2018-09-17 45 1 7 House of Reps 0 1

Monday, 17 September 2018

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

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Petitions Committee 1 Report 1 10:01 Mrs 241590 Robertson WICKS ( ) ( ): Today I present the 29th report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament, together with 24 petitions and seven ministerial responses to petitions previously presented. Among the petitions I present today are three paper petitions of varying topics. One of these petitions requests that the House take action in relation to a building that has previously housed a military museum. With over 17,000 signatures, it is clear that paper petitions still have an important role in capturing local sentiment on community based issues. In the bundle today are also three e-petitions with over 1,400, 2,500 and 7,700 signatures respectively. The e-petitions platform has ensured that the traditional process of petitioning remains relevant to all Australians, many of whom conduct a large part of their lives online, so it's encouraging for the committee to witness the continuing popularity of both paper and electronic petitions throughout the 45th Parliament. The committee seeks to further strengthen the public engagement with petitioning as it inquires into the future of petitioning in the House. I look forward to updating the House further on the work of the Petitions Committee. PETITIONS 1 PETITIONS Milne Bay Military Museum 1 Live Animal Exports 1 Refugees 1 Business 2 Telecommunications 2 Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry 2 Economy 2 Parliament 3 China 3 Illicit Drugs 3 Australian Constitution 3 Foreign Affairs 3 Foreign Affairs 4 Cambodia 4 My Health Record 4 United Nations 4 Australian Constitution 4 Illicit Drugs 5 Environment 5 Trade 5 Organ Transplant Donation 5 Zimbabwe 5 Universal Basic Income 6 Health Care 6 PETITIONS 6 PETITIONS Responses 6 10:02 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows: Payment Methods 6 ABC Neutrality 6 Stem Cell Therapies 7 Feral Cats 7 Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome 8 Northern Rivers Rail Trail 8 Gambling 8 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 9 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS R U OK? Conversation Convoy 9 10:02 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I move: That this House notes that: (1) the R U OK? Conversation Convoy began on 30 July 2018 to raise awareness that a conversation could change a life, and the Convoy will: (a) travel across 14,000 kilometres and 25 communities to show Australians that every day is the day to ask: Are you Ok?; and (b) conclude in Sydney on 13 September 2018 which is also R U OK? Day, an important day which was first established in 2009 to raise awareness around suicide prevention and mental ill health; (2) the statistics around suicide and mental ill health are heartbreaking and confronting: (a) in 2016, 2,866 Australians lost their lives to suicide; (b) research reveals that around 65,000 Australians attempt suicide every year and hundreds of thousands of people are impacted by each suicide death; and (c) one in five Australians experience mental ill health in any year; (3) all levels of government and the community are urged to work together to reduce the impact of suicide and mental ill health in our society; and (4) work must continue towards reducing stigma and raising community awareness around suicide prevention and mental ill health. Many people in this place would be familiar with R U OK? Day. This year's R U OK? Day marks 10 years from when Gavin Larkin first came up with the concept of 'R U OK?', and the Conversation Convoy has been happening for the last few years. They take cars around the country and they go to regional and remote parts of the country as well as the cities and invite people to start the conversation: 'Are you okay?' . Of course, it's one thing to start the conversation 'Are you okay?', but it is, of course, very important to listen. The four simple steps that R U OK Day are seeking are that you ask the question, you listen, you then encourage action if the person is not okay and you check in to make a difference to someone who may not be okay or who you think is behaving differently to their usual behaviour. This year's convoy travelled over 14,000 kilometres and visited 25 communities, beginning in Geelong and finishing off in Sydney just last week. It visited some of the more remote communities in Australia, as I have mentioned. Indeed, I've been pleased to see it in my home state, although not this year. It was there this year, but I was unable to attend. The previous year, it came to Hobart. Slowly but surely, initiatives like 'R U OK?' are actually helping to reduce the stigma around mental ill health. They are encouraging people to put up their hand to say, 'I'm not okay,' or, 'I'm struggling, or, 'I need some help.' What's important is that, when we do that, help is available. I know from talking to government members that many people on their side understand that some of this help is not always available and we need to do better, working with our state and local government colleagues and the not-for-profit sector to ensure that we can do that. Labor has a very proud history when it comes to supporting people with mental ill health. We increased the budget very substantially when we were in government, with $200 million over five years for 30 new headspace centres. I know the current government has also made increases to headspace since coming into office. There is absolute bipartisanship when it comes to dealing with mental ill health and access for people with mental ill health, but it's not an easy task. Far too many Australians still lose their lives to suicide—indeed, over 2,800 in 2016. That's almost eight a day. We need to do better. It's almost double the national road toll. That's without the attempts of suicide, the number of which is also extraordinarily high. We can and we should do better, and I know that everybody in this place wants to do better. We continue to be inspired by individuals like Gavin Larkin, who created R U OK?, and the current community people but also the corporate sponsors of R U OK? The campaign relies primarily on corporate donations and philanthropy to run the conversation convoy to have these important conversations. I know there are many businesses and businesspeople around Australia today supporting those community not-for-profit organisations that are making a big difference when it comes to mental ill health. We believe that all levels of government should focus on this. It's the role of not just the federal government but the state and local governments and the for-profit and not-for-profit sector. We have also created recently in this place the Parliamentary Friends of Suicide Prevention. It's now in its second year. Again, there is wonderful bipartisanship, with the member for Berowra, Julian Leeser, and Mike Kelly, the member for Eden-Monaro, on our side, cohosting that parliamentary friends group. It is a really important group that is taking advice and talking to people in the community about what we as members of this place can do further to reduce that terrible suicide number each and every year, because there is so much to be done. Offering bipartisanship, of course, does not mean that we do not from time to time criticise some of the things we think the government does or doesn't do. One of those was in relation to the suicide prevention trial sites. At the time of the last election, Labor had a commitment to 12 trial sites. We called on the government to extend their commitment from eight to 12 trial sites, and we were really pleased that they did. It did take a little while, but I welcomed the Minister for Health extending those trial sites, because this is really important. In mental ill health, the data and the evidence about what works are missing. We need those suicide prevention trial sites and that data to make sure that what we are spending at both the Commonwealth and the state level with governments—hundreds of billions of dollars—is the very best spend to save as many Australians as we possibly can, and we need to continue to do that together. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? Ms Vamvakinou 00AMT I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 10:08 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I would like to thank the member for Franklin for raising this vitally important conversation, which can save lives. I speak today about an issue that faces one in every three Australians—an organisation that travels across 14,000 kilometres reaching 25 communities to reiterate that same all-important question: 'Are you okay?' The 13th of September last week was R U OK? Day—the day we all stop to check in on our friends, family and colleagues to make sure they aren't weighed under by the burden of mental health issues. The R U OK? campaign is one of the primary organisations aiding the mental health issue in Australia. This health issue is serious, has drastic consequences for our communities and poses a great risk to the wellbeing of our people. The statistics are heartbreaking and deeply disturbing, such as the 65,000 attempted suicides in the year 2016 and, sadly, the 2,866 Australians who took their own lives in the last year. This year we took the conversation on the road, with the R U OK? Conversation Convoy, which travelled across Australia, making sure everyone was aware of the conversation we need to have. This year's theme was 'Make every day R U OK? Day', recognising that we need to be checking in on our friends every day of the year, not just on 13 September. We must all spread the message that it is perfectly fine to be struggling with the toils of life and that your family, friends and health services are there to take care of you. Considering that one in five Australians experience some form of mental health every year, it is of the utmost importance that, as a nation, we are there to support those who are not coping—that we are there to help our mates and family over the line and that we are there to talk to our fellow Australians who may not be doing so well. It is for these reasons that I support R U OK? and remind all of us that it's our duty to decrease the stigma around mental health and raise community awareness around preventing suicide. This can be as simple as pulling your friend aside and asking that easy and important question. I call on the rest of government at all levels to put their best foot forward and prevent the tragedy of suicide. Tell all the people we know that we are there for them through the best and the worst. Suicide affects Australians every day of the year. In the last fortnight, members of my office have been touched by the loss of a great friend and great talent, Luke Liang. Luke was one of the up-and-coming stars of the music industry, a session musician who played on stages around the world with the likes of Alex the Astronaut, Jarryd James, Montaigne and many more. But more important than his great talent was his great humility and kindness. I'm told he was one of the most genuine, decent people anyone could ever hope to meet. But what matters for this debate today is that Luke seemed fine. He was always smiling and seemed carefree. The world was at his feet and he was capable of anything. We can never forget that mental health issues don't necessarily look like mental health issues, and that is why we must ask: 'Are you okay?' The R U OK? organisation is leading the charge to reduce stigma and invite the mentally unwell to ask for support through those closest to them, and they deserve our highest respect. I thank the organisation dearly for the lives they have saved and the awareness they have spread. I hope that one day we will no longer need this day to remind us to check in on our friends; it will simply be a part of our conversation. 10:12 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell Last Thursday, 13 September, was R U OK? Day. Now in its 10th year, R U OK? Day aims to nurture social responsibility and belonging by encouraging people to meaningfully connect with others by simply asking: 'Are you okay?' The four simple steps—ask, listen, encourage action and check in—can make a difference to someone who may be struggling. It's such a simple message—a simple gesture that costs us nothing, yet, when we ask someone if they are okay, the difference it can make to a person who's feeling overwhelmed can be life changing. Well done, therefore, to the R U OK? Conversation Convoy that began its journey of raising awareness on 30 July, traversing 14,000 kilometres and 25 communities before reaching Sydney on 13 September. In my electorate, I am proud to have so many people and organisations who make it their business to promote R U OK? Day by holding a number of events on the day, thus ensuring that, as a community, we are working together to promote mental health and wellbeing and to reduce the stigma of suicide and mental health. This year, throughout all of last week, Northern Health, a health service provider with many locations in my electorate, including Broadmeadows Hospital and Craigieburn pharmacy, held a week of conversations on mental wellness as part of their psychological wellbeing strategy. Northern Health does a great job of recognising and representing the objectives of R U OK? Day. It has adopted a psychological wellbeing strategy as an initiative to protect the mental health of its staff, promote wellbeing and intervene to address mental health concerns. Its many events, including talks from guest speakers, fundraising events, yoga sessions and pastoral care sessions, held all across the Northern Health centres, involved a guest speaker last Monday who discussed the impact of suicide on families and communities, talking from personal experience and looking at how discussion can lead to empowerment of others. Guest speakers from beyondblue and Treat health care were also on hand to begin conversations about mental health among families, friends and work colleagues. The local TAFE, Kangan Institute, holds R U OK? Day events every year for staff and students on their campuses. I want to give a big shout-out this morning to my young constituent Puneet Gulati, who is the founder and managing director of One World Family Inc. Puneet has a distinguished list of commendations, ranging from Hume Young Citizen of the Year 2015, White Ribbon Ambassador, Bully Zero Australia Foundation Ambassador, AFL Multicultural Community Ambassador 2015-16 and regional adviser for North West Metropolitan Melbourne on the Victorian Multicultural Commission. These are all well-deserved recognition of the tremendous level of volunteer work he does in promoting the need to be aware and to support people in our community who live in adversity. Puneet came to Australia from his native India in 2007 and initially lived alone, like thousands of other migrants, as he would say. But one thing he learnt in that time is: 'Living alone and feeling alone are two different scenarios.' Adapting to life in a new country was challenging, but a serious car accident which left him very badly injured compounded the depression he had already been suffering from. It was the support of his family and friends that helped him turn his life around. He has wanted to give back to community by reciprocating the support he has received. Puneet said: I wanted to do something that empowers people, the world has plenty of discouragers but we need more Encouragers for a peaceful and meaningful life. Puneet Gulati epitomises what R U OK? is all about, and he profoundly believes, 'Our little gestures can change, really change, the way someone is feeling'. I had the pleasure of seeing a video clip Puneet recently produced. Its message is simple: We should never give up on our friends. It's okay to fail at times. We can be a survivor throughout it if we choose to live life on the positive side. Puneet, who is now studying acting at the Victorian College of the Arts, University of Melbourne, uses his many artistic talents to help convey important messages and, as he says, to: … name and shame bullying and harassment, educate each other by talking about mental health ... we may sometimes feel that we can never do enough but what matters is that we don't stop. It's very important that we take comfort from people like Puneet Gulati and others, who give their time to help other people, to ask if people are okay and then to follow through and make sure they actually are okay. 10:17 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan 'G'day mate, how are you going?' needs to be more than just a greeting. We need to stop, listen to the response and check on our friends. It saddens me deeply to rise to speak on this motion on a subject that has touched far too many in our great Australian family. Suicide is a terrible tragedy not just for those who are the victims but also for those who are left behind. While I cannot begin to appreciate the desperation, abandonment or isolation a person must feel prior to ending their life, I do feel so very distressed by the fact this can occur, and continues to occur, in today's communities. It troubles me greatly that, in a country as full of opportunity as ours, some people feel so isolated that they believe suicide is the only available path to peace. In more recent years, we've even heard of self-harm and suicidal ideations from children and teenagers. For me—and I'm sure everyone here agrees—this offers a grim reality of what some younger Australians accept as their fate. Every year, more than 65,000 Australians attempt suicide. More than 2,500 Australians die by suicide, and more young Australians die by suicide than through road deaths. This is simply not good enough. Not one person in this place could say that they have not had experience with mental illness or suicide, no matter how close or far from them. The Ryan electorate is home to Gallipoli Barracks and has a large veteran population. Unfortunately, suicide is far too prevalent within our returned services community. While the rate of suicide in the ADF is no greater than the rate in the general populace, it troubles me that people with easy access to quality care and counselling still choose to end their lives rather than to seek help. There are, however, support groups in the Defence community similar to R U OK? which also help to ease the burdens many are living through. For example, Wounded Heroes, an organisation of which I'm proud to be a patron, funds support services for deployed personnel, the wounded and their families. Services like this could potentially be the difference between current personnel or veterans choosing to live a full contributing life or leave their loved ones behind. We must do more to end the stigma surrounding not only suicide but, more importantly, seeking help for what are in most cases treatable illnesses. Volunteer groups like Meals on Wheels are more than just a meal. In keeping with the true spirit and premise of R U OK?, Meals on Wheels is an effective welfare check on individuals who may not otherwise have much contact with others. The Red Cross Telecross service provides a daily telephone call to check on people's wellbeing. This provides peace of mind if they are at risk of an accident or illness that may go unnoticed. One of the most recognisable services is Lifeline's Crisis Support and Suicide Prevention service. If someone is listening to me speak at the moment and needs support, please contact 131114. On the subject of today's motion, R U OK?, there is nothing shameful about asking for help. A plea for help might be what saves a life and could be the difference between a family losing a parent or sibling and seeing that the individual receives the necessary assistance to treat them through their mental torment. Suicide and mental illness are concerns that have an impact upon all Australians. As a country we must take it upon ourselves to address the leading cause of death among men aged under 44 and women aged under 34. As a nation we have a suicide problem. Talking about it here and acknowledging the issue is a good start, but we must do more. I acknowledge and offer my heartfelt gratitude to organisations like R U OK? which inspire and empower people to connect with others around them and support those struggling through life's ups and downs. R U OK? is up-front in its acknowledgement that suicide prevention is not a simple, prescribed process. In fact the very question 'Are you okay?' could well be the connection a person craves long before they consider suicide. We may sit on opposite sides of the House, but mental illness and suicide do not have political boundaries. I commend the mover of the motion to the House and I thank the member for Franklin for drawing attention to the issue of suicide prevention and raising awareness of the work of R U OK? 'G'day mate; how are you going?' could save future lives. 10:22 Mr HART 263070 Bass I chose to speak on this motion on Wednesday last week. Over a five-year period from 2012 to 2016 the average number of suicide deaths per year was 2,795. 2016 preliminary data showed a total of 2,866 deaths by suicide. That is approximately seven per day, and 178 people attempt per day. Since last Wednesday 890 people have thought they had no other choice available to them but to attempt suicide and 35 have lost their lives and are lost to us, their families and their communities—people who deserve to be more than a statistic. The ripples through our community run from each completed suicide. Many ask the question 'Why?' In addition to that we often feel a certain sense of helplessness and of what might have been. 'What if' scenarios abound. Sometimes the sense of loss and of responsibility in turn create their own problems as the ripples of loss create further effects disturbing lives in unforeseen ways. I remember now how that felt to me15 years ago. A young, vibrant and hardworking employee went home to an empty house. For whatever the final reason she could not bear her life and elected to take steps which resulted in her death. I know it's hard for her family to accept she may have intended suicide. I made successive calls to her workmates that awful day, the emotion of each call like a stab through the heart—shock, disbelief and regret. Some staff members were in turn deeply affected, showing in very real terms what the ripples of disturbance from suicide mean in practice. Counselling and support services help but don't replace the loss or salve the pain, even when that pain is a shared experience. In preparing this speech the memories came flooding back, at times so vivid that I cannot contemplate what it's like for a person to lose their daughter, a partner or a loved one. On Friday I received a message which again emphasised the immediacy and currency of this issue, another friend, a colleague, a highly respected leader and mentor to many, was lost. The media reported, 'died suddenly', that awful code. Again, there was shock, disbelief and even anger, with colleagues again lamenting a departed, respected friend. R U OK? is intended to empower us to ask that difficult question, but the alternative to asking that difficult question is, indeed, much worse: the inevitable disbelief and the 'why' when someone attempts and completes the act of suicide. Better to ask the difficult question, to ask whether a friend or a colleague is okay, than to regret not asking the question. Better to activate your better instincts and judgement as to a person's outward appearance. If things appear not quite right, ask the question, 'Are you okay?' The question may prompt a response which in turn demands further action, but if R U OK? is to be effective to save lives and prompt a friend or colleague to say no then each of us bear the responsibility to act. What does acting in response to your question look like? Suggestions published in connection with R U OK? Day include: ask what is going on in their lives, listen actively and ask, 'How can I help or is there something I can do for you right now?' Sometimes it's about keeping them company, providing practical support or linking them with health professionals. Direct questions, in particular about self-harm, can be asked. It's okay to ask whether somebody has considered killing themselves. In asking those questions it is better to be nonjudgemental rather than clothing questions around, 'Don't do anything silly.' Finally, consider doing a course on mental health first aid. Like with traditional first-aid techniques, the training teaches people how to offer additional support until appropriate professional help is received or until a crisis is resolved. It's possible to be the person who is able to act coolly in a crisis. It is possible for that person to ask the question, 'Are you okay?' 10:27 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Around eight Australians take their own lives each and every single day. For every one that does take their own life around 30 people attempt it. That's about 240 Australians every day. Those figures are really mind blowing when you think about it. In 2016 there were 2,866 recorded deaths by suicide. Suicide was the 15th leading cause of death in 2016. The impact of poor mental health goes much, much broader for our communities. Nearly half of all Australians will experience mental illness in their lifetime and at least one in five experience some form of mental illness in any given year. R U OK? Day is a national day of action dedicated to inspiring all people to ask each other, 'Are you okay?', and to encourage conversations with those around us who are struggling and need support. R U OK? Day is about saying to everybody: 'It's fine to say that you need some help. It's fine to talk about the challenges that you might be experiencing.' A conversation with someone who is struggling can sometimes be all that is needed to make a difference. R U OK? Day encourages a four-step conversation—ask, listen, encourage action and check in. R U OK? Day has been and continues to be a phenomenal success. Seventy-eight per cent of Australians are now aware of the R U OK? message, with 63 per cent believing that the campaign has made people more willing to ask friends about what's troubling them. In a project that's close to my own heart, R U OK? Day has worked closely with MATES in Construction to raise awareness for mental health within the construction, mining and energy industries. More than 35,000 workers on 736 worksites took part in their Fly the Flag Day campaign to raise awareness of the 190 construction workers who die by suicide every year. We lose six times more workers to suicide than workplace accidents, and MATES in Construction are doing a fantastic job of trying to turn that statistic around. The government's total expenditure for mental health is estimated at $4.3 billion in 2017-18, which is the highest on record. The Australian government has provided funding specifically for R U OK? Day since its inception in 2009. This September, the Minister for Health announced additional funding for R U OK? Day, and it will receive up to $749,000 on top of the $937,000 it's currently receiving. More broadly, the government funds the National Suicide Prevention Leadership and Support Program, which is providing $43.9 million from April 2017 to June 2019. Suicide prevention is one of the three projects funded by the federal government in my own electorate of Fisher, with $5 million provided to the Thompson Institute. We're also providing $48 million for the National Suicide Prevention Trial, which is running in 12 priority sites across Australia. This will improve our understanding of what strategies are most effective in preventing suicide at a local level and for at-risk populations. Suicide is, unfortunately, something that touches many, many families and many workplaces. I have, unfortunately, personal experience of this at a personal level and at a work level. If anybody is listening that is struggling right now, I really encourage you to put your hand up and ask for help, and hopefully you'll have someone that is trying to touch base with you. We blokes tend to be the worst at this: 'She'll be right. We'll get through it'. Put your hand up and say that you're struggling, and hopefully someone will be there to help you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned. Resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Economy 14 10:33 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I move: That this House: (1) notes that over the year, the economy grew 3 per cent, which is the fastest rate of growth since the 2012 September quarter during the height of the mining investment boom, and the 27th year of consecutive economic growth; (2) recognises that strong employment outcomes have been accompanied by an elevated rate of labour force participation, particularly for women, and that wages can be expected to rise if economic growth remains strong; and (3) calls on the Government to remain resolute in its effective economic management to ensure funding for the essential services we need. I'm pleased to stand in the chamber today and speak about the positive outcomes being achieved across the economy as a result of this government's economic policies. Importantly, we are getting on with the job of governing the nation. Our government are proving that we do what we say we'll do. We're not just talking about creating economic policies to see jobs created; we've seen over one million jobs created in our economy since coming into office. We're not just talking about bringing the budget back into balance; we're working towards making that happen, and earlier than anticipated. We're not just talking about strengthening our economy; we are seeing evidence of our economy grow and strengthen. I'm pleased to report to the House that the real gross domestic product for the June quarter has grown above market expectations, at 3.4 per cent through the year. Not only this, but we've seen the nation now in its unprecedented 27th year of consecutive economic growth, and the highest rate of growth since 2012, when we saw the once-in-a-generation mining boom. This is a stronger rate of growth than any other G7 country. The growth has been shared across the country among the states and the territories, and has had a broad base, meaning there is no particular sector doing the heavy lifting, as was the case during the mining boom. As we've seen, the strong employment outcomes are a result of the strong economy that we are seeing delivered. Jobs growth has been accompanied by elevated rates of labour force participation—importantly, particularly for women, where it has been near record highs. More than 330,000 jobs were created in our economy last financial year, which was the biggest jobs growth since 2004-05. This is more than double the average that was achieved under the previous Labor government. Equally importantly for my electorate of Forde, we see across the country that 95,000 young Australians have found employment. This is the best financial year result since 1988-89, almost 30 years ago. The unemployment rate has declined, also reaching 5.3 per cent in July, the lowest level since November 2012. But there are some spots that we need to be aware of. And whilst we've seen this job growth and the strengthening of our economy, we continue to focus, importantly, on reducing personal income tax to ensure that we have a lower and fairer income tax system. This is important because it puts more money in peoples' pockets. We recognise that families around Australia, in many electorates and including mine of Forde, are feeling the pinch. We have seen that in the national accounts figures, when, despite the fact that we saw over the past 12 months that the broader economic measure of wellbeing rose some 0.3 per cent for the quarter, to 3.7 per cent over the 12 months—which means that Australians are significantly better off, on average, than they were 12 months ago—we've at the same time seen that the household savings ratio has fallen to one per cent. This is a reflection of the fact that families are doing it tough. That's why it's important—whether it's our personal income tax plan, which leaves more money in peoples' pockets and provides greater incentive for them to work or take a pay rise or do more hours—that they feel that their budgets will have some more flexibility in them so that they're not feeling so tight. Equally, my electorate of Forde has seen many small businesses benefit from our small to medium business tax cuts—some 15,000. In combination, these issues that we're focusing on as a government—reducing taxes, both for personal households and also for our small to medium business sector—go to underpinning a strong economy for the future of this country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the motion seconded? Mr Andrews HK5 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 10:38 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Australians won't be lining up to congratulate the Prime Minister or the Treasurer on the economy in the same way that the member for Forde seems to be doing today. When I'm out and about in my community, the message I hear from people about our economy is very clear. For most people their experience of the economy is defined by stagnant wages, insecure work, declining living standards and, most importantly of all, struggles with the cost of living. All of those things are related, as people feel that everything is going up except their wages. People feel, with some justification, that the rules of the economy are written to benefit somebody else at their expense. The member for Forde and I share a pretty big border in Logan City in our part of the world. So, I can only assume that he has been hearing the same sorts of things that I have been—and that he has been completely ignoring them. Obviously on our side of the House we welcome that relatively strong headline economic growth figure of 3.4 per cent that came out a couple of Wednesdays ago. Given the really quite healthy global conditions that we're experiencing at the moment, we expect there to be a strong headline growth number in this country. Of course, we in the Labor Party are proud that Australia is in its 27th year of continuous economic expansion. We're especially proud of the role that we played during the global financial crisis in ensuring that that remarkable run continued. Mr Tim Wilson IMW Shame! Shame! Dr CH 37998 Those opposite say, 'Shame!' and that really just says it all. Those opposite are talking about debt now, having doubled the debt. Those opposite have doubled the debt. They should hang their heads in shame. There are plenty of other data in the national accounts which show that there is other cause for concern in the data. Company profits are growing more than five times as fast as wages in that most recent data. Incomes aren't keeping up with the cost of living, household savings are at a decade low as people dip into their savings to pay their bills and to keep their heads above water, and living standards are falling. Real net national disposable income per capita, which is a proxy for living standards, has barely grown under the Liberals and actually went backwards in the most recent quarter. That's before we get to the flat investment figures and other areas that should trouble us. Despite all of these worrying trends, those opposite actually expect a pat on the back for an economy which isn't delivering for middle Australia. It isn't delivering for people who work and struggle in my electorate of Rankin or the member for Forde's electorate—indeed, right around the country. The reality is that the economy is growing despite the settings of the government and not because of them. We've had three prime ministers and three treasurers in the last five years but still the same old failure of those opposite to understand or care about the concerns that I've raised in my contribution today. If they actually cared about growing the economy in an inclusive way, they wouldn't be giving the biggest tax breaks to those who need them least. They wouldn't be ripping $17 billion out of our schools or neglecting skills and training. They wouldn't be destroying the NBN. These are all things which hamper growth in this country rather than contribute to it. Unlike those opposite, we on this side of the House understand that the economic growth needs to be inclusive and it needs to be bottom up. It needs to come from investing in people's capacity and their productivity. It needs to come from targeting tax cuts to those most likely to spend them in the economy. That's why we've got bigger, fairer tax cuts for middle Australia. It needs to prioritise tax breaks for companies which will actually invest onshore and in Australian jobs. Twelve thousand businesses in Forde and 12,500 in Rankin would benefit from our Australian Investment Guarantee. The economic mismanagement of those opposite extends to the budget as well. It's a matter of some shame to them that net debt has actually doubled in the five years of Liberal government in this country. Gross debt crashed through half a trillion dollars for the first time in the nation's history. On Friday, we had a new record of $535 billion under the Liberals. Government members interjecting— Dr CHALMERS 37998 They can chirp all they want; this is their record. Both kinds of debt are growing faster under the Liberal Party than they did under Labor, and we had a GFC to contend with. People are sick of this divided, dysfunctional and unstable government led by an illegitimate PM whom they didn't vote for and who doesn't represent or even understand their interests or concerns. 10:43 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I remember the recession of the 1990s. I remember the cost, economic and human, that was incurred as a consequence of a downturn, when you walked down the main streets of places like Mornington or Hampton Street in Hampton, with boarded-up shops because there were no customers or anybody who could afford the rents. The reason we believe so strongly in a policy of maximising economic opportunity, economic management and economic prosperity is not that we understand the economic impact, though we do; it is that we understand the human impact of economic decline. We understand that it isn't just boarded-up shops because there are no customers; it's businesses no longer being able to create jobs to support families and workers. What's the impact? People do lose their jobs. There's family strain as people are no longer able to support themselves and their broader family. You get breakdown. You get families that can no longer afford to live where they own their own homes and have to sell. Ultimately that is the cost. I say this particularly for Australians under the age of 45, who have had the privilege of never having to live as an adult during a recession. I remember the last recession, the human impact and, more critically, the human cost that came with it. It isn't just about not having a bit of surplus cash in the family household budget; families had to take kids out of schools and relocate because they could no longer live where they chose to in past. That's why we think economic management and leadership matters so much. It isn't because we understand the economic impact; it is because we understand the human benefit. Economic growth has for time immemorial been the most powerful instrument to improve the quality of life of the people it is there to serve. Growth has historically been driven by free markets and private enterprise, by individuals coming together to form businesses and commercial opportunities to benefit themselves and the community around them. Those kinds of opportunities have led to an unprecedented increase in living standards in most parts of the world today. Today it gives young Australians the opportunity to grow up in a society where they see optimism rather than pessimism at their core, but we can never take it for granted. The National Accounts June quarter 2018 highlight the strength and resilience of the Australian economy, but it does not happen by accident: 27 years of sustained consecutive economic growth is not experienced by most countries on earth. We need to find ways to ensure our economy can continue to grow. That is what this government is doing. If you are part of the enormous middle-income-earning group of Australians, you will not pay more than 32 cents in the dollar under this government's economic plan to reduce tax burdens. We're ensuring not only that those who don't earn a high income are not carrying too much of the burden but also that those Australians who have done well carry part of the cost of society. What's the benefit? The reform package of this government has seen 140,000 Australians move from consuming the benefits of the tax system to standing on their own two feet, enjoying the pride and dignity that comes with work and supporting themselves and the people they love and care about so that they can live their own Australian dream; 1.1 million new people working in the private sector; and, most critically, 100,000 new jobs for young Australians who have come from school and gone into apprenticeships or tertiary education at TAFE or university level and then to the professional services or industries that will to build this nation's future economy for the generation after them. That's the choice we as a country made at the last election: to back a government that was going to deliver policies of sustained economic growth for Australians, and our new Prime Minister has made it clear that that is whom we are governing for—Australians. 10:48 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Before they called it trickledown economics there was a term known as horse-and-sparrow economics. The idea of horse-and-sparrow economics was that, if you want the sparrows to eat better, you just have to feed the horses enough and eventually there'll be enough left on the road for the sparrows. That is fundamentally the way in which the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government thinks about economic policy. Right now Australia needs a pay rise. Real wages have been essentially flat since 2012. Households are struggling to pay the bills. Real net national disposable income per capita, probably our best proxy for living standards in the National Accounts, has barely grown under the Liberals. Last quarter it went backwards. There's a reason that this motion focuses on the headline GDP number. That is in large part because it's not adjusted for what households get and not adjusted for population growth. The government crow about the record number of Australians in work. They ought to be honest that the real driver of that is the record number of Australians. Australia has a strong migration program. We've increased the population markedly over recent decades. That's one of the reasons why the aggregate pie has increased. But average compensation for employees grew only 1.6 per cent for the year, meaning incomes aren't keeping up with the cost of living. We've got company profits growing more than five times as fast as wages in Australia. There's a group of Australians who are enjoying decent pay rises, a group of Australians who saw almost a 10 per cent increase in real incomes in 2017. They are ASX 100 CEOs, who are doing extraordinarily well. If you look at the top 200 wealthiest Australians, their total wealth was up 21 per cent last year. But many Australians are not seeing the benefits of economic growth, and that would continue under the government's own projections. The Parliamentary Budget Office's review of medium-term budget projections points out: Our distributional analysis highlights that the largest increases in average tax rates occur in the low- to middle-income groups. Analysis by the Australia Institute found that high-income earners would get 95 per cent of the benefits from stage 3 of the government's income tax plan which disproportionately benefits millionaires and disproportionately benefits men. The argument that some of those on the other side often run is, 'We have to give outlandish tax cuts to millionaires; otherwise, they'll leave and go elsewhere.' But when the AfrAsia Bank Global Wealth Migration Review looked at the migration of millionaires in the world it found that 10,000 millionaires moved to Australia last year and almost none left. They pointed out that it was the highest net migration of millionaires to any country last year in absolute terms. But if you look at a country like Singapore, with its famous 15 per cent tax rate, it only attracted 1,000 millionaires, one-tenth the number Australia did. The economic benefit to Australian employment would come from more generous tax cuts to 10 million Australians, and that's Labor's tax plan. Labor are committed to getting wage growth going again. We believe in supporting penalty rates. We believe that unemployment can be lower than it is today. In the event that Australia had the unemployment rate of the United States or Germany, hundreds of thousands more Australians would be in work. We need to make sure the economy is operating in as competitive a manner as possible. The banking royal commission has uncovered some egregious conduct, yet the now Prime Minister voted against it 26 times. He's presided over the worst wages growth in a generation and a debt blowout. Gross debt now sits at $535 billion, almost double the $280 billion it was when the Liberals came to office. Net debt has almost doubled since the Liberals came to office, and both kinds of debt are growing faster now than they did in the global financial crisis. The previous speaker spoke about the damage done by the early 1990s recession. I share his concern. But why didn't Australia lose 200,000 jobs and 10,000 small businesses in the global financial crisis? It was because of the timely, targeted and temporary fiscal stimulus that Labor put in place. Under the Liberals, we have the economic numbers that matter going backwards. Inequality is too high and wage growth is too low. We need to make sure that we get away from 'horse and sparrow' and trickle-down economics. 10:53 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I'm pleased that the member for Forde has drawn our attention to the strong rate of growth that the Australian economy's experiencing because it could very easily go unnoticed by many Australians, including in my electorate of Dobell on the New South Wales Central Coast. It could easily pass you by if you were one of the 108,000 older Australians waiting, in some cases for over a year, for a home care package to allow you to stay safely and with dignity in your own home. It could easily pass you by if you're one of the 750,000 Australians struggling to get by on the Newstart allowance. It could easily pass you by if you're one of the thousands of school leavers who will miss out on a place at uni or TAFE next year because of this government's cuts to higher education funding. It could easily pass you by if you were one of the millions of low-income Australians deciding whether to put food on the table, visit a doctor, fill a prescription or turn on a heater this past winter. It could easily pass you by if you were one of the many young people on the Central Coast and the regional areas across Australia who are looking for work. If could easily pass you by if you were one of the many millions of Australian workers who have lost their weekend penalty rates or whose wages are not rising in line with the cost of living. So, if the GDP is up but wages are flat, where is the money going? The answer is that company profits are growing more than five times as fast as wages. The member for Forde does suggest that if Australian workers are patient and wait just that little bit longer then wages might start to increase. Just a few weeks ago they were telling us that if we gave big businesses a tax cut they might—just might—pass on some of that as a wage increase to employees—not that there was a lot of evidence to support this idea. How much longer do Australian workers have to wait until the government abandons this discredited trickle-down economic theory and shows leadership on wages in Australia today? The member for Forde also suggests that this growth means that the government will be in a position to fund essential services. If things are so good in the Australian economy, why aren't these essential services being properly funded right now? Is it because the government is still clinging on to the billions of dollars that they had earmarked in order to give tax cuts to the top end of town and they still can't quite bring themselves to abandon this idea and instead do the right thing and use some of that money to deliver essential services that Australia needs, particularly in rural and regional Australia? Economic growth isn't, as some of those opposite seem to suggest, something that governments just conjure up and gift to the rest of us—the working people, the ordinary Australians. If anything, the economy is growing in spite of this government rather than because of anything it does. Our economy would be even stronger if we didn't have a divided government who are focused on themselves, giving the biggest tax breaks to those who need them least, ripping money out of education and health and destroying the NBN—which could have transformed regional Australia. Economic growth doesn't come from governments; it comes from ordinary Australians, everyday Australians, all doing their bit, putting up with the long commute to and from work. One in four people in my community on the Central Coast commute outside our region for work each day. Typically that means being at a train station by a quarter past five and a commute of up to two hours into the city or to Parramatta or Hornsby just to do their job. Then they come back at the end of their working day. Some people in my electorate are spending up to three or four hours a day commuting for work, supporting our economy, supporting their families. They deserve to see the benefits of this economic growth. Economic growth is something that all Australians have contributed to and that all Australians deserve to share in the benefits of—those Australians who have kept going in the hard times through drought, those Australians who are juggling paid work and caring commitments, particularly those who are of a working age, and those Australians in my community who are starting small businesses or studying long hours to build and improve their skills to contribute to the Australian economy. Australians have worked hard to deliver this economic growth. They deserve to share in the benefits of this economic growth. This economic growth should deliver to them and their community, and they deserve to have it delivered right now. A Labor government will focus on growing the economy for everyone, boosting wages, dealing with cost-of-living pressures and delivering for all Australians. I'll finish quickly, since the minister is in the House, by telling you about Tom Woods of Wadalba. Tom recently had a stroke and is waiting on a home-care package. The support he has right now is inadequate. Tom and his wife, Coral, are struggling. They had a small business, they worked hard and they deserve the care right now so that Tom can have an improved quality of life. 10:58 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I always love a great debate on economic management, especially against the Labor Party, because it is just like falling through the looking glass into a parallel universe. They stand up here and they say 'We need economic growth. And do you know why we need economic growth? So we can take more money from people who've created that growth. That's what we need.' They're all about division. They're all about taking, they're all about destroying, with not one single word about creating. It may strike the member for Dobell as extraordinary, but there are people in my electorate who have to travel three or four hours a day to get to work, too. There are people right across Australia who make sacrifices to get to work. And what do we give them for all the effort that they put into that? We tax them. We tax them so that they can fund social welfare programs that, according to the member for Fenner, have failed. I'm here to tell the member for Fenner that they haven't failed. Inequality is going down under this government. Inequality is at a record low in Australia because of the policies of this government. This government is about growing the cake, not spending all its time trying to divide and shrink the cake or telling one group of Australians that they should dislike the other group of Australians, because there's more that they can take from them. This government is about building. The party I belong to is all about hope; the party on that side is all about nope. That's what we get. They should be coming into this chamber and thanking us. Since this government was elected 1,100 jobs have been created per day, but do they care about that? No. All they're worried about is, 'Why can't we get more tax from those people who have jobs, so we can give more away?' They're not worried about people; the only times they're worried about people is when they're not getting enough taxes out of them, when they need their votes or when they force them to join a union. The Labor Party is the party of division. It cannot cope with the success story of Australia. It never has and never will. The truth of the matter is that this government knows that governments don't grow economies, create wealth or, by and large, make things better. Governments need to get out of the way, because Australians make our economy and our country great—not union officials or social welfare programs; people. The ordinary Australians— Ms McBride interjecting— Mr FALINSKI G86 decried by the member for Dobell, who get up at 5 am, go to work, work hard, and then go home and look after their kids, are the people the Liberal Party has always supported and always will support, often in the face of the Labor Party's trenchant opposition. Just today we heard they're going to play games over the TPP. Why? Because they can. Is there one skerrick of policy rationale for what they're doing? Absolutely not; they have no idea what they're talking about. Free trade has created more wealth than any other single policy in the history of humanity. For 50 years we followed their recipe of government funded foreign and development aid to try to shift global poverty. You want to know what happened? We spent a lot of money on bureaucrats achieving absolutely nothing. In three decades of free trade 2.1 billion people have been lifted out of global poverty—the sort of poverty where you have to decide whether you want a meal for yourself or one for your kids. That's the type of policy the Labor Party is opposed to. Why? So they can play politics. Why else? So they can lie to people, tell them that their jobs will be worse off, and run industrial campaigns claiming things are going to get worse when we all know that things are going to get better. How do we know that? Because Australia at the moment has a faster growth rate—you may be interested in growth; that's the thing that creates jobs and wealth for you blokes to tax so you can transfer it to someone else. Then you can carry on and say how inequality is getting worse when in fact inequality is at a 75-year low. The Labor Party should get on board with this government's economic management, because we're making things happen and you're destroying people's lives. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E I thank the member for Mackellar and give him his last warning that comments go through the chair. Mr Falinski G86 Sorry, Mr Chair. The DEPUT Y SPEAKER: I gave you a bit of a run, but you kept it up. 11:04 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman What a farce this motion is! The government is struggling to even get their own members in the House to debate it. The member for Forde seems to be suggesting that the economy is in good shape and there has never been a better time to be a worker in Australia. That couldn't be further from the truth. Working Australians know their part of the economy has gone into reverse gear: 30 years of experimenting with trickledown economics has failed to secure fair jobs, a living wage and fair pay rises for working people. It has failed to prepare a secure future for us, by failing to deal with the climate emergency and a just transition for workers in affected industries. It has failed our public services and the wellbeing of our communities. The latest GDP figures show the continued poor return that workers are getting from the economy. While company profits are soaring, real living standards and incomes continue to fall. Company profits are growing more than five times faster than wages. Living standards are not growing under the Liberals and have actually stayed at the same level since 2011. The majority of Australian workers are seeing real wages decline. For the whole economy, real wages have stagnated. Real household disposable income is at the same level it was seven years ago. Workers have not been receiving their fair share of productivity improvements for a long time, while profits have soared. Headline figures about unemployment levels provide a misleading guide when trying to judge the strength of the labour market. In recent years, the much of the job growth has been casual or part time. Those are jobs with no security and no benefits. Making ends meet has an uphill struggle for workers for some time. As housing costs and other expenses continue to rise, most working families now feel they are being asked to climb a mountain just to survive. Australia has forfeited its reputation for a fair go as income inequality has increased. No, member for Forde, most women are not 'enjoying employment outcomes'. Women get paid less. Women are increasingly locked out of a secure retirement. Women make up the majority of workers who are reliant on the minimum wage. Women are more vulnerable to exploitative, casualised and increase forms of work due to deep-rooted social norms that women face. Women have more disruptions over their working lives by taking on the majority of responsibility by caring for children, family members or ageing parents. The members opposite suggest that there are no grounds for panic over pay. They argue for patience and say that over time economic growth will produce a tighter labour market and an automatic rebound in wage growth. This advice is not convincing. I'm sorry, but it is very small comfort for those who are struggling right now. Any given rate of unemployment is now associated with a weaker pace of wage growth by virtue of the erosion of structural and institutional supports for wages. We need a comprehensive package of reforms to boost the power of workers. It is clear we need stronger labour market institutions and an alternative to the low-paid bargaining stream, which isn't working, if Australia is to return to normal levels of wage growth. The key point is this: a tighter labour market is a necessary but not sufficient condition to boost wages growth. We need to have a proactive approach to getting wage growth on track again. A laissez-faire, sit-back-and-see approach simply won't hack it. Australia is facing an unprecedented wage crisis as average wage increases for the private sector, which account for 85 per cent of the Australian workforce, rose just 1.9 per cent and living standards remain at the same level they were in 2011. The asymmetry in power between the employer and worker in Australia has reached such a level that faster economic growth and a return to full employment will be insufficient to spontaneously boost real wages. A minor tinkering with our labour laws and waging fixing machinery would also be an inadequate response to the wage cuts. We need a comprehensive package of reforms to boost the power of workers. We need to strengthen our labour market institutions and find an alternative to the low-paid bargaining stream. We need to institute a living wage, not a minimum wage. We need to raise public sector pay and regulate growing levels of insecure work. We should encourage union membership and help our unions to do their job in keeping wages commensurate with productivity, like they do in Europe and other high-wage countries. Only then will we see wage growth return to normal levels. 11:08 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby I'm delighted to speak on this motion today, which recognises the strength of the Australian economy. A strong economy benefits every single person in my community, in my electorate of Boothby, in my home state of South Australia and in the nation. On this side of the House, we know that when the economy is strong we can afford to invest more money in services for our communities like health care, education and infrastructure. On this side of the House, we know that when the economy is strong more jobs are created. In fact, more than 330,000 jobs were created in the last financial year, which is the largest jobs growth in a financial year since 2004-05. This is more than double the jobs achieved, on average, under the previous federal Labor government. This is particularly important in my home state of South Australia, where, after years of federal and state Labor governments, we saw high unemployment and poor business and investor confidence. Thankfully, together with the newly elected South Australian Liberal government, we are turning things around, because that's what Liberal governments do. A strong economy means we can afford to equip our Australian Defence personnel with the capability they need to keep themselves safe and to keep Australians safe; and to support the manufacturing industry in Australia. Our $35 billion future frigate and $50 billion Future Submarine projects will be built in Adelaide, injecting billions of dollars into our local economy. We know there are going to be 4,000 jobs created by the future frigate project alone: 1,500 direct jobs at the Osborne shipyard and 2,500 jobs throughout the supply chain. Overall, the shipbuilding plan will see 15,000 jobs created: 5,000 directly in South Australia and the rest throughout the country. When the economy is strong, we can also afford to lower taxes, and that's exactly what we have done, because we believe Australians should keep more of what they earn. We've delivered tax relief to every hardworking Australian, including immediate relief of up to $530 a year for low- and middle-income earners, because we know Australians have been doing it tough when it comes to cost of living. In my electorate of Boothby alone, almost 66,000 taxpayers will benefit from an extra $500 in their pockets. We're also supporting small and medium businesses, with around three million Australian businesses already benefitting from more competitive tax rates courtesy of our legislated tax cuts, and just last week we extended the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses. Thanks to our investment in health, the money going back into the pockets of hardworking Australians won't need to be used to visit the doctor or to pay for medicines, because we have record bulk-billing rates of 86.1 per cent and more than 1,500 new and amended medicines listed on the PBS since 2013. The coalition government is also investing an extra $23.5 billion in schools over the next decade, with funding per student increasing on average by around 50 per cent over a decade. A strong economy means we can invest more and deliver more for our communities. In my community, we are investing in infrastructure to bust congestion and make travelling safer. Oaklands crossing is finally being fixed after 40 long years thanks to the federal government's $95 million contribution, which I fought hard for to deliver to my community. I also secured $43 million to extend the Tonsley rail line to Flinders Medical Centre and Flinders University, and $2 million for the Marion Road Planning Study to ensure my residents spend less time in traffic. A strong economy means we can invest in our local sport and community clubs. I have been working hard to support all of the wonderful groups in my community. I fought for and secured federal funding to rebuild the clubrooms at Hewett reserve in Blackwood, for new facilities at St Marys sports park for the Kenilworth Football Club and to upgrade the courts and lighting for the Warradale Park Tennis Club. I've been able to support the Seacliff, Brighton and Somerton Surf Live Saving clubs to install solar panels, and provided $150,000 of federal funding for a new beach watchtower for the Seacliff Surf Life Saving Club to keep Australians safe. I could go on, because there is a very long list of projects that have been delivered for my electorate of Boothby, but the key message is that, when the economy is strong, we can afford to invest more into the services, infrastructure and national defence that our nation needs. I'm proud that my community, hardworking Australians, are seeing this first hand. 11:13 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith This motion proves just how out of touch this government is. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government is completely out of touch. Instead of having some sympathy for— Mr Falinski interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The member for Mackellar, this will be your last warning. You were heard in silence. Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 how tough Australians are doing it, they seek to come into this place and congratulate themselves for the state of the economy at the moment. I do agree with one element of this particular motion, that it is quite remarkable that Australia has entered its 27th year of consecutive economic growth. We do hold a world record as a nation for managing to grow our economy over that period, particularly during the wake of the global financial crisis, when Labor acted quickly when we were in government to buffer our economy and ensure that Australians remained in employment. But the foundation for that growth that we've experienced over those 27 years is no doubt the strong action and foresight of the Hawke and Keating governments in the reforms that they made when they were in government, which really laid the foundation for the strength of the Australian economy at the moment. Those were the governments that restructured our economy to modernise it. They opened up our economy, reduced tariffs and restructured our financial markets, including by floating the dollar and introducing foreign competition into the banking sector. They introduced competition policy, particularly into airlines and utilities, that saw greater benefits for customers and consumers. They basically created a competitive, open, durable economy that benefited all Australians, and it is all Australians that have benefited from that great work of the Hawke and Keating years. But a key feature of that process of economic reform from the Hawke and Keating governments was to protect the vulnerable within Australian society. They did this through what was known as the social wage. Although there was a need to get wages growth down at the time, there was investment in the social wage. I'm talking about the establishment of Medicare. We all know that, at the time when the Hawke government introduced Medicare, those opposite, the conservatives in Australian politics, voted against it. They voted against it to the extent that they actually sent it back to an election. There was an election in 1984 about the conservatives' failure to pass Medicare and to agree to the will of the Australian people. We all know now that Medicare is a great benefit to the Australian people. Those governments established compulsory superannuation savings to ensure Australians would have enough to retire on in old age. They established the Prices and Incomes Accord. So, as the economy grew, living standards increased for all Australians and no-one was left behind. That's the significant difference between the way that a Labor government reforms our economy and the conservatives, because we all know that, although our economy is growing at the moment, the average Australian is not feeling the joy from that growth. The average Australian is still struggling, and the benefits of that economic growth are not being shared equitably amongst all Australians. While profits are up, wages are certainly down and people's living standards are falling further and further behind. We have got record low wages growth in Australia at the moment and record levels of household debt, and that is why most Australians are feeling the pinch. At the same time, this government has cut Medicare. They attempted to introduce the co-payment, and they've cut the rebate for diagnostic imaging. They made cuts to the tune of about $2 billion to hospital funding. They have made cuts to schools. There's an $11 billion difference between what Labor is proposing through a needs based model and what this government is delivering. They have made cuts to TAFE and completely decimated vocational training in this country. They have made cuts to university funding, cuts to homelessness services and cuts to aged care. It's laughable that they're talking about a royal commission into aged care in this country when they're partly to blame for that by cutting funding for that sector. Of course, we all know what's going on with energy policy and the ridiculous increases in electricity costs that households, consumers and small businesses have had to face because of this government. So, instead of coming in here and congratulating themselves, perhaps they should get out there in the real world and see just how the average Australian household, pensioner or small business is doing it in this country. 11:18 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Forde, and what a good motion it is—more good news for our economy and more jobs created under the coalition government's strong economic management. Since coming to government in 2013, we've created a million jobs and counting. Now, with the economic growth and jobs growth exceeding expectations, while this continues we can expect a lift in wages growth, in the words of the RBA governor. Jobs and wage growth are my constituents' No. 1 concern. They ask: what are we doing to create more jobs? Those of them who are putting in the hours at work are still struggling to meet rising power prices and cost of living, so I'm pleased to tell them that, under the coalition, unemployment is at its lowest rate since 2012. Last year we created over 400,000 jobs. Three-quarters of these were full-time jobs. Compare that to the previous Labor government, they averaged less than 150,000 new jobs each year and when they left office unemployment was going up. They were losing full-time jobs. In my electorate, the effects of our booming economy have been clear. I have to thank the member for Forde for one project that has been a great boost for local jobs and that is that he started the fight for funding to upgrade the M1. It was great to work with him and my Queensland colleagues to secure $1 billion for these vital upgrades. Not only will these upgrades reduce peak-hour congestion, getting people to work sooner and safer, they will also support up to 450 local jobs, a double win for our local economy. Another job creating, congestion-busting project that's now underway in my electorate is the upgrade of the Green Camp Road corridor. I have enjoyed seeing construction start on this much needed project. Then there is the $300 million Brisbane Metro project, which is now in the expression of interest phase. Another example of this great government's commitment to invest in vital infrastructure while creating local jobs. There are many more small-scale projects in my electorate that this government has invested in that will provide a boost for the local economy and local employment. I'm seeing the benefits of this firsthand. I fully support this motion and this government's commitment to strong economic growth. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 22 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Human Rights 22 11:21 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) an estimated 25 million Uyghur people live in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region; (b) many Uyghur people have fled their homeland and sought refuge in other countries including Australia; (c) in recent years there have been increasing reports of violations of human rights of Uyghurs by Chinese Government authorities including arrest, interrogation, detention and incarceration in what are referred to as re-education camps; and (d) many Uyghurs now living in Australia have lost contact with family members and relatives in their homeland and they hold grave concerns for their safety; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) raise concerns about allegations of human rights abuse against Uyghurs with the Chinese Government through whatever opportunities are available; (b) assist in whatever way is possible Australian Uyghur residents to make contact with family members and relatives in their homelands; and (c) expeditiously process permanent resident visa applications for Uyghur people in Australia on temporary protection visas. The repression of Uyghur people in their homeland since 1949, known as the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, has a long history dating back to the mid 18th century. Exact Uyghur population numbers are difficult to ascertain, as it is claimed the government authorities deliberately understate their numbers. It has also been asserted that in recent years there has been a huge influx of Han Chinese into the region in an attempt to portray Uyghurs as a minority group. Over past months I have met with several people, and received numerous letters from local Uyghur people, who raised with me their grave concerns about the wellbeing of family members and friends in their homeland. Their stories re-enforce reports from across the world by reputable sources, including Human Rights Watch, about the widespread human rights abuses taking place daily in Xinjiang and reports that over one million people are now detained in what are referred to as 'education camps'. Once detained it is alleged that all contact with family and the outside world is often denied. It is also claimed that arrest and detention have escalated since 2016 after Communist party secretary, Chen Quanguo, assumed leadership in Xinjiang and that people are being detained for the most frivolous of charges. In one case, a Uyghur man was detained for changing his watch to Urumqi time, which is two hours behind Beijing time. Doing so is seen as form of resistance against the Chinese government, which has only one official time zone from east to west. It is also believed that Xinjiang has one of the highest densities of security cameras on earth, enabling constant monitoring of locals by authorities, including the use of facial recognition cameras. Noticeably, the cameras are predominantly installed by two companies, Hikvision and Dahua, which have had other accusations of being associated with Chinese government spying in other places around the world. For Uyghur people living in Xinjiang just making contact with the outside world risks interrogation and arrest. Family members abroad avoid contacting relatives in Xinjiang for fear of putting them at risk. For Uyghurs who have fled Xinjiang losing contact with family and friends, not knowing if they are alive or dead, well or unwell, is extremely stressful. I have seen the strain in their faces and heard it in their voices. They are pleading for government help. In particular, they are asking the Australian government to raise the persecution of Uyghur people with the Chinese government, to raise the issue in international forums and to expedite the processing of permanent residency applications by Uyghur people currently in Australia on temporary protection visas. They have also raised a petition signed by 11,144 people. I present the petition to the House. The petition read as follows— Human Rights 22 11:27 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler 'I feel hopeless. We are seeking a peaceful life but our life is not in peace… All night I have to fight with my nightmares, as if I am living in those camps. And worse, I know the world doesn't care.' This is a statement made by one of my constituents, Zulfia Erk, who is a social worker and mother of three and who is very prominent in our community. We are fortunate to have Zulfia and her husband here with us today in the gallery, and I take the opportunity to thank them for their tireless advocacy on behalf of Australian Uyghur communities. Zulfia puts in perspective the dire human rights situation faced by the Turkic Muslims, the Uyghurs, in China's north-western region. Zulfia Erk has been a passionate advocate for the Uyghur community, having personally been affected by the human rights situation in China given the fact that five of her brothers are in detention camps in Xinjiang presently. A recent report by Human Rights Watch highlights the gravity of the situation, providing evidence of China's arbitrary detention and mistreatment of the Uyghur people. Through the region, the Turkic Muslims, a population of 13 million people, are subjected to restrictions on movement, mass surveillance and significant limitations on their religious freedoms, all in violation of the universally accepted principles of human rights. In describing the large-scale crackdown on human rights in this region, Sophie Richardson, the China director at Human Rights Watch, says that the Chinese government is committing human rights abuses in Xinjiang on a scale unseen in the country for many decades. In a recent review, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination cited estimates that up to one million people are currently being held in re-education camps in Xinjiang alone. The conditions in these camps are rife with torture and solitary confinement, and deprivation of food and sustenance is widespread. The gravity of the conditions is highlighted in a number of interviews conducted by Human Rights Watch with former Xinjiang inmates. Rustam, a former detainee who spent months in a re-education camp, says: Nobody can move because they watch you through the video cameras … we were watched, even in the toilet. In political education camp we were always under stress. The detainees in these political education camps are being held without any rights to due process. People are reportedly being detained for simply having family and friends abroad, asking the authorities for the issue of a passport or simply making plans to go overseas. Unlike the United States, China remains a permanent member of the United Nations Human Rights Council and, as such, clearly has a responsibility for the promotion of human rights globally. We support an economically strong and prosperous China, and we think it is an important role that China has to play internationally in promoting peace and the recognition of human rights. In saying this, I emphasise that our support for this motion is purely based on the grounds of human rights, as Labor is deeply concerned about the human rights situation faced by the Uyghur people. We do not support any separatist agenda, and we remain fully committed to our one-China policy. Nevertheless, China is one of Australia's longstanding and close friends, and our dialogue with it should not simply be confined to trade, economics and regional security. We should be open to discussing with it all matters associated with our respective human rights obligations. On this note, I call on the Australian government to increase the pressure on China over the reported mass detentions of the Uyghur Muslims. The Australian government should use its position on the UN Human Rights Council, in coordination with other members, to continue to put pressure on the Chinese government. I also call on the Australian government to ensure that the Uyghur communities here in Australia have every assistance possible to ensure that they are able to contact their family members and friends in their homeland. We cannot simply take the role of bystanders in the hope of change. Australia must have the courage of its convictions when it comes to human rights. (Time expired) 11:32 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley The government is concerned about the human rights situation in Xinjiang, including reported use of re-education centres. On a regular basis, we raise our concerns with China about the treatment of Uyghur citizens, including most recently through our national statement at the Human Rights Council in Geneva on 11 September. We acknowledge that China has concerns about extremism and instances of terrorism, as do many other countries, but we have urged China to exercise restraint and to address the underlying causes of problems in Xinjiang, including restrictions on religious and cultural freedom and discrimination in employment. We're also concerned at reports from Uyghur Australians of harassment of their China based families, including detentions, where it is reported that in some cases they are unable to contact family members and relatives, or in other cases they fear that making contact will put them at risk of detention. We will continue, as a government, to seek opportunities to raise these concerns, and we do so in such a way as to promote two-way dialogue between Australia and China on human rights, enabling China to raise concerns about human rights in Australia and vice versa. We'll continue to monitor the situation and raise concerns about the human rights situation in Xinjiang. I thank those opposite for raising this motion today. 11:33 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield I'd like to thank the member for Makin for bringing this very important motion to the House for discussion. I'd like to thank the Chief Opposition Whip and the member for Dunkley for their words on this very important matter. Like the member for Makin, I've been moved by the correspondence of some of my constituents about this matter, including firsthand accounts of the repression that is going on in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. From the outset of the debate, I want to say this is a debate about human rights. It's not a debate about China's territorial integrity. It's not a debate about how China governs itself. We have a good relationship with China. We want to maintain that good relationship, and as part of that good relationship we want to raise these very important human rights issues in this region. It's important for us to do that as a good friend of China and as a participant in world affairs. Labor's position on this matter has been made very clear by Senator Penny Wong, who's our spokesperson on foreign affairs. We are deeply concerned about reports and accounts of mass detention of the minority Uygur population and other violations of human rights in this region. It's important to note that it's not just us; it's also the UN human rights chief, Michelle Bachelet, who said the panel had brought to light 'deeply disturbing allegations of large-scale arbitrary detentions of Uygurs and other Muslim communities, in so-called re-education camps across Xinjiang'. This is a tremendously important matter. There is a system that I think could be best described as Orwellian—a very concerning sort of police state that's occurring in this region. For those members who are interested and for the public who are interested, The Economist had a very good article on 31 May 2018 which goes into some detail about the sorts of surveillance and programs that have been put in place and, of course, the mass detention of people. I'd like to quote directly from that article. It says: Under a new party boss, Chen Quanguo, appointed in 2016, the provincial government has vastly increased the money and effort it puts into controlling the activities and patrolling the beliefs of the Uighur population. Its regime is racist, uncaring and totalitarian, in the sense of aiming to affect every aspect of peoples' lives. It has created a fully-fledged police state. And it is committing some of the most extensive, and neglected, human-rights violations in the world. One of the titles is: The not-quite-Gulag archipelago. The article continues: The government is building hundreds or thousands of unacknowledged re-education camps to which Uighurs can be sent for any reason or for none. In some of them day-to-day conditions do not appear to be physically abusive as much as creepy. The article then goes on to quote the numbers of people in these camps, stating that Human Rights Watch says there may be as many as 800,000 people. Timothy Grose, from the University of Indiana, puts the number of people in those camps at between 500,000 and a million. We are talking about vast numbers of people. These camps are an open secret on the internet. If people want to look at The Atlantic, they have a good article which uses open-source material to establish that these camps exist. It's not just these camps; there are other programs in place—of human surveillance, of tracking apps, of using peoples' health records against them, of sending government officials to live with individuals. All of these things are deeply concerning to Australians and deeply concerning to Australians of Uygur extraction or of Uygur origins. Their friends and families are subject to such conditions. We want China to perhaps have another look at these programs. It strikes me that they may be wildly counterproductive to the ends that China seeks, which is peaceful coexistence, no doubt, and economic growth in this region. The counterproductive nature of this sort of surveillance, this sort of police state and this sort of repression can be very bad indeed. We'd just encourage China to have another look and to perhaps put some reforms in place to end this repression. 11:38 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I acknowledge the contributions of the members for Makin, Fowler, Wakefield and Dunkley to this debate. Last month I was visited by a number of my constituents of Uygur background. Like many new Australians, they came here as students to study and make a better life for themselves. They chose to stay in Australia and become Australian citizens not only because of the opportunities and promise that this great country offers but because they had a genuine fear for their lives if they returned to their homeland. They work hard, they pay taxes, they raise their families and they are actively involved in civic life with local Uygur groups and the wider Australian community. They, of course, still have family and friends back home in the Xinjiang region of China—brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, friends, schoolmates and neighbours. Many Uygurs living in Australia have lost contact with those friends and family and have serious concerns for their safety. Several constituents have recently come to see me and have related that they have not had contact with relatives and friends for well over eight months. They explained that they fear for the safety of their loved ones as there have been rumours that they've been taken to prison and their general wellbeing is not good. They are concerned from firsthand witness accounts, media reports and the response of government and intergovernmental agencies around the world about the potential human rights violations by China in its treatment of its Uyghur minority. These reports include arbitrary mass detention of a massive scale. I stand today to voice my concerns about these disturbing reports. Australia has a long record of playing a leading role in international relations and defending human rights, especially in our region. Doc Evatt, a member of this parliament for two decades, played a major hand in both founding of the United Nations and drafting the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A fellow parliamentarian, Gareth Evans, was instrumental in founding APEC, the cooperation forum, and brokering the Cambodian peace process. Once again, members of the Australian parliament need to play a key role in leading the world in the defence of human rights. China officially recognises 55 ethnic minorities in addition to the Han majority, of which the Uyghur are one. Predominantly Sunni Muslims, the Uyghur live in the Xinjiang region of China's north-west. Recent reports paint an increasingly worrying picture of the treatment of the Uyghur by the Chinese government. The detention of Uyghurs in so-called re-education camps and the increasing rate at which those detention centres are being built continues to increase the worry. Varying reports on the detention rate estimate up to 12 per cent of the community have been detained, with the detention camps having a capacity to hold up to one million people. Jerome Cohen, a leading academic authority on Chinese legal systems, suggests that this is potentially the largest mass detention program seen since 1950, the period of 'the great leap forward'. Detainees come from all strata of the Uyghur society and include prominent sportspeople, academics and pop stars. The supposed crimes that result in internment can include praying regularly, growing a beard or visiting a Muslim country. Given that some of these crimes represent core religious acts to people of the Islamic faith, these reports are disturbing. There are also reports of Chinese surveillance and intimidation of Uyghurs abroad, including in this country. It is important that the Uyghur community here in Australia does not feel pressure or intimidation from a foreign power. Condemnation of the Chinese government has been widespread. Last month, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination called on China to halt the practice of detaining individuals who have not been lawfully charged, tried and convicted for a criminal offence. I welcome the recent confirmation by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the Australian government has raised concerns with Beijing, and I echo the calls for multilateral action of the shadow minister for foreign affairs, Senator Penny Wong, in addition to direct discussion with China. As a member of the UN Human Rights Council, we should be working in coordination with other members to pursue this issue with the Chinese government so that members of the Uyghur community who I represent are able to find comfort that their friends and family are safe and are soon to be out of detention. Debate adjourned. BILLS 26 BILLS Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 26

Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

First Reading 26 Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018, Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 26

