2018-08-23 45 1 7 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 23 August 2018

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

BILLS 1 BILLS Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2018 1

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2018

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:31 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I move: That this bill be now read a second time. It is with great pleasure that today I introduce a package of legislation that will substantially improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the federal courts in dealing with family law disputes. This legislative package will enable a real and positive impact to be made for families navigating the court system during what can be an incredibly stressful and difficult time in their lives. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill (the bill) brings together the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia under an overarching, unified administrative structure to be known as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill creates, among other things, a new family law appeal division in the Federal Court. The reforms enabled by these bills will ensure that family law disputes are resolved as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible in the best interests of Australian families, especially children. This legislation has been carefully developed, reflecting extensive consultation with the courts and taking into consideration a large number of inquiries over the last decade, which each related to the efficiency of the federal courts and the family law system, including: the 2008 Semple review entitled Future governance options for federal family law courts in Australia: striking the right balance; a 2014 KPMG review entitled Review of the performance and funding of the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia; a 2015 EY report entitled High level financial analysis of court reform initiatives; the 2017 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs report entitled A better family law system to support and protect those affected by family violence: recommendations for an accessible, equitable and responsive family law system which better prioritises safety of those affected by family violence; and a 2018 PwC report entitled Review of efficiency of the operation of the federal courts. These reviews involved significant consultation with the courts through the heads of relevant jurisdiction and other family law stakeholders, and have in many instances recommended structural reform of the courts to improve outcomes for Australian families. For example, the Semple review recommended the merger of the family courts within a single administration, and the 2017 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs report noted the complexity of the current family law system and recommended that consideration be given to how the family courts can improve case management of family law matters involving family violence issues (including through the adoption of a single point of entry). In the interests of transparency and the fulsome consideration of the legislation I introduce today, I table those reports that have not yet been provided to the parliament. Where appropriate, these reports have been redacted to remove information that would not be in the public interest to disclose. Such information includes material pertaining to matters ordinarily within the purview of the courts, material pertaining to the internal operations of the courts that are not publicly available and comments attributable to particular people. Following extensive analysis and considering all of the evidence, the government has decided it needs to act quickly and decisively to improve the situation for Australian families. As the PwC report highlights, the current court structures and overlapping family law jurisdiction is causing confusion, delays, and significant differences in access to justice for Australian families. While the number of applications for final orders in family law matters over the past five years has remained close to 22,000 each year, the number of family law matters pending in the federal court system has grown from 17,200 to 21,000. Since 2012-13, the age of pending cases has also increased, with approximately 29 per cent of final order cases pending in the Federal Circuit Court and 42 per cent of cases pending in the Family Court now older than 12 months. The national median time to trial has also increased from 10.8 months to 15.2 months in the FCC, and from 11.5 months to 17 months in the Family Court. For matters that go to trial in the Family Court, party/party costs are estimated to be $110,000 per matter; or up to four times more than an estimated $30,000 per matter in the FCC. These outcomes are driven by significant differences in the efficiency of the Family Court and the FCC. The Family Court finalises 114 final order applications per judge, or one third of the 338 finalisations per judge in the FCC—a variation that PwC found "cannot be accounted for merely by the level of complexity" of cases between the two courts. This is not a reflection on any individual judge. It simply demonstrates that the current situation we find ourselves in—with overlapping jurisdiction and significant variations in the application and case management approaches of the Family Court and the FCC; driven by different legislative frameworks, different rules, different processes and practices, and different operational and cultural practices that have evolved over time—is completely unsustainable. Whilst the government has charged the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) with reviewing the Australian family law system, the structure of the federal courts was not within the scope of the referral. The ALRC is also not due to report until March 2019. If we were to wait to receive the report before acting, many more families would be caught in the family law system as it currently stands and wait times would continue to increase. We would be perpetuating the existence of an inefficient and time-costly, ineffective structure. The message from Australian families has been received loud and clear: the status quo cannot continue. The time to act on structural reform of the courts is now. Any ALRC recommendations relating to court processes that merit implementation will be more easily implemented in the new, simplified administrative court structure provided for through the legislation I introduce today. The reforms enabled by the legislation introduced today build on the government's reforms announced in the 2015-16 and 2017-18 budgets. In response to the KMPG and EY reports tabled today, the 2015-16 budget included a package of measures critical to ensuring the courts financial sustainability, including: the merger of the courts' corporate services, expected to deliver savings of approximately $9.4 million over six years from 2015-16 to 2020-21 and ongoing efficiencies of approximately $5.4 million per year thereafter, all of which will be reinvested into the courts; injecting an additional $22.5 million into the courts over four years from 2015-16 to enhance their capacity to continue to provide services, including in key areas such as family law; exempting the portion of the courts' appropriation used to fund judges' salaries from the efficiency dividend (generating a combined $13 million saving for the courts over four years from 2015-16); and $30 million in funding for critical maintenance works for court buildings. The family courts were facing a deficit in the order of $44 million over four years but for the 2015-16 budget rescue package. Without the government's critical intervention, the courts would inevitably have had to cut services substantially. As part of the package of 2017-18 budget measures aimed at bolstering the family law system, the government provided the following additional funding over four years to the federal courts: $10.7 million to the family law courts for the purpose of engaging additional family consultants to assist with complex parenting matters; $12.7 million to establish parenting management hearings; and $14 million over three years from the Public Service Transformation Fund to transform and digitise court processes for the Federal Court, the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court, including lodgement and case management, ensuring the courts' ongoing financial sustainability. The reforms implemented in the package of legislation introduced today are consistent with the parliament's powers to create and invest federal jurisdiction in courts other than the High Court under chapter III of the Constitution. No existing court is being abolished as a result of this legislation. Under the bill, the Family Court will continue in existence as the FCFC (Division 1) and the FCC will continue in existence as the FCFC (Division 2). Current judicial appointments will continue in the new structure, with no changes to the terms or conditions of employment of existing judges. The bill ensures that the FCFC (Division 1) is considered a superior court of record and a court of law and equity, and the FCFC (Division 2) is considered a court of record and a court of law and equity. It is the government's intention, enabled by the legislation, that the FCFC would operate under the common leadership of one Chief Justice, supported by one Deputy Chief Justice, who would each respectively hold dual appointments as Chief Justice/Chief Judge and Deputy Chief Justice/Deputy Chief Judge of Division 1 and Division 2. The Chief Justice would be supported in his or her responsibility for the administrative affairs of the court by a single Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Court. The bill confers jurisdiction to hear matters arising under the Family Law Act 1975 on the FCFC (Division 1) and the FCFC (Division 2) so that their jurisdiction is the same. The bill invests the Chief Justice with the power to make court rules for Division 1 and the Chief Judge with the power to make court rules for Division 2. The bill provides that the Chief Justice and Chief Judge must promote the objects of the bill, which include cooperation between Division 1 and Division 2 with the aim of ensuring common rules of court and forms, practice and procedure, and approaches to case management. As the government intends to appoint the one person with a dual commission as Chief Justice and Chief Judge, this will positively ensure users have a simpler, common experience. The bill therefore creates a framework to ensure, in effect, a single point of entry into the family law jurisdiction of the federal court system and facilitate the ability of the two divisions to operate under a common case management approach, resulting in the more efficient and consistent handling of family law matters. From 1 January 2019, all new family law matters will be filed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Applications will follow a common case management pathway. It will not matter which division litigants file in as each matter will be directed to the most appropriate division by case management teams led by judges. There will be no wrong door for family law matters. It is estimated that consolidating first instance family law jurisdiction into a single court entity with a single point of entry could result in finalising up to an additional 3,500 family law matters each and every year, and that through a common structured initial case management process and managed case listing, up to 3,000 additional family law matters will be finalised each year. Any transfer of cases between divisions will be part of the case management process, with the result that families will no longer have to waste time through that process. Critically, the legislative package provides that the courts and the parties in dispute are focussed on resolving disputes as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible. This includes: providing that the jurisdiction of the FCFC (Division 1) and the jurisdiction of the FCFC (Division 2) are only to be exercised by one judge; providing that the overarching purpose of practice and procedure provisions in relation to family law proceedings in both FCFC (Division 1) and FCFC (Division 2) is to facilitate the just resolution of disputes, according to law, and as quickly, inexpensively and as efficiently as possible; providing that a judge may order a lawyer to bear costs personally for failure to comply with the duty to facilitate the just resolution of disputes, according to law and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible amending the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 to establish the new Family Law Appeal Division in the Federal Court of Australia (the Federal Court) requiring appeals from the FCFC (Division 2) to the new Family Law Appeal Division of the Federal Court to be heard by a single judge unless a judge determines that a full bench is required. Both Divisions 1 and 2 of the FCFC will largely hear matters in the first instance. Whilst the FCFC will retain jurisdiction to hear family law appeals from state and territory courts of summary jurisdiction, with this appellate jurisdiction being extended to both divisions of the FCFC, the vast majority of appeals will be heard in the new Family Law Appeal Division of the Federal Court. The removal of most of the appellate jurisdiction of the Family Court will be a fundamental change. It will allow those judges who typically hear appeals to focus on hearing first instance family law matters, so that the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia will have greater capacity to deal with trial work. This will reduce the backlog in first instance family law matters and contribute to reducing median case waiting times. It has been estimated that better management of appeals could result in up to 1,500 additional family law matters being finalised each and every year. Importantly, the legislative package ensures that appropriate expertise and specialisation is retained and better utilised within the new structure. The family law expertise and experience of existing Family Court and FCC judges will continue to be utilised and developed over time. The bill retains the requirement that a Division 1 judge cannot be appointed unless 'by reason of training, experience and personality, the person is a suitable person to deal with matters of family law' and introduces a new requirement that appointments to the Federal Court (including the Family Law Appeal Division) and the FCFC Division 2 have the 'appropriate knowledge, skills and experience to deal with the kinds of matters' that may come before them. The reforms are aimed at addressing and reducing risks to families. A more rigorous early assessment of complexity on a range of salient criteria that is conducted in a completely consistent way for all matters filed is a central objective of the proposed reforms. This would allow the best allocation of matters as between the FCFC Division 1 (the continuation of the Family Court) and the FCFC Division 2 (the continuation of the FCC), as well as allocation of specific matters which exhibit specific legal and factual issues with individual judges (whatever division they sit on), who have the specific skills and experience in those particular matters that allow for the most swift and efficient resolution of the matters. The bill allows the Chief Justice/Chief Judge to authorise judges in the FCFC to manage proceedings or classes of proceedings which would enable the specialist management of case lists, such as Magellan, family violence, parenting or property lists. The government has provided $4 million in funding to the federal courts to review court rules and assist with implementing the reforms. The federal courts will undertake a year-long review of court rules to critically evaluate the operation of differing rules and harmonise them in the family law sphere. This project will be fully informed by the outcomes of the ALRC review into the family law system which is due to report to government in March 2019. While harmonisation will benefit court users, these reforms will also further ensure the financial sustainability of the courts. Importantly, all savings that arise will be invested back into the courts to further improve access to justice for Australian families. Establishing the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and ensuring both divisions have concurrent family law jurisdiction and common fees, and supported by the implementation of common case management and harmonised rules and procedures over time, will greatly improve Australian families' experience of the family law system. Whilst estimates of potential improvements seem large, they clearly demonstrate the potential for significant efficiencies to be achieved within the existing system. Even if only a quarter of the estimated efficiency gains were to be realised, this would be enough to allow the courts to finalise more cases than they receive each year and contribute significantly in reducing the backlog of 21,000 pending cases that were before the courts on 30 June 2017. We have the opportunity to act now and it is imperative that we do. These structural changes are another demonstration of this government's commitment to improving the family law system and provide a secure platform to underpin future reforms to the family law system following receipt of the ALRC report next year. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 4

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018

First Reading 4 Second Reading 4 09:51 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 forms part of the government's package of legislative reforms to the structure of the federal courts to enhance the experience of Australian families in the family law system. This bill is a companion bill to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2018. Importantly, this bill establishes the new Family Law Appeal Division in the Federal Court. It also facilitates the transition for court users from the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court to the new Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFC) on 1 January 2019. From 1 January 2019, a substantial part of the appellate function of the Family Court will be removed and placed in a new Family Law Appeal Division of the Federal Court. This new appeal division will hear appeals from judgments of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, a family court of a state or single-judge decisions of a supreme court of a state or territory exercising family law jurisdiction. The bill makes the necessary amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 and the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 to reflect the new appeal process in family law matters. Appeals from Division 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, as a superior court of record, will be heard by the Full Court of the Family Law Appeal Division. It is intended that other appeals in family law matters from the FCFC Division 2 will ordinarily be heard by a single judge of the Family Law Appeal Division. Having appeals heard by a single judge will free up considerable judicial resources to help reduce delays in family law appeal matters. However, consistent with the current approach of the Federal Court, where more than 80 per cent of appeals from the Federal Circuit Court in general federal law matters are heard by a single judge, the bill does provide for the possibility of the Full Court of the Appeal Division hearing the appeal if a judge considers it appropriate. The Family Court of Western Australia will continue to hear family law matters. From 1 January 2019, appeals from both Western Australian family law magistrates and non-family-law magistrates will be heard by the Family Court of Western Australia. Consistent with the new appeal pathway being established for family law matters, appeals from the Family Court of Western Australia will be heard in the new Family Law Appeal Division. Whilst there will be changes in the appeals pathway, there are no changes to the existing rights of appeal, as currently provided for under the Family Law Act 1975. The bill includes saving and transitional provisions to enable the repeal of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 on 1 January 2019, when the new law comes into effect. It also makes consequential amendments to the Commonwealth statute book to reflect the continuation of the Family Court as the FCFC Division 1 and the Federal Circuit Court as the FCFC Division 2, to update legislative references, and to provide for the change in appeal location for family law matters. The bill contains contingent amendments to reflect the effect of bills currently before the parliament that refer to the Family Court, the Federal Circuit Court or judges or officers of either court, or the appeal processes for family law matters. The bill modifies court rules for Divisions 1 and 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, and amends court rules for the Federal Court of Australia and the standard rules of court for family law proceedings. It will be a significant task to review and harmonise the court rules, which is why, as previously announced, the government has provided $4 million in funding, part of which is to the courts to support their undertaking of a comprehensive review of the rules and allow for the remaking of harmonised court rules within one year. The amendments and modifications made by the bill are to ensure that there are appropriate rules of court in place for the court's commencement date of 1 January 2019. Finally, this billwould alsoensure that appropriate transitional arrangements are in place, including for matters before the federal courts as at the date of commencement of the FCFC bill. For example, it clarifies the arrangements for situations where time limits to appeal decisions have not expired as at 1 January 2019, where matters have not been substantively heard before 1 January 2019, and where matters have been substantively heard in whole or in part before 1 January 2019. The bill will commence on 1 January 2019, at the same time as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2018. The government wishes to thank the judges and officers of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court for their continued hard work and dedication to assisting Australian families to resolve their disputes. The government has every confidence that improved approaches to case management, the harmonisation of court rules and forms, practices and procedures between Divisions 1 and 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and the introduction of the new Family Law Appeal Division in the Federal Court will help Australian families navigate a better working courts system during some of the most stressful and trying periods of their lives. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 6

Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018

First Reading 6 Second Reading 6 09:58 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 amends the Customs Act 1901 to implement Australia's obligations under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, otherwise known as the TPP-11. The TPP-11 is one of the most comprehensive trade deals ever concluded and will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs in a trade zone spanning the Americas and Asia, with a combined GDP worth $13.7 trillion. Australian farmers, manufacturers and services exporters will benefit from new market access opportunities in economies with nearly 500 million consumers. It will provide better access for farm exporters including beef and sheep meat producers, dairy producers, canegrowers and sugar millers, as well as cereal and grains exporters. There will be new opportunities for our rice growers, cotton and woolgrowers, horticultural producers and our wine exporters. Let me provide one example of how TPP-11 will give our farm exporters an advantage over some of our toughest competitors. Within two years, Australian beef exporters will face tariffs 13 percentage points lower than their United States competitors in the multibillion-dollar Japanese market. That tariff advantage will continue to widen over subsequent years. Our manufacturers will benefit from the elimination of tariffs on industrial goods. Our services exporters will have access to liberalised and improved regulatory regimes for investment, notably in mining and resources, telecommunications and financial services. The TPP-11 is truly a next-generation trade agreement. And for the first time in a trade agreement, TPP-11 countries will guarantee the free flow of data across borders for services suppliers and investors as part of their business activity. This 'movement of information' or 'data flow' is relevant to all kinds of Australian businesses—from a hotel which relies on an international online reservation system to a telecommunications company providing data management services to businesses across a number of the TPP-11 markets. It's important to note that TPP-11 governments have retained the ability to maintain and amend regulations related to data flows, but have undertaken to do so in a way that does not create barriers to trade. The TPP-11 also creates Australia's first free trade agreements with Canada and Mexico, giving Australian exporters preferential access to two of the world's top 20 economies for the first time. In 2016-17, nearly one-quarter of Australia's total exports, worth nearly $88 billion, went to TPP-11 countries. The forthcoming entry-into-force of the TPP-11 is a significant moment for open markets, free trade and the rules based international system. But it is important to note that the achievement of a final TPP-11 deal was far from guaranteed. When the United States withdrew from the original TPP in early 2017, the prospects of the ground-breaking deal were far from certain. For Australia and its TPP partners, it was a test of resolve and judgment. There was no guarantee of success. One option was retreat. That was the favoured option of the Leader of the Opposition. The deal was 'dead', he said, and the government was 'deluded' for continuing to pursue the TPP. The Leader of the Opposition's understanding of the Asia-Pacific region was so acute, so sharp and so incisive that he decided that pursuit of a TPP without the US was a lost cause. Giving up on the TPP would save money, he said. If the Leader of the Opposition got his way, there would have been no TPP-11. There would have been no new and historic access to the Canadian market for our grains, refined sugar and beef exporters; no new access to the Mexican market for our pork, wheat, sugar, barley and horticulture producers and education services providers. There would have been no improved access to the Japanese market for our beef, wheat, barley and dairy exporters; no improved access for our wine producers in the Vietnamese, Canadian, Mexican and Malaysian markets. Thankfully the government and our trading partners, led by Japan, ignored the Leader of the Opposition's advice and pressed ahead. And, in particular, the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, together with John Key and Shinzo Abe, principally drove the TPP-11 agreement, fervent in their belief that this was going to be a very good deal for our region and for our respective countries. As a consequence, our global trading system is stronger today because of the TPP-11. We have created a beacon for nations who want to work within a rule based framework that is complementary to the global architecture provided by the World Trade Organization. We want the TPP-11 to grow in membership. We don't want the TPP-11 to be an exclusive, inward-looking bloc. We welcome the interest in TPP-11 shown already by nations within and outside the Asia-Pacific. Given the significant contribution the TPP-11 will make to our trading future, it is important Australia and its TPP partners reap the benefits of the deal as soon as possible. The TPP-11 will enter-into-force 60 days after the six TPP-11 member countries complete all necessary ratification procedures. To date, three countries—Mexico, Japan and Singapore—have ratified the agreement and a number of other countries, including New Zealand, Peru and Canada have indicated that they will ratify in coming months. In other words, if Australia and five other countries can complete ratification before the end of October, the TPP will enter into force before 31 December 2018. That means there will be two opportunities for tariff reductions—the first on entry-into-force and the second on 1 January 2019. On the other hand, if the TPP-11 were to enter into force this year without Australia, our exporters would be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage. For example, New Zealand and Canada would have superior access to the Japanese beef and dairy markets, better access to the Japanese cheese market and better access to wine markets in Mexico. I therefore seek the cooperation of the parliament to consider the legislation as expeditiously as possible. I want to acknowledge the cordial conversations that I've had with the shadow minister for trade and I recognise that, for Labor, this may not be the agreement that they ultimately would have signed. I recognise that Labor's preference would be, if they were to be successful—and I certainly hope they won't be—that they may in fact look at amending the agreement with TPP partners down the track. But the deal signed on 8 March 2018 is one that fundamentally serves Australia's national interest. Its scope and level of ambition cannot be underestimated. It will create new opportunities and greater certainty for our businesses and encourage job-creating foreign investment. It will make Australian exports more competitive so our farmers can sell more produce, our professionals can provide more services, and our manufacturers can make and sell more goods. Our involvement in the negotiation of this deal means Australia played a key role in setting 21st-century rules for commerce across the world's fastest-growing region. This will enable us to tackle new trade and investment barriers as they arise, helping our businesses weather the increasingly challenging global trading environment. This bill, along with the companion Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, will see the elimination of 98 per cent of tariffs from TPP-11 countries, in a regional free trade zone that already accounts for over one-fifth of Australia's total two-way trade. The TPP-11 tariff cuts will have a cost-saving impact on imported goods for Australian households and businesses, and will deliver material gains for our exports. The amendments to the Customs Act 1901 contained in this bill will implement the provisions of chapter 3 of TPP-11. Chapter 3 sets out rules-of-origin criteria and related documentary requirements for claiming preferential tariff entry for goods imported from countries that accede to TPP-11. Under TPP-11, preferential tariff treatment is available based on declarations regarding the origin of goods based on information provided by the importer, exporter, producer or their authorised representative. This will reduce the amount of red tape for importers of goods originating in TPP-11 countries. Here in Australia, this agreement has undergone a level of scrutiny perhaps unprecedented by any other free trade agreement. It has been subject to four parliamentary committee inquiries. After the TPP-11 was tabled in this House on 26 March this year, it was examined by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. I am tabling the TPP-11 implementing legislation today because I want Australia to remain a leader among trading nations—a country that is not afraid to show our trading partners, in concrete actions, that we are committed to a future of liberalised trade and investment. This is what these TPP-11 implementing bills represent. Our early ratification of the TPP-11 demonstrates Australia's leadership in pursuing liberalised trade globally, and embodies the government's strong commitment to maximising trading opportunities for Australian businesses, both large and small. The TPP-11 outcome is a feature of an ambitious and confident trade policy, one that didn't turn back at the first hurdle, an audacious but pragmatic approach. That, in my view, has been the hallmark of this government's trade and investment policy. I particularly want to acknowledge not only the strong leadership of the Prime Minister with respect to the stewardship he's provided the TPP-11 but also my predecessor, Andrew Robb. He played a critical role in the original negotiation of the TPP-11, which this bill and the subsequent bill largely give effect to. I want to also acknowledge the outstanding work of many of the fine men and women of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in particular the chief negotiator and the teams of negotiators that played a critical role and consulted broadly and widely with stakeholders across the Australian economy. This legislation is a testament to the vision of Andrew Robb, of the negotiators and stakeholders, and I'm so pleased I've had the privilege of being able to ensure that the TPP-11 was successful and that we introduced this legislation today. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 8 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Qualifications of Members 8 10:10 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Consistent with the resolution of the House on 4 December 2017, I move: That pursuant to section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the House of Representatives refer the following questions to the Court of Disputed Returns: (1) whether by reason of section 44 of the Constitution, the place of the member for Dickson, Mr Dutton, has become vacant; (2) if the answer to question one is yes, by what means and in what manner that vacancy should be filled; (3) what directions and other orders, if any, the court should make in order to hear and finally dispose of this reference; and (4) what, if any, orders should be made as to the costs of these proceedings? The arguments for this have already been well-versed in question time and in the public arena. I don't propose to add to them further. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.

The House divided. [10:15]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 68 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 69 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ O'Brien, LS O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 9 BILLS Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 9

Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018

First Reading 9 Second Reading 9 10:24 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 is the second bill required to implement the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. This bill contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. Under this agreement, Australia has committed to reducing customs duties on Trans-Pacific Partnership originating goods over time. Customs duties on the majority of goods will be removed when the agreement enters into force. The remaining customs duties, with the exception of excise-equivalent customs duties, will be progressively reduced over a period of four years. This bill implements these commitments by creating a new schedule of preferential customs duties for goods determined to be Trans-Pacific Partnership originating goods. The new schedule of preferential customs duty rates also specifies those goods that are subject to an excise-equivalent customs duty. This is to ensure that these goods are treated consistently with equivalent goods produced in Australia. This 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 1901. And this bill, like the one before it, will bring the legislation into the parliament around the TPP-11. I mention in particular the work of my predecessor, Andrew Robb, and of chief negotiators and staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I also want to acknowledge and thank in particular my very hardworking staff. I'm fortunate to have a terrifically wonderful team of people who have worked with me, and I thank them for their support on this bill, this legislation, as well as all of the other trade agenda that we've had. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 10 COMMITTEES Public Works Committee 10 Approval of Work 10 10:26 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Jindalee Operational Radar Network Phase 6 facilities project. As advised when this project was referred to the Public Works Committee on 24 May this year, the Department of Defence is proposing to undertake a number of infrastructure works at Jindalee Operational Radar Network sites in the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland. The 2016 Defence white papernoted the importance of the Jindalee Operational Radar Network and advised of the government's intention to upgrade the network. The project will employ a diverse range of skilled consultants, contractors and construction workers, with up to approximately 200 personnel and an average construction workforce of up to approximately 15 personnel. The estimated cost to deliver the project is $50.7 million. The committee has conducted an inquiry and considers the project to be value for money for the Commonwealth, fit for purpose and expedient to carry out. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for once again undertaking a timely inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval of the proposed works, construction will commence in early 2019 and be completed by late 2020. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. Approval of Work 10 10:28 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: LAND2110 Phase 1B Australian Defence Force Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defence Capability Facilities Project. As advised when this project was referred to the Public Works Committee on 10 May 2018, the Department of Defence is proposing to construct and refurbish mask-testing facilities as well as storage facilities that will support chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defence training and capability at 14 locations across Australia. The 2016 Defence white paper identifies the importance of providing Defence with enhanced domestic security capabilities—including its chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defence capability—to help respond to the threat of complex terrorist attacks within Australia. The works are expected to generate short-term employment opportunities, predominantly in the building, construction and labour markets, in each of the relevant locations. The works are also expected to provide opportunities for suppliers in the manufacture and distribution of construction materials and equipment. The estimated cost to deliver the project is $16.7 million, excluding GST. The committee has conducted an inquiry and considers the project to be value for money for the Commonwealth, fit for purpose and expedient to carry out. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for once again undertaking a timely inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval of the works, 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 11 10:30 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: LAND 4502 Phase 1 Additional CH-47F Chinook Facilities Project. The Department of Defence is proposing to construct and refurbish shelters and supporting infrastructure for three additional CH-47F Chinook helicopters and also for the associated increase in staff that would be required up at the 5th Aviation Regiment at the RAAF base at Townsville, in Queensland. The 2016 Defence white paper noted the government's intention to increase the Australian Defence Force's airlift capability, and an important part of that was the acquisition of the helicopters. The project is expected to generate significant short-term employment opportunities, and those opportunities will predominantly be in the building, construction and unskilled labour market in Townsville and surrounding locations. The expectation is that around 50 personnel will directly be employed. The project is also anticipated to provide potential economic benefits to the local region through the procurement of construction materials from local businesses engaged in that industry. The estimated cost of the project is $49.9 million, excluding GST, and this includes a wide range of different costs, including management and design fees and construction costs. There are also costs in relation to information and communications technology and a range of costs in relation to the furniture that will be associated with the project—fittings will be required as well various forms of equipment. As always with these projects, there is a provision for contingencies that may be required and a provision for an escalation in costs, should costs increase. The project is expected to commence shortly—in early 2019—and be completed in late 2020. It's a particularly important project because the provision of these additional helicopters and the associated staff is obviously something that will be particularly important for the Defence Force in that Townsville region. In the 2016 Defence white paper, we acknowledged the importance of improving the airlift capability. It is so important that our defence forces have the capability they require across land, across sea and across air, and the acquisition of these helicopters is an important part of that. Also very noteworthy are the additional employment opportunities for the Townsville region. Of course, the military facilities in Townsville are one of the largest employers up in that part of the world. No doubt this project will be welcomed by people in Townsville and surrounds. I again thank the Public Works Committee. They have an important role in assessing these projects. We do thank the Public Works Committee for their ongoing diligence in assessing these capital works proposals. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. BILLS 11 BILLS Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018 11

