused on—during construction and another 500 when the plant is at full production. That's 100 per processing chain on-site, and they will have five of those processing chains when the project gets to the full processing capability. This is a great project for Western Australia—most importantly, in my electorate. It's also important to have lithium being produced for the purposes that it is. It's a critical component in consumer products such as high-strength glass used in mobile devices, synthetic rubber in ties and shoelaces, ceramics on stoves and cooktops, and lubricants for industrial applications and pharmaceuticals. There are so many options. It's a great thing for my South West region, particularly in the jobs space. Albemarle will have access to a skilled workforce in my South West region and also training options through South Regional TAFE. WA is actually the centre for lithium in Australia. We're going to see a greater development of opportunities and secondary processing opportunities from this industry. What I do want to see, though, is a container port developed in Bunbury to be able to manage the demand and the opportunities through this new industry. That will be very good for the WA and Australian economies. Batman Electorate: Bell Primary School, Homelessness 77 10:06 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman On Monday, a school in my electorate celebrated a very special birthday. Bell Primary turned 90. Bell opened its doors to students for the very first time in 1928. Some things have changed. A beautiful photo from the 1930s shows 43 kids in the class, and now over 500 gorgeous young learners attend the school. In 1928, the school chose its symbol to be a bell with the words 'ring true' as its motto. The school is steered by its values of creativity, respect, resilience, curiosity and collaboration. We in this place could all take heed of those words. Bell Primary has educated countless wonderful students, including two Melbourne legends: the former Victorian Labor Premier John Cain and member of the Fitzroy Team of the Century Garry Wilson. Bell Primary received funding from the Dan Andrews government for urgent repairs to the main building, which is also 90 years old, but they still require funding for an undercover outdoor area and more permanent classrooms, as 70 per cent of its students are housed in relocatables. Principals and teachers all tell me about similar challenges: the need for building works to provide safe, functional spaces for their kids; the value of true needs based funding to ensure that kids who are struggling are given the support they need; and the dire need for speech pathologists. These principals and teachers are simply wonderful, and I would like to thank every one of them for their work. All across my electorate, from the ring-road to the river, education is the No. 1 issue raised with me. Everyone knows it's the key, and I am proud that Labor has committed to an extra $17 billion for our schools and kids. I congratulate Bell Primary on a wonderful 90 years and wish them all the best for the next. Last week was homelessness week, and I reflected on both my anger and frustration at knowing that more Australians than ever before are experiencing homelessness. I show my deep gratitude for the incredible work organisations in my electorate do. The deliberate destruction of the award safety net, wage suppression and the rising cost of housing and rents has changed what it means to live in Australia. On any given night, 116,000 people experience homelessness in prosperous Australia. The government's appalling cuts to the SRSS for asylum seekers will deepen this crisis. Workers at one organisation in my electorate—Haven; Home, Safe—told me that they will see no further funding despite the increased need for their services. This government's passion for privatisation means that places like Haven; Home, Safe must rely on the generosity of donors. Having a home should not be a matter of charity; it is a basic right. Haven; Home, Safe, along with other organisations like Merri Outreach Support Service and Launch Housing, provide important services and so much more. They provide kindness and solidarity. The concept of solidarity allows these organisations to view the world differently, to work collaboratively and to ensure self-determination and innovation are at the forefront of their work. I thank the incredible organisations in my electorate for the work that they do. Wirraminna Environmental Education Centre 77 10:09 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer There is a special event at Wirraminna Environmental Education Centre tomorrow and I'm looking forward to attending. It's located at Burrumbuttock, north-west of Albury. Wirraminna is an internationally recognised, award-winning, volunteer-run, community-based function centre set in five hectares of reclaimed native woodland. The centre is used for school and community activities and provides displays and teaching resources for regional schools in southern New South Wales and northern Victoria. Tomorrow will top off the highly successful journey for the facility of over more than 10 years. Back in 2005 I was able to assist in securing financial support from the Australian government's Regional Partnerships program to kickstart the facility a year later. This week we are celebrating a major expansion to the site which provides brand-new office and display spaces as well as a verandah extension. I'm proud to say half of the $75,000 project has been sourced from our Building Better Regions Fund. The money is also making the centre fully insulated, with double-glazed windows and air conditioning. We have been also able to install telecommunications, data lines and set-ups for future extensions for a solar-powered system. The works will allow multiple groups to use the facility at once, meaning more students can get an understanding of the wonderful native plants and animals in this local woodland environment. Importantly, the upgrade created eight jobs during construction and will support six permanent positions. This increase in staff will enable the centre to now open from Monday to Friday, making it a wonderful facility accessible to thousands more locals and visitors. That increase is forecast to see a jump in visitors of over 70 per cent, helping drive local tourism and providing further economic opportunities. That's essentially what our Building Better Regions Fund program is all about—big and small amounts of money delivering opportunity and growth in regional Australia. I'm looking forward to catching up once again with Owen Dunlop and Adrian Wells, two individuals who have been associated with Wirraminna over so many years, and just to seeing the facility come to life, which it always does when there is a classroom full of students. It's a magnificent woodland, with fascinating teachers and instruction and lots of visitors passing through as well in what is, after all, just a small village in south-west New South Wales. Petition: Uluru Statement from the Heart 78 10:12 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro It's my pleasure to present a petition from the Social Justice Advocates of the Sapphire Coast in relation to the Uluru Statement from the Heart to this parliament. It is a great privilege to present that petition. The Uluru statement was a magnificent process, bringing together the First Nations peoples of this nation. We, of course, in the lead-up to that process were in a hopeful phase of bipartisanship in improving our understanding and participating in that process. There was a great deal of hope out there in our Indigenous communities. I want to pay tribute to all the Indigenous nations of my region—the Yuin peoples of the coast, the Ngambri, Ngarigo and Ngunnawal peoples of the high country and the Wiradjuri people of the western regions of my electorate. They have a magnificent tradition and culture that we're very proud of. I want to praise Michael Brosnan and the crew from Social Justice Advocates of the Sapphire Coast. I was with them on the weekend when they held a wonderful multicultural event in the little town of Wolumla. That event, celebrating 50 different nationalities, brought people from all around the region. It is critical that we now deliver for our Indigenous peoples through this Uluru statement. It's a crying shame that up there the Prime Minister will do his acknowledgements of country and do the party trick of having learned a few lines of Indigenous language but he won't follow through. All of that means nothing if we don't follow through on the things that must be done to put our Indigenous peoples where they need to be. This cry from the heart needs to be answered. If we can't get a bipartisan approach to this then Labor will push on. In the absence of cross-party support necessary to achieve that constitutional change in government, Labor will legislate for a voice to honour the aspirations of the Uluru statement, to have that voice to parliament, not in parliament. It's completely outrageous for the Prime Minister to claim this would be a third, additional chamber in this building. It would not be. That's just a sop to try to avoid doing something real in this space. We also won't lose sight of the need for the constitutional guarantee, and we'll continue to work to build the support necessary for a successful referendum in this space. Labor will also commit to a compensation scheme for the stolen generations and establishment of a healing fund, and will also convene a national summit on First Nations children to address the extremely high rates of child removal. We can't, similarly, sit here and make noises. It was wonderful doing the Sorry statement from Prime Minister Rudd, but the follow-through is what's needed now. This is what our First Nations people deserve and this is how we move to full healing in this nation. The petition read as follows— from 263 citizens Gilmore Electorate: Dairy Industry 79 10:15 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore On everyone's mind is the effect of the drought. I wrote to the retail giants, asking them to consider the way they price farming produce. I still haven't heard a thing, but I'm not leaving this issue alone. Twenty cents extra per litre of milk, per kilo of produce and per dozen eggs is not a lot to ask, yet it will provide a financial buffer for our farmers and future-proof them. Let me first quote from John—not his real name: My life revolves around working with dairy farmers and I am the coal face taking calls, texts, making calls and trying to find a way through this rough time. With respect to all farmers, a single Dairy cow drinks more than 150 Litres of water a day and requires more than 30 kilos of feed so farmers can supply AUSTRALIANS with their daily MILK. John understands that in the midst of a drought we need a united front so that all farmers get our support. Segregation by state will do nothing and no favours for anyone. The nation is dry. We're asking for a 20c increase across the primary producers' range of goods, to make an effective and immediate difference. My farmers are begging the supermarkets to crash the $1-a-litre milk barrier. This would deliver instant cash. Consumer sentiment is high, and, based on the volume being sold, a small increase of just 10c would mean an injection of more than $75 million in the first year. This increase in price doesn't cost the supermarkets; it just gives the public an opportunity to show their support. It can happen as soon as tomorrow. In southern New South Wales there are almost as many farmers as there are days in the year, employing almost 1,200 on the farms, more than 3,000 in processing and another 4,000 in related parts of the dairy industry. This region produces 51 per cent of New South Wales milk and adds $97 million in dairy products. My local farmers cannot feed their stock, and some must slaughter five per cent of their dairy herd a week until we get rain. If that doesn't happen, they—successful fifth-generation dairy farmers—will walk off their land. Dairy is a multiplier industry in my local economy. We will lose jobs and we will lose local dollars. They haven't seen an increase in farm-gate prices in the last 14 years. Their only gains have come from productivity change and milking more cows. Their cost of doing business—wages, insurance, rates, fuel, transport, land and fertiliser—have gone up exponentially every year. Where are you, CEOs of Coles and Woolies? In 2011 your remuneration was $15.6 million and $1.9 million respectively. Where are you now? You keep milk at a lousy dollar per litre. One of my dairy farmers, Peter, wants a machine to change milk back to water, and then he'd get around $3 per litre. That's a scary thought! Here is another alternative: maybe my farmers should talk to Bega milk—they're looking for suppliers. And then, in a demand-driven market, Coles and Woolies would have to pay their suppliers properly. Braddon Electorate: Telecommunications 79 10:18 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon I rise today to address again an issue which is very important to the people of my electorate, but especially important to the people of Sulphur Creek, the west coast of Tasmania, King Island and, of course, Circular Head, which is a wonderful dairy-producing area. Last week, as Devonport resident Cassie sat in her lounge room, she was able to have a real-time text conversation with her dad in Sulphur Creek. Cassie told me on Facebook: 'In the past, I would SMS him and not get a reply unless he left the house. Or he would have to stand outside on the balcony and lean over the edge for any reception. Dad isn't very tech savvy, and so he doesn't use— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10 : 19 to 10 : 27 Ms KEAY 262273 I rise again today to address an issue which is very important to the people of my electorate, and is especially important to the people of Sulphur Creek, the west coast of Tasmania, King Island and Circular Head. Last week, as she sat in her lounge room, Devonport resident Cassie was able to have a real-time text conversation with her dad in Sulphur Creek. Cassie told me on Facebook: 'In the past I would SMS him and not get a reply unless he left the house, or he would have to stand outside on his balcony and lean over for any reception. Dad isn't very tech savvy so he doesn't use the internet or social media to communicate. Now there is reception in Sulphur Creek it has made a big difference. Being able to send him photos in real time and get replies is wonderful.' This government promised they would fix mobile phone coverage at Sulphur Creek. They did not. It has been left up to Telstra to do the job, independently of government. Local businesses, like the Highway Halt at Sulphur Creek, have also benefited. I would like to thank local business and the community for being able to work with them to fix this issue at Sulphur Creek. However, residents on the west coast, King Island and in Circular Head continue to have limited or no phone coverage—when it's limited it's unstable, at best. Just this week in Queenstown for three consecutive days there has been no reception for most of each of those days. Circular Head, King Island and west coast telco customers are paying for a premium service that is not being delivered. How is that fair? We have farmers in Circular Head who need improved connectivity to meet the needs of their dairy processes. The current network is actually impeding their capacity and ability to perform. On King Island, if you don't live in Currie you can forget about mobile phone services. This is an island on the cusp of a tourism boom and in the midst of an agricultural boom, but with little to no coverage. Labor has a plan to fix mobile phone coverage on the west coast, King Island and Circular Head. A Shorten Labor government will invest up to $2 million to fix mobile black spots in Circular Head, the west coast and King Island. We will work with local communities, emergency services and the state government to identify priority locations. Malcolm Turnbull should do the same. Energy 80 10:30 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay Australia is a nation rich in energy resources, including uranium, coal, gas and renewables. While Australia has an abundance of electricity-producing natural resources, it is inconceivable that the cost of electricity in Australia is amongst the highest in the world. We must take better advantage of our natural resources to provide our nation with the cheapest electricity in the world. Our goal should be to have not the most expensive but the cheapest: cheap, reliable electricity to help pensioners keep warm in winter and cool in summer; cheap, reliable electricity to keep householders' costs down and ease the family budget; cheap, reliable energy to keep the cost of producing goods and services down and lower the cost of doing business in Australia; cheap, reliable electricity to boost our competitive advantage and boost exports and create jobs here in Australia. The Finkel review found that coal is by far the cheapest and most reliable source of power, whereas solar and wind cost taxpayers billions of dollars in subsidies each year. My position on energy hasn't changed. It has always been that we should ensure that all forms of energy production stand on their own two feet, not be propped up by taxpayer subsidies, so we can take the best advantage of all our natural resources to produce cheap, reliable energy. This is why I support the National Energy Guarantee, as it's a mechanism by which our cheaper electricity potential can be reached, locking in reliable power and lower prices, providing market confidence and certainty. I recently conducted an electorate survey asking people their opinions on a range of issues, including whether they support renewable energy. Unsurprisingly, 78 per cent of the survey respondents are in favour of renewable energy, but it's also clear from the survey results that the respondents don't want to pay more for renewables. Just nine per cent of the survey respondents said they'd pay more for renewables so Queensland could meet its unrealistic 50 per cent renewable energy target. So, while renewables are popular, people don't want to pay more for them. We just want the cheapest electricity—whatever it may be—and that is what I am committed to delivering for my seat of Wide Bay. Energy 80 10:32 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Every Australian is affected by rising energy prices. One of the reasons for the increase is the domestic gas shortage. The Turnbull government has failed to resolve Australia's highest-ever gas prices. Let me cut to the chase. We are the only gas-producing country in the world that does not mandate that some of its gas be reserved for domestic use. Supply is not the problem. Exporting so much of our gas without reservation is the problem. The ACCC's gas inquiry report released recently highlighted the high prices still being paid by Australian industry and other gas users. The ACCC in the report said that businesses are 'facing difficult choices around their long-term investment decisions and long-term financial viability', and went on to say that the gas market is unsustainable. Yet when Malcolm Turnbull had the chance to take real action to tackle gas prices by imposing export controls, he instead chose an unenforceable handshake agreement with the big gas exporters. The Prime Minister failed to pull the export trigger control by November 2017 to ensure that Australian households and manufacturers were not being charged exorbitant prices for Australian gas. Instead, he relied on that handshake agreement, which is not grounded in any specific legislative provision. Essentially, it is enforceable only against the gas companies that are party to it—that shook his hand—and in accordance with the private terms and conditions that they agreed to. It effectively relieved the Prime Minister and the government of the need to consider triggering the Australian domestic gas security mechanism, a mechanism which provides the government with the power to restrict gas exports in the event of a shortfall. Because he didn't pull the trigger, 2018 was not declared to be a domestic shortfall year. What has happened to gas prices? You've guessed it: they have not gone down, even though 2018 wasn't declared a shortfall year. What we have is a Prime Minister patting himself on the back for shaking hands with all of his big business mates for cutting a deal that he thought relieved him of the responsibility to take action, something he is very averse to doing. What we have is a Prime Minister neglecting his responsibility to ensure Australians have access to fair energy prices. His handshake agreement falls woefully short. It doesn't address the core problem of Australia's enormous commitment to LNG exports and the connection of domestic gas prices to the global energy market. Indeed, the commitment is so great that LNG operators have had to take conventional gas from South Australia and Victoria to fulfil their export contracts. This has also put significant pressure on domestic prices. The gas crisis certainly is not over. Australian manufacturers and users of gas are paying the cost, and the workers are paying the price. It's time that the Prime Minister admitted that his handshake agreement didn't solve the gas crisis; it just confirmed that he is always looking after the big end of town. British Pensions 81 10:35 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore On behalf of the estimated 250,000 British pensioners resident in Australia, I call upon the Australian government to renew its diplomatic efforts to lobby the British government to index United Kingdom sourced pensions. We ask that British pensioners be treated fairly, equally and without discrimination by recognising their right to parity with pensioners resident in the UK, and in many other nations abroad, by annually indexing the British sourced pensions to which they're entitled on a non-retrospective basis. There is no reasonable or logical explanation as to why residents of certain countries such as the United States of America, Israel, Jamaica, the European Union and the Philippines currently have their pensions indexed, while their counterparts living in Commonwealth countries such as India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Australia, Canada and Trinidad have their pensions frozen. The British Pensions in Australia organisation estimates that the impact of frozen UK pensions costs Australia more than $220 million a year. This is because many British retirees receive partial pensions from both the United Kingdom and Australia, and, as the relative value of British pensions decreases, pension payments from Australia must increase to compensate. The policy is discriminatory and unjust. When Australia negotiates new trade agreements with post-European-Union Britain after Brexit, this issue must be addressed as a priority. Successive Australian governments have raised the issue of pension indexation with their counterparts in the United Kingdom, noting that the current policy is discriminatory and inequitable, without success. My electorate of Moore is home to a large number of British pensioners who are experiencing the hardship and financial disadvantage of having the purchasing power of their income diminished by inflation and the increased costs of living. Australia and Britain share a very close relationship, and the governments of both our nations ought to work together in the interests of our people, particularly in the area of the social welfare of our senior citizens who have contributed to their nation's pension scheme throughout their working lives. I'm pleased to stand with my constituents in making this representation in the Australian parliament for renewed diplomatic efforts to be made to the British government for the non-retrospective annual indexation of UK sourced pensions for retirees. Port Adelaide Electorate: Port River Dolphins 81 10:38 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide The Port River in Adelaide is unique throughout the world as the only place where dolphins reside within a metropolitan city's limits. I am privileged to have my electorate office alongside the Port River. As I walk along the wharf to get a coffee in the morning, I'm often met with the sight of dolphin fins breaking the water no more than a few metres from where I stand. They delight the people of the Port and the many visitors to the area, and, if we're lucky, we might see Tallula or his mum, Wave, tail-walking—the only wild dolphins to do so in the world. A report by the South Australian Museum that was released in March shows that, of the 35 dolphin deaths in the last 13 years, 17 of them have been due to blunt trauma injury, almost certainly caused by being hit by speeding boats. The joy of this year's dolphin baby boom, with seven new members of the Port River pod—the most in a decade—was steadily crushed, as four of the calves died. Holly, the only calf to be recovered, had suffered blunt trauma injury to the head from a speeding boat as she explored her new home. Although there are many legitimate and careful users of the river—industry, fishermen, recreational sailors and more—these dolphins, in a sanctuary, must have a safe home. The proposal for a default maximum speed of 10 knots unless otherwise signed, has been championed by the Protect Our Dolphins campaign and marine biologist and Port River dolphin expert Dr Mike Bossley, is not only reasonable but commonsense. Currently, parts of the sanctuary have speed limits of four knots and other parts seven knots, and they should remain. But the majority of the sanctuary, unbelievably, is unlimited. Nowhere on an Adelaide street would we accept an unlimited speed, and nor should we in our precious dolphin sanctuary. Despite repeated appeals from the South Australian shadow minister for the environment and state member for Port Adelaide Dr Susan Close, questions in parliament and a 12,000-strong petition to protect the dolphins that was organised and collected by Ashleigh Pisani of the Portside Weekly Messenger, the Marshall state government is shirking their responsibilities to dolphins of the port. Last week, I wrote to the Premier to urge him to act immediately to impose a speed limit and to protect this unique and precious pod. The Port River Dolphin Sanctuary must be a sanctuary not only in name but also in practice to protect the precious Port River dolphins. Murray Electorate: Employment 82 10:41 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray The Turnbull government is supporting the needs of regional Australia through its skilled migration program, including the new temporary skills shortage, or TSS, visa, enabling regional employers to fill essential vacancies faster than ever before. Introduced by the coalition government in March of this year, the TSS is one of the many temporary and permanent visa programs designed to support the labour needs of regional employers where Australian workers cannot be found. The Australian government has introduced significant changes to speed up this process for TSS visa applications. In April of this year, we found that 75 per cent of the TSS applications that were finalised were done so in just 11 days, and 90 per cent of those applications were processed in 18 days. Throughout the seat of Murray, this is incredibly important. We have in Murray a whole raft of local Australian businesses that are in