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

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

Second Reading 26 11:45 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I seek the opportunity to make a contribution on the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 and, in doing so, indicate that Labor supports the passage of these bills. In the first instance we support the amendment moved by the shadow minister for trade. We've heard on many occasions in this place the importance of trade to this country. At the end of the day we are a trading nation, hence we are supportive of this Trans-Pacific Partnership. We on this side of the House were supportive of the last iteration of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We saw benefits at that stage. Whilst the benefits may appear limited in the initial instance, we were attracted by the fact that the Trans-Pacific Partnership had a series of attached side agreements about matters of human rights, labour rights and the preservation of the environment. We thought it very instructive to have these things in trade agreements, hence we were supportive in the first instance. We're pleased on this occasion that this iteration of the TPP embodies many of those aspects that were formerly in the initial Trans-Pacific Partnership. We think it is right that there be obligations in respect of not only trade but also how labour is treated, how the collectivism of negotiations is respected and how the environment is treated by each of our trading partners. There should be greater scope for the enforceability of these particular requirements, because at this stage only signatories to the Trans-Pacific Partnership have any enforcement ability in relation to those matters, and presumably much of that will get down to diplomatic consideration before any effort is taken. We're also concerned about the investor-state provisions. Labor's concern about that is not just in relation to the TPP. The minister at the table, Mr Andrews, will recall that these matters were raised about the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. As a matter of fact we've looked at the issue of investor-state provisions as a central theme in every free trade agreement we've had. We are not entirely comfortable with these things and would seek appropriate recourse if Labor forms the next government in this country. We have a concern that we are opening up our court systems for the enforceability of actions by foreign institutions against not only Australian companies but also the Australian government and all governments of Australia, state as well as local, simply because they're signatory countries to this Trans-Pacific Partnership—although I note that the only country to which investor-state provisions will be extended beyond those that already have them is Canada, which is probably of lesser concern to us, given the formation of their laws, being a common law country, is much the same as ours. We collectively in this House focus on trade because we know that trade is the ability for us to create jobs in this country. There will be certain challenges in that. The transitional arrangements must be such that we limit the number of impediments to existing industries and their workers. But the simple fact is that if we are going to be a trading nation we must be able to do so on the basis of our strengths, and the strength that we have in this country is our people. That's where we excel. We need to ensure that we properly resource not only our industries but also the training of our people, including through our tertiary institutions, in many instances TAFE, to ensure that our people are on a very competitive footing so that we can trade profitably with other countries within our sphere of influence. This is something that we on our side of politics have been very clear about, including in the funding of schools, the funding of universities and in particular the funding of TAFE colleges. By the way, we think TAFE is the backbone for enhancing our ability to trade more effectively throughout the region. I will leave my comments there at this stage. As I said, we support the amendments made by the shadow minister for trade. We think that they are sound. If these amendments are accepted they would make the TPP a better trading instrument than is currently proposed in this bill. However, I do say that it is in our interest that we facilitate free trade within our region. We will be the ultimate beneficiary of that, provided that we invest appropriately and particularly where we invest in our people. Ms Chesters 249710 I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted. 11:52 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Thank you for the indulgence of the House. I do apologise for missing my call earlier, in continuation from what I started to speak about when this House last sat, last Thursday. As I said last Thursday—and over the weekend my position hasn't changed—I do remain, like many Australians, skeptical about our free trade agreements. As one person put to me, we should really call them 'trade agreements', not 'free trade agreements'. We don't have any independent economic modelling around these agreements that actually demonstrates the benefits of these agreements. Quite often with these agreements we talk only about what goes out of our country; we don't talk about what comes into our country. I'd like to start with what goes out of our country. We always headline with Japan, with China and now with the TPP how great these agreements are for agriculture. But, as anybody who works with people in the regions and talks to our farmers knows, the people say that, while agreements are okay, what about the non-tariff barriers? With all the fanfare around the China free trade agreement, all we got in my part of the world, when they talked up wine, which is a big industry for us, was a seminar on how to maximise your opportunity into China. Small, independent boutique growers don't have the capital to start building those relationships, and a once-off seminar isn't enough. And they're not really benefiting from the last agreement that we spoke about in this place—the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. One of the other headline areas was how this is great for rice. Let's just talk about the rice industry for a moment. In a non-drought year—and I say that because at the moment we are in a drought year—80 per cent of our rice is exported. That sounds really good until you learn that that's only two per cent of the world's entire rice market. And that rice, that two per cent, is already going into the top market in Japan and into the top markets in Asia, because our rice, our sushi rice, is the best rice. Its quality is up there. So, is there really a new benefit in relation to this cut in tariffs for rice? What we then ask when it comes to agriculture is, what is coming into our market? We need to look at what is coming into our market and the jobs that are being put at risk in those manufacturing sectors. There is real concern in our country about the pressure that we're putting on our local manufacturing. Those concerns are real, and we should listen to those. That is why Labor's proposal to do independent economic modelling is needed. Australians want to know that they are getting a good deal out of these agreements. We don't know that with the TPP. I would urge this government to do that economic modelling, to put this bill on hold and to do that independent economic modelling, as Labor has proposed, so Australians can know the truth about this agreement. I also speak in favour of the amendments that have been put forward by the opposition that are saying we need to get the labour market testing right. Waiving labour market testing for contractual services for six new countries in this agreement will actually make things harder for locals seeking local jobs. It's a problem we have in our country; we have a problem with our temporary visa program in our country. Weekly, we hear of another case of worker exploitation. People who've come here in good faith to work are being exploited by dodgy labour-hire companies and by unscrupulous employers. We cannot, in good conscience, expand allowing people to come into this country, without any proper labour market testing, until we stabilise the temporary work program that we have in our country. It is, to me, alarming that we are now debating whether we should allow electricians to come into this country when they say they've got complementary skills but we don't know if those skills are up to the Australian standard. Throughout Australia, we are meeting people, working in areas like the renewable energy industry, who are coming in on a temporary work visa—the companies are not even offering those jobs locally—and are working to build solar power plants. It's happening in the town of Tieri in Central Queensland. They have set up a camp—it is literally a camp—where workers from Eastern Europe are coming and staying. We don't even know if they're being paid in Australian currency. We suspect they're being paid in a currency from overseas; it goes into their overseas bank account. They come here, they're working, they don't associate with the town, they very rarely spend money in the town and they may or may not go home. This is happening right now. This government is completely ignoring the fact that we do have breaches, day after day, of our temporary visa program. Last week I also highlighted—and this is an ongoing issue with Chinese plasterers—the people who are here on a temporary visa arrangement, who have gone in and in good faith done work, but are not quite aware of what their conditions are or what they should be paid. They're temporary workers, so how would they know? They have worked on the Royal Hobart Hospital and they have worked in other places in Melbourne, and they have not been paid. They weren't paid for nine weeks. Mr Ciobo interjecting— Ms CHESTERS 249710 The minister interjects and says that this has nothing to do with the TPP and the legislation before us. It actually does. If we don't have our temporary work visa program up to standard and if we don't have the safeguards in place, we shouldn't allow more workers to come in to be subjected to that level of exploitation. Let's clean up our backyard first. Let's fix our IR system. Let's fix our temporary work visa system before you invite more workers into this country who could quite possibly be exploited. It brings me to highlight a couple of the countries that are on this list. We're talking about Vietnam; we're talking about Malaysia. In the chicken processing industry, the boning work that goes on in chicken processing is almost all Vietnamese-Australian workers and Vietnamese workers. If they are Vietnamese-Australian, they have quite possibly had 10 years of worker exploitation before they actually get their permanent residency. It's happening in chicken processing in my electorate. People are bussed up from Melbourne to work in the chicken factory. For the people who are here from Vietnam, we don't quite know all of their visa arrangements. It chops and changes. Some of them are on protection visas or bridging visas. Some of them are here on worker holiday visas. Some are here on tourist visas and shouldn't even be working. There's a real grey, hidden area with what's happening. Until we get the safeguards in place, we should delay moving forward on this legislation. We need to make sure that any guest worker who comes into our country has this support and that protection. I just want to highlight a couple of myths about our free trade agreements. They relate not just to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement but more broadly to all agreements. The government and the Liberal National Party like to really talk about the jobs and say that these agreements will be jobs boosters. They are not. The TPP, in this case, will result in more jobs being outsourced. It won't actually be a jobs booster. It's estimated that we'll lose up to 40,000 jobs by 2025. That's not a jobs booster. That's a jobs loss. Another myth is that it won't make it easier for temporary workers to come to Australia. That is not true. We know that temporary hire migrants will be able to come into our country from six additional countries. Government members interjecting— Ms CHESTERS 249710 I hear the interjections of those opposite. Again they are going to accuse us of being racist and xenophobic. We are absolutely not. I think it is outrageous that, because you come into our country as a temporary migrant worker, you're paid less. I think it's just outrageous that you have workers who come into our country who are paid less because of the country that they're from. How does that happen? How is it possible that people are paid less? There is an award minimum in a lot of these industries. These labour hire companies pay the award as a minimum. Some of the workers don't even get that. Until we fix up workplace relations and resource the Fair Work Ombudsman properly, we should not allow more and more workers to come in. We've got to get those foundations right first. We need to make sure that any jobs that we have are offered to Australian workers first. We need to make sure that, if there is a local job, it goes to a local first. We also know that there is a link: if you directly employ someone, you're more likely to get an Australian to put their hand up for that job because they know they will have job security and the right working conditions. What's raised opposite is that we are very concerned about the ISDS clause. Labor believes that Australia should negotiate its trade agreements without these clauses. We have committed that in government we would seek to remove any ISDS provisions, and we have put that commitment in this amendment we have moved. People are concerned about this. People don't like the idea that an overseas company can sue their government for pursuing policy that is in the best interests of Australian people. We also seek in this amendment to reinstate labour market testing for contractual service suppliers in existing free trade agreements—all of them. We need to have the very basics of labour market testing. I believe we need to strengthen our labour-market-testing laws. We need to make sure that all of the labour market clauses that we have are genuine and are ensuring that we are making companies look for local workers first. Labor have also said in our amendment—this is something that the government should do immediately—that all new free trade agreements should be subject to independent national interest assessments before going any further. I urge the government to do that today. If you believe that this is a job booster, prove it. Do the independent labour market testing, because all the research we've seen is that it's actually going to cost Australian jobs. We have also said we want to legislate to create an accredited trades advisory program where industry, unions and civil society groups would provide real-time feedback on a draft agreement during negotiations. We have also said we'd strengthen the role of parliament in trade negotiations and increase the participation of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. These are all practical steps that would see a better free trade agreement. As I said, I share the concerns of most Australians, who are quite sceptical about agreements, particularly by this government. We should not be signing off on any agreement that has no labour market testing in it. We should ensure that any agreement protects local jobs, protects and enhances local industry, and doesn't trade it off in a simple transaction. We do have good industry here in this country, and we need to do our utmost to promote it and to protect it, not just in agriculture but across the board. But, most importantly, before the government goes down the path of waiving labour market testing, it needs to stop and think about the treatment of those workers in this country, fix the migration program, fix the temporary worker program and give the Fair Work Ombudsman the resources to investigate the unending reports of worker exploitation of people who have come here in good faith to work. 12:04 Mr HART 263070 Bass I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for TPP Implementation) Bill, which has the effect of implementing the comprehensive and progressive agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP-11, trade agreement. This is the third occasion I've had cause to speak on the TPP-11 agreement, as I spoke on the presentation of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report No. 181 and, recently, on a private members' motion on this issue. Labor supports this bill. However, the TPP-11 trade agreement is not an agreement that Labor would negotiate in government. There are serious concerns within the agreement. Those concerns have been expressed in submissions to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties during its recent inquiry into the TPP-11. Labor members of JSCOT prepared substantial additional comments for the publication of report No. 181 of the committee. Labour understand that, on balance, liberalisation of trade benefits Australia as a trading nation. Labor has a strong and proud commitment to growing the economy through reforms on how to do trade and how to undertake business. However, Labor's commitment to trade liberalisation is not unconditional. Labor's commitment recognises that there are winners and losers from trade liberalisation. Whilst the market reforms undertaken in the main by the Hawke and Keating governments led to significant growth within the Australian economy and the creation of significant employment, there are communities, there are industries and there are lives adversely affected by changes to the way that we address trade between nations. I've mentioned previously in this place, in connection with the presentation of the report of JSCOT, that my electorate of Bass was one of the first areas affected by the removal of tariffs in the 1970s. The immediate effect of this was massive job losses within the textile manufacturing industry centred on Launceston. It is irresponsible to overlook the fact that in this instance there were generational consequences through job losses that have not been adequately addressed in over 40 years. As I've indicated previously, the first step in the negotiation of treaties is to ensure that the effects of treaty action are properly and adequately modelled. There were significant concerns expressed through the inquiry process as to the lack of financial modelling associated with the TPP-11. This criticism is valid. Whilst the present government might be prepared to embark upon the negotiation of trade agreements on the basis that benefits are assumed, it is vitally important that the effects of a trade agreement are properly understood so the benefits and indeed the adverse effects can be addressed. This is consistent with longstanding Labor policy. Labor also proposes that there be analysis as to the effects of trade agreements: not only economic effects but also other areas—that is, social, environmental and, indeed, strategic. These effects should be taken into account during the negotiation of trade agreements as part of a transparent process which involves greater oversight by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. There should also be the ability for members of civil society to receive consultation during that negotiation process. Whilst economic modelling in this case has been undertaken by the Victorian Labor government which shows that there is indeed a net positive effect to the Australian economy, it is unacceptable that there was no independent modelling available to the parliament during negotiation and, subsequently, during the adoption of this treaty into law. Labor in government, if elected, will remedy this by the adoption of a comprehensive set of reforms which will be designed to ensure that the accredited organisations and interest groups will be able to receive briefings during the treaty negotiation process. JSCOT will also receive, at the commencement of the process, a statement as to the objectives of a particular treaty negotiation and regular reporting as to progress against those objectives. This treaty contains investor-state dispute settlement clauses, ISDS—in this case, extending ISDS to Canada. Labor will not countenance, in government, the negotiation of treaties which extend ISDS clauses and give corporations the right to claim compensation from Australian governments for the legitimate exercise of Australian sovereignty. It is significant that the United States has indicated that it would not include ISDS in future treaties and, in particular, will remove ISDS from the NAFTA. The European Union has also criticised ISDS clauses as constituting an unreasonable fetter on state sovereignty. It is reasonable to suggest that ISDS clauses do not add to the likelihood that favourable trade terms may be negotiated with another state. They expose Australia to the risk of significant litigation, significant cost and what is known as regulatory chill. Labor, if elected, will negotiate the removal of ISDS clauses from the TPP-11 agreement by the use of side letters, using the New Zealand experience as a precedent. Given that ISDS provisions are supposedly to the mutual benefit of two state parties, the removal of the Canadian ISDS provisions would be on the basis that both Canada and Australia would, by agreement, remove the clauses without further additional consideration. Labor's concerns with the incorporation of ISDS clauses into the TPP-11 are real. There are many areas of legitimate legislative powers, such as health policy, environmental law, occupational health and safety, and the like. These are all areas where the general public would consider that government should be able to legislate without threat of litigation and claims for compensation from foreign corporations. There is no doubt in my mind that ISDS does represent an unreasonable limitation upon the sovereignty of Australia. Australia has a strong commitment to the rule of law. It does not need ISDS provisions in a trade treaty to give confidence to foreign investors that they'll not be subject to arbitrary or capricious legislation. As I've said in this place previously, the other real concern expressed by Labor is that this agreement has the effect of waiving labour market testing with respect to six additional nations. This means that temporary migration from these six nations will be facilitated without labour market testing. Citizens of Canada, Peru, Mexico, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam will be able to enter under temporary skilled migration without any proper assessment of the market for these jobs for Australian workers. Australian workers have only their labour to offer. Workers have every right to be concerned that an Australian government is prepared to facilitate temporary skilled migration without proper assessment of the labour market for those jobs. There are concerns rightly expressed about the potential for exploitation of temporary skilled migration, in particular the exploitation of vulnerable overseas workers. That has recently been seen in Hobart on the site of the Royal Hobart Hospital redevelopment. Chinese workers have been left in the lurch, unpaid and exploited. As has been said by my colleague the member for Shortland, the potential for exploitation is huge. Workers have effectively no rights because they have no bargaining power. They can be sacked and deported for no reason. If we are to have temporary migration to drive economic growth in this country—and there are times where temporary migration is absolutely necessary—it should be done properly. The employer must demonstrate that a position cannot be filled by an Australian worker at a market rate of pay and not just for the minimum rate of pay on an outdated award. The migrant, the visa holder, must be paid a market rate of pay, not a minimum rate of pay. Finally, an employer should invest in training so that an Australian can ultimately fill that job. Nowhere has the undermining of Australian jobs been more significant, in my view, than in the Australian maritime industry. Highly skilled jobs have been lost to temporary migrants without regard to labour market testing. I regard the treatment of our Australian shipping industry as a national disgrace. To not do these things is to undermine the training of future skilled workers, to undermine wages and to undermine conditions. The second significant concern with respect to temporary migration is the system of skills recognition. Skills recognition may be appropriate within the domestic context so that, for example, a Victorian electrician may be recognised as having skills appropriate for the plying of a trade in Queensland or Tasmania. The effect of this agreement is that a Mexican, Canadian or Vietnamese electrician must be accepted as having the same standard of qualifications as an Australian electrician. There are vital issues of public safety and confidence involved in skills recognition. Those concerns have been expressed by the ETU. Given the public safety issues, the public interest is not served by a weak system of skills recognition. Just as Labor has indicated that it will renegotiate the ISDS provisions of this trade agreement should Labor win government, the shadow minister and the Labor Party have committed to negotiate side agreements with the six nations that have this labour market testing exemption to have these provisions removed. Labor in government will also legislate to prohibit the inclusion in future trade agreements of waivers of labour market testing, prohibiting future governments from negotiating trade agreements that waive mandatory skills testing and prohibiting future governments from including ISDS clauses in trade agreements. We cannot again have a situation where a Liberal government negotiates a second-rate trade agreement and seeks to put the interests of some within our community above the interests of skilled workers—that is, Australian workers generally and Australian sovereignty. In contrast, Labor, under the member for Blaxland, proposes a comprehensive review of the negotiation of trade treaties if we are elected to government. A future Labor government will update the parliament and the public after reach round of negotiations, where possible. It will commission economic modelling for all new trade agreements before they are signed and 10 years after ratification so that the full impacts of a trade agreement can be assessed. Labor will also introduce legislation that requires future trade agreements not to waive labour market testing for contractual service providers and not to include ISDS clauses. The legislation will also establish a system of accredited trade advisers from industry, unions and civil society groups to provide written feedback on draft trade agreement text during the negotiations. This is vitally important to ensure that there is community support for the objectives of a free trade agreement. Labor will legislate in government, if elected, to require an independent national interest assessment to be conducted on every new trade agreement, before it's signed, to examine the economic, strategic and social impact of any new trade agreement. Finally, Labor will strengthen the role of parliament in trade negotiations by increasing the participation of the JSCOT committee. Labor will provide JSCOT with a statement of objectives for negotiation, consideration and feedback and will provide JSCOT with a briefing at the end of each round of negotiations. The concerns this side of politics has with this agreement are real. They are concerns that have been heard during the course of the consultation process and the evidence received by JSCOT. Despite this government negotiating a second-rate agreement, there are risks, including strategic risks, with voting this agreement down. Labor, if elected, has committed to fixing the offensive aspects of this agreement. The very real concerns within the labour movement and elsewhere as to labour market testing, skills testing and ISDS provisions should be heard. The government should not have ignored those concerns. Labor, if elected, will address those concerns. We have a comprehensive plan, through the shadow minister for trade, to introduce reforms that will affect the future negotiation and implementation of trade agreements. 12:18 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff 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 TPP-11. These amendments are complementary to those contained in the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018. I'd like to take this opportunity to speak to the two bills in front of us here today, because they are very much related. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to conclude the debate on this important agreement. The TPP-11 is one of the most comprehensive trade deals ever concluded. It will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs in a trade zone spanning the Americas and Asia with a combined GDP of some $13.8 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, cane growers and sugar millers as well as cereal and grain exporters. There will be new opportunities for our rice growers, cotton and wool growers, horticultural producers and our wine exporters. Recent modelling undertaken by economists from the Brandeis International Business School and Johns Hopkins University shows Australia is forecast to see some $15.6 billion in net annual benefit to national income by 2030. This follows earlier modelling by the respected Peterson Institute for International Economics, which found that the TPP-11 would boost Australia's national income by 0.5 per cent and boost exports by four per cent. This sort of boost to our nation's income would mean more jobs, higher wages and greater investment in further areas of business and jobs growth. 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. 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 roughly $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 a groundbreaking deal were far from certain. For Australia and the TPP partners, it was a test of resolve and judgement. There was no guarantee of success. One option was retreat. There would have been no new and historic access to the Canadian market for our grains, refined sugar and beef exporters and no new access to the Mexican market for our pork, wheat, sugar, barley and horticulture producers or education services providers. There would have been no improved access to the Japanese market for our beef, wheat, barley and dairy exporters and no improved access for our wine producers in the Vietnamese, Canadian, Mexican and Malaysian markets. Thankfully, the governments of our trading partners, led by Japan, together with Australia and New Zealand, pressed ahead. As a consequence, our global trading system is stronger today because of the TPP-11. We have created a beacon for nations that want to work within a rules 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, including the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and even the UK as well as Colombia. 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 the coming months. In other words, if Australia and five other countries can complete ratification before the end of October, the TPP-11 will enter into force before 31 December this year. That means there will be two opportunities for tariff reduction, 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. That's the consequence if Australia is not among the first six. We will be in a significantly competitively disadvantaged position, vis-a-vis key competitors of ours, if we are not in the first six. 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. These bills 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 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. Here in Australia, this agreement has undergone a level of scrutiny perhaps unprecedented by any other free trade agreement. It has been subject to five parliamentary committee inquiries. After the TPP-11 was tabled in the House of Representatives on 26 March this year, it was examined by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. On 22 August, the committee recommended that Australia take binding treaty action in respect of the TPP-11. I urge the parliament to support the swift passage of the TPP-11 implementing legislation, 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. It is an audacious but pragmatic approach that, in my view, has been the hallmark of this government's trade and investment policy. I will also comment on some of the contributions that I have heard. I want to acknowledge at the outset the excellent working relationship I had with the shadow trade minister. He and I were able to speak regularly on the importance of the TPP. I recognise and respect that Labor has a different approach in a number of limited areas. I note in particular that Labor says that if they are elected to government—and certainly those on this side of the House hope that does not occur—or if they are subsequently elected, they would renegotiate the TPP-11 with respect to ISDS and with respect to the labour market tasting waiver. I note that neither of the bills before the House today deals with those aspects of the agreement. I recognise and applaud Labor's vision about ensuring Australia continues to maintain its position globally as being the champion of liberalised and freer trade. Labor's support on this is, of course, critical. But I note some of the comments that have been made by, for example, the member for Bendigo. I heard, frankly, outrageous claims that are completely without foundation in fact whatsoever—for example, the litany of examples of workers being exploited or not paid in accordance with Australian standards, or concerns about foreign workers being paid less or not meeting Australian standards. I note that that activity is illegal. There is nothing in this agreement whatsoever that in any way, shape or form would give comfort to those businesses acting in an illegal way. So, when I heard claims by the member for Bendigo about exploitation of foreign workers, ostensibly, either directly or indirectly linking it back to the TPP—those claims are false. That activity is illegal and remains illegal. I note that this nation's economic growth—the jobs that employ millions of people, the wealth and prosperity of regional Australia—is entirely dependent on our ability to trade. If we are truly going to be a nation that generates wealth in regional parts of Australia, if we're going to help the cane exporters, if we're going to help the beef exporters and the sheepmeat exporters, the best way we can help them is to ensure that they have access to global markets. I think back to my childhood growing up in a regional community in Far North Queensland. The best way we can help those exporters is to make sure that we give them a competitive advantage over competitor nations like the United States, and that is precisely what the TPP-11 will do. It gives our beef exporters a significant competitive advantage over direct exports that come from the United States and competitor countries like that. It ensures that our ability to tap into markets like Japan is more enhanced than it has ever been in our nation's history. That's what drives wealth and prosperity in regional Australia. I note as well that Labor's made comments about ISDS. I respect that Labor has a different position, but Labor on every occasion talks about how ISDS is bad for Australia. And they say that multinational corporations can sue the Australian government. Well, they cannot. We can exercise public policy with the full suite of tools available to the Australian government without fear of being sued. I'll tell you what Labor always forget. They forget that ISDS is critical for Australian businesses abroad. That's when we need ISDS—not for foreign companies in Australia but for Australian businesses internationally. So, I welcome Labor's continuation of long-held practice. We work constructively on matters of foreign policy and trade policy, and I have great pleasure in commending these bills to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Blaxland has 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 Blaxland be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:37]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 71 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 Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Katter, RC Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 71 NOES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

The numbers for the ayes and the noes being equal, the Speaker gave his casting vote with the noes.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.

 12:44 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Who's running this show? The SPEAKER 00APG I think this part of the day is a bad time to get thrown out, Member for Fenner. As I've said before in these circumstances House of Representatives Practice outlines the principles that have been used in the exercise of the casting vote, one of which is that a casting vote on an amendment should leave a bill in its existing form. This principle has seen the casting vote used against amendments, therefore I cast my vote with the noes. Consideration in Detail 35 12:46 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I move the amendment circulated in my name: (1) Page 2 (after line 7), after clause 2, insert: 2A Fair Trade clause That the countries whose wage structures fall below the minimum of income needed to provide an acceptable level of food, shelter and clothing be excluded and those countries with direct or indirect subsidies in key products also be excluded from the TPP-11 agreement. The amendment requires that countries whose wage structures fall below the minimum income needed to provide an acceptable level of food, shelter and clothing be excluded the TPP-11 agreement and that those countries with direct or indirect subsidies in key products also be excluded from the agreement. The TPP-11 agreement talks about tariff barriers and similar barriers. It does not talk about subsidies. We have the wonderful free trade agreement with America, but America had only two per cent tariffs and has massive subsidies of 36 per cent. I feel sorry for the minister. He comes from Mareeba and he has to know that the Atherton Tablelands area—his homeland—has had two councils for all of its history: one is Mareeba and the other is Atherton. The Mareeba Council has tobacco leaves on its logo, because tobacco was the principal industry of that town. Under deregulation we lost all 2,000 jobs in the tobacco industry in a tiny little town like Mareeba—the whole town lost its economy, as did Myrtleford in Victoria. The minister has to know this. As a result of his free trade policies, his own homeland's industry was taken away—and it was on the logo of the council. The Atherton Council has maize silos and a dairy cow on its logo, because they were the industries of Atherton. Well, the silos are gone. Under deregulation, the maize industry collapsed. And, of course, the dairy industry went from 230 milking cows down to about 37 milking cows. So, the complete economy of his homeland was destroyed by the actions of the free trade policies of his government. I know, to my shame, because I also was the representative of that area and I was in here in this place while those things took place. It doesn't help my conscience to say that I crossed the floor on them and raised as much hell as I could possibly raise. But, in the final straw of the dairy industry, I just couldn't stay there any longer. We don't like talking about conscience in this place, but sometimes it really gets to you, and after that I had to leave. I sympathise with the minister because I think he's probably a good bloke. But he's in a party and he must toe the line on the policies of his party, and he actually has to believe in the policies of his party. It is the height of impropriety to allow into this country product produced by slave labour. I mean, the next piece of legislation in this House is about slave labour. If you're in China or India, you can't afford a roof over your head; you can't afford a decent diet that will enable you to stay alive. Heaven only knows. I know about this because my brother-cousins, First Australians, are dying from malnutrition in the gulf country and the peninsula and Torres Strait right now because they can't afford a proper diet. They're now living on rice, as they do in India and China. These countries will not provide, for their own people, proper food and accommodation. And we promote those policies that are the complete opposite of egalitarian principles that this nation has been raised on, and so many of our predecessors have died for it. The first stoppage by the AWU in this country—three executive members of the AWU were shot dead, another three in the general strike were shot dead and another two at the back of New South Wales were shot dead during the great strike. I don't know how many died, but 28 died at Eureka, which was, arguably, about other issues. But it was about whether the people were allowed to make enough money to stay alive. That was what Eureka was really about. And they couldn't, because of the policies you put in place. Well, now you're driving Australian wages down through the floor. The only way we can compete—and I remember vividly the morning Mr Keating announced that we would be the most free economy on earth. So, while the Liberals go preening themselves for being the free market party, in actual fact the record reads that the Labor Party is the free market party, to their eternal shame. Theodore, Chifley, Curtin—these men would turn in their graves if they saw the Labor Party of today, the champion of free markets. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Kennedy be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 00APG As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question negatived, Mr Bandt, Mr Katter and Mr Wilkie voting yes. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that this bill be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 00APG As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Bill agreed to, Mr Bandt, Mr Katter and Mr Wilkie voting no. Third Reading 36 12:58 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that this bill be now read a third time. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 00APG As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Mr Katter and Mr Wilkie voting no. Bill read a third time. Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 36