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018

Second Reading 11 10:35 The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Barton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted, with a view of substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 10:36 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, it's one of those days when clashes between the Federation Chamber and the main chamber come into play, but thank you for giving me the opportunity to continue my remarks on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018. I've run several forums in my electorate of O'Connor since my election to the seat in 2013. In 2015, Senator Bridget McKenzie came to O'Connor to co-host forums on this topic and, in 2017, Albany Senior High School and I co-hosted a forum regarding access to independent youth allowance. I also attended forums held by Professor John Halsey, who conducted the independent inquiry from which this legislation and reform have emanated. Every forum I've held on this issue has been well attended by high school and gap year students, parents, teachers, educational professionals and others concerned about barriers that country kids experience in obtaining tertiary education. I commend all the attendees for sharing their personal and often heart-rending stories, and I acknowledge their welcome set of recommendations on how the federal government can address the obstacles they have encountered. A common scenario told to me by students and parents across the years in O'Connor is that students who have worked towards youth allowance eligibility under the regional independence criteria only failed due to a parental income of $150,000. These students have to rely on either part-time work or their parents to finance their living expenses of between $17,000 and $25,000 per year while studying at university. Youth allowance is the main benefit regional students seek to access to allow them to live guilt-free from a financial burden otherwise incurred by their parents, many of whom are supporting other siblings at school and university. My personal experience is that I worked for two years to obtain independent status for youth allowance and was able to move to the Muresk agricultural campus of Curtin University to pursue my agribusiness degree. Thirty years on, I'm proud to be part of a government that continues to work to make it easier for regional students to access tertiary education. I want the House to know that, in 2017, 86 per cent of students from non-metropolitan areas earned an offer for a place at university, compared to 81.7 per cent of metropolitan kids. Yet, in the same year, only 72 per cent of those country students would accept their offer, compared to 78 per cent of their urban counterparts. Of those that accepted, 17 per cent of country students deferred their enrolment, more than double the deferral rate of their city-student counterparts. These statistics do not take into account those who did not accept a place but chose to take a gap year and apply for a place the following year. The independent review identified that young people in regional Australia are half as likely to have completed a university degree as their city counterparts. This is largely due to difficulties accessing financial assistance. In the year of 2017, there were approximately 1,400 year 12 graduates across O'Connor. Assuming they all pursue tertiary studies and all fall under the new criteria, just over 1,000 of them, or 75 per cent, will now be able to apply for youth allowance where they hadn't been able to do so before. Despite the disparities regional families, students and schools often face, I want to congratulate our regional schools for their commitment to academic excellence. One of my local schools in Albany, the Albany Senior High School, celebrates 100 years this year and is a testament to the success of regional education. Among a long list of very highly regarded alumni, I want to mention one of the graduates, Alan Carpenter, who was the Premier of Western Australia for many years in the mid-2000s. In 2017, Great Southern Grammar was one of the top schools, based on the number of eligible year 12 students, that achieved a WACE completion rate of 98.8 per cent. In that same year, 2017, four schools in O'Connor were ranked in the top 60, based on ATAR median scores, with Manjimup Senior High School ranking incredibly at No. 8 and Great Southern Grammar coming in at No. 30. This bill revolves around parental income, how to access independent youth allowance and how it should be tiered based on this. Some may think $150,000 combined parental income is high enough for families to be able to support their children while at university, but the national average cash income of a registered nurse is around $75,000 and for a policeman it's around $90,000. That means the combined national average income in the partnership of a policeman and a nurse is $155,000. Under the system, any child of a nurse and a policeman would not be eligible to receive youth allowance because the combined gross parental income of those two professions is above the $150,000 cap. People providing essential services to regional Australia have struggled to offer their children the opportunities for tertiary education under the existing system. The changes this government is proposing mean that, for an average two-child family of a nurse and policeman, their children will be able to qualify for independent youth allowance for the first time. I applaud the quality of our regional students. They are distinguished by their excellent academic achievement, qualifying for university places only to be hampered in their aspirations by the tyranny of distance from their desired course and the inherent financial barriers to obtaining self-sufficiency. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018 and its proposed increase to the combined gross parental income cap is a welcome change and another step in the right direction to see regional students given equal access to tertiary education. I strongly endorse the legislation to the House. 10:42 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I rise today in support of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018. Everyone in this parliament knows the importance of education—higher education and tertiary education—and how quality education can improve the lives of individuals, families and communities. We saw this the other day in a great speech by the member for Chifley, who told us that he was the first person in his family to have a higher education and a university degree and how it affected him and his entire family and how it bettered his life. We know this, and that's why my colleagues on this side of the House will support this bill. In turn, this bill supports increased participation. We know that universities are a doorway to the world, through their staff, their contacts, their relationships with other universities, their students and the global partnerships that they have. These Australian institutions provide opportunity. They have provided opportunity to many young Australians to better themselves, get a career and go to the cutting-edge jobs that we talk about for the future. I'm pleased that this bill is before the parliament. I'm also pleased to support this bill, just as I was proud to support the then Labor government's introduction of the youth allowance regional workforce independence criteria in 2011. It's so important to break down the barriers to higher education and increase participation, and that is what this bill seeks to do. We know there are many barriers to a higher education. It could be economic barriers or family situations. The fact is that people are seeking pathways to higher education, and we should be doing absolutely everything to break down the barriers for them to be able to access education and gain the increased skills that will be required in this country. This bill will support our future workforce and those cutting-edge jobs that I spoke about earlier. It was good for the Prime Minister to be out in the 2016 election talking about jobs of the future, which was his mantra, and cutting-edge jobs, but at the same time he was cutting millions of dollars from our schools and universities. We know the vital role that universities play in our country and in the region. Even the Prime Minister himself recognised this in a speech at the University of New South Wales, where he said, 'Universities bring the world together.' It truly was a good sentiment. However, the actions of this government are something different. They've been anything but respectful when it comes to education. We've seen cuts continuously since 2016 and before. Not long gone are the days of this government pushing for an American-style higher education system. I suspect that that will continue to be its mantra if it can get it through. We saw $100,000 degrees where, if you had the money up-front, you'd get a place at a university. Modelling has shown that these $100,000 degrees were a very real threat to university students. We know that putting financial constraints on university students does nothing to better our education system and makes education something to be provided to a few privileged people, as it was prior to the Whitlam days. We also know that this government is doing other things that affect students. Penalty rates were cut. Many people in part-time jobs in the hospitality industry and other industries are students who relied on those penalty rates that were cut recently. The government would not support the Leader of the Opposition's private member's bill. These are all people on very low incomes who are dependent on those part-time jobs and who have had real money taken from them. In 2016, Australian universities cost the taxpayer approximately $12 billion, but a report has shown that $66 billion was returned to the economy. So you put some money in and you get more than quadruple the return on what you spend on education and universities. But what did the Minister for Education and Training and other members opposite do? They froze university funding just before Christmas, making it harder for universities to deliver the quality education that's required. That's exactly what they did. On the one hand, this is a good bill, but, on the other hand, we have to remember those cuts and how they're hurting university students. What is a funding freeze by another name? They called it a 'funding freeze', but it's a funding cut. The reality is that it's a cut and it's been dressed up with a bow tie to be something else. Approximately $2.2 billion in cuts have been delivered by this government to Australian universities. And then there are the Gonski cuts, which are affecting our schools around the country. It's right to improve accessibility to universities. It's a good thing. It's shameful that the government are only doing so after they made it so difficult. It's estimated that, directly due to those cuts, approximately 10,000 people did not have the opportunity or ability to attend university this year. That's 10,000 people who would have received skills and would have become professionals who generated wealth in the future economy of this nation. So we're seeing universities, such as the Australian National University, not wanting to take on more students, saying that they have reached their natural cap. Why do they say that? It's because there have been cuts. They need the funding to be able to have more students. In my state of South Australia, we have three quality universities. For the 2018 to 2021 academic years, the cuts to funding of those three universities in my state will be in the millions and millions of dollars. That is wrong. I'm sure my colleague the member for Adelaide, who's here, would agree and won't be supporting any cuts. Flinders University, for example—a quality university—had $48 million cut. The University of Adelaide had $52 million cut. The biggest recipient of the cuts was the University of South Australia, with $60 million cut. The government want to increase the university completion rates for rural students, so they introduce this bill, which is a good thing. Qualifying students will increase by approximately 75 per cent, but at the same time we're seeing the largest cuts that have been implemented on universities by this government, which means that universities have less funding to be able to take students and provide the services those students require for their education. One of the largest cuts in South Australia is to Uni SA, with two regional campuses. They will be affected by the cuts. Make no mistake; this government is no friend to universities, nor are they friends to students. They've proven this by the massive cuts they make continuously to schools and universities. The Prime Minister likes to get up, as he did in the 2016, election and talk about us being a great nation with hi-tech jobs, cutting edge jobs and new industries, but to have those you need to fund education. That's where it starts. It starts in our schools, in our high schools and certainly in our universities by training people for those professions that we need so desperately for the future. The Student Start-up Scholarship has been replaced with the Student Start-up Loan. And they may be changing the accessibility to youth allowance with this bill, but they also have another bill before this parliament—to cut youth allowance, which in turn affects those very same people. The government continue to work on scrapping the energy supplement for all recipients of Centrelink as well. These are all real cuts. Of course, I mentioned earlier that penalty rates have been cut, which certainly affects many university students who work part-time jobs and depend on those penalty rates. The voluntary HELP debt repayment bonus has been abolished and the HELP debt repayment threshold has been lowered. All these things affect students. All these things affect the livelihood of students; they make it harder to access universities and for students to finish degrees and to go on to be part of our economy. This government is scoring a trifecta. We have their policies which are affecting students before they apply, whilst they're studying, and when they've graduated. Of course, we will support this bill because it will support university students in regions to complete their degrees. We know how hard it is in a region when you have to travel into the city to attend a university, the economic constraints that are on families and the economic constraints that are on those students. Perhaps they are paying rent and running a separate household from the family household. I call on the government to do more for students, our universities and our future workforce. We support this bill. As I said, we introduced the youth allowance regional work independence criteria in 2011 as part of our reforms to increase the number of regional students attending a university. This also increases the regional independence criteria and parental income limit for students from regional and remote areas from $150,000 to $160,000. We know of regional university cuts, as I said earlier. Just before Christmas, there was $2.2 billion cut from Australian universities. They made these cuts bypassing parliament, because they couldn't get it through the Senate. I think they attempted three times, and the three attempts were blocked. That is three attempts to make these cuts since coming to office. If they had their way, we would already have an Americanised university system with $100,000 degrees, which would be shameful in a nation like ours, where we believe in equality and ensure that everyone has the same go. The MYEFO decision to freeze undergraduate places from 2018 to 2019 and the cap on growth from 2020 onwards effectively kills off Labor's successful demand-driven funding policy legacy. It absolutely kills that, and it was a good thing that assisted so many of our institutions. I'm very proud that on our side we opened the doors of our universities. Right through from the Whitlam era we've been supporting universities. When we were last in office, we nearly doubled university funding. What did that doubling of university funding do? An additional 190,000 Australians got a place at a university, many of whom were the very first people in their families to go to university, to change their entire lives and to go in a different direction to their parents, their grandparents and their great-grandparents. We know that education is so important. We know we can change someone's life by giving them an education. We were very proud of those 190,000 extra places for people who perhaps may not have had the opportunity to go to university, whatever their circumstances were. Opening places is so important. We hear the other side saying not everyone needs a university degree. I agree. Not everyone needs a university degree, but people, if they choose to get one, should be given the opportunity. That opportunity should be directed through this parliament, through the bills that we put to this place to make it more accessible, to give those students or those people that are finishing high school the opportunities and the pathways to go on and better their lives. It is a fact that, no matter where you are in the world, you can change your entire life through an education. We also know that the higher the education and the higher the degree, the less likely it is that you will be unemployed. That is a fact. If you go to university, it's less likely that you'll be in the unemployment lines. These are all facts that we all know, but sometimes those on the other side refuse to acknowledge them. They refuse to acknowledge them because of an ideology that they still want up-front fees. They would love to see the privatisation of our universities. If it weren't for the constant campaigning by others in this place, I'm sure that they would have their $100,000 American-style fees. We know what it's like in the US: if you don't have the money up-front, you just don't go—or you can access loans that are extremely high in interest rates. There are methods by which you can do it. But is it fair? No. Does it give the opportunity to every person? No. Does it give people the opportunity to go to university that perhaps they did not have because of their economic circumstances and family circumstances? No. This is what we would have if those on that side had their way. I implore the government to do more for universities and to assist students, because those students will be at the cutting-edge jobs of the future which we will require to drive this economy. 