desperate need of additional workers in a raft of categories of employment that they are unable to fill with Australian workers, so they are looking overseas. One of Shepparton's most iconic businesses, Furphy engineering, are in need of welders, turners and fitters, and steel fabricators. Gino D'Angelo over at Kyabram, with JNR Engineering, also needs steel fabricators. They are making the most-advanced laser-grading equipment throughout Australia. We need food technicians for the various food-processing plants throughout the Goulburn Valley. They are unable to attract food processors. You would think that working in laboratories would be a job that many young Australians would be keen to pursue, but it's still very, very hard to get people into these fields. Motor and diesel mechanic positions are very difficult to fill, and some of Shepparton and the Goulburn Valley's most prestigious vehicle operators and garages are really struggling to find the workers that they need. Truck drivers, meat process workers and aged-care workers are other areas where we're struggling to fill the opportunities that are available for employment throughout the Goulburn Valley. There's a raft of these different categories of employment, and yet we are unable to fill those jobs without having to look overseas. It's fantastic news that we are trying to make it easier. We've still got more work to do to make it easier for Australian businesses to get the people that they need to take their businesses further forward and, therefore, employ more and more Australians. Well done on the work so far, but we've got a lot of work to do in this area. Australian Broadcasting Corporation 82 10:44 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Last night I attended the ABC's showcase here in Parliament House to demonstrate my strong support for our national public broadcaster, particularly at a time when it's under attack by those opposite, in the government. In the words of Radio Birdman's 'Aloha Steve & Danno', I say to the ABC, 'Get out an APB and purchase the broadcast rights to Descent into the Maelstrom, the Radio Birdman story.' The creation of the band by Deniz Tek and Rob Younger in Sydney in 1974 cemented the foundation of Australian punk rock, laid in the very same year by Chris Bailey and Ed Kuepper of The Saints, a Brisbane band. Radio Birdman's visceral performances, attended by thousands, are an important part of Australian musical history—not to mention the release of their first full-length studio album Radios Appear in 1977 to critical acclaim. Through the cunning use of archival and present-day footage spliced together, Director Jonathan Sequeira has managed to capture the band's journey and outlaw reputation on film—a journey that was also integral to the development of the independent music scene here in Australia. Descent into the Maelstrom chronicles the beginning of the Sydney punk scene, from the perspective of the band, including a look at The Funhouse, a venue managed by Radio Birdman and used as a base of operations of sorts, found in the back room of a pub in Taylor Square off Oxford Street and notorious for hosting any and all groups with similar musical tastes and on-stage charisma. The band's significant contribution to culture and the arts in this country should be celebrated. Descent into the Maelstrom has been called the greatest Australian music documentary, and I strongly believe that the public should be given the chance to make their own assessment of this. As such, I implore the ABC to reconsider acquiring the rights to the film and for it to be broadcast to the nation free-to-air. Indeed, keep The Funhouse alive! A decision by the ABC to show this documentary will have all contemporary music fans singing, 'Yeah hup'! Banks Electorate: Community Organisations 82 10:46 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks On 4 August I attended the Oatley Football Club gala dinner, down in Kyle Bay. It was a fantastic night, with a large and enthusiastic crowd. The Oatley Football Club was formed in 1975 as part of the Oatley RSL Youth Club, and it has grown and grown and grown. Recently the football club decided to become independent of the youth club, which was a big decision for the club to take. It certainly has continued to grow very rapidly. There were just eight teams back in 1975; now there are more than 70 teams and many hundreds of players. It was great to attend the gala dinner. I want to thank, in particular, the club's president, Peter Jones, who is a very consistent and forceful advocate on behalf of the club. I also thank the club's key volunteers, including vice-presidents Ken Alexander and Mike Thompson, secretary Antonella Cino, treasurer Jason Finlay and registrar Belinda Stanton. Oatley Football Club, one of the strongest football clubs anywhere in the St George region: thank you for your contribution to our community. On 4 July I visited the end-of-term English classes at Inner Journey in Padstow. Inner Journey is a terrific community organisation that offers a range of services, including family and marriage counselling, English classes and gambling counselling. It also promotes an active social life for local seniors. I have visited on a number of occasions; I've attended its Chinese New Year event and language classes a couple of times. It's great to see many of our local Chinese residents—people of Mandarin- and Cantonese-speaking backgrounds—getting involved at the activities at Inner Journey. More than 200 people have benefited from Inner Journey since it was established in 2016. I would like to thank Reverend Tony Choy and Pastor Michelle Choy for their selfless and very important work for the local community in Padstow. On 11 August I attended the Penshurst Panthers AFL trivia night. This was a great night. Penshurst Panthers are the longest continually operating junior AFL club anywhere in Sydney. They have a proud tradition and hundreds of players. It's great that they are able to use the facilities at Olds Park, which have been substantially improved through support from the federal government and others in recent years. It's run entirely by volunteers, and it is a club with a tremendous spirit, and that was very much in evidence on the night of the trivia quiz. I'd like to thank president Louise Grady, vice-president Allan McGregor, secretary Adrian Buncle, treasurer Darien Nimmo and registrar Sandra Plummer. Penshurst RSL Panthers Junior AFL are a great club in our area. Migration 83 10:49 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I'm proud to represent the electorate of Werriwa for many reasons. Chief amongst them is that it is a strong, diverse, multicultural community. We recognise it, we celebrate it and we are stronger for it. Australia is the most successful multicultural nation on earth. There is no better evidence of this than in south-west Sydney, where my electorate is located. Every week, in my public and private capacity, I witness the best of multicultural Australia, whether it's a cultural festival, a citizenship ceremony, the many shops and shopkeepers that neighbour my electorate office or the diverse faces at my beautiful grandkid's childcare centre. A mark of multicultural Australia's success is that, for the vast majority of us, it is so unremarkable. But it is critically important that, as leaders in our community, we stand up and speak out against bigotry in all its forms when it occurs. I'm pleased to say that I've been in attendance when a number of leaders in the community have done just that over the last month. Tim Soutphommasane did that in his wonderful last speech as the Race Discrimination Commissioner, at the Whitlam Institute earlier this month, and I commend it to you all. The New South Wales Leader of the Opposition, Luke Foley, spoke out against the divisive attacks on Melbourne's African community, at the annual African Culture & Dinner Nite held in my electorate two weeks ago. And in the last 48 hours we've heard many of our colleagues, on both sides of the House, speak out against racism and bigotry. They have spoken in favour of multiculturalism and our non-discriminatory migration policy, and I am doing so now. I reject racism and discrimination because they are an affront to Australian values. They are an affront to the Werriwa I know, to the Western Sydney I know and to the Australia I know. In his speech on Wednesday, Senator Anning, in the other place, sought fit to name Gough Whitlam and the reforms of the Whitlam government. Werriwa, of course, was the seat of Gough Whitlam. He held it from 1952 to 1978. Amongst Gough's many great legacies are the introduction of the Racial Discrimination Act, the adoption of multiculturalism, the introduction of multicultural broadcasting services and the removal of the last remnants of the White Australia policy. I'm proud to represent the seat of Gough Whitlam and I'm equally proud of his legacy. I'd like to finish by quoting a constituent of my electorate who had this to say about the senator's speech: We are here to stay, raise our kids as Aussies, work hard and pay our fair share of taxes, enjoy and learn from our many cultures, advance progressive causes and resist bigotry, racism, and Stone Age mentalities. We are here to stay, whether they like it or not! Can I say, on behalf of my constituents, we do like that they're here. Dunkley Electorate: Armistice Centenary Grants 83 10:52 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley This year, 2018, marks the centenary of the end of World War I. In a few months, we'll be gathering at services all around the country to commemorate the centenary of the Armistice. Three organisations in my electorate of Dunkley have been working towards projects to acknowledge the end of the war 100 years ago, drawing on our local heritage and the recognition across the community of the significance of the sacrifices made. Seaford RSL, under the leadership currently of President John Beslee, have been running services at the RSL for years, which have been more and more attended as every year goes by. We now have the police close off Station Street as the crowds spill out onto the streets with so many people now attending. Seaford RSL have received just over $12,500 to go towards their expansion project around the cenotaph area—currently a grassy slope and a small brick courtyard around the cenotaph and flagpoles—to accommodate the growing crowds. I visited Seaford RSL last week to have a look at their ideas and to commend them on this very worthy project. Mornington and District Historical Society, under the leadership of President Diane White, have a remarkable collection of historical artefacts—Victorian era clothing, war posters, settler possessions and more—which are on display in the Old Post Office Museum in Mornington. Amongst their collection, they have on display a large amount of memorabilia from the First World War and other conflicts that is currently unable to be all displayed together and with the appropriate dignity that it all deserves. I visited the historical society last week also to look at their plans to purchase a display cabinet, with the $3,150 from the federal government that they have been granted under the Armistice Centenary Grants Program, so that the photographs of soldiers, medals, old coins and more can have their own proper place in the museum and be recognised by the community and those who visit. Frankston RSL, under the leadership of President Kevin Hillier OAM, are the third successful recipients of an Armistice Centenary Grant. They plan to create a memorial commemorating those who enlisted and served in the First World War and to hold a special Remembrance Day this year at the Frankston War Memorial. We're lucky that the Frankston War Memorial in Beauty Park is a very new memorial. The just over $15,000 we have given through the armistice centenary grant will add a great deal to the beautiful setting that we have. I look forward to visiting Beauty Park again with the veterans to go over their ideas. Congratulations to all recipients, and I look forward to seeing these projects completed in time for the remembrance services on 11 November. Lilley Electorate: ALP Shield, Lilley Electorate: Welcoming the Babies 84 10:55 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley This weekend in Lilley we have a double-header of family and community events. On Saturday I'll be proud to cheer on the under-sevens playing in the 2018 ALP Shield, which is hosted this year by the mighty Aspley Rugby League Football Club. Hundreds of junior players and 20 teams from across the north side will battle it out in a friendly round robin competition. The ALP Shield has a long and storied history, kicking off in 1982 with sponsorship from the Labor Party. Five teams participated in the inaugural competition: Norths, Aspley, Sandgate, St Joseph's and, the winners, Banyo. Labor has proudly continued its sponsorship of the shield over the past 3½ decades, during which time the competition has expanded to include all the current affiliates of the Northern Broncos. The ALP Shield is the premier training ground for future Rugby League stars to learn the rules, develop their skills and enjoy the game. I'd particularly like to thank the Norths Devils for all of their assistance with the competition. Also, on Sunday, 19 August I'll be hosting my 19th Welcoming the Babies ceremony, my last as the member for Lilley. I'll be joined by Labor's dynamic new candidate for Lilley, Anika Wells, whose daughter Celeste we welcomed as a baby last year. Welcoming the Babies is another proud north side tradition. This year it will be held at Taigum Square shopping centre in conjunction with the Taigum Square Family Fun Day. After the fun of the shield on Saturday, I encourage young