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

Second Reading 36 13:02 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House declines to give the bill a second reading until there are better protections in the Trans-Pacific Partnership for labour rights and the environment, and a prohibition on investor-state dispute settlement provisions". We have the opportunity now—not after the next election if there's a change of government and not at some time in the future, but right now—to send the government back to the drawing board to negotiate an agreement that does not include investor-state dispute resolution provisions and that does not weaken labour rights in this country. We know, because we've heard everyone except the government say it during the course of this debate and in public, that this TPP agreement weakens local labour laws. And it does that by including provisions in it that allow other countries to have workers sent here, and those workers come here without labour-market testing. They come here without an adequate assessment of skills, and they end up getting exploited. They get exploited because they're brought here and while they're here they very often get told, 'We're going to pay you substandard wages and conditions and, if you arc up, we will send you back.' Not only does it exploit those overseas workers but it means local wages and conditions get depressed as well. We know this because we've been saying this for some time, and the unions have been saying it for some time, and independent experts have been saying it for some time. But we've heard over the last few days, as recently as Insiders on the weekend, the Labor Party saying it. The Labor Party is saying, 'It is bad that these trade agreements have provisions that allow corporations to sue governments and allow big gaping holes to be opened up in our labour and migration laws.' The good news is that we now have a chance to do something about it. But it seems to be the case that Labor, in classic style, is saying, 'No. Let's wave this legislation through as quickly as possible, sign up to the deal as quickly as we can, and then maybe, if we win government, we'll come back and renegotiate it.' Now I hope that there is a change of government at this election, because this rotten government has lost the right to govern. But, when you've got the opportunity while you're in opposition to force a better deal, you should take it. What the Labor Party wants us to do is the equivalent of saying, when you're buying a house: 'Yes, I'll pay you $800,000 for it now, but after the deal's signed I might go back and try to renegotiate it and get the price down to $700,000.' You don't say that to the vendor. What vendor is going to do that? What the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, knows is that the time to strike is before the ink is dry, so New Zealand has negotiated itself an exemption from a number of the objectionable provisions of this agreement, and we should do the same. The idea that a new government is going to be able to walk back to those countries who've already signed on the dotted line, who've already given up as much as they want to give up in order to get this deal, is just fanciful, as is the idea that somehow, after the election, we're going to be able to negotiate all of these exemptions with other countries. As far as I'm aware, it has never happened, and there's a reason for that. If you're the other country, when the new Prime Minister comes knocking on your door and says, 'Excuse me, I made a promise to get myself over the election and I'd now like some more favourable treatment for my country,' what do you reckon you're going to say? Are you going to say yes? Of course you're not. The time to strike is now. So I say to Labor: let's stand up to this rotten government rather than enable them. I expect an approach from the Liberals that says: 'Let's sign away the rights of government to act unfettered in their population's interests and let's allow corporations to have a say over what governments do.' I expect the Liberals to say, 'When there's a dispute between multinationals and governments, let's have the dispute worked out by a secret panel of lawyers that is able to make its decisions behind closed doors and doesn't operate according to any usual court proceeding and let's just allow that panel to say, "No, government X. I'm sorry, you can't pass laws in favour of your population, because it infringes on a corporation's profits."' I expect the Liberal government to say, 'We should be able to contract out of the labour market testing provisions in Australia's law by giving certain countries unfettered rights to fly in planeloads of exploited workers.' But what I ask of the Labor Party is that it stand up to them. You're the opposition. The clue's in the name. Oppose sometimes. Oppose when the government does something bad. Don't sit there and say, 'We're wringing our hands because the government did something bad but we couldn't do anything about it.' We have just had a tied vote in this House because all of the crossbenchers, for varying reasons, have expressed concerns about how trade deals are being negotiated in this country. Far be it from me to speak on behalf of my colleagues on the crossbench, because we come from a variety of political points of view, but I think it is fair to say that, across the political spectrum, people are sick and tired of governments signing up to deals through this opaque black-box process and just asking us to take on face value that it's going to be good for agriculture or for manufacturing or for workers in this country. We don't want that anymore. We want a better process for negotiating these trade deals. We don't want to be in a position where parliament is told, 'I'm sorry, the government has gone out and agreed to contract out of the minimum provisions in Australian labour law and you just have to cop it.' We are standing up. I say to the Labor Party: you've got the five crossbenchers speaking with one voice, saying that there has got to be a better way to negotiate trade deals in this country. It's not that we're opposed to trade deals—certainly from my perspective—but they shouldn't be at the expense of local workers and they shouldn't be at the expense of other protections. We have the opportunity right here, right now, to do something about it. I say to Labor: don't go crowing about the tied vote if straightaway afterwards you come in and vote with the government to enable their legislation to get through. We have the chance to do something about this right now. I heard the minister at the table before say, 'It's okay; under our existing free trade deals it would be illegal to underpay workers.' The minister misses the point. At the moment the system is structured in such a way that, whatever the laws say in Australia, companies based in the countries with whom we have these trade deals can bring in workers without an independent assessment of their skills on the way in. If questions are asked when those workers are here, we usually or sometimes find that those workers are on the next plane out. The government puts no effort into monitoring the system, so exploitation is rife. As I said, that hurts those overseas workers and hurts the local workers as well. Back in 2016 in Melbourne in Richmond in my electorate—I stand to be corrected, but my recollection was that it was in Richmond—some workers had come from China to work on installing a car stacker in a new apartment block. There are people in Australia who know how to install a car stacker, but these workers came in on a visa and were never checked on their way in. You don't have to check; it is all a paper based system at the moment. They were paid lower than the local wage to help build an apartment block in Melbourne. There was no local advertising for these positions first, because, when the company from the other country signs a piece of paper that says, 'We need these highly skilled workers and there is a shortage,' it gets ticked and flicked in the department. When the union got involved and found the rampant underpayment, these people were put back on a plane and weren't heard from again. When they came into the country, the visa was approved on the same day it was applied for. Don't tell me that these rigorous checks are going on, because they're not. We find that they come through and, when we find out they're being exploited, get sent back. In 2018 on a job in Queensland a company claimed to be bringing in workers on the basis of unique, highly specialised skills. They were performing electrical work, testing and installing some solar panels. There are people in Australia who can do that. It's routine electrical installation work. There was no advertising of their positions first, there was no verification of skills, and they were paid less than the local wages. Again it was the union, not the government, that got involved and managed to get them back pay for some of that, but that's only the ones they were able to catch. The government lets many of these through the net. As we speak right now over 100 workers on the Hobart Hospital project have been brought in on visas under the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, claiming unique, highly specialised skills, which is the test under the law. They're performing carpentry, window-fitting— Mr Wilkie C2T Plastering. Mr BANDT M3C and plastering, the member for Denison tells me. Don't say that we can't find people who can do that work here. You know why there is an incentive to bring those workers in? Because they didn't get paid for five or six weeks. The union again—in this instance the CFMMEU—got involved and has forced some of the back pay, but many of these workers are now being disappeared and sent back to China. This is a pattern—pattern after pattern. We raised it in this House when the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement was being signed. We asked Labor to vote with us on some amendments then, and they said no. Labor has known about this for a very long time. You even acknowledge that these issues still exist, but you won't vote with us to stop them. You are enabling this neoliberal government. There is a reason this government is on the nose. It is because people in this country are sick of the trickledown troika of Labor, Liberal and big business. They are sick of three decades of being told that we have to sell everything off and have a race to the bottom. They are sick of being told that society has to be dog-eat-dog, where paying people the lowest-possible wages is the only ultimate goal of everything. They want protection of the things that matter and they want people to be looked after here and for people to be looked after overseas as well. You can oppose these trade deals and argue that they should be better, not because you don't want people from overseas coming to this country but because you want a bare minimum in place that says that if someone comes to Australia to do work here then they should get paid the local minimum wages and conditions. It is not objectionable to argue that. And we now know, because we've seen it time after time after time, that these so-called free trade deals aren't actually just about free trade; they are about giving corporations greater rights than they already have and greater rights as against everyday people. We have seen time after time examples of abuse. So, we need to stop it. We know that at the moment when you bring people in and there's no skills testing; you just put the right code on the form and the department grants it. We know that there's no rigorous labour market testing at the moment and, to the extent that there is, so many countries are now going to get an exemption as a result of this. And we know that it's fanciful to think that the countries that have that are suddenly going to give it up just because there happens to be a new Prime Minister. Why on earth would they do that? I hope they do, but I wouldn't be pinning my whole trade and labour policy on that basis. But that's what this Labor Party is doing. We know that in many instances these visas are issued on the same day that they're requested, suggesting that there could be no independent testing of skills; it is just not happening. To the extent that there is any assessment, it's a paper based administrative assessment, and we don't even see in the TPP or in this legislation a simple statement that says that if someone comes to Australia to do the work then they should be paid local wages and conditions. You would think— Mr Ciobo 00AN0 It's called domestic labour law. Mr BANDT M3C And I hear the minister chime in, 'Oh, it's called domestic labour law.' What you don't get is that you're carving out exemptions to this labour law under this. You are carving out exemptions by saying that people can come in without the proper testing and without even any assessment about what their skill level is. How can you know whether someone's being paid properly, if you don't know objectively what their skill level is? That's the situation you are about to tick off on. We've got the chance to do something about it right now, and I am moving that this bill be parked until we do what New Zealand's done and what some other countries have done, and that is go and negotiate some more protections under this agreement. Do not sign off now on giving corporations greater rights at the expense of everyday people. Do not sign off on total exemptions to our labour and migration law. Send the government back and, until they come back with a better deal, we should not pass this legislation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Is the amendment seconded? Mr Wilkie C2T I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Melbourne has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted, with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I'll state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. 13:18 Mr KA HX4 Kennedy TTER () (): The Labor Party, from my experience over nearly 50 years as a member for parliament—the labour movement, the unions will take it and cop it for a fair while, out of loyalty to the Labor Party, and then they've got to make some examples. They've got to let the Labor Party know that they give the money and support for the Labor Party on condition that the Labor Party looks after their working members. You can't con them all the time. That's the problem, Labor Party: you can't con them all the time. The ACTU has brought out some wonderful stuff, like how one in two jobs since 2013 go to temporary visa holders. The minister says, 'Oh, the law.' Minister, go out and have a yarn with your local taxi driver or taxi owner and ask him how good your laws are. Do any of the people in this House know what's really going on in the world? Go into the workplaces that the honourable member for Melbourne has talked about. Go into the workplaces and see that, yes, the law is being met and, yes, they are paying them award wages; but they charge them $200 a week for accommodation. The accommodation consists of three beds on that side, three beds on that side and a metre and a half between the two beds. That's the room, and about 60 or 70 people share a toilet and a bathroom. The migration agents and the visa agents get a big quid out of it. Of course, they have to give a kickback to the employer. He's not going to do business with them unless he is getting something out of it. You simply have a round robin that's going on. To say that the Liberals and the Labor Party don't know about this is not just Machiavellian but positively Orwellian. The free trade policies introduced by Mr Whitlam took 25 per cent of the tariffs away across the board. Mr Keating announced that we would be the most free economy on earth, with no restrictions on trade, and we would be the tough guys on the block. I always use the analogy of the gladiator. We say to our gladiator, 'Give me your helmet, give me your shield, mate, and go into the arena.' The gladiator says, 'The other bloke has a shield and a helmet to protect him. Aren't I going to get the bad ending?' We say, 'No, it will make you tough. Fighting with a sword, without any protection, will make you tough.' The gladiator says, 'It won't make me tough. It will make me dead.' That's what the gladiator called the motor vehicle industry said: 'It won't make me tough. It will make me dead. I don't exist any more.' The gladiator that is the whitegoods industry says, 'It won't make me tough. It will make me dead.' The whitegoods industry has gone. The textile industry has gone. The glass industry has gone. The steel industry, the same as the motor vehicle industry, said, 'If you don't do something, we can't stay on in Australia.' It's three-quarters gone. There is only a quarter of it left; it's about to go as well. The aluminium industry, of course, is also doomed under your policies. What have you got left? These people come in here and not one of them would know a moo-cow or a sheep from a damn scarecrow. They come in here and tell us, 'It will be good for rural Australia!' How good? Our beef production is down 20 per cent, our dairy production is down 30 per cent, our sugar production is down 17 per cent and our sheep herd is down 70 per cent. That's four out of your five big guys. I dare say the fifth one, the grains industry, is doomed. We can't possibly compete with the Americans, who are cross-subsidised by ethanol. The Brazilian sugar industry is cross-subsidised by ethanol. For seafood and pork, we are now the importers of seafood and pork. Half the time, we are now importers of fruit and vegetable. What sector of agriculture did it help? It didn't help agriculture. It didn't help manufacturing. God bless the trade union movement, because they've been a bit slow in awakening. But as Napoleon said, 'Don't wake up China. If it wakes, it will shape the world.' I will tell you, the trade union movement is waking up and they are going to start kicking out the Labor members whose endorsements they are going to remove. If they don't, they are not worth feeding as a trade union movement. But I have great faith in the union movement. They have never supported us in the last 15 years, but we support them and we will continue to support them. That's because Australia needs that. The member for Melbourne Ports is absolutely dead right: it is a mockery. How could the minister think that when he comes from the Atherton Tablelands? I don't mean to be personal. He is a nice guy. His parents are lovely people. They would be great contributors up there. But he comes into this place and says he is not aware of what happened in the tobacco industry, whose product was on the crest of his own local authority, and he doesn't know what happened to the dairy and maize industries, whose products were on the crest of a nearby local authority. He says he doesn't know what happened to any of these industries. Well, of course he does. He knows exactly what happened to them. But he has a policy, like the Labor Party, of free trade. Anyone who reads history books knows about those great men in the AWU, for example. The ALP leader comes out of the AWU. Their entire executive was jailed for three years with hard labour for having a work stoppage. The Labor movement are the people really betraying their own people. Their betrayal is on a scale that every history book will write about. Don't think the workers of Australia, with their hard hats and hard hands, are so dumb that they can't pick it up. I'll be doing a little tour through a number of industrial areas shortly, and if they haven't woken up I'll be waking them up; that's for certain. They're not going to keep copping it. It was the Labor Party that introduced the mass visa entrance to this country, which has undermined our pay and conditions. Our biggest employer in this country is the mining industry, where wages have gone down from around $200,000 a year—which miners richly deserve, because it is dangerous and hard, and you have to live away from home now—down to $100,000, and they won't be stopping there. The union movement—the ACTU and the CFMEU—have done brilliant papers on the casualisation of labour, the dangers of section 457, the undermining of our pay and conditions, and the race to the bottom. To back up the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, if a Chinese company is considering buying a corporation in Australia and they know they can bring their own workers in and, through round robins, pay them half of what Australian companies have to pay, that company becomes a marvellous target for China, because they know that they can take the whole Australian market out from under everyone. Let me turn to the electricity industry, one of the most important industries, if not the most important industry, in this country. I'm not going to go into that. When we put solar panels on the roofs, we send the jobs to China, of course, and close down the jobs in the power stations and the mines in Australia, but we won't go into that; that's an aside. The real issue in electricity is that I was under the impression that China had 25 per cent of the electricity industry, but it appears now that they have more like 40 per cent of the Australian industry, and they have a number of workers in key positions. Let me be very specific: in the Tully sugar mill, which has been bought by the Chinese, the CEO, the manager of the mill, is now Chinese. All of the staff in the administration building, I'm told reliably, are now Chinese. Very soon, all the foremen and senior positions in that sugar mill will be Chinese. They're probably paying these people half, effectively, of what was being paid before, so already they've got a market advantage on the other sugar mills. So the other sugar mills—which, I might add, are mostly Chinese owned too—will start competing. So you're watching not the race to the bottom but the drive to the bottom. But the Australian people are waking up. Where we can get our message out in places like North Queensland, we and the other minor parties are rolling up nearly 40 per cent of the vote, whereas the best the mainstream parties can do is 30 per cent. This is six or seven per cent of the population of Australia, so, if we do that in four or five other places, you big parties are gone. You will go where you deserve to go, into oblivion, which is exactly what happened to the free market parties in this country at the turn of the last century. As I walk into this place, I put up my fist in solidarity with the first member for Kennedy, Charlie McDonald, one of the founders of the Labor movement in this country. If he knew what was taking place here, he would spit on the people on this side of the parliament. He would expect it from that side of the parliament, but he would spit on these people on this side of the parliament, because they are the ones that really commenced all of this. If you have a look at how much free trade they are responsible for compared to the Liberals, they win pretty comfortably. It is a very sad day for the people of Australia, who have showed 100 years of loyalty to the Labor movement, that they could be betrayed on the scale that they are being betrayed upon. I take great confidence in backing my colleagues in the cross benches on this issue— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The debate is interrupted. In accordance with standing order 43 the debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 41 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Aged Care 41 13:30 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I rise today to speak on the aged-care crisis, which has developed under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments, and specifically to speak on this coalition government's cuts to aged care. The reality is that the Liberal Party's latest Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, is to blame for the shocking state of aged care in this country. He, after all, has been the architect of the savage cuts which have rocked this crucial sector. The people will not forget that as Treasurer Scott Morrison was responsible for ripping $1.2 billion from the care of older Australians in his very first budget. His track record speaks for itself. The sight of him on television announcing a royal commission just made me feel they were complete crocodile tears from Mr Morrison. It comes as no surprise to me that after five years in which the Prime Minister, and his out of touch Liberal government, have cut almost $2 billion out of our aged-care system, that the system is definitely in crisis, which is what we've been saying. We've been saying it all along. With such savage cuts the government should have been able to predict a reduction in quality. You can't fix aged care by cutting from it, yet the Prime Minister, when he was Treasurer, signed off on a $1.2 billion cut to aged care in the 2016 budget. He should do the right thing now, fund it properly and own up to his own mistakes. This is a tragedy unfolding and we must do better. Watson, Ms Bronwyn 41 13:31 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Bronwyn Watson has brought communication to the deaf in my community. It started 30 years ago when her niece, Anna, was born profoundly deaf. When Jenny, Bronwyn's sister, went back to work, Bronwyn looked after Anna, along with her own two children. Bronwyn soon became passionate about deaf peoples' access to sign language and twice did the only course, that was six weeks long, offered at the Lismore TAFE. This put her on the road to becoming a sign language interpreter. Bronwyn, along with another interpreter, Karen Lloyd, formed a group called sign interpreters north coast and they rallied interested people to become interpreters. The northern rivers deaf community is now the largest in regional New South Wales with the most interpreters. Bronwyn works full-time as a head teacher and consultant for deaf and hard of hearing students for North Coast TAFE in New South Wales. In 2006 Bronwyn was named the Lismore woman of the year. Her niece, Anna, went on to become a professional dancer in Melbourne and works with deaf groups. Bronwyn, I thank you for all that you have done for the hearing impaired in our community. Aged Care 41 13:33 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon As a previous speaker said, the aged-care system is in crisis but it's not something that I've just become aware of in the last couple of days—unlike the Prime Minister. Ever since being elected to this House, I have been speaking on this issue, because I have seen with my own eyes, in my community—by responding to the concerns of those in our community who have their mums, dads, nannas and pops in our aged-care facilities—that this is a system under crisis. The Prime Minister has been the architect of cuts that have put this incredible pressure on our aged-care system. It can't be denied. In the first budget alone he was responsible for ripping $1.2 billion away from the care of our elder Australians. There's no way that you can rip that sort of funding out of our system, and it's been over $2 billion since this Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison rock show of a government. That sort of funding ripped out of this system has brought us to the crisis point we're in now. Embarrassingly, the Prime Minister is now thinking that he can announce a royal commission and just crab walk away from those cuts. What he should do today, here in the House, is be honest with the Australian people, admit to ripping the funds out of that system and commit to putting them back. Lyne Electorate 41 13:34 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I wish to bring to the attention of the House the flourishing rodeo and campdrafting circuit in the wonderful Lyne electorate. Back at Easter, Dungog put on a large rodeo with at least 4,000 people attending. I want to congratulate Bill Rumbel, David Hudson and Carol Anne Cummins for putting on such a wonderful event. I attended the Gresford rodeo on 25 August and I was amazed by the skills of the junior competitors. They start early in Gresford, with children under the age of 10 holding onto steers. The help and guidance from the clowns and the safety officers was really amazing. There were great skills and great courage from very young Australians. This weekend at the Stroud rodeo and campdrafting it was bigger than ever before. Eight thousand people attended and enjoyed seeing great horsemanship skills, fantastic riders and incredible skills in the bronco and bull riding and barrel riding. There were all the thrills and spills, but it was completely safe and so well organised. I'd like to congratulate Annette Baldwin, the Cummings, the Davies, the Dennises, the Edwards, the Farnham family, the Hares, the Gilberts, the Gortons, the Greenhams, the Hamiltons, the Kemps, the Mayton family, Chris Melmeth in particular, the Thompsons, George Trinkler, the Wilmans, the Wares, the Tarrants, Molly Went, and Colin and Roz Ince. What an amazing community. (Time expired) Aged Care 42 13:36 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam The aged-care sector is in crisis. This is not a crisis that has crept up on us. We've known about it for a while. While elderly Australians are calling out for care, this government has been giving them cuts—and not small cuts, but $2 billion worth of cuts. While older Australians and their carers are saying, 'We need help and assistance,' the Prime Minister has delivered in his time in government over $2 billion worth of cuts to the aged-care sector. You can't cut your way to care. In my own electorate, there are nearly 1,900 elderly Australians who want to live at home but have been assessed as having a high level of care need. They want to stay at home. They've been assessed as needing a Commonwealth care package, but there is not the funding available to provide that care to them. In their last budget, the government did not add one additional cent to care packages such that people in my electorate and right around the country would have that care available to them. It is not only people who want to live at home. Any member in this place could tell you of the struggle that they are having with their constituents trying to get an elderly person into residential care. There are not the care places available to them. We welcome the fact that the government have called a royal commission, after exhausting every other alternative available to them, but you can't cut your way to care. (Time expired) Moore Electorate: Stronger Communities Program 42 13:37 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore Members of the community consultative committee for the Stronger Communities Program met on 7 September to independently assess the allocation of $150,000 in funding for proposed community projects within Moore. I am pleased that the committee recommended a federal funding contribution towards the upgrade of the Sorrento bowling clubrooms, part of the $1.4 million upgrade works project at Percy Doyle Reserve in Duncraig that includes refurbishment of Mildenhall, the Sorrento tennis clubrooms and the Duncraig leisure centre and the extension of the Sorrento bowling clubrooms and utilities upgrades. This major refurbishment of ageing sporting and recreational facilities by the City of Joondalup is very much needed by our local community in order to accommodate the growth in the number of patrons using the popular recreational precinct. It is encouraging that the federal government is making this and a number of funding contributions to local governments, cooperatively delivering quality recreational amenities and facilities for the benefit of our local community. I thank Mayor Albert Jacob, Councillor Sophie Dwyer and Councillor Russ Fishwick for their support for this project. Aged Care 42 13:39 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Prime Minister Morrison is playing the Australian public for mugs. After his Damascene conversion, he suddenly pretends that aged care is his top priority when he is actually responsible for the cuts that have gutted the aged-care sector. This current Prime Minister's top priority is all about keeping his job, while the muppet show curtain collapses around him. Our aged care sector is in crisis. Every Australian with an older family member knows that aged care in this country is not currently at the standard that we expect. The problem the recently converted Prime Minister has is that it was his acts as Treasurer, his budget, that inflicted massive cuts on this sector. The Prime Minister caused the crisis that we are now currently in. The budget papers from when he was Treasurer are crystal clear. Page 101 of Budget Paper No. 2 states: The Government will achieve efficiencies of $1.2 billion over four years … Guess what? He needs to take responsibility for those cuts and the crisis he's created. When you cut billions out of a sector, standards suffer—people suffer. Older Australians are suffering because of the cuts made by Prime Minister Morrison. This is a critical policy area and this rabble should stop fighting amongst themselves and start governing for the good of all Australians, especially our senior Australians, who have done so much for this nation. Tangney Electorate: Brentwood Booragoon Football Club 43 13:40 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney There's a lot of excitement about the Brownlows, but in Tangney we have the Brentlows. There will be plenty of celebrations this Saturday night as the Brentwood Booragoon Football Club holds its annual awards night. The mighty Bulldogs recently turned 40, celebrating their big anniversary at the last game for the season. Life members, past players, families and sponsors all cheered on for the team as they clashed with the Ellenbrook Eels at The Kennel. Brentwood Booragoon Football Club first played in 1978 after a group of close mates decided to get a football team together for the upcoming season. They made it to the grand final in the first two seasons. The club plays WAAFL with teams in the league, reserves, thirds and colts, as well as AFL Masters. The Bulldogs look after their mates and they look after our local community. Their special fundraiser in support of men's mental health raised over $3,300 for the Black Dog Institute. Congratulations to members, past and present, their families, the Bulldogs' committee and the hardworking volunteers for 40 great years of footy. I'm looking forward to celebrating with the Bulldogs this Saturday night at the Brentlows when I present the Clubman of the Year award. Kennedy Electorate: Hughenden 43 13:42 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Hughenden is at the centre of the most drought-prone area in Australia. It gets 15 inches of rain, but in one year it got 65 inches—it doesn't leave much for the average. It needs over two inches of rain to simply seal the foot-deep cracks before it actually provides enrichment for grass, yet it has the most nutritional soils in Australia and some of the best in the world. Hughenden is on the Flinders River—6.5 million megalitres—Australia's sixth biggest river. HIPCO, Hughenden Irrigation Project Corporation, will take 360,000 megalitres at most in the irrigation proposal, or around five per cent of the flow of the river. The Flinders is not a river, however. It is a flood for a few months at the start of the year and for the bulk of the year it is a series of waterholes. All that occurs, as far as the environment goes, is that the floods may go over the bridge at Normanton by 20 feet each year to 21 foot each year. Since the underground aquifers—the water and sand bed—will be full all year round, there is an argument that the weirs will actually increase the flows in the river. In the town, thanks to the free-marketeers the wool industry has gone, the railways have gone and Telstra and electricity workers have half gone—all thanks to privatisation and deregulation. Some 500 jobs have gone from this tiny little town. This proposal will create some 70 farms and an income for an estimated 150 families. Since around 100,000— (Time expired) Parliamentary Friends of Prostate Cancer Awareness 43 13:43 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt Last week the Parliamentary Friends of Prostate Cancer Awareness held its annual luncheon here at Parliament House. It was fantastic to see so many people attend and the bipartisan support for this important cause. Prostate cancer doesn't discriminate. It is the most common cancer amongst Australian men, with 20,000 cases diagnosed each year. More than 3,000 men die of prostate cancer in Australia every year. More men die of prostate cancer than women die of breast cancer. As you are all aware, this month is Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. Evidence shows that men aged between 50-70, or from 40 years old if they have a family history of prostate cancer, should discuss testing with their GP. This gives us all an opportunity, through increased education, to empower Australian men to take control of their health and it encourages them to discuss testing with their GP. I encourage colleagues to spread awareness about prostate cancer in their electorate so that more men can have the discussion with their GPs. A simple blood test could quite literally save your life. Finally, I'd like to thank the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia for the great work they're doing in highlighting this important issue on men's health. Aged Care 43 13:45 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland The seat of Shortland has over 40,000 people over the age of 60. It's a fabulous place to retire, and we have many people coming up from Sydney and other places. We are at the focal point of the aged-care crisis in this nation. I meet with aged-care residents and their families regularly. They have huge issues and huge challenges to face. I meet with the workers there, who face low pay and considerable pressures on their time. For the Prime Minister now to suddenly discover there's a problem with the aged-care sector is the equivalent of someone robbing a bank and then complaining about bank security. This is the bloke who, as Treasurer, cut $2 billion from aged-care budgets in this country—$2 billion! We have 108,000 people on the home care package waiting list, 88,000 of them with high needs such as dementia, and we have a workforce that will triple in the next couple of decades. But all we get from the government is excuses, denials that they are the problem and denials that they cut $2 billion while constituents in my electorate and every other electorate in this country suffer. Well, the public won't cop it. They see through this mob, they see through the prime muppet and they say enough is enough. People in aged-care facilities, their families and the workers want real solutions to the challenges they face, not grandstanding from a government that cut $2 billion from the sector. Mobile Black Spot Program 44 13:46 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I'd like to inform the House of what a great program the Mobile Black Spot Program is and how it's a clear delineation between what has been delivered by our government and what was not given and not delivered by the previous Labor-Green-Independents government. I'd like to talk about how we have mobile phone towers that have been put in at Balala; Bonshaw; Drake; Dungowan; Hillgrove; Kings Plains; Rocky Creek; Urbenville, which they're stating now; Walcha Road, my old haunt; Woolomin, just below the dam we did up; Attunga, just up the road, where I used to go to do junior sports; Barraba; Bruxner Highway at Sandy Hills west of Drake, even though Drake still doesn't vote for me; Duri; Elsmore; Fossickers Way; Hallsville; Invergowrie; Manilla; Moonbi; Mount Carrington; Oxley Vale; Piallamore; Tamworth, whose team, the Tamworth Pirates, played Walcha Rams in the grand final on the weekend and beat them, unfortunately—Walcha being a town of 2,500 people and Tamworth having 67,000; Westdale; Fig Tree Hill near Copeton Dam; Copeton Dam; Kingstown; Baldersleigh; Koreelah, up on a hill—it was great to go up and see that way up in the north of the electorate; Pinkett, just south of Glen Innes, where we've got over a billion dollars of renewable energy; Mount Hourigan at Aberfoyle, east of Guyra, and Doughboy Mountain, which is right out in the sticks. This is all part of the delivery of a coalition government. This is what was asked for, and this is what we're actually delivering, right next to the bridges that we're doing up and next to the decentralisation of government jobs into Armidale. This is what a government is about. Finally, I'd like to commend the great work of the Tamworth Pirates and give commiserations to the Walcha Rams. Aged Care 44 13:48 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan The last four years of my father's life were spent in an aged-care facility. He'd contracted vascular dementia, and we had to find a locked facility for him. We were lucky that we found a kind and caring environment for him, but we shouldn't have had to rely on luck. No Australian should. So it's absolutely galling that this Prime Minister denies and walks away from the massive cuts to aged care brought about by himself as the Treasurer. Yesterday, he said it was a lie to say that he had cut funding to aged care, but the budget papers don't lie. They state that the government will achieve efficiencies of $1.2 billion over four years. Aged-care workers aren't lying when they tell us about the conditions in which they work and the increasing staff-to-patient ratios. The facts don't lie. The standards in the care for older Australians have plummeted under the weight of these cuts. This government needs to do better, and a royal commission now just doesn't cut it. They should have known about it ages ago. They need to do better by our older Australians, but the Liberals are too distracted by their own internal squabbles. Meanwhile, older Australians and their families continue to have to rely on luck. It's just not good enough. It's not good enough that, in a country like Australia, our older Australians, who have worked hard all their lives, are left to die in aged-care facilities where the standards are degrading. Hughes Electorate: Marine Sanctuaries 44 13:49 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes The electorate of Hughes is blessed with a series of magnificent waterways: the Hacking, Georges and Woronora rivers. These are there for us all to enjoy, and in fact I did so on the weekend when I participated in time trials with the Sutherland Shire Canoe Club, even though I came an honourable last. I would agree with the comments of my state colleague, Ms Eleni Petinos, the member for Miranda, where she said that the current marine park proposal for New South Wales waterways, which restrict the access of recreational fishermen across 25 distinct sites between Newcastle and Wollongong, goes too far. It intrudes upon the Central Coast lifestyle that we all value. We all place great value on the protection of our coastal environment. We all have the opportunity to enjoy that coastal environment. Our fishermen in the vast majority of circumstances are some of our best environmentalists. The proposal for the marine parks in New South Wales goes too far. One of the great rights in this nation is to go and throw a line with your son, your daughter or your grandfather to try to catch a fish. That is jeopardised by this proposal, and I agree with my state colleague. Aged Care 44 13:51 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh What a disingenuous government we have here! The government is trying to be warm and fuzzy, but it's a bit too late when the architect of a policy to cuts aged care is today's Prime Minister. In his very first budget as Treasurer he was responsible for ripping $1.2 billion out of care for older Australians. How can you rip $1.2 billion out of looking after our older Australians and it not have a negative effect? That's why people are dying while waiting on the list for aged-care packages. Constituents that come to see me regularly, every day, every week, complain about being on a list whilst they're waiting for care. What's happening while they're waiting? They're deteriorating. Not only do they deteriorate but so do their carers. This is a cruel government that has been misleading the Australian public and especially our older Australians, who have worked and paid taxes all their lives, many of whom have fought in wars to make the country what it is today and build the foundations we all enjoy as Australians. The least we could do is give them the dignity in care they require in their older years. This system is in crisis. No wonder it's in crisis when you have pulled out $1.2 billion. We're not talking about a million here or there; $1.2 billion from a sector. That was one budget. (Time expired) Queensland: Law Enforcement 45 13:52 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman This entire building, even the great Australians in the gallery, will be shocked by Queensland Labor's money-grabbing exercise by attacking four-wheel-drive owners—mums and dads who are getting fines, issued defect notices and having their vehicles impounded simply because of a difference in the enforcement of laws in Queensland compared to the rest of the country. Motorists have no idea that what was legal last year and not enforced is now leading to these infringements under anti-hooning laws in Queensland by state Labor. Queenslanders are falling prey to police dragnets all over the state. While suspensions can continue to go up to 50 millimetres, adding larger tyres will get you pinged. That has never happened before—thousands of vehicles but only in Queensland; cross the border from New South Wales with a brand new modified four-wheel drive and you get pinged in Queensland 15 hours later. 75 millimetre lift is the basic necessity to get around on sand, to go on a holiday to Fraser Island. Labor's minister, Mark Bailey, sent me a cheeky email, obviously written off the cuff, telling me I'm fighting for political ends and pathetic political grandstanding. That's disappointing. I seek leave to table this email. Call it what you want; I will stand up for mums and dads in the four-wheel-drive community, for tourism in Queensland, for the right to do what we do in every other state, because Queensland is breaking away from national consistency, and that is a disgrace. I seek leave to table the document. Leave granted. Aged Care 45 13:54 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman It's interesting that at last this government has decided something is terribly amiss in aged care. For the entire term of this government we on this side of the House have heralded concerns. This government, as soon as it was elected, abolished the aged-care supplement, which was put in place by a Labor government to help providers pay decent wages to the wonderful workers in aged care, who, interestingly, don't aspire to another job, as the ex-Prime Minister said, but aspire to have the resources and abilities to care for their patients. After that, this government cut $1.6 billion from their budget. It froze the Aged Care Funding Instrument last year, and this year the indexation of funding for patients with complex care was cut by 50 per cent. Patients with complex care are the hardest patients and the most vulnerable patients that our carers need to look after. As a nurse, I know what these funding cuts mean. I know what it's like to be a carer or nurse in aged care and not be able to deliver the care that you want to to your patients because there aren't the resources and the funding there to help you do it. Aged-care nurses and their unions have been screaming out for reform and resources, a call that has been completely ignored by this government. They need resources so they can continue to do the best job they can for their patients and their residents. If there is a royal commission, when this royal commission starts, it has to start by examining and dealing with the neglect of this government with regard to funding the aged-care sector properly. Human Rights 45 13:55 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley I'm proud of the Prime Minister's firm commitment to better protect freedom of speech and religion. This goes well beyond the context of the recent marriage debate to the need to protect such freedoms more generally. The fact is that in Australia we have limited to no constitutional or guaranteed protections for freedom of speech, religion, conscience and belief. That means a future government with a simple majority could whittle down such freedoms. In my maiden speech I said: I am a Liberal because I support freedom and liberty … People should generally be able to freely express their beliefs and not be forced to speak or act against them. I also said we should be: … considering charter protection of our freedoms and liberties. Protections must include churches or other bodies promoting a religion or world view, and their ministers, personnel and practitioners, in meetings, proselytisation, employment or expressing views. They must include religious schools, organisations set up on religious principles, the press, and individuals expressing their views in their lives or employment or to others, including stopping costs being put on free speech as we've seen with Bettina Arndt and others recently. They must include parents with their parental choice and consent over what their children are taught; businesses or organisations in employment or when asked to put out a message or participate in something they disagree with; Defence celebrants; and more. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall said: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Aged Care 46 13:57 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin This side of politics, of course, welcomes an inquiry and a royal commission into the aged care crisis that we have been saying has been going on in this country for quite some time. We have been saying it in this place. I've lost count how many times I've stood at the dispatch box talking about the aged-care crisis. This government criticised us for talking about that crisis. They said, 'Nothing to see here.' They're currently sitting on 14 reports that are on ministers' desks, with reports and recommendations on how to fix the aged-care crisis. Whilst we welcome this royal commission, I was aghast yesterday when this Prime Minister denied that when he was Treasurer he made cuts to the aged care budget. He absolutely made that cut. It's in black and white in his first budget: $1.2 billion taken from the Aged Care Funding Instrument. That instrument is for the most complex residents that are in homes today. The Aged Care Funding Instrument is an assessment done for those with the highest needs, some of the most vulnerable people, who need the highest level of care. That's what this Prime Minister cut when he was Treasurer. That's what he did when he was Treasurer, and he should fess up to it and admit that he made a mistake in his press conference yesterday, because he did make that cut. It's in black and white in his budget papers, and any royal commission needs to examine the impact of those massive cuts to the aged-care sector. The sector is saying this; this is not just Labor saying this. The sector is saying there have been massive cuts. (Time expired) Berowra Electorate: Pennant Hills Junior Australian Football Club 46 13:58 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Yesterday, I had the honour of attending and presenting awards to the outstanding members of the Pennant Hills junior AFL club, the Demons. The club is 52 years old and has a proud history of developing high-performing junior players and elevating them into the ranks of major AFL clubs. I was honoured to present the senior club member of the year award to Joe Stewart, who as ground manager has run every Sunday game day from 6.30 am like clockwork. I also presented Joel Cousens with the junior club member award for his passionate coaching contribution to the under-14s group. Congratulations to seven players awarded life memberships who have reached 150 games or provided 10 years of service to the club. They are Harry Patchett, Luke Richards, Henry Toczydlowski, Aengus Taylor, Oliver Barry, Michael Whyte and Jake Protogeros. The club has a deep commitment to building community and considers everyone family. This is shown in the outstanding contribution by the Penno Demons volunteers who received life memberships, including Theresa Taylor, who has been a club stalwart for over 10 years, Dean Moran, who has always gone beyond the call of duty, and Kevin Eynaud, who is a passionate mentor and leader. His exceptional coaching skills have played a pivotal role in developing young players. Finally, I'd like to acknowledge the Penno Demons president, Steve Protogeros, and vice-president, Graeme de Vallance, for all the work they do for the club and its members. Congratulations to the Penno Demons. They're a great community club. As the Prime Minister has the Sharks, so I too have the Demons. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 46 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Aged Care 46 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister stated: We are committed to providing older Australians with access to care that supports their dignity … If that is the case, why, when he was Treasurer, in his first budget, did the now Prime Minister cut $1.2 billion from aged care? How did cutting $1.2 billion from aged care support the dignity of vulnerable older Australians? Mr Frydenberg interjecting— The SPEAKE R: The Treasurer will cease interjecting. 14:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I was hoping there'd be some bipartisanship when it came to the issues of aged care. But clearly the opposition— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Order on my left! Mr MORRISON E3L I will retain some hope on that front, but I will address the Leader of the Opposition's question. Only with Labor Party financial management could it happen that you would increase the budget for aged care by a billion dollars every single year and that, in their minds, would be a cut to funding. We are increasing the funding for aged care by a billion dollars extra every single year from the 2016-17 budget and going out to the end of the forward estimates. Only under the Labor Party can one plus one equal zero. That's how they do their maths. That's how the shadow Treasurer adds up. But this side of the House has a track record for strong financial management, and it is only through a strong economy that we've been able to boost funding for aged care by a billion dollars extra every single year— Ms Ryan interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lalor! Mr MORRISON E3L and, on top of that, ensure we're delivering more in-home aged-care places. Ms Ryan interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lalor is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L The member refers to the 2016-17 budget. He may be interested to know what the sector said about the 2016-17 budget when it comes to aged care. It said: Elements of the 2016 Budget measures to slow the dramatic above trend growth in ACFI funding would have had unintended consequences for some providers of services heavily focused on serving people with complex health care needs, among our most vulnerable residents. Today's adjustments to the policy means that those risks have been addressed while the government proceeds with a process of reviewing the ACFI and the whole assessment process, in consultation with the sector. Ian Yates said in relation to the 2016-17 budget and the measures I handed down in that budget: It takes courage and leadership … …   …   … This is good news for the increasing number of older Australians who need the support of aged care services, and their families. We know how to run a strong economy. We know how to get the budget back into balance, which is exactly what we've been doing. We know how you fund the essential services, like aged care, that are necessary. You do it by running a stronger economy. Dr Leigh interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Fenner is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and the entire frontbench of the Labor Party have no plans for a stronger economy. They wouldn't know how to run a stronger economy, or anything else, if their political future depended upon it. You cannot trust Labor with the economy. They want to tax it into complete obliteration. When you do that, you can't afford aged-care services. This government is delivering, year on year, higher funding for aged-care services, and we're pleased to continue to support it with a strong budget and a strong economy. The SPEAKER 00APG For members who are interjecting, I refer them to my comments of last week. I'm not going to endure continual interjections. For those who have been ejected, you won't be warned. You're not going to disrupt question time for those viewing it and for those who have taken the trouble to come along and watch it. Aged Care 47 14:04 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please outline to the House why the government is establishing a royal commission into aged-care safety and quality? How will the royal commission help us stand alongside senior Australians? 14:04 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Petrie for his question and his passionate concern about the welfare of senior Australians in his community in the electorate of Petrie and all around the country. Our government is standing together with senior Australians to protect their choices for a longer life and how they can support themselves in a longer life and have the availability of the services they need to ensure the quality of their life in their senior years. Our government is standing with senior Australians to protect them, to protect their safety—their personal safety—and the care that is being provided to them and to remain engaged in our community, whether it's through the continued increased support for in-home aged-care places or our support for other services within residential aged care. The decision that Australians make about loved ones going into residential aged care is one of the hardest decisions that they make. I know that all members of this House would understand that. You are placed in a position of trust by your loved one at their moment of greatest fragility and vulnerability, and every single Australian deserves to have the confidence that the system into which they are placing their loved ones is up to standard. Over the course of the last few years, we have increased not only the funding support for aged care but the compliance and policing resources into aged care, and what that has revealed is a disturbing and alarming increase in the level of risk of noncompliance and substandard care. That is not something that we can allow to continue. We have put additional resources in, but it requires the additional work of a royal commission into the aged-care sector, both into residential aged care and in-home care services, including residential aged care for younger Australians living with a disability. That work that has already been done has shown that the problem could be very widespread, not just in for-profit or not-for-profit centres, not just in large centres or smaller centres or in regional and rural centres or those in metropolitan areas. It is very important that we have an independent and clear understanding of the facts upon which future policy can be based. As I said to the Leader of the Opposition when I spoke to him the night before making the announcement, it is my intention this will provide a basis of continued bipartisanship when it comes to the issue of addressing the aged-care sector. Over eight years, going back to when we were in opposition and the Labor Party was in government, we have supported reforms—not all of which were popular, but we supported them—and we have had some support for the reforms that we have continued. But this royal commission provides the opportunity not to have a superficial understanding of these issues but to have a clear and detailed understanding, which can be the basis for this chamber and the other chamber to work together to ensure that we can deliver on the needs of Australians being cared for in our residential aged-care sector. I don't want to fight about this issue; I want to fix it. Aged Care 48 14:08 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. How can the Prime Minister deny cutting $1.2 billion from aged care when page 101 of Budget Paper No. 2 from his 2016 budget, which bears his own name, states: The Government will achieve efficiencies of $1.2 billion over four years through changes to the scoring matrix of the Aged Care Funding Instrument (ACFI) that determines the level of funding paid to aged care providers. 14:08 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook It's quite simple: In the 2016-17 budget, funding for aged care was $17.1 billion. It is increased on average by 6.2 per cent each year up to 2021. In 2017 alone, aged -care spending was estimated to reach $18.6 billion. For the benefit of the member for Sydney, $18.6 billion is higher than $17.1 billion. Over the next four years, it will grow by another $5 billion, to 23.6 billion. What the member would know is that, when the Labor Party were in government, they also had issues with the estimation of potential demand in the aged-care sector and issues of compliance with allocating the funding and ensuring the funding was spent for the purposes for which it was intended—to recalibrate future growth projections upon which the services would be required. That is a standard budgeting function. It can be dealt with as an underspend in the estimates, as I would know as a former Treasurer, or you can take the decision in the budget and make sure the forward projections are accurate. Aged-care funding has gone up by a billion dollars and more every year under this government. They're the facts. This is why I want a royal commission into this area. We should not be making decisions based on the political agendas of those opposite or in other places; we should be making decisions based on the facts. The Australian people know that the Labor Party do not tell the truth at elections about services provided to senior Australians. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L They went to the last election and didn't tell the Australian people the truth about Medicare services. They told them blatant untruths. The Australian people know they cannot trust what the Labor Party tells them about what the government is doing. By contrast, the Australian people can trust this government because we know how to run a stronger economy to pay for it and we do the things that we believe in. Economy 48 14:10 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government's strong economic management is providing economic security for senior Australians, including in the Goldstein electorate? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative ideas? 14:11 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Goldstein for his question. He knows that the coalition is absolutely committed to supporting the 30,000 seniors in his electorate and the millions of seniors around the country, in stark contrast to those opposite. For the Labor Party, senior Australians are a piggy bank to raid when they run out of money. They treat senior Australians as a piggy bank. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will pause for a second. Mr Bowen interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon will cease interjecting; he's warned. The member for Fenner has already been warned. He can leave under standing order 94(a). The member for Fenner then left the chamber. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL For the coalition, it's all about providing choice, encouraging personal responsibility and helping those who are in need, whether that is in terms of aged care, employment, lifelong learning, maximising their retirement income or healthy living. We are able to provide those services to senior Australians because we have put in place the foundations for a strong and growing economy. That's our track record. If you look at the last budget, there was $1.6 billion for 20,000 new home care places. There was more than $100 million for better facilities, better care and better services and an additional $5 billion going into aged care over the next five years, so that, in total, $23.6 billion will be spent on aged care. We know that that stands in stark contrast to that which is proposed by those opposite. The Labor Party will hit senior Australians with a retirees tax. We know that they will hike energy bills. They will hike energy bills, which will hurt senior Australians the most. Their retirees tax will hit 900,000 Australians—pensioners and self-funded retirees. Eighty-four per cent of those affected have a taxable income of less than $37,000, and 96 per cent of those affected have a taxable income of less than $87,000. This is not the multimillionaires club. These are hardworking senior Australians who have saved and sacrificed for their retirement. We know that, under the Labor Party, senior Australians will be hit with higher energy bills. We know that there won't be as much money for aged care, and we know that they'll be hit with a retirees tax. So, under the Labor Party, every single Australian will pay more and senior Australians won't be spared from their taxes. Aged Care 49 14:14 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer. How can the Prime Minister continue to deny a cut of $1.2 billion in aged-care funding in his first budget when it's here in black and white on page 101? 14:14 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook It's quite simple: it's because funding went up. Funding increased by more than a billion dollars every year under our government in our services to aged care. But, given the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about previous budget papers, maybe I should have a look at some of Labor's previous budget papers. In 2011-12, Labor ripped over $200 million out of residential aged care. That's in budget paper No. 2 2011-12. In 2012-13, there was a cut of $135 million to these services in budget paper No. 2. But these aren't the issues that I want to focus on today. We're increasing funding to aged care every year. What I would invite the Leader of the Opposition to do is to say what he has indicated to me and that is that he is very concerned about—and we share this concern—the need to focus together on delivering the aged-care services and the support that is needed for Australians to have that level of confidence. I believe he agrees with that and should say so, instead of coming into this place and getting into the usual childish games of tit for tat on aged care. We can do that all day, if he wants. He can point to his little fact and I can point to my little fact. But the Australian people have had a gutful of that to-ing and fro-ing and bickering about aged care. Ms Catherine King interjecting — The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Ballarat is warned! Mr MORRISON E3L That's why I've established a royal commission—to put to rest all of those issues and to put the Australian people first, to stand with senior Australians around the country and to ensure that we work together as a parliament, as a government, to put those Australians first and to give Australians the assurances they want and deserve for their family members—their aunt, uncle, dad, mum, sister, brother, partner, wife or husband. Mr Gosling interjecting — The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Solomon will leave under 94(a). The member for So lomon then left the chamber. Mr MORRISON E3L They deserve better than this tit for tat. Pensions and Benefits 50 14:16 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services. Frank, aged 68, applied for the pension in November last year. In March, after nine months of no income, he called my office seeking urgent assistance. Due to serious health issues, Wayne, aged 69, applied for the pension last December. Financially and emotionally distressed, in March he called my office after waiting over four months for Centrelink to approve his application. Minister, I have so many cases like Frank and Wayne. Our older Australians deserve better than this. What undertakings will you make to urgently address the delayed Centrelink processing of age pension applications? 14:17 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I thank the member for the question. Firstly, at the outset, if there are any individual cases that she wishes to raise, the best thing to do, as members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House do, is to raise them directly with my office. Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McEwen will leave under 94(a). The member for McEwen then left the chamber. Mr KEENAN E0J When individual cases are raised with me, or my office, obviously we make every effort to intervene to make sure that people get the outcomes that they deserve. In regard to this, if the member wants to see me after question time, I'm very happy to look into the cases that she has raised with me. But, in general, this is what is happening within my department. When we came to office, the Labor Party, between 2007 and 2013, had cut 4,800 people from the Department of Human Services. We, as always, are the ones who are fixing up that mess. I am getting an extra 2,750 people contracted within my department to be able to address these issues to make sure that, when people call, the phones are answered quickly and people can deal with their questions and get them the responses they deserve. Processing times are improving because of the extra resources that we have put into the department. They will continue to improve as those extra resources come online. But I say to every member of this chamber: if there is an individual case that has been brought to you then, please, come to us, raise it with us and we can fix it. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 50 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:19 The SPEAKER 00APG I would like to inform the House that we have joining us in the gallery the Hon. Michael Gunner, Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. On behalf of the House, a very warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 50 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Aged Care 50 14:19 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how Australia's strong economy enables us to look after the elderly residents of rural and regional Australia? What are the risks to the infrastructure investment that is helping rural and regional senior Australians get the care that they deserve? 14:20 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Wide Bay for his question. Aged care is very, very important. We believe that quality aged-care services should be available close to home, particularly for those people in country Australia. When they have to make that decision, or their families make the decisions for them to go to a residential aged-care place, sometimes, all too often, they have to go many hundreds of kilometres from where they've lived most of their life, away from their family and friends. That is very difficult. It's difficult for them primarily, but it's also difficult for their family and friends. It's an already stressful time for them. All of us would want our mums, dads, grandparents, families and friends to be close to us during that time and in the future. We want that for all Australian people. A strong economy means that we can invest in aged-care centres through such programs as the Building Better Regions Fund; it's such a good fund for country Australia. In that fund in recent rounds there has been $8 million to the Gloucester Anglican care centre, a 50-bed facility with communal areas, in the member for Lyne's electorate. There has been $1.4 million in Kiama, in Gilmore, for restoring the Blue Haven aged care centre of excellence. There has been $3.6 million to Frank Whiddon Masonic Homes in Temora. There has been $1.8 million for Barcaldine age care centre, in Maranoa, for five additional aged-care units. There has been $204,000 for Blackbutt and Benarkin Aged Care Association, also in the minister for agriculture's seat, for new independent living dwellings—that might not seem a lot of money in the scheme of things, but they're so important to those country people and so important to their families. There has been $1.2 million for Mercy Health and Aged Care Centre Central Queensland, in the member for Capricornia's electorate in Rockhampton, for a new community centre for recreation facilities. There has been $1.6 million to Quambie Park Waroona, in Canning in Western Australia, for nine disability modified accommodation units for aged people. They all add up. They add up for the families and they add up for those people who are retiring to those particular centres. The Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care announced in June this year at an aged-care approval round—in Wagga Wagga, in fact—$13,500 for residential aged-care places: 775 restorative care places specifically in rural, regional and remote centres. That is very, very good. This follows the ACAR investment across the regions in this term. Gympie's Cooinda Aged Care Centre will receive a $5 million capital grant towards the construction of its new, nearly $12 million 50-bed building. I'm asked about the risks. Unfortunately, I have to say that programs such as the Building Better Regions Fund will probably go. But I'll tell you what would also happen if Labor got into government: they would take a sledgehammer to the retirement savings of those hardworking Australians, who deserve better from their parliament. (Time expired) Aged Care 51 14:23 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is to the Prime Minister. In his first answer, the Prime Minister offered one quote from the aged-care sector about the 2016 budget. In his answer, why did he fail to refer to Leading Age Services Australia, which called the continued cuts to aged care 'devastating' and said the government was 'in denial about the true cost of providing complex care' in Australia? 14:23 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question. I refer her to my earlier answer where I made it very clear that, under this government, funding for aged care has been increasing by more than a billion dollars a year. One plus one does not equal zero; one plus one equals two. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L When we add that additional funding each year— Opposition members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L The opposition interjects and congratulates me on my maths, but I seem to be the only one sitting at this table able to do it. On that side, they think that if you increase funding it's a cut. I'm asked about the funding of aged care. Let me tell you what we've also done. In the budget this year I put $200 million into a five-year program to boost dementia research in this country. $150 million is being used to fast-track progress towards preventions, treatments and cures for dementia. $50 million is for the National Institute for Dementia Research and an extra $34 million, through the Dementia and Aged Care Services, is making significant research achievements. The highlights so far include ultrasound technology to improve memory and the slow onset of dementia, an understanding of the impact of childhood stress as a dementia risk factor, and the potential for eye scans to reveal early signs of dementia. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Batman! Mr MORRISON E3L Those opposite interject. They just raised the issue of the complex needs of people in aged care and I'm talking about funding for dementia research. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Batman is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L We provide additional resources for mental health support for people in residential aged care. Just last week we announced $106 million, which included $16 million for funding to support increased policing of standards in the aged care sector, some $50 million to boost the capacity of regional centres and another $40 million to lift quality standards in the aged care sector. This government is investing in aged care in this country. Through our support for in-home care places, we are acutely aware of the fact that Australians want the choice to stay at home longer and age in their homes. This means that when people go into residential aged care their needs are more acute. That's why it's important that we have a better understanding of these issues and it is why, I believe, the royal commission will be very helpful. It will not only look at what standards and controls are in place but will look into the future and ensure that we have a factual basis to ensure bipartisan support for strong aged care policy over the next decade and beyond. Aged Care 52 14:26 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane My question is to the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care. Will the minister update the House on actions the government has already taken to ensure the quality and safety of Australia's aged care sector? 14:26 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I thank the member for Brisbane for his ongoing interest in aged care. Since Oakden, what we've done is turn our minds to safety and quality for every senior Australian in this nation in residential care, in Aboriginal communities and in in-home care. What we have also done is to take all four sets of standards and we now have one set that is applied across all areas. Unannounced audits and unannounced visits were an outcome of the Oakden inquiry. That work is absolutely important because it has shown that there are serious risks. The unannounced audits now demonstrate very clearly why it was necessary to do it. In the first year, we had two serious incident reports. In the following year there were 22, and, recently, there have been 61 serious incident reports, which I discussed with the Prime Minister. In discussing those, we reached the conclusion that there were many elements in aged care that need to be considered and viewed by an independent authority, hence the announcement of the royal commission. Service providers will no longer receive advanced notice for re-accreditation, and that is important because we want them to make sure that they provide the quality of program and services that are absolutely important. They will have nowhere to hide. This will ramp up even more through the tough cop, the new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. The legislation we passed through the House and that will hopefully travel through the Senate with the support of senators, will mean that the new commission comes into place on 1 January. It is important that all of us turn our minds to the safety and quality of life that senior Australians deserve in aged care. We have announced an additional $106 million for better support, facilities, care and standards, and $50 million for the new cop on the beat. But, more importantly, $50 million has been announced for aged care providers to transition to the new standards that we have all agreed to. It is important that we consider quality and safety as part of that process. Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr WYATT M3A Other matters, as the member for Moreton interjects and makes comment about, will be considered by the royal commission. There is an opportunity—that's why the royal commission will cover a range of issues in that context. We will continue to provide the level of funding in aged care that we currently do and, as it increases by a billion each year in the forward years, that will give certainty to senior Australians. Aged Care 52 14:29 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is to the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care. During question time in May the minister criticised Labor for saying that aged care was 'in a state of national crisis', with the minister saying that this was 'fearmongering and verging on the abuse of older Australians'. Will the minister now apologise to older Australians and their families for refusing to acknowledge the crisis in aged care? 14:30 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I thank the member for Franklin for her question. And yes, I did say that in the chamber. I said it at a point in time when the context had to be considered as to why I made those comments. If you remember, I made the comments that I was slow to anger on many issues, but what I've done and continue to do is to act to put in place the reforms that are absolutely necessary. That includes Living Longer and having choice in the budget proposals that we focused on with better access to care, better quality of care and, more importantly, ageing well. At the time I made that comment the Leader of the Opposition called me shortly after question time, and he and I had a discussion. But it doesn't change my position on wanting to make sure that every senior Australian in this nation who built this country and has given us everything that we've taken for granted deserves the things that we put in place. We will continue to do the reform in a number of areas. In terms of workforce, I appointed John Pollaers to head up a task force to look at the workforce needs in the aged-care sector, because the numbers will increase from 366,000 to 920,000 by 2050. I want to see a workforce that provides the nurturing and the care, and the aged-care workforce that I have had the privilege of meeting in 100 facilities across this nation I would stand beside. I would stand beside them because I have seen them deliver good care. I have seen them deliver compassion. I have seen them at the funerals of people they've cared for. The aged-care workforce has been absolutely tremendous, and what I want to do, with our government and working with the Prime Minister, is have our government look at the opportunities that we create for pathways into aged care that look after senior Australians. It is absolutely important. And I don't reconcile from the stance that I've taken on a number of issues, because I have a total commitment to making sure that we in this House collectively provide the pathways that ensure that the programs we put in place have bipartisan support. What I put in place with the Prime Minister out of the royal commission and what we put in place continually from our budget programs will continue to ensure that we have quality of life for senior Australians wherever they live—in cities, in regional Australia, in remote Australia and in country towns where the numbers are small, because our senior Australians have the social capacity and deserve the quality of life that they have earnt through their hard work. (Time expired) Pensions and Benefits 53 14:34 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question's to the Minister for Families and Social Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government is supporting senior Australians through our social security and welfare system? Is the minister aware of any different approaches that would not achieve the same result? 14:34 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I thank the member for Berowra, who's been a very strong advocate for fair and appropriate support for senior Australians, and 11,000 of his constituents in the electorate of Berowra receive the age pension. Nationally around 2.478 million Australians receive the aged pension. Since the coalition came to power, pensions have increased by $99 per fortnight for singles and over $144 per fortnight for couples. On 20 September, in a few days time, the aged pension will rise again: $8.70 per fortnight for a single and $13.20 per fortnight for a couple. In a whole range of ways the Morrison government is supporting older Australians through our social security and welfare system: firstly, through regular increases in the aged pension, as I've spoken about; and secondly, in building a sustainable social services and welfare system so Australians can be confident that, if they need the aged pension, it is there for them and is funded. Under the Labor government between 2007 and 2013 social security and welfare spending was rising by 6.2 per cent a year, almost twice the rate at which revenue was rising. That is not sustainable. You cannot sustain that kind of divergence. We've turned it around and now have social security and welfare spending rising at a rate which is less than the rate at which tax revenue is rising. That means the system is sustainable. That means that, when Australians turn to rely on social services, the funding is there. We've also rebalanced the system to make it better targeted. That has meant over 165,000 aged pensioners with more modest assets are now receiving on average $25 more in pension per fortnight. We've provided more choice for senior Australians by extending the pension work bonus and we've made it clear that the proposed increase in the aged pension age beyond Labor's legislated age of 67 will not be proceeded with. I'm asked about the alternative. The alternative is very clear: Labor's disgraceful attacks on retirees who have saved, a measure which, disgracefully, hits low-income shareholders very hard compared to high-income shareholders. This is exactly the opposite of what Labor supposedly does: Labor is attacking older Australians; we are backing older Australians. Dementia 53 14:37 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Just now in his answer the Prime Minister referred to funding for dementia research to help people in the future who are diagnosed as living with dementia, but why did he fail to mention the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison's government cut to the dementia supplement, which helped nursing homes look after people who've already been diagnosed as living with dementia? 14:38 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for his question. We replaced the dementia supplement with the Severe Behaviour Response Teams— Ms Catherine King 00AMR And it was terrible. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Ballarat has now been warned twice and will leave under 94(a). It's very simple: if you interject, you're out. The member for Ballarat then left the chamber. Mr MORRISON E3L notwithstanding our significant investment into mental health of some $100 million through the More Choices for a Longer Life program, which includes $200 million into dementia research through the MRFF. I've been asked a lot of questions today about funding for aged care, and I've addressed the issue which they've raised specifically in this question, but there has been a lot of contention about the ACFI model for determining aged care funding. Those opposite have sought to accuse us over what was in the 2016-17 budget, but when I look in Budget Paper No. 2, Budget Measures 2012-13, I find a measure titled: Living Longer. Living Better—improving the Aged Care Funding Instrument. Mr Burke DYW Point of order. Mr MORRISON E3L You don't want me to talk about this, do you? The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business is quite entitled to approach the despatch box. Mr Burke DYW The point of order is on direct relevance. The question referred to a specific cut. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that he has addressed that issue and now wants to talk about things that have been raised in other questions during question time. By his own explanation where he has gone now is beyond the relevant issues in the question. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Pyne 9V5 He asked about aged care. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House isn't assisting. I've made the point before that, provided ministers remain on the policy topic, that is in order. An opposition member interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Manager of Opposition Business, if you want me to address the point of order— Mr Burke DYW I didn't make a sound. I was really good that time. The SPEAKER 00APG I have to say, I was in conversation with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for the last 10 to 15 seconds, on another matter, and I didn't hear everything that the Prime Minister was saying, but I'll listen very carefully now. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L I was asked about aged-care funding and I was responding to the issues of how we're funding aged care. If you didn't know, people in aged care actually suffer from dementia. So the funding for the program is relevant to people who have dementia. The budget measure that I referred to in the 2012-13 budget said: The Government— that is, the Labor government— will refine the Aged Care Funding Instrument to better align the funding claimed by aged care providers with the level of care being offered. It says that the measure is part of the government's aged-care reform package. It further says: … the funding instrument for residential aged care services will be modified through the tightening of assessment criteria. That produced savings of $1.6 billion. I haven't come into this place and thrown accusations at the Labor Party on this day about this issue. I have referred to exactly the same practice that the Labor Party pursued when they were in government to channel savings and funding into other important services. However, in that case it was just to heap up the debt and heap up the deficit. Labor accuses the government of something they themselves specifically engaged in when they were in government. That's the sort of hypocrisy on aged care that the Australian people are sick of. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that she has been warned. Mature Age Workers 54 14:41 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan My question is to the Minister for Jobs, Industrial Relations and Women. Will the minister update the House on how the government is supporting mature age workers? Is the minister aware of any threats posed by alternative approaches? 14:42 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for his question. He knows that Australians are living longer lives and, given that all of us are getting older, this is indeed a very good thing. But the government recognises that, as Australians get older, we want to make sure that they lead healthier, safer and more independent lives, and they need to be able to be free to take advantage of all of the opportunities that a longer life brings, which means that we need to focus on the opportunities for mature age Australians who want to work and who want to be able to get a job. Pleasingly, we have seen the employment figures for mature age workers increase by more than 73,000 over the last year, consistent with the record jobs growth that we have been able to deliver under our stewardship of the nation's economy. But we are not resting on our laurels, because we on this side of the House know that those that want to work should be able to get a job. If you are older, you are not only valued but you are valuable. That is why, on this side of the House, we are creating the new $2,000 Skills and Training Incentive to support the retraining, reskilling and upskilling of opportunities for mature age workers. We are increasing the pension work bonus to give pensioners the opportunity to earn more income before any of their pension payments are reduced. We are providing Restart wage subsidies of up to $10,000 to encourage businesses to hire and to retain mature age workers. The government recognises the great benefits to our economy from the experiences, the work ethic and the skills of mature age workers, and we know the great benefits that they bring to their communities and to their families from their contributions. We will continue to support all Australians who want to get a job to get a job. The member for McMillan asks about threats. Well, it will probably come as no surprise to the member that there is an alternative approach, a high-taxing, job-destroying approach, from those opposite that poses a very significant impact and threat to the ability of businesses, particularly small businesses, to continue to offer job opportunities to so many Australians. Those opposite would in fact have a mega-regressive retiree tax that would hit more than 900,000 older Australians and leave them worse off. We will stand with older Australians. Those opposite will attack older Australians, and that is why they cannot be given the opportunity to be trusted with their livelihoods. Aged Care 55 14:45 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has refused to admit he cut $1.2 billion from aged care, saying it was a lie. But Sean Rooney from Leading Age Services Australia has said, '$3 billion has been taken out of the care system by successive governments over the last four years.' Is the Prime Minister calling Mr Rooney a liar? 14:45 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for his question. I know this is a very important issue. I thought a member from Western Australia, newly in the House, would want to ask me about the fairer deal for GST for Western Australia—clearly not on the top of his agenda. There are other things. I go to the question. It is not true that the government has cut funding to aged care. It's simply not true, because the funding has gone up by more than a billion dollars every year. When there's more money provided, that means there is an increase. When there's less money provided, that means there is a decrease. It's simple maths. I'm happy to have the Treasurer explain it to you if you'd like to come around to his office, and he can take you through it. I make the point again about the hypocrisy being shown by the Labor Party, because the very measure that they take issue with is the very measure that they put in place themselves when they were in government, and, based on their assessment, they took out $1.6 billion. When the member for Blair, the very overstated member for Blair, was responsible for aged-care services in opposition, before the last election, he was asked whether they would reverse this measure. He said: 'No, Labor is not. We're not going to do that.' That's what he said. Further than that, Labor voted with the government against the classification amendment, which gave effect to that measure. Labor voted with the government to preserve that measure and they included it in all of their estimates at the last election. They come in here complaining about a measure that they actually voted for. Again, stop playing politics with aged care and support the government to make the necessary reforms. We have had eight years of pretty good bipartisanship and the behaviour of the Labor Party today demonstrates why this royal commission is so necessary. I'm not going to allow this issue to be politicised in this way. The royal commission will do that job. It will determine the facts. It can remove the agendas of all of those who seek to put their twopence in to pursue their agenda. We will make decisions based on the facts of quality of care in the aged-care sector and that should be the basis for all policy going forward in this space. Health Care 55 14:48 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister please update the House on how a stronger economy enables the government to invest in life saving drugs and the mental and physical health of older Australians? 14:48 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Ryan, who's been a great advocate for pensioners, for seniors, in her electorate and every electorate in terms of protecting them and planning for their futures. In particular, one of the things that she is absolutely right about is that you do need a strong economy in order to be able to deliver these services. We know this because in the 2011 budget there was a period when, due to fiscal circumstances, the then government deferred the listing of seven critical medicines. One of those medicines was Symbicort, a medicine directed primarily at older Australians, for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. That medicine was deferred because of fiscal circumstances in the budget paper of that year. I am pleased to inform the House that only very recently this government listed Trelegy, directed primarily at older Australians, for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It's one of over 1,900 medicines which have now been listed or amended on the watch of this government, which we've been able to do precisely because of the strong economy. One of the other things that the member raises is what other medicines might we have helped with. I'm very pleased that we've been able to deliver a trivalent vaccine for flu. As a result of that new, stronger vaccine and also higher rates of vaccination and differences in this year's flu as well as the incredible work of so many of our health and medical workers, we've seen a drop in over 65s who have been diagnosed with tested flu to this stage of the year from 29,000 to 4,000 and perhaps, most significantly, a reduction to the end of August in those who have lost their lives from flu from 610 Australians to 38 Australians. Overwhelmingly, those are older Australians whose lives have been saved and protected. At the same time, we've seen an almost 50 per cent increase in funding under this government compared with 2012-13 for aged care. I think that's a critical thing. That's allowed us, in this budget, to add $100 million for mental health for older Australians inside nursing homes and within the community—$82 million for those within nursing homes to have better mental health care and $20 million for those within the community to have better access to mental health nurses and other support. Outside of that, there's an extra $50 million to assist older Australians with rehabilitation and physical activity for their physical health. None of these things could be possible, as we saw from the 2011-12 budget, without a strong economy, without the ability to pay for it and, ultimately, without the ability to protect and to plan for our senior Australians. Banking and Financial Services 56 14:51 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question's to the Treasurer. On Saturday, the Treasurer said ASIC and APRA have a case to answer as to how some of this conduct occurred on their watch. But in April 2016, when arguing against a banking royal commission, the now Treasurer said ASIC and APRA had 'stronger powers than a royal commission'. Why, two years after he said they had stronger powers than a royal commission, is the Treasurer now blaming the regulators and only now promising them more powers? 14:52 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong What hypocrisy from the member from McMahon! Actually, Labor has voted against a royal commission itself. That's the reality. I want to share with the House what the then Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and now Leader of the Opposition said when he was the minister about the 'sound regulatory system we have in place'. He said, 'Australia has an excellent regulatory system and prudent management.' When Labor was last in office, do you know what happened? We had the Trio Capital collapse, we had the Storm Financial collapse and we had the Opes Prime collapse. The coalition have been absolutely committed to putting in place greater resourcing for ASIC, increased better personnel and increased support across the board in the sector. We have increased the penalties and we've increased the resourcing, with $70 million this year to implement the new strategy. There was $121 million for ASIC as a funding package in April 2016 and a new chair in James Shipton and a new second deputy chair in Dan Crennan as a special prosecutor. We established the ASIC Enforcement Review Taskforce. The then Treasurer and the then Minister for Revenue and Financial Services put in place the BEAR accountability regime. These are all steps that we have taken to ensure a more transparent and accountable financial system. At the same time, the royal commission has revealed appalling acts of misconduct, acts that have shocked everybody in this chamber. Fees for no service, fees for dead people and 300,000 allegations of providing insurance services on an unsolicited basis—this is what has been revealed by the royal commission. The royal commissioner is doing an outstanding job. We await his interim report later this month and his final report, which is due next February, but we are absolutely committed with the measures that we have already put in place—and we will follow up on the royal commissioner's recommendations—to ensuring a more accountable and transparent financial system for all Australians. Veterans 56 14:55 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the program and services the government is delivering to support our elderly veterans and war widows? 14:55 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I thank the member for Flynn for his question. He's a real champion—a bulldog, in fact—for veterans in his community. This government is committed to putting veterans first—in fact, to putting veterans and their families first. I'd like to acknowledge that all this week in the parliament there will be 22 men and women from the Navy, the Army and the Air Force taking part in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. They're in the gallery here today, and we certainly welcome them here. I say to you all, as I said to you this morning: thank you for your service and the work you do for our nation; we do greatly appreciate what you do to help keep us safe in a challenging world. The ADFPP is where MPs are exposed to life in the military. We might get the opportunity, as members of parliament, to spend some time in a patrol boat off Darwin or a PC-9 at East Sale RAAF base or a Bushmaster in Kabul or a Globemaster coming into Baghdad—and they get to come to question time. I might need to look at commissioning a medal for services beyond the call of duty! The member for Flynn asked me about our older veterans. There are 1,500 veterans and war widows living in his electorate. Many are aged in their late 60s or early 70s, and sometimes they're much older than that. We have a responsibility as a grateful nation to make sure that we look after veterans and their families in their later years. And we're doing that. We're doing that through the work of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The veterans and their families actually represent a very significant proportion of our aged population across the nation. Twelve per cent of all Australians aged over 85 are either veterans or war widows, with the average age across the veteran population being around 71. As a grateful nation, we provide in excess of $11 billion per year to support our veterans once they leave the Australian Defence Force. We know that for our older veterans often the best place to be, as it is for the broader community, is in their own homes as they age. There are around 55,000 veterans who receive some form of home based support each year. This can take many different forms, as I'm sure members opposite and on this side would realise. It can be in the form of respite care for loved ones, home based nursing aids to support independent living or even modifications to the family home to allow the aged veteran to remain in place for a longer period of time. Government support is critical for our older veterans, but the support provided by ex-service organisations is very important as well. Our communities right across the nation do a great deal of charitable work to support veterans in their homes, whether that's through visiting veterans in their local aged-care facility or perhaps taking them out on excursions or advocating on their behalf within the broader community. The vast majority of elderly veterans and their families are satisfied with the support provided by DVA. We know there's always room for improvement, and we're working as a government to make sure that veterans are properly recognised, properly respected and properly supported in their later years. Minister for Home Affairs 57 14:58 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Last week the Minister for Home Affairs told parliament: I've recused myself from discussions where that's been deemed appropriate. But leaks from within the government confirm the minister did not absent himself from a single cabinet meeting during the entire life of the Turnbull government. Does the minister stand by his earlier answer, or will the minister now correct the record? 14:59 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. As I repeated again this morning during a press conference, Labor first raised the section 44 issue back in October. They didn't make any mention of it whatsoever. They looked at all of the detail and made no mention of the issue at all until a fortnight to three weeks ago. It shows you that the Labor Party is determined to play politics on this issue, nothing more, nothing less. The advice I have from Mr Guy Reynolds SC— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition has been warned. Mr DUTTON 00AKI Mr Reynolds states in his advice to me: … Mr Dutton cannot have a pecuniary interest in an agreement within the meaning of section— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW On direct relevance—the minister is answering the question that was asked last week. This question does not go to section 44 at all. This question is about his obligation as a minister, a cabinet minister, on recusing himself from cabinet. The issues that he's referring to, while important, are not the subject of this question. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business makes a reasonable point. The minister is entitled to a preamble, but the question went to whether the minister stood by a statement last week, and associated issues. So I'll just ask the minister to bring himself to the question that was asked. Mr DUTTON 00AKI In the advice to me, it states: … Mr Dutton cannot have a pecuniary interest in an agreement within the meaning of section 44(v) by virtue of the trustee company’s receipt of payments under this statutory scheme. That is by way of preamble, and as I have stated previously I have always complied with the Statement of Ministerial Standards and the Cabinet Handbook in declaring any interests. Cybersafety 57 15:01 Mr ENT 7K6 Leichhardt SCH () (): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on why the government's strong cybersecurity initiatives are important to support and protect seniors from cybersecurity threats, and what are the threats to senior Australians posed by different approaches? 15:01 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. One of the reasons that the coalition government always works hard to manage the economy well is that we want to pay for essential services. We want to spend more money each year, which we do, on health and education, and we want to spend more money helping senior Australians, through the tax system. We don't want Labor's retirees tax and all of the taxes that will be shoved onto older Australians in particular. We want to help older Australians who have worked hard, whether they're self-funded retirees, part-pensioners or pensioners. We don't want to see older Australians being ripped off online and we don't want to see older Australians being ripped off again by the Labor Party. We have invested a quarter of a billion dollars into strengthening the foundations of our cybersecurity and in building our nation's cyber-resilience. Last month, the government opened the Australian Cyber Security Centre. It provides a 24/7 global watch to support the public by providing a single point of contact in which a cyber-incident can be reported. We want to say to all Australians, particularly older Australians—as they use internet banking, as they converse online, as they use social media, as they answer their emails—we want people to think twice before they provide any details online. Banks will not send through emails that require people to click through and provide passport or user ID information. In 2017 alone, we had 200,000 scams reported to the ACCC, to the Australian Cybercrime Online Reporting Network and to other federal and state based agencies. This problem is not going to go away. The government wants to support older Australians as they converse and transact business online. We want to make sure that we can provide every assistance to keep people safe online. This government is doing a lot to keep senior Australians safe, whether it is at our borders, whether it is through the work of the Australian Federal Police or the agencies within the Home Affairs portfolio. If Australians have any concerns about online activity there is the ability to call the ACSC, the Australian Cyber Security Centre, on 1300 292 371. Liberal Party Leadership 58 15:04 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister—he's had three weeks to consider his answer. He's now been asked this question numerous times. It's a very simple question. It's not going away. Why isn't Malcolm Turnbull the Prime Minister of Australia? 15:04 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook We dealt with this last week. The Labor Party might want to come in here and carry on like this. Again, there are no questions on drought today. They had one more opportunity to ask a question on drought. They can ask about the economy or they can ask about jobs. And they just want to lay about in the political morass. I'll tell you what this government is doing. The Labor Party can kick up as much dust as they want, but, as Prime Minister, it's my job to see through the dust and see what really matters to the Australian people. And what matters to the Australian people is making the decisions that ensure that we keep our economy strong, keep Australians safe and keep Australians together. Energy 58 15:05 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker My question is to the Minister for Energy. Minister, could you update the House on what action the government is taking to put downward pressure on prices for energy and what this means for senior Australians? And, Minister, are you aware of any alternative approaches? 15:05 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the honourable member for Barker for his question. I recognise his strong advocacy on behalf of his constituents on this all-important issue. He has almost 31,000 older Australians over the age of 65 in his electorate. He knows that they're grandparents, they're pensioners and they're self-funded retirees, and they make an extraordinary contribution to the community in Barker and across Australia, in CWAs, in men's sheds, in show societies and in Rotary clubs. They make contributions across the board. My first priority as the Minister for Energy is bringing down electricity prices for all Australians but particularly for those who are struggling to make ends meet. We know that cost-of-living pressures are particularly important for older Australians. It can mean the difference between heating and eating. It can mean being reluctant to turn on the air conditioner during a hot summer. And that's why we're taking practical action to further reduce electricity prices by establishing a price safety net to make sure customers get the best available deal, taking a big stick to the big energy companies and backing investment in new generation and competition. I say 'further reduce' because prices are already coming down. In this year alone, we've seen a 25 per cent reduction in the spot price in the National Electricity Market, and we expect that to be passed on to consumers. We've already put in place measures to rein in the power of the networks. If those opposite had done that, it would have saved Australians over $6 billion. The member for Barker asked about alternatives. And we've seen alternatives in the member's home state, because the former Labor Premier in South Australia ran a grand experiment with a 50 per cent renewable energy target, and the outcome was clear. Electricity prices were amongst the highest in the world at just under 50c per kilowatt hour—the highest in Australia and amongst the highest in the world. And the Leader of the Opposition wants to turn this experiment national. We don't want prices across Australia of almost 50c per kilowatt hour. Labor talks a big game when it comes to looking after the most vulnerable, but it's this government that is unambiguously focused on getting electricity prices down and looking after the welfare of older Australians. Mr Morrison E3L After 21 well-answered questions, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. And, if Fatman Scoop is watching, I'll see you at RNB Fridays. COMMITTEES 59 COMMITTEES Infrastructure, Transport and Cities Committee 59 Report 59 15:10 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong On behalf of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, I present the committee's report on its inquiry into the development of cities, Building up and moving out, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ALEXANDER M3M by leave—Today I present the report of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities' inquiry into the Australian government's role in the development of cities, titled Building up and moving out. Australia is undergoing rapid change. Population growth, urbanisation, the ageing of the population and the transformation of the economy towards service and knowledge based industries are causing profound changes in the urban and regional landscape. The outcome of these changes will depend on how they are managed. In recent decades, there has been no plan for how to accommodate the growth in our cities and population. Managing these challenges requires a national vision—a national plan of settlement. The national plan of settlement must set out a vision for our cities and regions for the next 50 years and beyond. It must take account of the fact that Australia's cities and regions are not sustainable in their current form and will become less sustainable as the population grows and ages. Achieving the required economic, social and environmental outcomes for the sustainability of our cities and regions will require a high level of integrated planning. This is not achievable without the coherent vision which comes from master planning both land use and facilitating infrastructure. The successful development of both cities and regions is intrinsically linked. Regional development needs to be seen as part of a broader pattern of national development, with cities, towns and regions being developed as part of an integrated whole. Greater connectivity is an essential element of this joint development. Well-connected cities and regions means that opportunities can be distributed across a wider population. High-speed rail can bring distant communities within close proximity of each other. This in turn would enable a more dispersed pattern of settlement and the creation of polycentric cities, without the attendant vices of urban sprawl. Value capture should be part of the conception of any infrastructure project to equitably capitalise on taxpayers' funds invested. It should be incorporated organically into its planning and development. Suitable value capture mechanisms should be identified and applied from the outset. Ideally, this should involve coordination between different levels of government and project developers to ensure a maximum return on investment. The potential for value capture to contribute to the development of infrastructure was discussed at length in the committee's previous report, Harnessing value, delivering infrastructure. The committee considers that the recommendations in that report are more relevant than ever and should be adopted by the Australian government. Parliamentary inquiries are an underappreciated tool that gathers on-the-ground evidence for the benefit of ministers and departments. Months of work have gone into this document both from the deeply committed secretariat and from the scores of Australian organisations who felt the need to give their independent and critical insights in this vitally important policy area. This is a good, substantive report that contains a strong evidence based plan for how to solve the many problems of our settlement. Previous reports by this committee have received delayed and token responses from the department; I strongly recommend this one is given better consideration. In conclusion, I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this inquiry. The governing of Australia is at its best when representatives from both sides can come together to determine the facts and deduce the best course of action in consideration of only one thing—the wellbeing of the Australian people now and in the future. I am, therefore, indebted to my deputy chair, the Hon. Sharon Bird MP, and equally grateful to each member of the committee. We have, I believe, produced a bipartisan vision for the future settlement of Australia. On behalf of the committee, I commend this report to the House. I move: That the House take note of the report. 15:15 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham I take great pleasure in commending this report to members of the parliament; to the government; as the esteemed chair of the committee said, to the departments that have contributed to it but also, we would hope, will work with the government to respond to the report; and, in particular, to all of those various organisations and individuals across the country who, through the period of time, took the time and effort to put submissions in and raise their issues. I won't canvass again some of the key issues that the chair of the committee, the member for Bennelong, has just addressed, other than to say I think the report brings together a very in-depth, well-considered proposition for the government to look at ways in which, at a federal level, we can go beyond the national planning of infrastructure—which is something that we believe is critically important—and take into consideration a national plan of settlement as well so that, across our great country, we can actually get better, more effective and more committed to looking at population growth and its disparity across the nation. Some places—including, clearly, our two major capital cities Sydney and Melbourne—are struggling under the pressure of that, while other places have potential that's being unrealised. Bringing those two things together—population settlement, whether it's internal movement or new arrivals, and infrastructure planning—in a way that fosters the opportunities across the nation is a really solid proposition, and there are a number of recommendations in this report that go to that issue. I also want to, for the parliament's interest, draw people's attention to the fact that there are quite a lot of recommendations in this report around sustainability and livability as well. We know that places are under a lot of pressure. We heard great evidence of really innovative actions in terms of water management, waste management, smart cities and the capacity for technology to revolutionise the way that people are living in cities, but we also heard about some of the challenges. Just a simple example is that, with more people using online purchasing, we heard about the challenges that creates for small courier based companies trying to move around our cities, because people expect things to be delivered to their front door, but also the broader freight challenge and the impact that's having on our cities. I think the power of the report is the fact that it looked across capital cities and, obviously, the challenges that they are facing, it looked across our regional areas and it also looked at our regional cities. That's a space where I think—maybe I'm biased coming from Wollongong with my own perspective—there is capacity for regional cities if they're properly supported through hard infrastructure, particularly transport infrastructure and communications infrastructure, but also what we might call the soft infrastructure—the placement of universities and TAFEs in those places, the development of community facilities and the assurance that health facilities are available. Those things allow the potential of those regions to be realised so that, beyond just governments looking at decentralising jobs, they're actually set up to really get the private sector interested and investing into those regional capitals. We heard some great evidence of where that's happening. One example is the connections into the Melbourne centre that Bendigo and Ballarat now have and how they're developing expertise in particular areas of the economy that complement well the capital city. We have a network of cities, and the regional cities servicing their regional hinterlands are just as important to be considered. I think that's a great strength of this report. There are 37 recommendations. There is something for everybody in there if you're interested in our cities and support for our regions. I thank all my colleagues on the committee. I particularly thank the chair, the member for Bennelong, who brings to this role what I would call the traditional view of the parliamentarian, which is to interrogate the evidence and let it stand on its own two feet. To reach an evidence based bipartisan outcome is a great commendation of his leadership. I also thank all the members of the committee, who were a great pleasure to work with. It was a really good group of people. I also acknowledge Lyn Ducker, Bill Pender and Samantha Leahy from the committee, who did an enormous amount of work, because it was a big report—we could be a bit troublesome, but they persevered with cheerful positivity through our more demanding times—and Cathy Rouland and Kelly Burt from the secretariat. We appreciate their very professional support, as we always get from our committee secretariat. If you're a bit light on reading, I think this report will take you a good month, so I encourage people to get a copy and have a look at it. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 60 15:21 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 61 BILLS Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 61

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

Second Reading 61 15:22 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy The Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement was touted as a wonderful thing in this place and in both the Financial Review and The Australian. The whole agreement was about the beef, sugar and dairy trades with America. I happen to be the representative of the electorate in Australia with arguably the biggest cattle numbers, the second-biggest sugar-producing area and certainly the most concentrated dairy area, so I watched the free trade agreement with great interest. I was intrigued and looked on with curiosity because in all of my adult life, nearly 50 years both as a member of parliament representing the heartland of the cattle industry and having had cattle on a quarter-of-a-million acres up in the Gulf Country for a while, I've never heard a single person complain to me about our access to the American market. In fact in many years we've had difficulty getting enough beef to fulfil our quota, and the Americans have been very fair as far as free trade goes. Their industry gets subsidised, but as far as access goes I've never had any complaints. The second thing I will say is that Tony Abbott stood up in this place when the China-Australia Free-Trade Agreement was announced and led a spontaneous standing ovation for the minister who later on gave the green light to the sale of the Port of Darwin to the Chinese and then went on to earn nearly $900,000, according to the newspapers, in income from the Chinese company to which he had given the green light. So, the Americans' only deepwater port in the South Pacific was handed over to what may be—and we hope is never—their potential enemy, the Chinese. I'm sure they were very pleased about that. And President Obama expressed that he was not happy about that. But when Tony Abbott stood that applause, I said—and I don't know whether it went into Hansard—'Tony, you just signed your own death warrant.' The people in Australia have had it up to here with this. They know it's lies. They know it's rubbish. And to do that—well, a few months later he was gone. I'm not saying it was on account of that, and I say it with regret, because I like Tony personally, and I respected him as Prime Minister. In question time last week I said to the Treasurer, 'After three years of deregulation and privatisation, electricity prices have risen from $670 a year for 11 straight years.' Once we deregulated and privatised, it went straight through the roof, up to $2,400. Well, what a magnificent success story! Privatisation and deregulation—a 300 per cent increase. I said, 'Similarly, housing has skyrocketed, from $5,600 a year to $15,000 a year', and that is a result of a free trade approach to visa entrants coming into this country—namely, section 457 workers—amongst other issues. Free market policy in food resulted in only two people buying and selling food in Australia, when this rubbish started. Those two had 50.5 per cent— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 I remind the member to refer to members by their proper titles in future. 15:26 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff In summation on the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018, I thought I'd just touch upon some of the comments that have been made, and I thank the member for Kennedy for his contribution and his almost-kind words about me—certainly kinder words about my parents. As someone who did grow up in Far North Queensland and with a strong affection for regional Australia, I appreciate his comments. I thought I would just address some of the comments with respect to the tobacco industry in my birth town of Mareeba and the suggestion of the member for Kennedy that the passing of the tobacco industry was a consequence of deregulation. Well, that may have been a factor, but there can be no doubt that the single-biggest driver of the wholesale change away from tobacco was actually the introduction of laws to stop people smoking. The way in which we have clamped down significantly on tobacco abuse has seen wholesale transformation of the industry in that part of the world—not a function of deregulation but, rather, a function of changing consumer patterns and habits and the fact that the percentage of the population that now smokes has declined to if not below 10 per cent then very, very close to that. That has been the single-biggest driver. But here's the good news. When I go back to Mareeba, as I do relatively frequently, I see a community now that has transformed into a whole range of new crops. I see lychee farmers, mango farmers and sugar farmers. Indeed, the town's population has continued to grow. That's not to say that it's not been faced with significant economic challenges. It has been faced with economic challenges. But one of the key drivers of that community has been the precise opportunity to develop new market access for those farmers in that part of the world who now have been able to diversify into different crops, away from tobacco, and be assured that their mangoes, whether they be Bowen or R2E2 mangoes, can get into new export markets, that their sugarcane can get into new export markets, that the beef coming from western Queensland can get into new markets. That is the very example of market access that the TPP-11 is going to continue to provide. That is precisely the reason why I say in good faith to the member for Kennedy that this deal is the right deal for Australia. It continues to open up market opportunity for us. Can I also address some of the other comments that were made, given that we're debating the amendment that has been moved by the member for Melbourne. Frankly, we have seen absolutely hysterical claims being made about trade deals—not exclusively by the member for Melbourne, but he does give voice to some of the most excessive claims that are completely groundless in terms of fact. He made a comment about there being big, gaping holes in labour and migration laws as a result of trade deals—I think those were his precise words. How completely and utterly absurd. There are no gaping laws in labour and migration laws as a consequence of these trade deals. In fact, the only waiver that's provided in relation to labour market testing is that: labour market testing. The full suite of domestic laws in relation to minimum rates of pay and non-exploitation of workers continues to apply. The waiver is only in relation to advertising domestically. Do you know the reason why that's done? It's done because we get the same market access in return in those other 10 countries with whom we've done this deal. In other words, we have done a deal that says to the other 10 countries involved: 'It's like for like. You give us access and we'll give you access.' Most importantly, we have very narrowly defined the opportunities in which that waiver will apply. In fact, it was the Australian Labor Party, when they were last in government, that implemented a number of these labour market testing waivers. There's not even any new territory in this for the coalition. In fact, on LMT, labour market testing, we've effectively implemented the same waivers that the Australian Labor Party implemented when they were last in government. Labor's position has clearly changed, and I acknowledge that Labor's position on that has changed. Nonetheless, there's nothing new about this that hasn't been done previously by the Labor Party. The waiver doesn't apply to domestic laws, the waiver doesn't apply to minimum wages, the waiver doesn't apply to standards and the waiver doesn't apply to all of the requirements that are incumbent upon employers in relation to employees. None of those are waived. The only waiver that applies in this particular case with respect to labour market testing is that requirement, and that's in return for having done the deal. When I hear members opposite talk about how this was a huge sacrifice to make and ought not to have been done—well, the consequence of that would be that they wouldn't do the deal. Any trade deal does require some give and some take, but the consequence is that in net terms, in aggregate terms, the benefits are there to be seen. The benefits in this case are substantial: benefits that drive economic growth, drive exports and drive jobs in this country. It is trade that has delivered us one of the highest standards of living in the world. It is trade that is driving prosperity in regional Australia. It is trade that is ensuring that more Australians have job opportunities than ever before. It is trade which has delivered record volumes of wine exports to markets like China. When I hear people complain about their concerns on aspects of trade deals that are done—yes, they can point to some concerns they may have in limited and discreet areas, but they conveniently ignore the multitude of benefits which have driven this economy, driven jobs and made Australians richer as a direct consequence. That is the benefit that flows from trade deals. Mr Bandt interjecting— Mr CIOBO 00AN0 When I hear, again, the member for Melbourne with his hysterical claims on ISDS, I note once again that not once did he address the concerns that apply with respect to Australian businesses operating abroad. The focus is always this spurious claim that, under these deals, using ISDS, investor-state dispute settlement, there'll be opportunity for evil multinationals to sue the Australian people. That's always the claim that's made: 'This enables foreign businesses to sue the Australian government if we change any laws.' That is wrong as a claim not only because we have complete carve outs on matters such as the environment, defence and small business—a whole host of different areas where we include the carve out in the trade deal—but also because it's not Australia that needs to be concerned. We don't go about flagrantly disregarding our obligations to businesses, be they domestic or foreign. No, we uphold the rule of law and we seek to ensure that we always have a low sovereign risk profile. The reason you have ISDS is to make sure that we look after Australian businesses operating overseas. That's why you have ISDS. This preoccupation among certain elements of the Australian Labor Party, and indeed the member for Melbourne, to suggest that in some way we have lost control of our national sovereignty on matters in relation to public policy is completely and utterly false—a false claim that I will take this opportunity and every opportunity to comprehensively reject, because it is completely false. We retain the full discretion of public policy because there are exemptions in place. But do you know what I will not do? I will not turn my back on Australian businesses, on Australian investors, on the superannuation of ordinary Australians, invested in multinationals and invested in Australian businesses—for example, BHP—that want to take their processes offshore, that want to open a new mining operation abroad or something like that. I won't turn my back on those Australians businesses, on those mums and dads from Australia who deserve to have their investment dollars protected. If that means that we can bring an action against a foreign government who may not abide by the same principles as the Australian government, then I say we should bring that action. The consequence of the policy that's been espoused by the member for Melbourne and, indeed, some elements of the Australian Labor Party, would be to abandon Australian companies and Australian investors. That's the consequence of the noninclusion of ISDS—to walk away from Australian businesses that operate internationally—and at the very time when we see more Australian businesses than ever before moving offshore and diversifying their businesses. We want the Australian economy to grow. We're a relatively modest market—25 million people. In the context of the globe, we are very modest indeed. Yet we have businesses that can be global champions and globally competitive, and we need our Australian businesses to go offshore. When they go offshore, guess what? That's export income to this country. When they go offshore, guess what? That's more employment in this country as more Australians get opportunities to work in those foreign markets. Yet, despite all of those benefits, we hear from the member for Melbourne and from certain elements of the Australian Labor Party the desire to walk away from those businesses and not give them the right to bring an action against a foreign government who might say, 'We don't care what you've done; we're nationalising it—tough luck.' How absurd, how preposterous and what a debasement of debate in this chamber that they would twist and manipulate it to make it a debate about Australia's sovereign capability and conveniently never mention the explicit public policy carve-outs contained in these trade deals. I will always take every opportunity to absolutely knock on the head and reject the ridiculous arguments that are made around ISDS, because they are plainly false. No clearer example need be mentioned than the unsuccessful action of Philip Morris against the former Australian Labor government in relation to the plain packaging of cigarettes, which they lost. Since then, we have actually even further refined and improved the public policy exemptions in our trade deals. So let's deal with facts and not deal with the kind of emotive rubbish that we hear in amendments like this, not grounded in fact and conveniently ignoring the multitude of benefits that flow to Australian businesses, to Australian investors and to Australian workers as a direct consequence of this government standing up for Australian businesses that are operating abroad. We will continue to do that, and I make no apology for its inclusion not only in relation to the TPP-11 but in other subsequent trade deals that have been done or will be done. It's the right thing for this country, the right thing for Australian businesses, the right thing for Australian workers. Having made those comments, I commend this bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 The question is that the amendment be agreed to. The honourable member for Kennedy. 15:39 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I must address the issue of the tobacco— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 Member for Kennedy, I've just been corrected by the Clerk, which is why I was a little hesitant. Having spoken and the minister having summed up, unless you have a point of order, you've exhausted your opportunity to debate. Mr KATTER HX4 Mr Deputy Speaker, I understood that in clauses we can have more than one chop at the issue. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 It's a second reading amendment at the moment, Member for Kennedy. Mr KATTER HX4 I'm sorry. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 That's all right. Mr KATTER HX4 When do we move into discussing the bill in detail? The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 It will be a matter of whether or not there are any amendments in detail, Member for Kennedy. I leave that to others other than the chair. The question therefore is that the amendment be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 As there are fewer than five members on the side of the ayes in this division, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question negatived, Mr Bandt, Mr Katter and Mr Wilkie voting aye. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 The question is that this bill now be read a second time— A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 As there are fewer than five members on the side of the noes for this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Mr Ketter and Mr Wilkie voting no. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 64 15:47 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy It's almost like we live in outer space here. Is the minister, the government and the opposition aware— Honourable members interjecting— Mr KATTER HX4 You listen, your motor vehicle industry is completely gone. Your whitegoods industry is gone. Forty per cent of your cement industry, when you're constructing a house, is gone. Forty per cent of your steel industry, when you're constructing a house, is gone. Your glass industry is gone. Your textile industry is gone. What do you say, this is a success story? You keep making reference to rural Australia. There could be many speakers in this place that might question my intelligence or my abilities, as they do very often, but they don't question the fact that I represent rural Australia. As a person that has had cattle all of my life—half my class at school were sugar cane farmers and are still my very best friends to this very day—I know all these industries intimately. How good have we done in agriculture? Our beef numbers are down about 20 per cent the last time I looked. Our dairy industry is down 30 per cent in its production the last time I looked. The sugar industry is down 17 per cent. The sheep herd is down 70 per cent—a direct result of Mr Keating's deregulation of the wool industry. We are net importers of seafood and pork. Where the hell was the benefit for rural Australia in all this great free trade? Point out to me where it was. Let me be very specific about the North American Free Trade Agreement, both the Fin Review and The Australian said this is all about dairy, beef and sugar: 'The value now to a dairyman is the equivalent of one ice cream a week.' So we get nothing out of the dairy agreement. I think it is in 14 years time that the restrictions on beef will be removed. I've represented the beef industry. I probably have more beef cattle than everyone else in this place. I've owned cattle all of my adult life—some 50 years—and I've never heard a single beef cattle man say to me, 'We have problems in entering the American market.' The American market's been a very open market, so there was never anything to be gained in the beef industry. The third industry was sugar. We were wiped like a dirty rag. And the minister said, 'There will be no agreement without sugar.' He came into this place and moved for the acceptance of the American free trade deal without sugar in it. Is it any wonder that the National Party does not exist in Queensland anymore? They're affiliates of the Liberal Party, not the National Party. Is it any wonder that the people have walked away? Where is the benefit? It's not in the motor vehicle industry, the whitegoods industry, the textiles industry, the glass industry, the steel industry or the cement industry. It's not in beef, dairy, sugar, sheep, seafood or pork. Where the hell is the benefit? And are you telling me that these countries are going to honour their agreements? These are countries very noted for the rule of law. Countries like Brunei, Mexico, Peru and Vietnam are hallmarks of the rule of law. And they're going to honour this agreement? Are you serious? I repeat, because there are a number of members here who weren't here previously—and I have a very great respect for Tony Abbott; I liked him personally and I think he was a good Australian, whatever his shortcomings may be—that when Tony Abbott stood up in this place and led the applause on the free trade deal with China, I interjected: 'You just signed your own death warrant, my friend. There is no-one in Australia who is cheering for this except you imbeciles over here.' They are the only people who are cheering this one on. The people over here can start looking at their endorsements because the trade union movement has had a gutful of them. They sold out the worker lock, stock and barrel. It was not the Liberals that introduced s. 457 visas; we know it was Labor that introduced the s. 457 visas. I was there when the federal president of the CFMEU said, 'We will not brook any further s. 457s coming into this country.' The architects have been the Labor Party even more than the Liberal Party— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 Order! The member for Kennedy will resume his seat for a moment. The question is that the bill be agreed to. Does the member for Kennedy want the further call? Mr Katter HX4 No. Bill agreed to. Third Reading 65 15:52 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 65 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:53 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Deputy Speaker Andrews, I wish to make a personal explanation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr KATTER HX4 Yes. The Minister for Defence Industry said that I had provided inadequate information to the House on the issue of the tobacco tariffs which closed down the town of Myrtleford and closed down the economy of Mareeba. I've got to be very specific here. Seventy per cent of the tobacco in Australia was all right to come from overseas, but 30 per cent was reserved for Australia. If you went over 70 per cent imports, you were hit with a tariff of 50 per cent, and that 50 per cent tariff enabled Mareeba and Myrtleford to stay in the game. When the 50 per cent tariff was removed, both those towns' tobacco industries closed immediately. That is the proof that I present to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 I believe the member for Kennedy has now made clear where he claims to have been misrepresented. BILLS 65 BILLS Modern Slavery Bill 2018 65