10:57 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018. This has been a very long campaign and a personal campaign for me. I am joined by many of my colleagues, particularly rural and regional ones. I came to this place in 2007. One of my driving factors was to try and get a better deal for rural kids, in particular for access to tertiary education. Having put three children through their last years of high school in the city, and then through university—in fact, at that stage, my last child was still at university—I think I've brought some real understanding of the penalties, the extra imposts that are placed on rural families and why we need change. On the rural disadvantage: our country's schooling system is quite good, I believe, across a wide range of schools, up to about year 9 level in the smaller communities—the larger communities can certainly punch out really good students right up to year 12. What happens in rural communities is the populations drop within the schools and the subject choices fall away. Firstly, families face the issue of how they finish off those final years of high school education and, then, how they get their children through university. It's widely accepted that it is about a $25,000 impost on a family to put a student in the city. They need a place to live, and, of course, they need to go to university. They can access HECS, which allows them to deal with at least the educational cost. But they also need a car, because we want to see them from time to time and we want them to travel safely on the roads, and they've got to pay for their food. These are all things that children who are brought up in the city and can attend university by hopping on a bus do not face. This is the $25,000 excess that goes on rural families. So when I got here in 2007, hoping to make things better, it came really as a hit to the solar plexus, if you like, when the new Rudd government, under education minister Julia Gillard, turned the access to independent youth allowance, which had been the tool that most rural students used to try to address some of this imbalance, on its head and turned it into a system where, instead of a student having a one-year gap between high school and university, it was effectively turned into a two-year gap. Previously they had to earn 75 per cent of wage level A of the National Training Wage declaration, which in those days was a little less than $20,000. If they could earn that in an independent fashion, and their parents didn't have too many assets or too much income, they were deemed as independent. The Labor Party, in 2008 I think—it may have been 2009—moved to make that a two-year gap period, with 30 hours of work a week over a two-year period. Effectively, it became a two-year gap period. This is very disruptive to students. Many of them, even with the gap year, don't actually get back to their original intention. After two years in the workforce, getting used to having an income, getting used to being independent—perhaps it mightn't be the greatest job, but you're getting money; it is working all right; you're only 18 or 20 years old—it's difficult to get that student back into university. I absolutely thought this was a terrible idea. The fight was on! There was a group on the coalition benches—I used to call us the rural rump for education. We formed and we fought hard to try and reverse those arrangements the Labor Party had made. I was just listening to the member for Hindmarsh bragging about the changes the government made in 2011. In fact they were brought kicking and screaming to the table. It was not Julia Gillard's preference to do this, but in the end they reversed most of that impact on rural students. For all those who live in inner, outer, regional and remote and very remote communities it went back to close to the status quo—there were some changes—when it came to qualifying for independent youth allowance. So there we were in 2011, right back to where we had started in 2007, with a deal I didn't think was good enough for rural students. We kept agitating through the years in opposition and through the years in government. In the 2016 budget, in government, we delivered what I think is a great reform to this system. We removed the parental assets test from the disqualification for these students to access independent youth allowance. We often have talked in this place about farmers, in particular, being income poor and asset rich. That is what this was about. Some, particularly farmers, have high assets tied up in farming. They might go through a long period of time—unfortunately we're in another one of them now—when they don't have any income. So the $25,000 or so that they might be supplementing their child to live in the city becomes a real burden for them. I didn't think that was fair, and we removed it. I'm very pleased that was done. We could actually go to the heart of the question about what on earth parental income has to do with a student being independent. I would have thought that, by definition, an independent student is not relying on the parents' income, whatever it is. It is where we are in Australia. I think there's a very good argument we should make that, if you're independent, you are independent of your parents, and it really shouldn't matter what your parents' assets are. But I understand the political argument and why that is difficult—the argument about: why, if someone has $50 million, should their student be able to access independent youth allowance? There must be a line in the sand somewhere, and I guess I accept that as being the case. But it is a curious question. We removed the parental assets test, but I have to say that this gap still sits there. It sticks in my craw. We are still running at a deficit when it comes to tertiary education. Only 18.3 per cent of people aged 25 to 34 in remote or very remote areas and 20.4 per cent in regional areas obtain a bachelor's degree or above. That compares with 42.4 per cent in the major cities. So we are basically running at about half—about half as many rural students complete bachelor degrees compared to the city. This is an arrow to the heart of rural Australia. If there is one thing we are going to have to be in rural Australia if we are to survive and prosper, it is 'smart'. The challenges of agriculture in particular, but also the other industries that sit within rural and regional Australia, demand that we have well-educated, smart and sharp people. That is not to say that smart people aren't still in the country, but, if you are equipped with a higher level of learning, you are better able to access that intelligence and use it within your business and to grow your business. This is essential, yet we are languishing at half. We have increased the rate—that is true—but the rates in the city have grown even faster. In VET, we don't do so badly, it must be said. But certainly at diploma level, once again, we are running at about half. It is not good enough. It comes back to—and I know this is not the whole answer—the severe financial impediment that is placed upon families. Often children will say to their parents: 'I don't really want to go to university, Mum and Dad. Don't worry about it. I'm quite happy to go down the road and get a job doing whatever.' But, in fact, they are saying that because they know their parents can't afford it; they might not even consciously know that. People say, 'It is tough here and we just don't have the money.' Or maybe the parents will get one kid through and they can't get the second one in. And I've heard that many a time: 'We sent one away to school, and that was the only one we could afford to send away to school or to university.' So no wonder our bachelor completion rates in the country are half what they are in the city. This group, which I call the rural/regional education rump—one of the co-founders, the member for Forrest, is sitting alongside me; she has been passionate in this area; she and I have worked very hard over a long period of time—got the government to agree to a review. We took that to the 2016 election. I was delighted when Emeritus Professor John Halsey, from Flinders University, was appointed to lead that panel. I have known Professor Halsey for a long time. In fact—and I am a bit reluctant to say it in this place—I have known him ever since he taught me year 8 maths. He was one of the most gifted teachers I ever had. He rose quickly through the ranks to become a principal in a country area a couple of times and in the city and then he went into the department. He did a wide range of work and then he did some more education and ended up as a university professor in the Sydney Meyer School at Flinders University. He has prepared an excellent report. I thank him for the work and application that he put into that report. He probably knows more about rural education than any other person in Australia, in my opinion. The government have adopted the recommendations from that report, and this legislation today is a reflection that we are trying to work towards implementing all of the outcomes that Professor Halsey recommended. The parental income threshold for independent youth allowance will now be lifted to $160,000—and I have already spoken about whether parents' income for this purpose should be assessed at all. But let's squeeze it up a bit and make it a bit higher. It sounds like a fair bit—unless you live in Paraburdoo or Roxby Downs, where the rent for your house might be $1,000 a week. Maybe one person in the household is earning a good income working long hours down underneath the ground on a tough task, but perhaps the partner is only working at KFC. That is quite a likely outcome. These people are not rolling in money. The cost of living in these environments is higher, so they don't necessarily have more disposable income to go shunting children off to university. So, with the lifting of the threshold from $150,000 to $160,000, the numbers provided show that quite a few extra people will qualify for independent youth allowance. That is a move in a good direction. Given time, I would hope that the budget in Australia will continue to improve. I certainly believe strongly that we need to keep the government we have at the moment to ensure that outcome. We are looking at a surplus next year—the first one in Australia in 10 years. It comes back to this fundamental point: governments that can't run the economy can't spend money on education and they can't spend money on health. Governments that can't run the economy can't put extra money into aged care. This government is hitting the targets. We're reducing our spend—well, we're eliminating the growth of spend, to be more specific—and the economy is recovering; the jobs are flooding in. We are at a very good point. We have a good story to tell. It is most unfortunate that, as I speak here today, other things are happening in this place that are detracting from our ability to tell that good story. But the world doesn't stop. The mechanisms of government don't stop. We are still here today. We are still legislating for the good of Australia. We are legislating, in this case, for the good of rural Australia, not just for the students but for the long-term future of rural Australia, which needs these born and bred—actually I always think that's the wrong way around; I think they are bred before they are born, so bred and born—in the country. We need them back in the country but really tooled up to lead to us the next level, to take our agricultural industries and turn them also into manufacturing industries, value-adding to that product so Australia gets full value. If you look at our wine industry, for instance, grapes are worth so much—I know this will go into the Hansardand they can't see how far apart my hands are; let's say my hands are 100 millimetres apart, okay? Grapes are worth so much, but wine is worth that much—my hands are a metre apart now, for the benefit of the Hansard. They are the kinds of knowledge and skills we need back in the country to deal with a whole host of other products that we produce. I heartily back this legislation. It's been long, arduous work for the member for Forrest, for me and for a number of others on this 'rural rump for education', as I named the group. I am heartened by the fact we are making progress, steady progress, with subsequent budgets. We keep clawing a little bit more, just getting a little bit better package for rural and regional students. I highly recommend the legislation. 11:12 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I'm very pleased to be speaking on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018. As you heard from the previous speaker, this is something we have worked on for 10-plus years. When the member for Grey and I came into this place 10 years ago, even though we weren't in government at the time, something we had heard so much about from families and from young people in our electorates repeatedly was that there was a real issue with the cost of higher education for young people from rural, regional and remote areas who could not and still cannot access higher education, university and other training where they live. Unless you actually live in rural and regional Australia, and unless these are your children or your family, you don't understand this. It was something that we repeatedly saw. As the member for Grey said, the actual proof is there. The reason we've worked so hard is to try to provide a greater equity of access for young people from rural and regional Australia to actually be able to pursue higher education. And the member for Grey is absolutely right. When Labor changed the rules around who were deemed to be inner or outer regional students in the review, when they changed the legislation and students in my electorate were totally excluded from accessing independent youth allowance, it caused massive, massive problems. The member for Grey is right. When I went to schools, there would be young people who had the dreams, the ambitions and the absolute capability of going on to university or other higher education, but they actually consciously said to their parents: 'I don't want to go. I can take that job that's available, and I will.' At the time, there were some mining jobs coming along, and a lot of them made those decisions because they knew their family simply couldn't afford to send them away to university. One of the most tragic stories I heard was about a mother who had to make a choice between which one of her children she could afford to send to university. That's why the member for Grey and other members on this side have worked so hard. We know that young people in rural and regional Australia are only half as likely to actually complete a university degree as their city counterparts. It's not because they don't have the ability—they do. I have enormous confidence in young people who live in rural and regional Australia. We do need them back; they are our future. With the education and the opportunities that they get through higher education, they then go on to work and then come back to our regional areas, bringing their great, new, young ideas and bringing their experiences. They will help to sustain and grow our regional areas. We know this very well. We see it all the time. We've worked constantly and we've seen incremental improvements, budget after budget. I'm really proud of the work that the government has done on behalf of rural and regional students. Yes, there's always a competition in a budget for where the money is spent, but we've worked constantly so that young people in our areas have a greater opportunity to go on to higher education. One of the other issues in this bill is the fact that we would make it much easier for young people to pursue these dreams. We reduce the periods of employment. This is something that really matters, because, prior to this, young people would often have to take two years to qualify for independent youth allowance. They had to meet a range of criteria. When it was an 18-month criteria, for practical purposes, it meant that they were out of university for two years. Some courses actually started mid-year, which meant it was even worse for them. Of course, it didn't even guarantee that their university place would be held for them, even though they were accepted in that space. This reduction from 18 months to 14 months is something that we—referred to as the rural education rump—have worked very, very hard on. Even the assessment of the parents' income being at the time the young person actually starts their 14-month period is equally as important. It's so the young person can have confidence that when they actually qualify, when they do their 14 months of work, their parents' income is still assessed at the point that they started, so they know that, when they've done the work, they're actually going to qualify for youth allowance. It gives them certainty to know that they are going to be able to go on and afford to be away from home. But, as we know, they still have to get a job. They also have the issue of not having the social support of a family around them when they have to move away. There are a lot of challenges for our young people when they have to go away to study. Lifting the combined parental income is another step. It's moving from $150,000 to $160,000, and then, if you have two children on the independence measure, it goes to $170,000. Yes, it's an improvement, and the evidence tells us that there are a whole lot more young people who will be able to go on to higher education as a result of this—from 3,000 to over 5,300 young people. So there's another 2,000 people, member for Grey, who are going to get the opportunity to go on to higher education as a result of this measure and the constant measures that we are taking as a government to improve young people's access to higher education. Like the member for Grey, I'm particularly pleased with the work that Professor Halsey did. He came to my electorate as well, and he listened to parents and people from the education sector. He had a very clear understanding of the challenges facing our young people. We've accepted all of the recommendations out of his report. What you're seeing today in this legislation is part of the government's response to that. Another part of the package is our rural and regional enterprise scholarships. Twelve hundred regional, rural and remote students will each be provided with an $18,000 scholarship as part of the program. These scholarships will help young people undertake science, technology, engineering and maths studies, including in ag and health fields, for up to four years full time. Applications are due to open in another couple of weeks, and I would encourage our young people in regional areas to apply for these scholarships and take advantage of this opportunity, because those skills are actually so many of the skills that our young people need in rural and regional areas. Look at the diversity in my electorate: my electorate has everything from mining to resource manufacturing through to agriculture, forestry, fisheries, retail construction—you name it. But we could do value-adding. We produce some of the world's best products in my south-west of Western Australia, and we can value-add to those wonderful products. Of course, it is the manufacturing side, and the science and the engineering, that will be important in all of those future options. With our free trade agreements, we are concentrating on those more niche, high-value markets. So we need skilled people to take up these pursuits. We also need young people who will be prepared to actually start their own business. It could be a home based business. It could be in an existing business or a new one altogether. But these are the young people who need to leave places in my electorate like Harvey, Brunswick, Bunbury, Australind, Busselton, Margaret River, Augusta—this is the catchment area of the young people who really have no choice but to leave home. The courses that may be offered locally at regional universities are not the ones that they need in this space. So they have no choice but to go away to study. So having access to independent youth allowance is critical. We also know just what it costs to go away—because it's not just the cost of the education. For young people, there's the cost of accommodation, which is significant. We've also got additional costs. One is the cost of having to get to and from home. Parents also worry about their children travelling backwards and forwards when they've gone away to university, because sometimes young people make a decision to travel home late in the day or in the evening and often when they're tired. This is a real worry for many parents in rural and regional areas. So the more support that we're able to provide for young people, the better. In my electorate, young people frequently have to move—they don't have a choice—to Perth, or, sometimes, even further, to pursue the career of their choice. I want to reassure all those young people that, since we got into government—and even before we got into government: it was my private member's motion that brought to account the then Rudd government when the then Minister for Education Julia Gillard made changes to youth allowance that disqualified all my young people from actually accessing