families in the area to pop down the road to Taigum to help welcome the babies and to enjoy the fun day on Sunday from 10 am. Kids are sure to love the free activities and entertainment, including Peebo and Dagwood the clowns, Super Steph the puppeteer, and a special guest and super coach Laurie Lawrence. As master of ceremonies, Laurie is the heart and soul of Welcoming the Babies. His passion for young people and their water safety brings him to our event every year. We're lucky to have him. I'd like to thank Laurie for his dedication. I'd also like to thank my tireless staff and all members of the north side community who have coordinated these popular events over the past few years. The truth is that events such as this are the heart and soul of a local community, whether they are junior sports events, activities that occur in schools or events across our RSLs. We have very strong community organisations across the north side of Brisbane, with an enormous number of volunteers, who put a lot of time and effort into ensuring that our community is a stronger place. There could be no more satisfaction than going to a Welcoming the Babies; to bring together all of the committee groups that assist young families with young children in our community is a very, very special pleasure for a member of parliament. So I'd like to thank community groups that will also be coming along on Sunday morning to Taigum Square to talk to the parents about what assistance they can receive on the north side of Brisbane. Boothby Electorate: Roads, Boothby Electorate: Community Organisations 85 10:58 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby It may have been quiet in the halls of this place over the midwinter recess, but it certainly wasn't quite in my electorate of Boothby. I was out and about in my community listening to my local residents. In early July, the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister, who's here with us in the chamber this morning, and I announced $145,000 in black spot funding to make the roundabout at the Grange Road Sussex Terrace and Salisbury Crescent intersection in Hawthorn and Colonel Light Gardens safer. I then went doorknocking in my community to find out what other local roads residents would like to see fixed on top of the ones already done at Daw Park, Warradale, Clapham, Seacombe Gardens and Brighton. We saw milestones for the $620 million Darlington upgrade, with the first major traffic switch over the new bridge, and major excavation works beginning at the $174 million Oaklands Crossing Grade Separation. I was delighted to attend the annual changeover dinners for our hardworking volunteers at the Rotary Clubs of Hold Fast Bay, Edwardstown and Brown Hill Creek, and the Lions Club of Blackwood, where we welcomed new presidents: Alan Larkin, Rodrigo Gomez-Camacho, Antoinette Lindquist and Chris Martin. Speaking of hardworking volunteers, no-one has worked harder or for more years than Ken Parnell on the Marion RSL's new children's playground, which we recently opened with Marion RSL president Trevor Chapman and the mayor of Marion. This project was supported by a federal government Stronger Communities grant. I visited more hard workers who really care about our community at our local childcare centres. I met with centre director Natasha Olrich at Goodstart Early Learning, Somerton Park; Carol Carr at Goodstart, Clovelly Park; and Rhianna Hedley at Daws Road Early Learning Centre. There is always more work for elected members to do and I was grateful to my local mayors—Glenn Spear from the City of Mitcham, Kris Hanna from the City of Marion, Peter Hughes from the City of Unley and Amanda Wilson from the City of Holdfast Bay—for meeting with me to find out how we can continue to work together to deliver for our community. It was wonderful to be able to work with local and state governments to support the many projects that are already underway in Boothby, which will deliver new sporting, community and infrastructure facilities for local residents. This includes the upgrade of St Mary's sports park, where I recently joined Mayor Glenn Spear, Carolyn Habib, John Schulz and the members of the Kenilworth footy club to celebrate the beginning of construction work on their clubrooms, for which I managed to secure $350,000 in federal funding. These are just some of the things I have been doing since we were last in this place. I attend as many community events as I can and I get out and about to listen to residents so I can continue to deliver for them on the issues that matter. Northern Territory: Population 85 11:01 Mr GOSLING ( 245392 Solomon ) ( ): On 30 August, I'll be hosting a population forum with Charles Darwin University's Northern Institute. The event will kick off at 5 pm and is entitled 'Darwin—is bigger better?' It will feature a presentation from the Northern Institute's demographer, Dr Tom Wilson, and it will have a panel discussion with representatives from the NT government, the business sector, the environment sector and the Indigenous community. I know that the media based on the east coast is full of stories about overpopulated suburbs and infrastructure struggling to keep up, five-kilometre car trips taking half an hour and how it's almost impossible to get a seat on peak-hour public transport. I understand that those are real problems that people in the larger metro areas experience. But also I need to tell the House that the situation in the Territory could not be any more different. Currently, Australia's population is increasing at 1.6 per cent annually, but the Territory's population may actually decline in the current year. This is bad news for the Top End. The main reason the NT misses out so often and in so many ways is our lack of population. This decline in population is bad news for the Territory. The NT's share of the national population is diminishing at a significant rate and our share of GST revenue is diminishing and declining accordingly. Every person who leaves the NT means our GST share decreases by about $11,000 per year. With our current low revenue base, this is clearly unsustainable. As we saw last night with the territory rights debate, the Territory's small population numbers and our remoteness mean that we also lack political numbers on the national stage. There are just four of us serving the Northern Territory. We need careful, sustainable development in the Northern Territory that will bring jobs, GST dollars and—who knows?—perhaps even some cheaper airfares. It will enable Territorians to take advantage of a wider range of goods and services. More people in the Territory will enable us to raise the revenue we need to build schools, hospitals and roads for the future. But, obviously, it helps if you've got the federal government on board as well. So I call on the Prime Minister to start supporting the Northern Territory and start giving us a hand. I welcome people to join our population forum on 30 August. Hinkler Electorate: Stronger Communities Program, Hinkler Electorate: Superstars of STEM Program 86 11:04 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to speak on the Stronger Communities Program, which is now open for round 4. This has been an incredibly successful program inside my electorate: $150,000 to each federal electorate for community groups and not-for-profits, arranged within a grant fund between $2½ thousand and $20,000 on a dollar-for-dollar basis. With this fund we have replaced the roof on the Bundaberg hot rod club, in conjunction with them. We've helped to provide freezers for We Care Too in Hervey Bay, a local community group which provides meals for those who are less fortunate. We've been able to help upgrade the car park and bitumen of Hervey Bay & District Tennis Association, and also help with a kitchen upgrade in the Burgowan Bowls Club. I know that you might not know where that is, Deputy Speaker Georganas: it's in the small town of Torbanlea. And I can tell you that the assistance of between $2½ thousand and $20,000 simply could not be raised by a small community group like this. You would have to sell an awful lot of lamingtons to make $20,000 in fundraising activities! This has been a really strongly supported program, and long may it continue. Once again, it is open. We've delivered over $450,000 to the electorate in the last three rounds. On a dollar-for-dollar basis, that's almost a million dollars for these small community groups, and I can say that they're all very grateful. It has made a real difference for them and for their clubs. I would encourage those organisations which are out there to apply to my office by five o'clock on 3 September. I use an independent committee to review the applications, and they make recommendations to me as to what they think should be funded. Obviously, it is always oversubscribed, so get in early and make a great application. Grants of between $1,000 and $5,000 are also open for volunteer organisations in Hinkler. Once again, I'm calling on those community organisations to apply for a share of around $20 million in funding to support the efforts of their volunteers. This money can be used to pay for laptops, fuel costs or to train volunteers. It will help improve their fundraising, of course. In my electorate, volunteers are such an important part of our community. We have an older demographic—we have many people who are retired and who get out there and help our community. In fact, we have one of the strongest groups, in terms of the numbers versus our population, who are out there volunteering every single day. Without them, we simply could not do the jobs which get done in my electorate. I'm very proud of the people who do this work—until they are well after their retirement age, of course. It's great to see that there is an opportunity for them. Finally, we are looking for some STEM superstars. The Superstars of STEM program supports and trains women who are working in science, technology, engineering and mathematics to share their passion with the community. The first group of superstars engaged with more than 7½ thousand high school students. This is, of course, about inspiring more young women and girls to study and work in the STEM field. It is an important part of what we do into the future, it will be an important part of jobs in the future and I look forward to seeing what they can do. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY In accordance with the resolution earlier, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. ADJOURNMENT 86 ADJOURNMENT Centrelink 86 11:08 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Today, I want to call attention to the crisis unfolding in one of Australia's largest Commonwealth government departments, Centrelink. Centrelink is responsible for delivering some of the most critical services right across the social spectrum. It touches so many lives every week, and, without it, millions of Australians would find themselves destitute. But over the last few years we have seen deliberate and systematic slashing and gutting of staff and resources to this critical organisation. Calls are going unanswered, applications aren't getting processed and people are waiting for payments to be processed for month after month after month. Then, when people try to sort things out, many of them get turned away from offices, only to be forced to wait indefinitely on hold in call queues and never getting answered. And let's not forget the robo-debt debacle, where 20,000 people were issued with false or incorrect notices. This is not how we should treat any Australian, let alone vulnerable people facing personal and financial challenges. In electorate offices like mine across the country, we are seeing the fallout from this policy of negligence. Each and every day my staff take calls from desperate constituents trying to do their very best to navigate a system that seems rigged to demoralise and delay. Some say this is evidence of the government's neglect. I would suggest that we're looking at the mark of something far more malignant: a cynical and punitive campaign of a government hell-bent on punishing people who find themselves out of work, caring for somebody with a disability, collecting some family payments or simply ageing—part of the natural process—but wanting to seek an age pension. How else would you explain the Liberals, who have cut about 2,500 permanent jobs from Centrelink in the past two years alone, doubling down in the face of this chronic and worsening underperformance by slashing a further 1,200 Centrelink jobs in the most recent budget. Some members of the government seem to be under the utterly ridiculous delusion that unemployment is a lifestyle choice, that Australians are somehow rorting the system for the pleasure of eking out a poverty-stricken existence of some $40 a day. Indeed, the government seems so intent on creating and responding to its dole bludger myth narrative that it has dispensed with basic humanity. The government will argue that this is simply a matter of responsible budget savings. I say to Mr Turnbull: how is it that your government can find $80 billion for big business, multinationals and the banks but refuses to allocate adequate resources to do your core responsibilities and instead leave these agencies to fall into decay? That's exactly what's happening. In 2016-17, there were 55 million unanswered calls to Centrelink. That is more than double the 22 million in the previous 12 months. People are waiting six months or longer to have their applications approved and for their living payments to start. I had a shocking case in my electorate. A 72-year-old woman from Georgetown applied for the age pension back in April. Three months later she contacted my office at her absolute wit's end. She'd heard absolutely nothing