Modern Slavery Bill 2018

Second Reading 65 15:54 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I have spoken already of the disgrace of modern slavery and how it is, sadly, still happening today. I welcome the Modern Slavery Bill 2018, although I do have some concerns that it still has some deficiencies. I note the shadow minister for justice, the member for Hotham, has moved some amendments to correct those deficiencies. I support those amendments. Although modern slavery takes many shapes, one form relies on us as consumers to continue its business model. This is the modern slavery that occurs in the supply chain of the goods that we buy. In almost everything we purchase—the food we eat, the clothes we wear, our household items and building materials—modern slavery may be present in those supply chains. It is almost impossible for us, as consumers, to know it is present. Anti-Slavery Australia told the inquiry into establishing a modern slavery act that: It is difficult to estimate the extent of practices of human trafficking and slavery in global supply chains. This is due to the clandestine nature of human trafficking and slavery, combined with the lack of transparency regarding supply chains at both the Australian and international level. It is often very difficult to determine just where a product was produced and exactly how an element of a product has been made. For example, Ms Kate Nicholl, an independent supply chain consultant and lecturer at the University of Melbourne, gave the inquiry the example of a shirt made in Bangladesh that is sold by an Australian retailer: The back of this shirt will say 'made in Bangladesh' but what that actually means is that this shirt was assembled in Bangladesh. The fabric, the cotton, the dye, if there is a zip in it, if there is a button in it—all of those materials that go into assembling that product in Bangladesh can be sourced from elsewhere, of which there is largely not a lot of transparency. It can be up to three tiers or four tiers in a supply chain, and that is where the workers are vulnerable to exploitation. This bill will establish a modern slavery reporting requirement. It will require certain large businesses and other entities in Australia to make annual modern slavery statements to the responsible minister. The bill provides for mandatory reporting for Australian entities that have annual revenue of $100 million or more. Entities with lower annual revenue will not be compelled to make the statements but may do so voluntarily, and concerned consumers should consider asking them to so do. Many stakeholders have expressed concern that the threshold for mandatory reporting is too high and that entities with lower annual revenue should be compelled to make annual reports. One of the deficiencies in this bill, which particularly troubles me, is the lack of any penalties for noncompliance with the act. A mandatory scheme with no penalty regime is like a tiger without teeth: it would soon starve to death. Why would a company report if there were no penalties for not reporting? There are some costs associated with reporting, so if your competitor chooses not to report, why would you? This is why Labor has moved an amendment to the bill to include penalties in the act. We cannot leave big business to police themselves. That has been made abundantly clear in evidence emerging from the banking royal commission, an inquiry that Prime Minister Morrison voted against 26 times and that he called a 'populist whinge'. In the United Kingdom, where there are no penalties attached to reporting, only around 30 per cent of businesses who are supposed to be reporting actually report. That is fewer than one in three. That is not good enough. I would have hoped that our government would have learnt from that lesson from the United Kingdom and made sure that our modern slavery act actually had some teeth. Modern slavery in the supply chain is not something that is going to disappear overnight. It is going to take perseverance and a consistently strong response to those that continue to allow it to happen. Australia is a trading nation. Our economic growth is underpinned by our ability to sell our goods and services overseas and to buy from the rest of the world too. It is important that we nurture our relationships with our trading partners, if for no other reason than for our own economic prosperity. But there is a secondary and equally important reason for nurturing these trading relationships: by promoting open and transparent relationships between our trading partners, we are better able to monitor and influence the transition to ethical supply chains in those countries. For example, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, debated today, between the 11 signatory countries provides an opportunity to engage with our trading partners in a forum that is mutually advantageous. There are many clauses in the TPP that I would personally not have supported. However, if handled well, it should allow trust to develop between Australia and our trading partners. Australia has just signed a trade agreement with Indonesia. The previous Labor government launched negotiations with Indonesia in 2012 because we recognise that our trading relationship with Indonesia has been extremely limited. Indonesia is the fourth-largest country in the world by population, and by 2050 it's projected to be the world's fourth-largest economy. It is one of our nearest geographical neighbours, yet it is currently our 13th-largest trading partner. Trade between Indonesia and Australia has actually gone backwards over the past five years. Tragically, other ties have followed suit. There are now fewer Australians speaking Bahasa than in the 1970s, and that is a disgrace. The contrast between two of our near neighbours could not be greater. More than 18,000 Australians export to New Zealand, and only about 2,000 export to Indonesia—one country, about five million people, and the other country, Indonesia, about 270 million. As one of our closest next-door neighbours, Indonesia barely gets a glance over the fence. This does not bode well for building an open and transparent relationship. When it comes to making sure that our supply chains are free from modern slavery, such relationships are critically important. Ensuring that Australia has mutually beneficial trading relationships is crucial. Labor is conscious of the importance of these relationships. A Shorten Labor government, should it be elected, has committed to boosting transparency and analyses of trade agreements by improving the process of negotiation right from the start. A Shorten Labor government would also introduce laws that prohibit governments from signing trade agreements that waive labour market testing. That is important in the context of this bill to prevent modern slavery. The Liberals have eroded Australia's trust in trade by signing trade agreements that allow companies to bring in foreign workers without first checking whether there's an Australian who can do that job. Sadly, the Liberals have let labour market testing requirements be waived. Where there is already an Australian worker willing and able to do the job, there is no need to bring in workers from other countries—unless, obviously, an unscrupulous employer is intending to exploit the foreign worker and thus undermine local wages and conditions. Sadly, migrants are most at risk of experiencing forms of modern slavery in Australia. In recent years authorities have discovered that men and women who have been trafficked here have been exploited in areas of work such as domestic work, hospitality, and agriculture and construction industries as well as in the sex industry. Submissions to the inquiry into establishing a modern slavery act in Australia last year gave evidence of cases of modern slavery in areas including migrant workers in the agricultural construction and meat processing industries, backpackers in the agricultural industry, a domestic worker trafficked by a foreign diplomat, and private domestic workers. Limiting the ability to bring workers to Australia to those who can work in industries where there are not enough Australian workers able to fill those vacancies will go at least some way to eliminating this form of exploitation. As I've said, I support this bill. It is more than time that we eradicated modern slavery everywhere we can. I spoke recently in this House about gender inequality. Modern slavery impacts on many more women than men. In 2014 over 70 per cent of the 17,752 victims of human trafficking were women or girls; 54 per cent of those victims suffered sexual exploitation. Australia is primarily a destination country for human trafficking. Women from Asia are trafficked here to be put to work in the sex work industry, amongst others. I have met with the Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking in Humans on many occasions here in Parliament House, and I greatly admire the work ACRATH does. In the past 12 months alone they have assisted 28 trafficked women through their companionship program. Victims of modern slavery are often incredibly vulnerable and face cultural, social, economic and language barriers. Organisations including ACRATH have joined Labor in calling for the establishment of an independent antislavery commissioner. Anti Slavery Australia has also recommended that the bill include the establishment of an independent antislavery commissioner. They say that the commissioner should monitor, oversee and coordinate Australia's response to human trafficking and slavery; raise awareness and provide education and guidance on human trafficking and slavery; conduct inquiries of systemic abuses in Australia; and receive and investigate complaints from individuals and organisations that have a sufficient interest. Labor again, as we did earlier in the year, call on the government to establish an independent antislavery commissioner to assist victims. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government instead set up a business engagement unit to assist big business, when their resources would be much more efficient helping the victims of slavery. Labor continues to call on the Morrison government to establish an office of an independent antislavery commissioner to help victims of modern slavery and stamp out this sickening crime. With that I welcome this bill. 16:05 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for Hotham. The amendment has been moved because what the government is proposing with the Modern Slavery Bill 2018 doesn't go far enough and, unfortunately, ignores the recommendations of several inquiries, particularly around the appointment of an independent commissioner to look at these issues. Quite simply, slavery is shocking. That we as a nation aren't doing all we can to prevent slavery is saddening. As a country and as a parliament we must do more to prevent slavery, servitude, forced labour, deceptive recruiting, trafficking in persons, debt bondage, forced marriage and organ trafficking. Forced labour is barred everywhere in the world, yet tens of millions are subject to this appalling practice. The vast majority of modern slaves are working in factories, on construction sites, on fishing boats and in agricultural industries across the world. It's estimated that a quarter of such exploitation is happening outside of a victim's country of origin. Australia is not immune to the scourge of slavery. The Global Slavery Index estimates that up to 15,000 people are struggling in conditions of modern slavery here in Australia. This includes forced labour, sexual exploitation of adults and children, and forced marriages. It's quite shocking and saddening. To most Australians it would be unbelievable that these sorts of things still occur in modern society, but there's no emotion involved for those who commit these most heinous of human rights abuses. Slavery is underpinned by a simple business model: reduce the cost of labour to something close to zero and reap the benefits of that toil. Slavers enjoy these fruits despite the bitterness of terror and tears. Both violence and threats of deception are the business strategy of the cold, calculating slaver. Psychological abuse, coercion and mental manipulation play a significant role in the recruitment and control of modern-day slaves, particularly in relationships where there is an imbalance of power between the slavers and those being exploited. Perpetrators often live and work with their victims, watching and managing their movements, taking them to work and collecting them. Victims of slavery don't travel alone. Their identity papers and passports are often taken away when they enter the country in which these actions take place. Our fellow humans are forced by people into work they would not otherwise do, yet modern slavery's business model goes beyond the simple reduction of labour costs. Researchers at the University of Bath in the United Kingdom have highlighted that modern slavers are also deriving revenue from the sale of additional goods and services to workers under their control. This is the 'slaves as consumers' aspect of modern slavery. This can include accommodation, food and transport provided at monopoly prices to workers with no other choices. It's all upside for those doing the exploiting, but for the workers it's a continued spiral into deeper debt. This too can provide more opportunity for the slavers to turn the screws. In order to service the debt, workers may then secure funds from family members abroad or instant loan services which enable their exploiters to generate additional revenue. This business model of despair encourages slavers to deliberately take on more workers than they need for the work they expect to get done. This is the ugly face of the 'growth despite the costs' mantra. It is also a reflection of the constant innovation in the business models of those doing the exploitation. That's why we talk of modern-day slavery. It is because of the innovative aspects of what's being done and the techniques that are being used to exploit people. But whether it was back in the 18th century or is in the modern 21st century, the principle is still the same—that is, the shocking and horrible abuse of human rights and exploitation of people for economic advantage. That may help to explain why there are more people trapped in slavery in the world today than there have been at any other point in modern history. The slavers are also increasingly using social media, particularly to recruit migrant labourers. They use platforms such as Facebook to promise unrealistically high pay and share only a very general description of the work involved, and, of course, there's very little information on workers' rights, recruitment fees or deceptive recruitment. The challenge is that it can be difficult to identify exploitative recruitment online. Detailed conversations with dodgy employers are usually taking place in private and illegal activity often happens alongside what seems like and constitutes legal behaviour. The slavers often use aggressive, credible threats to create anxiety, despair and humiliation to ensure compliant behaviour. This non-physical type of control means that modern slavery is easy to conceal. It's harder to see. It's encouraging to see that some of organisations, like Facebook, are working with the United Nations and grassroots organisations to raise awareness of human smuggling, trafficking and forced labour. It is clear that businesses here in Australia can also play a major role in either facilitating modern day slavery or helping to eradicate it. Companies can be culpable by driving down supplier prices or demanding ever-quicker production. These actions can play a big role in pushing suppliers to pursue cheap labour solutions and illicit subcontracting. A supply chain shouldn't be based on workers shackled in chains. Slavery is indeed a weak link in corporate supply chains. Forced labour was once a niche human rights matter for many large companies but today it needs to be at the forefront of corporate concerns. One year ago, Labor committed to modern slavery legislation with penalties and, importantly, an independent anti-slavery commissioner. Our announcement was warmly greeted by business, civil society and unions and we're deeply disappointed that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments have put forward a modern slavery bill without those penalties and have chosen to have a business engagement unit instead of an independent anti-slavery commissioner. The absence of penalties in this bill is also quite baffling. We cannot leave it to big business to police themselves on slavery. There have to be penalties for the serious breaches of human rights that we have seen constituting modern slavery. We can't leave it to big business simply to police themselves on this one. Evidence provided to the Senate inquiry into this bill showed that in the United Kingdom, where there is a similar regime without penalties, the percentage of businesses that have reported still hovers at around 30 per cent of those that supposedly have an obligation to do so. Civil society groups have also argued the need for penalties for companies that breach the Modern Slavery Act. The overwhelming majority of stakeholders who gave evidence to the Senate inquiry put in their submissions that this was a necessary must-have in any legislation when it came to modern slavery legislation. Those organisations include the Human Rights Law Centre, the Law Council of Australia and Oxfam. They've all called for penalties to be included in this bill. That's why Labor, despite supporting this bill, will continue our fight to ensure that we get a decent set of provisions that do provide an active deterrent to slavery in this country and, importantly, provide deterrent penalties for those who breach their human rights obligations and who undertake slavery in the modern context. I don't think there would be one Australian who would believe that it would be acceptable to exploit people and abuse their human rights in this manner. If that is the case, then there should be stiff penalties for those who do and there should be an independent body, in the form of an independent anti-slavery commissioner, that has oversight and makes sure that the laws and penalties are enforced. 16:15 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Before coming to this place, I had the immense privilege of working as a lawyer representing a number of low-paid workers and their unions across this country. One sector in particular that we spent a lot of time on was in the textile and clothing sector. Many people hear reports about sweatshops and Third World conditions, and what they probably don't realise is that, in many cases here in our backyards, we have people working on a similar basis. The people who are making clothes might be getting paid as little as $3 or $4 an hour in Australia, in flats in Richmond in my electorate or out in Springvale or elsewhere around the country, and those are clothes that go on to sell for a few hundred dollars. They're often some big brand names and they're often sold right here in Australia. The companies who sell those clothes for enormous profit, paying very, very low wages—clothes usually made by older women, but not exclusively, who speak a language other than English as their first language—get away with this through things called contracting chains. The companies at the top, big brand names, will say to a middle company, 'We want you to make us some clothes.' Of course, you've got to abide by all the relevant legal requirements, but they then turn a blind eye to whether those things actually happen or not. The companies in the middle go off and then may, in turn, contract someone else. There could be two or three steps before you actually get to the worker at the end. The worker at the end, who will be sewing the brand name onto the garment, may have no legal relationship with that label. There are two or three intermediary steps—sometimes four or five—in between that allow the big company at the top to wash its hands of what's happening but that result in the person down the bottom working for below award wages and conditions and often under a significant threat. The companies in the middle say to them: 'You can complain if you like. You can try and organise or try and demand the basic things that you're entitled to under the law, but, if you do that, we'll just go and get someone else to do the work.' So, as a result, you end up in an extraordinarily vulnerable position and you will get paid below award wages. That happens here in Australia. The Textile Clothing and Footwear Union has done enormous work not only in organising those people and taking those companies to court but also in changing the law, saying: 'No. If you're sitting at the top of the chain making a lot of money out of this, you bear some responsibility. There will now be the ability to take you to court if it turns out that the person who's doing the work is doing it in conditions that Australia wouldn't agree with.' That is a good principle. What we know is that that same system that leads to exploitation here in Australia applies now across the whole world, because, of course, capital is quite mobile and is able to go and engage in contracts overseas. And, in many instances, where wages are much lower even than you can get away with paying under those extraordinary arrangements I've just spoken about in Australia, they will go and do it. We also know that a problem in Australia that is an especially big problem overseas is that many people work in what could only be described as slave-like conditions. That touches Australia very, very deeply. For example, in my electorate we have a very large representation from the Eritrean community. There have been some significant changes in Eritrea and Ethiopia during the course of this year, and a lot of people are looking at that with great hope and hoping that some of those changes, including around conscription but also around border disputes, will lead to some long-lasting peace and an improvement in human rights in the region. People have such hope because, in the many years before that, some horrific stories have come out of these regions. What is said systematically is that people are forced into slave labour and forced labour arrangements. This happens when you've got an extraordinarily vulnerable population where you have wars. In many instances, as we are seeing famines and droughts sweeping through the region, you have people desperate for the basic freedoms that we would take for granted. They are forced into a position where they're told: 'Well, not only don't you have a government against which you can assert basic human rights but also we are now going to come and make you work, sometimes'—this was previously alleged, and Amnesty International and the UN have said this—'with the government's support. We're going to put you into a form of forced labour.' The reason that's important for Australia is that many Australian mining companies operate in Africa, particularly in some of those Horn of Africa countries and right across the region. Just as it's no longer acceptable for companies in the clothing industry to say, 'You might be sewing the label onto our clothes, but we have no legal relationship with you, so we're going to turn a blind eye,' now it's no longer defensible, nor should it be legally acceptable, for Australian companies, including Australian mining companies, to have interests in the Africa region and to turn a blind eye to whether or not forced labour is being used to dig up their resources and have them shipped across to Australia. We've seen terrible examples of companies from Australia going abroad to try and defend governments' abuses of human rights overseas. In Canada, Canadian mining companies have actually found themselves taken to court because of claims of forced labour in Africa. It's only a matter of time before it happens in Australia as well. You would think, in light of knowing what we know about slavery in Australia, slavery around the world and the potential exposure of Australian companies, the government might seize that opportunity to come here with a bill that would actually do something and have a significant chance of winding it back. It is good that we are debating a modern slavery bill in this parliament. That is a good thing. But, just as we needed laws that held large companies like Nike and Adidas to account and enabled them to be taken to court, we need laws in this country that have teeth. To pass modern slavery legislation but then outsource effective compliance of that to the very same people that this is meant to be regulating raises the question about whether the bill is going to work at all. That is why during the course of the inquiry into this matter and elsewhere the Greens, others and the opposition have said, 'You really need an independent commissioner to be able to have oversight over this, because otherwise how can you be assured that anything is going to change?' We have also heard the likes of the Law Council front up and say: 'Why are there no penalties in this bill? How is it that this bill seeks to impose obligations on people, yet there is no penalty if they breach them?' I will come back to this in a minute. There are a number of other things that need to be changed in this bill. During the course of the Senate inquiry, we made the point that, at a minimum, this act should be reviewed on a regular and ongoing three-yearly basis by a statutory antislavery commissioner. We think that the first of those reviews, if there were to be an antislavery commissioner, should consider lower thresholds, the targeting of businesses in high-risk industries regardless of annual turnover, appropriate and commensurate resourcing of the commission and penalties for noncompliance. That has to be considered soon. We also call on the government to amend this bill to include a public register of compliance for entities over the reportable threshold and a requirement in the act that entities over the reportable threshold comply with the act to be eligible for tender for government contracts, because we know that government, to the extent that it holds the purse strings, has the ability to drive very significant change. What should also be considered—it's not in this bill but it needs to be considered—are the needs, scope and application of a national victim support and compensation scheme as the next tranche of modern slavery legislation in Australia. All of those things would be useful improvements to the bill, and I expect that the bill will pass in some form, and that will be good. But we've got an opportunity to make it better. And as we're making it better, the simple test we should apply is: is this bill actually going to drive change? I think everyone is agreed now on the need to take measures to stamp out modern slavery, but the question's got to be not whether we're debating a bill that's simply got 'modern slavery' in the title but whether we're going to bring about change in the sector. As I've said, we've heard some very distressing examples of Australian companies—and the Human Rights Law Centre has shone the spotlight on this—being prepared to stand next to regimes whose human rights records would be questionable at best in countries where forced labour is going on and not only not say anything about it but actually throw their weight behind the current arrangements. That is a grave concern. And as Australian interests expand—mining interests in Africa in particular—we are going to need some independent oversight of this to ensure that it has teeth, because those businesses are operating a long way away. They might be based in Australia and headquartered in Australia, but the operations take place a long way away. It is very difficult, simply from behind a desk, to monitor that. And I would suggest that it is nonsensical to simply say, 'Well, we're going to rely on self-reporting' to say that there are no problems, because we've seen that that hasn't worked so far. There is very much a need for someone with teeth to be able to go in and investigate what is happening and whether or not, under the name of Australian companies, forced labour is taking place elsewhere. I reiterate that in looking at what's happening in Eritrea and Ethiopia a lot of people are hoping that recent changes might ameliorate some of that, but that's happening independent of what Australia can do. That's no excuse for Australia not to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that those supply chains do not allow companies to turn a blind eye to what is happening. As this bill progresses through the Senate, Senator Nick McKim will be making further comments about the Greens position with respect to this bill. But I'll say now that I sincerely hope that we don't miss this opportunity, where attention is focused on modern slavery—something that is very real, and greater than many people think—to actually put in place laws that have teeth and that will drive real change. It would be an extraordinary pity if the government simply said that they're concerned only about a facade of action, when we could be doing a bit better than what the government has proposed. 16:27 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Slavery is a very serious problem that many Australians would imagine has decreased in scope over the last years or decades or centuries. But in fact it's estimated that over 40 million people around the world are victims of modern slavery—a higher number of people trapped in slavery today than at any other time in human history, and two-thirds of those people are in our region. Slavery is supported by supply chains of products and services that many of us use every day. We know that modern slavery occurs in many forms—wage theft, dangerous and unpaid work, abuse, imprisonment and deprivation. It's vulnerable people, including foreign and seasonal workers, students, casualised and marginalised workers, and people with social, economic, language and cultural barriers, who are most at risk, and we know that many of these are women. Labor's position on this is clear: we will not tolerate the exploitation of these workers and the human rights abuses that go along with this exploitation. Modern slavery is often obscured by those who profit from it. As a society, we won't be able to end it unless we have laws dedicated to preventing it and to stopping it and resources to support that legislation. Last year, after lengthy consultation with advocates, activists and other stakeholders, Labor announced a modern slavery policy. I want to take a moment to recognise the extraordinary work of the shadow minister for justice, Clare O'Neil, in developing Labor's position. Clare really did terrific work in this area. Business, civil society and the union movement have all helped inform Labor's policy. Labor is committed to establishing a modern slavery act to make supply chains transparent, to apply penalties for noncompliance and to establish a statutory, independent antislavery commissioner. We called on the government to match our commitment. Of course we support this legislation, but, sadly, this legislation does not match the commitments that Labor has made in this area. After significant pressure, the government brought forward this bill. The bill, sadly, does not adequately address all of the advice and information that Labor took into account when we developed our approach in this area. Most importantly, the bill doesn't provide for penalties for companies that breach the provisions within the bill, and the government has proposed a watered-down business engagement unit instead of establishing an independent antislavery commissioner. Those weaknesses in this bill are disappointing. The government has shown time and again that it is too weak to tackle important issues like this, especially when it comes to regulating the businesses that are profiting from modern slavery. We can and must do better. Labor has moved amendments to this bill to introduce penalties for companies that fail to comply with the modern slavery act and we're also calling on the government to establish an office of an independent antislavery commissioner. Labor acknowledges the genuine passion that many in the business community have shown for this issue and the broad commitment within the Australian community to work against slavery. But where companies don't comply with the bill in its current form there should be penalties attached. The proposed business engagement unit is toothless and it has no enforcement powers. Key stakeholders, including ACRATH, Anti-Slavery Australia and the ACTU, have joined Labor in calling for the establishment of an independent antislavery commissioner. Modern slavery is often difficult for authorities to detect, investigate and prosecute. There are also significant gaps in the support services for victims of modern slavery. An independent antislavery commissioner would help fill those gaps, firstly, by working with victims of slavery to receive inquiries and complaints. Secondly, it would assist businesses in building best practice to protect their supply chains. Thirdly, it would work with civil society to help prevent and detect slavery in Australia. Lastly, it would allow us to enhance our global efforts to fight slavery, including by working with other countries and with international organisations that are working to end slavery. Labor is very concerned that the bill also includes forced marriage as one of the forms of exploitation that business would report on. Forced marriage is one of the most serious forms of exploitation, human being of human being. Forced marriage is often accompanied by sexual abuse for extended periods of time, isolation and the taking of victims overseas against their will. It is extremely serious. But to include it in this bill might have unintended consequences—a view expressed by a number of organisations that are active in this area—including potentially driving forced marriage further underground. Our view is based on advice from advocates who work every day on preventing forced marriage and assisting people who are at risk of forced marriage. Australia's current approach to forced marriage isn't working. Under the Turnbull government there was not one successful prosecution of forced marriage offences under the Criminal Code. Victims have limited civil protections and struggle to access government financial support. So earlier this year, to deal specifically with forced marriage, Labor committed to establishing a regime of force marriage protection orders, increasing funding for civil society organisations, establishing a forced marriage unit to provide a one-stop shop to connect victims to support services and government agencies, and providing assistance for Australians who have been taken overseas to be married against their will. We are also committed to removing the cooperation requirement. Currently victims of forced marriage who want to access government funded support have to agree to cooperate with law enforcement. You can imagine how difficult it becomes when you're talking about a young person potentially having to give evidence against their parents or other family members. Having to testify against their own family in order to access critical support might actually prevent a person making a complaint in the first place or accessing support. We don't believe that's adequate. The government recently announced a limited trial to improve these support services, but that trial doesn't go nearly far enough. We believe that the government should match Labor's forced marriage policy commitment, not risk driving this practice further underground. I acknowledged the work by Clare O'Neil, the shadow minister for justice, on modern slavery, and I should also acknowledge her work in the area of forced marriage. It really has been first rate, but, of course, there are many people in the Australian community who've been working on these issues for many years. I'd particularly like to acknowledge Dr Jennifer Byrne and her team at Anti-Slavery Australia and the many civil society and faith based organisations that are active in this area, including the Uniting Church; the Salvation Army; members of the Australian Freedom Network; STOP THE TRAFFIK; Fiona McLeod SC and Morry Bailes from the Law Council of Australia; the Walk Free Foundation, particularly Andrew Forrest and his family, who have been very active in this antislavery area; and my friend and former colleague former Senator Chris Evans. The Australian Council of Trade Unions and individual unions have also been extraordinary in their fight against the extreme exploitation of workers in industries as diverse as textiles, clothing and footwear; agriculture; transport; domestic; child care; and construction—particular parts of the construction industry have been very much at risk of slave-like conditions for some of the workers. So I acknowledge the very fine contribution of these organisations over many years. I just want to finish by speaking a little bit about Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking in Humans. ACRATH have really done extraordinary work in this area of modern slavery and also in the area of trafficking of people. They have been fierce and persistent advocates for the victims of trafficking. As well as their advocacy work, they provide services that have been a lifeline to trafficked individuals in Australia and in our region. ACRATH has been instrumental in shining a light on the slavery that exists today, including the fact that Australia is a destination for trafficked people. ACRATH gives people who have been trafficked hope, and it gives them a voice. Today, I want to particularly acknowledge the work that ACRATH has done on forced marriage. ACRATH has produced materials for use in the school curriculum to improve awareness of the practice of forced marriage in Australia and to make sure that all students know that forced marriage is illegal and know where they can turn if they believe they or a friend or someone they know is at risk of forced marriage. These materials were piloted in schools across three Australian states—South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. Evaluation of the pilot shows that the materials were very effective. The program evaluation report says, 'Schools provide the potential for tens of thousands of young people to be educated about human rights and the way that the practice of forced marriage violates these rights.' The program empowers young people to advocate for their own rights and for the rights of their peers. The funding for this was absolutely minuscule: $60,000 was what they needed to run this program. Unfortunately, ACRATH now have uncertainty about whether they'll be able to continue this work, because there is no certainty about their ongoing funding. I would like to take this opportunity to call on the government to make sure that programs like this can be given a certain future and that organisations like ACRATH are properly supported to continue and to expand their work to eliminate trafficking in all its forms, including forced marriage. 16:40 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I thank all members who have contributed to the debate this week on this important bill. We're united on both sides of this House in our shared commitment to combating modern slavery, and I'd like to thank the many people who have contributed not just in this debate but in the committee which considered this matter at great length, chaired so well by the member for Dunkley. I thank him and all of his colleagues on the committee. The Modern Slavery Bill 2018 is a vital milestone in our response to this crime. It will shine a light into the dark corners of global supply chains and transform the way businesses respond to modern slavery. Today we've heard a range of suggestions in relation to potential amendments to this bill, including removing forced marriage from the definition of modern slavery; introducing a punitive penalty regime; requiring annual reporting to parliament, including a list of all reporting entities; and establishing an antislavery commissioner. The government is confident that the bill is appropriate for the Australian context in its current form and does not require amendment in the House. The government has carefully crafted this bill through a 10-month consultation process to ensure that it is practical, sensible and effective, and those consultations were indeed extensive. There were meetings with over 170 business and civil society experts across 16 roundtable meetings, as well as over 70 direct meetings. During those extensive consultations, the government worked closely with business and civil society to consider the issues of relevance to this bill. We also thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for its inquiry into the bill, and the government is carefully considering the five recommendations made by that Senate committee. In conclusion, the importance of this bill must not be understated. This is a matter of great importance. The business community and broader civil society both support government taking action on this issue, and this bill will be a powerful catalyst for change. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hotham has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment, as moved by the member for Hotham, be agreed to.

The House divided. [16:47]
(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 Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Katter, RC Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 72 NOES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

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

 Consideration in Detail 74 16:54 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham by leave—I move: (1) Clause 4, page 4 (line 15), after "Criminal Code", insert ", other than an offence against section 270.7B of the Criminal Code (forced marriage offences)". (2) Clause 4, page 4 (line 17), after "Divisions", insert "(other than an offence against section 270.7B)". Thank you for the opportunity to move these amendments to the Modern Slavery Bill 2018. We're delighted to be making some proposed changes that we think will strengthen this bill and make sure it is effective as it can be. Amendments (1) and (2) circulated in my name relate to forced marriage, which, as it currently stands, is a definition of slavery to which this modern slavery act would eventually be subject. Whether we should include forced marriage in the legislation before us is a complicated question. Under Australia's Criminal Code, forced marriage is considered one of the types of slavery that is outlawed under Australian law, but that doesn't really help us to answer the question as to whether it should in fact be subject to a modern slavery bill. Labor has spoken to stakeholders quite extensively about this issue and we're concerned that the inclusion of forced marriage in this bill will have unintended consequences, including driving forced marriage further underground. Good Shepherd in its submission to the Senate inquiry said, 'There is a likelihood that the reporting requirement may function as a barrier to prevention.' The Salvation Army said in its submission, 'There is a risk that requiring entities to assess risk of this practise may lead to unintended negative consequences, including racial or religious profiling of some of their staff.' It might assist the House and those in the gallery for me to step back a little and contextualise what we're talking about here. The bill that's before the parliament is to introduce a requirement on big companies that are operating into Australia. What we're saying to these big companies is that for the first time under Australian law they will be required to make a statement about what it is that they've done to make sure that slavery is not a part of their supply chain. It's a very important reform because for a long time we've had big business in Australia tell us that what happens in their supply chain is none of their business. That has to change. It's a really exciting moment for this parliament to stand together on this question of obligation, because we are saying that we do expect companies to look. To not know is no excuse. The question, though, is how broadly we define slavery under this act, and, specifically, whether we want to put an obligation on big companies in this country that they investigate forced marriage, as a form of slavery, which would then subject to the reporting requirements that we are discussing? It may come to pass in the future that we will consider that this is an important part of the act, but Labor believes that under this first go at the Australian Parliament legislating on this matter it is not appropriate to include forced marriage. The reason for this is that we don't want to give big companies effectively a social licence, and in fact a legal licence, to inquire into the personal lives of their employees. We don't want, for example, big companies to see that under this bill the parliament is telling them that they should be talking to their employees about their marriage and how their marriage came to pass. There may be instances where a forced marriage becomes part of some type of human trafficking that brings slavery into the supply chain of companies, but our view, in listening to the experts, is that at this stage we would prefer to err on the side of caution and not include forced marriage in the definition under this law. What that means is that big Australian companies will have to comply with this law—they will have to make sure they make statements about whether there is slavery in the supply chain, but we won't be asking them to tell us about what they've done to prevent forced marriage, because we believe that in doing so we may actually drive this very significant social problem further underground. We on this side of the House are very concerned about forced marriage. Earlier this year I was very lucky to stand with the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party and member for Sydney as we announced a very fresh, new and different approach to tackling forced marriage that a future Shorten Labor government would put in place. That would include establishing a Forced Marriage Unit to provide a one-stop shop to connect victims to the support they need. It would include increasing funding for civil society to support victims and, crucially, it would involve the full removal of the cooperation requirement. Today the cooperation requirement is a mechanism under Australian law that effectively requires victims of forced marriage, literally some of the most vulnerable people in our whole country, to get government support to escape from that marriage. We effectively require them to report against their own parents, and you can imagine that most are not willing to do that. It is a very complex issue, a very important one, and we don't believe that it belongs in this modern slavery act. 16:59 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks The government does not support the proposed amendment and the removal of forced marriage from the definition of modern slavery. We've carefully considered this issue in consultation with over 100 experts in the business community and broader society. The broad feedback was strongly in favour of the inclusion of forced marriage within the definition of modern slavery. This is because some entities may directly contribute to forced marriage through their business activities. We believe that should be captured within the definition under the act. For example, a mining company may report on forced marriage risks because it runs remote overseas accommodation camps for workers who are forcibly marrying women. The bill will also apply to entities that may choose to include information in their statements about their actions to ensure that forced marriages don't occur as part of their services. The bill doesn't require entities to investigate or assess the private activities of their employees, which is important to note. Our approach to forced marriage is consistent with the way we will require entities to report on other modern slavery risks linked to their business activities. For example, members have highlighted the potential vulnerability of some private domestic workers to modern slavery. Under this act we will expect companies that provide domestic workers for their overseas employees to report on what they are doing to ensure these workers are not exploited. For these reasons the government does not support the proposed amendment. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that amendments (1) and (2) as moved by the member for Hotham be agreed to.

The House divided. [17:05]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 67 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE 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 Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 72 NOES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 17:09 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham by leave—I move amendments (3) to (6) as circulated in my name together: (1) Clause 4, page 4 (line 15), after "Criminal Code", insert ", other than an offence against section 270.7B of the Criminal Code (forced marriage offences)". (2) Clause 4, page 4 (line 17), after "Divisions", insert "(other than an offence against section 270.7B)". (3) Clause 11, page 10 (lines 3 to 13), omit the clause, substitute: 11 Simplified outline of this Part This Part requires modern slavery statements to be given annually to the Minister, describing the risks of modern slavery in the operations and supply chains of reporting entities and entities owned or controlled by those entities. The statements must also include information about actions taken to address those risks. Joint modern slavery statements may be given on behalf of one or more reporting entities. There are civil penalties for reporting entities that fail to comply with these requirements. The Minister must prepare an annual modern slavery statement on behalf of all non‑corporate Commonwealth entities. The Minister must report annually to the Parliament about compliance by reporting entities with this Act. (4) Page 13 (after line 27), at the end of Part 2, add: 16A Civil penalty for failure to give or prepare modern slavery statement Compliance within the first 2 years of this Act (1) An entity is liable to a civil penalty if: (a) a modern slavery statement that covers the entity, for a reporting period, is required to be given or prepared within the 2 year period starting on the day this section commences; and (b) a modern slavery statement that covers the entity for that reporting period is not given or prepared under any of sections 13 to 15 (whether or not the entity giving or preparing the statement complies with the requirements of subsection 13(2), 14(2) or 15(2)). Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Compliance from 2 years onwards (2) An entity is liable to a civil penalty if: (a) a modern slavery statement that covers the entity, for a reporting period, is required to be given or prepared after the end of the 2 year period starting on the day this section commences; and (b) a modern slavery statement that covers the entity for that reporting period is not given or prepared in accordance with any of sections 13 to 15. Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. (3) Subsection 93(2) of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 does not apply in relation to a contravention of subsection (2) of this section. 16B Annual report by Minister on compliance with Act (1) As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, the Minister must cause to be prepared a report on compliance by reporting entities with their obligations under this Act during the financial year. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the report must include: (a) a list of each entity that is a reporting entity at any time during the financial year; and (b) a list of each entity that has failed, at any time during the financial year, to comply with a requirement to give a modern slavery statement. (3) The Minister must cause the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is prepared. (5) Clause 21, page 16 (lines 3 to 9), omit the clause, substitute: 21 Simplified outline of this Part This Part deals with the following miscellaneous matters: (a) things done by an unincorporated entity; (b) civil penalties; (c) the Minister's capacity to delegate powers and functions under this Act; (d) review of this Act; (e) the power to make rules. (6) Page 16 (after line 14), after clause 22, insert: 22A Civil penalty provisions Enforceable civil penalty provisions (1) Subsections 16A(1) and (2) of this Act are each enforceable under Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. Note: Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 allows a civil penalty provision to be enforced by obtaining an order for a person to pay a pecuniary penalty for the contravention of the provision. Authorised applicant (2) For the purposes of Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, the Secretary of the Department is an authorised applicant in relation to subsection 16A(1) or (2) of this Act. Relevant court (3) For the purposes of Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, each of the following courts is a relevant court in relation to subsection 16A(1) or (2) of this Act: (a) the Federal Court of Australia; (b) the Federal Circuit Court of Australia; (c) a court of a State or Territory that has jurisdiction in relation to the matter. Extension to external Territories etc. (4) Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, as it applies in relation to subsection 16A(1) or (2) of this Act, extends to: (a) every external Territory; and (b) acts, omissions, matters and things outside Australia. Liability of Crown (5) Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, as it applies in relation to subsection 16A(1) or (2) of this Act, does not make the Crown liable to a pecuniary penalty. I do so because, while we are very pleased to be in this chamber this evening debating the Modern Slavery Bill 2018, there is something crucially important missing from the bill that's before us. That is the issue of penalties. So Labor is moving amendments to this bill to introduce immediate penalties for companies that fail to submit a modern slavery statement and penalties for companies that submit inadequate modern slavery statements with a two-year delayed start. We will also be moving amendments to require the minister to report to parliament on the operation of the act annually, including the list of companies the minister believes are required to report and those the minister believes are noncompliant. We do this in the full knowledge that there are a number of very big companies around this country that are doing everything they can to fight modern slavery. We are, in part, instituting a report to the parliament because we want the parliament to draw the public's attention to companies that are doing the right thing—and there are a lot of them. But it is also the case that there are big companies in this country that are not doing what we believe is required to fight modern slavery. In this parliament, we make laws and all of us in this chamber are subject to those laws. The bill before us will introduce a regime which requires big public companies to report on what they're doing to fight modern slavery, yet effectively the government are making the regime optional. This is slavery we are talking about, one of the grossest infringements of human rights that there is. We believe that, when it comes to making laws in this parliament, we need to make a crystal clear statement about what is acceptable and what is not. If we introduce the Modern Slavery Bill through this parliament, all we will be doing is introducing a requirement that big companies merely report on what it is they are doing to fight modern slavery. It is not that onerous a requirement. I don't want to downplay it: for really big companies, it is going to take some time and resources. But we are talking about slavery here and all we are requiring of these companies is that they make a statement. If big companies in this country cannot be bothered to look into their supply chains to do what we as a parliament are saying is their obligation as corporate citizens then they deserve to be punished. They deserve to have their names brought forward to the people of Australia so they know which companies are doing the right thing and which are not and they deserve a financial penalty. Part of the purpose of a modern slavery act is this parliament, for the first time, laying down in black-and-white letters what the obligations are of these companies to human rights in this country. I believe, and the Labor Party believes, that it is perfectly reasonable to expect companies to comply with Australian law and, if they don't comply with Australian law, just like if we didn't follow the law, penalties should be the result. We also know from experience in the UK where a similar piece of legislation applies what happens when we don't have a penalties regime. What we found in the UK version of the modern slavery act is that only half of the 9,000 to 11,000 organisations that are required to report under the act actually produce a slavery and human trafficking statement. It's not very hard. All they need to do is look at their supply chains and provide a report as to what they've done and what they've seen, and yet half of the big companies in the UK cannot be bothered complying with this act. This is meant to be a legal obligation, and the Labor Party believe that it's perfectly reasonable for companies that are going to be subject to this act to be forced to comply with this law. So we are moving amendments to the bill to make sure that there are penalties as a consequence of failure to comply with it. We believe that's fair and reasonable given that we are talking about something that is so crucially important to everyone in this parliament, and that is tackling modern slavery. 17:14 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks The government does not support the proposed amendments. The feedback from the extensive consultation process undertaken for the introduction of this important legislation was that reputational risk and reward will drive compliance far more effectively than any penalty regime. The proposed regime would be complex, would be resource intensive and would likely require a new regulatory enforcement body. The proposed penalties wouldn't address the most likely reason for noncompliance over the first three years of the bill, being a lack of understanding of the new regime. What the government is doing is establishing a business engagement unit within the Department of Home Affairs resourced with some $3.6 million to advise on the new requirements under the modern slavery act and to support those businesses in fulfilling the requirements of the act. Importantly, the legislation provides for a three-year review, and at that time there will be an opportunity to review the evidence about reporting rates. It's also notable that this issue of penalties was considered by the Senate committee recently, who took a range of submissions from civil society and business. Importantly, after considering the evidence, the Senate committee supported the government's approach on penalties. Rather than immediate penalties, the Senate committee recommended, similar to the government's position, that this issue be assessed after the three-year period has elapsed. The member for Hotham talked about noncompliance rates in the UK, but it is important to understand that the UK application has a very, very broad application to UK businesses and quite a low threshold, which has driven up the noncompliance rate. Importantly, the UK government did not actually establish a government body to provide support for the introduction of this new regime. That's precisely what we've done with the business engagement unit within the Department of Home Affairs. We think there's an important distinction to be made there. For those reasons, the government does not support the amendments as proposed by the member for Hotham. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that amendments (3) to (6) moved by the member for Hotham be agreed to. The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that this bill be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill agreed to.

The House divided. [17:21]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 67 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM 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 Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 72 NOES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Smith, ADH Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 80 17:25 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018 80