independent youth allowance—we've worked on this consistently. I would say to the young people and their families in rural, regional and remote Australia: our work will continue in this space for you. Yes, we've made quite a number of changes, and we're making improvements all the time to your access to education. In the view of the member for Grey and of a range of my colleagues, and in my own view, we want to see equitable access for young people to education. I've been very passionate about this, since before coming into politics. This is something, still, that families will come and talk to me about—they talk to me about it constantly. Previously, I had a mum with five children, and all five wanted to become GPs. We know that, in rural and regional areas, often, we struggle to get GPs who are prepared to live and work there, particularly in small communities. I would see that these young people are the ones who are likely to come back. Through the rural clinical schools that the government has put in place, they actually get experience in regional areas as well and are much more likely to come back. The young people who are born and raised in the south-west understand how great it is to live and work there and what the opportunities are ahead for them in life through bringing their skills back to our part of the world. I don't have to convince them what sort of opportunities they will have in the south-west of Western Australia. They already know. So we need them to be able to afford to go away. The mum with five kids used to have to choose which of those children she could afford to send away to university. What sort of a choice is that for a family? That's why we've worked so hard for every incremental improvement that we as a government have repeatedly made for far more equitable access for young people from rural and regional Australia. I want to see the percentages change. I want to see that more than half have actually completed a university degree, as their city counterparts do. I want to know they are able to come back to the regional areas and use all of those skills and all of their experiences in their own communities. As the member for Grey said, Professor Halsey did a very good job on this report. But I also want to recognise and thank my colleagues. When I put together the very first meeting of ministers around this very important issue, over 33 of my colleagues came along and supported us. We've repeatedly worked across the portfolios to make sure that all of the parts of this, whether in the education space or the social security space, come together as a package around the education and training opportunities for young people who live in our electorates. I'm particularly proud of this. I want to thank every one of my colleagues and the ministers and the government for actually understanding just how important this is and for the fact that the government, through its management of the budget, has been able to support the initiatives we see in this bill. 11:27 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom This bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018, will introduce changes to improve access to youth allowance for regional, rural and remote students who have to move away from home to study. It will also make technical amendments regarding approved courses for student payments. Schedule 1 of the bill will increase access to youth allowance for regional students who have to move away from home to study. It forms part of a package of measures announced in the budget that respond to the independent review of regional, rural and remote education. The requirement that students engage in employment over an 18-month period after they have finished school meant that many students were deferring their university studies for two years. In 2016, the government announced it would reduce the 18-month self-supporting period to a 14-month period. This means that students can now satisfy the independence criteria by taking a single gap year, rather than having to take two gap years. For example, if a student finished school in November 2016, they could commence university in February 2018, following their gap year. This reduction responded to evidence that the longer students are disengaged from study the more likely they are not to recommence studying. To be assessed as independent under these criteria, students are also be required to live away from home to undertake full-time study. Their combined parental income must be less than $150,000 a year and the student's family home must be categorised under the remoteness structure as inner regional Australia, outer regional Australia, remote Australia, very remote Australia, or on Norfolk Island. The $150,000 parental income threshold was set in 2011 and it has remained at $150,000 since its introduction. This threshold is the same, regardless of family size. This doesn't reflect increasing wages or the extra costs associated with raising a larger family. The criterion aims to support regional students, but, due to the normal effects of income growth, fewer families fall under the $150,000 threshold. To address this decline, the bill will increase the threshold from $150,000 to $160,000. In addition, it will introduce a $10,000-per-child amount, which will increase the parental income cut-off for larger families. This means that for the average two-child family, the parental income threshold for the youth allowance regional workforce independence criteria will be $170,000, which is a significant increase from $150,000. These increases will commence from 1 January 2019. This bill will mean that more regional students will get more youth allowance in their pockets. This is because students who qualify as independent for youth allowance do not have their payment reduced by parental income testing. This bill will therefore provide greater access to youth allowance for regional students. It is expected the number of students who qualify for youth allowance under the criteria will increase by some 75 per cent, from 3,029 to over 5,300. In summary, this bill allows for the implementation of measures that will help students from regional, rural and remote Australia who must move away from home to study. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the minister. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Barton moved an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. So the immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Barton be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 20 11:33 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. ADJOURNMENT 20 ADJOURNMENT 11:33 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the House do now adjourn. 11:33 Mr BURKE DYW Watson This is extraordinary. What is happening right now is that the government have decided that this place has fallen apart so completely that they are dissolving the parliament for the day entirely. There will be no question time today because they don't know who their ministers are. There will be no question time today because they don't know who their Prime Minister is. There will be no question time today because those opposite have stopped governing. Those opposite are obsessed with each other. But not one of their conversations has anything to do with the Australian people. Not one of the conversations that they're having here go outside their jobs. Every conversation that is happening on the government benches today is about their promotion, their entitlements and their sense of entitlement. That's what's going on today. No government in living memory has dissembled so much that they decided the parliament couldn't meet. No government in living memory has said: 'It's all too hard. We're just going home.' No government in living memory has looked at the parliament, where technically they have a majority, and said, 'No, we'd rather just not be there at all.' This is the same day that those opposite used their numbers, by a majority of one, to protect the person from the High Court who might be in charge of this nation by the end of the day. They used a majority of one to protect somebody from the scrutiny of the High Court, someone who might not even be eligible to be a member of parliament. And whose vote protected him? His own! Doesn't that sense of entitlement say everything about what the modern Liberal Party has become? The Liberal Party of today have no interest in anyone but themselves. They have completely fallen apart, collapsed, to the extent now that they don't want to have a parliament at all. Normally people think that, one day, when they get into this place, they might get to be a minister answering questions in question time. There are seven or eight them at the moment, this morning, thinking that maybe this afternoon they will be answering questions at the dispatch box as Prime Minister, and there are about 30 others who have all been promised they will be in the front row by the end of the day. But now they discover that the salary packet of those jobs is more important than the accountability of those jobs. Be in no doubt: if there were ever a justification for question time, it's today. Be in no doubt: in the history of this parliament, if there were ever a government that had questions to answer, it's this mob today. If there were ever ministers whose loyalty were to be questioned, it's today, because we remember that the only reason they could be in the position they're in now is if ministers opposite misled this place yesterday. If they were telling the truth yesterday, I don't see how they're in the spill territory as a government today. It does not add up. For those opposite: think about what you have all become. Have a think about it. Have a think about that moment when you might have thought, 'If I come to parliament I would achieve X, Y or Z.' Because now those opposite are about to vote that they'd rather not have a parliament at all. That's the question that's being asked. We're not about to ask a question about a particular policy decision. We're about to resolve in this House whether the parliament should be sitting at all. If they had wanted to suspend the House for their party room meeting, we would have allowed that. We would have agreed to that. We were ready to agree to that. But instead of them deciding they will just suspend for their party room, they're terrified that they have no idea of what state they'll be in after their party room. They have no idea what this country will look like in an hour's time. But there's one group of people that aren't being consulted at the moment. They're called the voters. In all the consultation that's going on, none of them are consulting the voters. The people's house is here, and they should be accountable today. 11:38 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong What I say today is not addressed to the government, because Australia no longer has a functioning government. What I say today is not addressed to the coalition or the Liberal Party, because they have no leader of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party, whatever it does today and tomorrow, is irreparably split. What we have seen in the last few days is a government and a Liberal Party who know that they need to focus on the needs of the people, but they just cannot help themselves. No-one in this parliament in the last decade can hold their head high about bitterness and argument, but I recognise that Labor has learned its lesson over the last five years. But now the government is proposing to adjourn the parliament. To adjourn the parliament would imply somehow that the parliament does not have pressing matters before it. It most certainly does. To adjourn the parliament would be an admission that the parliament has failed. It is not the parliament that has failed; it is the Turnbull Liberal government in this country which has failed. The country doesn't need a different Liberal leader; it needs a different government. The government may adjourn the parliament but it cannot outrun the weight of failure of this government. The people of Australia must be watching and wondering. Surely, in the bubble which passes for the current government members of parliament—obsessed as they are with their hatreds and disagreements—surely, they can hear how appalled Australians are? Surely, the members of this parliament who currently compose the government must be hearing from them in emails and phone calls? They must be talking to people, out in their constituencies, who are saying, 'What on earth are you doing?' Today we said to the government that we wouldn't call divisions whilst their party room met, if their party room meets. We've been prepared to offer flexibility to the government. But to simply adjourn the parliament is the final admission. I said on Tuesday that this is a government which had lost the will to live. But I don't think even on Tuesday we could have seen the cannibalistic behaviour of a government that is eating itself alive. There is no doubt in my mind that the people of Australia think that the system is broken. What will happen, if the parliament adjourns, is that business will still go on being business and the workers will still go to work. But the job of government is to uplift the nation's vision. This nation has serious issues which it must address. The job of the government is to outline the future. The people of Australia, those who voted for the government and those who didn't, consent to the outcome of elections because they believe that the party who forms the government will keep on governing. There are issues in this country which everyday Australians expect the government to answer. But not only is the government paralysed by in-fighting; it is now not even going to bother to have the parliament meet at all. This is the ultimate admission of surrender, of a bankrupt government—of a failed government. The people in Australia want to see proper wages policy, but they don't get that from the government. The people in Australia want a resolution to rising energy prices, and they are not getting this from the government. The people in Australia want an end to the decline of apprenticeships in this country. The people in Australia want to see properly-funded child care. The people in Australia want to see pensioners get a better deal. The people in Australia want to see our schools properly funded. Government members interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I hear a few government members interjecting. You've lost the right to interject when you don't even want to be in the parliament! We will take your interjections all day—we just wish you would turn up to work. What a bunch of no-hopers! They're actually putting up a resolution that they don't want to go to work. The work of the parliament is in the chamber, not in the meetings behind closed doors as you allocate jobs. If I were the National Party, I would be very disappointed in their senior coalition partner. What about the farmers in the drought—are we going to talk about the drought today that is affecting Australians? I don't think so, because the government is adjourning the parliament. Are we going to talk about the congestion in our big cities and the need to have more public transport and more roads funding? I don't think so. Are we going to talk about properly funding our health system and our hospitals? I don't think so. This parliament should not adjourn. If anyone needs to depart from this place, it is not the parliament; it is this government of Australia, which has not just lost the confidence of its own backbench and of the opposition but has lost the confidence of everyday Australians. Shame on you! 11:43 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Those opposite are not conservatives; they are vandals. The proposition that we would close down the Parliament of Australia because they can't organise themselves to work out who the Prime Minister is going to be is a shock to the people of Australia, who deserve so much better. Here we have the Nationals actually caucusing on the floor of the parliament, trying to work out what they're going to do. What are you going to do? Are you going to support the suspension of the parliament or do you support democracy? Do you support this parliament doing its job, governing for all Australians? Australians are working hard today. They're working in their mines, on the farms, in the factories and in the shops. They're working in their offices. They're teaching our children and nursing our sick. They're at work doing their jobs. The least they can expect from their government is that the government would turn up to do its job, to focus on what matters: more jobs with decent pay and conditions, dealing with the blowouts in hospital waiting times and hospital waiting lists, making sure that every child gets a great education and that our young Australians can go to TAFE or university, dealing with the drought and considering our place in the world. What are they doing? They're considering who sits on the front bench. That's all they're doing opposite. After five years, we have a government that can only focus on itself, consumed by chaos, dysfunction and ego. Not one of the three people that we've heard touted as Prime Minister deserves the job. We have one with no authority. That's the member for Wentworth—no authority. We've got one with no legitimacy. That's the member for Dickson. We're not sure that he is eligible to sit in this parliament. And we've got one with no decency. The member for Cook has never had the colours to nail his colours to the mast. Is he a conservative? Is he a moderate? Where does he stand on the division? He is like a hyena circling around the corpse of the modern Liberal Party, waiting for his chance, waiting for his chance to come up the middle. And the Minister for Foreign Affairs used to be discussed as a potential leader. She doesn't even have the courage to stand. These conservatives—imagine what Sir Robert Menzies would think of this mob opposite. In 1942 Sir Robert Menzies delivered his forgotten Australians speech, his 'forgotten people' speech. What would Sir Robert Menzies think of a house divided? He would have been the first to say that a house divided cannot stand. It's like the Montagues and the Capulets. It's like the Hatfields and the McCoys. This is a generational break in the modern Liberal Party, because the conservatives will never let the moderates govern and the moderates will never let the conservatives govern. How will they ever bridge this divide? In 1942, with that 'forgotten people' speech, many say Sir Robert Menzies is credited with being the father of the modern Liberal Party. Today is the funeral of the modern Liberal party. We are witnessing history being made today, because this house divided cannot stand. Given that this house divided cannot stand, the only solution is for whoever the Prime Minister is right now to drive out to the Governor-General and to let the people of Australia decide. Let the people of Australia decide whether they want a government focused only on itself, only on its own jobs, or they want a government that is focused on more jobs with decent pay and conditions, on an education system that gives every child the best start in life and the greatest opportunities, on a health system that cares for our most vulnerable with proper funding for our hospitals and GPs—whether they want a government that can solve the problems of our energy policy with lower prices and lower pollution. The only solution is not closing down parliament today but for whoever the Prime Minister is to drive out to the Governor-General and let the Australian people decide. Let the Australian people decide. 11:48 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion be put. 11:57 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the House do now adjourn. House adjourned at 12 :00   The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Vamvakinou) took the chair at 10:00.