about her application; she couldn't get any information. While I was able to escalate her case—and it was eventually approved this month, in August—it shouldn't have to come to this. People should not be reduced to having to contact their federal member of parliament to access basic citizenship entitlements. That's the problem. A Shorten Labor government, I'm proud to say, will be doing our best to restore the damage being done. We will invest $196 million and add 1,200 new permanent and full-time DHS jobs around this country. Labor will also abolish the Liberals' arbitrary staff cap, strengthening capacity and capability within the Australian Public Service. Labor is working on how it will fix the damage done by this cruel government, which lacks imagination, to deliver basic citizenship entitlements. (Time expired) Live Animal Exports 87 11:13 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to update the House on some of the activities and forums that were held around my electorate relating to the live export industry during the winter break. On 20 July, in my home town of Katanning, over a thousand farmers, truckies and small-business people gathered at the Katanning rec centre in an extraordinary display of solidarity with the industry. I give great credit to: the WA Farmers Federation and president Tony York for initiating the meeting; the state agricultural minister, Alannah MacTiernan, who came to the meeting and, some would say, faced the music, but I think everybody respected the minister for turning up; and my colleague the member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, who accepted the invitation from the WA Farmers Federation to come to Western Australia and talk to our farming community. It was a great opportunity for me and the other politicians who were in the crowd to listen to those farmers and rural communities. What I heard was that people feel overwhelmingly betrayed and let down by a system that they have no control over. Unfortunately, they bear the consequences. The industry feels vilified by people who live in metropolitan areas, who have very little contact and very little understanding of how our farming and rural industries work. Some people made magnificent contributions, and one of those was from a young mum from Dumbleyung, Chloe MacDougall. She was there with a pram and her new baby, and she was very concerned about her family's future. She called on the Western Australian minister for agriculture to decide whether she represented farmers or whether she represented the animal liberationists. Ben Poett is a third-generation livestock transporter—his grandfather carted livestock for my father, his dad carted livestock for me, and he is continuing that family business. He said that in the last month his truck had only moved for eight days and that's not enough to meet the payments on his truck. They are the people who are really feeling the pinch. A local furniture retailer, Alan McFarland, said that when the rural community isn't making money the tap immediately turns off in his business. We heard those stories at Katanning, and that kicked off a series of meetings which I held around the electorate. There was a coffee catch-up in Kulin, where at one day's notice over 30 people turned up. I thank Sid Turner for organising that day. Once again, people were very concerned about the future of their industry. The shire president of Brookton, Katrina Crute, managed at two days notice to muster 160 people for a live export Q&A at the Brookton Country Club that evening. I thank Steven Keatley, a local livestock agent, and Katrina for putting that meeting together. The message I heard was loud and clear. Once again, people were angry that the system's let them down. This live export industry is an important pillar of their businesses and they are very unhappy that we've been put in this situation. A week later down in Esperance, Tom Brown held a sundowner in his shearing shed. It is the truck drivers, livestock agents and small-business people who feel the pinch early. Fortunately, in Western Australia we're very blessed with having a wonderful season this year, so the financial impacts are being hidden because farmers are able to keep sheep on property while they wait for the trade to reinvigorate. Barry Hutchinson and Geoff Irvine were the people that helped put the meeting together. On 9 August, at Mayanup, we held another meeting. There were over 100 people once again. Caroline Read, Richard Creek and Sue Mead helped put that meeting together—thank you very much. At that meeting, we heard from a very interesting lady Amy Dyer, who was there with her young child. She married a farmer. She told the meeting that she was an animal liberationist, she was a vegetarian and at stages in her life she'd been a vegan. But since marrying a farmer and understanding not only how the industry works and the safeguards that we've put in place here in country in Australia but also how the ESCAS sets the standard for the world she had completely changed her view. She is working very hard with some of her old contacts in the animal liberation movement to convince them that this trade does have a future and it does set the standard for the rest of the world to abide by. The practical implication of the suspension of our trade at the moment is that Qatar, our main customer, is importing sheep, as we speak, from Sudan, Armenia and South Africa. Oxley Electorate: Banking and Financial Services 88 11:18 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley If it wasn't clear by now, the decision by Suncorp Bank to close the local Inala branch shows just how the big banks are putting profits before people. This follows the closure of branches in my electorate in the areas of Redbank and Goodna in 2015, other regional branches last year and in Bundaberg in February. In the second half of last year, Suncorp made a profit of almost half a billion dollars, $452 million, with its CEO reported to be earning almost $10 million a year. With numbers like these, it just goes to show how greedy the banks are by putting profits over people. Upon hearing the news of the closure, which is sadly due to occur tomorrow, my office was inundated with calls from Inala and local residents who are rightfully angry and frustrated by this decision by Suncorp to close their much-loved local branch. I was delighted to be joined by a huge crowd of locals and our local councillor Charles Strunk just a few weeks ago outside the branch to protest this closure and the bank's arrogance by short-changing local residents when we know the huge profits they are making. Joining me at the protest was renowned local resident from the Inala seniors group Mrs Iris Moir, who told the group that the branch was always busy. She said that many of the bank's customers were elderly, had carers or were disabled and would face hardship using their accounts without access to a branch in Inala. She said: 'They became our friends. They know our names. We come here for banking services we need.' Inala Anglican parish priest Rev. Carol Palmer, who attended the rally, sees the looming closure of the Suncorp bank at Inala as a social justice problem. 'It's simple. The bank has put profits before people,' Rev. Palmer said. So I was surprised when in Suncorp's most recent annual report I read about an increased focus on elevating the needs of customers to deliver strong growth for the company. What hypocrisy! The decision to close the local branch clearly does not stack up to Suncorp's supposed focus on the needs of customers. Today, in the national parliament, I call on Suncorp to work with seniors and pensioners to help them deal with this closure. I want to work alongside Suncorp to make sure that our seniors and pensioners are not disadvantaged. This decision has been seen by elderly residents in particular as a huge blow. We've already heard horror story after horror story from the banking royal commission. The commission has heard evidence of appalling behaviour by Australia's major banks and financial planners from the past decade, including alleged bribery, forged documents, repeated failure to verify customers' living expenses before lending them money, and mis-selling insurance to people who can't afford it. These stories include AMP admitting to lying to regulators and the Commonwealth Bank admitting that some of its financial planners have been charging fees to clients who have died. Suncorp have also been named and shamed as being a culprit. We know this because the customers are speaking out. Earlier this year, Suncorp admitted that it failed to complete a review of its standard small-business contracts to see whether they comply with new unfair-contract laws But despite all of this, the Prime Minister and this government are hell bent on delivering an $80 billion dollar tax handout to big business, including a whopping $17 billion in tax breaks to the big banks. How on earth could any member of the government get up in good conscience and defend that? How could any person in the parliament think that, with the rorting and the rip-offs that we've seen through the banking royal commission, it's somehow good economic policy to deliver a tax break to the same people who we have seen time and time again ripping off mainstream, ordinary Australians? This mega tax handout is being given to the big banks at the same time as everyday Australian families are seeing their childcare support payments cut, their school funding cut, assistance for pensioners cut and support for university students cut. We've heard the horror stories from the banking royal commission. We've heard the stories from customers and consumer right around the country about how the big banks treat them. Today I say to the banks: 'It's time to clean up your act and start listening to your loyal customers.' Today I pledge to play a constructive role to help the customers that Suncorp have left behind, to make sure that they're looked after, even though at this time their bank doesn't seem to worry about them at all. New South Wales: Drought 89 11:23 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Most of New South Wales, and in particular the Calare electorate, is facing the worst drought in living memory. There are a number of issues relating to this crisis which need to be brought to the attention of this parliament. Farmers are telling me that they are not able to source grain and that if they're not able to get the grain urgently they're not going to be able to maintain their flocks and herds. They can't get the grain, because the market is short. There have been hundreds of thousands of tons of grain bought up on the east coast grain market over the last couple of weeks. The market is extremely short, prices are skyrocketing and, sadly, people are making money off the backs of struggling farmers. I believe there needs to be a coordinated effort to get grain from Western Australia, where it's plenty, into New South Wales—into central western New South Wales, in particular—where it's scarce. When I raise this, I'm told that private enterprise should be the people doing it. Maybe they should be, but they're not. It hasn't happened yet. I'm told also that the New South Wales government is responsible for livestock. Maybe it is, but out at the farm gate our farmers don't really care about demarcation issues. They just need this grain urgently. In the first instance, I do believe that there is a role for the federal government to play in coordinating these parties and getting them in a room together. The federal government can be coordinating logistics in terms of locating and organising available ships or trains with the New South Wales government. If private enterprise or the New South Wales government are not willing to step up, then I think the federal government needs to step in and underwrite shipments of grain into New South Wales as soon as possible. Our farmers are not looking for free grain. They're not looking for a free ride. They're willing to pay for it, but what they want to do is to buy it at a price that doesn't gouge them out of business. At the moment, prices are heading north of $500 a tonne, and it is uneconomic for them to be maintaining their flocks and herds. They've spent a huge amount of money keeping them alive to date, and all of that will be wasted if they can't access grain. Another issue which needs to be brought to the attention of the House is the fact that we need more rural financial counsellors on the ground in the central west. I was pleased to see that there was an additional $5 million in funding for rural financial counsellors. That was a welcome announcement by the federal government over the last couple of weeks. However, we need more boots on the ground on the central tablelands. At the moment, we've got rural financial counsellors in Dubbo; we've got one in Young, and we've got one in Mudgee. I visited the one in Mudgee last week. She's doing a huge amount of work, but she is booked out for three weeks. These folks are doing their best, but they're short staffed. We need to get one into the central tablelands area so they can better serve farmers in the Cabonne council area, and around Orange, Bathurst, Lithgow and Oberon. We need to get the help to where it's needed most. I've raised it with the federal government and hopefully we can get some more boots on the ground really soon. It's not only our farmers that are feeling the pinch and the hurt from this drought. It's also people in the communities out around the central west. So, for example, the fuel distributors are not selling any fuel. The mechanics, the tyre fitters, the rural supply shops, the supermarkets—everyone is feeling the pinch from this drought. I think there is a role for the federal government to be ramping