My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018

Second Reading 80 17:26 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat When this House last considered the My Health Record, in 2015, I moved a second reading amendment on the government's bill. It called on the House to note 'the inadequacy of this bill in making real improvements to a national electronic health system'. The government voted that amendment down. Labor, alongside many health groups, was always agnostic about the government's decision to move to an opt-out system. We did not believe that this was the main area where improvements needed to be made. We raised very real concerns about implementation but were prepared to give the government and the new digital health agency a go, to get it right. But three years later it is clear that the government has botched the implementation of the My Health Record. We should be very clear: the legislation before the House today is a clean-up exercise, and it is a job only partly done. We will use the processes available to us through the Senate to try to improve this legislation. But we will also use those processes to determine whether we need to go further if we are fortunate enough to form government at the next election. I want to be clear at the outset that Labor supports a national digital health record. We established the personally controlled electronic health record under the leadership of the member for Sydney. We knew that the personally controlled electronic health record could improve coordination between GPs, specialists and hospitals and cut down on duplication and errors in diagnosis, prescription and treatments. It's an important healthcare reform. We continue to believe that the My Health Record could save money and lives if implemented by a competent government. But that is a very big 'if', because this is not a competent government when it comes to digital service delivery. This is the government that gave us census fail and robodebt. In health, this is the government that saw Medicare and PBS data leaked and that spent millions of dollars outsourcing the National Cancer Screening Register to Telstra in a contract that still has not delivered a functioning cancer register. Now we can add the implementation of the My Health Record to that very sorry list, because in mid-July, when the opt-out period for the My Health Record began, it became clear that the government had bungled this vital program in two fundamental ways. First the government failed—and it seems even to have refused—to communicate with Australians about the risks and benefits of the My Health Record and what the opt-out system means in practice. The opt-out model is a very big change from Labor's opt-in system. Every Australian will now get a My Health Record unless they tell the government that they don't want one. It moves the system away from one of informed consent, a model that is a foundation principle of the way that health professionals work together with those in their care. Informed consent is based on a very strong relationship of trust and is embedded across the entire healthcare system. The government in 2015 took the decision to move to a presumed consent model and to provide a period in which people could choose to opt out of the system altogether. It is a significant change in the healthcare relationship. Bringing both healthcare professionals and the Australian public along with these changes was essential for their success. That required properly and consistently explaining to the Australian public not just the how of the opt-out system but the why. Why was it necessary? The government has never made these explanations. The Digital Health Agency gave some money to primary health networks to promote the reform. Brochures have been produced, the information within which is pretty rudimentary. One brochure I have seen was factually wrong. Funds were given to a raft of different stakeholder groups who needed to communicate with their members, but that was it. In the opt-out trial sites the government sent a letter to every person who would be registered for a My Health Record informing them of the reform, what was happening, what their rights were and what they might need to do about it. That's a common and effective way for governments to communicate significant policy changes, but the government has refused to send the same letter as part of the national rollout. It might be because the government sent letters to dead people in the trial sites, which was pretty embarrassing and hurtful, but in any case there has been no letter on the national shift to an opt-out system and the importance of the My Health Record. As another example the government has refused to run television ads. It is not because they can't afford it—the Digital Health Agency spent $81 million on consultants last year alone—it is because this minister doesn't have the courage to back this reform that is supposedly so important. In July, as the opt-out period began, all of the criticisms that the government had hoped to keep quiet came tumbling out. In the process the government threw away any trust the Australian people had in its implementation of the My Health Record. The government's second broad mistake is equally damaging. Put simply it is trying to implement an opt-out system on opt-in foundations. Other than minor changes in 2015 the legislation and policies that underpin the My Health Record were designed for the opt-in, personally controlled electronic health record. In that system the government could assume informed consent because every consumer with a record had actively chosen to create one. A number of the My Health Record features made sense in that context. For example, default settings that kept a record relatively open made sense if someone had deliberately creatively and actively created that record, but when every Australian gets a My Health Record, many of them without any real engagement, those settings may no longer be tenable. Those two fundamental mistakes led to weeks of controversy on the My Health Record and finally forced the minister to announce the changes that this bill implements. In particular this bill makes two changes to the My Health Records Act. First this bill amends the act to require a court order or a consumer's express consent in order to disclose health information from their My Health Record to law enforcement agencies or other government bodies. Even groups that are generally supportive of the My Health Record like the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners have been alarmed by the government's previous insistence that a policy of the Australian Digital Health Agency would suffice. I commend the AMA, the Royal Australian College of GPs and others for advocating for that policy to be enshrined in legislation. The bill sets out a range of conditions under which a judicial officer may make a court order to disclose health information, including that the disclosure is reasonable necessary and that the requested information is not available from any other source. It also exempts the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman and the Information Commissioner from the requirement for a court order. The government argues that this is necessary because these agencies have unique responsibilities to ensure the privacy and security of the My Health Record system. I want to foreshadow today that Labor will test that proposition in the Senate. Second, this bill amends the act to require the permanent deletion of health information for all consumers who opt out of the My Health Record. The act currently requires the information that was held in the record to be locked down but retained until 30 years after the consumer's death. Again, that setting might have made sense when a consumer had previously opted into the My Health Record and might want to rejoin the record in the future. But it makes no sense in an opt out system. Labor welcomes the changes in this bill, but the changes do not go nearly far enough. The former president of the AMA, Professor Kerryn Phelps, has described the government's changes as woefully inadequate and as minor concessions. Labor agrees. The government has stubbornly refused to address a range of privacy and security concerns beyond the two that are apparent in this bill. I want to touch on some of those concerns today, because they make clear that this bill does not fix the problems that will plague the My Health Record. First, advocates are alarmed, as the government should be, that the current record could be used as a tool in family violence. That's because the default settings give access to a child's My Health Record to both parents and, in fact, they may even allow a non-custodial parent to create a record for a child that is no longer in their care. So, if a woman and her children are fleeing an abusive ex-partner, that partner could track their location by viewing the doctors and pharmacies that they visit. The National Council of Single Mothers and their Children says abusive ex-partners could use this to narrow down the locations of victims in hiding. That is, frankly, a chilling prospect. But the government says it isn't a problem because one parent will be able to terminate another's access. But it is ridiculous to place the burden of keeping a child's My Health Record private on a mother fleeing violence. And even if a mother does raise concerns, the government has installed the Digital Health Agency as the judge in family violence cases in these circumstances. The agency says it will investigate concerns and reinstate access to whichever parent it believes is appropriate. With due respect to the agency, it has no expertise—absolutely none—in family violence or in family law. That is not its job. It is simply not good enough for the government to say that women fleeing violence need to raise concerns which will then be investigated by digital health bureaucrats. By the time they even become aware that a record has been created it may be too late. But, in spite of advocates' concerns and media reports, the government has stubbornly refused to actually address this issue. A second and related concern is about parental access to My Health Records for teenagers aged 14 to 18. The concern has been raised by GPs in particular, and I want to thank them for their advocacy on behalf of their patients. Teenagers may take control of their My Health Record at the age of 14, and we know that, for many teenagers, as they start to get into their adult life, there are controversial issues they might want to talk to their GPs about, particularly around contraception. Taking control of their My Health Record at the age of 15 also requires, unfortunately, the creation of a myGov account and an identification verification procedure. GPs fear, and I agree, that many a teenager does not have access to the documents needed to take control of their own record. Where that's the case, their authorised representatives—usually their parents—will maintain default access to their record until they are 18. That will mean that parents, even non-custodial parents, can view health information such as pathology reports, medicines information and other summary documents. There are many instances where this is not appropriate. But, again, it's not a problem that this bill even attempts to address. A third serious concern has been raised by unions. The government is incapable of listening to unions when it comes to issues like this, and they need to. Their concerns are real and deserve to be addressed in this debate. In particular, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and its members point out that employers could gain access to employees' My Health Records via employer doctors. For example, My Health Record data accessed through pre-employment medical checks or workers compensation assessments could be passed to employers and used to discriminate against workers, for example, on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. To be fair, the government argues that this is prohibited both by the purpose of this act and by a separate piece of legislation, the Healthcare Identifiers Act, but lawyers have publicly challenged this claim. They say the current legislative framework is ambiguous at best and that protections should be built into the My Health Records Act itself. In the meantime, unions are rightly urging their tens of thousands of members to opt out of the My Health Record. The government says it's important for as many Australians as possible to have a My Health Record. So why wouldn't the government address the ambiguity, build protections into this act and try to restore the confidence of workers and unions? That's what the government has done on court orders. It said they were unnecessary because of the policy of the Digital Health Agency, but ultimately it recognised that legislation could help to restore trust in the My Health Record—and it is now trying to legislate for that. It should do the same in this instance. Concerns like these are why Labor referred the My Health Record to the Senate for inquiry. When I announced Labor's push for an inquiry, the minister called it a stunt. That's how little he cares about the risk that his My Health Record may contribute to family violence or discriminate against workers. But ultimately there was overwhelming support in the Senate for not one but two inquiries. One will examine this bill in the usual way. The other is a broader inquiry that will review all the laws, regulations and rules that underpin the My Health Record. It will examine the government's decision to shift from an opt-in system to an opt-out system and whether it adequately prepared for this fundamental change. It will examine a range of privacy and security concerns, including those that I have discussed today. And it will look at the potential that commercial interests, including health insurers, could be given access to My Health Record data. The inquiries have held their first hearings, and Labor thanks all the organisations and individuals that have already contributed to them. Unlike the government, we are committed to listening to all Australians on their national digital health record. Witnesses at the inquiry have already raised a number of potential issues that haven't been previously raised. Professor Phelps, who I mentioned earlier, believes we need to better safeguard against any future moves to privatise or monetise this this system. I think it's pretty clear the Australian people have no appetite to see their health system sold off or commercialised. I think they sent that message pretty loudly and clearly in the 2016 election, when this government was actively involved in the idea of the private sector looking at the Medicare payments system. Professor Phelps has raised concerns about section 98 of the legislation, which gives the Australian Digital Health Agency the power to delegate any function to any other person with the consent of the minister. As she points out, this section could have very broad implications, and it's worth exploring this further. It's also been pointed out that the My Health Record is something that, if successfully delivered, will be around for a long time, and we need to futureproof it. That means tightening the current legislation as much as we possibly can. We also need to make absolutely certain that the private health insurers are never given access to people's records. The government says that this won't happen, but there is the potential for that to change as part of a scheduled review in 2020. We need more explicit legislative guarantees that this will never happen under any circumstances. The Royal Australian College of GPs warned the Senate committee last week that there was a real risk insurers may try and game the system. They suggested that the act should be strengthened so it specifically prohibits insurers from even making requests to healthcare providers to access such information. But, as the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association told the inquiry last week, even changes to more thoroughly lock out insurers may not be enough. The Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association believe there should be consumer protections to prevent third parties from discriminating against individuals who do not agree to release their My Health Record data. They raised the prospect of businesses refusing to sell a product or service, or charging more, unless the individual provides access to their data. That is obviously not acceptable. We believe there may also be some merit in a review of the default privacy and security settings for a person's record. There is significant concern from IT and cybersecurity experts that the current settings are too relaxed. At any rate, given the committee process underway, we will not oppose or amend this bill in the House. We will allow it to proceed to the Senate, where we may seek to amend the bill in light of the evidence of the two inquiries. In the meantime, we still firmly believe that the opt-out rollout should be suspended until all of these concerns are fully addressed and a new comprehensive public information campaign is launched. The government promised such a campaign six weeks ago, but so far we have seen absolutely no trace of it. Put simply, a one-month extension to the opt-out period that the government has introduced does not cut it. This reform should not go any further until public trust has been restored, and the only way to do that is to let the Senate do its job and to make sure that we actually get this legislation correct. We have always believed in the benefits of a national digital health record and what they could deliver and that it was worth some of the risks. But governments must do everything in their power to minimise the risks. I think it is foolish of any government to say that this data won't leak at some point. The reality is that over recent days and recent months, and in other countries as well, we've seen significant sensitive health data enter the public domain. The issue is: what are the protections for people when that occurs? What are the protections for people when third parties use or publish that information in any way? We need to make sure that we have the regulatory framework in place to ensure that people's privacy is protected and that the security of their data is as strong as it possibly can be. But then what happens in the case of this information making it into the public domain and being republished in a newspaper or used adversely against someone in their employment or against someone seeking further insurance or in any other matter? I think those are debates that we need to have to make sure that we've got that right within the legislative framework. More than that, the government must clearly demonstrate and explain to the public what they're doing to minimise the risks. Otherwise, the whole enterprise will be hobbled in distrust and scepticism. The reform needs public support to work, and that's where the government has failed. That is why it needs to suspend the opt-out period until it can get this right. The changes in this bill are necessary but not sufficient. We need to respect the Senate inquiry process as an opportunity for all Australians to have their say. We need further protections for privacy and security in both legislation and policy, and we need a government that is committed to communicating with all Australians about the benefits and risks of the My Health Record so all Australians can make an informed choice about whether to participate. I therefore move the second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to suspend the 'opt out' phase of the My Health Record rollout until other privacy and security concerns are addressed". The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Ms O'Neil 140590 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form 'that the amendment be agreed to'. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 17:48 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Where do I begin? I'm probably about to make myself very unpopular in this chamber, but sometimes you've got to stand up, speak the truth and do what is right, and the simple reality is that I have not had any enthusiasm, ever, for the My Health Record system. It's a bad policy introduced by the Labor Party when they were last in government. Had I been elected to parliament at the time, I would have stood up, spoken against it and said: 'I don't think it's right. I don't like the idea of a centralised system recording people's health records—least of all when the law doesn't even put limitations or protections in the legislation around who can access it, so busybody bureaucrats, tax officials and people merely seeking information can access it.' This is Labor's legacy to health: establishing My Health Record. And why? To solve, frankly, what I consider to be a nonproblem. These schemes are around the world. If you go and look at other countries everywhere, you'll see the My Health Record system or its equivalent. And you know what comes out? They're models proposed by technocrats and high-priced consultants in response to questionable problems in health record keeping. Funnily enough, they all seem to make a lot of money out of it, and over time they become lumbered with more and more information and obligations until basically they get to a point where nobody uses them anymore. In the end they become a massive waste of money, and they aren't used in the way that they were designed or for the purpose of solving the problem which they were trying to solve. That's the basis and the legacy of Labor's My Health Record system, and that's why I spoke out and said I opted out. I don't make any apology for that. You hear the hypocritical arguments being put forward by the member for Ballarat, amongst others. They get up and lecture the current government about My Health Record and how we haven't done enough, but we are fixing their problems. They're the ones who introduced the system that didn't put the security and safeguards in place. I welcome what the government is doing to fix up Labor's mess. Labor are responsible for the problems and the practises that sit at the heart of this law. I've also said publicly that it's my belief that it should remain an opt-out system. That has not changed, and that will not change. I think that's called the tenets of liberalism, and, as I've said, that's one of the reasons why I opted out. But, if we're going to have such a system designed by the Australian Labor Party and legislated two parliaments ago, we should at least have these types of security mechanisms sitting at the heart of it. And what do we have? The Australian Digital Health Agency will have obligations put on it about how information is to be disclosed and to make sure that there are appropriate penalties should information be disclosed in an inappropriate way. The My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018 will require the system operator to delete the health information it holds for any consumer who has ever cancelled their My Health Record. To support these amendments, we have an extension of the opt-out period. Very good. Congratulations to the minister for doing so, because your health records—the health records of the Australian people—should be private. They should be a matter for you and your doctor, not tax accountants, bureaucrats or police officers trying to find information without any just cause and without a warrant. This bill is so welcome, because it fixes the legacy that we inherited. So I say to the Minister for Health: congratulations for doing the right thing in fixing Labor's flawed My Health Record system. 17:53 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur The member for Goldstein has once again demonstrated why the Liberal Party knows nothing about public health policy. I rise to reiterate my support for the My Health Record system and to support the comments of the member for Ballarat. As the minister has been quick to point out, the My Health Record was Labor's idea. Unfortunately, we're now in the situation where we have the multiplier effect of incompetence. We have the Liberal and National parties' inability to understand public health policy, as demonstrated time and time again—a perfect example is that, at the beginning of this parliament, they sold off the Australian cancer registry to a private enterprise, and there have still been no positive results—multiplied by this government's incompetence with electronic communication, as demonstrated by the poor NBN results, the robo-debt problem, the poor census results and the Medicare data breaches. Unfortunately, this multiplier effect has done enormous damage to the My Health Record system and to public confidence in it. In my view, we need to go back to square one and redesign the system with basic security at the heart and at the beginning of the system. The fact that the member for Ballarat has referred the legislation to a Senate inquiry is very good, but I would reiterate that we need to make sure that the Australian public has confidence in the system. A brief period of reflection on the history of the system is warranted. After several years of operation of the scheme in a trial manner, the Abbott government decided that it would move from Labor's opt-in approach to an opt-out model, and that's when the problems began. What it didn't do was enhance the privacy and the data security features of the scheme to reflect its wider reach and increased vulnerabilities of the opt-out model. I'm probably a lot less agitated by privacy issues than are many critics of the government's proposed changes, but I do recognise that moving to an opt-out model introduces a level of quasi-compulsion into the scheme that did not exist in Labor's version. I have discussed this scheme at length with my colleagues, both in and out of the parliament. Any member of this parliament who has an interest and has had a profession in health care, including the member for Chisholm, the member for Batman, the member for Dobell, the member for Bowman, Senator Di Natale, the member for Herbert and the member for Lyne, knows and supports the transition to electronic health records. It will have enormous benefits for the Australian healthcare system. It has real-world benefits already. For example, in my own field of paediatrics, complex—often genetic—disorders associated with multi-organ dysfunction can be benefited enormously by having a record of these rare disorders and the deficits that they can cause. One condition that springs to mind is something called velo-cardio-facial syndrome, which is a specific genetic disorder associated with multi-organ dysfunction, thyroid dysfunction, parathyroid dysfunction, congenital heart disease, intellectual disability, epilepsy and other organ systems, often very complex. Parents often don't completely understand the complexity of the disorder. When visiting doctors and hospital emergency departments, having a simple way of communicating the information about their child's disorder would be of enormous benefit. Another example is in medication tracing for people who have substance abuse difficulties. It would be very, very helpful if we had electronic records and real-time monitoring of prescriptions. There would be much less repetition of pathology results and imaging techniques. I don't know how many times I've seen patients who've come along and said, 'I had a blood test a month ago', or three weeks ago, and you say: 'Where was it done? What pathology?' They don't know, and that often leads to repetition of results. This would stop if we had adequate electronic health records. Genetic disorders associated with complex difficulties and abnormalities that can be important to prescription of different medications would be on the electronic health record and would be of enormous benefit. Lastly, there would be a huge benefit in population based research using electronic health records that were de-identified—so, enormous real-world benefits of this scheme. It should have been clear to the minister and to his advisers, however, that moving from an opt-in to an opt-out system might create some disquiet. But digital health records accessible from anywhere in Australia with access and content controlled by the health consumer are clearly a massive plus for patients, health providers and taxpayers. Unsurprisingly, despite the brewing controversy and continued in-principle support for the scheme, this was reaffirmed at the 3 August meeting of the Council of Australian Governments health ministers in Alice Springs. At that meeting health ministers, including those representing the Labor states and the two territories, unanimously reaffirmed their support for a national opt-out approach to the My Health Record. Jurisdictions noted clinical advice about the benefits of the My Health Record and expressed their strong support for My Health Record to support patients' health. Ministers acknowledged at that time some concerns in the community and noted that 'actions proposed to provide community confidence, including strengthening privacy and security and providing better education about My Health Record', was appropriate. My Health Record is almost unanimously supported by the medical profession, provided that we can get the security settings right. About six million Australians had a digital health record at the time this bill was introduced, and 13,000 health providers have participated in the scheme. The bill itself is about further guaranteeing the strength of health records and the privacy of those who choose to participate in the scheme. Unfortunately, public confidence in the scheme has been shaken by a lack of education, a lack of support for medical professionals and for hospitals, both public and private, and a lack of support for consumers themselves. Public confidence has virtually been destroyed. We need to know that information that has been compulsorily collected under My Health Record cannot be accessed by not only law enforcement agencies without subpoena or judicial review but other agencies. In fact, my belief is that the question, 'Can we view your My Health Record?' which some employers or some insurance companies want to ask, should not be allowed to be asked, and provision should be made for that, otherwise people will lose confidence in the ability of the My Health Record to store their information securely and privately. We must also require the My Health Record system to permanently delete from the relevant database any health information about a healthcare recipient who has cancelled their My Health Record. That is, if they've opted out of the system, they need to be guaranteed that that information will be permanently deleted. There must be an option for them to reconnect in the future if they want to, but that should be up to the consumer. What really is at issue is the way in which this government has singularly failed to reassure the Australian public and healthcare providers that the data held by healthcare providers won't be used for purposes outside the scope of the original scheme, which was to improve access to a patient's healthcare information for their benefit and no-one else's. You don't have to take Labor's or my word on that. The one thing that the member for Goldstein did say was that security needed to be improved. The parliamentary process has the ability to restore some of the public's faith in the My Health Record that has been lost by the government's complete incompetence and bumbling. Regrettably, that's also now been put at risk because the government seems so hell-bent on rushing to debate on this bill. It seems less concerned with getting things right than it does with clearing the build-up of political barnacles and impedimenta it has acquired for itself over its five long and poorly productive years in office. The bill was presented to this House on 22 August and, on account of the elevated level of public disquiet—similar to what had happened with the NBN, the census and robo-debt—it was referred to the Senate Community Affairs Committee on 23 August. We know that submissions have been sought and that it's scheduled to report on 8 October. Why couldn't we wait until we get the Senate report? As of today, the Community Affairs Committee has not even begun its deliberations on the bill. I expect both the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights will want to examine the bills as well and will do so with their usual speed and expedition. So, to make a simple point, we really should not be having this debate now. We should be waiting until the relevant committees have discharged their respective duties and reported back to the parliament. None of that should take long. Given the vital importance of reinforcing public trust on this issue, we would be best advised to leave this debate until the mid-October settings. By then, even if we have not had time to digest the Community Affairs Committee's report, we will at least have had the opportunity to look over the submissions put to it by interested parties, community groups and the medical profession. The government, unfortunately, didn't do its homework. It didn't take the public into its confidence and has not taken the medical profession into its confidence, and the government's decision to move from Labor's opt-in model to the opt-out model has been a very dangerous thing to do. It has now given a force of compulsion to joining, and I think that's something the government will regret. In fact, I think they should leave the opt-out time open ended, at least until the parliament has had proper time to scrutinise the Senate committee's report. The health benefits of the My Health Record outcomes are so substantial that the government should be keen to get as many health consumers as possible on board. The community concerns are by no means baseless. Some will recall the ABC 7.30 report on the significant number of data breaches by the big banks. We've already heard about Medicare data breaches, and this should raise awareness of the importance of keeping the data safe. The government has had a number of tactical withdrawals on this, again because of their poor homework and their lack of understanding of health care. There are huge benefits from the My Health Record. I refer the parliament to the July episode of my favourite ABC show the Health Report, hosted by Norman Swan. In addition to the benefits I mentioned earlier, there are other benefits, such as those listed by Professor Louisa Jorm, the director of the Centre for Big Data Research in Health at the University of New South Wales. These include the reduction of waste, the reduction of over-prescription of medications, the overuse of scans, the overuse of pathology and keeping better quality records. The My Health Record, I'm sure, will be of huge benefit to the Australian healthcare system, but that we need to get it right from the very beginning. We need to reassure people, we need to spend much more time educating both the health professions and the general public about the benefits of the healthcare record, and we need to provide reassurance about the safety of data. People living in rural and regional Australia, especially, want to know how their data is going to be better used. On the Health Report on Monday, 6 August there was an interview of rural GP Dr Ewen McPhee. Like Dr Swan and most of the medical profession, Dr McPhee said, 'I'm a My Health Report fan and will be staying in and not opting out. Australia has been a world leader in the linkage of medical records.' To quote Professor Jorm: I think we're actually one of the leaders in the use of routinely-collected administrative health data. Not so much for this type of study however, much more so for areas like pharmaco-epidemiology, studies of the outcomes of use of medications, for health services and health systems research, because there's been a strong tradition in Australia of health data linkage. We have been a leader. We need to be moving awfully fast now though, to make sure that we remain in that position. That position being a leader in public health care around the world. We need to continue with our electronic health record progress, like many other countries already have, such as Norway, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Germany, parts of the USA, France, Canada and Switzerland. Australia has led in health care and this will be another major leader in the provision of health care for all Australians. I'm a strong believer in the My Health Record system. We must get it right from the beginning. I'm hopeful that we can do this. I await with interest the Senate committee's report. In my own practice I will, I'm sure, see huge benefits from keeping electronic health records and the connection between my patients, myself, the local hospital and other providers of health care in the community. But we must get it right first. I think this should be bipartisan, without question. Unfortunately, the government has made a complete mess of the rollout of the My Health Record and I urge them to do better. Indeed, I will support them in their efforts to make it better. 18:08 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne It is my pleasure to rise in support of the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018. The bill will amend the My Health Records Act 2012 to strengthen its privacy protections and will once and for all remove any doubts as to how seriously the coalition government takes the security of information that is stored in the system. Before I proceed, I would like to remind members of the House and the broader Australian public of the history of the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record, now known as the My Health Record. It was a creation of the former Labor government and it has been in place since 2012. Before the opt-in system was changed to opt-out, six million people had enrolled in it. I might add the very important fact that in that time no law enforcement officer or judicial process had sought access to the system. I understand that the change from an opt-in to opt-out system caused a flurry of excitement and generated a flurry of outrage and fear. It's surprising that most of it was generated from my colleagues on the other side of the House. In 2015, when the bill changed the name to the My Health Record and put in place regulations to change from an opt-in to opt-out system, that was supported by the other side. It has been through the Senate before. The very essence of the My Health Record is to enable better health care: to allow the avoidance of drug allergies, to know serious illnesses and to have the important operations and events in a person's record available when they're seeing other health practitioners besides their regular health practitioner. I might add, to reassure people on the other side, that there is a certain level of very, very high security in the system already. One has to get access through the myGov site with a unique username and password. There is then a one-time generated PIN, or personal identification number, that is then required beyond that. A medical practitioner will be accessing it; a random person can't do that. You need specially embedded software and, again, it has to be compatible with the system that the Digital Health Agency runs. They need to have a compatible ID, username and password. Similarly, they need a PIN. The extensive original documents reside with the primary practitioner or the person who enrols you. Other practitioners have to go through that process with your approval to get the information. In a situation where there is an emergency, this very creation—which everyone here supported in a bipartisan fashion back in 2012, and as the good member for Macarthur has pointed out—will improve safety, will improve efficiency, will prevent duplication and will prevent critical information from being lost in emergencies. It's only used in a break-the-glass situation, where there is an emergency. Say you get wheeled into the Royal Canberra Hospital with some major event and your practitioner is up at Moree or wherever, and they can't get on to her. They then have the ability to get into the system, but that would trigger the Digital Health Agency inquiring who is accessing it. The repository of all your fine details, and every blow and change in your history resides, with your main practitioner. But the My Health Record becomes a repository of key health information, whether it's pathology tests; medications; operations; most importantly, your allergies; or whether you want to be an organ donor or not. It is a very useful tool. Now, as I said, and as the member for Goldstein outlined, we are fixing up a lot of things that weren't sorted out when it was originally designed. As I said, that was when the other side was on the government benches, so they can't get too rich in their criticism of it. We're fixing problems that the Labor Party left behind time and time again. It gives the user and the owner of the information, which is the patient, the ability to remove details completely or add details. It has the ability to be locked, of course. It has the ability to give permission to use de-identified data for research. The power to delete has been changed, in these changes in these amendments, so that you can actually delete it forever. Under the old regulations, it could be deleted; but it wasn't erased. It will be a great addition to the security and the strength of everyone's privacy concerns. Like many other people in the chamber, I support the initiative. I must admit it has had a very long gestation, and there's been an awful amount of public money put into developing it. I don't think it's efficient to go back to square one and start all over again. That would be ludicrous, crazy and a waste of money, but these amendments to the bill do address all those privacy concerns. We'll be left with a very robust system. People can still opt out of it if they have a philosophical objection to it. By all means, go and do that. I think it will just be great, because everyone knows Australians are great travellers and we go all around the country. As you all know, grey nomads in caravans as well as families and children are travelling all over this country because we love exploring and we love doing things. But accidents happen. Just the other day, I was in a car accident in a remote part of Western Australia with my wife. The bus rolled over, and some of our fellow passengers had to go off to hospital. Fortunately, there were no serious injuries, so everyone could verbally give their record, but I thought, 'It's pretty much time for me to get back to my GP and update everything in the system for me in case I do end up in a strange hospital in Derby where no-one knows my history.' It is such a good idea, and these privacy changes will increase the robustness of it. I will make a few final comments about the member for Ballarat's concern about someone fleeing a violent situation. You have the ability to delete or block access; you have your username, your password and a PIN. In such a case, that person should be advised to go in and deny access. They should use the system that's already there, so that the estranged or violent partner, who is possibly legally separated or has an AVO against them, can't trace them through it. But it's very hard not to support this. I can follow the philosophical objections and the concerns raised by changing from an opt-in to an opt-out system, but, all in all, everyone can exercise their rights. They've got until November at least. Reports from Senate committee inquiries will be tabled in due course, but, for the time being, I want to reassure the people in the Lyne electorate that it is a very robust system that has been in place for six years and they're in good company with at least six million other Australians. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is a great system and a great innovation, and it will deliver good health outcomes for the broader Australian public and for individuals. 18:17 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I agree with much of the contribution of the member for Lyne. I have respect for him as a practitioner, as I do for the other medical practitioners in this place. The interesting thing about those medical practitioners is that they all seem to have a very single view in terms of the My Health Records system and why it is important. I'd like to make a short contribution in relation to the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018. We should say from the outset that Labor will be supporting the passage of this legislation. However, we will be seeking two amendments to help strengthen the privacy arrangements underpinning the My Health Records system. There is no way that we would prevent positive legislative changes occurring, and we think what this bill does is necessary to give individuals a better choice and control over their health information as it's shared. As you're aware, there has been a fundamental change in the scheme. It's moved from being an opt-in scheme to an opt-out scheme, and many, many changes in dimension occur as a consequence of that. We will not let the government get away with thinking that this is now all about changing a scheme that was problematic. About six million people have already opted into that scheme, and they opted in for a very good reason. When the government changed it to an opt-out scheme, that changed significantly the impact of the scheme itself. What it has shown is that the government failed to properly communicate with the Australian people, particularly in relation to security and privacy issues. They were not capable of competently implementing their new arrangement, that is the opt-out approach, and as a consequence there was much concern and much fear within the community. There's no doubt that the e-health system can deliver tangible healthcare benefits. Not only does it save cost through fewer diagnoses and treatments, and save on prescription errors, as a matter of fact it saves lives. I have heard some commentators speak about how if they have an accident, or if they need access to medical treatment, they reserve the right to tell the treating medical officers the information that they believe they should have at their disposal. It was only, as you might recall, in February last year that I had my own incident, which was a major motorcycle accident. Lying on the side of the road, quite frankly I was certainly not in a position to communicate with anybody. I was absolutely in a world of pain having broken eight ribs, lacerated a spleen, broken a knee, broken arms and a few other things that went along with it. The fact is, by the time I reached the hospital here in Canberra, the treating medical people in the intensive care unit had access to all my information. One of the things that I and my family did was, when we had the chance, we opted in. We opted in, not because I had any concern that someone was going to share my medical information, but because I always thought, 'Just in case something ever happened and you weren't in a position to go out and talk about your concerns—what my allergies may have been and other issues like that.' In my particular circumstances that was something I could not have done. I think the member for Lyne spoke about being involved in an accident not that long ago in Central Australia. We don't plan for accidents. We don't plan for these sorts of things to occur to ourselves or our families. But when they do, we want to know that we will have access to effective, efficient medical treatment delivered in a professional manner. I was so glad that I had just about all of my medical information on e-records, which was able to be accessed by the physicians at the Woden hospital when they treated me. Ours was an opt-in system and as a consequence we took the decision to be part of it. We did that in a very positive way, not knowing what the outcomes might be in events into the future. Now that it has been moved to an opt-out system most of the discussion has been around security of the information, how privacy settings would be treated, which has, unfortunately, taken the argument away from the very underpinning aspects of the My Health system, and that is ensuring that we have that information available to treat people in an efficient and effective way at a time when they most need it. The government must admit this, they have had a very poor record on being able to communicate the changes in this scheme. It's been, at best, you'd have to say a botched rollout. They have not been able to engender the confidence of the community, and probably little wonder—just look at their record when it comes to information technology privacy and security. We've seen the botched rollout of the NBN, the NDIS and the robo-debt debacle. No wonder people get a bit concerned when this government says, 'Look, it's now all opt-out'. By the way, the last thing we want to do is have people feeling so threatened by this and en masse opting out. That would be deleterious not only to our national health system but for people. We need to be more positive than that. These changes that have been posed in this legislation are much needed and I think they go some distance to satisfying the criticisms that have been made. The bill is amending the ability for law enforcement agencies to access the information other than through a court order and also prescribing the procedures that a judge or other judicial officer would have to go through before making that information available—for instance, making sure the information is necessary and not available through other sources. I think that is a step in the right direction. The bill also provides specific exemptions to the Attorney-General, the Ombudsman and the Information Commissioner from necessarily having to obtain those court orders. Their access to the information is for vastly different reasons and those exemptions make significant sense. But the other aspect of the bill is that it makes a change to the permanent deletion of health information for those who want to opt out. I really would encourage people, particularly families, to think long and hard before they decide to opt out. But, if you want to opt out of the system, I guess it is only right that those records be deleted. Under the current system, if you were going to opt out of the system or decided that you did not want your records used, they would be locked down and retained for a period of 30 years after your death. In terms of satisfying the criticisms that have been made of this legislation, those two amendments contained in this bill are much welcome and should go a long way towards alleviating the concerns that many have raised in respect of the privacy and security of the My Health Record system. It is also for these reasons that we are seeking to refer this bill to a legislative inquiry in the Senate. We think it is appropriate to have vigilance applied to this for people to feel free and able to put their concerns forward and so the government's in a position to properly deal with them. I think this is also a way of satisfying that there are appropriate checks and balances being incorporated to safeguard the security and privacy of all Australians in relation to the My Health Record system. At this stage, as I say, we are moving amendments. The first amendment that we will seek is protection from the misuse of the My Health Record in pre-employment and workers' compensation matters. We do not want the information retained in the My Health Record system being able to be requested to be used in any extent in respect to employment. That is not what the system is about and, therefore, we should be guarding against it. We are also calling for amendments to ensure there are appropriate protections against inappropriate uses of the My Health Record system. The member for Macarthur spoke about the issue in relation to family violence. We don't see the perpetrator of family violence being able to use this system as another vehicle to view where a former partner might be currently being treated or, indeed, what the former partner's current location might be. That's not the intention of the system and I think the system should be geared to guard against that. For those reasons, we are moving the amendments indicated by the shadow minister. It's not only Labor that holds views about the botched rollout of this opt-out e-health system; a number of stakeholders, whether they be medical professionals, academics or civil and digital rights advocates, all share the same concerns relating to privacy. I think it's better for all of us to have those concerns dealt with first and foremost before a Senate committee. On that basis we call on the government to suspend the opt-out period beyond the current date of November until such time as the security concerns have been adequately addressed. I still think it is in our interest to do all we possibly can to support the proper development of the e-health system. I say from personal experience that it certainly worked in my favour. The idea of having a properly configured My Health Record system should be of advantage to all Australians not simply for the efficient distribution of medical treatment but to be there when we need it at a time when we may not be able to speak on our own behalf. 18:31 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman I rise today to speak on the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018. The reason I do so is to stand up for health care for all Australians. I stand up to call on the government to ensure that our healthcare system is the very best it can be. Truly there is nothing more important than our health. That's not only my view; ask the people who have just been to a by-election in Longman how important health care is. They will tell you very loudly and proudly that they have a very strong view that health care is the most important thing. Any good representative always prioritises what's important, but unfortunately that cannot be said for the new Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, or any of those who make up his government. While the government lagged in the polls for many months under Turnbull's leadership, the solution wasn't for the coalition to change their leader; it was to change their priorities. Until this government starts listening to the people they are supposed to represent about what is important to them, the new Prime Minister won't be any better than the last. If this government listened to what people wanted in their government's priorities, they would hear health care over banks, but instead this government wasted months trying to give multibillion dollar handouts of taxpayer money to banks. Let's not forget that this government fought tooth and nail against holding a royal commission into the banking sector. In fact Prime Minister Scott Morrison voted against it 26 times. He ignored what the people of Australia were calling for and sided with the banks over everyday Australians 26 times. Instead of wasting time sticking up for the banks Prime Minister Morrison should have been working on ensuring our healthcare system is the best it can possibly be. He could have started by putting back the $2.9 million he ripped out of our local Caboolture Hospital, which would have huge positive outcomes for the people in my area. He should have also taken more care with the rollout of the My Health Record system. This is a truly significant step towards modernising the way medical experts access patient records. As with so many other important steps forward that this government has taken, though, Labor has led this change. When we were last in office we began formulating the delivery of an electronic health record system. Implemented correctly by a government that truly cared about health, an e-health system could deliver tangible healthcare improvements and significant financial savings through fewer errors in the diagnosis, treatment and prescription process, but this is not a government that cares about health. Labor had a plan. We were working on an opt-in system that we saw to be the right approach. It ensured that anyone who participated had to give informed consent. They had to want to be part of this. But for whatever reason, and I'm not going to even try to think about what reason that was, the government changed that. They turned instead to an opt-out system. The thing is that this government has never really explained why they've made this change. Maybe they have a reason. I can't speak for them; I don't know. But that's exactly what the issue right here is: we just don't know what that reason was. If there is in fact a justifiable reason for this abrupt change to an opt-out system, then all the government has to do is share it. What is it? Justify it. What is it? They owe it to the people of Australia. They use it to the very people who use this system, the very people to whom this government is supposed to be accountable to. It really does raise eyebrows about what this government's focus really is. The government doesn't have the very best record when it comes to privacy and personal security. We have seen inexcusable failings time after time. Now, no-one has forgotten that last year, under this government, there was a serious breach where private Medicare data was being sold on the dark web by fraudsters. I actually remember that day. We were holding a press conference in my seat of Longman with the shadow minister, Linda Burney, when this news broke. I do remember that day very, very clearly. But to make matters worse, the department—under then minister Alan Tudge—knew about the shocking breach, but refused to let Australians know that their data was at risk for weeks and weeks. I find it just appalling, just disgraceful, that that information was known but not shared. Though this was clearly a huge embarrassment for the government, they have absolutely no right to hide their failings from the Australian public when it comes to the public's own data. Of course, that wasn't the only recent breach of sensitive personal data that has occurred under this government. In fact, just in the past few months, we've also seen breaches of Centrelink data, as well as serious flaws in the online portal of the NDIS. What makes things worse is that this government had been aware, again, of a breach of the NDIS's security. They had known about the security risk for over a year and a half, but refused to take any necessary steps to fix it. Time and time again this government have let Australians down when it comes to their privacy and the security of their very sensitive and personal data. With this sort of track record, I find it hard to think there would be any Australian who would have any trust in this government when it comes to something as important as the roll out of the My Health Record system. Labor holds a number of serious concerns with the My Health Record system in its current form, and we're calling on the government to fix them. This bill may address two of these concerns, but there are more yet remaining. The concerns that this bill seeks to address are certainly important—I'll give it that—and in all honesty should not have ever been written in the act to begin with, but this bill does seek to address them. I will acknowledge that. Firstly, this bill amends the act to require a court order or a consumer's express consent before any health information from their My Health Record is disclosed to a law enforcement agency or another government body. This was a glaringly obvious omission from the original drafting of the act. A person's personal medical information should not be something that is readily available for a government employee to access, so this is a very welcome amendment. However, for whatever reason, the government has exempted the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman and the Information Commissioner from the requirements of this amendment. Perhaps this is necessary; perhaps this is not. We'll test this in a Senate inquiry to seek some certainty. I look forward to reading the report from that inquiry so that we can be confident and certain around this exemption. This bill also amends the act to require the permanent deletion of all health information for all consumers who opt out of the system. In its current state, the act dictates that the My Health Record system should retain all information, albeit in a locked-down state. This just makes no sense. The government has turned the system from an opt-in system to an opt-out system but, in doing so, the government has also made it impossible to truly opt out of this system. These are both amendments that strengthen the act and add some much-needed integrity to the government's My Health Record system. Again, I raise that there is still more that needs to be done. There are still a number of remaining concerns with the system that the government simply must address. For example, what is really troubling is that this legislation still has done nothing to address the serious concerns that the My Health Record may risk the safety of women fleeing abusive partners or of children needing privacy from non-custodial parents. Advocates have flagged that, in its current form, the My Health Record system could conceivably be used by some persons with intentions to track the location and treatment of vulnerable people. Obviously, this is deeply worrying and should be rectified immediately. So it begs the question: why didn't the government do that when they were drafting these amendments? Another suite of concerns that the government should have addressed have been flagged by working people, by their unions and by legal representatives. They recognise that the current legislation opens the door for the mistreatment of workers by way of discrimination on the basis of their health, be it physical or mental, as well as their disability status. This discrimination could potentially come in many forms. In a submission from Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, it was flagged that a new employee may be required to provide access to their My Health Record to a doctor conducting a pre-employment assessment. Even if a particular ailment or disability has absolutely no impact on a person's ability or capacity to work, it provides another avenue for unscrupulous employers to discriminate. Maurice Blackburn further flags that, in somewhat similar circumstances, employers may gain access to workers' data during workers' compensation claims. It's already difficult enough navigating through what can be quite an aggressive insurance environment, and allowing employers and insurers access to this sensitive data, particularly when such information may be wholly irrelevant to the claim at hand, seems like very dangerous territory. I'll also pick up that Maurice Blackburn further notes that their concerns could have flow-on effects, with people becoming unwilling to discuss health issues, particularly those with relation to their mental wellbeing, for fear of future consequences. People should feel free, very confident and safe about going to their doctor—safe to disclose anything at all that they think is necessary. Making it possible to undermine the comfort of confidentiality is serious and deeply troubling. In fact, in effect it could see the My Health Record doing more harm than good. Labor remains of the view that the government should suspend the rollout until these concerns have been fixed and, as I mentioned, there is an inquiry at hand. I'm looking forward to what that report uncovers, ventilates and exposes. I think it's wise to wait and see what that report hands down. I'm not quite sure why this government continually refuses to suspend the rollout until those concerns have been fixed. It just seems that they're determined to proceed regardless of any damage it may cause. As I've mentioned a number of times in this speech today, it is serious and it's very, very troubling. Like I said, we've initiated a Senate inquiry into the rollout. It's imperative that we investigate these concerns in great detail to ensure the system is rolled out effectively and as safely as possible. This is too important not to get right the first time. We must get it right first go. We cannot risk people's privacy, we cannot risk people's health and we cannot risk people's safety. 18:46 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Imagine a world where the government knew your entire medical history and your future job prospects were determined by this, a world where employers and government agencies could go over your head and review your confidential health records without permission. Imagine a world where you could be tracked by an abusive ex-partner through a publicly accessible database of all your medical information ever, a database containing all your medical information which has been put there without your express permission. It's reminiscent of the dystopian world described in the movie Gattaca, not real life in Australia in 2018—yet this is the world we find ourselves in. The uproar from Labor and the wider public appears to have been heard with the government's acceptance that its rollout of the My Health Record system has been, in a word, appalling. The government's decision to switch to an opt-out model of the My Health Record rather than the opt-in model that was previously in existence has given rise to a number of significant privacy and security concerns that we don't believe have been properly addressed. In addition to this, we don't believe that there was an appropriate community consultation process undertaken in assessing this model, with communication with the wider community being next to nothing. This bill responds to public anger over the My Health Record scheme by making some changes that Labor welcome, including requiring law enforcement agencies and other government agencies to seek a court order to access personal health records as well as permanently deleting the health information of people who choose to opt out of this system. While we do continue to have strong concerns about the government's implementation of the My Health Record system, we support this bill in the House. Let's break it down further though, shall we? The My Health Record system has been designed to provide health professionals with a singular central source of health and medical information for each Australian so as to allow them to see any diagnosed condition, medical history, prior tests and pathology outcomes, allergies, treatment regimes, locational information and more. This is incredibly personal information and it could easily be used against someone. Therefore, it is very important that the privacy and security of such information is maintained. At the same time, to improve the medical care provided to a patient where this information could be made available to health professionals, especially during a medical emergency, it would be incredibly useful. However, this isn't the sort of information Australians would expect government agencies, law enforcement bodies, their health or life insurer, their employer or a violent former spouse to be able to get their hands on. This bill amends the act to require a court order or a consumer's express consent in order to disclose health information from their My Health Record to law enforcement agencies or other government bodies. While the government argues this is already its policy, with the number of broken and back-tracked promises—on school funding, ABC funding and a Prime Minister that will go a full term—we want to ensure that this policy, just like the Turnbull-Morrison government's GST break-up, is actually enshrined in legislation. This bill sets out a range of conditions under which a judicial officer may make such an order, including that the disclosure be reasonably necessary and that the requested information not be already available elsewhere. Further to this, the bill exempts the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman and the Information Commissioner from that court order requirement. While the Liberal government claims that these limited agencies are compelled to ensure the privacy and security of the system, Labor, through a Senate inquiry, will test the relevance and efficacy of these exemptions. The second element of the bill amends the act to require the permanent deletion of health record information for all consumers who opt out of the My Health Record system. Under the current plan, this information would be locked down but would continue to be retained until 30 years after an individual's death. This raises the question: what happens when a young person wants to get rid of the record their parents set up for them without their consent when they were a child? While we do support this bill, as it does strengthen privacy protections to an extent, we will continue to liaise with the Senate inquiry and the community to allay further concerns. The inquiry is currently underway and seeks to run a fine toothcomb over the government's plan, and we expect to hear its findings next month. Through the referral to the Senate inquiry, we hope our further questions in relation to My Health Record will be answered. In addition to this, we will move two amendments to the bill in the Senate, specifically in relation to protecting workers from misuse of their My Health Record information and protecting against inappropriate access to My Health Records. When it comes to protecting workers from misuse of these records, there have been significant concerns raised about access to medical records by health insurers and those assessing workers compensation claims. Unions have told us that they are worried doctors and other assessors who perform pre-employment or workers compensation assessment on behalf of employers might have access to an employee's My Health Record without their express permission or, indeed, even their knowledge. This information could be used to discriminate against potential employees, perhaps on the basis of a pre-existing medical condition that may not even be relevant to the role they are seeking to undertake. Legislating for this confidentiality will be a step in the right direction. In the same vein, we must ensure that inappropriate access to My Health Records does not facilitate family violence or other unnecessary and nefarious access to and use of health record information. Should these records not be appropriately protected, there is nothing to ensure these records won't be used by perpetrators in family violence situations. For example, in a situation involving children who might be victims of an abusive family situation, what is there to prevent an abusive parent setting up a My Health Record for their child to keep an eye on where they are and what their medical situation is, regardless of their custody agreements? The legal fraternity is concerned that the system provides a loophole for a violent person to create a record for their child without their former partner's express consent, paving the way for these individuals to track down their estranged family's location, something that has been well covered in the press. Furthermore, while access is intended to be limited to regulated medical professionals where consent is provided, no explanation has been given for how this restricted access will operate in a medical centre or hospital environment. These are places where every registered nurse could conceivably have access, if not other non-medical staff depending on the design of their systems. Nor has there been explanation of how such access is restricted by patient consent. Once consent is given, who else at a centre or hospital may then have access? One of the purported benefits of the My Health Record system is said to be access to medical record information in an emergency, where a patient may be unconscious and clearly unable to give consent. This being the case, the scope for unauthorised and illegitimate access appears almost unlimited. In these circumstances, what stops a nurse from looking up the Prime Minister's medical records for blackmail purposes? What stops an OT looking up his ex-wife's medical records to locate her after she has gone into hiding, fleeing domestic violence? If the government has answers to this, I would like it to provide them. When Labor drafted a plan for My Health Record years ago, it was intended as an opt-in system, an educated, informed, signed-up process to ensure all participants had provided informed consent to ensure a streamlined medical process. The thought behind this was that e-health could deliver tangible health care improvements and save healthcare costs through fewer diagnosis, treatment and medication errors. But the government's botched roll-out means there has been only minimal take up and it has now decided to make a voluntary, informed consent scheme mandatory. This bill is a start. But it doesn't go far enough. We believe it won't do much to put to rest the fears of the community on privacy and security. This, after all, is the government that is responsible for the 2016 census debacle. Should Labor form government, we will ensure this bill further legislates for the protection of women fleeing abusive partners and for children needing privacy from non-custodial parents. Should Labor form government, we will ensure that individuals won't be unfairly discriminated against by potential employers or in workers compensation claims. Should Labor form government, we will continue to review the recommendations from the Senate inquiry that are beyond the scope of the present bill. We will assess why the government shifted to an opt-out system, why it communicated this change so poorly, and why the default settings within the My Health Record are what they are. This must be further investigated and under a Bill Shorten Labor government that's what we would do. This Liberal Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's track record when it comes to cybersecurity and privacy are quite frankly pitiful. They botched the roll-out of the NBN and the NDIS, the census failed under them and now we have the My Health Record debacle. This government cannot be trusted to store our valuable health information in a central database. That's already been proven with this roll-out. So, while we do support this bill because it is taking steps in the right direction towards more privacy, the people of Australia can be assured that, if elected, a Bill Shorten Labor government would make sure that it is an e-health system each and every Australian is comfortable with. 18:56 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor Labor agrees to support the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill because we support e-health and the concept of the My Health Record. However, we have strong concerns about this government's implementation of the My Health Record system. To its core, My Health Records are about trust, and trust is hard-won and easily lost. This bill serves as another reminder of how this government is breaching the trust of the Australian people. That's why Labor has some comfort that there will be a Senate inquiry, and we will act to move amendments in the Senate. It doesn't take a moment's thought to think of the trust issues around the My Health Record. We only have to go to historical breaches of trust in online systems. For instance, when we first introduced the online system in Victoria we had breaches occurring at local police stations. Police officers lost their positions because of those breaches and the public learnt not to trust online systems. When Labor was last in office, we began the process of implementing an electronic health record system. Under Labor's plan e-health records were to be implemented under an opt-in system. This is the critical point where the public have now lost trust in this government. This is one of the examples where the public, rightly in my view, ask themselves questions about how far they can trust information that is given into a public space under this government. It goes to the absolute core of this—to the change from an opt-in system to an opt-out system. The public are rightly distrustful of the big brother notion that you must opt-out, that you must take action not to be involved, rather than Labor's original vision, which was to opt-in. Critically, an opt-in system means that a government, a system, would have to convince the public of the value of the system. An opt-out system suggests that the government doesn't care to relay the powerful positives of the My Health Record. Labor's vision had the potential to deliver tangible healthcare improvements and save healthcare costs through fewer diagnosis, treatment and prescription errors. I still believe that that argument can be won with the public if they are in a system where they understand the positives of an e-health record system. They understand that in our modern world, where the notion of the family GP has changed over time, people are attending clinics and not necessarily seeing the same doctor every time they go to a clinic, and are not necessarily going to the same clinic. People will understand, I believe, the value of an eHealth system if they see that it serves them. Switching it from an opt-in to an opt-out system makes Australians suspicious that the system is designed to serve someone other than them. This government—the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government—is a complete failure in terms of trust and willingness to have a conversation with the Australian people to convince them of the good of this system. The botched rollout has breached the trust of the Australian people. The government has botched the rollout by changing the system from opt-in to opt-out without providing any explanation whatsoever, never explaining why the rollout became compulsory and never bothering to allay fears. The government's mismanagement in its failure to communicate this decision and provide an explanation for the rollout backflip has done nothing but undermine public trust in an important reform. They've failed to allay fears, and this bill does not, in my opinion, go far enough even now to allay those fears. Put simply, this rollout joins the government's woeful track record when it comes to IT security and people's privacy, and the government needs to understand that this is a compounded trust deficit that they are responsible for having developed. And, although Labor welcomes the extension for the opt-out period, we have to stop and take note that, in this chamber, the member for Goldstein expressed concerns about the opt-out model. Those opposite who speak often and long about freedom of the individual fail to understand the importance of the freedom of the individual when it doesn't suit their agenda. This is how the public now perceives the My Health Record and that is incredibly disappointing. It plays into the broader issue of trust. This government has evolved a trust deficit with the Australian people. They have a terrible record when it comes to trust. People think that politics is broken, and this bill gives them reason. The government has stoked people's fears of the potential negatives, including people other than medical professionals accessing the data, such as insurance companies, prospective employers or law enforcement. The government has a terrible track record when it comes to trust in the IT privacy space, and this has been brought about by their own actions, their own legislation and their own implementation programs. They have breached trust with jobactive, with most Australians believing that that system is failing. The Centrelink datamatching has caused enormous outcry because of its inaccuracy and because of this government's refusal to acknowledge that the data-matching system was flawed and take appropriate action to fix it. We even had, in that situation, the government releasing personal information about somebody caught up in the robo-debt data-matching scenario. So the government, by its own actions, released data to journalists and then, in relation to My Health Record, said, 'We're changing it from opt-in to opt-out, and bad luck if you don't like that.' The trust deficit is an own goal for this government. The false robo-debt notices cut deeply in my community, and that is part of the trust deficit. In my community, when I talk to individuals, many were choosing to opt out of this system. We also had the fear of the short time lines for opting out. We had confusion and IT systems not being able to cope with the demand. We had people who wanted to know why, if their records were already there, they couldn't opt out or remove records from the past. On top of that, we had the census failure and a failed NBN rollout. It is not surprising that the public have lost faith in this government and anything to do with their privacy and their information and electronic systems. This bill, although we will support it and will put amendments in the Senate, does not go far enough. It is being driven by public anger. That's what has led to some amendments that are included in the bill that we're discussing this evening. The requirement of a law enforcement agency to obtain a court order to access records seems, on the face of it, to be a convincing argument—that is, if the public trust the government. Unfortunately, at this stage, the public don't trust this government with their information. The bill also means permanently deleting the health information of people who opt out of the My Health Record, which, of course, the public cried out for. In response to that issue, we welcome this. But, as the member for Perth rightly said, what about the children whose parents sign them up? What will their rights be in the future around opting out and the records that have been developed? I speak to this bill with many locals—people who are concerned—in mind. They may have had a mental health issue in their records that they don't want made public under any circumstance. They value their privacy in interacting with the system and they're terribly worried that this would mean that their son or daughter may not seek the appropriate professional help to get past a mental health issue—'I can't go, mum or dad, because it'll be permanently on my health record.' These are real concerns of the Australian public, and this government needs to demonstrate that they understand those fears and that they're prepared to change this legislation to ensure that people feel confident about this system. I'm afraid that the first step in that process will mean reverting to an opt-in process where people know they have a choice, where they make an informed choice and where they have the right not to be involved at all. It doesn't go far enough in protecting workers undergoing a pre-employment or workers compensation medico-legal assessment. I have sat in my office with many constituents who are going through these processes. I've raised issues in this place about these processes. I've raised issues with my state colleagues about the way people are asked to interact with bureaucracies during these processes—particularly people who come to see me who may have had a physical injury and found themselves months later with a mental health injury as a result of interacting with that process. It doesn't go far enough to protect women—or any partners—fleeing from domestic violence situations, where privacy is of the essence. I recently sat with a constituent who, at that point in time, was living in fear because, through a process in the courts, her whereabouts and the whereabouts of her child had become known to a former partner through the release of where that child was attending school. These fears are real for people on the ground, and this legislation does not go far enough to assure them that this process won't leave them vulnerable. It certainly does not go far enough to protect children seeking privacy from non-custodial parents. These are real issues, but the critical issue is the trust deficit that this government finds itself with. Even good ideas are being doubted by the public. This government has much work to do if it wants to create a system where efficiencies are built in. Labor believes that the My Health Record system is a good system and that the pros far outweigh the cons. I can give you a family example of somebody walking into a chemist shop where there is an e-Health record online and the chemist saying, 'I'm not sure that you should take that medication, given your heart history. I'm not sure that you should be taking that medication, given you haven't been taking your blood pressure medication for the last three months.' These could be breakthroughs for people. They could result in a much better health system. They could result in efficiencies. They could result in better diagnoses as the health records develop. But, unfortunately, from my point of view, this has now been pushed back. Any future with these positives has become victim to the trust deficit of this government. These are serious things, and they are serious things that this government needs to take into consideration. They need to go back to the drawing board on My Health Record. They really need to determine that they will take it back to an opt-in process until they have the conversation with the Australian public and they convince the Australian public of the positives of the My Health Record. That may take years. But this side of the chamber won't be held accountable for the trust deficit, developed by those opposite, of people who feel that those opposite don't care about their privacy, being able to cite many situations where they feel that that is a truth in their lives. We won't block this bill in this House because it does go some way. In my view it does not go far enough. In my view most of the members of the public that I've spoken to, most of the community members I have spoken to in Lalor, will choose to opt-out of this system. I think that's a negative in the longer term but it's this government's problem and they need to fix it. 19:10 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert The NDIS, the NBN, the royal commission into banking and financial services, energy, marriage equality and Medicare are just a few of the areas where a competent government could have done much better for Australians. However, what Australians are witnessing is a government that seems to be so focused on their own self-interest instead of taking these critical areas of policy seriously and dealing with them properly in the best interests of the Australian people. The concept of e-health and My Health Record should be a positive initiative for the Australian people, as access to our health records in a convenient and timely manner is really important. If implemented by a competent government, e-health could deliver tangible healthcare improvements and save on healthcare costs through fewer diagnostic treatment and prescription errors. However, you can now add My Health Record to the list just like the NDIS, the NBN, the royal commission into banking and financial services, energy, marriage equality and Medicare as a comprehensive list of incompetent handling by this LNP government. Labor began delivering an electronic health record system when we were last in office. Labor's system was an opt-in system, as we thought that was the right approach by giving people choice and control over their health records. The opt-in system gave anyone who participated the opportunity to give informed consent. Now we see that the LNP government has done the exact opposite by creating an opt-out system. People are entitled to choose whether they want to share their personal details or not. This should not be an unsubscribe option in the junk emails one regularly receives, because these records contain people's private medical health records. This is highly confidential information. The LNP government has simply selected an opt-out system but has never properly explained why or attempted to educate the public about their approach to My Health Records. Their absolute failure to communicate effectively has fuelled many of the privacy concerns Australians have regarding the My Health Record. To be honest, I'm one of those people. I have tried to opt-out. I know how this government has completely botched the NBN and the NDIS, not to mention the absolute debacle relating to the recent census data collection. How can this government honestly think that I could trust them with my health history? I went to the website to opt-out. I went through the process only to discover that I can't opt-out as my health record was collected in the trial in Townsville and I could not do anything about changing that online. I was given a receipt number and now I'm expected to sit on the phone to talk with someone to arrange to opt-out. The problem is I just don't have the time to sit on the phone waiting to speak with someone to sort out this mess. LNP members across the floor barely trust each other yet they are asking the public to trust them with their private health records. Australians are frightened to trust this government with their highly confidential medical health records, probably the most personal information that many of us possess. I am sure that I don't trust this government with my health record. This bill tries to address some of the public outrage and anger. This includes requiring a law enforcement, and other government agencies, to get a court order to access records and permanently deleting the health information of people who opt-out of My Health Record. But these changes don't go far enough, and as such they do little to allay community fears and my own personal fears about privacy and security. There are two huge issues with the current My Health Record that the Morrison government is refusing to look at, let alone rectify: one being domestic violence and the other being workers' rights. This bill does absolutely nothing to address concerns that the My Health Record may risk the safety of women fleeing abusive partners or children needing privacy from non-custodial parents. This was evident this week when women across Australia in violent relationships seriously feared that their partner would be able to track their hiding place down through their child's My Health Record. Legal experts have warned that the system provides a loophole for a violent person to create a record for their child without their ex-partner's consent, potentially allowing them to track down their estranged family's location. The Australian Digital Health Agency's default position is to allow those parents access to their children's My Health Records, which could contain information such as a residential address or the pharmacy or GP that they use. Where there is a dispute between separated parents over who can access the child's record, the ADHA will suspend both parents' access to the record until it investigates and decides which parent should have access. This is not a satisfactory solution, as the child's records may be needed in the time they are waiting. But the rigmarole and the time taken to opt out still leaves women and their children vulnerable, and this is simply unacceptable. Then there are the significant issues and concerns for workers. Workers have raised concerns that doctors who perform pre-employment or workers-compensation assessments may pass health information on to employers, and employers could use this information to discriminate against employees—for example, a pre-existing medical condition preventing a person from getting a job. Maurice Blackburn have said doctors who examine employees have access to their medical health records unless the worker changes their privacy settings. Maurice Blackburn has stated: … it is very clear that a doctor performing an assessment for an employer or insurer could access My Health Record without there being any further consent process. Right now we have a royal commission into banking and financial services that is examining insurers. With the evidence being heard, how many in this place or across Australia honestly feel that they can trust an insurance agency, especially with their medical health record? Little to no-one, I would suspect. If you are a fly-in, fly-out worker working in the mines, where you're required to undergo medical testing; a transport worker who is claiming workers compensation, and you are required, as part of the process, to undergo a medical examination; a pilot; a train driver; a truck driver; a heavy-machinery operator; or in certain trades, then the LNP government's My Health Record should scare you. Your privacy is potentially at risk and open to your employer, open to other insurers and potentially open to third parties. Don't think that an insurer won't try to wriggle out of a claim because of the information contained in one's medical history or that an employer will be so gracious as to ignore your medical history if you're trying to apply for a job that requires medical testing, because, quite frankly, they won't. These are serious and genuine concerns, and the LNP Morrison government should suspend the opt-out period until these and other issues can be thoroughly addressed. Labor is supporting these measures but more must be done, and Labor will be referring it to a legislative inquiry in the Senate. The Senate inquiry will test whether this bill adequately responds to privacy and security concerns and will develop possible amendments. After numerous demands from Labor, the Senate has also agreed to Labor's proposal for an inquiry into the My Health Records system as a whole. This will focus on elements of the system that are beyond the scope of this bill, such as the government's decision to shift to an opt-out system, its communication of this fundamental change and the default settings within My Health Record. The LNP government has a woeful track record on IT security and privacy. This is the same government that completely and incompetently managed the census data collection. This is the same government that gave us the Centrelink robo-debt debacle. There are way too many ifs and too much bad history for me to trust this LNP government with my medical history. It is not a matter of if but a matter of when the data will be breached. The best possible system must be in place, and we are all very concerned that this will not be achieved under this LNP government. The Australian people deserve a quality system when it comes to digitally securing our health records, and it is only a Labor government that will deliver this crucial outcome. For all of us, there is nothing more important than the security of our health records. 19:19 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I'm very lucky that, for the last 25 years or so, I've had the same GP, so my health record is already held in a single place. He can tell me which year it was I started having flu shots and when my pap smear is due. If everyone had that situation and, touch wood, good health, we wouldn't even be worrying about a digital health record. But people do change doctors, they have complex conditions, they move through different hospitals and they don't stay in the one place. Anyone with a chronic illness knows what it's like to get to a new doctor and have to give your medical history. It's pretty awful if it's a chronic or episodic mental illness. There are often so many parts of that story to tell. So, in theory, I think a digital record of your medical interactions and results is a fabulous idea. But why is it that I have so little confidence in the reality of it as we see it today? And it's not just me. Dozens of my constituents have written to me about their concerns and their frustrations—their frustrations particularly in trying to cancel their My Health Record. While July this year marked the launch of the three-month opt-out period for the My Health Record in my part of the world, the Nepean Blue Mountains region, which covers the electorate of Macquarie, most people already had a My Health Record. So, most people in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury were given a My Health Record as part of the 2016 opt-out trial. Unfortunately, very few people realised that they had one. They found out only when they went to opt out of the current system. And what they found was that they couldn't. It was a painful process to identify that they had to actually cancel their record, not opt out. I'm going to let you hear how Elizabeth described her experience. She says, 'I called the help line as instructed, and the first call centre person took all the information about me and my children multiple times and then pressed "validate" to finalise and said it was taking a long time and put me on hold. Fifty minutes later the second person took only my Medicare number and then told me I could not opt out, as a record had already been created for me.' And as she wrote this email to me she said, 'I am on hold for the third call centre person to find out why two people saw different information results, and they have completely forgotten I'm even here. It's been an hour and a half.' Now, she wasn't alone. I had many similar emails and calls for help to my office. Once we identified that you had to cancel a record, people were also furious that they actually couldn't completely get rid of the data already there, that it could only be archived. This amendment fixes that problem, and we welcome it. But it doesn't go far enough. We don't believe that any of the changes do enough to allay the community's fears about privacy and security. There are many examples, but this bill does nothing to address the concerns that the My Health Record may pose a risk to women from domestic violence with their children and that the children's health records, linked to both parents, can be used to track visits to pharmacies or doctors. So, that is one area that needs to be addressed. Workers have also raised concerns that doctors who perform pre-employment or workers compensation assessments may pass on health information to employers and that employers could use that information to discriminate against the workers—for instance, on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. That's another area that, understandably, unions are very concerned about and union members—in fact, all workers all who know they will have to go through a medical assessment. We remain of the view that the government should suspend the opt-out period until these and so many other issues can be addressed. We are supporting this bill in the House, but the fact that it is going to an inquiry in the Senate will hopefully provide some reassurances for people. That will really test whether the bill adequately responds to the privacy and security concerns and, I would expect, develop amendments around them. While we will support this, we have grave concerns about it. I think it was summed up really effectively by another email I had, from Paul Bailey, from Winmalee, who wrote to me in detail about the range of concerns he has. Like me, he agrees in principle with a system that can be accessed anywhere, but he worries about the security. He specified his concerns about mental health and about women's issues, like information about abortions being accessible. He also highlights the privacy issue. He says that 'nearly every IT person has said that privacy safeguards are nowhere near as safe as the government states'. He wrote that he is no computer expert but that he would take their advice. He says that, after the debacle of the census last year and the so-called robo-debt problem, which showed that some welfare recipients owed thousands of dollars in debt when in fact they didn't, he has no faith in any government's computing system. He had three attempts to opt out and was put in a loop saying he was unsuccessful but wasn't told why. This is a classic example of the sorts of experiences people have had—and those on the other side wonder why there is so little confidence in this. This government has had a shocker of a record on IT security and privacy. They have botched every system they have tried to roll out, including the NBN, the NDIS, their shocker of a census and the robo-debt mess, and now they've stuffed up My Health Record. I'm assuming a lot of the consequences we're talking about were not intended by the government. I point to another one that has been raised—that is, parental access to information about their teenage children. Unless children know that they can de-link their parents, their information is going to be accessible. You want your teenage children to seek help for mental health issues or around sexual health. If they know that their parents are going to get an alert every time that happens or be able to see those records, you are putting into the system a disincentive for young people seeking medical help. I'm sure that isn't the consequence this government intended, but that's what we're being warned is going to happen. Unfortunately these unintended consequences seriously undermine what might have been a useful system. I also mention the amendment to this bill, which is absolutely a step in the right direction, to ensure that a court order or a consumer's express consent is required in order to disclose information from their My Health Record to law enforcement agencies or other government bodies. We absolutely support that one. The government argues that it's already the policy, but legislating for it is a safer bet. It is wise to have a range of conditions under which a court can make such an order, including being able to demonstrate that the disclosure is reasonably necessary and that the requested information is not available from another source. The amendments being put today are sensible; they simply don't go far enough to restore confidence. It will take a long time for the community to have confidence in this system. While there are huge potential advantages for people to be able to access a record that was created in one state and delivered on in another, which could save someone's life, the real concern is that the government has not done the work needed to put in the safeguards this sort of massive change needs. As a parent I can see huge advantages in the ability for my children to digitally access those records wherever they are; unfortunately I'm not sure they will want to have a My Health Record. They may well make a judgement that the risks are too great. Many people seem to be making that judgement. That in itself undermines the system and everything this health record is meant to do. The bottom line is it can't be done without trust. I just don't see that the other side is doing enough to rebuild the trust that has been so badly damaged by the current botched rollout. It's very easy to lose trust—you lose it in a nanosecond—but to rebuild it is going to take time and significant evidence from those opposite that the issues people are raising and will raise when the Senate looks at this legislation are going to be taken seriously, not dismissed and thrown away. If people are told, 'Don't worry about it; trust us,' they won't unless they see real evidence that this government is serious about a system that has the integrity to protect people's privacy. We know that the majority of health workers who access this system will do the right thing, but it will take only a very small number of breaches for an entire country to lose their trust in a system that should be saving lives. ADJOURNMENT 98 ADJOURNMENT Wakefield Electorate 98 19:30 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield The Electoral Commission has renamed my seat from Wakefield to Spence, and it's caused me to reflect on the 11 years I've spent representing what has been a unique seat by South Australian standards. It is not unique in the history of the Federation, of course—there are many seats that have country, regional and urban or peri-urban areas in the Commonwealth—but for South Australia it has been quite a unique experience. I thought I might just reflect on that fact and what an honour it has been for the last 11 years to represent the seat of Wakefield. Wakefield was, of course, a rural seat when I grew up in Kapunda. I went to high school there. Wakefield was one of the safest Liberal seats in the country, certainly in South Australia. It stretched from Gawler up through the Yorke Peninsula and the Riverland. In 2004, it was changed fundamentally because of the abolition of Bonython and really created the seat that I've represented, which stretched from the Brahma Lodge Hotel to the Clare and Gilbert valleys, across to the Barossa Valley and the coast, up to Port Wakefield. It's been a unique experience to represent that seat through pretty harrowing experiences like the Pinery fire or the floods at Stockport. There are a number of people I've got to thank for their support over those years: Mayor Bill O'Brien, the Light Regional Council; Mayor Tony Flaherty, the Adelaide Plains Council; Marcus Strudwicke, who has also been a mayor of the Adelaide Plains Council; Joe and Jasmin Danielle; Margaret Williams of Williamstown; Midge Wallace; the late John Fitzgerald; Susan Cunningham and Simon Pringle; Peter Anderson from Clare; Tony Bell of Hamley Bridge; Mark Nappa of Hamley Bridge; Guy Ballantyne, who was in Clare and now is in the city; Lindsay Simmons, who is up in the Clare and Gilbert valleys; Rita Roy and Doug Handley; Sue and Ron Wurst, who are great citizens of the Clare Valley; David Newsome of Balaklava; Louise Drummond; Pat Thompson, who is a great historian from the town of Dublin; Caroline Cordon, who is a wonderful poet; Ross Voigt from my home town of Kapunda; and of course, my neighbours at Greenock until recently, Tim and Kylie, and the Kalleske family—I thank them for being very good neighbours in the country, which is an important thing. I'd like to thank Andrew and Les of the Plains Producer; Tony Robinson from The Leader; the crew at the Northern Argus; and of course the crew at the Barossa Herald. All these individuals and the rural communities and rural towns they represent have been a big part of my life for the last 11 years. I don't think I'll miss the long drives in the country between appointments or between functions. They do give you time to reflect, which can be a dangerous thing for a politician! I do think though that I will get back to the Clare Valley, I do think I will get back to the Adelaide Plains and I do think I'll get back to the Barossa, despite them being removed from my electorate, because they are truly wonderful communities; they're truly wonderful country towns. I can hear my colleague the shadow Treasurer talking about the Barossa Valley. I'm sure he'll visit the Barossa Valley. I'm sure members of this House will have cause to go there. I will miss the Barossa Valley, particularly the little town of Grennock. It is a truly lovely place, a truly beautiful place, particularly in the winter, and in the summer. It is just one of those beautiful parts of South Australia. It's been a wonderful opportunity to represent those people. The seat of Spence is a different seat. It's an urban seat. It has its own challenges and, of course, it will have its own unique character. I look forward, if I'm so privileged to be elected as the member for Spence, to serving those communities. But I will miss the country areas and I will miss the Barossa Valley. I will miss the truly unique experience that it was to be the member for Wakefield. Dividend Imputation 99 19:34 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane Last month, I held a retiree forum in Brisbane, and the attendees were very interested and pleased to hear that the government is committed to making no changes to superannuation laws, franking credits or capital gains. Yet there was a simmering anger there amongst the attendees at the Labor Party's proposed abolition of tax refunds from franked share dividends. It's estimated that Labor's proposal would disrupt and severely damage the retirement plans of almost a million Australians, so that was no surprise. Labor's policy will hit those who have diligently saved for their retirement and made their plans for the future on the basis of franking credits being refundable. We know that the vast majority—over 80 per cent—of those impacted are on incomes less than $37,000, so these aren't wealthy, high-income Aussies living the high life. In fact, perversely, Labor's policy actually favours people like millionaires, who would mostly retain access to the full benefits of their franking credits. It seems it's only those with lower incomes who will miss out. So let's be clear about what this unfair change is all about. The current rules mean that franking credits essentially work just like PAYG withholding tax. When you work as an employee, your employer withholds some tax just before giving you your pay packet. Then at the end of the tax year, if it turns out that too much was withheld, you get a refund. It's the same story for franking credits. They work the same way. Some tax is withheld on the dividends paid to, say, a retiree, and then, at the end of the tax year, if their marginal tax rate was lower than the tax that was withheld, they get a refund, in basically the same way. In other words, people with zero or low tax rates end up with refunds, which they receive as cash from the ATO. So, in effect, Labor's policy here abolishes the tax-free threshold for retirees on low incomes, whereas every other Australian continues to receive the benefit of a tax-free threshold. How is this fair? It's not fair. This isn't about taxing the rich or class war or the politics of envy that the Labor Party is trying to impose to divide Australia. This is simply a cold-hearted cash grab from retirees who have worked hard and saved hard all their lives. As the Treasurer said today, the Labor Party is treating senior Australians essentially like a piggybank, there to be raided when the money runs out. I've now had thousands of people across Brisbane contact me and tell me they're against this. Many of them have written to me in great detail outlining their stories, and I'm really pleased that the shadow Treasurer is here today to hear some of these stories. Here's one. My constituent John from Brisbane says: The money we receive allows us to buy the grandchildren little presents at birthdays and Christmas … Taking away this refund will not only hurt us but also our children and grandchildren. Here's another one, from Alan from Lutwyche: Both myself and my wife worked extremely hard for many years both self-employed in our business … We averaged 12 to 14 hour days, 6 days a week and usually spent several hours most Sundays and paid plenty of tax … I or my wife or maybe both of us will be forced to re-enter the workforce, that is if we could possibly find any employment at our age. Here's another one, Janice, a local constituent in Brisbane, says: We cannot go back to work. We cannot make up this money in retirement … It is not fair to change the rules now … Pamela from Red Hill says: … as someone who doesn't cost the government anything, why should I be penalised? It's a good question. I have so many more—countless more stories—and the common theme in all of these stories and letters is that Labor's policy is essentially hitting people with the most modest of incomes. We know, unfortunately, that Labor's radical tax plan doesn't stop at abolishing tax refunds for franking credits. They're also proposing to put up capital gains tax, they're proposing to abolish negative gearing, they'll increase taxes on the small businesses that employ the majority of Australians, including the majority of young Australians, and they'll impose higher income taxes on many working Australians as well. Mark my words. Watch this space. The list of Labor's tax hikes, I predict, will grow even further as we move towards the election next year, just as the Queensland Labor Party announced several last-minute new taxes just on the eve of their election. The Labor Party basically have this spending problem that they need to try to pay for. I'll keep campaigning hard on this issue on behalf of the thousands of retirees in Brisbane. Older Australians Morning Tea 100 19:39 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Last Friday I held my annual older Australians morning tea awards at the Smithfield RSL. It's always a great function—I've done it now for many years—where we come together and celebrate older Australians and their contributions to our community. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge in the House some of the recipients of the awards. Desmond Metcalf has volunteered at Fairfield Food Services meals on wheels service for many years—over a decade. Rita George works with newly arrived refugees, helping them learn English and assisting with their paperwork in our community. Our community welcomes may refugees, and Rita does great work. Nancy De Guzman works for Meals on Wheels and has been delivering to the sick and elderly since 2010. Joanna Salillas, the former auditor and treasurer of the Philippine Australian Society for Senior Citizens, helps older Filipino Australians in their day-to-day lives. Sophia Stephanicev gives her time as a volunteer hospital guide at Westmead Hospital. Theresa Quattromani and Josephine Borg, who together founded the Horsley Park Community Social Group and Friends, have for the last 15 years organised Australia's Biggest Morning Tea at Horsley Park. I've been many times. They have raised over $300,000 for the Cancer Council. The event is now so big that Channel 7 comes to Australia's Biggest Morning Tea at Horsley Park. Jan Galmes has volunteered her time for over 10 years at Southern Cross Greystanes Residential Aged Care. Vera Critchley has been a volunteer at Westmead Hospital for 18 years and is a former president of the Ringrose Avenue school mothers' club. David Sarkis gives up his time working with St Hurmizd Assyrian church. Irene Lazar does volunteer work for St Zaia church, and has done so for 15 years. William Lazar has been the leader of his seniors group for the last nine years. Ludi Vaga is a volunteer at St Mary's church. It was her 70th birthday that morning, and I do confess to the House that I did lead the several hundred people who were present in 'Happy Birthday' for Ludi. Juliet Khoshaba has volunteered at St Mary's church for seven years. Evilen Giyou is a volunteer at The Parks community centre. Lou Szymkow has served for 10 years at St Vinnies at the Holy Spirit conference in St Clair. Romeo Zamora Cayabyab has been active in the Filipino community for many years. Coral Hamiltom is a tireless worker at Linnwood, a historic house in Guildford in my electorate. She coordinates the catering and cooking for visitors. Ray Jordan is the ex-president of the Mount Druitt senior citizens club. He would be known to the member for Chifley; he's a wonderful man. M 91219 Who? Him or me? Both! Mr BOWEN DZS Ray Jordan. Wayne Trindall has been a director of Guildford Leagues Club for 15 years and is heavily involved in fundraising for different causes. He also volunteers for Cumberland Council meals on wheels and assists elderly residents with weekly shopping. Finally, for the last two years I've instituted a new award. I haven't always done this, but for two years now, we have awarded the McMahon Older Australian of the Year to somebody who deserves that little bit of extra recognition. They're all very worthy recipients, but the McMahon Older Australian of the Year is an award that we now present. I think all present on the day—and I'm sure all members of the House would agree—that James Ratcliffe was a worthy winner of the McMahon Older Australian of the Year. He's a 94-year-old returned serviceman who still serves his Neighbourhood Watch as treasurer. He's still active in the Guildford Red Cross. He's the deputy president of Hewitt House Community Centre and also assists Merrylands police with youth at risk. He is an active participant in the community garden at Granville South high school and has been a justice of the peace for 52 years. Again, the older Australian morning tea is a highlight in our calendar. Many people come every year. We always have some people for whom it's their first performance. I want to thank Smithfield RSL for joining me in hosting it. I couldn't do it without Smithfield RSL's support. We arranged the entertainment from Danny Elliot, a very accomplished international artist who sang and performed for us on the day. We have a great morning. We celebrate older Australians and everything they've contributed to our community. It's a very important day for me as the member for McMahon. It's good when it comes between two sitting weeks. It's quite a change of scenery and pace from parliament. It's good to celebrate with older Australians their achievements and their contribution to our community. They've worked hard all their lives and they use their retirement to give back. An older Australia morning tea is a wonderful opportunity to thank them and celebrate their achievements. Marine Plastic Pollution 101 19:44 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney As an island continent, famously 'girt by sea', we are a nation and a people who have been shaped by the oceans that are around us. Our sunny coastline is understandably a source of wonderment for both Australians and visitors alike. Our pattern of settlement has hugged our bays and our harbours. In the waters beyond, our oceans are home to some of the richest and most important ecosystems on the planet. It is therefore not surprising that Australians are passionate about protecting our marine environment. It is an issue I feeling strongly about and, in a different life, I was proud to have had the opportunity to help develop Australia's first national oceans policy, which was released by the Howard government. At times the vastness of our oceans have allowed us to think they are an infinite resource, yet we have learned that many marine ecosystems are as fragile as those on land. We are now becoming particularly aware that our oceans are under threat from pollution, including the impact of plastic waste and debris. In Australia, hundreds of thousands have tuned into the ABC's War on Waste, which highlighted our own impact on the marine environment. In the documentary A Plastic Ocean which screened in this building a year ago we graphically witnessed the impact of plastics on animals, including magnificent birds or turtles which had eaten plastic items, eventually reaching the point where their stomachs had become hardened masses of almost solid waste. Of course, plastics have become an indispensable part of human existence. Plastic has kept our food safe, reduced other kinds of waste and made the transportation of goods more affordable to large populations. Plastic remains an incredible invention. Yet, unfortunately, we have failed to effectively mitigate against plastic waste on many occasions. It is estimated, for example, that at least eight million tonnes of plastics leak into the ocean each year. This is the equivalent of a garbage truck offloading its contents into the ocean every minute of every day. Much of the plastic entering our ocean is from packaging. We know that around the world something like a third of plastic packaging escapes collection systems. Some will litter the land, while much will enter our seas. Often they are single-use plastic products which are used on average for 12 minutes and yet can take hundreds of years to degrade. Our communities are rightly seeking action from government and industry, and we will be failing Australians if we in this parliament don't ensure that we're reacting to respond to those concerns. Australia is not one of the world's major contributors to plastics in our oceans, yet we can set an example and at the same time help keep our own coastline relatively pristine. We can also show international leadership in a region of the world where much of the problem is sourced. For example, 25 per cent of plastic marine pollution comes from 10 major river systems and eight of them are in Asia. Domestically the federal government is working with the states to innovate and improve their recycling. Earlier this year, environment ministers agreed to a 100 per cent target of Australian packaging being recyclable, compostable or reusable by 2025. They have agreed to work with industry to increase their recycle content of goods purchased by government and the private sector. Cooperative work with industry has seen almost all microbeads removed from products sold on Australian shelves, although 100 per cent is yet to be achieved. Most states have introduced bans on single-use shopping bags and introduced container deposit legislation. To date, industry and retailers have been ready partners in the process. This is preferable and welcome. Government should not, however, forgo the option of regulating if voluntary action fails, particularly to lift requirements for recycled content or to entirely eliminate the use of microbeads or to phase out products like polystyrene. We need New South Wales to join the ban on single-use plastic bags and Victoria to implement its own container deposit legislation. But our role can be just as important internationally. The United Kingdom has proven itself a leader in addressing what is a global problem. We can do the same in our region in Asia and the Pacific. Our goal should be a regional marine plastics compact, and our efforts through both our aid and environmental programs should go to supporting other nations to implement solutions. There is also scope for Australia to become a leader in recycling technology and the development of bio-benign plastic products, particularly those which can biodegrade in the marine environment. Our goal must be to create a more circular economy for plastic products, which not only makes environmental sense but offers economic advantages as well. Our marine environment, which is just so precious to all Australians, is worth that battle. Economy 102 19:49 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin The weekend just gone marked 10 years since Lehman Brothers disintegrated and the global financial crisis took its most damaging turn. This more than any other moment was responsible for the rapid acceleration of the sharpest downward spiral in the global economy since the Great Depression eight decades earlier. In the weeks and months that followed, panic set in and share markets worldwide suffered record losses. Advanced economies, including Germany, the UK, Japan and Italy, contracted and Europe was plunged into a sovereign debt crisis. Australia's response was remarkable. Immediately, in October 2008, we announced a bank guarantee. Days later, we announced our first, $10.4 billion stimulus package, including cash payments for families, and in February 2009, we followed up with our $42 billion nation-building and jobs plan. It worked, and Australia has so much to be proud of. Seeing off the GFC is one of Australia's most important peacetime achievements. Consider this: our stimulus measures prevented a recession in Australia and saved up to 210,000 jobs. The United States unemployment rate doubled from five per cent to 10 per cent, while ours was steady around five to 5.5 per cent, and Australia obtained a AAA credit rating from all three ratings agencies for the first time in our nation's history. Because of the intelligent and courageous deployment of fiscal stimulus, many Australians were spared the unemployment scrap heap. There is more than enough credit to go around for this national triumph, but I pay tribute especially to my friend Wayne Swan, the member for Lilley and then Treasurer; to Prime Minister Rudd and other key ministers; to the officials in Treasury, Finance and PM&C; to the Reserve Bank and, especially, its then governor Glenn Stevens; and to the advisers in the offices. It was a real honour for me, as the Treasurer's principal adviser at the time, to work so closely with all of these people, and I will never ever forget the day we discovered Australia had avoided recession. We were one of only two advanced economies to do so. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, one of the world's finest economists, described our stimulus as 'one of the most impressive economic policies I've seen, ever'. The IMF said that Australia's quick implementation of targeted and temporary fiscal stimulus had a positive impact of boosting demand. The OECD described our stimulus as 'among the most effective in the OECD' as it 'helped to avoid a recession as usually defined' and also 'had a pivotal role in boosting overall confidence'. If critics had had their way, Australia would have failed and our economy, our country and its people would have hit the fence with all of the others. More than 200,000 people would have lost their jobs, perhaps for good, and the road back would have been steeper and harder, weighed done and held back by the obliteration of human and physical capital. It was one thing to be wrong then, as many were—and they've been judged by the facts of history—but persistent critics since then should be especially ashamed of themselves for trashing one of Australia's proudest moments and for failing to understand or to admit what was achieved by government, business and workers all working together. Putting a higher premium on trashing the Labor Party than on celebrating Australia's achievements says it all, really, about many of those opposite. It poisons their approach to the economy now, because they've missed an opportunity to build on the successes and lessons of that period as economies have become less equal, people less socially mobile, work less secure and life more precarious. Here in Australia, many believe the rules of the economy are written to benefit someone else at their expense. There is a time for markets—and even for animal spirits—but there is a time, too, for government intervention, and the key is working out which one and when. We got that right. The Liberal approach would be to leave people to fend for themselves. Today our economy is growing strongly despite the efforts of those opposite and not because of them. Living standards are stagnant, profits are growing more than five times faster than wages and debt has doubled on the Liberals' watch. The best way to say true to the achievements of 10 years ago is to make sure growth is inclusive, hard work is rewarded and there's a decent social safety net for those left behind, and to repair the budget in a fair and responsible way, making it sustainable so that we can invest in the things that we truly value as a society. And that's what we intend to do. Member for Gilmore 103 19:54 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore I first thank the Minister for Health, the Hon. Greg Hunt, for facilitating the continuing funding for One Door in Ulladulla. This is an essential service in my region, providing a range of mental health support services for women and families in particular. One of their mantras to their clients is: 'Are you okay?' Another group which is rarely asked, 'Are you okay?' is politicians. I would ask here that those who feel inspired to be spiteful, angry, insulting and gutless, because they're using their keyboards, to have a think before pressing the send button. How would you feel if you received the email you're about to send? Politics is a place where if you do not have great resilience the actions of others can impact on your mental health. Bullying, betrayal and backstabbing have been the hallmarks of one of my state Liberal colleagues Gareth Ward over the past six and a half years. In fact, I have endured the trifecta: a sour grapes defeated preselection candidate Andrew Guile, the plotting and manipulation of both people and numbers by Gareth and the reporting by the local editor of Fairfax—which I see as 'Biasfax'—John Hanscombe. Between them I have been misrepresented in all manner of media in a continuing barrage of actions from April 2012. Many people will have heard rumours about my intentions for the election next year. In the first instance, let me make the following claim. Scott Morrison, apart from being the new Prime Minister, is someone I see as a friend. He is a man of integrity and he is absolutely passionate about the long-term progress and vision for Australia. For that reason alone, I endeavoured to hold my decision in private until after the Wentworth by-election. Unfortunately, that is now not possible. I have asked the Prime Minister to acknowledge the withdrawal of my nomination for the seat of Gilmore. I want to make it abundantly clear that my decision has nothing to do with the leadership of Scott. My decision does, however, has everything to do with the NSW state division and their lack of action, and the combined undermining actions as outlined by the revenge motivated trifecta surrounding me locally. It is the state division level where I have had little or no support during the past six months while waiting for the preselection process, which should have been determined before now. On the local scene since the day of winning preselection in 2012, the local, self-determined senior Liberal has been leaking damaging material to the media and having publicity stunts that are completely against federal policy initiatives. And more recently he approached friends asking me to nominate my retirement date and then he'd call off his people. The final straw came when this same state MP, after stacking my branches completely, rolled my supportive FEC committee at the AGM, installing people who have never been part of a federal campaign. The FEC committee is central to winning an election. This is not the first time that Gareth has flexed his vengeance on strong Liberal women. He doesn't just get even; he annihilates anyone who opposes him. In 2016 Gareth worked the numbers and denied a priority position for a strong Liberal woman Kellie Marsh, a local and effective councillor. She ran independently and won a place on the Shellharbour council. That same year Gareth, while helping his friend Andrew Guile get back on to the Shoalhaven City Council, worked on the booths handing out for the independent team, knowing their preferences for the mayor would all go to the Greens candidate and not to Jo Gash, also a strong Liberal woman. Despite her winning the primary count she was defeated. Then when nominations were called for the seat of Gilmore, Gareth's friends Paul Ell and Adam Straney strangely decided to nominate against me while Andrew Guile actively encouraged Grant Schulz to do the same. Was I doing a lousy job? No. Only if you ask the local Labor member and even some of them think I'm doing an okay job. Was it because they thought I'd lose the last election? Hardly. When I had the confidence of the former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and the current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, openly stating on national television their support for me. This was all about Gareth's narcissistic revenge planned and plotted. I have decided that enough is enough. After seeing the betrayal of amazing and dedicated committee members, who are now being contacted by the new committee members asking for help, the whole scenario is pathetic. Who was this about? Certainly not the people who elected me. It was about ego driven ambition, bullying and betrayal and my local position is completely untenable. I will work right through the term for the people who elected me. This has been and will continue to be the reason I do this job. I will continue to lobby for my dairy farmers. I still have a great deal of work to do. I will not be distracted by boys who should know better, men who know better and do nothing or women who are manipulated by false information. I'm concerned that the media will interpret my decision as a reflection on the leadership of Scott Morrison. If they do, they will be lying. Scott truly is a good man. In the end I will always ask people, 'Are you okay?' and I will mean it. I'll do everything I can to help them. Some of my friends will ask me if I am okay. Absolutely, yes. I've had five years working for others in the capacity of a federal member. It has been a privilege and I thank you. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 104 NOTICES