The House divided. [11:53]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 70 AYES Abbott, AJ Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 68 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The House divided. [11:59]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 70 AYES Abbott, AJ Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 68 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Thursday, 23 August 2018

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

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 26 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Isaacs Electorate: Dingley Village 26 10:00 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs Dingley Village is a fantastic community, situated in the heart of south-east Melbourne's green wedge. It is a thriving suburb with a village-style sense of community. A large part of the attraction of Dingley Village is its open space. It's blessed with parkland and large tracts of green, open space. That's the reason thousands of Dingley Village families have chosen to make it their home. This open space is now under threat, with a development application lodged with the City of Kingston to redevelop the former Peninsula Kingswood Golf Course into around 800 residential dwellings. In the 2016 census, Dingley Village recorded just over 3,700 dwellings. This proposed development would increase the number of houses in Dingley Village by over 20 per cent. There's an important planning point that needs to be made here, that affects much of the special use and green-wedge-zoned land in Melbourne's south-east, which the great electorate of Isaacs covers much of. The point is this: special-use zoned land, which includes many golf clubs in Melbourne, were zoned this way to ensure open space for their nearby communities. Developers should not assume that when they buy special-use-zoned land it will be rezoned to residential and, in particular, to mid- and high-density planning simply because they bought it. That is not how planning should work. I stand with the Dingley Village community in opposing this proposed development, and will continue to fight to protect their open space. Dingley Village has limited public transport options as it is; an extra 800 dwellings would further clog already congested local roads and rob a community of the very open space that attracted them to Dingley Village in the first place. I'm not antidevelopment, but Melbourne's development must be sustainable and be in designated growth areas, not sprawling across valued areas of open space where public transport is limited. The proposed development of Kingswood golf course would not benefit the community it hopes to build in. It damages its environment and it does not add value with community infrastructure, such as schools or sporting fields. I'd like to pay tribute to the Save Kingswood Group's Michael Benjamin, Simone Hardham and Kevin Poulter, who have given countless hours in support of their community. I know; I've met with them and seen them at the last two Dingley Village Farmers' Markets, where both I and the Save Kingswood Group had stalls. Large-scale developments can make or break a community. It's important to get it right, and the currently proposed development of the Kingswood golf course is not even close. Hinkler Electorate: Seafood Industry 26 10:03 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to talk about the Hervey Bay Seafood Festival, which celebrated its 20th anniversary on 12 August. It is Australia's biggest seafood picnic at Fishermen's Park in Urangan, and once again it was a fantastic day with a fantastic turnout. The festival was organised by the commercial fishing families and friends from the local community. Hervey Bay Seafood Inc. was formed in 1998 to promote the local wild-catch seafood and create awareness of the role of commercial fishing in coastal communities. Stalwarts such as Nick Schulz and Steve Murphy have been there from the beginning. At the festival, the promotional brand, the Wide Bay Wild Catch, was launched. It's not the 'Wide Bay Wildcats', it's the Wide Bay Wild Catch. Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, I'm sure you would have heard of things like Hervey Bay scallops and, of course, barramundi from right around the country. Whether it's mangrove jack or red emperor, it's fantastic on your plate. It's caught locally and it provides jobs for local fishermen and, of course, people who work in the seafood-processing industry. The Wide Bay Wild Catch brand is designed to tell the story of seafood from the region, and that is from Gympie to Bundaberg. It is renowned for its seafood. The Wide Bay Wild Catch will enable consumers to identify the businesses that are selling local wild catch, as well as restaurants and eateries that are actually serving our local product. Once again, whether it's scallops, prawns or the fighting whiting—or our famous red emperor—it is all fantastic. The seafood festival, of course, is part of the Hervey Bay Ocean Festival, which includes the annual blessing of the fleet, signifying the start of the whale-watching season. If you want to see whales in Australia, Hervey Bay is the best spot to do that. It's where they come to rest between July and November. Thousands of humpback whales travel the humpback highway and arrive in the calm, protected waters of Hervey Bay. On Saturday, 25 August, in the northern part of the electorate, at the Bundaberg Port Marina is Oceanfest. We love our seafood. We love our oceans. It's all about promoting the local region, which provides jobs in the local area. It is hosted by the Rotary Club of Bundaberg Sunrise. I acknowledge Stephen Bennett, the member for Burnett, who's a strong part of that local Rotary club. This event promotes the local wild-caught seafood as well, harvested from the southern part of the Great Barrier Reef and Bundaberg waters. Locally there it's a gentleman by the name of Peter Packman, who started off in the local Bundaberg marina. It's a wonderful part to visit. They've got things like spanner crabs, local blue claw and mud crabs—you can get anything you think of in terms of seafood from our local region. It's fantastic to be involved with those types of events. It is certainly a good opportunity for every Australian to get out into regional Australia, to get to regional Queensland. Come to our local areas, eat our local produce, talk to our local people, use local hotels, go down to the local shops and have a cup of coffee on the water at Burnett Heads. Congratulations to everyone involved. I look forward to seeing more of them there. Liberal Party Leadership 27 10:06 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley Chaos, division and dysfunction reign in a government that continues to tear itself down hour by hour, minute by minute. We see ministers coming out attacking the Prime Minister. We see the backbench time and time again in a war zone that the Australian people are horrified by. My message to the Turnbull-Abbott-Dutton-Turnbull-Abbott-Dutton government is clear: stop talking about yourselves and start governing in the nation's interests. This is the most chaotic government that our nation has ever seen. The LNP in Queensland is at the beating heart of this mess. We saw Gary Spence, the president of the state LNP, give the marching orders to every LNP member in Queensland to knife a sitting Prime Minister. We saw the LNP in Queensland up to their ears in division and dysfunction. They have their heads down in this chamber but they are all texting one another, undermining each other, bagging each other and not governing in the nation's interest. Time and time again we are seeing policy on the run. We're seeing thought bubbles. The LNP in this chamber are now proud of their efforts, of destroying a government and of destroying a sitting Prime Minister. It's bad enough that they have stopped governing. It is bad enough that they have given up on the people of Australia. They see this parliament, this institution, as their play thing. They are only interested in their own jobs and not the jobs of working Australians— Government members interjecting— Mr DICK 53517 I can take the interjections from the LNP members in this chamber, because I know they are only interested in their own jobs, not fighting for regional Queensland and not fighting for the workers in my home state. They have a choice at the next election: a united Shorten Labor government or a dysfunctional, chaotic and divisional government. Who knows who will be the Prime Minister? Will it be Peter Dutton, the member for Dickson? Will it be the member for Warringah? Will it be the member for Wentworth? Will members of the National Party sit on the crossbench and rip down this government? Will they demand that we have another election? Who knows, but time and time again when it comes to the LNP in Queensland it's very clear: they are only interested in their own jobs. They are not fighting for Australians. They should hang their heads in shame. They are a disgrace to this nation, and we will make sure that they pay the price. Small Business 27 10:09 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher It's not uncommon to hear members in this place reflect on the value of small businesses in our community. Whether it's the local butcher, the corner shop or a strawberry farm, they all contribute in wide-ranging ways to the fabric of our community. As a small business owner for 30 years, I know from personal experience what a hard slog it can be, but the rewards, more often than not, make it worth it. In my role as the member for Fisher I make it a priority to regularly visit small and family business operators, to keep connected and engaged with the current business climate. While in Caloundra recently, I caught up with Tony Swain, from Swain Family Meats, a great local butcher offering excellent service and quality meat. Tony and his team of butchers have become an institution in the Little Mountain area, with many families dropping in after work to purchase what they need to rustle up the family dinner. Tony even sells the award-winning Maleny Dairies milk—so many of his customers drop by to get their supply. I also recently stopped in and had breakfast at CK Wholefoods in Mooloolaba, where I was able to chat to its owner, Martin, about his current growth and future plans. The winter break also afforded me the opportunity to get out and about in the sensational Sunshine Coast hinterland, where I spent some time with Rick Twist from Twist Brothers Strawberry Farm. If I'm talking about institutions on the Sunshine Coast, Twist Brothers Strawberry Farm is certainly up there with the best of them. My wife and I used to take our kids to the Twist strawberry farm when they were little, and this was a great trip down memory lane. During my chat with Rick, he explained how he was in the process of looking at ways to diversify his current business model and offered many helpful suggestions on how the government could look at introducing measures to stimulate positive changes and growth in the business community. Gourmet Garden is yet another shining star in the business community on the Sunshine Coast. I spent some time meeting their executive team and touring their Palmwoods factory recently, where I just about froze to death in their cool room. I don't know why they call it a cool room; it should be called a 'very cold room'. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:11 to 10:25 Mr WALLACE 265967 It was great to spend time with Felipe and the team and get a greater understanding of their business journey to extend the natural shelf life of fresh herbs and spices. This innovative company, Gourmet Garden, are doing great things and are looking at expanding their products and exporting more widely in the future. Many people choose to move to the Sunshine Coast searching for a better lifestyle for their families. Our combination of hinterland and beaches makes this a spectacular place to live, work and retire. So is it any wonder that we have such a thriving and diverse small-business community? In fact, Bernard Salt, the famous demographer, described the Sunshine Coast as the small-business capital of the country, and who could disagree with him? The Sunshine Coast is going great guns at the moment. My mission as the local member is to make Fisher the place to be for education, employment and retirement. By doing that, we will make the Sunshine Coast a fantastic place to live. China 28 10:27 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports I want to renew my appeal today for Australia not to allow the Huawei company to bid for the 5G network. I remind people that some months ago I said to the House: I'm talking about Huawei and ZTE. Both these telcos are subject to government … dictates. In Beijing. I went on: Both Huawei and ZTE must report to a Communist Party cell at the top of their organisations. Let me issue a clarion call to this parliament … Australia's 5G network must not be sold to these telcos. Whatever instructions might be issued for Australian sovereignty— if they were to get the bid— … they will be compromised if we sell the construction of our new central communications 5G network to companies effectively controlled by an authoritarian government whose leader has recently been made dictator for life. The Beijing lobby have been very active in the meantime, with full-page ads. It's been a great shame to read on the front page of the Financial Review that some of the other bidders, Nokia and Ericsson, are now fully produced in China and are also subject to having this cell of the ruling party at the top of their organisations. It is a clear example of corporate irresponsibility and greed, thinking that producing some telecommunications equipment for a dollar lower than you might be able to produce it in your own country is some reason for producing it in China. Companies really need to consider the national interest of their own countries before just going for the lowest dollar value. When I talk about the Beijing lobby, I notice that Jennifer Hewett and Glenda Korporaal have said that the Huawei ruling will be a test of bilateral relations. Jennifer Hewett even highlights some of Huawei's laughable investigation of itself as a suitable company for the 5G network. The July 2018 report to the National Security Adviser of the United Kingdom says that the Huawei's Cyber Security Evaluation Centre Oversight Board said: … identification of shortcomings in Huawei's engineering processes have exposed new risks in the UK telecommunication networks and long-term challenges in mitigation and management. And: … Huawei’s processes continue to fall short of industry good practice … The report said: Technical issues have been identified in Huawei' s engineering processes, leading to new risks in the UK telecommunications networks … Also there was the announcement of the US Senate Committee on Armed Services on 23 July 2018. The John S McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 enacted, amongst many other provisions, section 889, titled 'Prohibition on certain telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment'. That section expressly prohibits the federal government from procuring or obtaining— (Time expired) O'Connor Electorate: Pensions and Benefits 29 10:30 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to commend the Senate for this week rejecting disallowance motions aimed at halting the cashless debit card trial, which is making fabulous progress in the Goldfields region of my electorate. Senator Rachel Siewert is obsessed with halting this trial. On Monday night her attempts were resoundingly voted down, with 41 senators opposing the suggestion. This was immediately followed by the defeat of Labor Senator Doug Cameron's disallowance motion to halt the progress of the Goldfields trial. Senator Siewert has only visited this part of my electorate on a couple of occasions. I don't believe she has ever stayed long enough to witness firsthand the social issues that the region has experienced. Street drinking and fighting, homelessness, shoplifting, lawlessness and, probably saddest of all, children without parental support, children without food in their tummies and children not safe in their own homes. There are over 3,000 participants on this trial. I am in constant contact with the Department of Social Services, who are responsible for the rollout and maintenance of this program; with those who work as local partners in the community hubs; with merchants and community leaders; and with participants directly who have reached out to me and received assistance. I promise you: this card is working. But don't just take my word for it. The City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder Mayor, John Bowler, said that, although the card only started earlier this year, 'all indications were positive'. Last week police reported to a liquor accord meeting that the level of antisocial behaviour on the streets was clearly down in the past couple of months. Bottle shop retailers reported that there were considerably fewer disturbances around their premises. Those who are rorting the card are being brought to account, with one hotel now being blocked from accepting the card. With respect to their two community hubs, Mayor Bowler also noted: … the number of complainants was falling as the card holders learnt that in most cases the level of inconvenience was minimal. The card is working not only in the twin cities but also in the four shires. In Coolgardie, Laverton and Leonora, merchants are reporting families shopping for food and supplies in quantities that they have not seen before. I leave the final word to CEO of the Shire of Leonora, Jim Epis, who said: Some of our Senators only listen to what interests them and not the community … following the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee's public hearing in Kalgoorlie on the 12th October 2017, an offer was made to those Senators in attendance to visit Leonora at Council's expense to see for themselves how our communities were being destroyed … but they couldn't even be bothered acknowledging receipt of the offer. I'm convinced they are just afraid of the truth. Can I also add that the Cashless Debit Card is doing wonders for the Leonora Community. It's so peaceful, even the dogs have stopped barking at night. Makin Electorate: Parafield Gardens 29 10:32 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin A result of the recent federal electorate changes in South Australia is that, after the next federal election, Parafield Gardens will be in the Makin electorate. Parafield Gardens is a suburb that was largely established in the 1960s and 1970s. It became home to people from all walks of life and from across the world. Today it is a wonderful example of cultural diversity at its best. It is a community I know well, having served as Mayor of Salisbury for 10 years. My association with the Parafield Gardens communities has continued through the many Parafield Gardens friends and acquaintances that I have made over the years, and those friendships remain and are as strong as ever. This is a community of people who work hard. They look to government for a good health system that they can have confidence in; education for their children that results in a rewarding career; secure jobs with fair pay; a social system that recognises the hardships faced by pensioners, people with a disability and those out of work; and an opportunity for young couples to own their own home. These are all core responsibilities of government which I will continue to stand up for, as I always have, and which are being lost today under the present government. Indeed, for many of the families that live in Parafield Gardens, their lives have become even more difficult because of the policies of the Turnbull government. And I note that being in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, with the closure of General Motors Holden, finding work has become even more difficult for many of them. These are people who, in many cases, come from overseas and don't have the skills and qualifications to be able to get a job whenever and wherever they choose, and so the manufacturing decline and demise in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, as a result of the policies of this government, have deeply affected them. These are people who need a new direction by a government, and one which Labor has already committed to. We have made it absolutely clear that the priorities that I outlined earlier will be the priorities of a Labor government, if it is to be elected. If I am re-elected at the next election, I look forward to representing the people of Parafield Gardens in the federal parliament and ensuring that their needs are not ignored. I also look forward to meeting more of the local residents over the coming weeks as I interact with them, knowing that I'm standing for election and hoping to be their representative after the next election. National Science Week 30 10:36 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein More than 350 schools recently took part in STEM in Schools events as part of National Science Week. The CSIRO sent their best and brightest all over the country to build excitement about the bright futures of science, technology, engineering and mathematics in Australia. On 10 August, students, teachers and STEM professionals—and I was very privileged to be there—came together at Sandringham College to showcase the opportunities a STEM education and career can provide. I was very proud to talk about my interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics—well, my disinterest during high school, although I did do my maths methods and managed to pass—later in life, when I became fascinated by physics, particularly as part of the discussion around climate science, which I'm very privileged to have studied at university. I think I'm probably the only person who studied climate science at university in this parliament, but I'll have to check that. Nigel Kain has been teaching at Sandringham College for 11 years. He's had a keen interest in the implementation of technology into all areas of education. Nigel has been working with staff to further develop the curriculum to embed STEM into it. We should praise Nigel for his use of 21st century learning tools within his teaching to further engage students. Also involved was Viv McElwee, assistant principal and the head of years 10-12 campus, and Russell Watson, assistant principal and head of years 7-9 campus. He was an integral member of staff for over 12 years. We were also very fortunate to have CSIRO representative and STEM professional, Dr Fabienne Reisen. Dr Reisen is a senior atmospheric research scientist in the Climate Science Centre of CSIRO. After joining CSIRO in 2004, Dr Reisen is now a team leader in reactive gases at the Oceans and Atmosphere program, which is just near the Goldstein electorate. Sandringham College has recently opened two new buildings to complement the completion of a year 7 learning and science centre in 2016. These buildings are helping provide the infrastructure for a growing focus on STEM in the classroom. While I was at Sandringham College I visited some of the school students who are engaged in STEM programs. I saw how it is enabling them to do things that are more amazing. I gave them a talk that was at least spirited—no-one would ever accuse me of not giving one of those—about how the future is going to be awesome. I told them the power and potential of the market in science and technology to transform the human experience has never been more incredible than it is now, and how excited they should be about the future and what they can do and what they can achieve. It was fascinating to see the technology they are using, and, frankly, how cheap it is today. I explained the consequences of what it used to be like with an Apple IIe and a Logo turtle to be able to navigate and deal with issues around programming. Congratulations to everybody at Sandringham College, and best wishes for your STEM endeavours. Aged Care 30 10:39 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin Last Friday saw the government finally release the home care waitlist data. This data was more than two months delayed by the minister and his office. There is no doubt that the government has been trying to remove people from this list, but, despite its efforts, there are still 108,000 Australians waiting for home care today. Of those, 88,000 are waiting for high care—that is, level 3 and 4 packages. They have been assessed as needing these and they have been approved for these, but they are still waiting for packages to be allocated to them. We have been calling on the government to deal with this issue for some time. Of those people on