up drought relief for those communities as well. It can be done through existing programs—for example, the Building Better Regions program can be calibrated to those drought affected communities so we can get some economic community into the communities that are really, really struggling and hurting. The Roads of Strategic Importance program, which is all about connecting regions, can be calibrated towards drought affected communities so we can get some increased economic activity in those areas. Those last two suggestions wouldn't have any impact on the budget because they have already been budgeted for. There are things we can be doing to keep ramping up drought relief. And we do need to keep ramping it up. Drought relief cannot be looked at as one static point in time. You have to keep ramping it up as the conditions worsen. We are heading into what looks like an extremely ugly spring and an extremely ugly summer. This is just going to get worse, so all governments need to be ramping up their responses. The federal government needs to be rolling out more drought relief measures urgently, and we need to get the help to where it's needed. I'll continue to push to get it. All of these issues need to brought to the attention of the parliament because we've got a lot of city MPs amongst us and they need to be educated. Energy 90 11:28 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin We saw in question time yesterday more of the confusion from this government on its energy policy—the National Energy Guarantee, or the NEG, as the government calls it. We heard yesterday in the parliament, in an embarrassing admission from the government, that, essentially, they didn't realise that the NEG's lack of ambition and support for renewable energy actually means it doesn't include Tasmania's Battery of the Nation project. The project the Prime Minister claims he invented and was wanting to take credit for yesterday in the parliament is not included in the National Energy Guarantee because of that lack of ambition. The lack of renewables investment post 2021 means that this project will not proceed under the NEG. We've had the Prime Minister come down to Tasmania, of course, in the recent Braddon by-election and prior to that, to talk about this great project and these series of projects in Tasmania for pumped storage hydro. As many people would know, Tasmania has been Australia's leader in renewable energy. We've had renewable energy for 100 years with our hydro schemes, and these pump storage schemes could add to that as part of the Battery of the Nation project. They would be terrific in terms of renewables. The estimated cost for these, of course, is between $1 million and $1.5 million per megawatt hour. This means that this renewable technology is cheaper than new coal technology. It would be cheaper to build this Battery of the Nation in Tasmania than it would be to build coal. You won't hear that from the government, of course. You won't hear that at all. Indeed, the main proponent of this project is Hydro Tasmania, a state owned GBE that has been operating in Tasmania, as I said, for 100 years, in various guises. Indeed, it said: The Battery of the Nation initiative supports Australia to embrace cost-effective renewable energy generation while maintaining secure, reliable electricity supply. The Battery of the Nation project is simply not consistent with the government's National Energy Guarantee because, of course, there are no renewables under their ambition for the National Energy Guarantee post 2021. Indeed, the Energy Security Board has done modelling of the NEG, and it assumes that the Battery of the Nation project does not proceed. When the Prime Minister comes to Tasmania, he talks about it. He was in the parliament yesterday trying to claim credit for it—this project that Tasmanians have been working on for many years without the Prime Minister. And we've had Senator Eric Abetz standing there right alongside him. What we've also seen in recent days is Senator Abetz saying that he might not even agree with the National Energy Guarantee; apparently, even that is too ambitious for Senator Eric Abetz! So I find it completely incomprehensible that we have the Prime Minister and Senator Abetz in Tasmania, claiming to support this project. We then have the Prime Minister with a policy that he says is going to allow the Battery of the Nation to proceed, when in fact it won't; the modelling say it won't happen, because of the government's lack of ambition on renewables. Then we've got Eric Abetz saying, 'Oh, well, the NEG is too ambitious, so I don't even support that.' If we're talking seriously about renewable energy and Tasmania expanding our renewable energy, we also need to talk about the Basslink cable. We've seen a feasibility study that has been done in relation to a second interconnector between Tasmania and the mainland for the National Energy Market. Ironically, the Battery of the Nation project is not viable without that interconnector, and the interconnector is probably not viable without the Battery of the Nation. So, clearly, the interconnector, the second Basslink cable and the Battery of the Nation are not going to happen under the coalition government or under their National Energy Guarantee—if, indeed, they can actually get it through, up and running. Tasmania, as I said, has always been leading when it comes to renewable energy. We want these jobs in Tasmania—these thousands of jobs that would come from the Battery of the Nation project. But we've had five years without a coherent energy or climate change policy and five years of inaction, and now we see more chaos from the government in relation to the National Energy Guarantee. That means that Tasmanians continue to miss out. Tasmanians' ambitions for great projects that would create great jobs in our home state are at risk and may not happen, because of this government's continued chaos when it comes to energy policy in this country and when it comes to support for renewable energy. HMAS Voyager 91 11:33 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe Every year we stand for a minute's silence to remember those Australians who died fighting to protect the values and freedoms which we so dearly cherish. The soldiers we remember were brave individuals, who each made the biggest sacrifice one can ever make: the sacrifice of their own lives for the sake of this country. Each day, thousands of Australian men and women put themselves in harm's way and put their lives at risk to keep us safe and secure. On that note, today I would like to bring the attention of the chamber to the forthcoming 55th anniversary of the sinking of the HMAS Voyager on 10 February 1964, which, tragically, claimed 82 lives. This incident has now passed into history as Australia's worst naval peacetime disaster. The story of the Voyager survivors' treatment over the years is a long and sad saga of neglect and injustice. I was speaking recently with Colin Tidball, the Royal Australian Navy RAN and retired crew member of HMAS Voyager D 04, a local resident. He had something to say to me, and his story just struck me. He said, 'I believe we can restore faith in the system for them and improve their health and the wellbeing of Voyager survivors. That would mean a hell of a lot to them and they deserve that.' HMAS Voyager was a Daring class destroyer with the Royal Australian Navy that was lost in a collision in 1964. During the night of 10 February 1964, Voyager and the aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne collided off Jervis Bay when the destroyer passed in front of the carrier during post-refit sea trials. The Voyager was cut in two by the collision and sank, with the loss of 82 of the 314 people on board. This was the largest loss of Australian military personnel in peacetime. Immediately after the collision, survivors were told that they did not fall under Veterans' Affairs. It was a shock, to put it plainly. Survivors were told to take it up with Comcare. This was a disaster, because at the time Comcare had no training to deal with a situation of this magnitude. As a consequence, survivors walked away without any counselling, proper referrals for treatment, direction or compassion. Moreover, a comment from a Comcare manager to a Voyager survivor—'What makes you any more special than if two Commonwealth buses full of Commonwealth clerks collided outside Canberra?'—left survivors out in the blizzard. Voyager survivors want access to the Commonwealth gold card for members who currently do not have one. I believe this is very fair because others have received it and they were serving for Australia on an Australian Navy vessel. It is understood that this is a privilege, and it would be treated as such by them, as this card would allow Voyager survivors access to treatment that is being denied to them. This would increase their likelihood of living longer lives, and it would also ensure that they realise that the Australian public regard them as proud sailors. The other consideration is that Voyager survivors be given access to the Australian Service Medal 1945-1975, the medal I'm holding up today. The reason for this is that Voyager was allocated to South-East Asia and the Malay Peninsula once they had completed some exercises in Melbourne. Therefore, the determination of her being an allocated vessel had not changed, and, if the ship had not been sunk through no fault of the crew, they would soon have been doing the job they had been trained for against the communist insurgents in the region. Eighty-two men made the ultimate sacrifice for their service, and many others carry the injuries and scars in their minds forever because they escaped, but the hatches were hammered closed and a lot couldn't escape. HMAS Voyager survivors should have access to the Australian Service Medal 1945-1974, not because of the collision but because of their service. It must be understood that Voyager was operating in extremely horrendous conditions. That is obvious from its sinking. I hope Colin's struggle is reviewed with compassion. I'll be asking the minister to review this. Let's put aside party politics and penny-pinching and give our defence personnel the outcome they truly deserve, especially all those involved in this awful Australian peacetime disaster. Fremantle By-Election, Perth By-Election 91 11:38 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand On Saturday, 28 July, when the voters of Fremantle and Perth in Western Australia turned out to vote in the by-elections, something was missing. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull had gone missing. In fact, the entire Liberal Party of Western Australia had gone missing. The Liberals' refusal to field candidates in those important by-elections was simply a slap in the face for Western Australia's Liberal voters. It says a lot about the character of the Prime Minister that he and the WA Liberal Party gave up on these two important contests. This Prime Minister has visited WA a total of six times, and only twice this year. In contrast, Bill Shorten, as Leader of the Opposition, has visited WA 16 times, five of which were this year. I'm happy to say that Jamie and I enjoyed a lovely casual lunch at the wonderful Cruising Yacht Club in Rockingham with Bill and his family. We were joined by Premier Mark McGowan and his family. Both Mark and I were happy to show off the wonderful Rockingham beachfront that sits in the heart of our respective electorates. It's a place you rarely see a Liberal parliamentarian go, unless they are driving straight through to go to directly to Garden Island. There's still no sign of a Liberal candidate for the seat of Brand. It's a funny thing: Malcolm Turnbull was back in WA after the by-elections, and it was just last week in fact that he rolled into Perth and zeroed in on the fragile marginal seats held by nervous members on the other side. Of course, I didn't see him in Brand—but then, we never do. To celebrate the PM's triumphant return to Western Australia, the WA Liberals ran a full-page advertisement in The West Australian on Saturday, the last day of his visit. This full-page ad in The West Australian cost around $12,000. That was on top of two other full-page Liberal ads recently run in the same paper in the week of the two by-elections in Western Australia. That's right: they ran two full-page ads in the only daily paper published in Western Australia in the week of the by-elections they had not bothered to turn up for—a wacky investment of tens of thousands of dollars that must dishearten Liberal donors. And even that significant investment went off the rails the very next day. Up got the state leader of the WA Liberal Party, Mike Nahan, in his major annual address at the WA state Liberal Party conference, to tell us that no-one was reading The West Australian. The Liberal leader told journalists: It's not something that I relish, but it's a reality … People are not reading The West Australian. The state Liberal leader repeated his mantra inside and outside the conference. He kept saying that mainstream media does not penetrate. He kept saying that it does not work. I don't agree with everything The West Australian paper does. I abhor how it takes column space away from quality journalists and gives it to the divisive Bolt columns, but I really wouldn't write off a 130-year-old Western Australian institution. So I ask: what are Western Australians to make of the hapless Liberal bunch? The Prime Minister only ever turns up to try to save his own political bacon. He advertises his policy in a newspaper that his state leader has entirely discounted. Is it any wonder that the Liberals failed to nominate and field candidates in the Perth and Fremantle by-elections? They simply do not have the