Monday, 17 September 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Laundy) took the chair at 10:30.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 105 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Calwell Electorate: Turkish Immigration, Margaret Egan Young Writers Award 105 10:30 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I rise today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the arrival of the first assisted-passage migrants from Turkey to Sydney and Melbourne. Their arrival, in 1968, was the product of a groundbreaking agreement signed on 5 October 1967 by the Turkish and Australian governments, thus ending the White Australia policy. This anniversary marks a successful migration story in which Turkish migrants have gone on to become active citizens of Australia participating in all aspects of Australian civil society while maintaining their identity, language and culture. I want to use this anniversary as an opportunity to pay tribute to the large Turkish-speaking community in the electorate of Calwell and thank them for the significant contribution they have made to the community and to so many different professions and industries, such as business, sport, politics and the arts. In addition, 2018 is being celebrated by the Turkish Cypriot community as the 70th anniversary of the arrival in Australia of Cypriot migrants. To mark this auspicious occasion, the Moreland Turkish Association, together with other community organisations, has developed a program of events. The activities kicked off this weekend with a soccer game on Saturday and the Turkish Sofra Festival yesterday. The festival, held at the Immigration Museum, also marked the opening of the Kimlik exhibition, which celebrates and documents the contribution of the Turkish community to Australian life while preserving many valuable memories and stories of those first arrivals—stories that are part of our contemporary Australian migration history. The program of events will include festivals, exhibitions, seminars and conferences, concerts and sporting activities. A program such as this not just is for the Turkish community but provides an opportunity to build relationships with the broader multicultural Australian community. While on the subject of writing our stories, I note I had the pleasure of attending the official launch of the Margaret Egan Young Writers Award at the Hume Global Learning Centre in Broadmeadows last Friday. Sponsored by the author of the book Back to Broady, Caroline van de Pol, and supported by the Hume City Council and Writers Victoria, the award is themed 'memoirs of Broadmeadows' and encourages all students of Broadmeadows to write about their experiences and understanding of their wonderfully diverse suburb. The winner will receive financial and mentoring support as well as the honour of being named the first Margaret Egan Young Writers Award recipient. Launching the award along with Caroline was fellow writer and former Broadmeadows neighbour Nick Gleeson, author of the book The Many Ways of Seeing. The two shared their memories of growing up in Broadmeadows in the hope that they would inspire the next generation of young writers. One such writer is Penola Catholic College student Marco, who impressed me so much on the day with his understanding of the written form, especially the way he uses books as a means to understand and make sense of the world around him. Writing is such an important tool in expressing one's thoughts and feelings and also in describing experiences of places and people. Cystic Fibrosis 105 10:33 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise today to speak about an instance of our system working to serve Australians in need. In October last year, at a street stall I was holding in West Pymble, I was approached by Mrs Vivienne Dimmick, who told me the story of her daughter Charlotte—or Charli, as she is known. Charli has cystic fibrosis as well as autism and an intellectual disability. Cystic fibrosis is a rare genetic disease that causes mucus to build up in the lungs and other organs, leading to infections, damage and respiratory failure. It affects over 1,200 people in Australia every year and it has very severe implications for the lifespan of children who suffer from it. Mrs Dimmick told me about the drug Orkambi, which is life-changing for people who suffer from cystic fibrosis. But, at the time Mrs Dimmick met with me, Orkambi was not listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and it came with the prohibitively expensive price tag of $250,000. Mrs Dimmick had been campaigning vigorously for her daughter and for other Australian sufferers of cystic fibrosis when I met her, and she continued her campaign. After she raised her daughter's plight with me I wrote to the Minister for Health, asking that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee seek the earliest possible listing of Orkambi. There was much other fine advocacy work done. Charli's older brother Max, who is 12, wrote me a beautiful letter, and he wrote to the health minister, talking about how important it was for Charli that Orkambi be listed on the PBS. So it was very pleasing that in August this year the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee announced that it had reached an agreement with Vertex, the company that manufactures Orkambi, announcing that the drug would be available through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme from 1 October this year and with the manufacturer granting compassionate access until then. It is no exaggeration to say that this news is life-changing for Charli and her family. This drug will add 23 years of life expectancy to children who start treatment at the age of six and 18 years of life expectancy to those who start at 12. This is not only a wonderful outcome for Charli Dimmick but a wonderful outcome for so many other Australian sufferers of cystic fibrosis. It is an example of our system working as it should: to serve Australians in need. West Bank, Macquarie Electorate: Soccer 106 10:36 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie There are reports out of Palestine that dozens of human rights activists—Bedouin, Palestinian and Israeli—are currently camped out at the Bedouin village of Khan al-Amar. I visited this village in the West Bank nearly a year ago as it came under threat of demolition. After months of appeals, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Israeli Defense Forces can legally evacuate the village so demolition can go ahead. The European Union has warned against these actions. This is a village where Bedouins who've relocated from their traditional grazing lands have created a very modest home: small shacks; no land for their goats to graze on, so they're hand feeding; and a school built from recycled tyres, with funding from the international aid community, where their children can have a hope of an education. It is unthinkable that this small community won't even be allowed to exist, simply so an Israeli settlement can expand. My thoughts are with them and I cannot let this happen in silence. Soccer is probably the most popular sport in the Blue Mountains, despite the fact that finding a flat piece of land to play on is a challenge. I was privileged to present prizes in the last few weeks at both Hazelbrook Hawks and the Blue Mountains Club. At Hazelbrook I presented the TLC award, named in honour of the Colbrans who provided St John Ambulance Services to the players for years. This year, the award went to Mary Carr, who's active TLC benefited the Glenbrook based Blue Mountains Club. Their team had arrived without jerseys—a parents' nightmare, to forget the laundry bag!—and the game was due to be forfeited. While Hazelbrook, who were right at the top of the ladder, really wanted the points, more than that they wanted to play soccer. So after frantic phone calls and a mad dash, Mary was able to get an extra set of uniforms for the visiting team and the match went on. To her great disappointment the rival team won, but for her act of generosity and sportsmanship she deserves the award I was able to present her with. At the Glenbrook presentation I was struck by the ongoing resilience of the club in coping with their clearly inadequate Knapsack ground. It's the dirt car park that is a liability for parents as they try to safely deliver their kids to the grounds. And they need a new clubhouse. In 1979 an old clubhouse was delivered from Leonay Country Club and moved to Knapsack Park. It must now be close to 50 or 60 years old and is not serving the needs of the club. It really is time for safety to come first, and the new car park needs to happen as soon as possible, and a new clubhouse is needed to give this group of volunteers a suitable place to store equipment, to run their canteen and to service one of the biggest soccer clubs that we have in our Blue Mountains. R U OK? Day 106 10:39 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane Each year on 13 September, Australians mark R U OK? Day, a national awareness day of action. Gavin Larkin created R U OK? Day in 2009, prompted to action by the grief and devastation of his own father, Barry Larkin's suicide. Sadly, Gavin passed away due to cancer a few years back, but the incredible legacy of his vision, RU OK? Day, lives on. It continues to have an enormous impact in our communities and almost certainly has played a role in saving countless lives. This year marked the 10th anniversary of R U OK? Day, and that's a lot of conversations that have been started because of this campaign. I remember well when the Convo Convoy rolled into Brisbane last year. I was impressed by such a great community event and had such genuine, deep and authentic grassroots community involvement. The ultimate vision of the campaign is to encourage meaningful conversations with loved ones, workmates, friends and neighbours, not just on R U OK? Day but 365 days a year. It's something that we can all do to help people stay connected, to reach out to those around us, and to show kindness and compassion. A simple conversation, truly caring, can have a profound impact on people battling depression, social isolation, loneliness and other mental health challenges. Suicide is a terrible blight on the Australian community. It accounted for almost 3,000 deaths recorded in 2016—that's seven or eight Australians taking their own lives each and every day of the year. That makes suicide the 15th leading cause of death in 2016, and tragically that ranking's not atypical. Of course, it's a much higher ranking than that for some younger age demographics. The Australian government is providing funding for R U OK? Day and has done since its inception. Last week, the Minister for Health announced an additional three-quarters of a million dollars on top of the almost $1 million a year that the federal government has already been providing. Going one step higher in the budget priorities, in this year's budget, the government invested over $300 million for mental health programs, including over $70 million for suicide prevention. This government's total expenditure for mental health is $4.3 billion this financial year, and that means that there has never been a government in Australia's history that has provided so much funding towards our nation's mental health. But there's always more to be done to reduce the impact and the burden of mental illness in Australia. Ultimately, it comes back to the community and to the actions of individuals who can have the most immediate impact on the ground, as exemplified by people stopping to check on each other, start a conversation and ask the simple question, 'Are you okay?' Centenary of Armistice 107 10:42 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson On Friday night when I arrived home from Canberra my husband told me the great news that my Remembrance Day poppies were in flower. I couldn't wait to get up the next morning and have a look at them. I grow them, but in fact they really grow themselves as their red heads bob along in the sunshine. They serve for me as a personal reminder of the sacrifice our country has made. The poppies, along with my lone pine tree, serve that purpose so well. It is so important that we acknowledge our local history, especially when those communities join with the larger world to achieve things that shape the world we live in today. Last week, the town of Kurri, my birthplace, began celebrations for the Centenary of Armistice—the agreement that the warring nations of World War I would cease fire. It is a town dear to my heart—my birthplace. In Australia, we mark the Armistice yearly, with Remembrance Day, as my poppies attest, on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. It is worth reflecting that the Armistice was signed a century ago this year. Kurri Kurri, like many others towns in the Hunter, was formed to house the many miners working in the coalfields. Today, we have a population of 6,000. Like other small Australian towns, Kurri played its part in the war effort: 432 men enlisted from Kurri, 80 perished and a further 212 were wounded. Of those men, one was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal and there were 17 medals for bravery. One story of individual significance was about a young woman named Maud Butler. Maud wanted to serve on the frontline, but she was not allowed due to her gender. But that wasn't going to stop Maud. She bought a men's uniform and got a photo to test her disguise and climbed a ship's anchor and stowed away. She hid in a lifeboat and stole food from the gallery and mingled with the men during the day. Finally, Maud was found out as her boots gave her away—they were brown instead of black. She was summarily sent back to Australia—now famous. A few months later she stowed away again, but was quickly caught and warned not to do so again. Maud's desire to be part of the war effort was not crushed. She eventually became a nurse and started her own hospital. Not only is Maud Butler an Australian war heroine, she is a role model to all women and an example of a person using sheer determination to overcome social obstacles. Recent events here in this parliament have shown us that Maud's story still carries lessons for us all. A book called No Shirkers from Kurri has been written by our terrific local historians John Gillam and Yvonne Fletcher. It relates the story of Kurri and those who served. Other tributes that mark Kurri's role in the Great War Armistice celebrations have been absolutely fantastically received and I thank everyone who's been involved. Forrest Electorate: Sport 107 10:46 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I want to thank and congratulate the South West Football League—the board, the umpires, the volunteers and every club—on a great season. This weekend we will see the grand finals played. The grand final in the league will be between Bunbury and Donnybrook—and it will be an old-fashioned Donnybrook of a competition. In the reserves we will see Eaton Boomers take on Harvey Brunswick Leschenault. In the colts, we will see Busselton take on Bunbury. They all will be very competitive games. Country footy is alive and well in my part of the world and I'm very proud of the football league in the south-west. I also mention that the South West Women's League played its grand final yesterday. Bunbury defeated the Harvey Bulls for the second year in a row. I know of the commitment and passion of the women who've taken up the opportunity. This is the second year that women have played Australian Rules Football in the south-west. They were leaders in this space. There are now several teams playing and the competition will continue to grow. I want to acknowledge every one of those women who've had a go at this game and absolutely love it, and the vibrancy that they've brought to each club that they're part of, and the way that they compete on the field—it is a deadset competition every time they go out there. I wish the very best to every team facing a grand final this weekend. Leave nothing behind, because there won't be a tomorrow. That's what you have to take into this game—it is not to leave anything behind. You have to give it 110 per cent. That, I'm sure, is what each member of those teams will do. I want to acknowledge, too, the winner of the League Fairest and Best, Mitch Lynn from the Augusta Margaret River Football Club—a great season by him. There were many other awards given out that night. I'm really proud to say that I sponsored the women's Fairest and Best medal, which was won by Carly Allen of Bunbury. I congratulate Carly on her achievements. One other very important person I want to acknowledge is Bob Hislop of Bunbury, who was the WA Country Football League—across the state—Volunteer of the Year. I spent 10 years as the president of an AFL footy club and I can tell you that all of us—every club I've worked with—absolutely and utterly rely on our volunteers. I thank them for what they have done in making yet another successful season for the South West Football League. Lalor Electorate: Alamanda College 108 10:49 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor In Lalor, every day, we turn housing developments into communities. I have had the pleasure in the last fortnight of visiting Alamanda College and being a principal for a day there in the Principal for a Day program, where I saw the extraordinary work in doing exactly that—in taking the young people, the prep to year 9 young people in our community and working so hard to build our community. I want to congratulate Principal Lyn Jobson on the terrific work that she is doing. It is an extraordinary school doing extraordinary work, where lifelong learning in a calm learning environment is happening every day and where the principal shares her wonderings and grade 6 students respond with thoughtful analysis about the things they've been studying and that other students have been studying. On Friday night, I attended the Tarneit P-9 Lion King Jr school production—another great example of the work that goes on in our local schools to build community. Not only did I join the school community to see a fabulous production, but I was stunned at the talent that's been unearthed in that college. This was a celebration of life, most certainly, as the Lion King suggests, but in both schools, I also saw a celebration of diversity. On Saturday I attended the Ganesh Festival organised by Vinayak and Neha Kolape in my electorate. I want to send congratulations to the whole team for what was a wonderful celebration, and wish everyone wisdom and good health. Finally, a shout-out to all of our local football teams that have competed in the WRFL finals at Avalon oval, or Chirnside Park as it's known locally, over the past few weeks. Congratulations to the winners, Point Cook Football Club, and to the Manor Lakes women's team on winning their grand final. And a hearty good luck to the Hoppers Crossing Football Club, who will run out next week to contest the division 1 grand final against Deer Park—more power to their arm. I finish with a big shout-out to the Werribee Centrals netballers. The Werribee Centrals Football and Netball Club compete in the Geelong and District Football League. It is fair to say that Werribee Centrals are the dominant netball club. They have won again across many age groups, including the division 1 grand final. I'll join the Werribee Centrals Football Club this week for their presentation night. I'm looking forward to seeing all of the footballers, but, most importantly, I'm looking forward to sharing a glass of champagne with the netballers on another terrific year. Economy 108 10:51 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It's good to see you in the chair, Mr Speaker. As people in my electorate often say to me, a strong economy is central to everything in government. It's central to a safer economy. It's not by accident that the Australian economy is going gangbusters at the moment, with unprecedented consecutive quarters of growth—some of the fastest growth rates of our bordering OECD nations. This growth is not happening by accident. Business conditions are at their highest level since the global financial crisis, and we've created 1.14 million jobs since coming to office. The Australian unemployment rate now currently starts with a five—5.3 per cent—the lowest rate since the peak of the mining boom. Just think about that for a moment. There are more jobs now than at the peak of the mining boom, which saw unprecedented prosperity in Australia—150 years of capital expenditure spent in that space. We are now matching it. Global growth is now at its fastest pace in six years. All of this is a result of the government's economic work and the plan that we've put in place. Our plan is working. We can ensure that the benefits of a stronger economy and economic growth can continue to be secure and shared with all Australians. It is a plan that is providing tax relief to encourage and reward working Australians. What we're doing is backing business to invest in creating more jobs. We're leaving more money with businesses so that they can reinvest because, we believe, that business invests money better than we do as government. What they do is go and put more people on or they buy more infrastructure. They invest it, and the multiplier effect throughout the economy is far greater than when government makes those investments. We're giving tax relief to low- and middle-income earners as a first priority of the government's seven-year plan to make personal income tax in Australia lower, fairer and simpler. In the first tranche, by the year 2024-2025, 94 per cent of all taxpayers will face a marginal tax rate of around 32 per cent. If we hadn't put that in place, 63 per cent of the public would have been paying a higher rate of tax. We're backing business. We're also backing business to invest and create more jobs by extending the $20,000 instant tax write-off. That has been such a multiplier and a stimulator for businesses to reinvest. We're investing $75 billion in transport and road infrastructure. These are mega projects. On the eastern seaboard of Australia, in the future, it's going to be difficult to find tier 1 operators that are going to be able to build large projects, because they are going to be flat out. This government is committed to $75 billion worth of infrastructure. We're building a stronger economy. Bankstown Sports Club 109 10:54 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland As you know, Deputy Speaker Hogan, Bankstown is the heart of my electorate, and Bankstown Sports Club is the heart of Bankstown. This year it turns 60. In February 1958 Bankstown District Cricket Association got together with a number of other sporting associations in the area and set up Bankstown Sports Club. To be a member of the club back then you had to qualify in two regards: first, you had to be a bloke and, second, you had to play sport. They purchased a local block of land in Bankstown at 8 Greenfield Parade—which was, at that point, an old Latter-day Saints hall and a consecrated church—and the club was off and running. The baptismal font, apparently, was a handy esky at the time! A lot has changed in the last 60 years. Bankstown Sports Club is still on the same site, but it now takes up the whole block. And it's no longer for just a couple of hundred blokes. There are now 70,000 people who are members of Bankstown Sports Club. It's one of the biggest clubs in Australia. I said earlier that it's the heart of my community. It's the place where a lot of people go in Bankstown for a feed and a good night out. It's the place where Paul Keating went to celebrate the 'sweetest victory of all'—his famous 'true believers' speech that none of us on this side of the House will ever forget. And it's a place where local charities and local community organisations go to when they need help. It funds local aged-care centres, it purchases equipment for local schools and childcare centres, it purchases medical equipment for Bankstown hospital, it helps local disability groups, and it helps to fund more than 40 local sporting clubs in Bankstown. In those 60 years, it's only had three CEOs. Emile McDonald ran the club for 22 years. John McKay ran it for 31 years. Now the boss is Mark Condi. Mark has only been in the job for about six years, but he's worked at Bankstown Sports Club for 25 years. He started 25 years ago picking up glasses and cleaning tables. Can I take this time to also give the board a rap. The board is led by John Murray. His predecessor was the late great Kevin McCormick OAM. He was a great man and a great mate, by the way, of Paul Keating's father, Matt Keating. Can I thank the staff and everybody who has worked at Bankstown Sports Club over the years and helped make it what it is, which is a fantastic community asset, a real community club. Can I wish everybody involved a happy 60th birthday and many, many years to come. Country Women's Association: Ilford-Running Stream Branch 109 10:57 Mr GEE 261393 Calare The Country Women's Association is an integral part of the fabric of our country communities, with a proud history of both supporting and being a voice for country people. Today I wish to pay tribute to the Ilford-Running Stream branch of the CWA. The Ilford branch was established on 16 October 1924 and has been running uninterrupted since that day. The branch amalgamated with the Running Stream branch in the 1980s, and the branch currently has 12 members. Meetings alternate between the Ilford Hall and Running Stream Hall. Members come from all over the region, including from Ilford, Running Stream, Sofala, Clandulla, Bathurst, Mudgee and Carcalgong. Some members work full-time, others part-time; some are retirees; some are farmers. But they are all committed CWA members. The branch members excel in many aspects of CWA activities. The agriculture and environment officer, Pam Hurley, has won the state's CWA Moore Award on three occasions for her ag and environment project book. The branch has contributed many items of handicraft to the state handicraft competition, enabling their group, Castlereagh Country, to come third in the state for the last two years. The Ilford-Running Stream branch of the CWA also has a state qualified tutor in knitting and crochet in Jeanette Sell, who conducts workshops throughout the state for various branches and groups. The branch president, Margaret Weatherley, is a member of the state Land Cookery committee and also the group Land Cookery officer. Well done, Margaret. The Ilford-Running Stream CWA branch offers a range of activities to support the communities, including catering for weddings, funerals and any other function where catering may be required. They were particularly pleased to be able to assist with the CWA Kandos Gardens Fair held earlier this year. The branch's 90th birthday in 2014 saw them hold a high tea in Ilford Hall, which raised a thousand dollars for Macquarie Home Stay in Dubbo. They also support Ilford Public School, particularly on the occasion of its international day luncheon, where the children present an item on the current country of study. The branch provide them and the staff with lunch. They also purchase calculators for children from year 6 who are about to enter high school, and they make funds available for the school library to purchase books during Book Week celebrations. I'd like to make mention of the other members of the Ilford-Running Stream CWA branch, including the secretary, Jenny Nott; the treasurer, Diane Groves; the international officer, Liz Goodfellow; the cultural officer, Alice Dryburgh; Sandra Sloane; Alma Ristau; Lynne Robb; Wendy Murphy; and Leigh Colledge. I thank the Ilford-Running Stream branch of the CWA for its important work and for all that its members do for country people. We are very grateful that they're out there supporting country communities. It's my privilege to honour them in this House today. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247130 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 110 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Greta Army Camp: 80th Anniversary, Greta Migrant Camp: 70th Anniversary 110 11:01 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter I move: That this House (1) notes that:    (a) 2019 marks the 80th anniversary of the establishment of the Greta Army Camp and the 70th anniversary of its transition to a migrant training and reception centre—Greta Migrant Camp;    (b) around 60,000 soldiers of the Second Australian Imperial Force trained at the Camp between 1939 and 1945;    (c) more than 100,000 new arrivals passed through the Greta Migrant Camp between 1949 and 1960;    (d) the army training centre played a significant role in Australia’s outstanding contribution to the Second World War;    (e) the Greta Migrant Camp played a major role in delivering on the objectives and commitments of the Government’s humanitarian and nation building programs; and    (f) the Hunter region and Australia more generally remain enriched by the contribution of those who spent time living at the Greta Migrant Camp; and (2) calls on the Government to ensure the 80th anniversary of the establishment of the Greta Army Camp and the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the Greta Migrant Camp are appropriately commemorated and celebrated anniversaries. The year 2019 marks the 80th anniversary of the establishment of the Greta Army Camp in the Hunter electorate. It also marks the 70th anniversary of its transformation into a migrant camp. Throughout the course of World War II, up to 60,000 soldiers of the 2nd AIF trained in Greta. It was one of the Army's largest camps. That means that Greta played a significant role in the war effort and its history is certainly worth commemorating. Then, between 1949 and 1960, 100,000 new arrivals passed through the former Army barracks. Most were fleeing war-torn Second World War and post-Second World War Europe. They came originally from Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and various Baltic states. Later, under a broader migration program, people from Italy, Greece, Macedonia, Russia and many other countries made the camp their temporary home. In all, people in the camp represented some 18 nationalities. Originally, the camp's residents were transferred from other Australian camps, but later they came directly. On 19 August 1949, more than a thousand displaced persons arrived in Newcastle Harbour on the Fairsea and were transferred to Greta by rail. Our post-World War II migration program shaped modern Australia, and Greta played a big part in our national development. The camp's residents learned both English and our way of life while in the camp. Happily, we learned much from them too. We embraced much of their culture and, of course, their food. We are a richer country for the experience. Sadly, a visit to the site of the camp provides no hint of its national significance. Those with family links to the camp who make a pilgrimage to their place of heritage will find no marking on the site, let alone a sign signifying its previous national significance. We are all indebted to former Newcastle Herald journalist Alek Schulha, who wants this changed. Alek was born in the camp to Yugoslav and Ukrainian parents. They were the first couple to be married in the camp's Orthodox church, and Alek was christened there. Alek is completing a book on the history of the camp and has interviewed more than 100 people with direct connections and links with the former camp. The book will be launched next year to coincide with the anniversary. Our local communities remain enriched by the ongoing presence of many of the new arrivals, their children and their grandchildren. In addition to commemorating and celebrating the 70th anniversary, we hope to ensure that people who have an affinity with the former camp have somewhere and something prominent to visit. We must facilitate their pilgrimage and keep the memories and histories alive. In the main street of Greta there is a small monument, which is respected and appreciated. I think next year would be a good time to enlarge that monument, to make it more visible to passing visitors. I think the camp could be a driver of significant tourism for the town as more and more people come to understand the local area's significance in our history. I also think that Alek Schulha is right: those seeking to make the pilgrimage would easily drive past the site. These are the great-grandchildren of the camp's original residents and it is a difficult place to find on a lonely road. We do need to help them establish and find the site. One of the challenges is that it's on private land and we don't know what the land's future holds. This will largely be a matter for the council, and I'm reaching out to the council to help us work through these issues. Of course, the roadside verge—or the area between the road and the property—might be an opportunity, but, certainly, we need to mark that site so that people can find it easily. The other key objective of my motion is to ask the national government here in Canberra to do all it can to ensure that these two very important anniversaries next year are appropriately and properly commemorated and celebrated. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247130 I thank the member. Is the motion seconded? 11:06 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I rise today to second the member for Hunter's motion to commemorate the anniversaries of the establishment of the Greta Army Camp in 1939 and the Greta Migrant Camp in 1949. Driving towards Greta in New South Wales along Camp Road you would be forgiven for not knowing that in 1949 the Greta Migrant Camp was the biggest of its kind, housing 100,000 refugees. June 2019 marks the 70th anniversary of the first draft of migrants to arrive—refugees escaping war-torn Europe. Today there is little or no trace on the site of the Greta Migrant camp and the lives of those refugee families who stayed until changes to the Migration Act of 1955 saw the camp finally dissolve in 1960. At one point in time there were 19 different nationalities living in cramped quarters, sharing accommodation and facilities. People came from the Ukraine, Slovenia, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Italy, Austria and Hungary, with many arriving at the camp in the middle of summer. Their first sight of the shining nissen huts lined up in the field, surrounded by the Australian bush, must have come as such a shock, especially on a 40-degree-plus day. Many people thought they would die from the heat, and, of course, a corrugated iron hut was not ideal in Australia's bush conditions. However, the camp, as happens in adversity, over time became a truly thriving community. Its residents adapted to Australia's heat and started to rebuild their lives. Migrants arriving in Greta brought with them skills and resilience. Over time they got jobs, learned the language and even started businesses. Their families grew up and were educated, and while some of them moved away many stayed to build their lives in Greta and the Hunter region. Living in the camp was not a free ride, and families were expected to pay rent. Some men were lucky and secured work at BHP in Newcastle. Most men, however, travelled to work on the Snowy Mountains Scheme and in sugarcane fields in Queensland. They travelled to wherever they could find secure work, something many workers today can relate to if they are fly in, fly out workers. Perhaps these were among our first FIFOs in Australia. Sunday afternoons would see family groups head to the Greta Railway Station to farewell loved ones who they may not see for months at a time. Elizabeth Lodo, now Liz Matt, was three years old when her family travelled from Germany and arrived in Australia in 1950. But their journey was far from over. After moving from camps in Bathurst to Parkes and then Cowra, Liz and her family finally arrived in Greta in 1952 when Liz was just five years old. Liz remembers the early days as being very hard, but she also has many fond memories of that camp. Her school years were fantastic, because of a woman called Mrs Rose. Mrs Rose, of course, had no experience teaching children who spoke little or no English and who came from such diverse backgrounds, and every day she'd ask the children a question. Gradually, their English improved and with that their understanding of the Australian way of life. Mrs Rose recalls those years as the best of her teaching career. When the camp closed in 1960, Liz's family moved towards the township of Greta, a town that I share with the member for Hunter. Orient Street in Greta is in fact our boundary. Sadly, Liz's father, Joseph, passed away shortly after moving from the camp to Greta, leaving Maria, his wife, to raise their large family alone. As was a reflection of the time, the community rallied behind the Matt family and helped them through those very tough years. Liz's mother, Maria, lived in Greta until she passed away at the age of 93. Liz and her family still call Greta home. There is a part of the camp's history that many people might not know about. The Greta Army Camp was initially the site of one Australia's largest army camps and provided a great deal of training during the Second World War. It was one of several initially built for the concentration and training of the 6th Division of the AIF, because existing military facilities were already occupied by militia units. The first unit to move into the camp was the 2/11th Battalion, who arrived on 15 December 1939, and they were later joined by the 2/10th Battalion. Eventually the facilities were improved. When it was a migrant camp, it was known as 'Chocolate City' and 'Silver City' because of the brown-coloured weatherboard buildings and the Nissen huts. Those Nissen huts can still be found in my home town of Kurri Kurri as you drive around, although, thankfully, many have been renovated. It is so important that we mark this anniversary. Australia prides itself on its multicultural background, and Greta can be proud of what it's contributed. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247130 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Agriculture Industry, Forestry Industry, Fishing Industry 112 11:11 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I move: That this House: (1) commends the hard working men and women of Australia's farms and rural industry; (2) notes that Australia's total farm production is worth $62.3 billion in 2016-17, which is up almost 30 per cent since the Government came to office; (3) notes that the value of agricultural exports is $49 billion in 2016-17, which is up 28 per cent since the Government came to office; (4) notes the contribution of agriculture, forestry and fishing sector’s to Australia's economy is $45.7 billion in 2016-17, which is up 9 per cent since the Government came to office; (5) commends the Government for its investment in Australian agriculture to create jobs and prosperity in rural communities; and (6) stands with farmers across Australia facing severe hardship as a result of drought and recognises the Government's drought assistance measures. Agriculture through the time of the coalition has had exponential growth in its exports and in the value of what it contributes to the Australian economy. It should be noted that, from the time we came to government to 2016, we've had in excess of a 25 per cent increase in our exports and the value of our agriculture. This is so vitally important in helping our nation progress. We're doing this because the population of the globe is making its way to 10 billion people by 2050, and the basic requirements, the requirements to sustain that population, are increasing now in an exponential way. We're also noting that the benefits that have happened in the past from such things as the green revolution have now been absorbed by a vastly bigger population than we had in the 1940s. Australia is playing its part and has to play its part. We've had a goal of doubling the value of our agriculture, not only for the benefit of our nation but also for the benefit of the world. We're also seeing that benefit now resting in places where there's been a struggle in the past. We've had a vast turnaround in the prospects of the wool industry. I note on the east coast how so many sectors are dealing with the drought, but when you have wool prices basically at a boom—we recently had lamb prices crack $300 for a lamb. I remember when, in selling lambs, we were really happy if we got 40 bucks—$40 was doing extremely well. Now we have lambs that sell for $300. What this means is that there's the capacity, as long as the seasons are with us, for us to get that exponential growth in the agricultural sector to flow back through the farm gate so we get a real turnaround in the prospects of people on the land. To do that, however, we have to get them through this drought. We have to manage this drought. We have to make sure that these family farmers stay on the land and that basically the weather is not the reason that they go broke. We must make sure that they're there, because it will rain. We've seen cattle prices in the term of the coalition government have a massive turnaround. Basically, we've seen in every sector—in the protein sector; in the fat sector, which is your dairy industry; in the fibre sector, such as the wool industry—massive turnarounds. You've got to underpin these turnarounds by showing confidence in the industry, by backing such things as the live-sheep trade, the live-cattle trade and growth in the agriculture sector through the construction of dams and water infrastructure that are so important in underpinning the rural sector. You've got to show confidence in the sector by upgrading their roads and rail, getting things such as the inland rail built and roads sealed. We have to have a target for our nation. We have to understand, for this nation to grow, you can't just concentrate on where the people are, you've got to concentrate on where your resources and wealth are as well. That's why projects such as the Outback Way to connect Boulia through to Laverton—to make sure that we get other sealed roads so that we can connect the tens of thousands of head of cattle that come out of such places as the Channel Country to markets—are also vitally important. In my own electorate we're making sure we get an upgrade of such things as the Inverell saleyards and the Scone saleyards. These things are vitally important for the commerce of the area and to allow smaller producers to combine their cattle with other smaller producers so that they have the capacity to get the same premium for their product as people who can provide long lines of stock for sale. The agriculture industry does have threats though. These would be a government that doesn't have the same passion and desire—the same desire to make sure they stand behind the live-sheep trade, stand behind the live-cattle trade and build the dams, build the inland rail, to make sure that they keep developing those markets that we develop, such as with our free trade deals to Korea, China and Japan. These have been so vitally important. It is to make sure we're adroit and adept in keeping the markets in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt open as well. I know that the member for Hinkler as a former assistant trade minister is fully aware of how vitally important it is that we stand behind our agriculture production, from the sugar industry to the wool industry to the lamb industry to the beef industry, not just for the benefit of those on the land but for the benefit of our nation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247130 Is the motion seconded? Mr Pitt 148150 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:17 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter They say self-praise is no praise. That is exactly what this motion is all about. It is the member for New England's desperate attempt to secure recognition for his time as the agriculture minister, a job he walked away from when it all became too hard. Sure, there has been an attempt to hide the real intent of the motion, with praise for our farmers, and we support that, and a call to stand by them in their time of need, an intent we also support. But therein lays the inherent irony of the member for England's motion. He wants the parliament to concurrently shower praise on his time as the minister while lamenting the very significant challenges our farmers currently face. The member for New England is fond of taking credit for good news in the sector but always, conveniently, ignores the commodity sectors doing it tough, and there are many. I mean, who in this place would attempt to argue, very courageously, that the dairy sector as a whole is doing well, Mr Deputy Speaker? Of course, no-one will. No-one speaking on this motion, including the member for Hinkler, I suspect, will stand and say the dairy sector as a whole is doing well. It's just one example of sectors facing significant challenges and doing it tough. According to ABARES, national farm cash income for broadacre farms in 2017-18 fell 10 per cent. I'm not suggesting that this is a reliable measure of the success of the farm sector, but nor should the member for New England claim credit for drought induced higher cattle prices or production values in the years immediately following the 2013 election. Mr Joyce interjecting— Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 I hear the member for New England interjecting. He challenges the proposition that recent high cattle prices and sheep meat prices are not drought induced. Is that the proposition he's putting by way of interjection? Mr Joyce E5D I'm saying— Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 No, he's walking away from it now, I see. It's just like magic. He was elected in 2013, prices go up and he stands at the despatch box on a daily basis as agriculture minister and claims credit for them. I don't really know who he thinks he's talking to, because the producers know something very different. Then of course he tried to take credit for all the free trade agreements—projects commenced by a former Labor government. They have been important, and I congratulate the current government for completing them, as we would have done. But of course he doesn't ever talk about the significant non-tariff barriers that still stand in the way of those seeking to expand their interests in export markets. What a lazy approach to policy development to suggest that gaining access to a market on the same terms as our competitors is 'mission complete'. Of course it is not. Competition remains the operative word in export markets, and our focus in policy development has to be on sustainable profitability. There also has to be as much focus on value, or the return we receive on our investments, as we have on volume. The member for New England likes to cite the value of production, but, as every first-year economics or accounting student knows, value doesn't mean profit by any stretch of the imagination. Profitability in the farm sector is very patchy. That is the reality. As the president of the National Farmers' Federation, Fiona Simson, said in her National Press Club speech recently, 'Australia lacks a strategic plan for the agriculture sector'—hardly an endorsement for the member for New England's 2015 white paper, a white paper that is now considered to be a failure by all those who operate in the sector. We in the opposition also commend the hardworking men and women of the agriculture sector and other rural industries. Of course we do. But, as Fiona Simson also put it at the Press Club, 'We don't have a comprehensive national strategy to deal with drought.' They are not my words; they are the words of the president of the National Farmers' Federation. Why don't we? Because, unless we have a government prepared to acknowledge that climate is changing and prepared to act on both mitigation and adaptation, we will not have a comprehensive drought policy in this country. 11:22 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper Natural disasters come in many forms, and they test communities, but the relentless and ongoing nature of drought makes it one of the most testing on individuals and communities. If you're hit by a bushfire, a flood or a cyclone, the damage may be tremendous, but you get up the next day and you deal with it. But drought is different. It goes on and on, day after day, week after week, month after month and, regrettably, sometimes year after year. The clouds come and the clouds go, and there is still no meaningful rain. This sort of situation tests the strength of individuals and the resilience of communities. My electorate, to this point, has largely been spared the worst of the drought, but the lack of rain is now certainly starting to have an impact on the farming sector. There have been a range of measures from my electorate to assist the more drought-stricken areas, those areas hardest hit. These include efforts I have brought to the attention of this House, such as the Macleay Hay Run, which was organised by Josh and Shelly Ball, a very great measure by the Macleay Valley people to support drought-stricken farmers. And Park Beach Bowls Club, the Nambucca RSL and the Pier Hotel have made significant contributions to the drought effort. The government is assisting farmers through a range of measures involving direct assistance and low-interest loans, with the latest rounds of support bringing the value of the Commonwealth's assistance to around $1.8 billion. Last month the coalition announced $190 million in measures, including a boost to the Farm Household Allowance package of an additional $12,000 per couple, bringing a year's assistance to some $37,000. Thousands more families will be able to access assistance, with the net asset threshold cap increasing from $2.6 million to $5 million. There are also additional resources being provided to the Rural Financial Counselling Service and increased funding for mental health and wellbeing support, so very important as a result of the relentless, ongoing nature of the drought, which tests individual so much. In addition, there are new taxation measures to assist with investment in grain storage. But I'd like to also comment on the impact of the dry conditions on my electorate—in particular, on the dairy industry. My local dairy farmers are caught in a vice-like grip of low prices on the one hand and increased cost of inputs on the other. I've recently spoken to a number of dairy farmers who have expressed concern as to the long-term viability of the industry on the mid-north coast. The dry conditions have meant significant increases in the amount of feeding required for herds, and also the drought has meant that the cost of feed has increased from around $300 to $350 a tonne up to around $600 a tonne. It's a massive impost on these farmers at a time when revenue is not as strong as it needs to be. On the revenue side, the industry is being battered by dollar milk, putting incredible pressure on efficient, long-term producers in my region. It seems a commercial injustice that you can go into a supermarket and it will ask you for around $1 for a litre of milk, and yet that same supermarket will charge you twice as much for a litre of water! It seems to make no sense at all, and it is having a massive impact on our local industry. If we value the presence of this industry in areas outside Victoria, then the long-term sustainability of the dairy industry and, in particular, the marketing phenomenon of dollar milk need to be addressed. A number of farmers in the industry have advised me that their families have been in the industry for generations and yet they are currently operating at a loss of around $100,000 a year. That's around 10 per cent of their turnover. That is clearly unsustainable in the long term. The impact of the drought is not limited to the dairy sector in my electorate. It is having an impact on the beef sector. It's having an impact on horticulture. It is hitting these sectors quite hard. I commend the generosity of the people in my electorate for the great work that they have done in assisting areas that are more hard-hit than we are in the electorate of Cowper. These community efforts complement the work done by the government, but also, very importantly, send a strong signal to those hard-hit areas that there are other Australians out there who care. I certainly commend the efforts of these communities in assisting hard-hit communities and I commend the efforts of the government to assist in what is a massive disaster. 11:27 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I rise today to speak to the motion moved by the member for New England. The member for New England, the Morrison government's drought envoy, is finally talking about farmers in the drought. As I flew in to Canberra this morning via Dubbo, I got another look at just how dry it is. Unfortunately, I didn't get time to call in and have a cup of tea with my in-laws who are living out there. But I'll tell you what: Dubbo, and everything west of there, is just so dry and doing it so tough. In this motion, he's trying to convince us that there's really nothing to see here; prices are up; things are good. It's just not the case. Our farmers are not doing great, and many of them aren't even doing okay. If the member for New England was talking to the farmers in his community as I do to those in mine, I'm sure he'd know that. Sadly, I've had cause to speak many times in this place about the drought and how it's affecting farmers in my community. Even after days of rain, there is no hope on the horizon that, on many of our state's farms, this year's crop will be sown, let alone harvested, or that their stock will be fed or watered. On many, stock, especially prized breeding stock, are being sold off. The member for New England's motion is more about self-congratulation, sadly, than recognising the critical contribution the agricultural industry makes to Australia's economy. While the figures quoted in this motion are encouraging for some, they come at the desperate expense of others—a fact that the newly-minted Prime Minister was quick to point out in a recent tweet. What is lacking in the member for New England's motion is hope—hope that this new Morrison government has recognised the dire situation affecting farmers across our great nation; hope that the Morrison government's new drought envoy knows what's happening in his own electorate; hope that the inadequacy of this government's response to the biggest crisis faced by many of our farmers in the last 20 years, and, for some, 80 years, will be actually be really addressed. Our farming communities need more than platitudes to get them through this crisis, and the member for New England's government has been sitting on its hands for the last five years while our farmers have been drowning in debt or forced off their land. I'm sure the member for New England would have us all believe that his government is doing wonderful things for farmers and as much as it can, but I would say: it's too little, too late. Let's talk about farm household support. A recent amendment, supported by Labor, extended this payment beyond its original expiry date earlier this year. The honourable member for Hunter will tell you, in no uncertain terms, that this payment has been botched from the start. There are more questions than answers around time frames, amounts paid and the hurdles that time-poor farmers need to overcome to receive a payment that may barely scratch the surface, a payment meted out to eligible farmers as if they aren't responsible enough to receive it all at once. Seriously, they should have been given that money as a lump sum. Labor has been criticising the government for the past four years in relation to the way farmers access these types of support payments. This payment is undersubscribed, and no wonder, given that our concerns have fallen on deaf National and Liberal Party ears. This is the coalition government's flagship policy but it ignores Australia's changing climate and puts a bandaid on the suffering of drought-affected farmers—and, importantly, the communities that support them, because drought doesn't just affect the farm but affects everyone who relies on the farm. Long-term drought reform, which was led by Labor in government, has not been progressed. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison, ATM, government doesn't give out enough in support of our farmers. There has been no meaningful reform. Drought reform must include a suite of measures designed to bring about meaningful change and significant support for workers and their families. The member for New England, who is in the chamber, has a little wry smile and is having a bit of a chuckle about this, but it is so serious. We need this support for our agricultural sector. I have no hesitation in echoing support for the agricultural industry. The member for New England calls for it in this motion, and I think it's vital. We need to back in our farmers and those who support and work hard with farmers. We need to keep food on the table for Australian families. I understand the sacrifices dairy farmers, for example, make—working 365 days a year to ensure the cows are brought in and milked twice a day—in providing fresh milk for our cereal. And I see the grief on the faces of our livestock farmers. I know them well. They've had to sell or destroy many of their animals, some among them fantastic breeders. But what the member for New England and the Morrison government fail to understand is that all of the recognition and praise in the world will not bring certainty to a sector that is right now staring into a policy void. (Time expired) 11:32 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler In opening, can I say to those opposite: this is not a motion about the member for New England; this is a motion about something of the utmost seriousness for the people that we represent. They want to hear from us what we are doing, not personal attacks across the chamber, not the disparaging of political opponents. This is about delivering for people in their time of need, and that should be our focus 100 per cent. The farmgate sector is worth $62.3 billion, and the overwhelming majority of that is delivered through our international trade partners. Without trade, one of the biggest impacts in this country would be on agriculture and the people we are here to speak about right now in debating this private member's motion. We have delivered for them in terms of trade. We have delivered for them in terms of further market opportunities, reducing the forward-facing crisis in Japan, South Korea and China and reducing tariffs to make agriculture more competitive. What we need to focus on for those people, who need us to focus on their needs right now, is ensuring those markets remain open. In fact, we need to open more so that when it does rain—and it will rain, as they all know—those market opportunities are there for them to make a profit. Clearly, right now it is not what is happening. That is why we are providing farm household support and doing everything we can for our farming sector in their time of need. Can I say, as a former producer, that I've been through drought only once. It was a very short period of time, about 14 months, but it was the most horrible 14 months of my life. It was just devastating. I honestly don't know how those out there who have found themselves in that position for five, six or seven years haven't curled into a ball in the corner and thrown their hands in the air. They are the most resilient people, they're a great reflection on our nation and they are what we stand for particularly in this place, so we should do our utmost to help them. I think there are other opportunities we can look at, particularly around feral animals. Look at the numbers, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are up to 24 million feral pigs in Australia—24 million; almost as many pigs as there are people. They are destroying our environment and in particular, on the coast, our turtles. If you look at feral horses, in Queensland there are around 200,000 of those. There are 2.3 million feral goats in Australia. There are approximately 80,000 water buffalo in the Northern Territory. I have to say that I've never seen red deer in my electorate before, but in recent weeks I actually saw one skid across the highway east of Childers. It frightened the life out of the poor driver in front of me. I have never seen them in those locations. So there are opportunities right now for us to help people in these areas which are drought stricken and to control feral animals and to help our environment. I think that is something that we should consider not only in this place but at state and local government levels as well. And then of course there are camels. I never thought I'd see so many feral camels, but, on the most recent trip I took into the west, there were an enormous number of them. They do have some advantages. I'm advised that they eat prickly acacia flowers. Prickly acacia is a noxious weed that is spreading through hundreds of thousands of hectares throughout Western Queensland. There is an opportunity for us around prickly acacia. I congratulate Desert Channels, the Landcare group out there who are attacking prickly acacia with modern technology. They are using drones to deliver systemic herbicide. Of course, it does need to rain for the herbicide to work. But they are out there flying drones to deliver, plant by plant, a systemic herbicide to wipe out this noxious weed. It is incredibly bad for the environment, and it continues to expand. There are opportunities there as well. In the member for Flynn's electorate, Northern Oil, a biofuel refinery, have done trials using prickly acacia to deliver biofuel. I think that is another opportunity that we need to look at. I know there is some work being done locally. We attended the biofuel refinery in Gladstone with the member for Flynn—I think he got a front page. It was a fantastic announcement on some other work they are doing there, advancing those opportunities around biofuel. Whilst we find ourselves in regional areas in drought, while those people in Australia find themselves in a difficult position, we should be doing everything we can, taking every opportunity, to focus on them and deliver what they require. What they need right now is our help. They need that in terms of financial assistance. They need that in terms of mental health support, and they need that in terms of opportunities for their produce when the drought is finished and done with. That is because, even when it rains, it doesn't rain grass and it doesn't rain money. It takes time for them to recover. These are true Australians. They are a great reflection on our nation. They go through these hardships. It is cyclical, of course. They are absolutely resilient. They are some of the toughest people I know. We should continue to support them in every single possible opportunity. It's a reflection on us if we do not. 11:37 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak on this motion, and I support all of the sentiments in it that commend our farmers and the heavy lifting they're doing in relation to our economy. But I do take issue with any claim that the government's been giving them the actual support they need for the future. I fully endorse a lot of the comments we've heard from speakers. The member for Cowper talked about the dairy industry doing it enormously tough. We do need to seriously get down and look at how this industry is regulated and the way Parmalat and Fonterra, the big processors, interact with our farmers. You should not be forced to take a lower price for a product you produce than it costs to produce it. This market is not working properly. I know that the member for Gilmore has raised this issue repeatedly as well. But I would say to both the member for Gilmore and the member for Cowper: you're in government, so let's get on and fix it. I'm sure you'd get a lot of bipartisan support in addressing that issue. We've heard about invasive species. That is a critical issue, particularly bad in my patch. We've heard about the deer and the pigs—yes, we've got all of that—but also in the plant space there are serrated tussock, African lovegrass, St John's wort and particularly fireweed, down at the coast, which is a toxic weed that's very dangerous to animals. We need to put much more effort into that space. We know it costs our industry billions of dollars a year. But the government haven't helped in so many ways. It was farmers who were coming to me in numbers at all of the country shows that I was having stalls at and who were screaming for a royal commission into banking. How long did it take people to wake up to that? Why weren't those country members of this parliament on the coalition side just forcing the government to take that issue seriously? I give credit to Senator Williams, who really fought that battle for a long time, but he was a voice in the dark in the coalition. It was farmers who were calling out for that, and they were ignoring them. Then of course we had the gutting of the APVMA. We've lost 30 per cent of the scientists of that organisation, and it's that organisation which is going to help to deliver the science and the research that we need to come to grips with for these difficult and challenging conditions. They've been absolutely crippled by this crazy decentralisation policy. We've also had other measures that have hurt regional Australia, and that is why we saw a 30 per cent swing in Wagga and why we saw a 30 per cent swing in Orange. It's why, while standing on the booths in Gundagai, I saw a 43 per cent swing there. They're not listening to rural and regional Australia; that's the basic take-out from what's going on out there in these results. It's happening and they're not paying attention to it. Now, one of those examples of not paying attention is what's happening to the councils in my area. We've seen this program to support councils in drought affected areas and not one—not one!—of the six councils in my region received that assistance. We had areas classified as in intense drought in the Bega Valley and in the Monaro. It's really disgraceful that this has been allowed to happen, and I think that it goes back to that former minister politicising a lot of programs in his portfolio. We saw the regional jobs infrastructure program, where $18 million went to Gilmore and $1 million went to Eden-Monaro. But now he's gone, and this is another reflection of where bad policy is being played out here because of the chaos, confusion and dysfunction in the coalition side. We have a new minister now, and after all the correspondence and lobbying I put in to the previous minister to address this situation we have to start again. And I've had no response to the correspondence I put to Senator McKenzie to deal with this issue of the unfair treatment of my councils. I can say that my mayors are not happy about this at all. So the other side are not listening to rural and regional New South Wales. On this drought issue: we've talked before about climate change and the need to get to grips with this. One of the things they've really hurt our farmers with was that in killing the clean energy future package they took away the whole market dynamic behind the Carbon Farming Initiative, which was going to help our farmers to diversify income on their properties through a whole range of measures. I've had meetings with farmers in Yass, in community forums there, and in Cooma. And I've just had a meeting with beef and sheepmeat growers down in the Bega Valley. They are screaming for assistance in coming to grips with these dry conditions. I've heard members on the other side say, 'Don't lecture our farmers.' Well, I'm telling them that the farmers are happy to receive support. The farmers in the Monaro who formed Monaro Farming Systems in the millennium drought reached out and got help from the CSIRO, which gave them a computer-modelling package to enable them to design a 50-year strategy for their properties and to help them work through these difficult cycles. But we're seeing these incredibly changed conditions. The fires in the Bega Valley have been enormously challenging, burning out pastures, and they're screaming for climate change to be dealt with seriously by this government. These are farmers saying this, so do not ignore them—start listening— (Time expired) 11:42 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn It is with pleasure I speak on the motion moved by the member for New England. We must continue to back our farmers and agricultural people. We must continue, because these people are the backbone of our economy. They add so much to our budget, our economy and our exports. Since 2016-17, they have contributed $62.3 billion, up 30 per cent from 2013. Exports in 2016-2017 were up $49 billion—up by 28 per cent from 2013. What we grow and what we contribute to the national economy is a giant 73 per cent of exports to our exporting countries, who appreciate the fact that we have good, clean, green products to help their nations. A government member interjecting— Mr O'DOWD 139441 Yes, that's so important. Until the rain falls, until the crops and grasses return and until restocking takes place, we must be in there with them and alongside them. You don't realise the value of water until the well runs dry. Since I've been in parliament, since 2010, we've had three major floods in Central Queensland. However, unfortunately, we did not capture enough of that water to make it easier in these hard drought times. Australia is renowned for floods and droughts. We must get smarter at containing some of that water that rushes down the Fitzroy River and the Burnett River, destroying houses and farmland as it rushes out to sea. And the freshwater actually damages the Great Barrier Reef. This could be alleviated, to a degree, if we could save five or 10 per cent of that water from going out to sea. We could put it in our dams, in our weirs, on farm storage. It is very important. It is a part of our government policy to do that, to have that capture of water that is wasted and does damage to our reef as it rushes out. Dairy farmers, egg farmers—the egg industry has to pay more for its grain now. I went to a farmer in the Biloela-Goovigen area. He said that if he could get electricity prices down he would grow more lucerne. He has the paddock, the storage and the water but he can't cope with the electricity prices of pumping that water onto his lucerne crops, which he'd give to farmers who were less fortunate than him. The drought in my area is not as intense as it is in the Maranoa and areas of New South Wales—New England all the way down to Orange—and it's now into parts of Victoria. It's a widespread drought, but we will help these farmers the best we can. We already know the measures we've taken around farm household allowances, farm management deposits, the RIC concessional loans, the Great Artesian Basin and rural financial counselling services, and water infrastructure is a must. We have money put aside in our budget to do just that—$72 million in investment and feasibility studies. We've finally got Rookwood Weir almost started; we almost have shovels in the ground. That's been a long fight with the Labor government in Queensland. I'm afraid to say, they're very much anti-dams and weirs but they have come to the party, on this occasion, and supported that dam, with 50 per cent their cost and 50 per cent federal government cost. I thank them for that. It's important that we get shovels in the ground and get that job started. There's more paperwork to be done. That should be finalised in October. And there'll be shovels in the ground in early 2019. That cannot come quickly enough for farmers in my electorate. Droughtproofing that particular area will be of great advantage to us and will be money well spent. (Time expired) 11:47 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi Member for New England, thank you for bringing this debate to the House. Clearly, drought is really important but I want to talk today about policy, opportunity and investment. I particularly want to bring to the House some examples of the wonderful investment happening in my electorate of Indi. In preparing my speech today I went back to the white paper, which the member for New England, in his initial stages, developed. Thank you for doing it. I went looking for what government policy was on the drought. I have to say, I think we're left with an opportunity now to review this white paper and see what we could do if we put our minds to a comprehensive, inclusive policy about how we could think about drought. I'll give an example. I come to this topic with a long history in agripolitics not only as a farmer myself but with Australian Women in Agriculture, and all the lobbying we did in the 1990s and then in any business working with farming women. Communities are really important to me. When I read this white paper and see what it says about communities and their role to help agricultural businesses through drought, I'm really disappointed to see the handpassing that happens. The Commonwealth recognises that state governments, local government and community organisations are best placed to identify and be responsible for local economic impacts. While that's true, I think it's of benefit if the Commonwealth provides an overarching policy that enables those community groups and local government to rise up. In this white paper an investment of $35 million was made for the drought communities program. So, to the special envoy on drought: I'm wondering if we could go back now and have a report to parliament on how those $35 million were used? Did they really help the communities involved, to make them drought-prepared? The initial bit of work that I did, from my perspective, said no. So I think this current drought is an excellent opportunity to go back now and review this document—to see, after four-and-a-half years: how well did it prepare us? I think we could learn a lot from it. In the second part of my talk today, I'd like to talk briefly about one of the opportunities that exists and to call on the government to think about how it might actually do what it's doing but perhaps do it better. The specific example I'd like to bring to the attention of the special envoy on drought is: what's currently happening with funding for natural resource management. Not only have we been talking about the impact of the drought on farming families and farming businesses; it has a huge impact on our communities and how they work on NRM and Landcare projects. Recently, the government put out a tender for Landcare projects, and—not only in my community of Albury-Wodonga but, I know, across wider Australia—there has been a lot of criticism about this particular way of doing it. I would ask the special envoy on drought to talk to his colleague the Minister for the Environment and see if he can sort out some of the problems with the NRM money. At a state level, the funding level for projects that started on 1 July 2018 has been heavily cut. Regions were expecting a cut of 20 per cent. However, it has been a 37 per cent cut across New South Wales and closer to 40 per cent in Victoria. I also hear that the regions in Tassie and Queensland have missed out entirely. So funding for NRM and Landcare is a really easy way that the government can actually input money quickly and really effectively and leave a long-term legacy in our communities. There will be projects that start on 1 July 2019. However, all the projects under NLP1 finished on 30 June 2018. This leaves a huge funding gap for this financial year. This means that staff with jobs in regions are successful with funding for stage 2 but don't have the middle bit for now and that we have to re-recruit people for 2019. So it is really poor planning on behalf of the government. There is a huge amount of opportunity that we could take now to fix up some of the problems in the system and deliver better. My final comment to the member for New England is: could we talk about language? I'm a single woman farmer. I run my own farm. Most of the people who work in agriculture are farming businesses; they are farm families; it's very rare that there's one of me. So could we talk about 'farm family businesses' and talk about all the units of the farm family business—the production side, the business side, the family side and the caring side, and come up with policies that encompass all of us together. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP I thank the member. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the date for the next sitting. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 119 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Regional Development Policy 119 11:53 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi I move: That this House: 1. notes that: a. the population of Australia has reached 25 million, a decade earlier than anticipated; b. there are significant opportunities to grow the population in regional Australia and the planning needs to be put in place and the plan needs to be developed together with the communities it will impact; c. this Parliament has completed multiple inquiries that outline: i. the actions governments should take to address the impacts of population pressure; and ii. actions to address the pressure on the telecommunications, infrastructure, social services, education and health care needs of regional Australia; d. the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities report Harnessing Value, Delivering Infrastructure (November 2016) called for the Government to promote a better balance of settlement through decentralisation to the regions linked by faster transport connectivity and particularly through high speed rail; and e. the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation report Regions at the Ready: Investing in Australia's Future (June 2018) called on the Government to state its regional development policy through a comprehensive Regional Australia White Paper, considering: i. regional Australia's population needs as part of the broader national context, including urbanisation, ageing, depleting populations in smaller towns, and migration; ii. the use of the skilled migration program to support regional development; iii. improving education and training of young people, in particular Year 12 completion rates—in regional areas; iv. the development of a national regional higher education strategy; v. the need for access to information technology, strong and reliable communication, specifically mobile phone and NBN; vi. the need for strong and reliable transport infrastructure to support passenger and freight requirements; vii. the role of amenity and social infrastructure, specifically the cultivation of social, cultural and community capital in supporting regional development; viii. incentives and strategies to improve private sector investment in regional areas; and ix. the role and funding of local governments to better support regional areas; and 2. calls on the Government to deliver on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation, Regions at the Ready: Investing in Australia's Future, including stating its regional development policy through a comprehensive Regional Australia White Paper, following a Green Paper public consultation process. Colleagues, it gives me great pleasure today to move this motion on policy around population and the future for regional Australia. We've recently heard the Prime Minister tell us that he's now got a new generation of leadership. So my call-out to the government is: let's have a new generation of leadership around regional development and the policy that goes with regional development. Recently, the parliament presented a report called Regions at the ready. I was part of that inquiry and I'm really proud of this report and the recommendations in it, and I'll refer back to it. We are at the ready. The regions are at the ready. They're ready to grow. They're ready to do the heavy lifting that's needed to, over the next hundred years, make Australia the wonderful place it is. Communities are at the ready. My communities are organised. We've got growing businesses. We've got people moving to the regions. And we're really keen to grasp and to create, for the whole of Australia, the wonderful opportunity that we know we've got in the regions. In my electorate we've got the Hume RDA, Regional Development Australia, organisation. They're coming to parliament later this week to talk to government about their long-term strategic approach to not only north-east Victoria but southern New South Wales. So my community are at the ready, but what we're missing is government. Where are the government when you need them? Today I call on the government to please respond in a very timely way to our report. Tell us how you think population, which is very important, is going to be integrated in all the other things we know we need in rural and regional Australia. We're going to be talking about infrastructure and how important that is. What we really need is an approach that is inclusive. The answer is not just to send migrants to the country. That's part of the solution. We learnt when we did Regions at the ready that we need an integrated strategy for how that's going to happen. Our report developed some very important principles. One of the most important pieces of work we did as part of that regional inquiry was to talk about a comprehensive green and white paper process that would result in a report to government on how population would fit into the whole infrastructure of Australia. I want to read into Hansard one of the recommendations from this report. I want the government to hold steady before it makes its announcement about population and say how that approach to population is actually going to fit in to what we need the regions to do. I ask that it consider the skilled migration program. There are things we could do to make that work better. We need to talk about education, training and skills development. We need to talk about the completion of year 12 and the transition to TAFE or university. In my electorate of Indi those numbers are really poor. We have very few people taking up higher education. We really need to do something about it. We need to link into a regional higher education strategy that will give the people who live in the country the opportunities to get the training they need. We need to talk about effective communications—having mobile phones and the NBN work. We need to talk about public transport, high-speed rail and rail infrastructure that really work. We need to talk about the role of amenity, social infrastructure, culture and community capital to support the lifestyle of our communities. We need to include incentives and strategies to increase private sector investment in the regions. We really need to pay attention to local government. I have got nine local governments in my electorate of Indi. They are at the coalface. They are under resourced with finance and under resourced with the people and the things they need to do the high-level planning involved to bring a region to its potential. They need resources. More than anything else, the Commonwealth government needs to pay close attention to the knowledge, experience and skill of local government. We need to vertically integrate local government, the state government and the Commonwealth government so that they're all working together to put the people who want to live in the regions into places where they're going to be welcomed and where there's the capacity and ability to grow. My call out today is: sure, we need to think about population but we really need a strategic approach to how the regions are going to grow and how the population, particularly migrant and skilled people who come to the regions, have the resources they need. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Is the motion seconded? Ms Keay 262273 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:58 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I thank my friend and colleague the member for Indi for bringing this important issue forward. I also recognise the member for Ryan, Jane Prentice, who some years ago worked on the Sustainable Cities Taskforce, which commenced our work in this area. I'm honoured to chair the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, which tabled the report Harnessing value, delivering infrastructure, which also benefited from the member for Indi's expert contribution. The debate today is timely because in just a few hours time the committee will be tabling another report Building up and moving out, which builds on many of the same themes. These include the importance of master planning so we can avoid the disastrous sins of the past and increase the incentivisation of moving people to the regions through infrastructure like high-speed rail. I often get asked, as an MP who represents a seat in the northern suburbs of Sydney, why I am so passionate about regional decentralisation. This motion mentioned that the population of Australia has reached 25 million a decade earlier than anticipated. The vast majority of this new population has chosen to reside in Sydney and Melbourne. The result is a huge increase in house prices in my electorate, a construction boom that is dotting high-rise developments across our suburbs and a resulting increase in the number of cars on our roads—a number that our roads cannot hold. As a result, our infrastructure is playing catch-up. The metro line that goes through my electorate will make a huge difference, but it won't be open until thousands of new residents have moved into the electorate. Similar issues face the residents of Meadowbank and, particularly, Melrose Park, who will be served by the proposed light rail, when it opens, years after the 10,000 new homes being built will already be occupied. This is why we need a master plan in our community. We need to plan infrastructure alongside land use, and we need to find ways to encourage people to move into the regions. The regions of Australia offer a fantastic alternative to city life. There is less congestion and associated stresses, communities are tighter and cost of living is usually dramatically lower than in the cities. But who can take advantage of these huge benefits if there aren't the jobs or the opportunities? This was the central question of the two inquiries in this motion today and in the inquiry that will be tabled later today. The answer has been unequivocal: connectivity is what we need to unlock our regions. Regional centres need to be connected to the existing business hubs in our capital cities before they can compete with them. The simplest way to do this is through high-quality transportation infrastructure that can move people and goods between the regions, the cities and distribution sites. If people can get between these hubs we won't need to force migrants into our regions or to transplant departments. People will want to move there as they recognise the benefits and quality of life there. Departments, as well as private enterprise, will follow, seeking the competitive advantage of lower costs, as well as following a new client and customer base. Fast rail and integrated transport links will be the silver bullet for our regions. The second part of the motion calls on the government to deliver on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation. I would like to extend this request to the two inquiries by the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities. The response to the first inquiry was timid, and I would hate to see a similar response to the one being tabled today. Parliamentary inquiries are underappreciated tools that gather, on the ground, evidence for the benefit of ministers and departments. Months of work go into these documents from both the deeply committed secretariats and the scores of Australian organisations who feel the need to give their independent and critical insights into these vitally important policy areas. These two are substantive reports that contain a strong evidence based plan on how to solve the many problems of our settlement, and they must be taken seriously. Here lies the opportunity to commence a battle of ideas and vision—a far more attractive contest that may even restore respect for our leaders. 12:03 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon I'd like to thank the member for Indi for bringing this motion forward to the parliament. I agree with the member for Bennelong on his comments in relation to the work of committees—the very important work that we undertake as members of parliament and something that government ministers should look at a little more closely in terms of implementing the recommendations from them. I want to focus my attention on my regional electorate of Braddon, what five years of a coalition government has meant to the people of Braddon and what a Shorten Labor government will deliver for us. In my region, the north-west and west coast of Tasmania and King Island, we have so much to offer: we have a temperate climate, affordable land, the regional campus of the University of Tasmania and expanding advanced manufacturing industries, and we produce some of the highest quality products you will see anywhere in the world. Despite all of this, my region and many regions across Australia face many challenges. We have an ageing population, a growing digital divide, poor school retention rates, low university graduation rates and some of worst health outcomes in the country. What we need is a government that is truly prepared to stand up for regional Australia. A key driver of increased educational outcomes in my region is the University of Tasmania campus in Burnie. But rather than support the university, this government has cut $175 million and put a cap on university places. You can't cut so much money and not expect for that to have an impact, particularly on regional communities like mine. How can you attract people to university if you are limiting those places? When it comes to skilling our workforce, again, this government has dropped the ball. I was just talking to some young female apprentices. I said to them that, on reflection, I've never heard this government talk about TAFE or apprenticeships, which is shocking. Under this coalition government, the north-west and west coasts of Tasmania have lost 700 apprenticeships since 2013. Instead of focusing on building TAFE, this government continues to cut it. The 2018 budget cut an extra $270 million from TAFE and training, on top of the more than $3 billion of cuts in previous budgets. Services are so important to regional Australia, with an ageing population reliant on government services. Regional Australia is also at a digital disadvantage compared to the cities. It therefore makes sense not to cut Centrelink jobs, those face-to-face jobs. A lot of people in my electorate are on the age pension and cannot use a computer or myGov to access those services. This government has cut 6,000 jobs in that time. Those cuts to regional communities are sadly continuing. Only last week we heard of another 30 jobs cut from your area, Deputy Speaker Bird, the Illawarra. In my electorate in the cities of Devonport and Burnie, there are 30 empty desks at Centrelink. I gave evidence to the committee on decentralisation last year and told them that we have some fantastic services. We have Department of Human Services and ATO officers in my electorate in the cities of Burnie and Devonport who can undertake work that is not relevant to where they are; it's nationwide work. The ATO in Burnie is one that exceeds all key performance indicators. This is why jobs in regional communities—public service jobs, full-time jobs, well-paid jobs—are very, very important. Sadly, for my community, where we have a high prevalence of chronic disease, this government chose to cut more funding out of health. We saw the campaign they launched in the Braddon by-election about how that is not the case, but they've cut $11 million from Tasmanian hospitals this year and next year. They've also cut a program called TAZREACH, which is a program that brought specialists to regional communities. In Tasmania we do have a lack of specialists. These specialists were coming from Melbourne or Sydney and holding regular clinics at places like the Devonport super clinic, the west coast of Tasmania, Circular Head and, of course, King Island—remote communities. That service was cut in 2016. But I'm really pleased to say that, under a Shorten Labor government, we would reinstate that program, $4½ million for TAZREACH, to get those specialists back into regional areas of Tasmania. We'd also increase Department of Human Services staff by 50 in Burnie and Devonport, based at Centrelink, who provide Medicare services, with five of those people being outreach staff. They would go to areas like the west coast and King Island to provide those face-to-face services, because people can't travel to the centres and they certainly can't wait hours and hours on the phone to get the complex support that they need. We will also be putting more money into hospital services, cutting the waiting list in Tasmania, with $30 million—much, much more than this government is proposing. 12:08 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I am a great believer in the power and potential of this great nation. That's why I rise to support the spirit of this proposal and this motion in this place. When you look at the history of this great continent and what has been done, it's been done through hard work, through sacrifice, through people seizing the opportunity of the land in which we live to build this nation's future. The principle behind this motion is precisely that—to allow Australians across this country, as well as people who are new Australians, the opportunity to be part of the continuing vision of Australia and its opportunity. Where people want to invest in the future of this country we should empower them to be able to do so, so that they can enjoy the fruits and opportunities that have been provided for generations past and can be provided for those into the future. That's why we should support decentralisation, because what we want is the opportunity across the great expanse of this continent to be able to harness and utilise it for the benefit of Australians and future generations. But, more critically, we shouldn't just look at decentralisation—isolation being about people, although it is. Decentralisation goes to the core of Liberal values and Liberal philosophy, about who we are and what we want for this great nation. Decentralisation isn't just about moving departments or bureaucracies out of capital cities. It's about building the foundations of our country across the continent and making sure political power is close to the people it's designed to serve, because the closer power is to the people it's designed to serve the more likely it will reflect the values of that community, the aspirations of that community, have a higher degree of accountability and make sure that it's more in touch with the people who want to see a better Australia. That doesn't negate the fact that this government has made landmark, significant and historic contributions to the decentralisation of Australia, empowering those communities and strengthening them from the community up—not simply from Canberra down. We've seen the historic investment in Inland Rail, that will link the Port of Brisbane to Port of Melbourne, transforming freight movements throughout Victoria, New South Wales and South-East Queensland while promoting economic opportunities for jobs and growth in those regions. This empowers farmers and empowers employers in those communities to take the goods and services they provide and export them to the world. To build, repair and upgrade local roads, we're investing $4.4 billion in the Roads to Recovery Program. The Black Spot Program of $684 million for seven years from 2021 is delivering safety improvements so that those who drive outside of capital cities and freeways can make sure they can get to their destinations safely—and they can be the safe communities where people want to live. The local bridges are also being fixed, with $420 million for the Bridges Renewal Program. Maintaining higher living standards in regional areas requires us to manage economic transactions effectively. But it isn't just the regional centres that are yearning for the opportunity to empower and build the many smaller cities in this country. The call and the demand is also coming from our capital cities. In the Goldstein community I speak so often to people who worry about the congestion, the obligation and the burdens that are now sitting on our overstretched roads, our overstretched hospitals and our overstretched schools. What Australians want to see, and Goldstein residents want to see, are more Australians being spread out across this country because they see their opportunity and their future there. This will take the pressure off our capital cities and make sure that there are other choices and other opportunities, particularly for new and young Australians who want to have their fair share and their fair go of investing in the future of this nation. That's why there's been such a strong push by the state opposition leader in Victoria, Matthew Guy, to shift the focus from building up a city state around Melbourne—a wonderful community and a wonderful capital city, which I am very privileged to represent and be part of—to make sure that we go from being a city state to a state of cities, empowering those rural and regional communities to realise their ambitions. The more the state and the federal governments work in concert to deliver those outcomes then the more we will develop and deliver the services that Australians want and the standards they expect, and the more we will build this great nation's future. 