the waiting list, 53,000 have no home care package at all and 26,000 have no support at home whatsoever—no Commonwealth Home Support Program, no home care, even a lower package, absolutely zero. So 26,000 Australians who have been assessed as eligible for a home care package are today at home without any care at all. While this government is thinking more about itself and who is going to be Prime Minister, we've got older Australians, their families and their loved ones waiting for home care packages in every electorate right around the country. We've heard some pretty harrowing stories in recent weeks from constituencies all over the country. Justine Elliot, the member for Richmond, has been in this place talking about one of her constituents, who we are very concerned about—a 99-year-old who is blind. She has been waiting on the home care list and has been told she will have to continue to wait for months. This is absolutely not good enough. The government took some money out of residential care in the budget and said that it would fund 14,000 new home care packages. My question to the minister, whoever that might be, and to the Prime Minister, whoever that might be at the end of today, is: what are you doing about this? Where are those 14,000 home care packages? You should be able to release some of them immediately to try and get care for people who are languishing on this list, desperately in need of them. What do you think is happening to those people and their families as they continue to wait? They're ending up in residential care or emergency departments, which is a worse outcome for them and their families and costs the community more. It is simply not good enough for the government to say that its 14,000 from the budget—that's only 3½ thousand home care packages a year over the forward estimates—is good enough when the list grew by 4,000 older Australians in just the last quarter. Workplace Relations 31 10:42 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson You won't hear too many speeches where I congratulate the CFMEU, but I am going to congratulate them on a legal victory they won last week on behalf of one of their members, a casual worker employed by a labour hire contractor in the Bowen Basin mines. For a long time I have been saying that the practices of major mining houses in putting on these contracted labour hire casual workers as de facto full-time workers is an unethical practice. It clearly is. You can't have someone contracted by a labour hire firm as a casual employee working side by side with full-time employees, doing the same job and the same shifts, for years and years on end. I know that it's become a political partisan issue—at least people are trying to make it so—but people have been employed on these casual arrangements from way back when Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard were Prime Minister. This has been going on under successive governments. It is the collective fault of all of the mining companies that are engaging in these practices. They are doing it under the fair work laws that were instituted by the previous Labor government. That I have to note as well. But there was a victory last week where casual workers who are terminated after they've been employed for a period of time as de facto full-time workers are now given the ability to get all the entitlements at severance that are available to full-time workers. Essentially the law is saying here: these people are full-timers. I note the Labor Party has a policy in this regard, which it calls 'same work same pay'. But I've got to tell you it is really a no-work-no-pay provision. If, as Labor proposes, we set a timeframe on the conversion of a casual labour hire contract worker to a full-time worker, all the mining house is going to do is simply terminate their contract with the labour hire contractor. That casual worker won't then go onto a full-time job; they will go onto no job and the unemployment queue. It's a very, very big problem that we have here. There are no easy solutions, but I have implored my government, through the employment minister, the Leader of the National Party, and the minister for resources, to look very carefully at this and what we can do to fix this problem that is not going to lead to further job insecurity by making people unemployed—as Labor plans to do. So I call on the mining companies to end this practice. It is wrong and it is unethical. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. COMMITTEES 31 COMMITTEES Joint Standing Committee on Treaties 31 Report 31 10:45 Mr HART 263070 Bass I rise today to speak on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties entitled, Comprehensive and progressive agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—the so-called TPP-11. I was fortunate to be appointed to this committee to participate in its hearings and deliberations with respect to the review of this treaty. It is vitally important that the treaty-making power of the Commonwealth is undertaken in the very best interests of the nation. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has the responsibility to review treaties and proposed treaty actions. It is particularly appropriate, in this case, that the Commonwealth's treaty action with respect to this treaty, broadly described as a free trade treaty, was the subject of public hearings, the receipt of evidence and submissions and an opportunity for public comment. It is important to note that the so-called free trade treaties are a misnomer. These treaties generally promote trade liberalisation, in goods and services and in some cases promote freer movement of individuals across international borders. Labor has supported the recommendations in this report, but the Labor members of the committee have prepared substantial additional comments as to the areas of concern. Those concerns, in context, do not argue against trade liberalisation, but require governments to negotiate trade agreements with greater openness and transparency, with a particular emphasis on economic modelling as to the impacts of the proposed treaty. I will explain why that is necessary, not just desirable. My electorate of Bass has been impacted historically as a consequence of the reduction of tariffs previously protecting the textile industry. The shockwaves that resulted from the reduction of protection saw substantial job losses in the reconstruction and, ultimately, closure in many cases of iconic industrial capacity within northern Tasmania—names like Coats Patons, Kelsall and Kemp, James Nelson and Waverley Woollen Mills, which would be familiar to every person in northern Tasmania over a particular age. Of these iconic businesses only Waverley Woollen Mills remain as manufacturers, with the industrial legacy of the other substantial weaving and spinning enterprises represented by, sadly, either vacant buildings or, in most cases, re-use of those buildings for other purposes. This emphasises the challenges represented by trade liberalisation, particularly for this parliament. Trade liberalisation—that is, the promotion of greater trade and the free passage of goods and services—generally leads to benefits within the wider economy. However, the economic effects of trade liberalisation are not evenly shared. There are burdens as well as benefits. The dramatic changes within the Australian economy subsequent to the 1970s, including the significant reconfiguration driven by the Hawke-Keating governments and the subsequent Howard government, saw significant changes within the Australian economy. It is vitally important to note that, without careful attention to the economic effects of trade liberalisation, including modelling as to the benefits and costs associated with trade liberalisation, government cannot fulfil its function to ensure that those who are adversely affected receive appropriate advice and assistance. This is a very useful introduction—the first major theme I wish to explore within the additional comments made by the Labor members is economic modelling. What we have is a report which is effectively a supplement to the report that was prepared some two years ago with respect to the TPP. That report recommended that there should be some additional economic modelling surrounding the economic effect of the particular treaty. The Labor members support that recommendation but, based upon the evidence that's been received during the course of the hearings, they submit that in future treaty negotiation more needs to be done with respect to economic modelling. In particular, in the interests of openness and transparency, economic modelling should be available to the wider community and during the course of negotiation. It's my submission that it is wholly inappropriate for the Australian community to simply take on trust any government's assurances that a particular aspect of trade liberalisation, whether it's a free trade treaty or some other treaty that purports to liberalise trade or services, is overall in the benefit for Australia without identifying the costs that are associated with that treaty. There was much evidence received as to what is best practice in other jurisdictions. In Europe it is suggested that, again in the interests of openness and transparency, the general public, and in particular industry and other affected parties, should have access to independent economic modelling during the course of the negotiation of treaties. Just this morning, in another committee—that is, the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth—evidence was given as to the desirability of the involvement of industry and other affected interest groups in trade negotiation, particularly with respect to electronic commerce. Keeping the government's cards close to their chest with respect to the positive effects of trade liberalisation, without identifying the costs associated with trade liberalisation, may have the effect of significant groups within our communities being adversely affected and the government not being in a position to respond as it should to ameliorate those effects. The second issue that I want to deal with is an issue of concern with respect to the effect on the labour market of these free trade agreements generally and in particular the TPP-11. There are some concerns that've been expressed in the additional comments made by the Labor members as to whether the proposed treatment of labour market services, and in particular whether there should be testing of the labour market, is sufficiently robust. Indeed, it's probably the case that the legislation, which gives effect to this treaty or subsequent legislation, should take into account the strong desirability of there being adequate labour market testing, because we do not want Australian workers to be subject to the risk of loss of their jobs because of the inflow of overseas workers, particularly where the labour market has not been adequately tested. There are also significant concerns being expressed, by people giving evidence to the hearings, as to the inadequacy of the arrangements within the TPP-11 as to skills testing. There are particular occupations—for example, electrical contracting and other highly skilled occupations—where skills testing is not just a question of ring-fencing a particular occupation. There are real interests of public safety and good governance involved in ensuring that we maintain the high standards that we have within Australia, particularly in building and construction. The final issue that I want to deal with as part of this address is the very much vexed area of ISDS, or investor-state dispute resolution, which is incorporated within the TPP-11 treaty. I must say, and this is borne out in the additional comments made by the Labor members, that this goes against the general flow of negotiation of treaties elsewhere, particularly in the EU and a very significant trading partner the United States. The government should look at ISDS with great concern and ensure that Australian policy objectives—legitimate Australian policy objectives—are not curtailed by application of ISDS. I commend the treaty and the report to the House. 10:55 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie In rising to speak on the report and the additional comments that Labor has made about the report, I would particularly like to record my thanks to the member for Bass for his contribution to the process of interrogating this treaty. He has made an enormous contribution in the short time that I have worked with him on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, and I would like that commitment recorded in Hansard. It's lovely to be able to speak directly after him. It is well established that Labor has a long history of support for free trade. The reforms of the Hawke and Keating governments included a really big reduction in tariffs. I was fortunate enough to be a journalist in that era and to report it and talk to people about the consequences that that might have. I don't think that anyone back then realised that it would be a key contributor to the record 26 years of continuous economic growth that Australia has experienced. Of course, when Labor was last in government three trade agreements were signed and negotiations were begun on seven others, including the former Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP. We obviously support high-quality free trade agreements, because trade does encourage greater economic activity and lead to the creation of jobs. Trade and open markets have lifted millions of people out of poverty globally and provided consumers with cheaper products. International trade has also lifted Australia's rate of economic growth and productivity. I rise, though, with some reservations about the TPP-11, this newest version of a trans-Pacific partnership, known fully as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, but colloquially known as TPP-11. It is a new and different agreement to the one signed in February 2016. The original agreement included 40 per cent of the world's GDP, whereas the current one, TPP-11, includes only 13 per cent. TPP-11 also suspends 22 provisions of the original TPP and features additional side letters, many of which we are very pleased to see. I think the concern about the side letters—there are 10 new side letters between Australia and other signatories alone and many others—is that at what point will those matters that have been set aside come back into active play. I think this parliament will need to look very closely should that point come. The independent economic modelling of the finalised TPP-11 has been conducted not by a federal government supported organisation to see that happen but on behalf of the Victorian government. It indicates that the TPP-11 will actually deliver very modest initial gains to Australia, predominantly for agricultural goods. That will certainly be good for the agricultural sector, but they are very modest gains. The things that seem to make the biggest difference will be the preferential access to Mexico and Canada. There is potential for more significant gains, but we would like to see very close scrutiny and monitoring to see what gains can be put towards this agreement: what can we actually say is a direct result of this sort of agreement? That would help with future modelling of other agreements of this nature. My main concerns about the agreement are not the trade aspects of it but are more about the non-trade-related aspects. You have to wonder why a trade agreement has non-trade things in it, and that is probably a pretty good question to be asking. In any case, the Labor members of the committee have particular concerns about the aspects of TPP that are not essential to the trade benefits of the agreement. These include the lopsided concessions on temporary labour market access, with a weakening of regulations that cover labour market testing and skills assessment. There is what we would consider to be unnecessary and risky exposure to investor-state dispute settlement arrangements, which I will speak about shortly, and a lack of modelling. Let me speak about the labour market testing. There are some provisions of the TPP-11 with which we have particular concerns. The TPP-11 waives labour market testing for 'contractual service suppliers' for six signatory countries. This will mean that jobs in Australia will be able to be filled by workers from Canada, Peru, Brunei, Mexico, Malaysia and Vietnam without first being offered to Australians. This comes at a time when many in Australia are concerned about employment and low wages. More than 450 professions could currently be covered by the term 'contractual service supplier', and they include electricians, plumbers, carpenters and nurses. No other country has provided Australia with such generous reciprocal visa rights, and it is still unclear why such concessions were given by the government. While Labor acknowledges that foreign workers do play an important role in the success of the Australian economy, it is fundamental that Australians are offered employment first and that overseas workers are brought into the country only once there is a demonstrated need. The temporary migration system is supposed to supplement the skills of Australians, not replace them. A Shorten Labor government will not waive labour market testing as part of any free trade agreement that it signs going forward and will seek to reinstate labour market testing in existing agreements as part of the scheduled reviews. Skills testing is also an issue. We are concerned about the erosion of skills testing in the TPP-11. We have the best-trained tradespeople in the world, and this standard must be protected. I'd like to acknowledge the submissions, particularly from the ETU and the ACTU, that raised concerns and gave us some detail about how less-qualified and inexperienced tradespeople could be working in Australia without being subject to the current rigorous testing processes. I think that is something we need to keep a very close eye on. The consequences of employing electricians without sufficient standards can be fatal. Certainly in Sydney we are already seeing incidents of poor work practices. I think this is something the parliament needs to be very mindful of. It is very interesting to see that the ISDS provisions have remained in this new agreement. They were excluded by the former Labor government in the early negotiations for the original TPP. The former Howard government shared Labor's concerns and did not include ISDS in Australia's free trade agreement with the United States. We are deeply critical of this aspect of the agreement. It is the view of Labor members that, because of the many concerns that we took evidence on, ISDS should not be part of this agreement. The example that really rings true is the Philip Morris case, where they used ISDS provisions to attempt to take action against the Australian government. Australia would have been faced, if Philip Morris had won their case, with abandoning the public health initiative of plain packaging for cigarettes or paying a huge amount of compensation. That would have been the consequence. The fact the claim wasn't successful in some ways is almost irrelevant, because the cost of any ISDS claim will be borne by the government and the taxpayer, notwithstanding whether that claim is successful. The TPP introduces an ISDS mechanism between Australia and three other countries—namely, Japan, Canada and Peru—for the first time. Under the TPP, an ISDS arrangement between Australia and New Zealand will be excluded by a side letter agreement. Of course, between the signing of the first TPP and the TPP-11, there was a change of government in New Zealand. The current New Zealand Labour government doesn't support the inclusion of ISDS provisions and was able to remove ISDS provisions, through four additional side letters, with Brunei, Malaysia, Peru and Vietnam. A future Labor government in Australia will not agree to ISDS provisions and will seek to remove those provisions from existing trade agreements as part of scheduled reviews. The independent modelling has been much talked about, and the whole committee agreed that it is absolutely basic that independent modelling of trade agreements is provided to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, but, more importantly, done well before an agreement is signed. That has been recommended by other parliamentary committees, as well as the Productivity Commission, the Harper review, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Minerals Council of Australia and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. So there's a pretty strong across-the-community view that we should get modelling and information before we sign up to something. I'd like to thank Pat Ranald, of AFTINET, who particularly focused on this issue in her evidence, as did Alan Kirkland, the CEO of CHOICE. I think both of those resonated with the committee. I commend this report to the chamber. 11:05 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I will begin by commending the contributions from the members for Macquarie and Bass both to this debate and on their work on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Those two members, alongside the member for Fremantle and the other Labor members, have done a sterling job trying to hold the government to account to inject some transparency and objectivity into the debate around TPP-11. So I commend them for their fine work. I am, on the surface—unless someone convinces me otherwise—firmly opposed to TPP-11. I'm firmly opposed to it, because it undermines Australia's sovereignty. It gives away too much of Australians' sovereign powers for very little in return. Unfortunately, this is the case history when it comes to this government and trade agreements. They sell away Australia's rights, Australia's freedoms and Australia's legislative authority in return for trade access. In some cases that may be justified, but my strong view is that, when it comes to the TPP-11, it most definitely is not. This trade agreement is not about trade. The name is a misnomer. It is deceptive. This is an agreement about deregulating Australia's economy and undermining the sovereignty of this parliament. That is why I am opposed to the TPP-11. The first reason I'm opposed to it goes to investor-state dispute settlement clauses. These are a cancer in trade agreements. These clauses undermine the sovereignty of duly elected parliaments to legislate for the welfare of their own people. That is what ISDS does. It grants rights and powers to foreign corporations that Australian companies don't have, that the Australian people don't have. You only have to look at the case that Philip Morris waged against the federal government around plain-packaging laws, where they had the hide to use an arcane clause in the Hong Kong trade agreement to undermine a great Labor government initiative to do plain packaging of tobacco, which is having a real impact in reducing smoking rates and therefore saving Australian lives. ISDS undermines that. ISDS potentially would cause more Australian deaths by cancer. This agreement has ISDS clauses in it. It has clauses that undermine our sovereignty, and it goes completely against the tide of what is happening in other nations. Even the United States, that supposed bastion of free trade, is seeking in its NAFTA renegotiations to remove ISDS. The incredibly progressive and visionary New Zealand Labour government has successfully removed ISDS clauses from four existing free trade agreements. And there's a recent case in the EU courts which found that any trade agreement that has ISDS must go through each national parliament for approval because ISDS involves the removal of sovereignty. That is why it should not be in this trade agreement. That is why I was so proud at the last Labor Party national conference to move an amendment to the platform, committing Labor to never negotiate a trade agreement with ISDS in it and, furthermore, when in government, to remove ISDS clauses through renegotiation. So that's the first reason that I am opposed to the TPP. The second reason goes to immigration policy. This agreement, sadly, like the China FTA, reduces the sovereignty of the Australian parliament to regulate our immigration system. The great irony of this government is that it's supposedly strong on border protection, but it signs up to and negotiates trade agreements that deregulate our immigration system. This was demonstrated in a testimony from the department to JSCOT in a hearing earlier this year, where, under expert cross-examination by the member for Macquarie and other Labor members, they admitted that this agreement will prohibit labour market testing for six countries under the TPP. We will not be able to perform labour market testing against six countries' applications for visas, particularly Brunei, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru and Vietnam. This doesn't apply to a few narrow ranges of categories; it applies to 400 occupations under the TSS visa, which replaced the old 457 visa. This agreement removes our right to test whether Australians can fill those jobs; it places an obligation on us to treat visa holders from those six nations equally to Australian workers when it comes to filling those jobs. That is unacceptable. If this was the only clause in the agreement that I opposed, it would be sufficient for me to oppose the TPP and vote against it in the Labor Party caucus room. Unlike those on the other side, I stand up for the sovereignty of our immigration system. I stand up for the right of Australian governments to implement labour market testing. What is so radical about saying that we should establish whether an Australian worker can fill a job before we open it up to foreigners? That is not radical. It is not racist; it is just sensible policy saying that Australian jobs should be filled by Australian workers when they can. If they can't, if there's a genuine short-term skills shortage, let someone come in under a TSS. But, until that has been established, we should not be going down this slippery path, and for that reason I oppose this agreement. The next one that I'm greatly concerned about, which has been put aside unless the US re-enters the TPP, goes to the treatment of pharmaceuticals, and in particular biologics. Despite the government's protestations, this part of the TPP, if enacted, would extend the patent protection for biologics from five years to eight years. They do it in a sneaky way, but it remains there. That will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, to the PBS. It will reduce the ability to spend money on pharmaceuticals that sick Australians need access to, so the biologics clause is of great concern as well. In conclusion, this agreement, the TPP-11, is not about trade access, it's not about reducing tariff barriers. It is about diminishing the sovereignty of the Commonwealth parliament. It is about deregulating our immigration system. It is about deregulating the broader global economy through the ISDS. It is about attacking our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I will not support it for those reasons. Clear and simple: anything that diminishes our sovereignty, I will not support. I stand opposed to the TPP-11. 