confidence or belief in their arguments or their leadership. As a result, voters gave a resounding vote of approval to two outstanding Labor candidates, Patrick Gorman and Josh Wilson. And Labor candidates did not take the by-elections lightly, unlike the WA Liberals, who just didn't turn up. They did not take their supporters for granted. Patrick and Josh wore out their shoe leather, and the phones were running hot. Patrick Gorman and his team knocked on nearly 10,000 doors, and Josh and his exceptional team spoke with over 20,000 voters in the great seat of Fremantle. The Fremantle and Perth by-election results simply vindicated Labor's position that Western Australians do not believe they are getting, or will ever get, a fair deal from the Turnbull Liberal government. They joined other Australians, in Longman, Braddon and Mayo, in rejecting the Turnbull government's tax cuts for big banks and their cuts to schools and hospitals across this whole country. The Prime Minister said this was a test of leadership. He failed. He said it was a test of the business tax handouts. They were flatly rejected by all these electorates. We had the better candidates and the better policy, and we knew it wasn't about us; it was about these communities and building a better future for them, and putting people first. Voters can see through the empty promises of this ramshackle government. I might add that the Turnbull government also put up a completely unfunded GST reform for Western Australian voters and then failed to even bother to campaign on it by putting up Liberal candidates in the Western Australian by-elections. It's an outrage. It's ridiculous. They are fools. Everybody knows that you cannot trust Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and you certainly can't trust WA Liberals. They've abandoned Western Australia utterly. The Village Observer 92 11:43 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney () (): I rise today to celebrate the 25th anniversary of one of the great local institutions in my electorate, The Village Observer newspaper. The Village Observeris a much-loved local publication that serves residents living in the municipalities of Lane Cove and Hunters Hill and parts of Willoughby. A combination of local newspaper and magazine, it plays a central role in connecting residents within our community. But there is something special about the Observer. During a dynamic 25 years in the national and international media landscape, The Village Observer has been a constant force. It is a true testament to the enduring strength of The Village Observerthat in a digital age it is still going strong. The Village Observer was established in 1993 by Ian Longbottom, to fulfil the need for a local news publication. In 1993 there was no email. Ian would drive around town picking up photos and disks containing copy from contributors. Other contributors would fax handwritten articles to Ian, and then he would retype them for publication. And I suspect that it was primarily delivered to residents by members of the Longbottom family—often involuntarily, I suspect! The Village Observer was purchased in 2010 by the Lane Cove Community Aid Foundation. Funds raised by The Village Observer now support financial assistance to aged-care and disability services run by Sydney Community Services, which has its home in Lane Cove. With modern publishing tools, The Village Observer has evolved into a high-quality journal under the current outstanding editorship of Jocelyn Biddle. Its distribution extends to 20,000 houses, and businesses in Lane Cove, Lane Cove West, Lane Cove North, Osborne Park, Riverview, Longueville, Northwood, Greenwich, Hunters Hill, Linley Point, Woolwich and parts of St Leonards. In total, it reaches 50,000 residents, 11,500 families and something like 6,300 local businesses. Every month, in almost 50 pages of colour, The Village Observer brings together and tells the stories of an important and strong community. Despite its title, The Village Observer does much more than simply observe. It builds, promotes and celebrates our community. It encourages those who live in this vibrant area of Sydney to be our best and to try new things. It educates and it informs. In a world where people can feel more disconnected from their own areas, The Village Observer is a voice that tells of amazing neighbours who do extraordinary things, both small and large, for their fellow citizens. The Village Observer in its promotion of all the amazing opportunities that exist in our local area helps foster a sense of community that gives residents not only an important sense of place but an important sense of self. The Village Observer is also an important avenue for expression. It promotes and encourages the thriving local arts community and champions creativity. Examples include showcasing resident artists, providing a page where schoolchildren can publish their efforts in narrative writing exercises, and promoting ceramic and painting courses and so much more that is found in the Lane Cove community. I also pay tribute to the vitally important role The Village Observer plays in keeping the community abreast of public policy matters and initiatives. There are regular articles asking for public comment on important local initiatives and public announcements about the work of government—local, state and federal. The Village Observer also does much in terms of promoting healthy lifestyles. The articles that appear in the health section assist people in staying up to date with the latest thinking on how to manage their health, fitness and wellbeing. Last but not least, The Village Observer supports local business, the lifeblood of commerce and employment in our local communities. Whether it be through providing a widely read local platform for a new restaurant to promote their arrival or the promotion of local services, The Village Observer helps those local businesses that add so much to the vibrancy of our community. The nature of local newspapers across Sydney is changing. They have been joined by online publications. In our area, for example, the digital service In The Cove is an example of this type of development. Yet my view is that there will always be a place, arguably a more important one, for publications like The Village Observer. I want to congratulate The Village Observeron remaining a vital part of the community, as it has for the last quarter of a century. May you go from strength to strength in the years ahead. I'm sure you will. Greece: Fires 93 11:48 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I rise today to speak on the unprecedented tragedy of the deadly fires in Athens recently. We all saw images and horrific stories coming out on our TV screens that laid bare the horrifying destruction that took place in Athens. I happened to be in Athens. It was just within a few hours of arriving when I heard reports of these dreadful fires and the tragedy that was taking place. Upon hearing about the extent of the casualties and injuries, I made contact with our Australian embassy as I heard that we were coordinating assistance from our wonderful country that always assists where there is need. I would like to pay tribute to and congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, for her immediate response to assisting with the fire recovery efforts. We did so as Australians, and I was very proud to be an Australian in Athens at the time. Australia provided disaster assistance. The tragic event had claimed 92 lives at that point, with several people remaining missing. Certainly the messages of our foreign affairs minister, our Prime Minister and our Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, were all gratefully and thankfully received by the Greek people in Greece who were affected by this catastrophic event. We sent 10 members of the disaster assistance response team, DART, from fire and rescue from all over Australia to conduct fire impact assessments. I believe they just returned yesterday. I met with them at the welcoming reception that we had in Greece. They were welcomed with open arms. The Greek government was so thankful to Australia for sending this assistance. I'd also like to pay tribute to the deputy foreign affairs minister of Greece, a true friend of Australia, Mr Terens-Nikolaos Quick, who conducted the welcoming ceremony. We were very well placed to support Greece in these recovery efforts, drawing on our experience with the bushfires that we have here. The response team supported the crisis by working with the department of foreign affairs at our embassy in Greece. I'd also like to pay tribute to our wonderful ambassador to Greece, Kate Logan, who is doing a marvellous job in Athens representing Australia, and also her second in charge, Andrea Biggi, who's been there for a couple of years now. Both of them were brilliant in coordinating and responding through our foreign affairs ministry and ensuring that assistance was given. There were some horrendous stories that came out of it while I was there. One that comes to mind is the tragic story of two little twin girls about the age of six who disappeared. Everyone was out looking for them days after the fire, and they were found huddled with their grandmother, perished. There is a story about a particular person who was combating the fires and trying to protect his house. He sent his family away and stayed back but decided to pack everything and go. He tried to open the garage door, which was remote-controlled, but there was no electricity. He finally gouged the door open and was overcome by the flames. There are some horror stories. It was horrendous to see. This was part of Athens; these were suburbs, not bushland. You'd see a row of buildings that were completely burned out. I'd never seen anything like it in my life. I'd also like to pay tribute to John Greenwood, our Adelaide burns surgeon, who voluntarily flew to Athens to assist. He is the surgeon who developed the synthetic skin products and assisted many burns victims. Currently, the Adelaide Greek community is fundraising to assist him with equipment et cetera to do more good work. I was absolutely proud to be an Australian in Athens during this time. It's a real tribute to us as a nation when we offer assistance overseas to countries that are going through devastating times, such as the fire in Athens. Mr Greenwood, the surgeon who I was talking about, upon hearing this tragedy, made the decision to offer his support and help to the burns victims free of cost. At his own cost, he flew over there. He's an absolutely marvellous person. He was also the person who treated the first victims from the Bali bombings in Darwin after that dreadful terrorist bombing. His experience was invaluable, absolutely crucial, in assisting over there. In my home state of South Australia, the community across the board has rallied. They've put together fundraisers through the Greek Orthodox Community of South Australia and through the archdiocese. I pay tribute to all of them. 11:54 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 261393 I thank the member for Hindmarsh for bringing to the attention of this chamber the important work of Australians in that awful tragedy. Women's Health 94 11:53 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I rise this morning to commend the work of a local constituent from Warrandyte in my electorate, Dr Linda Worrall-Carter, who is not only the founder but the CEO of a relatively new not-for-profit known as Her Heart. Dr Worrall-Carter resigned from a successful career as professor of cardiac nursing and founded the organisation in 2015. She believed that just carrying out more research in this area would not solve the fastest-killing disease of women in Australia and elsewhere and that a dedicated effort to roll out a series of national education programs and campaigns for women and girls in particular was needed. I ask rhetorically: what is the largest killer of women in this country? People often think about diseases such as breast cancer, but the reality is it's heart disease. Quoting Dr Worrall-Carter: Heart disease is the biggest killer of women. Tragically, 1 in 3 women will die in Australia, that's 1 woman every hour; in the UK & Europe, it's 1 every 10 minutes, and in the US, it's 1 woman every 80 seconds. I think this is completely unacceptable and strongly believe that if you know something is wrong, then you need to be prepared to put your hand up and do something to change it. That's what she has set out to do. Not only is this a major killer of Australian women but it involves a huge cost to the budget. In 2014, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimated that over 27 per cent of the $7.6 billion Health budget was spent on heart health, which is more than $2 billion. No doubt, a few years later, it's even higher than that $2 billion. The biggest spend is on heart disease. It's the No. 1 killer and it's the No. 1 killer of both men and women in Australia. Over 20,000 Australians die of it each year, and it's estimated that one-third of these are preventable—that would be some 6,700 lives, saving close to three-quarters of a billion dollars. What she's trying to do now, through information and education programs, is to use her research to indicate to women that what we generally understand as the symptoms of heart disease can differ very greatly in women from those in men. Through her education programs, website herheart.org and speaking engagements, she's trying to bring this message to women not just in Australia but around the world. In fact, from very humble beginnings in Melbourne, she now has subscribers to her website and blog from some 128 countries. Not only has Linda founded this organisation but she's invested her own funding in establishing the charity. She has donated her salary for three years and re-invested all donations and funds in order to move the charity forward. The initial interest has far exceeded expectations and Her Heart is now a global movement with campaigns and community leaders. As I said earlier, drawing on her experience as a cardiac nurse and then an educator for 15 years as a researcher and professor of nursing, she's able to share not just her knowledge but her passion about this issue to inspire people to think about what is a preventable disease for many thousands of Australian women. That's being done through a mission to prevent heart disease in Australia: a campaign to contribute to life-saving awareness about heart disease in women by educating women through access to educational resources and to help them feel empowered and act on this information to change their lifestyle. In the seconds remaining to me, there are essentially six points in that education program which the research shows are important: first, don't smoke; second, be active; third, eat healthily; fourth, get some sleep; fifth, relax; and, finally, limit alcohol intake to moderate levels. The more this message can be spread throughout this country, not just to Australian women but to their partners, husbands, spouses, fathers and siblings, then the more we can do to contribute towards the prevention of what is a disease that can be prevented in very many cases for many of our mothers, sisters and daughters in this country. 