12:13 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon As a member of parliament representing a regional area of Australia, the cities of Darwin and Palmerston in the Top End, I support this motion put forward by the member for Indi. The member for Indi is a very hardworking and effective advocate for her community in northern Victoria. I think she's a great example of that. No-one can go near her office here in Parliament House without being drawn in to see the magnificent Indi quilt, which so beautifully depicts her electorate. There's nothing like the mansplaining from the member for Goldstein, who, after talking about bridges, quickly moved on to talk about his privileged inner-city Melbourne electorate—nothing quite like that mansplaining! My purpose, as well as supporting the member Indi's motion today, is to point out three areas that he could take back to his boss, where they can do a lot better when it comes to the challenges facing regional Australia. It's now been 516 days since the city deal for Darwin was announced, but not one single dollar has gone anywhere near Darwin. Have a chat to the new Prime Minister about that—the money's been allocated. A government member interjecting— Mr GOSLING 245392 We know from leaks within the honourable member's divided and shambolic muppet show that the money has been allocated for Darwin for the city deal but we're still waiting after 516 days. If that doesn't reek, I don't know what does. The NT government and the City of Darwin are ready to go, so what's holding that funding up? I know that the former speaker talked about decentralisation. It's not supposed to be from regional Australia to large capitals on the east coast, but that's what we've seen with the Australian Electoral Commission. It has—wait for it—moved the Indigenous Electoral Participation Program staff, public servants in Darwin, to Brisbane so that they can service regional areas of the Northern Territory from Brisbane. That's one example. Just getting rid of the ATO in Darwin is another example. Slashing the number of Public Service staff in the Australian Bureau of Statistics office in Darwin is another example. Slashing jobs with the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Darwin is another example. And now we hear they're after the BOM, the Bureau of Meteorology. Is there a federal public servant that you won't cut out of regional areas of this country? Of course, we saw under the former Deputy Prime Minister that the APVMA was moved to his electorate. Public servants go to some regional areas of Australia, but, apparently, for everywhere else, including areas of Australia that get cyclones, they're looking at withdrawing the Australian Public Service, like weather forecasters, out of the Top End of Australia. It's just nuts. It's bordering on immoral, and that's not even the worst of it. Take Charles Darwin University, this Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government is ripping $30 million out of Charles Darwin University. As the previous speaker, my friend the member for Braddon, said, 'If you don't understand the importance of regional universities'—like Charles Darwin and the University of Tasmania's campuses around regional Tasmania—'then you don't understand regional Australia.' So you've got a lot of work to do in the current government, for however long it lasts, to, as the member for Indi said, get a regional Australia plan, a strategy. It'd be a good start. Start getting to terms with the real impacts of your policies on regional Australia. The Northern Territory government is leading by example, and I'm leading by example. I'll give you a quick couple of examples of how. They've got a population strategy. They're putting their money into our local community, where they're waiting for the federal government to do anything at all. I recently ran a population strategy, because we're serious about the absolute need for us to build population in regional Australia, and we want some support from the federal government. 12:18 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to speak on this PMB. As has been pointed out by many of the speakers this morning, one of the great opportunities, particularly for regional centres like my own, is the decentralisation of not only the Public Service but also there are opportunities within Defence for trade with local ports. I think we do need to continue to focus on identifying the regions in our areas which would most benefit from support, particularly at a federal level. Planning is a state matter. It is a state and local government matter. There is no doubt about that. But at a federal level we do have levers which can direct policy and, in particular, for areas like mine, we can direct high-paying jobs and highly skilled jobs into a region which desperately needs them. In my electorate, we have a per capita income each year of just $34,000—it is the lowest in the country. We have an unemployment rate of over nine per cent and a youth unemployment rate of around 27½ per cent, right now. This is completely unacceptable. So what are we doing? As the local member, I'm trying to increase the opportunities for jobs in our region, and to do that we need to put more strands into our economy. We're a very strong agricultural producer and it's a great place for tourists; I invite you once again, Deputy Speaker Bird, to come up and see the whales at Hervey Bay or the turtles at Mon Repos, take in the culture or the ambience, even on to the islands and the beaches. There are great opportunities for tourism, but we do need to strengthen our economy and make it more resilient. There is an opportunity to do that with decentralisation. Can you imagine what a 500-person department would do for one of my major centres—for Hervey Bay or Bundaberg—on an average wage of above $80,000, as they tend to be here in Canberra? I reflect on the contribution last week of the member for Canberra, who was adamant that no-one should shift from Canberra. I understand that, as a local member. But as an individual, as a member of parliament and as a taxpayer, my view is very straightforward: we should be able to spread the benefits that the Australian taxpayer provides not only to the public service but to all levels of government so that all Australians get that opportunity. There are opportunities right now to decentralise into the regions. It does need to be strategic; it does take planning; you certainly need to move people to an opportunity where there is betterment for them. Right now, in the city of Hervey Bay you could buy a house for $250,000, you can take a flight directly to Sydney every single day, you can live in one of the most spectacular parts of our country and go to the beach in the afternoons. It is a real opportunity, and it is the reason that so many people retire to my area—they can sell from Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, buy a very, very good house locally, have a substantial amount of money left to fund their retirement and live in one of the most wonderful places in our country. I understand why they do it, but we need to continue to drive our economy. We also do need to look at regional immigration, as has been suggested. We are built on a nation of immigrants, apart from, of course, those who were here before us. Looking at some of the famous names around my regions—Arnicars, Asnicars, Bertollas, Santa Lucias—can I suggest that they weren't amongst some of the first people; they've come across for opportunity and that opportunity was around work. We can drive opportunities into the regions. Through decentralisation, we can drive high-paying jobs into the regions. We can make policy decisions about regional immigration, which will provide very, very high-paying jobs, support and skilled people where they are needed, but it does need to go to an area where that region agrees. Where local councils and others agree to a regional immigration plan, I think that should be supported. But it shouldn't be into those areas of high unemployment already. We need to build the economy in those local regions, particularly in mine, because of the difficulties that we face right now. To do that, the government is providing infrastructure, as mentioned by the member for Goldstein, including: the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative at around $3.5 billion, a $75 billion infrastructure investment plan over the next 10 years, and a substantial investment into the Bruce Highway, which is the lifeline of regional Queensland. Without it, we cannot provide our products to the Brisbane port, and we cannot get our people down there to get services such as health care and additional education facilities. We have good local universities, but we need that linking infrastructure to continue to build our local economies. Whether it's ports, whether it's roads, whether it's rail or whether it's airports, this coalition government is delivering for the people of regional Australia and regional Queensland in particular. We do need to plan into the future. The question I put is: where is our next million-plus head population centre? Where is the next one? We should be planning for the future for that opportunity, and we should do it. Debate adjourned. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Income Tax 125 12:24 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I begin by congratulating the hardworking, diligent and committed member for Brisbane for bringing this motion forward. There are few people in this federal parliament that I think have demonstrated such a strong commitment not just to their constituents but also to the economic reform that this country needs. To have a member like the member for Brisbane serve his community as strongly as he does, by bringing forward motions such as this, is so critical, because he understands that the foundations of this country do not come from fiddling bureaucrats and politicians in Canberra messing in people's lives and telling them how best to live them. He understands, like everybody on the coalition side, that the foundations of this great country are when people are empowered and encouraged to stand on their own two feet, to go off to work and enjoy the fruits of their labour and their hard work and initiative. When those people come together and form families, and are in a financial position to care and support each other, that's the foundation of a strong community. That's the foundation of a strong nation. The motion that's before us is, simply, to highlight that we should always want families and hard workers to keep more of the money they earn in their pockets, rather than be sucked up to Canberra by the Australian Taxation Office and the commissioner to be spent by people in this place. It's not because we don't see a role for tax. There is a role. We all have to share and carry the cost of our society. But when people have more money in their pockets they have more choices about the future of this country and their own families. They have the incentives in place. One of the great liberal philosophers of the 20th century regularly spoke about what happens when people have more money in their pockets: they're yet to decide their own future and their own destiny. Of course, we don't have all the information we need, to run this country, in Canberra. It might make sense that we live in a perfect society where politicians and bureaucrats and regulators pull levers to direct the nation in one country or another, but that's what we see in other societies. The strength of our country comes from the individual up. That's why cutting taxes, and particularly income tax, is so critical. Income tax is the clearest way the government comes and gouges out of people's pockets and takes their hard-earned money for the benefit of politicians and regulators. That's why this government has been so clear in prioritising income tax relief for Aussie workers. We recognise that people have to pay their fair share of income tax. We understand that low-income earners already make a significant contribution and struggle to make ends meet. We understand that when they put their electricity bill on the kitchen table they look at their budget and try to figure out how they'll pay it off. That's why there are lower taxes for lower-income workers. We understand that for the millions of Australians who are part of the middle class, the middle-income earners, during those critical years of their lives when they're doing okay but they're trying to get ahead, the job of Canberra is not to thrust the hand of big government into their pockets and take as much out as they can. It's to turn around and pat them on the back and say, 'Well done, for your hard work and your initiative, because you are the backbone of this country.' That is why we have cut the income tax rate for middle-income earners. Under the last budget of the coalition government you will see middle-income-earning Australians not paying more than a third of their income into income tax. More critically, higher-income earners will continue to pay a higher tax rate, to share the burden across the whole of the country. And, yes, those opposite have raised the challenge of making sure that government lives within its means. I completely agree with that agenda. In fact, what at every point has happened is that this coalition government has tried to match reducing tax rates on middle-income earners while also making sure that we minimise the deficit. Eventually we will return it to surplus, not in the way that they promised but in the way that we will deliver. We have gone down the economically responsible pathway—by encouraging initiative, encouraging award and encouraging economic opportunity. 12:29 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle The Australian economy might be growing, but workers' share of the economic pie is now at a record low. While business is booming, wages aren't even keeping pace with the cost of living. But rather than fixing stalling wages and ballooning living costs, this government actively employs policies to drive down workers' pay and boost corporate returns even further. This is a government with some of the most diabolically twisted priorities you could imagine. While those opposite pander to the every wish of big business, they have simultaneously been waging a savage war on workers. Just look at their track record: I note the cut to penalty rates, that they opposed increases to the minimum wage and that they reject plans to reform unfair labour hire practices. They try, relentlessly, to cripple workers' ability to organise and negotiate outcomes for themselves and they refuse to act on excessive tax breaks that largely benefit high-income earners but which aren't accessible to the majority of workers. They spend every last penny of political capital they've ever had in trying to rip tens of billions of dollars out of the budget for corporate tax cuts. And still today they don't have a single credible policy to address the dire wage stagnation facing this country. Last week, the national accounts revealed exactly what those grossly unfair policies have led to: a dangerously distorted economy, where corporate profits are now growing at five times faster than wages. While business recorded exceptional profits of 8.8 per cent on average, average wage growth was only 1.6 per cent, well below inflation. And anyone who believes the government when they say their income tax plan will make a different is in for a rude shock. Mr Morrison's tax plan will indeed be a boom for the wealthy. But for low-income workers—the people who really need and deserve a tax break? Well, they're expected to be grateful for the offering of the crumbs under the table. Just take the case of a surgeon earning $200,000. She'll get a massive tax cut of $7,225 a year, while a carer earning $30,000 is less than $4 a week better off. That's it—a measly $4. That isn't fair and it isn't right. Australians deserve a government focused on growth that benefits all Australians, not just the top end of town. That's exactly what Labor's tax plan delivers. Under Labor's plan for bigger, better and fairer income tax cuts, 10 million workers will be better off. With inequality at a 75-year high, our tax plan is unashamedly focused on fairness and helping low- and middle-income workers with genuine tax relief. In my home city of Newcastle, 64,000 workers will be $928 a year better off under Labor than they are now. For the average household, this means an extra $400 compared to what the government is offering. In stark contrast, 60 per cent of the benefits of the Prime Minister's plan will end up in the pockets of high-income earners. But Labor's plan isn't just better for workers, it's better for the budget. According to official figures published on Friday, gross debt now sits at $534.9 billion. This is a record high, and almost double what it was when the Liberals came to office in 2013. So much for being good economic managers! But for a group of people who couldn't finish a sentence— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12 : 33 to 12 : 48 Ms CLAYDON 248181 But, for a group of people who couldn't finish a sentence without squealing about the debt and deficit disaster not so long ago, they've been remarkably quiet about the state of the books of late. Their tax plan shows that they are much more focused on bestowing billions on high-income earners than on reducing the debt. But Labor doesn't think it sensible or responsible to be handing out tax cuts to top income earners at a budgetary cost of many billions of dollars. We understand that every dollar of revenue you forgo is a dollar you can't spend on health, education or budget repair. While the Morrison government remains committed to cutting from those who can't afford it to give to those who don't need it, Labor will take a different path. We will deliver genuine, targeted tax relief to low- and middle-income workers and proper funding for critical public services and will pay back more of the debt faster. Only Labor can be relied on to deliver a fairer, more sustainable tax system for all Australians. 12:49 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I am a little surprised today that we're debating this motion about the government's Personal Income Tax Plan, as the government want yet again a pat on their back for their so-called strong economic leadership of our country, but, when I look at the speakers list, the government can only provide one speaker to back in their so-called economic policy leadership! We know in this country that there is and has been no economic leadership under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. We know that they have no energy policy. We saw the Minister for the Environment this morning explaining that the only policy they have is to recycle the Direct Action policy, pioneered by the Prime Minister before the last Prime Minister. We know they have no tax policy. We know that Senator Cormann was forced to junk their plans for corporate tax at the last time we met, and they have no plan at all to deal with the flatlining of wages. In fact, the only plan that we know of is to resume their systemic attacks on working people and their organisations. Quite frankly, they are a government that have given up on government. They might come, fly into Canberra, take some pot shots at one another, work out whether they're bullies or not bullies or whether they have a gender problem or not a gender problem, leak WhatsApp conversations against each other on the front page of the paper, talk about each other or brief against each other to journalists, but they don't actually outline how or why they should be governing. I am interested in the discussion today because the one poor government member who was forced in to somehow defend the government's economic agenda refused to talk about 'once upon a time', which we heard about in lecture after lecture about the debt and deficit emergency. We saw just last week during the chaos, the division and the nightmare that is the Morrison government—or the muppet show, as the Prime Minister likes to describe the government—that gross debt now sits at $534.9 billion. I want to place on record today that that's almost double the $280 billion it was when the Liberals came to office in 2013. So, despite all the talk and all of their lectures about 'debt and deficit disaster', you won't hear a peep from the Liberals— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:52 to 13:04 Mr DICK 53517 As I was saying, you never hear members of the government talk about the so-called debt and deficit disaster. In the last two years of the five years that this government has been in power, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison era, that debt has now crashed through half a trillion dollars. That's the largest amount of debt that we've ever seen in our nation's history. Net debt has doubled, and both kinds of debt are growing faster under the Liberals than under the previous Labor government, which had a global financial crisis to contend with. When it comes to fairness, we know that there is no fairness no matter who leads a Liberal government. When someone in my electorate on $40,000 a year will get a tax cut of $455, while someone on $200,000 a year will get a tax cut of $7,255, how on earth could any person claim that that is fair? But that's exactly what the government believe, in their alternative universe. So my message to the government today is clear: stop wearing and worrying about lapel badges, stop putting out offensive tweets that are demeaning to a whole range of Australians, stop leaking against each other and start governing for this country. Out in real Australia, out in the suburbs, out in the communities that I represent, the government of Australia are seen as a joke. When you see a Prime Minister whose priority is having people wear a lapel pin and who says, 'The reason I wear it is because it reminds me every single day whose side I'm on,' doesn't that tell you all about the government—worried about themselves, not worried about what Australia needs and what matters? Debate adjourned. Employment 127 13:06 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman I rise today calling for dramatic change in how we as Australians view the work of women. Despite there having been some recent improvements towards closing the gender pay gap, we still have a very long way to go. Traditionally-female-dominated industries are still typically undervalued and underpaid. A recent Senate inquiry report recognises that the 'glass walls' that segregate Australian working men and women are as significant to the gender pay gap as the famed 'glass ceiling'. A working woman in a female-dominated industry would earn, on average, approximately $40,000 less than the average remuneration of a man in a male-dominated industry. This certainly isn't because these female dominated sectors are easy work or unimportant industries—quite the contrary, in fact. Workers in sectors like early childhood education, aged care, health and disability care remain some of the lowest-paid workers in this country. We've seen workers from these industries come together and call for recognition and a decent wage, like in the Big Steps campaign for early childhood educators. But the government just won't listen. But Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten and we, his Labor team, are listening to their concerns. We hear them. We know that people who are educating our children in their formative years and those who are providing health and personal care for our families and friends in their senior years are important. We know that the work that they do is valuable, so we are calling for change. But the government just won't listen. They just won't act. Last year the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee released its recommendations following the inquiry into gender segregation in the workplace and its impact on women's economic equality. The report noted that the inquiry had heard that closing the gap between male and female employment and productivity had the potential to make huge and significant boosts to Australia's GDP, like improving it by between 11 and 20 per cent. It seems that addressing gender pay equality would be a comparatively simple measure to reduce the huge national debt that the Liberals have created. Australia's gross debt now sits at over $530 billion, double what it was when the Liberals took office in 2013. That is not a very good report card. I would say it is a huge fail for a party that like to promote themselves as economic leaders. The government should be seriously considering recommendations that can bring the budget back on track, and yet they continually refuse to do so. The Senate committee made nine recommendations that commenced with a call for leadership and coordination across government to urgently deliver tangible, measurable action on pay equity. Yet this government refuse to do so. This inquiry report, with those recommendations, has been available to the government since last year. Yet, again, they refuse to act. Acting would support Australian women, acting would support the Big Steps campaign and the early childhood educators and acting would address the serious systemic gender problem that plagues their own party. We've all known for quite some time that the coalition has a gender problem, but the events of the last few weeks, or, indeed, months, have made it absolutely apparent just how big this problem has become. There's been internal bullying at such extreme levels that it has seen the member for Chisholm decide to leave the parliament entirely. What a shame. That bullying isn't limited to within their own party either. The member for Brisbane recently referred to Labor's strong team of women as—get this, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou—'cardboard cut-outs'. In the past week, we've also been on the receiving end of insults from other LNP stalwarts like Senator Abetz and Grahame Morris. The women of parliament are not dregs; we are hard workers. It isn't fair that those opposite level their own biases against us because of our gender. It's a clear sign of weakness. They can't attack our strong policies, so they attack our gender. I am proud to say that my party, the mighty Australian Labor Party, is truly working towards gender equality as a party and as a nation. 13:12 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra On average one woman a week is killed by a partner or former partner. And, at the current rate of progression, we won't achieve gender equality in parliament until 2046. The gender pay gap has been stagnant for two decades, and gender equality against many of the markers appears to have stalled in Australia. Since the coalition government came to power in 2013, Australia has slipped from 19th to 46th place in the Global gender gap report. Despite all of the progress that's already been achieved, Australian women are still earning 14 per cent less than their male colleagues. According to the Australian Workplace Gender Equality Agency, a man working full-time earns nearly $26,527 more per year than a woman working full-time. We're not talking about pennies; we're talking about over $26,000 per year on average extra that a man is earning over a woman. Part of the solution to closing the gender pay gap is to identify where it begins. In order to find out what we need to do in the future, we need to work out where the nub of the problem is—where it is germinated. On average girls receive 11 per cent less pocket money than boys, according to the 2015 Australian Pocket Money Survey. I fail to understand how that can be. What is it? Are the parents paying less for the work that the girls do than the boys? It's kind of weird that there's such a difference there—11 per cent—in terms of pocket money. The gender pay gap starts when we are children, and it follows us, as women, for our entire life. This is absolutely outrageous. There are so many women entering this workforce—73 per cent of them are graduates to be exact—and yet they're being paid 25 per cent less than men. In 2016 almost 75 per cent of university graduates of health were women, yet in 2018 it was reported that men in the healthcare industry are paid up to 25 per cent more than their female colleagues. Women graduating with degrees in education also outnumber men—75 per cent of graduates are female, yet women are paid almost 12 per cent less than men in this industry. How can this be happening? Does it begin with the in-built discrimination when we get pocket money? It continues in the workforce despite the fact that women outnumber men when it comes to university graduation. It begins at a young age, continues into a woman's 20s and 30s and continues on until she retires—and I will come to that in a minute. There are an abundance of educated women to choose from when it comes to industries that require a tertiary education. Over 91 per cent of women aged 20 to 24 have attained year 12 qualifications or above, compared with 88 per cent of men in the same bracket. So more women than men are tertiary educated and more women than men are year-12 educated, yet in the industries where women outnumber men, health and education, we're still being paid 25 per cent less than men. There is something seriously wrong. It begins, I'm concerned to say, in childhood, continues through tertiary education, continues through the workforce and continues, unfortunately, in retirement. Older single women are the fastest-growing group of people experiencing housing stress and homelessness in Australia. Women are retiring into poverty, and this trend is growing. Over 6,000 older women were homeless on the night of the 2016 census. That figure was up 31 per cent from 2011. It's an alarming jump in just five years. We need to keep having a conversation about older women and homelessness. The Equality Rights Alliance maintains we are facing a tsunami of homelessness among older women—300,000, 600,000; that's what we're potentially looking at. These are women who are invariably divorced, they've brought up kids on their own, they earn modest incomes, they have very little super and they are in the private rental market. These are women staring down homelessness, staring down a bleak future, and unfortunately, from the trends that I've discussed today, it seems that in-built discrimination begins in childhood. 13:17 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo This debate is timely, because we know that on Four Corners tonight there will be a story that exposes the crisis we're currently experiencing in aged care. Brave aged-care workers are speaking out about what they see and the frustrations of working in a broken aged-care system. These workers have also been to Parliament House to speak to us, as MPs, about what's occurring in their sector. When they came to speak to us they spoke up about the lack of safeguards in the industry for quality of care. They spoke up about staffing rosters not being filled, particularly when people call in sick. They spoke up about how for-profit aged-care providers are skimping on meal budgets, spending sometimes only $6 a day per resident. They spoke about their love and compassion for the residents in aged-care facilities and how they were struggling to deliver the care that these aged-care residents needed. What they didn't speak about was their pay. What they didn't speak about was their wages and conditions. They'd come all the way to Canberra to advocate on behalf of their residents. It speaks volumes about the kind of people they are that when they were here in Parliament House they didn't speak about the fact they're on a minimum wage, the fact that their conditions are some of the poorest in the country, or the failure of the Fair Work system to recognise the gender pay gap in their profession; they spoke about the residents. That's the crux of the problem we have: when we talk about the gender pay gap, we talk about women who work in care professions. They speak about the people they care for. They speak about the people they educate. They rarely speak about their profession. Yet we need to. We in this place need to recognise that the Fair Work Act is broken when it comes to resolving the gender pay gap. Sure, some activists will say, 'We beat the gender pay gap when we won equal pay for women back in the 70s and 80s.' Absolutely: two workers standing side by side should be paid the same and not discriminated against based on their gender. But the job's not done. We know, through report after report, that when women go for job interviews or promotions against male counterparts they're less likely to get them. There is a gender bias that exists. We know that because we haven't got the right frame settings around ensuring that we support women—who may have caring responsibilities—that they're not being promoted and that there is still that gender bias that exists in workplaces. We know that in some of our industries, like in construction and in heavy metal manufacturing, we don't even have the basics, like a women's toilet close enough to the production line or a women's toilet on a construction site. So we know that there are still barriers in those non-traditional trade areas when it comes to women. But the biggest gap that I believe we have and that we are not addressing as a country—or as a parliament—is equal pay for women working in predominantly 'women's industries', such as the care industry. Take the early childhood education and care sector. With Big Steps, the educators are standing up and demanding equal pay for their work. These are professional women with degrees, diplomas and certificates, yet they are not being paid more than what would be the minimum wage. On Friday I was in Gladstone, and I went to a Goodstart Early Learning centre where all the women working there were enjoying their studies. They were getting on with their qualifications, and yet despite some of them having diplomas they were only getting an extra 50c an hour. Some were on $24 an hour and some were on $21 an hour. And they are responsible for the education of our next generation! If we look at disability, the majority of the disability workforce is women. What we've seen with the rollout of the NDIS is a worsening of their workplace conditions. They're now being offered zero-hour contracts and being told they have to have their own cars to drive clients around in. They wake up in the morning and wait for a text message to be told if they have hours that day. They've got to be available for 12 hours of the day, but they're not paid for that; they're only paid for when they're with a client. They're not paid for travel time. So in a 12-hour day they might only be paid for six hours. This is because there is a perceived gender bias. We in this country do not value care as a profession. We place a higher value on other, male-dominated industries. I welcome the motion and support the motion that's been put forward by the member for Sydney, and call for the government to work with the opposition to address this issue. There is a gender pay gap and there is a lack of recognition and support for women in the care and education professions. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The Federation Chamber is suspended until 4 pm this afternoon. Sitting suspended from 13 : 23 to 16 : 00 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 130 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Hughes, William Morris CH PC KC: Portrait, Water: Infrastructure 130 16:00 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy There was a statement I wanted to make before I was called: I find Billy Hughes's presence here, in the picture, offensive. My great-uncle was sent to his death at Gallipoli, and Hughes wanted to send the rest of us to our death as well, and I think his portrait should be removed from the chamber! Turning to my 90-second statement: the federal government talk about dams. They talked about dams in the last election; they were going to build dams. In the election before that they were going to build dams. And there are no dams built. We can't go to three elections hoping they're going to build dams! As Peta Credlin said on national television, there have been $5,000 million sitting there for six years to build dams, and nothing has been built. And nothing is going to get built between now and the next election—except for three shovel-ready projects in northern Australia. Hughenden is ready to go. The Prime Minister could go in there with a hard hat on and get the dozers working tomorrow, if he said, 'Go.' The NAIF people have said: 'Three problems: process, proponent, profitability.' There is the proponent. There is profitability. And, as far as I'm concerned, no-one is going to go into process anymore. We have now spent $560 million going into process—and there still isn't any water being held back! Three-quarters of Australia's water is in North Queensland, and as it runs on its mission to the sea, it rampages and tears— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Just finish the sentence, Member for Kennedy. Mr KATTER HX4 and destroys. We want to control a little bit for the people who live along its banks. (Time expired) National Stroke Week 130 16:02 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane For National Stroke Week earlier this month, I again popped into the S Bar Cafe in Clayfield and attended a stroke awareness event organised by Brisbane local Emily Benham. Emily's a survivor of not one but two strokes of sudden onset as a result of a cardiac arrest, and I've told her story before in this place. Emily's a fighter, and she turned her recovery into a determination to become a strong advocate for stroke awareness, on top of some other amazing volunteering she does for our local community. At the lunch, I also met Raynah Kassabian from Hamilton, and I want to share her story here today. Raynah was an otherwise healthy 37-year-old at the time of her stroke just last December. Unlike Emily, Raynah suffered a slow-onset stroke. She felt generally unwell, and she put her symptoms down to end-of-year stress and some anxiety regarding a pending overseas trip. It wasn't until later that evening, when Raynah spoke to her mum on the phone and started slurring her words, that emergency care was sought and her stroke was ultimately diagnosed. So: two very different stories, but a single critical message around this need for greater awareness of the symptoms of stroke. I want to commend the community spirit of both Emily and Raynah, and of so many others, and to commend the ongoing work of the Stroke Foundation for their advocacy. Member for Gilmore 130 16:03 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam In the three weeks since the current Prime Minister told us that it would be a good thing if we had more women in parliament, he's lost the member for Chisholm; he's lost the most senior woman out of his cabinet, and it looks like she may not recontest; and now we've learned today that he's lost the member for Gilmore as well. I have a lot of sympathy for the member for Gilmore. Over the last couple of years, she seems to have spent more time having to fight factional battles within her own branches than she's been able to spend fighting for the people of her electorate. We seem to have a bit of a pattern emerging here. We all remember the Prime Minister standing in the courtyard and putting his arm around Mr Turnbull and giving him a big hug. It reminded me of the Prime Minister rushing down to Nowra in May, where he did exactly the same thing to the member for Gilmore. He put his arm around her, gave her a good hug and said it would be a bad thing for the government if Ann Sudmalis were replaced by another candidate, and I happen agree to him. My advice to any putative candidate or Liberal MP is: be very afraid if the Prime Minister comes up to you and gives you a hug. To the people of Gilmore: if you do want to be represented by a fine woman MP, you've got the option to do that. You can vote for Fiona Phillips. She's a true local, a true fighter. She will spend her time fighting for you, not against the members of your own party. Mackellar Electorate: Rovers Australia 131 16:05 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar September 2018 marks 100 years of the Rover section of the Scouting movement. One hundred years on, Rovers remain an integral part of Scouts Australia, an integral part of the Mackellar community. Rovers Australia was first established in northern Sydney in 1918. The section grew rapidly here. Rovering was originally described as a 'brotherhood of the open air and service'. This sentiment is still the foundation of the section today. In the 1970s female membership was welcomed and encouraged. The Rovers are an inclusive and diverse community organisation for young people between the ages of 18 and 25. It is a platform that encourages young people to enjoy the outdoors, developing important values and life skills, whilst giving back to their community. I congratulate Scouts Australia on this notable milestone. This milestone marks the effort of many young men and women across Australia. Congratulations to the local Rovers crews from the Mackellar electorate, including the Forest Rovers, Kananga Rovers, Platabeen Rovers and Mona Vale Rovers for the hard work you have done and continue to do in Mackellar. Congratulations on 100 years of Rovers Australia. I look forward to their future achievements and the empowerment of generations to come. Canberra Electorate: Project Wing 131 16:06 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Last week I met with Project Wing to discuss the drone trial currently rolling out in Bonython, in my electorate, and I had a long list of questions. Many residents of Bonython were completely unaware that this trial was going to take place, despite the fact that Project Wing told me the community was notified by a letterbox drop and through community events. So that was interesting. Obviously, the letterbox didn't go throughout the entire suburb. The number of people who claimed they were unaware has left me wondering who actually conducted these consultations and how long the consultation period went for. There are still plenty of questions about the privacy and cybersecurity of the data recorded by these drones, what information is being captured, what customer data is being recorded and what cybersecurity standards Project Wing has in place to secure this data. What frameworks are there? Is it using MIST? Is it using Top 4? Is it using Essential 8? And if someone wants their personal data deleted, who do they contact? What does the process look like? Can the images be deleted? My meeting with Project Wing also revealed there is no end date scheduled for this trial. So we have a trial happening in my electorate for a drone delivery service and we don't actually have an end date. What does that mean? Is this going to go on ad infinitum? Canberra, keep sending me your thoughts on the drone trial. Boothby Electorate: Brighton Secondary School 131 16:08 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate team Horizon, from Brighton Secondary School, who were last week crowned F1 in Schools world champions from a pool of 20 countries and more than 20 million competitors. F1 in Schools is the biggest STEM competition in the world, where teams are required to design, manufacture and race a miniature Formula 1 car as well as market a supporting team brand. Horizon from Brighton Secondary School, in my electorate of Boothby, travelled to Singapore to compete at the world championships following their success at the national championships in Tasmania. As well as being crowned Australian national champions, Horizon took out a range of awards including Best Engineered Design, Best Manufactured Car and Best Team Portfolio. Brighton Secondary School has been competing in the F1 in Schools World Finals since 2012 and their achievements are a great credit to the school led by Principal Olivia O'Neill, teachers and, of course, the students. I congratulate the members of this year's team: James Gurney, Luke Battjes, James Lloyd, JJ Elliss, Tom Lightfoot and Luka Moase for their hard work and outstanding results. The team will be recognised with scholarships to City, University of London, and UCL Engineering. They will also attend the Formula 1 Singapore Airlines Singapore Grand Prix this year, where they will receive a new Formula 1 F1 in Schools trophy on the podium at the Marina Bay circuit. Mr Deputy Speaker, I'm sure you'll join with me in congratulating these very talented young people. Lyons Electorate: Local Sporting Champions 132 16:10 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I'm proud this month to be handing out Local Sporting Champions grants in my electorate. There are plenty of talented young people in Lyons, across a range of sports. This is not a body built for sport, but I'm going to try my hand at speed reading and say congratulations to all the following award recipients, their parents and their supporters: Abbey Boucher, rowing; Grace Pullen, netball; Ethan Tirant, boxing; Julia Direen, Anna Blackwell, Tahlia Honey and Alice Randall, athletics; Anne-Maree Smith, ice-skating; Samuel Kenner, gridiron; Cody Innes, hockey; Maya Brooks-Scott, polocrosse; Mackenzie Cooper, rugby; Cara Berry and Beau Johnson, gymnastics; Jessica Skinner and Taylah Hayes, judo; Chloe McFarlane, Nicola Hutchinson and George Elias, equestrian; Cobey Evans, Connor Ling, Darcy Gardner, Calym Dargan, Jacob Young, Ryan Whitney, Tyron Bailey and Blade Sulzberger, AFL under 15s; Natalia Leszcynski, soccer; Hayden Scott, darts; Liam George, tenpin bowling; and Bradley Couch, touch footy. I've still got 20 seconds to go, Deputy Speaker! I'm a world champion at speed reading! These kids are doing wonders. We are seeing young Tasmanians going to national championships and international games. I look forward to seeing these young people on the world stage over coming years. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247130 I thank the quick-reading member for Lyons. Calare Electorate: Emergency First Aid 132 16:11 Mr GEE 261393 Calare A crisis can strike at any time, completely unpredictable and often descending on us when we least expect it. Lauree Mullins, an aged-care nurse in Orange, and Jake Clarke, a Member of the St John Ambulance Molong Cadet Division, faced their own crisis recently when a woman collapsed at a Centrelink office in Orange. Lauree and Jake jumped into action, using their first-aid skills to perform emergency CPR, keeping their patient alive while waiting for an ambulance to arrive. Their critical life-saving skills and bravery at a time of chaos meant the woman was delivered safely to Orange hospital for further treatment and care and a second chance at life. According to St John Ambulance Divisional Superintendent Julie Dean, at just 18 years of age Jake has become a role model for many of the younger cadets in his division. Both Jake and Lauree are now heroes to us all in the Calare electorate. The Molong division has also nominated Jake for a St John Save a Life Award—truly well deserved. I'd also like to acknowledge the wonderful work the whole team at the St John Ambulance Molong Division do for our communities. I see them at just about every single country show. Lauree and Jake saved a life that day in Centrelink. To somebody they'd never met, they gave the gift of life. I'd like to salute and honour both Lauree and Jake in this chamber today and thank them for their wonderful work. Australian Institute of Sport 132 16:1 Dr LEIGH ( BU8 Fenner ) ( ): Founded in 1981, the Australian Institute of Sport has been a vital part of our nation's sporting prowess, responsible for training some of our sporting legends, among them Michael Klim, Cadel Evans, Sam Stosur, Petria Thomas, Anna Meares and Michael Milton. And yet the Australian Institute of Sport is now under threat due to staffing cuts and neglect. Since the coalition came into office, the number of Canberra based staff has fallen from 173 to 140. The institute has lost 70 sports specialists, and executives have indicated that there are more losses to come. Several sports bodies avoid the institute altogether, and many refer to it as a 'ghost town'. Despite the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's development of a National Sport Plan, the Australian Institute of Sport seems to have been relegated to an insignificant part of the discussion. On this day, on which we've seen the marathon world record broken by Eliud Kipchoge, it's appropriate to quote Rob de Castella, Australia's greatest marathon runner: The AIS was the biggest innovation and revolution in Australian sport, the greatest opportunity & service to the most talented & dedicated athlete, coaches, scientists & medicos. It is over #RIPAIS I don't believe it's over for the AIS but I do encourage Canberrans and anyone across Australia who cares about sport to sign my petition, at www.AndrewLeigh.com/AISpetition. It's attracted over 150 signatures so far, and we'll keep on campaigning to make the Australian Institute of Sport a vital part of our sporting fabric. Moore Electorate: Sorrento Surf Life Saving Club 132 16:14 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore The Sorrento Surf Life Saving Club in my electorate recently held its annual registration day for the 2018-19 season. The club celebrated its 60th anniversary with a dinner dance on Friday, 31 August. Founded in 1958, the Sorrento Surf Life Saving Club has 1,768 members, including a junior base of 640 nippers. In order to meet the needs of the current and forecasted membership base, support the development of junior and youth members, and provide the necessary training and community services, a redevelopment concept plan has been proposed by the committee to increase the internal building floor area of the clubhouse from 1,335 square metres to 2,124 square metres, with 885 square metres of external courtyard, deck and wash down areas. It is essential for all three levels of government—local, state and federal—to work cooperatively together with the private sector to ensure the necessary funding and corporate sponsorship to upgrade our local surf club. It is estimated that the renovations will cost approximately $8 million, and, as patron of the Sorrento Surf Life Saving Club, I'm actively working to bring all parties together to cooperatively support this essential and very worthy development. Dawn Fraser Baths 133 16:16 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Deputy Speaker Laundy, you might even be aware, yourself, that the Dawn Fraser Baths are a hidden gem in my electorate in the inner west of Sydney. Tucked away in Elkington Park, Balmain, they are a tidal saltwater pool in Sydney Harbour. They were opened in 1884. The baths are thought to be the oldest in Australia. They are home to the Balmain swimming club—the first swimming association in the entire country. They are also said to be the site of Australia's earliest water polo match. They're used by residents, visitors, and students from local schools. They are an iconic attraction in the inner west of Sydney. They're listed on the National Trust and the Register of the National Estate. But now, at over 100 years old, they are in desperate need of repair. At the last election, federal Labor committed funds to upgrade the facilities. A master plan for the baths, which has now been prepared, has shown that it will be expensive to undertake a full heritage restoration. On the Inner West Council, the Greens Party and Liberals have voted together to cut funds from the $6.7 million required for restoration, leaving a $2.2 million shortfall. It is critical that we save the Dawn Fraser Baths, which are an institution and a heritage icon of the inner west. Port Macquarie Airport 133 16:17 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper Demographer Bernard Salt identified good air services as a quality shared by strong regional cities. Port Macquarie has frequent air services, but the current terminal, which was completed in 1994, does not meet current needs nor traveller expectations. That's why I was delighted to be able to secure an election commitment at the 2016 election for the federal government to provide funding assistance to Port Macquarie-Hastings Council to upgrade the current airport. This project, which will be worth around $10 million, is a great example of federal, state and local governments working together. The federal government has contributed $1.25 million, the state government, $5 million—I certainly commend the state member Leslie Williams for her hard work in securing that state commitment—and council, some $3.6 million. I'm pleased to say that the work will commence next month and will be carried out in two phases to ensure that there is an efficient building program whilst minimising disruption to passengers, as one of the challenges in a project such as this is keeping a busy airport open while, at the same time, ensuring that work is completed as quickly as possible. The works will provide a doubling of the existing floor space and make departures and arrivals at the airport more efficient. Completion is expected in 2019. It is a much needed piece of infrastructure in a modern city like Port Macquarie. Options Theatre Company 133 16:19 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I was delighted to attend the official opening of the Options Theatre Company's new rehearsal and performance space at Tuggerah in my electorate of Dobell. Options Theatre Company is an exclusive and inclusive theatre company that has grown out of Options Disability Support, an organisation that has been helping people with disability and their families and carers on the Central Coast for 25 years. Options had outgrown their space at West Gosford, and I was able to support them with a federal government Stronger Communities grant of $20,000 to help them to move to their new space in Tuggerah. Also with the help of Bunnings in Tuggerah and Erina, Dulux paints, the Newcastle Permanent Charitable Foundation, Walker Brothers and Mobil Australia, they have created a rehearsal and performance space as good as any that I've seen, and a cafe is in the works. The community also answered the call for help, providing 100 vintage lampshades that are suspended from the ceiling in the rehearsal space. It's a spectacular effect, literally shining a light on the great work happening at Options Theatre Company. I had a tour of the new space prior to the opening with art director Stu Smith and musical director Andrew Sampford. It's clear that they are passionate about their work and proud of their cast and crew. On opening night, that crew of actors, musicians, dancers, directors and technicians, all people living with a disability, came together to showcase their skills and their joy. It was lovely to be part of such a proud and appreciative audience and to see such a splendid production. Whether it's behind the scenes, on the stage or in the spotlight, Options Theatre Company is giving all its participants a chance to shine. Canning Electorate: North Dandalup Family Fun Day 134 16:20 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning On Saturday I had the pleasure of attending the inaugural North Dandalup Family Fun Day. With just over 700 residents, including 195 families, North Dandalup is one of the smaller communities in my electorate of Canning. But, despite its size, North Dandalup is a thriving community. Saturday's family fun day was well attended by people from all throughout the Peel region. It was great to see a variety of stalls set up on the oval for the day, including arts and crafts, local produce, business services and plenty of kids entertainment. Highlights included the North Dandalup Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade, who performed firefighting demonstrations for the crowds of children. Special mention also goes to the firefighters for putting their truck on display, and my son Jonathan spent most of the day inside the truck. Mandurah Wildlife Rescue had a joey and a possum with them to help raise awareness about the importance of caring for our wildlife. The members of NuLook Health & Fitness, a local gym, displayed their endurance during gruelling workouts throughout the day. And there was the CY O'Connor Foundation, which recently received $2½ million under the Building Better Regions Fund to develop Peel's first Centre for Innovation in Agriculture, in North Dandalup. Special thanks go to the North Dandalup Community Group and in particular Sheree Chapman for bringing the community together for a great day out. Thanks also to the Shire of Murray for supporting the event and to all the stallholders who came from surrounding towns to support the people of North Dandalup. North Dandalup has a lot to be proud of, and it was great to see community pride on display on Saturday. I look forward to attending next year's North Dandalup Family Fun Day. Paterson Electorate: Westfield Junior Matildas 134 16:22 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson In Paterson, our schools have a great history of producing some great sporting stories. Local school Maitland Grossman High School, in East Maitland, is no different, with some exciting news in the last few weeks. Year 9 students Josie Morley and Teagan Douglas have been named in the Westfield Junior Matildas team and have made their way to Central Asia to play off against other teams in the next couple of weeks. Their goal is to qualify for the 2020 U-17 Women's World Cup. The girls' team will face competition from teams from Palestine, Indonesia, the Kyrgyz Republicand Chinese Taipei. The competition will be held in Kyrgyzstan, and the girls with their teams are already there. Westfield Junior Matildas head coach Rae Dower has a huge job ahead, working to ensure that the team perform at their best while also having a great time in a unique country. I look forward to seeing what Josie, Teagan and the rest of the team are able to do whilst participating in this competition. I'm even more excited about where this path will take them into the future. To the Westfield Junior Matildas: go team, good luck and play hard, girls! Page Electorate: Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter 134 16:23 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page It was nearly 42 years ago when Elton Cummings came up with the idea and a strong campaign for a swift aerial service to help save lives. It was sparked by the death of a man on a North Coast beach in 1976. From there, the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter was born, and it has come a long way. In the early days, the crew onboard were outfitted with just a first-aid kit, a static rope and a few other essentials. Today the theatre is as good as a doctors' hospital theatre. The Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter is on call 24/7 and attends around 2,000 missions each year, whether it is to transport a sick patient or a car crash victim to hospital or for a search and rescue. A name synonymous with our local helicopter service for the past 23 years has been that of Roger Fry, who is retiring. I thank him and everyone who has been associated with the Westpac rescue helicopter over the last 42 years, from fundraisers like Ken Jolley to the staff and the board. For the lives you have saved and for the people you have helped in our community, thank you. Ryan, Mr Mathew David 134 16:24 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley A couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending the Mount Druitt Netball Association representative dinner, where we celebrated the achievements of the year. On the night, I also had the chance to catch up with Margaret Weir, Secretary of the Tregear Presbyterian Netball Club, who over the years has inspired a lot of sporting stars—and I say thank you to Margaret for her hard work. One of the people Margaret is associated with and we'd be familiar with is her grandson, Mat Ryan. From Shalvey Primary School student to Socceroo shot stopper, Mat is the true definition of a Western Sydney champion. He started his soccer career at Plumpton-Oakhurst as a child, moving on to Blacktown City before making his way to the Central Coast Mariners. Starting with the Mariners in 2010, he spent three years with the club, winning the Joe Marston Medal and the PFA Harry Kewell Medal, and was twice named A-League Young Footballer of the Year. He was vital in the Mariners' 2013 grand final victory. Continuing a fine tradition of Australian goalkeepers, Mat, just like legends Mark Bosnich and Mark Schwarzer, grew up in Western Sydney and has worn the Socceroos No. 1 jersey. He had his first 2014 World Cup experience under his belt at the age of just 22 and was Australia's first-choice goalkeeper for this year's World Cup in Russia. He's starring in the European league and played with a number of clubs. I want to say how proud we are of his achievements and we'll be watching, with great interest, where his career heads. Hinkler Electorate: Primary Schools Cup, Bruce Highway: Fatal Crash 135 16:26 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to congratulate all of those competitors in the Primary Schools Cup for netball held in Bundaberg over the weekend. There were 800-plus competitors in Bundaberg—with their support teams and families in tow—and I'm told it was a great event, incredibly successful. There were cars everywhere! It filled not only the car park but also all the available space around the field as well. The event was made possible because of a $500,000 grant from the federal government in 2016 for the extension to the courts, which created the capacity to deliver these types of carnivals locally, along with a $17,600 grant to the Bundaberg Regional Council, through the Building Better Regions Fund, a community investments stream, which has supported them to deliver such a large carnival. I'm advised they'll be back again, and I think that is fantastic. On an absolutely tragic note, on Friday there was a fatal crash on the Bruce Highway. There were people travelling to this carnival who were, very unfortunately, involved in a terrible collision. Some individuals lost their lives, including the competitor from the Coomera Netball Club. In respect to her family, I will call her only as Olivia. She was eight, from the Gold Coast, and known as the 'queen of hugs' by her family. May she rest in peace. Newstart 135 16:27 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle The findings of the Deloittes economic report into Newstart are important and sobering, but they are not surprising. It's no secret that Newstart is diabolically low. It traps people into a cycle of poverty and hopelessness. Too many jobseekers are so focused on keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table that they have nothing left, either personally or financially, to put into looking for work. Labor absolutely understands that Newstart isn't high enough, and we haven't been shy about saying so publicly. But rather than flag arbitrary policy details, without evidence, from opposition we've committed to undertake a root-and-branch review of the entire payment system in government. Of course, this will look at the adequacy of payments but it will, as it must, go much further. Just as we commissioned the Harmer review in 2009, which led to the most significant increase in the pension in decades, Labor's payments review will look at how the entire system works to support jobseekers. This Liberal government has spent five years trying to smash down Newstart, while the Greens are grandstanding with bills they know will go nowhere. Neither is helpful. Only a Shorten Labor government, if elected, has the plan for a sustainable solution. Fisher Electorate: Soil Testing Initiative 135 16:29 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I recently had the pleasure of meeting with farmers in Maleny to launch an innovative soil-testing initiative. Thirty beef graziers will be part of the program learning best practice techniques in soil, grazing and fertiliser management. The beautiful hinterland of my electorate is home to a significant number of farms, and many run off into the neighbouring Lake Baroon, which supplies the Sunshine Coast's drinking water. Because of this, the project places a heavy emphasis on water management to ensure that the quality of Lake Baroon is always protected. With more than half of Queensland now drought declared, and farmers grappling with severe weather conditions, this project is critical, as it allows graziers to future-proof their properties. Of course, the government cannot control the weather, but we can equip farmers with the resources and skills to be more sustainable. This project, worth a modest $50,000, will bring local farmers together through workshops and property visits where they can discuss ways to evolve their practices. In doing this, local graziers can develop better solutions to environmental problems and improve the outcomes not only on their farms but on farms right across the region. I would like to thank Maleny grazier Brian MacFarlane for trialling the program, and the Lake Baroon Catchment Care Group, led by Peter Stevens, for their ongoing support of sustainable farming in Fisher. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247130 I call the member for Kingston, noting on indulgence that Percy, her three-year-old, is in the chamber with us today to see mum at her absolute best! Kingston Electorate: Hopgood Theatre 136 16:31 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Laundy! The Hopgood Theatre is the beloved performing arts centre in my electorate and is it at risk. The state Liberal government has refused to commit long-term funding for the Hopgood Theatre, and the result is that its future is in jeopardy. I wrote to the Premier, urging him to commit long-term funding for the Hopgood Theatre. His response was, 'It is likely that the arts sector, like other areas of government, will be subject to saving targets in the state budget process.' It is clear that the Premier is not backing the Hopgood Theatre, but it means so much to our community. It is where many of our children have graduated high school and it is where thousands of people have become Australian citizens. The Hopgood Theatre is an integral part of the local arts community and it provides an accessible space for emerging local artists to perform, as well as bringing incredible and successful artists to our community. It provides our community with access to the arts. It's a theatre run by Country Arts SA, and they do an outstanding job in attracting high-quality national shows. The Hopgood Theatre is just too important to lose, and it has been amazing to see our community come together and show support for this theatre. We will continue the fight for the Hopgood Theatre, and I would like to acknowledge Harry from the Save the Hopgood Theatre Group, state members of parliament and local councillors. Together, we've been working to save this important space for the future. Hinkler Electorate: HMAS Tobruk 136 16:32 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I also acknowledge Percy in the crowd! It's great to have the children of members here to see what mum and dad do every single day. Once again, I'm back talking about HMAS Tobruk. It was scuttled in June after a long battle across Australia in probably the best possible conditions and in the best way that we could put this deal together, with all three levels of government contributing. There was $1 million from each council—Bundaberg Regional Council and Fraser Coast Regional Council—support from the Labor state government and, of course, federally, with the contribution of the actual ship. This has been a project many, many years in the making. Unfortunately, they tried a new technique on the scuttling in June, which I'm advised has never been utilised in this country before. Rumours abound as to how this happened, but the result is that HMAS Tobruk is on her side in 30 metres of water. It will still be a world-class dive site, but, clearly, it will be restricted to those who are advanced, and that will not give us the economic boost for which we were working. The Labor state government has investigated and they continue to investigate. They should be looking at insurance options. I will say to the minister: 'It was June and now it's September. What is the answer? Will you be re-righting the HMAS Tobruk? Will you provide us with what was promised and with what we need for that economic boost, because we need jobs desperately?' This project was designed to deliver it and it's about time that happened. Once again, to the Queensland Labor state government I say this, 'You need to deliver what was promised for our people.' Northern Territory 136 16:34 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon We've seen over the last couple of weeks that when push comes to shove politicians in the NT from all sides can come together and stick it up Canberra! We saw this at the federal level, with all four Northern Territory representatives standing together to stand up for the Northern Territory's rights. We saw it last week when a tripartisan delegation came from the Territory to Canberra and presented both houses with a resolution from the Northern Territory parliament, calling on the federal parliament to respect and recognise Territory rights. Today I'm pleased to say that the good times keep on rolling, because the NT is taking over parliament this week. This Wednesday evening Territory Chief Minister Michael Gunner, the Northern Territory federal representatives and the Darwin Major Business Group are hosting an event called Facing North. The event held here in Parliament House will again, for the second year, showcase the very best of the Territory. It will have representatives from important sectors, including tourism, defence and construction. Our guests will also get to sample local produce. The event will give guests a taste of the opportunities the Territory presents to Australia. Territorians know that there are boundless possibilities in the north and we want to share it with the rest of our country. With the right mix of investment and government support, the opportunities presented by the north can be realised. Hughes Electorate: Marine Sanctuaries 137 16:35 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes About three hours ago I rose in the House to offer my support to my state colleague Ms Eleni Petinos, the member for Miranda, about her comments on the proposed no-fishing zones in New South Wales between Newcastle and Wollongong. She said, 'It is unnecessarily complicated, goes too far and intrudes upon the coastal lifestyle that we value.' I support what she said. I have been very pleased to find out in the last couple of hours that the New South Wales government have actually agreed with our member for Miranda. They have scrapped—taken it off the table—the plans to lock out fisher men and women of the New South Wales coastline. I congratulate the New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries, Niall Blair, for listening to the community concerns. He said: What is now clear is that their proposed management methods and in some cases the sizes of the sites, offered up a narrow option that unfairly impacted on low risk activities, such as fishing and spear-fishing. The New South Wales government has taken lockouts off the table. I congratulate my New South Wales colleagues for that. It is a wise decision. Fishermen are some of our best environmentalists. Aged Care 137 16:37 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Mr Gulino of my electorate is nearly 80 years old. He was approved for a level 2 home care package through My Aged Care more than a year ago, but he is still waiting. He lives alone. He needs help with cooking, shopping, showering and other aspects of personal care. He has reported to my office—we got an interpreter—that he has no family who are capable or willing to assist him on a daily basis. He needs only four hours of help approved. He hopes to maintain his independence for as long as possible. Without help, he is now isolated at home and reports feeling completely neglected. He is one of 108,000 Australians waiting, waiting, waiting. The minister responded but can't tell him how long he'll wait. He has no idea what the uncertainty means for people like Mr Gulino. He says, 'Just keep calling the 1800 number and check how you're going in the queue.' The home care situation is bad enough. Now we hear stories nationally of nursing home scandals that are horrendous. The government have announced that they are having a royal commission. They have admitted that they have no idea what to do to fix their mess. They've been in government for over five years and they have no clue, so they're going to call a royal commission into themselves and see how that goes—wave our hands in the air again. They can start by apologising for the $1.2 billion cut. The current Prime Minister in his first budget as Treasurer cut $1.2 billion. It's now $2 billion over five years. You don't fix aged care by cutting it. This royal commission must not become the latest excuse to do nothing. Bowman Electorate: Roads 137 16:38 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman We have a despairing Redland City who are just asking the state Labor government for some progress on roads. The sad reality is that in the city of Redland every single road project right now is federally funded, with the exception of the traffic light duplication fiasco in Mount Cotton where the state government put the traffic lights in the wrong place. The Victoria Point bypass was promised by the Labor state candidate at the last election. He promised hundreds of people as they walked past on election day. But there is no money. It's just a feasibility study, which you can't drive on. I'm now funding, through the council, that Victoria Point upgrade. With special vehicle permits needed for many roads in my electorate, I'm funding upgrades to culverts along Woodlands Drive, so that trucks and cranes don't have to take large detours around Woodlands Drive. But we have a state MP up there, Kim Richards, who's just too busy scouring mudflats for wrecks that she can identify. This is about relieving congestion for curlews more than it is for humans on the roads. She's busy building three bus stops but not a cent for the roads in between, because she forgets that buses need the roads in between the bus stops! We've got these magnificent artistic renditions of bus stops, but no state investment on roads themselves. Like that great leader who looked at things and pointed at things, in Redlands we have Kim, Don and Tom—the three state Labor figures—doing nothing, pointing, umming and ahing, but not investing. It's time to see real progress on roads in Redlands, because it just isn't happening at the moment, and locals deserve more. Illicit Drugs 138 16:40 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie The deaths of two young people, two other lives under threat and harm done to many others at this weekend's Defqon festival at the base of the Blue Mountains highlight that our current approach to drug policy is not enough. My heart goes out to the families who thought their children would come home safely after a festival of music and they haven't. And I feel for police who bear the responsibility for enforcement when they say they can't be in every person's head all the time. As much as we hope that our children and their friends just didn't take drugs, generation after generation have shown us that they will make decisions that are high risk. Adriana Buccianti, whose son died four years ago, puts it well: Prohibition doesn't work. We've done the dogs, we've done the police, we've done the 'don't take it'. We've arrived at a point where we need to do something different. We can never stop trying to educate about the dangers of drug use. But if we can't convince our kids not to take drugs, what we can do is empower them to reduce the risk. We should take the advice of health and justice experts, of parents who've lost children, and of the research, and start a serious conversation about pill testing and amnesty bins that give people a chance to dispose of drugs without fear of prosecution. Our message should not be based on fear and punishment but on making sure that it's never too late to make a good decision that could save your life. Flynn Electorate: Mount Perry Charity Ball 138 16:42 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn Last Friday night, 14 September, I attended the Mount Perry ball. I would like to thank Councillor John Bowen, Anita Ward and the committee for a wonderful night. We had guest speakers from Melbourne: Joe McGrath, chairman of the VRC, who has been carting the Melbourne Cup around all parts of Australia for the last 16 years; Johnny Letts, a two-time winner of the Melbourne Cup; and Lottie, the promotional lady. The proceeds went to the Gin Gin High School Chaplaincy for youth suicide prevention programs and training. They raised $32,000 for the night, which was a fantastic effort. At the ball was the 2018 Melbourne Cup, worth approximately $200,000. The cup was made with Mount Perry gold, mined at the local Evolution owned Mount Rawdon gold mine. By 2001, Mount Rawdon had produced more than 1.5 million ounces of gold, equivalent to 50 tonnes of gold bullion. It employs 250 staff, and 75 per cent of the people are locally employed. The mine is a major lifeline for the local community in Mount Perry and supports many, many community events. Moreton Electorate: Roads 138 16:43 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton South-siders know that it's long past time to find a solution to the dangerous level crossing at Coopers Plains. The Liberal National Party led Brisbane City Council has previously funded half the cost of two crossings on the north side, but strangely will only commit a paltry 15 per cent for our extremely dangerous Coopers Plains crossing. Labor, at both the federal and state level— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:43 to 16:55 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with standing order 43, time for members statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 138 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS National Police Remembrance Day 138 16:56 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I move: That this House: (1)notes that National Police Remembrance Day will be observed on 28 September; (2)acknowledges the significant role police officers across Australia play in our local communities and the great deal of risk and sacrifice that comes with their duty; (3)honours the lives and memories of those police officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the course of their duty, and tragically this year we specifically honour Constable Dennis Green of the Western Australian Police Force, who was killed during pursuit training in West Toodyay; (4)pays tribute to the families and friends of police officers who have been killed in the line of duty throughout our nation's history; (5)commends the good work of Police Legacy, who look after the loved ones of police officers that have fallen; and (6)reaffirms its support for the nation's police officers and honours their courage, commitment and dedication to ensuring the peace and safety of our communities. 'A hero can be someone who gave up his or her life so that someone else can live. This definition is a pure example of my dad. To the world you may be one person, but to our family you were the world.' That is a statement from Emma, the daughter of Senior Constable Brett Forte, a Queensland Police officer who was tragically shot and killed in the line of duty last year. It puts in perspective the inherent dangers of everyday policing and the significant toll it takes on the families of police officers. This year, National Police Remembrance Day will be observed on 28 September. This is one of the most significant days on the national police calendar. As a nation, we pause on this day to remember the police officers who lost their lives in the execution of their duty, and we honour the courage, commitment and dedication of all police members who have sworn to protect our community. Policing comes with a high degree of risk and with dangers that, thankfully, most of us will never have to encounter. It truly takes a special type of person and a special type of courage to wear the police uniform; we are forever indebted to those fine men and women who have chosen to do so. We recognise their commitment to ensuring the peace and security of our communities, a duty which should never be taken for granted. Our safety and that of our families as well as the security of our homes, businesses and, indeed, our democracy are all reliant on law enforcement, a task which primarily falls to our police. This year's service will also see the total number of police officers listed on the National Police Memorial regrettably rise once again. This year we recognise the tragic loss of First Class Senior Constable Dennis Michael Green of the Western Australia Police Force. Constable Green was killed in a motorcycle crash, during pursuit training in West Toodyay. Constable Green was a highly respected member of his community and a decorated former soldier in the British Army, having served 20 years with the Royal Engineers. For the last seven years he had been a police officer of the Western Australia Police Force. The death of Constable Green highlights the inherent danger involved in police work—not knowing what they are likely to encounter every time they commence their shift. In recognition of his service in the Western Australia Police Force Constable Green has been posthumously awarded the National Police Service Medal, the Western Australia Police Star and the Western Australia Police Medal. Constable Green, tragically, leaves behind a wife, Michelle, and two sons, James and Ryan, who I met on the weekend at the National Police Memorial in Canberra. National Police Remembrance Day is, therefore, also a time for all of us to reflect on the loved ones who have been left behind and the families and friends whose lives have been affected forever. While we mourn them, we thank and honour all police officers and their families, whose unconditional support allows these fine men and women to serve our community. We owe it to the fallen to look after their families, which is why the work of Police Legacy is of particular importance and deserving of our full support. In this regard, I'm happy to say I attended again the annual police Wall to Wall Ride for Remembrance on the weekend, raising much needed funds to assist in this great effort of Police Legacy. Tragically, this year we also lost a distinguished Victorian police officer, Detective Senior Sergeant Victor Kostiuk, who was killed while participating in this charity ride. He was riding with his son to support fallen police colleagues. I pay tribute to his distinguished and long career in the Victorian police force, and I will have more to say about him at another time. To Constable Green, to all those police officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and to all our past and current members of our respective police forces, we honour you and we profoundly thank you for your service. Above all, be comforted in the knowledge that you have made a difference for the better in our communities. 17:01 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I second the motion. I am very pleased to support this motion moved by my neighbour the member for Fowler. I acknowledge his longstanding commitment to, and support for, our police forces not only in New South Wales but throughout the nation. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Proceedings suspended from 17:01 to 17:13 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 I would like to go through the words of the motion of the member for Fowler, because I commend him on the words that he used in it: That this House: (1) notes that National Police Remembrance Day will be observed on 28 September; (2) acknowledges the significant role police officers across Australia play in our local communities and the great deal of risk and sacrifice that comes with their duty; (3) honours the lives and memories of those police officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the course of their duty, and tragically this year we specifically honour Constable Dennis Green of the Western Australian Police Force, who was killed during pursuit training in West Toodyay; (4) pays tribute to the families and friends of police officers who have been killed in the line of duty throughout our nation's history; (5) commends the good work of Police Legacy, who look after the loved ones of police officers that have fallen; and (6) reaffirms its support for the nation's police officers and honours their courage, commitment and dedication to ensuring the peace and safety of our communities. Of all the occupations in our society today, the occupation of police officer is one where, when people sign on to start their shift, they do not know what will happen or the personal risks that they will face. They may have to go to a car accident where there has been a fatality. They may have to make an arrest of someone who has committed an assault. They may have to turn up to a violent domestic dispute. They may have to apprehend armed robbers. Most concerning of all is the trend that we have seen over recent years: the blue uniform that our police officers wear puts them at risk because we have segments of the Australian community who, unfortunately, see that blue uniform as a target. That is what every police officer around the nation faces today. We need in our society, I believe, to have a greater respect for police officers. Too often we see people using the word 'cops' to refer to police officers. Often those who denigrate police officers are the very first ones to call for their help when they are in trouble. So I commend the member for Fowler for moving this motion today. We thank every police officer in our nation. We thank them for their bravery. We thank them for their determination. We thank them for their honourable conduct. We send, from this parliament, our love, our support and our encouragement. 17:17 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I rise to support this motion. 'To serve and protect'—that's why National Police Remembrance Day is such a significant day for us. In the Northern Territory, like in other jurisdictions around the country, we stop to remember those members— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:18 to 17:28 Mr GOSLING 245392 Following what I was saying, I want to thank my friend, the member for Fowler, Chris Hayes, for bringing this important motion for debate. In Darwin, I'll be attending the ecumenical service at my parish church, St Mary's Star of the Sea Cathedral, on 28 September. I will pay my respects to the men and women of the NT Police Force who were either killed in the execution of their duties or who died while serving. I know that the thoughts of many this year will be with the Noonan family, who had to say goodbye to retired Senior Constable Williams Thomas Barney Noonan, who, sadly, lost a long-running battle with cancer. It's not easy to be a police officer anywhere, but in the NT, with road fatalities, break-ins and dealing with alcohol related crimes, police see some of the worst that the Territory has to offer. In a normal year, police in the Territory respond to over 100,000 triple 0 requests and close to 25,000 incidents related to domestic violence, and breath test close to 180,000 drivers. It's important that we recognise the work of the police and the vital role that they play in our community. It's a bit of a personal irritation of mine that the levels of disrespect towards the police have increased in my electorate in Darwin and Palmerston. I'd like to add my support for the action taken by the Northern Territory Labor government and their commitment to restore school based constables, which had been cut by the previous government. I'd especially like to acknowledge the work done by the rank-and-file men and women who are on the ground, at the coalface, working around the clock to make our communities safe. The work they do is tough. It's not a nine-to-five job, and it's mostly done as shiftwork, which makes it even tougher. By now, we should all be aware of the terrible effect that this prolonged shiftwork has on the body, both physically and emotionally. Shiftwork, coupled with the at times tragic work undertaken by our police men and women is, to be quite frank, a recipe for terrible mental health outcomes. I know from my own experiences in the Defence Force that prolonged experience of trauma destroys families and ruins lives. I can't imagine the compounding effect that trauma would have on a police officer who has served for 30 years and the effect it would have on their family. It must be massive. I'd like to take a brief moment to commend the great work done by the Police Association in the Northern Territory and by Police Legacy in the NT. As I said, it's not easy being a police officer, let alone being a family member of one. The NT Police Legacy scheme assures police families that there is an organisation prepared to assist them with their emotional, financial, education and welfare needs should anything happen to their loved ones in the line of duty. Last week, I saw off the second contingent of Territory motorcycle riders that left our police memorial in Darwin and started riding to Canberra with the Wall to Wall Ride event, with funds raised going to Police Legacy. It's important work. The damaging effect of the type of work done by first responders and Defence personnel is why I'm pushing for funding to be put towards the construction of a support centre for these groups in Darwin, because the NT doesn't have such a support centre. Often, when I'm talking to my old Army comrades, they're the first ones to say that the police are on the tools every day—and, by saying they're 'on the tools', I mean they're on the job every day. As I say, there is a compounding effect of that sort of work. My own brother is a fireman in the Northern Territory. When they turn up to scenes of vehicle accidents, it is traumatic. We need to do more to make sure that first responders like the police have that mental health support and other support around them. As a community, that's what we need to be doing. This support is vital. Support is needed for these people who serve us and protect us. Again, I thank the member for Fowler for reminding us all of the services that our police force provide to our community. 17:33 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay It's a great pleasure to rise to support this motion. This week is a very special week in the Australian police calendar. The Police Federation of Australia's inaugural Police Week starts this week. It commenced with the Wall to Wall motorcycle ride and will conclude with National Police Remembrance Day. Police Week will also see the inaugural Australian National Police Bravery Awards presented at a formal dinner on 19 September. These awards are very special in that they are selected by police for police, the recipients truly being national heroes. This year I was again honoured to participate in the Wall to Wall Ride for Remembrance with my daughter Eve. We rode from Canberra after the ceremony and returned from Goulburn to Canberra. The Wall to Wall is a special remembrance motorbike ride where police and their families and friends meet at special places and memorial sites in their jurisdictions and ride to the National Police Memorial, in Canberra. The ride promotes motorcycle safety awareness and raises funds for charity. The main beneficiary of the charity this year is Police Legacy, who do an amazing job looking after the families of those officers who have lost their lives while serving, in the line of duty. And I must pay tribute to Detective Senior Sergeant Vic Kostiuk, who tragically lost his life in Victoria while travelling with his son to the memorial. He gave 40 years of service. He was a great man, and his is a great loss to society. Police Remembrance Day is a solemn occasion when we commemorate and pay tribute to those police who have lost their lives in the line of duty. On 29 September, around the country, we recall the names of every police officer who has made the ultimate sacrifice protecting and serving their community. The role of a police officer is a very challenging but also very rewarding one. Every day police officers put their lives on the line as they go about their duty, serving their community whilst upholding the highest levels of professionalism, often in very, very difficult circumstances. A police officer never knows what scene they'll be confronted with when they start their shift, and, tragically, some police officers don't make it home. That's why it is so important to remember those people who have lost their life in the line of duty and also to pay respect to those serving us every day. This year I'll attend the Police Remembrance Day service on the Sunshine Coast. Policing is an incredibly honourable vocation where your function is to help and serve, and, in doing so, it gives you a front row seat to every aspect of life. In Australia, it's a job performed in one of the most peaceful, modern societies on the planet, where the rights and freedoms of individuals are precious and you're charged with protecting life and property and upholding those principles and values. As a former police officer, I understand the difficulties that police encounter every time they put on their uniform. It's a job where, at the beginning of the shift, you have the incredibly weighty task of loading bullets into a weapon—a weapon whose primary purpose is to stop human beings—followed by the even weightier task of then walking out into everyday life with no certainty as to what serious challenges you are going to be asked to solve. Policing is a job where most members of society are happy to see you. Once they see the blue uniform, they want to have a chat. More often than not they'll strike up that conversation for no particular reason. It's just that they like seeing the police out and about doing their job, walking the beat and keeping the peace. It's a diverse job. At one time, you could be attending an incident of domestic and family violence, where every policing skill that you possess is called upon to resolve a highly charged situation, and, later in that same shift, you may find yourself at a day care centre, sitting on the carpet with the kids, explaining to them why they need to hold Mum's and Dad's hand when they're crossing the road. It truly is a diverse job. It's a job where your own physical and mental wellbeing is regularly placed on the line to help others and where the highs of success are often matched by the lows of tragedy. Police are expected to be brave. They're expected to be able to perform without fear. They're expected to serve their community without hesitation. I convey my respects to all police, past and present, and commend them for the job that they do. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 I thank the honourable member and I thank you for your service. 17:38 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond It's a great honour to rise and speak today in support of the motion of the member for Fowler, and I wish to commend him for his ongoing dedication to this important day of remembrance and, indeed, to his continued advocacy in all areas of policing. The member for Fowler and I have spoken many times on similar motions in the House, because this day does have a very special significance for the wider police family. As I've mentioned before, I was proud to previously serve as a general duties police officer in the Queensland Police Service. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank my other parliamentary colleagues who I know share a deep commitment to highlighting the significant role of police officers right across Australia and the great risk and sacrifice that comes with that duty. National Police Remembrance Day is being observed this year on 28 September. It's a solemn and important day for police officers, their loved ones and the wider police family. It's also an important day on which the community can also reflect on the invaluable service provided by our brave policemen and policewomen. This is a time that we pause to honour the lives and memory of all the fine men and women who, in their work protecting our community, have had their lives tragically cut short. This year we specifically honour and remember Constable Dennis Green of the Western Australia Police Force. Constable Green had been with the WA police for seven years and was based at the Warwick police station with the traffic enforcement group. He'd also served more than 20 years with the Royal Engineers in the UK before joining the police. Tragically, in December last year, Constable Dennis Green was killed in a motorbike incident during pursuit training. I wish to extend my greatest sympathy to his family and friends and colleagues. As we've heard, tragically, just last Friday, Detective Senior Sergeant Vic Kostiuk died when a car veered across the road and struck his motorcycle in Victoria whilst he was taking part in the police charity motorcycle ride, the Wall to Wall Ride, which remembers fallen officers. I extend my sincere condolences to his family. It is tragedies like this that remind us of how important is the work of Police Legacy for families suffering bereavement. Like the police forces themselves, Police Legacy is separated by state jurisdictions. However, they all perform much the same vital functions in their respective states. New South Wales Policy Legacy supports bereaved police families following the loss of their loved one, and they also extend support to police officers and their families experiencing challenging times in their lives. I commend all those involved with Police Legacy for the vital work that they do within our policing communities. As a former general duties police officer myself, I've seen firsthand some of the situations and complexities that police officers face, day in, day out, whilst serving their communities in the execution of their duties. It's important to acknowledge that these individuals are out there working hard to keep our communities safe. They do often have to face very difficult and, indeed, very dangerous situations. It is during these times that police are faced with terrible tragedy—events that, so unfortunately, are a part of our everyday lives. These are the tragedies, fatal accidents or family losses that we so often hear about. It is often those police officers who are the ones to break this terrible news to parents, to children and to partners when such horrific incidents occur. I continue to raise, as I know many members in this House do, some of these issues that put pressures and challenges upon our police, so that there is always an awareness of the incidents they face. There are particular challenges in regional areas like mine on the New South Wales north coast. I have called many times and continue to call for more support and resources for these police. I also encourage locals in my area and across the country to take a moment on 28 September this year and think about the role that police officers play within our community. I say to those police in my local area: thank you for your service. Finally, I want to mention an important recent event in my electorate. Our local police officers helped to organise the very successful inaugural Police and Community Charity Ball, which was jointly hosted by the Queensland Police Service, the New South Wales Police Force and the Australian Federal Police. It was great to see more than 600 people attending this wonderful inaugural event. More than $65,000 was raised. All profits went to the children's wards at the Tweed Heads hospital and also at the Gold Coast hospital. So thanks to everyone involved with organising that event. I would really like to congratulate all of them. The event was a great success, and it showcased what an integral part our police play, not just in protecting us every day in our communities but also, as members of our community, in raising important funds for charity. Today, I would like to thank all police for the wonderful, brave work that you do. I especially thank and acknowledge those officers serving in commands on the New South Wales north coast, and I look forward to joining many of those on 28 September at Coolangatta, at Saint Augustine's Church, in which National Police Remembrance Day will be honoured in my area. I thank all those police for the great work they continue to do right throughout our community. This is an important occasion for all of us to come together and recognise that. I particularly commend the member for Fowler for this motion and commend all those who have been speaking as we remember the great work that our police do. 17:43 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise to support the member for Fowler in this motion, and I join with the remarks that have been made by both sides of the House in relation to remembering the importance of the men and women who serve our communities in uniform, particularly around National Police Remembrance Day. The case of Constable Dennis Green this year, the death last year of Senior Constable Brett Forte and the unfortunate death of Senior Sergeant Victor Kostiuk just last Friday remind us of the dangers involved in being a policeman or an emergency service worker. I want to thank my good friend the member for Wide Bay, who gave so much of his life to serving his community as a policeman before taking a higher calling to come into this place—although some might argue with that! But I think it's important on days like this to really acknowledge the service of those who have pulled on the uniform. We often talk in this place about the importance of recognising our ADF personnel, which is very, very important and should be done. But, when you look at the carnage and the horrible things that people like the member for Wide Bay will have seen over their years in the police service, compared to what a member of the ADF might see if they deploy, it's very, very difficult to compare the two when you deal with death and destruction every single day over a 30-year period. My brother is a MICA ambo in Victoria, and he and I have often spoken about the pain and agony that he goes through just by virtue of the sheer weight of numbers of the death and destruction that he has seen. I've only been involved in that in a very small way as a counsel assisting in coronial inquiries, and I have been impacted by just the photographs—let alone actually turning up to the incidents with all your senses and the sights and smells. I was only seeing it in 2D, months and sometimes years afterwards. I can't imagine what it's like to be there on the day or on the night. It's very, very important that we acknowledge these guys. Equally, it's important that we acknowledge them after the event, after they leave the service. We care for our veterans to a very high quality standard. Sometimes that standard doesn't meet our joint expectations. How we care for our emergency service workers after they leave their service is equally telling. I want to acknowledge a gentleman in my electorate by the name of Neil Reid, who approached me very early on in my extensive parliamentary career of 2½ years, trying to get support for emergency service workers like the support we provide to ADF members. When you look at that life of service and what they go through over a long period of time, we as a nation—we as a collection of states and territories—do not look after our emergency service workers anywhere near like we look after our ADF personnel. I've met with numerous ministers to try and look at this issue, to look at some sort of uniformity of approach about how we care for our emergency service workers once they hang up that uniform, because many of them do struggle. If we are able to help them post—I won't say 'discharge'—service, we will reduce the number of suicides by these men and women. It's the least we can do as a community and as a government to try and push for better access and better service for these men and women who have given us so much. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 261393 I thank the member for Fisher. I also acknowledge and welcome those ADF members we have in the chamber this afternoon who are here as part of the observers program. 17:48 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I support the motion put forward by the member for Fowler regarding how, on National Police Remembrance Day, we honour officers who have lost their lives in service. The Queensland Police Service Roll of Honour includes officers who have been killed as a consequence of the actions of an offender or who died while attempting to save lives. There are currently 32 entries on the Queensland Roll of Honour, spanning 150 years of service. Sadly, the most recent entry is Senior Constable Brett Forte, who was shot and killed near Toowoomba just last year. I acknowledge the service and bravery of all 32 Queensland police officers on the Queensland Police Service Roll of Honour. I would also like to acknowledge today each and every Queensland police officer who, every day, knowingly walks in harm's way to make us safer. Policing is a high-risk job. Almost every year an officer is killed somewhere in Australia, and many others are assaulted or suffer work-related illnesses. It is high stress. Beyondblue ran a specific program for police and emergency services in an effort to address this reality. Not only do police and emergency service personnel routinely face life and death challenges, but they also witness the worst of humankind. Beyondblue says that police and emergency personnel who retire or leave the job have higher rates of anxiety, depression and, sadly, suicide. Although they are not formally recognised on the service roll of honour, more officers have died as a result of suicide than those killed in the line of duty. The villains pursuing them were no less real, their bravery in the face of death no less courageous and the reason they were stolen from their families no less the result of crimes they witnessed and criminals they confronted. I'd like to particularly acknowledge today a family member of my chief of staff, Michelle Howe. Her cousin Detective Senior Constable Russell Sheehan ended his life in 2015 after serving more than 32 years in the Queensland Police Service. Russell was from a large Brisbane police family; his father, uncles and grandfather all served in the Queensland Police Service. He was brought up with a stoicism that was almost a way of life in those families; selflessly just getting on with the job and being there for everyone else. But, like many, Russell's service to the Queensland police included many experiences that could not be unseen, unheard or unfelt. Russell Sheehan spent four years of his service in the police Child Protection Unit. A letter from one victim of child abuse sent to Russell's family tells of the compassion and strength Russell demonstrated when this victim revealed for the first time the terrible abuse he had endured. He said that Russell saved his life at that time. Emotional and physical stress were ever present in Russell Sheehan's job. Russell was the first responder to the Childers Palace Backpackers Hostel fire back in 2000, in which 15 people lost their lives. And while on a solo patrol, Russ encountered a man brandishing a lighter who threw petrol over him. He received the Commissioner's Certificate for Bravery for that incident. We can watch physical scars heal but, tragically, the invisible scars continue, festering and unseen. There is an urgent need to improve the health, safety and wellbeing of the police. Service unions, including the Queensland Police Union, together have recognised this and are taking action with the Our People Matter Strategy. There are many families who have generations of service like the Sheehan family. Many go into the service proudly, to follow in their parents' footsteps. One such police officer on the south side of Brisbane is Senior Sergeant Murray Crone. He entered the force at 19 and, coincidentally, his first placement as a young police constable was with Russell Sheehan. Murray has told me that he could never understand why his mum was so worried about him being a copper. He said that to him it was the best job ever—great people, fun and exciting. But after a few years in the service, Murray had a different perspective. An academy squad mate was shot through the chest and killed at Wynnum. He was in his early 20s. In the same year, another colleague was killed in a crash while pursuing a stolen vehicle in the suburb of Fortitude Valley. After 32 years service, sadly, Murray has lost count of the number of funerals he has attended—all of them good men and women taken too early and well before their time, including those who have, tragically, taken their own lives. Murray says that the sound of bagpipes now make the hairs on the back of his neck stand up. Being a police officer is no ordinary job; it takes lives and leaves families heartbroken. So on National Police Remembrance Day this year, let's pause; let's remember all the brave police who've been taken from their families—those for which the sun set too early: We will remember. We will remember. Hasten the dawn. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 261393 I thank the member for Moreton. There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Mobile Black Spot Program 144 17:53 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I move: That this House: (1) recognises the vital importance of mobile phone coverage to people living, working and travelling in regional and remote parts of the country; (2) notes that:    (a) the Government has committed $220 million to the Mobile Black Spot Program to invest in telecommunications infrastructure that improves mobile coverage across Australia;    (b) over 600 base stations have already been activated under the program; and    (c) base stations constructed under the program have already connected approximately 10,800 Triple Zero emergency calls; and (3) calls on the Government to maintain its commitment to regional communications. I would like to recognise Lieutenant Josh Cowell, who is in the chamber today. He is with the ADF program. I'm very pleased to speak about the government's improvement of mobile reception across Australia. The coalition government has a long track record in delivering for rural and regional Australians. Alternatively, the Labor Party does not. Mobile coverage is only one example of that. When Labor was in office for six years, they did not invest one cent in improving mobile coverage, and that's a fact. When Labor was in office for six years they didn't build one new mobile tower; that's another fact. And when in office for six years, they didn't upgrade one mobile tower: another fact. Since the Liberal led government was elected to office five years ago, 867 new base stations have been built on our watch, a great fact. We've invested $220 million in improved mobile coverage and created the Mobile Black Spot Program that has improved mobile reception throughout Australia. It's a great initiative. It's not only for rural, regional and remote areas that the government delivers, but across the board; that's what we do while we're in government. When I came into this House, I came to help improve the lives of people in regional, rural and remote Australia. These programs are a key part of that delivery and I'm very proud of them. It's fitting that I opened the 300th mobile tower delivered by Telstra with their CEO, Andy Penn, at Wellington Mill in January this year. In the South West, I've secured 19 new mobile base stations. It's really good for locals. There are 19 different and new locations where mobile coverage has improved on this government's watch. The impact they've made to the lives of thousands of people in the South West has been outstanding, and the improvements for local emergency services are also outstanding. There is one doctor who is an anaesthetist in the Ferguson Valley who used to have to park his car up on the top of the hill when he was on duty at the local hospital so that he could get reception to get the phone call. Now, he can actually stay in his home and receive that phone call. We're delivering services that are more equal to those of people living in the metropolitan area. Nationally, we'll cover over 90,500 square kilometres of new and upgraded handheld coverage. Additionally, we'll cover over 204,400 square kilometres of new external antenna coverage, as well as over 8,000 kilometres of new coverage to major transport routes. This is just so important in rural, regional and remote Australia. These key communications upgrades go to the heart of this government delivering for all Australians, not just for those who live in metropolitan areas. In April we announced the commencement of the Government Regional Telecommunications Review, allowing those living in rural, remote and regional areas to have their say on telecommunications issues in their area. It is more proof that the government listens to and delivers for people in regional, rural and remote Australia. We want to see a connected regional Australia that is prosperous and vibrant. Recently, the government announced that we were reopening the Mobile Black Spot Program's database of reported black spot locations for new nominations. The database will be shared with applicants, assisting them to identify locations where we need to improve mobile coverage on an ongoing basis. This round aims to improve outcomes for regional businesses as well as emergency services, health, education and tourism services. This is a great program and an initiative of the Liberal-led government, as I mentioned earlier. It has been extraordinarily well received. This fourth round is really music to the ears of people who live and work—even those in emergency services—in rural and regional areas. This is in direct contrast to those opposite, who didn't spend a cent on improving mobile reception when they were in office. I commend the long and solid communications track record of this government to the House. But, again, I would go to those in the emergency services, who have regularly come along to the opening of new towers. They are just so grateful to be able to have the connectivity always in rural and regional areas—if it's fire or flood, or whatever the emergency is. Local volunteers, St John Ambulance people and the local fire and emergency services organisations do an amazing job. We can't do without those volunteers, but connectivity for them is a critical part of the important services they deliver for people in our areas. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 261393 Is the motion seconded? Mrs Wicks 241590 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 17:59 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Having decent mobile phone coverage is vitally important and often life-saving in our regional communities. So I commend the government for developing the Mobile Black Spot Program to offer real incentives for telecommunications companies to invest in the regions. I understand that initially the program offered to cover one-quarter of tower costs, on average. In later rounds, priority was given to those telcos willing to build infrastructure with longer battery life—a critical issue that I will expand upon later. To date, after three rounds, the federal government has contributed $220 million, with the total investment being $680 million, and about 600 of the 867 announced sites have been activated. However, much of Mayo remains without coverage, with 44 sites considered a priority still needing a signal. On the positive side, infrastructure at Stokes Bay on Kangaroo Island and at Parawa announced in round 2 have been activated, and planning applications for round 3 base stations at Gosse on Kangaroo Island and Ashbourne have been processed. But we still have so many black spots, and this is a serious safety risk. Here's why: thanks to dry conditions, the countdown to our fire season has already begun in many parts of my community. Fires have already touched the eastern states and, today, I read that a bushfire three times the size of Kangaroo Island narrowly missed burning out a remote northern community in South Australia. Fire is a real danger in the most densely populated electorate of Mayo, and in a few months we will face the prospect of regular days of declared catastrophic conditions. When this happens, power is deliberately switched off to protect high-risk areas from the danger of fire being ignited by powerlines. Under the NBN rollout, no power means no landlines and internet in fibre-to-the-node areas, and mobile phone towers go down after four hours. In wireless areas, it goes down immediately. The towers and the batteries just don't last long enough. Before Christmas last year, I had several communities in uproar because we were left without mobile phone coverage, landline or internet during a week of total fire ban days. A year before we had a violent storm, and that left 15 communities in my electorate without power—again, for five days. No power is not just an inconvenience; for us it means no water and no sewerage. And the really scary thing is that when we have those things and we don't have telecommunications, it compounds the issue. My community felt abandoned and incredulous that in this day and age telecommunications is treated as a commercial luxury rather than being a regulated essential service. It was because of their concerns that I introduced the Telecommunications Amendment (Guaranteeing Mobile Phone Services in Bushfire Zones) Bill in 2017, to compel telecommunication carriers to provide at least 24-hour stand-by power for phone towers in high-risk bushfire areas. I've not been backward in advocating for this legislation since that time. I note the National Party, when they had their federal conference last year, moved a motion calling for a 72-hour backup in all disaster-prone areas. I do not believe that 24 hours is a big stretch, as 72 hours is what the National Party were calling on. I ask the government to revisit my draft private member's bill simply because it will save lives. I was advised by the minister that telcos have been encouraged to provide at least 12-hour battery backup, and I think that's a great start, but we do need legislative protection in this area—we don't have it now. I do welcome the government's announcement for round 4 of this program, but let's be clear: we do need round 5 and we do need round 6, because regional Australia should not miss out. When I do a drive from my part of the electorate, where I live, and go south I can drive for the best part of two hours and I'm still in my electorate, I will go in and out of mobile coverage many, many times during that drive. They are also the areas where we have a high risk of car accidents and many, many fatalities. Imagine the great trauma if you have a car accident and you pull up your mobile phone to try and get help from telecommunications, and there is not a single bar of service. You are vulnerable. You are helpless. I call on the government: round 4 is fantastic but, please, we need round 5 and we need round 6. Just because some of us live some distance from the GPO, we should not be forgotten. Thank you. 18:04 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Forrest, which does acknowledge the importance of the coalition's Mobile Black Spot Program to rural and regional communities. It's a $220 million program that's already resulted in commitments to deliver 867 base stations around the nation, and hundreds of those are already operational. Mobile coverage is an essential service for families today, for businesses, for students and for residents on the Central Coast. Since being elected the member for Robertson, I've had the opportunity to hear from and work with hundreds of local residents to fight for better mobile coverage for suburbs with little or no coverage. I'm really pleased that earlier rounds of the Mobile Black Spot Program saw suburbs such as Somersby, Mount White and Mangrove Mountain get access to improved coverage and, importantly, better access to emergency services as a result of this improved connectivity. Round 2 of the program saw residents of Calga and Peats Ridge benefit from improved mobile coverage, and we switched on a new Optus mobile base station there in July. The new tower at Calga has enhanced coverage along Peats Ridge Road over hundreds of square kilometres. With its proximity to the M1, the tower is also expected to increase coverage for people travelling along the highway. We've committed to also improving mobile coverage for residents in Spencer, Wendoree Park and Killcare as part of earlier rounds of the program, and we've been working closely with these communities and with service providers to ensure that these commitments are delivered. Wendoree Park will get access to better mobile coverage thanks to a new Telstra macro base station, expected to be completed next year. The Telstra macro base station is set to provide improved coverage to areas of Killcare, Killcare Heights, Hardys Bay and Wagstaffe, with the rollout expected to be completed in 2019. As with many large and worthwhile projects, there are often a number of challenges and obstacles along the way. This is the case with the commitment we made for better mobile coverage for the community of Spencer. I've been working for many years on this issue with the residents of Spencer, and I would like to pay special tribute to Robyn Downham and Belinda Repton for their continued and fearsome advocacy on this issue. Under this program, we announced a new base station for Spencer being delivered by Optus, but I've recently been advised by Optus that there are a number of access issues for the site, resulting in delays. However, Optus also advises that it is working on an interim satellite solution to be delivered as soon as possible. I look forward to working with Optus and the Spencer community to see much-needed mobile coverage delivered for local residents, and I'll update the House on the progress. Our Mobile Black Spot Program has already made a difference to so many communities in my electorate. That's why I'm delighted to see that this government has announced a fourth round of the Mobile Black Spot Program. We will invest a further $25 million to deliver round 4 of the program and will soon call for applications from carriers to be selected through a competitive process. I encourage local residents to raise any areas of concern with me, and I also call on the Central Coast Council to nominate local blackspot areas across the Central Coast. But the coalition government's commitment to delivering better mobile coverage does not end here with this program. In 2016, we announced a $12 million investment to improve mobile coverage on the train line between Hornsby and Wyong. For the one in four residents of the Central Coast who commutes long distances each day either by train or by car on the M1 or the F3, this is an important commitment and one that we are working hard to deliver. I'm pleased to advise that the tender process is underway as we speak, and our hardworking commuters should start to experience some improved services by the end of the year. While the coalition is delivering better mobile coverage across the nation, the contrast between this government and the previous government could not be clearer. The coalition has fixed 867 mobile blackspots; Labor, in their six years of government, fixed zero. The coalition has generated $680 million in investment to date; Labor generated zero. I'm proud to be part of a government that is committed to improving mobile coverage in rural and regional communities like mine, and I commend this motion to the House. 18:08 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie As I drive the 35 minutes from my home to my office, there are three places that I know my mobile phone will drop out and, depending on the weather, another couple where it might. This is the reality for anyone who drives through the electorate of Macquarie, which encompasses the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury. We are not a regional area; we're a peri-urban area, 60-odd kays from the CBD, yet our coverage is appalling, and I have to say that the coalition's blackspot program has been disappointing for my electorate, to say the least. There are already 72 registered mobile blackspots for the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, and only eight have been funded by the coalition. As the government announced round 4 of the program, a recent ABC investigation found that almost one in six of the towers funded in round 1 of the program is not even operational. That's certainly the case in Macquarie where towers promised years ago—in St Albans, Grose Vale and Megalong Valley—aren't operational and construction of Yellow Rock hasn't even started. It's not the promised mobile phone towers that are the biggest worry, it's all the places that have been ignored. One of the places with no mobile signal is the Tennyson rural fire station. Here we have a state-of-the-art fire station but not a bar of mobile reception. I'd ask the government: if you are not going to prioritise emergency services, what is your criteria? Wait a minute—we do know the answer to that. The criteria is whether you're a Liberal or National Party seat. That's what gets you to the top of the priority list, not an independent criteria to determine the priorities for communities around this country. There should be one process for all MPs to submit their list of black spots, not an in-tray for government MPs and an 'ignore tray' for non-government MPs. The problems with a lack of mobile signal are exacerbated in a region like mine, where bushfires are a feature of every single summer. It's compounded by the installation of fibre to the node NBN. What will happen when the power goes down is that there will be hundreds of people who will have absolutely no communication—no mobile signal because they just don't have a mobile signal, and no landline because that's been taken away, and the power will go down on the fibre to the node and they'll have absolutely nothing. Even in my own home, which is only a few metres from a major road, we don't get a mobile signal. I connect through my ADSL into my wi-fi, so when there's power I switch to that. But when the power goes down, even somewhere in a densely populated area, we get absolutely nothing. When FTTC comes in, that means entire streets through Winmalee right across the lower mountains, Mount Riverview—every suburb has black spots in the lower Blue Mountains, and FTTC won't help. These are the pragmatic realities we're going to face. We are in an area where we know we get bushfires, and when we do we know how important it is to communicate. I spend a lot of time communicating by landline with my son and, unfortunately, what we've found is mobile signals have deteriorated over the last few years. So people who had a signal a few years ago are finding that it isn't nearly as good. Labor will prioritise community and emergency services needs over political objectives. The government said it would do that but it has not happened. We certainly won't be building sites like the coalition has that were going to be built anyway. Eighty per cent of the sites that were built went to coalition seats. That does not reflect the need. As to where this new money, the $25 million, has come from, it's the under-spend from the previous rounds. It is not new money. So I think it's about time people were pretty honest about this. The other mistake that's been perpetrated is this idea that Labor has ignored this issue. In fact, we spent $250 million on backhaul. It's not a very sexy concept. Towers are much more interesting than backhaul. But backhaul is the stuff under the ground that links the mobile base stations, and none of these new ones would be able to work without backhaul. Our Regional Backbone Blackspots Program provided essential services. So Labor will continue to support people who need a mobile signal but do it way better than this government has. 18:13 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I'm very pleased to hear the member for Macquarie make such an impassioned plea about mobile stations, and I'm sure we will hear before the next election about Labor's commitment to building more mobile stations in black spots. They never have before. Not one cent has ever come from a federal Labor government to fill up the black spots with mobile phone towers. The fact that she should even raise it in that manner bears some consideration. It's a great pleasure to speak on this motion from the member for Forrest. She and I came into parliament together and she and I both understand the importance of mobile phones in the modern world, and increasingly to our regionally based businesses, and that they be well connected to the world. It's interesting that, once again, the member for Macquarie has spoken about the National Broadband Network. That network is often confused with the connectivity of the mobile phone network. They are not the same thing. They are not the same technologies. The NBN rollout, as far as I'm concerned, is going very well. In fact, Grey is 99 per cent enabled. As the previous Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, said, we will concentrate on those areas that have the worst connectivity first, and that's exactly what has been done. Through the first three rounds of the mobile phone black spot program, there has been a total investment of more than $21 million into South Australia—$7 million from the Commonwealth—and 23 base stations have been funded thus far. On any kind of converter ratio, that's pretty good expenditure—$1 from the Commonwealth for $3 in total. But in fact this policy has not delivered for South Australia as it should have done because there was a complete lack of interest from the state government. In fact, 867 mobile facilities around Australia have been either built, commissioned or committed to under the three rounds thus far of the Mobile Black Spot Program, but, I'm sad to say, just 37 of those are in South Australia, and it is simply not the fault of the program. The Weatherill government had plenty of money for trams, for opening bridges in the city down at Port Adelaide, and for O-Bahn extensions that didn't even receive the approval of Infrastructure Australia, but just about nothing—starvation rations—for the country. Other states vigorously pursued the investment that was available through the Mobile Black Spot Program, but the Weatherill team ignored the opportunity. As I've said to the member for Macquarie, at the federal level, Labor was as bad or worse, because there was nothing, absolutely nothing, in six years. The Howard government had a commitment to building mobile base stations. There was nothing from Labor for six years. And then, with the return of the coalition to government in Canberra, we have seen 867 committed to. That's a pretty fair kind of record. In South Australia, there have been only 37; I've touched on that already. I am pleased to have 23 of those. So I guess the lion's share of those are in Grey—though that's hardly surprising, as we cover over 90 per cent of the state—and we have received 14 of Telstra's 4G small services. So that's been a good outcome, inasmuch as we had been underdone in South Australia. We have a new government in South Australia now, the Marshall government, and they have committed $10 million. This will make a substantial difference, and I have been out working with our communities. The federal government is still committed. We're having round 4 of the black spots program, and we're having the review of the regional, rural and remote parts of Australia under the Australian Government Regional Telecommunications Review. I have asked for my local governments and constituents in Grey to identify a string of black spots. I have passed those canvassed results on to the telecommunications review and discussed my findings with the telcos. I've encouraged residents and businesses and organisations to engage with the telcos, and we will bring them up to speed. I'm expecting the $10 million that is available from the state government to make an appreciable difference, but it is also time for us to push in this parliament for new commitments from the government—and from the opposition, for that matter—as we head towards the next election. There's so much more we can do. The rural Liberals that come to this parliament are lobbying hard for a new commitment from the government in front of the next election, and hopefully we can utilise some of the new technologies that are available as well. 18:18 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon I thank the member for Forrest for bringing this very important motion to the parliament. And it's not all rainbows and butterflies, as the government would like to say. In my electorate, I have 110 identified black spots, and the government has only funded 12. Some of those towers have taken three years or longer, since they were announced by this government, to actually start any construction, and communities are waiting and waiting and waiting. Each day mobile phone coverage is becoming more important to regional communities, and each day this government's really doing nothing about it. It's important to emergency service providers, residents and many businesses. I have businesses in my electorate that cannot even use their EFTPOS machines because of their lack of mobile phone reception. I know from my discussions with dairy processors, such as Fonterra and Lion, that improved connectivity is becoming critical for local dairy farmers. We've got so many dairy farmers who can't even pay their bills online until they get up at 3 am, when there is hardly anyone on the system. I know residents and visitors to King Island are frustrated at the lack of coverage, and I know those on the west coast of Tasmania are equally frustrated with the lack of coverage. I note the self-congratulations of those opposite on this program, but, by any objective measure, the coalition's delivery of the Mobile Black Spot Program has been unsatisfactory. When I say less than satisfactory, that's not the conclusion of those on this side of the House; that was the independent finding of the Australian National Audit Office, which made that assessment of round 1. Let me remind the chamber what the Audit Office found. It found that the program had been blatantly politicised, with more than 80 per cent of the locations for new mobile phone towers announced in coalition electorates. For example, in round 1, the fire-prone Labor-held seat of area of McEwen received funding for one new tower and the reinstatement of another—just one. Compare that to New England, the former Deputy Prime Minister's seat, which, by some miracle, received 28 mobile base stations. But, putting the politicisation aside, the most damning audit finding of that round was that 25 per cent of the new mobile phone towers funded in round 1 provided no new or extended coverage. Clearly the No. 1 criterion for selection was politics, not community need. It seems this government has learnt absolutely nothing from the Audit Office report. The coalition's latest round of funding—which, by the way, is recycled money, unspent in the previous round—now requires people to contact the local MP to report blackouts. But we don't really know how that's all going to work, do we? The government is still to release the details of this new scheme to assist people like us here in this parliament as to what to do when we get calls from our community. It does smell very much like another political stitch up, where the end process will be sandbagging marginal coalition seats in the lead up to the next election. In my electorate of Braddon, the Mobile Black Spots Program has been marked by overpromising and underdelivering. In May 2016 my predecessor announced funding for towers at Yolla, Gunns Plains, Sulphur Creek and Devonport. The former member infamously said: A re-elected Coalition government will immediately invite mobile network operators to bid for this new funding to provide coverage in the identified locations at the earliest opportunity. The people of Sulphur Creek were that sick and tired of waiting that they launched their own community campaign to have a tower installed, and I was very proud to help them with that—and thank you to the people of Sulphur Creek. I got a lovely nine, 10 per cent swing from them at the by-election. Independent of this government, the community and Telstra were able to work together, and the service came online last month. That's nearly three years later. The people of Gunns Plains are also still waiting, with many businesses impacted. During the Braddon by-election, the coalition announced they expected Gunns Plains would be operational by the middle of next year—again, a three-year wait from announcement to delivery, and that is totally unacceptable. In government, Labor invested $250 million towards the Regional Backbone Blackspots Program to support backhaul infrastructure in priority regional locations. Backhaul is an essential link in the mobile transmission network, and, without this investment, which those opposite like to ignore, the coalition's mobile base stations would not have been able to connect to the network. Labor will improve mobile communications for regional communities by allocating $25 million for a Better Mobile Services for Regional Australia policy. From this policy, in my electorate, Labor has announced we will work with the community, local and state governments and emergency service providers to build towers in the West Coast and Circular Head regions and King Island. We're going to build them from the bottom up, not from the top down. It's about the community telling us what they need, not us telling them. This side of the Chamber is committed to removing politics from the program and genuinely working with the community to improve mobile phone coverage. Labor's policy will be evidence based, not politics based, and I look forward to working with my local electorate to ensure that they receive the mobile phone coverage they deserve. 18:24 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra In 2018 mobile phone coverage is an absolute necessity. Families in my electorate of Berowra need it to stay in touch. Businesses need it to deliver a modern service to their customers. Students need it for their projects. But, particularly, in a beautiful area like Berowra, surrounded by bush, surrounded by the Hawkesbury River, with skinny roads that people can get stuck on, it is absolutely essential. Modern communications are a matter of safety, a matter of essential services and a matter of urgency, so it's a source of great frustration and distress when reception isn't available. I've driven around with my local RFS through local mobile black spots, and I know many residents call my office to talk about this when they stand at the edge of their driveway with reception of only one bar. These are already isolated homes, isolated by distance and saddled with old technology. How do you call your kids, deliver to your clients or reach out to your loved ones without the appropriate infrastructure? Black spots are as unsafe as they are unfair. This is the policy imperative for the government's Mobile Black Spot Program, which has already delivered one new mobile black spot tower to my community—with more to come. The base station at Sackville North, switched on in December 2017, has extended coverage in Sackville North, South Maroota, Maraylya and Forest Glen. The new service is especially welcome as these areas are prone to natural disasters, including bushfires. The Sackville North RFS captain, John Turnbull, has told me that the new tower has had an immediate impact and that residents are receiving significantly better mobile coverage, allowing them to better communicate with each other and with emergency services when in need. He told me, 'This black spot breakthrough helps residents and the RFS in the event of a bushfire.' The tower was a key election commitment, and I'm proud we delivered it. The community is now seeing its benefits. Two more towers are on the way for Berowra, one in Brooklyn, near the Hawkesbury River, and the other at Crosslands Reserve, capturing the surrounding areas in the Berowra Valley and national park. Telstra advises me that the planning for both towers has commenced and that they're on track for completion in the second half of 2019. Our record stands in stark contrast to Labor's, which invested a grand total of zero dollars into improving mobile phone coverage. Our record is 867 black spots fixed across Australia, Labor's is zero. At the last election, Labor failed to commit to continuing the rollouts, but under our government over 600 base stations have already been activated under the Mobile Black Spot Program and we know that they've already connected approximately 10,800 triple 0 emergency calls. I'm not stopping here and our government is not stopping here. We have now opened nominations for another round of the Mobile Black Spot Program, which will invest $25 million to boost coverage in regional and remote areas. Now is the time for my constituents to contact my office and report any black spots that affect them. I'm committed to fighting for better coverage in Berowra. I know that there are problems in Arcadia, especially down on Bay Road and its side streets and the side streets off Cobar Road. I know there are problems in Fiddletown. I know that in Galston shopkeepers rely on wireless point-of-sale machines, but that their service is patchy at best. Galston residents know the feeling of missing a call that never came through, and they know that the poor coverage extends right down Knights Road, Radnor Road and Fishburns Road. Poor phone reception has been a daily reality for Berowra residents for far too long. It means that basic tasks are impossible or disrupted at a moment's notice. It forces residents to build contingencies and workarounds in their everyday routines. It prevents hardworking families and businesses from getting on with the important things in their lives—staying in touch and working together. I know telecommunication is one of the biggest issues in our community. Every day my office receives phone calls about this and every survey we've done confirms it. Every time I visit a school and ask pupils about it, all their hands go up in the air. That's why there are already three towers allocated to the Berowra community, why they've been needed so desperately and why they've been so gratefully welcomed. They show the government's commitment to delivering practical change to improve people's lives. I'm committed to fighting for more towers as part of the government's Mobile Black Spot Program. Today, I encourage all constituents in the Berowra electorate plagued by poor mobile reception to contact my office, to report the black spots that affect them and to tell their neighbours, friends and colleagues—to tell the parents at your schools and the families at your church—that this is a priority for our government and it's a priority for me. So I say to Berowra residents: bring out the black spots! Bring them to me in my office, and we'll fight for them every day until we fix them as a key priority for the Berowra community. We know that Berowra is a beautiful place to live. We know it's not that far from the Sydney CBD, but we know that the unique topography of Berowra and its unique location in the northern corner of Sydney means that mobile telecommunication is not what it should be. I say to Berowra residents: bring out your black spots! Let me go out and fight hard for our community. 18:29 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari Can I acknowledge the member for Berowra's contribution, and just say to him that I appreciate why he'd be asking the lovely burghers of Berowra to contact his office, given that 80 per cent of funding for black spots in the first three or four rounds went to coalition seats. In my own electorate, there are 450 identified black spots—450, of which 20 have been funded. I've got 1.34 million square kilometres of the landmass of Australia in my electorate. Many are remote communities and Aboriginal communities, quite diverse, that don't have mobile coverage. Whilst I commend some of the initiatives that have been taken and some of the black spots that have been covered, it's worthwhile knowing that on top of the 25 per cent of all the towers constructed in round 1 they were in areas that already had mobile coverage. In my own space, the execution of the program has gone so poorly it's believed one in six of the towers from round 1—we're now in round 4—are not even operational, such as those in my own electorate of Lingiari. For people living in Mount Leibig or on the cusp of the Simpson Desert at Apatula, or they might be living at Milyakburra in East Arnhem Land or in the Roper Gulf Region at Burunga—right across the Territory—we have black spots that need to be addressed. It's a matter of health and safety. It's not just a question of saying we need modern communications for commerce. These are real issues for people who live in remote parts of this country. Towers have often gone into tourist spots and roadhouses but, as usual, many remote communities have been left without. That's left people wondering how to address this very important issue. We've seen a totally insufficient performance measurement and evaluation to check if the needs of community were being properly met and money was being well spent. There's been no proper planning or objective evaluation to determine whether the towers were needed or not. As a result state governments, like Victoria, pulled out. Labor will improve mobile communications from regional communities if we are successful at the next election, and we'll fund mobile services for regional Australia. We'll have a better mobile service for regional Australia policy that will co-fund another 50 new mobile base stations as well as other relevant technologies, such as small cells, repeaters and backhaul. We've heard a lot from the government about how well they're doing. But I have to say to you, if you just drive a little way out of Alice Springs, on the Stuart Highway, you will find no mobile coverage. And that's led to a bit of innovation, which is well worth talking about in this debate. The Centre for Appropriate Technology, an Aboriginal organisation in Alice Springs, as the name describes, works around innovative engineering solutions and it's come up with some hotspot technology. They place a dish and a receiving station remotely. If you've got a mobile phone you can go to that remote station and, in the vicinity of the station, you can make mobile calls. That mobile technology, which has been developed by the Centre for Appropriate Technology in Alice Springs, will mean we'll now see hotspot dishes placed in strategic locations, across central Australia, largely funded by the Central Land Council in Alice Springs. This is a local Aboriginal organisation, the Centre for Appropriate Technology, devising an engineering solution for what is a real problem and having a local Aboriginal organisation—in this case, the Central Land Council—pay for the placement of some of these pieces in strategic locations. But that does not cover the real problem here, that we've got huge black spot areas across to the north of Australia, in my own electorate, in particular. And I call on the government to do something reasonable for people in the bush. We hear a lot from—what do they call them?—the bush Liberals but we don't see a lot being delivered, and if they are being delivered they're in their electorates and not in the electorates of those who are the most needy. If needs based funding were allocated, I wouldn't have a problem, because all of the black spots in my communities would be covered. But as it's not a needs based funding solution—it's based on the political imperatives of the government—we're seeing decisions made on political imperatives and opportunism, not on what's in the best interests of the community. I call on the government to rethink its Mobile Black Spot Program and make sure the people of my electorate are having their needs properly addressed. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Privatising the ABC 151 18:34 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert Like many Australians, I grew up with the ABC. I remember when we got our first television set—that'll be giving my age away a bit! It was a black-and-white Pye television set. I remember sitting with great excitement with my sisters and brothers as our mother turned on the television set for the very first time. We sat mesmerised in front of the TV as we watched Noddy. I have never forgotten that point in time in my life. This was the very first television program that I ever watched. I was in primary school, and it was on the ABC. My children all grew up watching Play School and Sesame Street. These were great educational programs. I remember shows such as The D-Generation, Brides of Christ, G.P., Countdown and many, many other quality programs. The ABC has been the training ground for so many Australian actors, producers, writers and other craftsmen and women. To this day, I have my ABC routine. Given my busy lifestyle now, I'm very selective in how I use my free time, and I now only really watch the ABC. The week starts with Insiders on Sunday morning. Monday night is my biggest ABC viewing time, with shows like Four Corners, Q&A and others. I also watch the news and 7.30 whenever I can. I actually don't have a list of all my favourite shows because I don't have time to read them out. It is a reality is say that the ABC is the most trusted news broadcaster in this country. Seventeen million Australians watch some form of ABC content every week. In regional Australia in particular, the ABC plays a vital role in keeping regional communities connected with local news and emergency information. The ABC has been created by Australians for Australians. That is why this LNP government's cuts to the ABC are dismaying and disgusting. The LNP is cutting $83.7 million to our ABC. This is on top of the previous cuts to the ABC, which included $254 million in 2014 and $28 million in 2016. These cuts have already resulted in 800 ABC staff walking out the door. Services like short-wave radio shut down, and there was a drop in Australian content. In Townsville, we have experienced the slashing of our very popular local Drive content. Now we are facing more cuts to jobs, content and services. The ABC has said that these latest cuts are the equivalent of cutting into the meat of the broadcaster and, if we give those opposite another term, we can expect they will do more than just cut the funding, because we all know that what they really want to do is to privatise the ABC. The Liberal Party's peak council voted almost two to one to privatise the ABC. If the LNP sell the ABC, which is one of our greatest assets, it would be the end of independent media in the country. This will result in the growth of Rupert Murdoch's ideologies throughout all major media outlets. That is what the LNP government truly wants to do. We have already seen the dirty deals done with the LNP, One Nation and Centre Alliance. That delivered the votes needed to breathe life into the government's deal with One Nation to attack the ABC. The only way to save the ABC is to change the government. A Labor government will reverse Turnbull's $83.7 million unfair cut to the ABC as well as guarantee funding certainty over the next ABC budget cycle. The ABC is funded on a three-yearly, or triennial, basis with the next cycle to begin next year, so it is critical that we fight against the LNP government's unfair cuts to the ABC now. Labor's commitment will ensure our public broadcaster will have the funding stability it needs to meet its charter requirements, safeguard the jobs of people at the ABC, adapt to the digital media environment and maintain content and services that Australians trust and rely upon. I support my ABC. I do not support the LNP government taking more of a slashing knife to the ABC. I do support the fact that we need to boot out this government—out of the arched window in fact. Enough is enough. The difference between Labor and Liberal could not be more clear. Labor will put people and services first, whereas the Liberals will cut, cut, cut while supporting banks and big business. Now is the time to save the ABC. Please sign our petition to protect and save the ABC. Labor will reverse the LNP's $3.7 million of cuts, guarantee funding directly and give them certainty over the next budget cycle. Labor is committed to an independent media market for Australia and not tearing Big Ted, Bananas in Pyjamas and our ABC to shreds. (Time expired) 18:39 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I think what I need is a Banana in Pyjamas to give me the energy to get over these contributions—and not just by the member who spoke before me! It's the triviality, the childishness and the tawdry nature of the motion that has been put before this Federation Chamber. When I look at a motion like this, I say, 'Haven't the members opposite got anything better to do with their time than the virtue signalling to those people who want to engage in a confected fight and war to defend the ABC from the evil tyranny of those people who have criticisms of it?' I've got to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I actually like the ABC. There are products and content that I don't mind. There are programs where I sometimes say, 'I welcome that contribution to national public life.' It might be informative or educative and actually quite good. But it doesn't mean that I think the ABC is without criticism. When it comes down to it, the ABC shouldn't be treated as some sacred cow that deserves protection above and beyond all other government agencies—untouchable by government, where they might actually, as part of the triennium of funding, occasionally have efficiency dividends or obligations. They do it to themselves; they find ways to make efficiency dividends so that they can provide new services and new opportunities to provide content. And I think there is an entirely legitimate case to criticise the ABC about its Sydney-centricity. I know that won't bother many of the members opposite, who like to represent the inner Western Sydney perspective of the world. But some of us come from other parts of Australia! Some of us come from other parts of the community, representing different values, different attitudes and, critically, different Australian stories. That's where the ABC could do so much to help itself—to actually give voice to the lived Australian experience. To give voice to the voiceless—to those whose stories have not yet been written or told. The ABC could do so much to advance the cause of this Australia fair if they made sure that they gave every Australian the opportunity and the platform. Let's just look at the Sydney-centricity of the ABC, where so much of its resources, its staff and its talent pool is poured into Ultimo to create a myopic and limited world view of this nation. Frankly, what we need in the ABC charter is more diversity. Yes, people always say, 'Diversity of opinion and political bias,' and all those sorts of things. But I'm talking about geographic diversity, and not just rural and regional Australia—although that is critically important. The ABC charter should actually recognise that there are other capital cities apart from Sydney. Melbourne is a capital city too, and so is Brisbane. So is Adelaide, so is Hobart and so is Perth. Opposition members interjecting— Mr TIM WILSON IMW I know you mock it on the other side, but some of us care about places beyond the Emerald City—to give the stories of those parts of the country a voice too. Let's face it, when it comes down to it, if I had a choice between which program is more biased or more myopic in its ABC world view, between Q&A versus Insiders, I'm going to make Barrie Cassidy's day. I reckon that Insiders is more reflective of a diversity of views than the programs on Monday night from Ultimo in Sydney. What that says is that the more the ABC gets out, the better—the more the ABC turns around to this great nation and says, 'We want to represent everybody as part of the story of this nation. And this is where I give proper credit to programs like Back Roads, to lots of other comedy programs which are made outside Sydney and to those that try to tell the stories of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. These are the stories that don't get their voice on national television and which don't get onto commercial broadcasters. The more we see of that then the more confidence the ABC will hold and the more confidence it will have within the Australian community. Frankly, the people who have been doing a better job at this than the ABC are actually SBS. Yes, they've created programs which tell the stories of the lived experience of Australians, and they've actually shone bright lights into dark places. Ms Claydon interjecting— Mr TIM WILSON IMW I know you can mock it, but the reality is that programs that focus on things like homelessness and that focus on the challenges faced by refugees are critically important to educate, to inform and to grow the opportunity experience of Australians. I would like to see more of that from the ABC, not less. 18:44 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta It's good to hear that the member for Goldstein believes that the ABC should do more. Mr Tim Wilson IMW My electorate is named after a suffragette. I expect it to be named properly. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Parramatta has corrected it. Ms OWENS E09 Could I start again, please? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 You can. Ms OWENS E09 It is good to hear the member form Goldstein say that he'd like to see the ABC do more; most of us would. It's just a shame that they cut their budget, which makes it incredibly hard for the ABC to do even what it does now, which I personally believe it does incredibly well. I grew up with the ABC, many of us did, and there wouldn't be a parent or a grandparent in this country who doesn't live with ABC Kids every day of their lives and watch their children discover the ABC in the same way that we did. On the eve of the 2013 election, Tony Abbott said there'd be no cuts to the ABC, and we all hoped that was true. Then what happened? There was $254 million cut from the ABC in 2014 and a further $28 million was cut in 2016. We've all seen the results: around 800 ABC staff have lost their jobs; the Australia Network has been axed; short-wave radio has been shut down; and the number of hours of ABC factual programming has been dropped by 60 per cent, drama by 20 per cent and documentary by 13.5 per cent. We can expect to see future cuts this year, because, while the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has found $30 million for Fox Sports this year, they have cut another $83.7 million from the ABC. Let's face it, that suits the government. It has a habit of trying to silence its critics with legislation or with the overblown rhetoric and bullying that we saw in this chamber just prior to me standing. If Australians need any more proof the Liberals are on a mission to destroy the public broadcaster, they got it when the Liberal Federal Council voted to privatise the ABC in June this year. The Liberal Federal Council voted overwhelmingly to sell off the ABC, and when we, Labor, stood in this House and moved a motion in parliament calling for the Turnbull government to pledge that it would never support the privatisation of the ABC, they squibbed; they voted it down. Don't expect any better now that we have a third Prime Minister. It might be a new Prime Minister, but it's the same tired old bunch. We still have Mitch Fifield, a card-carrying member of the Institute of Public Affairs in the role of Minister for Communications, and the IPA advocates strongly that the ABC be broken up and privatised. Not only is the minister a member of the IPA; he's made a donation to the IPA and spoke, in 2008, about the merit of the privatisation of the ABC and Australia Post. That's not all. We know that Minister Fifield is a serial complainant on the ABC—on everything from ABC internal staffing policies to the disclosure of presenter salaries, the date of the Hottest 100 and the content of comedy sketches. He's fixated on the ABC, but not in a good way. The ABC is more important than ever. In a world where fake news is prevalent, the ABC delivers news and information that Australians trust. The ABC reaches 71 per cent of Australians each week; 12.3 million Australians watch ABC TV each week; 7.6 million visit ABC online each month; 4.9 million Australians in five capital cities listen to ABC Radio each week; the ABC News channel reaches an average of 4.4 million viewers a month; and more than 80 per cent of Australians trust the ABC compared to an average trust of just 57 per cent for commercial media. There is no Australian media organisation in the country that is more trusted, valued and distinctive than the ABC. But, let's face it, if the Morrison government can't cut the ABC to death, or privatise it to death, there are other ways. They can meddle with the ABC Act, and, thanks to a deal with Rebekha Sharkie and her colleagues in Centre Alliance, that's exactly what is happening now. The Prime Minister is forging ahead with his government's attack on the ABC, with three bills to amend the ABC Act and charter which are being debated in the Senate this week. On top of that, there's a damaging so-called 'competitive neutrality inquiry' aimed at undermining the ABC in the online environment. These are all deals which undermine media diversity and the public interest in Australia, and they are a real live threat to the ABC as we know it. Labor believe that the ABC is one of our most important institutions and part of the fabric of our nation. We're united in our belief in a strong, independent and properly funded ABC. That's why we've committed to reversing Scott Morrison's unfair $83.7 million cut and to guaranteeing stable funding for our ABC. At a time when too many Australians feel disengaged from their democracy and distrustful of their institutions, Labor want to restore trust and faith in our wonderful ABC. 18:50 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I thank the member for Mayo for bringing this important motion opposing any efforts by this Liberal government towards the privatisation of the national broadcaster, our ABC, because that's a fight that I am very happy to take on. The ABC is very much a part of our social and cultural fabric here in Australia. Every day, it entertains, it informs and it enlightens. It tells our unique Australian stories and reflects our national identity. It shines a light on misdeeds and speaks truth to power. At times of crisis, during floods, droughts and fires, it's there to give us the information we need to stay safe and connected. An astounding 71 per cent of Australians have viewed, read or heard some ABC content in the past week. Having secured the trust of 80 per cent of Australians, it is far and away the most trusted news source in our country. More than 60 per cent of Australians say it needs a boost in long-term funding. But these views are not borne out by the actions of this deeply unrepresentative Liberal government, whose own federal council voted this year to privatise our national broadcaster. In fact, from day one, the Liberal government has gone after the ABC with a zeal that it usually reserves for climate change scientists. It has cut its funding. It has attacked its content. It has vilified its personnel. It has used it as a bargaining chip in its dirty deals with One Nation. And it has not finished yet. Make no mistake: the ABC is now in for the fight of its life—or, more accurately, the fight for its life. Despite going to the 2013 election with an unequivocal promise not to cut the ABC, the Abbott government slashed $254 million in its first horror budget, in 2014. In 2015, it installed as minister Senator Mitch Fifield, a card-carrying member of the IPA, which has long argued that the ABC should be broken up and sold off. On this issue, the minister once said: Conservatives have often floated the prospect of privatising the ABC and Australia Post. There is merit in such proposals. In 2016 the Turnbull government slashed a further $28 million from the ABC budget. In 2017 the government used the ABC as a bargaining chip in a deal with Pauline Hanson, which the Financial Review described as 'the biggest assault on the ABC's independence in decades'. In return it promised no less than three bills to change the ABC Act and charter, as well as a so-called competitive neutrality inquiry, designed to undermine ABC Online. Tragically, the government's relentless attacks are hitting their mark. Since 2014, 800 ABC staff have lost their jobs; the Australia Network has been axed; the shortwave radio has been shut down; and content has also suffered, with the number of hours of factual programming plummeting by 60 per cent, drama dropping by 20 per cent and documentary falling by 13.5 per cent. But none of this made a jot of difference to Treasurer Morrison, who went on to slash a further $84 million from the ABC budget in the 2018 budget. At the time, he tried to justify the cut by saying that everyone has to live within their means. The sheer hypocrisy of this statement is laid bare when you learn that this is the same man who gifted $30 million of taxpayers' money to global media giant News Corp's pay TV operation Foxtel. We still don't know how this money is being spent or why indeed a private company should be given millions of dollars of public funding in the first place. But it's clear that it's now crunch time for the ABC. If we're going to save it, we're going to have to fight. But this isn't just nostalgia for a venerable cultural institution: the health of our very democracy is on the line. When you don't have a diversity of media voices, it's very hard for a multitude of views to get exposure and very easy for powerful players and vested interests to drown out other perspectives. Let's face it, life without Jack Irish, Mystery Road, Rake, Janet Kingand Black Comedy is a life unimaginable. Hands off our ABC, Mr Morrison! 18:55 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman I love our ABC, and I know that the people in the community where I live in Longman do too. They love their ABC; I've had countless people from Caboolture, Burpengary, Bribie Island, Beachmere and Morayfield—choose any spot across Longman—approach me worried about the coalition governments and what they've been doing, and are seeking to do, to our beloved ABC. We all remember how the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott, promised during the 2013 election campaign that there would be no funding cuts to the ABC under his government. We all know how that turned out, don't we! Since 2014, the out-of-touch Liberals have overseen $282 million in cuts to the ABC. That has seen 800 jobs lost and a drop in Australian content and services, including the axing of both the Australia Network and short-wave radio offerings. And, as announced in the then Treasurer Scott Morrison's 2018 budget, they are going to do it all again, this time cutting $83.7 million worth of funding over the next three years. I commend the member for Mayo for calling these disgraceful cuts out for what they are. This is privatisation by stealth. In an era of fake news and outrageous editorials, we need the ABC more than ever. Australians trust the ABC because the ABC has earned that trust. It has earned our trust by reporting the facts, by remaining impartial and by avoiding bias, as has been proven by study after study. It has earned our trust by acting as a towering figure in the fourth estate. The ABC holds people and governments to account. Programs like 7.30 and Four Corners not only keep regular Australians abreast of what is happening in their capital, in their country or anywhere in the world, they help to shape their present. The in-depth reporting that is ever present in the programming guides political discourse, helping us, as politicians, to do much better. For example, it was Four Corners that highlighted the rorting and abuse of seniors in aged-care facilities. It has been their damning reports that have pushed this government into finally acting by calling for a royal commission into the sector. The Liberals have shown their contempt for the aged-care sector. Prime Minister Morrison cut $1.2 billion from aged care in his very first budget, but the ABC stoked the flames of political pressure that ultimately incited this royal commission. Congratulations, ABC! The cuts to the ABC were not about budget repair and they were not about reducing any non-existent waste. The cuts to the ABC were a matter of ideology, pure and simple. We all know there are countless members of the Institute of Public Affairs, or the IPA, within the ranks of the LNP government. The IPA have long advocated for the ABC to be broken up and privatised. It just so happens that the Minister for Communications and the Arts, Mitch Fifield, the minister presiding over the cuts to the ABC, is not only a card-carrying member of this partisan organisation but he is also one of their donors. Minister Fifield has been anything but subtle in his attempts to undermine our 'Aunty' ABC. He has publicly admitted that he sees merit in its privatisation and he currently has three bills before parliament that have been designed to inflict damage on our ABC. The Liberals have engaged in this battle against our ABC for many, many years, slowly chipping away at the very network which reaches 71 per cent of Australians each and every week, and it's pretty clear these attacks will continue into the future. In June this year, the Liberal Party's peak council, which represents party branches across the country, voted overwhelmingly in favour of selling off the ABC. It's not just the party council engaged in these attacks, it's their next generation, the Young Liberals. In their submission to the Treasury, ahead of the 2018-19 budget release, the Young Liberals called for a wide-scale reduction of the funding provided to the ABC. Having only just expressed their alarm at the level this government's mismanagement has inflicted upon our nation, it isn't easy to understand their rationale by cutting a service that they recognise as continually returning money to the budget. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Alcoa 156 19:00 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning I move: That this House notes: (1) recognises the industrial action undertaken by Alcoa workers since 8 August 2018; (2) acknowledges the cost this action has had on both Alcoa and its workforce, including families and communities in the Peel region; (3) notes the impact the high cost of energy has had on working families and Australian industry, particularly aluminium refinement; (4) recognises the resolve of the Government to get power prices down; and (5) calls on Alcoa and the Australian Workers' Union to reach an agreement that protects the job security of their workers. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 Is the motion seconded? Mr Keogh 249147 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr HASTIE 260805 We have an energy crisis in this country and it is hurting Australian industry, our workers and our competitiveness in the global economy. That is the backdrop to the industrial action taken by 1,600 Alcoa workers who have now been on strike for 40 days in the Peel region. This strike is the result of over 18 months of failed negotiations with Alcoa over a new EBA. But the EBA dispute is only a symptom of the absurdly high costs of power in Australia. Alcoa want their Australian operations to remain globally competitive. Alcoa workers want job security. Both are worthy objectives and both are necessary for our long-term prosperity and security. But a decade of failed energy policy at a national and state level, driven by green ideologues committed to deindustrialisation, now threatens Alcoa and its workers. Put simply, the high cost of energy in Australia is making us less productive and less competitive. It is killing industry and Australian jobs. I think of the Alcan smelter in Kurri Kurri that closed in 2012: 500 jobs, gone. I think of the Alcoa Port Henry smelter in Geelong closed in 2014: 800 jobs, gone. The local green group leader, Dr Jacinta Morahan, called it a win. The AWU secretary at the time, Ben Davis, said workers were gutted, and rightly so. The Rio Tinto Gove alumina refinery permanently closed in 2017: 1,100 jobs, gone. And the Alcoa Portland smelter is only open because of state and federal government subsidies: 800 jobs at stake. Now we are feeling the heat in WA, as workers out west are forced to pay for the reckless mistakes made by governments in the eastern energy market. Alcoa has operated in the Peel region for over 40 years. Their mines at Huntly and Willowdale produce bauxite for over 45 per cent of Australia's alumina. Their refineries at Wagerup and Pinjarra are two of only six in the country. You can't imagine the Peel region without Alcoa. Alcoa's investment in the Peel region has given people the dignity of work and provided a living for many families. The average Alcoa worker in the Peel region stays with the company for about 20 years. Alcoa pays a good salary to employees and has a longstanding tradition of generously supporting local community projects. This is why this strike is so significant to our region. Alcoa want to remain competitive and profitable, and Alcoa workers rightly want security. One does not need to win at the expense of the other. Workers don't want forced redundancies, labour hire and contract work, not for their families or their communities. And I hear their concerns. Its 1,600 workers are members of our local footy clubs. They're volunteer surf lifesavers. Their kids attend local schools and spend their money supporting local businesses. Without secure work it is far more difficult to put down roots. It's harder to take out a mortgage, it's harder to make investments and it's harder to pay school fees and to pay for health care. This strike has come at a huge cost. Families are doing it tough, and I know many partners are working extra hours to make ends meet. My message to Australian workers in the Peel and beyond is simply this: Australian industry and Australian workers must come first. When it comes to energy, we must put the Australian people before Paris. That is why the Morrison government is committed to getting power prices down for Australian working families, seniors and industry. Without cheap power this country will suffer a loss in living standards and in its competitiveness. This will hurt business, particularly energy-intensive industries like Alcoa's alumina refinement. So we need Alcoa and the AWU and associated unions to sit down and land this agreement. We need both Alcoa and the workers to win. We need Labor to look workers in the eye and tell them the truth about their energy plans: their commitment to a 45 per cent emissions reduction target and a 50 per cent renewables target will destroy industry and Aussie jobs. We need an energy policy that provides a secure future for working families, seniors and industry before it's too late, because, as industry collapses here, it expands in China, fuelled by Australian coal and gas. Our workers deserve better. The Morrison government's No. 1 priority, therefore, is cheaper energy and Australian jobs. 19:05 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Sixteen hundred workers from mines and refineries across Kwinana, Pinjarra, Waroona and Wagerup continue to strike indefinitely, waiting for Alcoa to come to the table and finalise negotiations for a new enterprise agreement. These workers are not fighting for more money; rather, they've actually accepted pay freezes. They're merely fighting for some job security in the unpredictable job market in which they operate. They are dedicated and reliable workers, many of whom have worked for Alcoa for longer than I or the member for Canning have even been alive. Alcoa want to be able to force redundancies whilst maintaining there won't be any, all while the workers are mining and refining bauxite for the benefit of an American company. These workers are ordinary men and women who live in our suburbs, and Alcoa is treating them in a disgraceful way. These mums and dads have been effectively negotiating with a gun to their heads, as Alcoa has applied for the workers' existing enterprise bargaining agreement to be cancelled. The hearing for that case started in Perth today. Alcoa did not always treat its workers this way, but now Alcoa is taking advantage of a federal government that favours the big end of town, a government that champions big business, a government that is intent on attacking workers and their unions, a government that is about putting people last, not first. This motion from the member for Canning has some points to commend it. It recognises that there is industrial action going on in his electorate. That action has been ongoing for over 40 days, but better later than never. It acknowledges the cost that this action has had for both Alcoa and its workforce, as well as their families and the regional community. Well, yes, with Alcoa one of the largest employers in the Peel region, with many employees also from the Rockingham, Kwinana and Armadale areas, the region has been knocked about. But it's a little disingenuous, isn't it, to equate the financial 'hardship' faced by a company with a profit of over $1 billion with that faced by the 1,600 workers, their families and regional towns like Dwellingup, Pinjarra and Waroona when they have not been working for over a month and are fighting for job security. This is partly why there has been so much local support for these workers. However, the motion notes the impact of energy prices and the work—the member says—that the federal government is doing to bring them down. Newsflash, Member for Canning: Alcoa has its own power plant for some refineries and is effectively a price maker, as it's the largest industrial consumer of WA's reserves of domestic gas. In any event, none of the government's energy policies—when it's had one, two, three, four, five of them—relates to Western Australia, which is not part of the National Energy Market. Finally, the motion calls on Alcoa and the AWU to reach an agreement. Despite Alcoa's claims that they are happy to talk, they are actually unavailable to talk until at least next week, having thrown up worker votes and commission hearings to get in the way of actually working together with their workers and the AWU to conclude these protracted and stalled negotiations. I implore Alcoa to sit down again with the AWU to hear what they and the workers have to say. They only want what is in the best interests of themselves and their families and are more than willing to talk. Ten days ago, Alcoa workers met with the member for Canning. They had a simple request that he put a motion in parliament that an EBA remain in place until both parties agree to a new EBA—essentially, that employers not be able to unilaterally terminate an agreement as Alcoa is seeking to do. Yet that is the one thing that this motion from the member Canning doesn't do. He can't bring himself to join these workers—like I and the Leader of the Opposition, the Premier of Western Australia, the member for Brand, Senator Pratt, Senator Sterle and the Labor candidate for Canning, Mellisa Teede, have done—in calling for and supporting a change to the rules. A Shorten Labor government, if elected, will stop employers from being able to terminate agreements without the agreement of workers and their unions. A Shorten Labor government, if elected, will also implement a very simple policy—same job, same pay. No longer will employers be able to get away with dressing labour hire workers in the same uniforms, in the same company logo, doing the same work but for less money. These changes are about getting our AWU Alcoa workers and all Australian workers a fair go. We must, for their sake and the sake of many others, change the rules of industrial relations in this country. We have a chance to turn the pages over. We can write laws we want to write. Workers gotta make ends meet before we get much older. Australian workers are all someone's daughters; they're all someone's sons. How long can we allow negotiations down the barrel of a gun? 19:10 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'm very glad to speak on this motion, because the unacceptable situation being endured by 1,600 Alcoa workers in Western Australia is a big issue in my part of the world. It speaks to an issue of national importance, and it speaks to the need to change the rules. Make no mistake: as they stand, the rules of our industrial system are seriously out of whack with our values, and, what's more, the poor function of those rules is contributing to the broad economic malaise caused by stagnant real wages in this country. We cannot have a situation where a workforce has their existing agreement pulled out from under them. We cannot have a situation where employers can unilaterally cancel an existing enterprise bargaining agreement, threaten their workforce with a loss of pay and conditions, which is inherent in being dropped back to the underlying award, and then force them to bargain all over again, under threat, for terms that have been won in the past. That is simply wrong, and yet that is what is occurring at Alcoa. It's what occurred at Griffin Coal in Collie in WA, resulting in a protracted and damaging dispute that was ultimately won by the workers and their representatives, the AMWU. It was in prospect at Murdoch University, involving, again, a stressful and unseemly dispute, in which the staff and NTEU ultimately prevailed. We cannot allow this practice to continue. It's a denial of the basic principles of fair and good faith bargaining and it's contributing to a nationwide problem in the form of falling real wages—wages that have become completely disconnected from productivity and profits. It will only get worse if companies are allowed to callously scupper existing agreements and send workers back to ground zero, it will only get worse if new agreements continue the trend towards more insecure work, and it will only get worse if our system doesn't regulate out the pernicious use of labour hire and false casuals. The Alcoa strike that began on 8 August is action being taken to preserve existing pay and conditions, especially in relation to job security. Alcoa wants to impose worse conditions on its workforce, especially in relation to the security of their jobs. The workers and their union want to maintain their position. In the ballot on Alcoa's proposal to reduce job security and provide a less than one per cent pay increase, 80 per cent of the workforce voted no—no surprises. In response, this motion, unfortunately, is big on platitudes and short on clarity and commitment. It calls on Alcoa and the Australian Workers' Union to reach an agreement. Wow, really! What further advice could the member for Canning have for both sides? Should the AWU roll over and see the workers they represent cop a manifestly worse deal at a time of rising non-discretionary costs and record household debt? What this motion should say is: such action is wrong. It goes against the principles of fair bargaining and common sense. No company should seek to reach a new agreement by such tactics, and the law needs to be changed to prevent it in future. Instead, this motion makes reference to electricity prices as if Alcoa were under some new cost pressure that justifies this action. Yet nothing in particular has changed for Alcoa on that front. As the member for Perth pointed out, Alcoa essentially has its own power arrangements and its own gas reserves in place. The company itself has made no reference to the issue. Indeed, while the workers in WA face stagnant wages and record underemployment, Alcoa, last year, made a record $1.6 billion profit. So the reference to electricity prices is a complete red herring. It is a nonsense. The reality is that Alcoa workers in WA are fighting for a fair go. It's no small thing to go off the job. It's no small thing to go weeks without pay. Alcoa workers and their families are enduring significant financial pain in order to protect their livelihood. Some of those families will be struggling to keep on an even keel to pay their mortgages and to meet other commitments. Some of those families will, right now, be cancelling their school holiday plans, or borrowing money, or having to explain difficult financial circumstances to friends and colleagues when, understandably, they might prefer to keep that kind of private matter to themselves. In the great tradition of the labour movement, the struggle of Alcoa workers and AWU members is not only about their livelihood and the wellbeing of their families and communities; it is also about the future wellbeing of all workers and all Australians. The men and women in the Alcoa workforce know that the jobs they occupy will be jobs for other workers in the future. They're not prepared to see those jobs become fundamentally less secure for the next worker who holds that job and for the next family that relies on it for their sustenance and their dignity. This motion should acknowledge and pay tribute to their commitment. I, and we, honour and pay tribute to that resolve and that commitment. If the member for Canning is serious about the plight of the Alcoa workers, he should be clear in calling out the practice of unilaterally terminating EBAs. He should be clear in calling on Alcoa to abandon that approach, guarantee the existing pay and conditions and bargain from that foundation of fairness with workers and their union on a good-faith basis. 19:15 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I, too, am very pleased to rise in this place today to speak on this motion. In particular, I want to highlight point 5 of the member for Canning's motion, which: … calls on Alcoa and the Australian Workers' Union to reach an agreement that protects the job security of their workers— except that it's virtually impossible for Alcoa and the AWU to reach an agreement that protects the job security of workers when Alcoa is, today, in the Fair Work Commission, seeking to have the enterprise agreement cancelled and workers' conditions revert to the award. That's not bargaining. It's theft—theft of the working conditions of a long-serving and loyal workforce across Western Australia. I'm really happy, today—and I've heard before in the media—that the member for Canning is supporting the workers. I call on him to move amendments to the Fair Work Act to protect the job security of the Alcoa workers in his electorate, and in mine, and in the member for Burt's, and in all the electorates around Western Australia where Alcoa workers reside. We can work together on this. I'm very happy to talk with the member for Canning to suggest amendments to the Fair Work Act. We can legislate, for instance, to protect collective bargaining. Everyone knows Labor's policy is to ensure that collective bargaining is not undermined by corporate gaming of industrial relations laws, including preventing the use of sham enterprise agreements—and what we have seen here—by preventing the likes of Alcoa from seeking to terminate enterprise bargaining agreements so that they can save a bit of cash and turf out a whole workforce. There are other things we might work together on—if you are in support of the workers, as you say you are, Member for Canning. We can look at the same job, same pay policy, where we will protect workers and ensure they get a fair deal by tackling unfair labour hire and making sure that people who work alongside each other get paid the same amount of money for exactly the same work. Those are just a couple of ideas. There are a few more. As to fair work, we could redefine the definition of 'casual' so that it's used for the purpose for which it was originally intended, not how it is used now. We would seek to prevent employers from forcing their workers into sham contracting. So there are a few ways in which we can work together, Member for Canning, to actually do something about protecting the workers of Alcoa. This is how you can work to protect their job security. Unless you move amendments to the Fair Work Act, this is just another bit of hot air. It's all talk and no action. But I know you've been busy. There's a lot to do in the Liberal Party at the moment. There were reports in the paper from a couple of Thursdays ago that the member for Canning sent a staffer down to Officeworks to buy an overhead projector and HDMI cable to set up in the room to do the numbers. Mr Andrews HK5 The honourable member is straying right away from the subject of this motion now. Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 It's about job security. Mr Andrews HK5 I invite you to bring her back to the point of the motion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247130 I thank the member for Menzies, and the member for Brand might— Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is about job security. And just a little tip: you can actually go to 2020 and get that equipment, so you don't have to send a staffer off to do it if you don't want to in future, if you have to do the numbers. I stand here in this place in solidarity with the workers of Alcoa, with my colleagues on this side of the House the member for Fremantle and the member for Burt. We present policies to benefit the many, not the few, and we work in solidarity with the working women and men of Australia. Over the last several weeks and the 41 days that these working women and men have been on strike and on their picket lines, I have visited them in Kwinana, in my electorate, and in Pinjarra. I didn't have a ute to stand on, I'll admit. I didn't have a megaphone. I went and spoke to a lot of members personally. I delivered lamingtons—I did not cook them, and I apologise for that, but I think the workers enjoyed them. I delivered some quiche. I went to two mass meetings, both in Pinjarra, one in the pouring rain. I went to two picket lines, one in Pinjarra and one in Kwinana in my electorate. I spoke to people I went to high school with. Hello to Jarrod Draper, for instance. We went to Safety Bay Senior High School together. I spoke to Alcoa workers that my brothers went to school with—Frank Mooney; they went to Rockingham Senior High. I was really pleased to welcome Bill Shorten down to the Pinjarra mass meeting to listen to the workers. He spoke to the workers about his promises, Labor's promises, to deliver a fair go for workers, to change the rules so that companies like Alcoa cannot just walk on in and terminate an agreement. That's the kind of action this parliament needs to take to protect the job security of workers. Bill Shorten, like me, hates it when companies like Alcoa take advantage of decent, cooperative workers who just want the best thing for their own workforce—as well they should—for their own families and for the state of Western Australia. If this motion were worth a hill of beans, we'd work to legislate and change the Fair Work Act to give a fair go to workers in this country. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Australia and Indonesia 160 19:21 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand As Paul Keating used to say, there is no country more important to Australia than Indonesia. It is our neighbour, a fellow democracy, forecast to be the fourth largest economy in the world, a leader in Asia and ASEAN in particular, a country with which we share many strategic interests. So I was pleased to see the Prime Minister following through on the commitment of his predecessor and visiting Jakarta and meeting with Pak Jokowi only a week after assuming office. Visits by leaders are important and can become lasting touchstones in ties between two nations. In 1968, for example, Australian Prime Minister John Gorton visited Jakarta accompanied by his wife, Mrs Bettina Gorton. As recounted by Professor David Hill, Mrs Gorton spoke fluent Bahasa Indonesia and Javanese, leading President Suharto reportedly to remark: It is indeed an honour, it is even very moving for the Indonesian people that this time outside the Malay race we have a state guest who is well versed in our language and who has a thorough knowledge of the Indonesian culture. I feel that Mrs Gorton's fluency and her knowledge of the Indonesian language are a manifestation of the friendly feelings and the understanding of the Australian people about the Indonesian people. Professor Hill observed: At no subsequent time has an Indonesian president been able to make such observations of an Australian Prime Minister or their spouse—or, for that matter, a foreign minister or any other member of an Australian government. Pleasingly, should Labor win the next election, that would change. Under a Shorten Labor government we would have a Treasurer who speaks Bahasa Indonesia and a foreign minister who speaks Bahasa Melayu. That is not to forget also the member for Solomon, who is an accomplished Bahasa Indonesia speaker himself, and the member for Whitlam, who is completing his studies in this language. Building Asian language capability shows the region that we are serious about engagement. Labor is committed to increasing the number of Australians speaking an Asian language through our schools. So I was pleased recently to welcome to Australia students from SMP Labschool Kebayoran, a junior high school from Jakarta, for their exchange stay at Williamstown High School in my electorate. The sister school relationship is nearly a decade old and has seen hundreds of kids have an invaluable Australia-Indonesia cross-cultural experience. Students from both countries spend time together attending normal classes in the school environment, special cooking classes and visiting local attractions. Next year, Willi High students will go to Jakarta. The exchange program not only builds friendships; Williamstown High has seen a clear increase in enrolment in Bahasa Indonesia classes as a consequence. Through the hard work of the Indonesia teachers at Williamstown High, who volunteer their time to run this program, the school has fostered interest and capability in Indonesia crucial for Australia's future. It's a model for what we should be doing throughout the country. We all agree that Australia needs to expand our economic relationship with Indonesia, a G20 member right next door, but not even one of our top 10 trading partners. Indonesia's economy is projected to more than double in size by 2030, yet the number of Australian businesses with a presence in Indonesia has shrunk from 450 to a paltry 250 over the past decade. We need to turn this around. But, if our focus is simply on turning a buck, the relationship will always be shallow and transactional. We need to break through the ignorance identified by former Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who, when addressing this parliament in 2010, noted: … the most persistent problem in our relations— between Australia and Indonesia— is the persistence of age-old stereotypes—misleading, simplistic mental caricature that depicts the other side in a bad light. Even in the age of cable television and internet, there are Australians who still see Indonesia as an authoritarian country, as a military dictatorship, as a hotbed of Islamic extremism or even as an expansionist power. Other the hand, in Indonesia there are people who remain afflicted with Australiaphobia—those who believe that the notion of White Australia still persists, that Australia harbours ill intention toward Indonesia … Language and cultural literacy are the foundation upon which Australia and Indonesia can build a deeper relationship—cultural, strategic and economic; a long-term relationship built on genuine interest in Asia, developed from a young age. We need more programs like the one at Williamstown High, because those kids will be the ones who go on to perfect their Bahasa Indonesian at university, who will have the capability to do more than simply scratch the surface when they take internships in Indonesia, and who will build more meaningful and lasting business and personal relationships with individuals in our countries. Mrs Bettina Gorton will just be the first in a long line of Australian visitors able to engage with Indonesians in their own language, not as an exception ringing out over the decades but as the new normal—a new normal in the relationship between Australia and Indonesia; a deeper, stronger, more comprehensive relationship for the 21st century. 19:26 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's my pleasure to rise and speak on the strong and deepening relationship that Australia has had with Indonesia, one of our nearest neighbours, over the past 30 or 40 years as we've built trade relationships across the Asian region. It would be fair to say that those relationships with Indonesia in that space have been rather overlooked. Whilst plenty of Australians go there for holidays, I think the broader context of what Indonesia represents as one of our near neighbours is underappreciated. In that vein, it was pleasing to see that after only a week of being Prime Minister, and within 24 hours of being sworn in as trade minister, Prime Minister Morrison and Minister Birmingham flew to Indonesia to engage in economic and security negotiations. These talks saw the Indo-Australia security ties elevated to a comprehensive strategic partnership that was formalised by Indonesian President Joko Widodo and Prime Minister Morrison at a signing ceremony at the presidential palace at Bogor. This reflects the increasing need for partnership and cooperation to strengthen the security of our region and keep Australia and those in our region safe. The Prime Minister said in his statement: Our partnership reflects our vision of a region in which the Association of Southeast Asian nations, ASEAN, is central, the rights of all states are respected, and countries behave in accordance with international rules and norms. Bilateral trade negotiations were also made, and I'm pleased to say they were substantially concluded on an Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. This partnership, as with many of the other trade agreements we've put in place, will be a win-win for both nations, and it's importance can't be underestimated. We see here in Australia, in our 27th year of economic growth, that that growth has been underpinned by an open economy that trades and welcomes foreign investment with appropriate safeguards. We can't, though, take this growth for granted. Our trade partnerships have created jobs and increased household incomes, allowed small to medium businesses to grow, and opened new markets for farming and horticulture, construction, mining, energy tourism, telecommunications and more. This is why it's vital to strengthen our trading partnerships and deepen our relations with one of our closest and largest economic neighbours—Indonesia. The government understands this and is proving that it is getting on with the job of ensuring that our nation has the relationships necessary in our region to build a strong economy both domestically and, importantly, internationally. The importance of this being done internationally is that if we work with the Indonesian government to build their economic capacity as well as our own, both countries benefit. They have a population of some 300 million people who want to move up to a standard of living that we have here in this country. It provides an enormous opportunity for our businesses and our economy to provide that support. But it's not just economic support, maybe in terms of manufactured products. We already see the enormous relationships we have in the agricultural sector, particularly for northern Australia with our beef cattle and our live cattle exports to Indonesia, which many years ago, under those opposite, were impacted through the live cattle ban but have been or are being restored. We saw the importance of that market to our agricultural sector in northern Australia with the damage done at that point in time. It was not only the damage done to our agricultural sector; it was also the damage done to the relationship with Indonesia. Therefore it's pleasing that we now see that we have restored or are restoring the foundation of that relationship for the mutual benefit of both countries, because we know that, if we can grow our economies across South-East Asia, all countries benefit as a result. The agreement will mean that over 99 per cent of Australian goods to Indonesia will be either duty free or— (Time expired) Debate adjourned. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:31