11:12 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to briefly speak on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' report No. 181: Comprehensive and progressive agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, more commonly known to the public as the TPP treaty. I, like many Australians, am concerned with a number of aspects of this treaty, which the Australian government signed up to on 8 March 2018. I want to make it clear that I and Centre Alliance are not opponents of free trade, but we do recognise that there are legitimate public interests that need to be balanced against free trade. We all want to see a more prosperous and inclusive Australia, but free trade is a means to an end. It is not an end in itself. The issue that most Australians are concerned about is the investor-state dispute settlement clause, which would give unprecedented power to corporations to sue national governments and undermine our democratic sovereignty. That sovereignty and integrity of our democracy should not be delegated lightly. I'm concerned about the implications for food labelling, and that labour market testing provisions negotiated by Australia are significantly weaker than those negotiated by other countries in the treaty negotiations. I'm perplexed as to why our government would do that. I recognise that international analysis of the benefits of signatory countries has been undertaken, and that a publicly available summary of the national interest analysis has been undertaken by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. However, I am deeply concerned that we are yet to see the publication of the comprehensive modelling and related analysis from government, and my team would certainly be expecting to see that. If the Australian parliament is to support the enabling legislation of this treaty, we need to be able to understand the full suite of costs and benefits that are attached to this agreement before we vote on it. I do recognise that there may be sensitivities in the modelling that require confidentiality. But now that the treaty has been signed, there is no good reason to withhold that analysis from the parliament. As a related point, I'm concerned at the lack of detailed post analysis undertaken by the department on previous preferential trade agreements. In summary, although I reserve my position on the enabling legislation, the Customs Amendment (Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018, I request that the government provide the modelling and analysis that would allow me and my team at Centre Alliance to make a fully informed decision on the value of this treaty to Australia. Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 36 ADJOURNMENT Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry 36 11:16 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I rise to talk about the banking royal commission and to highlight the efforts of one of my constituents, Michelle Matheson. Michelle lives about five minutes from my electorate office. It was good to see her in Canberra last week with many other victims of the banking and financial services sector. Michelle was here to share her story of years of pain and heartache and the devastating impact that bad financial advice and corporate malfeasance has had on her and her family. In the time allocated to me, I want to draw the attention of the House to the courage of Michelle and to how completely out of touch this rotten government is. When I met with Michelle recently, she explained to me how vital it is that the terms of the royal commission are widened and the duration lengthened. I want to thank her for her steely courage and determination in pursuing the outrageous practices of the lender she was fell victim to. Michelle is a single mother and works three jobs. The impact of the advice and the behaviour she was subjected to has shattered her world and that of her family, particularly her elderly mother. The banking royal commission would not have happened if it were not for Australians like Michelle pressuring the government to hold a full inquiry. Michelle has been to Canberra before. The current Prime Minister was even asked a question about her particular circumstances in question time. This was whilst he was still denying there was anything wrong with the banking and financial services sector, when he would say, almost on a daily basis, that there was nothing to see here and what a waste of money a royal commission would be. When he was asked about Michelle's circumstances, the current Prime Minister, for at least the next half-hour, arrogantly declared that a royal commission would be of no assistance to her or other victims. He sneeringly stated that all my party could offer her was a royal commission. I want to note briefly that the likely next Prime Minister, the member for Dickson, voted 22 times to block a royal commission into the banking and financial services sector. The day after the royal commission was announced, he told his mate Ray Hadley on 2GB how regrettable it was and that the commission should focus on industry superannuation funds, demonstrating an obsession held by many conservative ideologues. Conservatives like the member for Dickson wanted the commission to investigate well-performing, transparent industry super funds that work in the interests of their members, not fraudulent banks and financial institutions that have ruined the lives of tens of thousands of Australians. I'm very glad to report to the House that in the two weeks that the royal commission spent examining the superannuation system, they found almost practically nothing of note in the industry super funds. They found that the industry super funds performed incredibly well, much better than every other super fund in the country, that they always acted in the interests of their members and that they were very conscious of the impact of government policy on their members' interests. In contrast, we saw scandal after scandal around retail superannuation funds, whether it was AMP, where the AMP trustees admitted they couldn't act in the interests of their members because they didn't have control of the third-party contracts they had with other AMP vendors; the ridiculous IOOF revelations; or super fund after super fund in the retail sector gouging members' returns to zero through fees. The member for Dickson's ridiculous ideological attack on industry super funds backfired massively, and just confirmed that the industry super funds deliver great returns for their members, whereas—some retail funds are okay—most retail funds are full of shonks and are just obsessed with ripping off the super funds of people unlucky enough to be members of them. To be truthful, this new conservative saviour of the Liberals, the member for Dickson, didn't want a bar of the royal commission. Odd as it may seem, he was on a unity ticket with the current Prime Minister in trying to stop it. It doesn't matter who leads this rabble that masquerades as a government. The member for Dickson has the same form as the Prime Minister denying justice for victims of the banking and financial services sector. Indeed, voting to give the banks a $17 billion tax cut at the same time as cutting penalty rates. The member for Dickson may not live in a harbour side mansion, but he certainly is as out of touch with the realities of life for everyday Australians as the current Prime Minister. Let there be no mistake, this government was dragged kicking and screaming to establish the royal commission into their mates at the big end of town. The Liberals and Nationals have stated on the record that it is regrettable that a royal commission is occurring. It's only because of the courage of my constituent Michelle, and tens of thousands like her who have suffered, that the royal commission has occurred. I pay tribute to her today, and wish her and her family, and all those brave victims fighting for justice, well. Health Care 37 11:21 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee Often I get to meet with school groups here in the parliament, as do other members of the parliament. It's one of the highlights of our day. It seems to be the grade 6-ers that come, which seems to be about 12 years of age. They always ask me a little bit about how the parliament works—those sorts of things. What I tell them is that they can actually implement change. They can actually make an idea come to a reality. I want to tell a story to the parliament to help expand that. It's about two people in the electorate of Mallee, Alexa Cameron and Blair Gould. Blair is walking around the parliament today. He's in a blue T-shirt. You'll see many of children walking around the parliament today—they're the juvenile diabetes people—children living with type 1 diabetes. Blair came and saw me in Birchip, a great place to visit if you want a vanilla slice at the bakery— An honourable member interjecting— Mr BROAD 30379 Bridgewater is now in the electorate of Mallee, which I've got to say has got the best vanilla slice in Australia. Blair said to me, 'Look at this, Andrew, I've pricked my finger 7,000 times testing for type 1 diabetes. If I could have a continuous glucose monitor—they're a little patch that goes in here that connects via bluetooth to your phone—I would ultimately not have to do that'. It would make management of type 1 diabetes better, particularly for rural based people, because they can be monitored externally. It would also give comfort to children, because they can go to school and mum doesn't have to check on them so much. She can look remotely, and they can go and play with their mates. Anyway, we took that idea to the health minister. We got a no. We then took it to the health minister again. We got a no. The health minister at the time was Sussan Ley, the member for Farrer. But eventually we got a yes and now every child in Australia under 21 years of age gets a continuous glucose monitor if they've got type 1 diabetes—$54 million. This is really what being in government means, and what good government can deliver. I would have liked to have seen some more downward pressure on the manufacturers of these products. I think that, if the Australian government is subsidising these products nationwide, it would also stand to reason that the price of these products would go down, which would help people over 21 years of age. I've got to say to the manufacturers: 'You've got a pretty good deal out of the federal government. You're making a lot of money out of us. I want you to make these products cheaper so they're available for people over the age of 21 years.' There is a point when you develop a technology where you get a benefit from that technology. But, I think there is a bit of profit taking, frankly. When I was advocating for this, I would bring all of these companies in. I would say, 'Tell me about your continuous glucose monitor. Tell me about your product that you have available'. They'd tell me about it and everything. I'd say, 'Can I get one for 12 months and trial it with a family?' They weren't very generous. They didn't want to do that. One thing I want to say is that we are watching you manufacturers of these products. You are doing very well for the children of Australia—we are subsidising you to the tune of $54 million—but I want to see the price come down so it is cheaper for adults, because it is an expense. They're saying to us that we should subsidise adults. Maybe there is merit in that, but I want to see some downward pressure on price. The other thing I want to say is that our medical research fund has some money put aside for the clinical research network for juvenile diabetes. I believe that that funding runs out in June 2019. I would like to see another allocation of funds into that research because, ultimately, whilst we're learning how to manage the disease, I'm very optimistic about the future of the science, where we might be able to do some stuff with stem cells, with some greater medicines, where we can actually get insulin being reproduced again within the body and not have to produce it externally. Can I also say as a bit of a sideline to those who criticise agricultural GM technology, that insulin comes from GM technology. So there are some things where GM technology has a really beneficial outcome for the children of Australia. I think that's sometimes lost in the debate by those who might have a purist view. Well done to the children who are up here and advocating. Well done to the children in my electorate. You can have an idea that can change the health outcomes of Australians and that can change the world. Members of parliament always listen to 12-year-olds, because their ideas are great ideas. Thank you. Petition: Breast Cancer Testing 38 11:26 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I rise today to present the Federation Chamber with a petition that's been presented to me by a member of my community. I'll speak first to it before I ask the chamber for leave to table the petition. Naomi met with me earlier this year to advocate for a particular test to be covered by the Medicare Benefits Schedule. Like so many women that we know of in all of our communities she has had the tough battle with breast cancer. This is a hideous disease that hits at the heart and affects so many families and so many communities across our country. During her breast cancer treatment last year it was unclear whether Naomi, a mother of one, would need chemotherapy. She was advised by her doctor at Bendigo Health to have an oncotype DX test, because it would help clarify whether she actually required chemotherapy, but that the test would cost $4,500 if she wished to proceed. Naomi says that she was fortunate enough to be able to afford this. The test revealed that she didn't need chemotherapy, much to the delight of her family, in particular her young child. Other public patients, Naomi argues, may not be able to afford this test. While she is now in recovery, it prompted her to start a campaign asking the Minister for Health to consider adding this test to the Medicare system. She believes that all women should have access to this test, that all should know if it's recommended by their doctor whether they need to proceed with the invasive process of chemotherapy. Naomi has been proactive. She sat down, had the conversations within her community of Malden and Macedon and collected the signatures of 971 people who say that they support her cause and are calling on the government to include this test under Medicare and provide breast cancer patients with the opportunity for better targeting and a better plan for their treatment. Naomi is one of those people who just want others to have the same access as us. She really does embody that spirit of universal health care, something that we on this side of the House fight so closely for. If we want to have a universal healthcare system, we need to make sure that all patients, regardless of their income and whether they have a credit card, are able to afford or receive the best medical treatment and the best services available. I know in my community, even in my closest circles, how awful breast cancer is and the impact that it has on families. Kate, a good friend of mine, has spoken to me about 'the chemo brain' and the fact that she just feels fuzzy. She is another one who acknowledges that she's in quite a good position, even though she is fighting breast cancer. She has income protection. She works for Bendigo Health. She also is an academic. She was able to take extended sick leave and continue to receive some form of income while she continues her brave fight against breast cancer. Not all women, not all families, are in the same situation. All of them struggle to meet the day-to-day costs, if they don't have those protections in place. In this place, one of the things that we can do is ensure that women in that battle, the battle of their lives, do have access to the best testing and the best treatment available. That is why Naomi has asked me to rise and speak on this issue and to present to the chamber on her behalf a petition calling on all of us and calling on the health minister to consider funding this test so that all women, if it is recommended by their doctors, can have access. We all want to see women get the best treatment that they can, and I encourage everybody to consider this issue and to also speak in favour of it. I again congratulate Naomi and her community for raising this very important issue. I seek leave to table the petition. Leave granted. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 261393 The document will be forwarded to the Petitions Committee for its consideration and will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms with the standing orders. I once again thank the member for Bendigo for her advocacy on this extremely important issue. Banks Electorate 39 11:31 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks On 30 July I attended the Illawarra Retirement Trust Peakhurst Christmas in July luncheon. It was a fantastic lunch event at Mortdale RSL. IRT at Peakhurst is one of the largest retirement villages anywhere in the Banks electorate. It was great to catch up with some old friends and have some Christmas-themed food. There were also some great raffles and a whole range of other activities. The event was organised by the retirement village's social committee. I would like to particularly thank Lyndon Mitchell—a person with a very high energy level—who organises a lot of great activities in our area. He certainly did a great job on this day. I would also like to thank Donna Thompson, the acting lifestyle manager at IRT, for all her efforts. So thank you to everyone at IRT in Peakhurst. On 8 August I visited the Uniting Nulgara Oatley village. I have been there on a number of occasions. It's a local independent living lifestyle village for the over-55s. It was great to catch up with the residents and with Vanita Bobee, the retirement village manager, and talk about a range of issues of concern to the residents—in particular, the need for a pedestrian crossing on Oatley Parade. The fact is that cars do go too fast down Oatley Parade at times, and the provision of a pedestrian crossing outside of the retirement village would assist those residents a great deal. It should be done. So far the council have not agreed to install a crossing—and they should do. I will continue to advocate for that on behalf of the residents. On 26 July I visited East Hills Boys High School—a very well-known and well-respected school in my electorate. It was great to have a look around all of the terrific facilities and to chat with the principal, Karen Savins, and the P&C secretary, Susan Boxall. Traffic and congestion around East Hills Boys is a big issue, as is the provision of adequate bus services for kids. We also discussed a number of potential construction projects at the school. It was a great visit. I appreciated the opportunity to head down to East Hills Boys again, and I certainly look forward to my next visit. On 29 July I attended the Commencement of Ministry for Reverend Stuart Maze at the Anglican Provisional Parish of Peakhurst South—or, as it is known, Church@thepeak. Stuart has been the minister there for about 10 years. Just recently the congregation reached the critical mass to enable it to be formally invested as a church within the Anglican community. Congratulations to Stuart, to his family and to all of the parishioners. It was a very nice service. A lot of people have put a lot of work into Church@thepeak over the last decade and that congregation has grown into a very substantial group indeed. I thank Stuart for his theological and broader leadership. On last Saturday, 18 August, I attended the Elias Abacus Whole Brain Development Academy. These are great people in Penshurst. A lot of residents of Penshurst would not know that in the electorate of Banks there are contestants in the annual world abacus championships. These championships are held all around the world—this year they were in Hong Kong—in abacus, mental arithmetic and more general mathematics. Victor Yu, who is the founder and principal teacher of the school, does a tremendous job, as do the other teachers. It was great to present some awards to the kids, meet some of the parents and talk about this very important ancient discipline of the abacus. In 2020 the world championships will be held in Sydney. Hundreds of people, especially young people, will come from all around the globe to compete. We know that we will be well represented on the Australian team, not least through the people at Elias Abacus Whole Brain Development Academy in Penshurst. Aged Care 39 11:36 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle On a day when we see the government hell-bent on killing itself in full view of the public, I want to talk about an issue that impacts millions of Australians—an issue of real concern to Australians outside of the horrific, diabolical state of the government today. No amount of chaos from this government can hide the shocking state in which aged care now finds itself in Australia. The minister has finally released the long-belated data from the first quarter of this year, the January to March quarter, with regard to the in-home-care packages. Of course, its release was three months overdue. I don't know if the government even made any secret of hiding the fact that it would be waiting until after the by-elections to release this data, knowing full well that the situation in aged care was getting worse. Those by-elections passed and, as we all now know, all of those Labor members were returned to parliament. Indeed, the state of aged care has declined again. There are now 108,000 older Australians waiting for an in-home-care package in order to remain living in their homes with their families and connected to their communities and those local networks that are so important to maintaining good health and wellbeing for older Australians. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 261393 I interrupt the member for Newcastle there. I've just had my attention drawn to the fact that we don't have a quorum in the Federation Chamber at the moment, so the chamber stands suspended until the quorum is restored. Sitti ng suspended from 11:39 to 11:40 Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:40