11:58 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 261393 I thank the member for Menzies for raising awareness of that issue in the Australian parliament. Immigration 95 11:58 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand There has been a lot of self-congratulation in this building today. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition showed the leadership that this country desperately needed by moving a motion to re-affirm the parliament's commitment to a racially and religiously non-discriminatory immigration policy. It mirrored a motion moved in 1988—by the Prime Minister, on that occasion—to put back in its box a similar attempt to reinsert racial criteria into our immigration system, a motion designed to stop Australia setting a course back to an ugly part of our history. It was a past in which, in 1902, one of the first two people to fail the dictation test—there were two Indian men who failed, both of whom were fellow British subjects and soldiers in the Imperial Army, fighting in common cause with Australian servicemen—and be denied entry to our country under the White Australia policy was 'roped and dragged' back onto his ship by Australian officials. It was a past in which in 1970, under the Gorton government, Jan Allen, a British citizen who happened to be black, was denied assisted passage to Australia—under the same scheme that had brought prime ministers Gillard and Abbott's families to Australia—because of the colour of his skin. My ancestors helped shape this ugly part of our history. They were members of the anti-Chinese committees in the pre-Federation colonial parliaments. But my family—my wife and my children—are only here today because Australia saw the light and embraced a multiracial, multicultural future for our country. When the parliament debated this motion in 1988 it was debating my family—newly arrived migrants from Asia—and whether they could be a part of our nation, whether they could be Australian. Today, as the Scanlon Foundation has tracked for over a decade now, 85 per cent of Australians support our uniquely successful multicultural society and only 13 per cent of Australians believe that where someone was born is very important to whether they are truly Australian. To reclaim a phrase, Australians are relaxed and comfortable about multiculturalism. Those MPs who opposed that motion in 1998 were wrong then, and any MPs in our parliament today who oppose it today are wrong now. Yesterday morning's debate was all well and good, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition and those who spoke—and those MPs who turned up—for signalling that a line was crossed this week. I want particularly to pay tribute to the contributions of the members for Chifley and Cowan for the incredible grace that they showed and for their patriotism and obvious desire for our country to succeed in the face of this challenge. But yesterday's debate should not absolve us from asking why we ended up here and where we should go after it. As our outgoing Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane, warned last week: 2018 is the year that race based politics returned to the mainstream political debate in Australia. In 2018, 30 years after Bob Hawke introduced his motion into our parliament, we have seen a former Country Liberal Party Chief Minister smiling and posing with a neo-Nazi for a photograph before hosting him on his television show, a former coalition Prime Minister calling for an immigration policy seemingly intended to discriminate against black African migrants to our country and a former coalition Deputy Prime Minister writing a book filled with references to 'poor whites in regional Australia being marginalised in our political debate'. And all this is occurring against a backdrop of conservative media outlets that have turned into clown cars from which a seemingly never-ending procession of washed-up US white nationalists and racist kooks are climbing out and onto the main stage of the Australian political debate. Something has gone terribly wrong in right-wing politics in this country. At this point the return of raced based politics in this country is the greatest legacy of this Prime Minister's time in office. The leadership void he has created at the heart of our government has been filled by extremists who want to sabotage and destroy Australia's multicultural success story. So I ask members of this House to avoid feeling a warm inner glow from the media coverage of yesterday's debate. Instead, focus on the leadership challenge ahead. As Tim Soutphommasane said this morning: If there is now political unity against racism let's start seeing that unity and leadership everyday. No more racial hysteria about "African gangs". No more false alarms about multicultural "separatism". No more assaults on racial equality and the Racial Discrimination Act. If members could show solidarity in the name of racial equality during yesterday's debate, let us show solidarity in the future by holding ourselves to this standard. The way you take on nonentities like the senator who gave his first speech on Tuesday is not to embrace their world view but to offer a genuine alternative. Stop talking down Australian multiculturalism in the hope of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Stop increasing hurdles to migrants' achieving equality in our society and our democracy by lengthening the path to citizenship. The future of the successful multicultural nation that the Prime Minister rightly brags of is at stake. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:0 4   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 97 QUESTIONS IN WRITING National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 984) 97 984 Mrs Elliot DZW asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 18 June 2018: (1) What length of time can NDIS applicants expect to wait (a) between submission of a final plan and its approval, (b) between approval of the final plan and its delivery, and (c) for the outcome of any review lodged by the client.(2) Why do many NDIS clients have to wait in excess of a year to have their final plan reviewed should it be inadequate.(3) How many NDIS clients in the electoral division of Richmond are awaiting review of their plan, and what measures are being undertaken by his department to address the high number of plans awaiting review.(4) What measures are available to NDIS clients who wish to question aspects of their final plan without fear of being penalised. Mr Tehan 210911 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) On average, 2.8 calendar days. (1) (b) Within 2 working days. (1) (c) On average, 189 calendar days for an unscheduled review (s48) and 209 calendar days for a review of a reviewable decision (s100). (2) The NDIA has received a higher than expected volume of requests for plan reviews and internal decision reviews, which has resulted in delays for some participants. (3) The NDIA Scheme Actuary does not hold data to this level of granularity, or by electoral division. The NDIA has established a dedicated team to clear any outstanding requests and improve the NDIA business system to streamline the processing of these requests. (4) If a participant has concerns about their final plan, they can contact their Local Area Coordinator, Early Childhood Early Intervention partner or support coordinator for help understanding what supports have been included and how they can use funding flexibly to meet their needs. If a participant is still not happy with their plan or disagrees with a decision, they can request an internal review of their plan without fear of being penalised. National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 985) 97 985 Mrs Elliot DZW asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 18 June 2018: (1) By which set of parameters do NDIS plan approvers determine what is 'reasonable and necessary' to meet a client's individual needs. (2) What governance exists to ensure that the NDIS policy wording 'reasonable and necessary' is applied on a case by case basis to ensure that individual needs are met? (3) Why are there discrepancies in the approval of NDIS services which see clients with similar or equivalent needs being approved for very different hours of therapy?(4) What 'reasonable and necessary' NDIS respite and transport services are available to clients, and how many NDIS clients in the electoral division of Richmond have access to them. Mr Tehan 210911 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) plan delegate (approver) considers the participant's individual support needs, and the informal, community and mainstream supports available to them, as part of a planning conversation. They apply the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (the NDIS Act) and National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 when determining what 'reasonable and necessary' supports will be included in the participant's National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) plan. 2. 'Reasonable and necessary' supports are governed by the NDIS Act (sections 34.1 (a) to (f) and 34. 2) and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013. The NDIA delegate must be satisfied that all Section 34.1 (a) – (f) criteria are met before supports are funded or provided by the NDIS. The NDIS Operational Guidelines provide additional information about planning and specific supports to assist the plan delegate in their decision making. 3. Each NDIS participant will have their own plan goals, personal circumstances and disability support needs. Some participants may appear to have similar support needs, but their individual situation may require different support responses to meet their needs. 4. Transport may not be considered a reasonable and necessary support if a participant can use public transport without substantial difficulty due to their disability. Some participants may receive funded supports to improve their community access and transport performances. This may include training supports to develop their skills to use public transport, or vehicle modifications to travel or drive a private vehicle. The day-to-day cost that any Australian would incur for their personal travel needs, such as public transport fares or vehicle ownership, would not be considered a reasonable and necessary support. Respite is considered reasonable and necessary when considering the total needs of an individual and their supports around them. The NDIA does not hold data about transport or respite services by electoral division. National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 987) 98 987 Mrs Elliot DZW asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 18 June 2018: (1) What issues have been experienced with plan activation codes.(2) How many NDIS clients in the electoral division of Richmond have been affected by receiving up to four separate activation codes in order to activate their plan.(3) Has this issue been resolved. Mr Tehan 210911 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: An activation code is generated for a participant or participant nominee so they can access the MyPlace Participant Portal. The MyPlace Participant Portal is a secure website for participants and their nominees to view their National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) plan, request payments and manage services with providers. MyGov must be linked to the NDIS before the MyPlace Participant Portal can be used. In early April 2018, there were performance issues in the linkages between myGov and NDIA. This caused transactions to time out, requiring a new activation code to be generated to create the link between myGov and the NDIA. The issues were resolved on 24 April 2018. The NDIA is engaging with its ICT shared service provider, the Department of Human Services, to identify the root cause of the issue and implement the appropriate solution. As an interim solution, NDIA staff will guide them through the activation process. The number of NDIS clients in the electoral division of Richmond that have been impacted by the issues experienced with activation codes is not stored as structured data in the NDIA business system. This information would require a manual review, which would be an unreasonable diversion of NDIA resources.