Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (09:41): I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House—

(1) notes that:

(a) on Monday 24 November 2014, the Prime Minister stated to the House, "We are applying an efficiency dividend to the ABC"; and

(b) the next day, the Minister for Communications directly contradicted the Prime Minister's statement in the House by stating on Sky News, "It is not an efficiency dividend" and again, "This is not an efficiency dividend": and

(2) censures the Prime Minister for deliberately misleading:

(a) the parliament;

(b) the Australian people when he promised on the night before the last election that there would be "No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST, and no cuts to the ABC or SBS"; and

(c) the Australian people when he said, "It is an absolute principle of democracy that governments should not and must not say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards".

Leave not granted.

Mr SHORTEN: I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Maribyrnong from moving the following motion forthwith:

That the House—

(1) notes that:

(a) on Monday 24 November 2014, the Prime Minister stated to the House, "We are applying an efficiency dividend to the ABC"; and

(b) the next day, the Minister for Communications directly contradicted the Prime Minister's statement in the House by stating on Sky News, "It is not an efficiency dividend" and again, "This is not an efficiency dividend": and

(2) censures the Prime Minister for deliberately misleading:

(a) the parliament;

(b) the Australian people when he promised on the night before the last election that there would be "No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST, and no cuts to the ABC or SBS"; and

(c) the Australian people when he said, "It is an absolute principle of democracy that governments should not and must not say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards".

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (09:44): I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

A division having been called, the bells having been rung and an incident having occurred in the chamber—

The SPEAKER: Order! I must say to the attendants that, when I say, 'Lock the doors', it would be helpful if you would close them quickly. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance if he would move to a part of the chamber where his vote will not be counted in the division. He was the only one involved in pushing past the attendant. The question is that the motion of the Leader of the House be agreed to.

The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?

Mr Clare: I second the motion. Malcolm Turnbull has thrown Tony Abbott under a bus.

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (09:54): I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

The SPEAKER: Now all those members who did not vote in the previous division will report to the tellers.

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (10:00): I move:

That the motion be now put.

The SPEAKER (10:01): The question is that the motion be now put.

The SPEAKER (10:02): The question now is that the original motion for the suspension of standing and sessional orders be agreed to.

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar—Speaker) (10:09): I have received advice from the Senate informing the House that Senator Wong has resigned from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and Senator Williams has been appointed a member of the committee, and that Senator Leyonhjelm has been appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement.

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar—Speaker) (10:10): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill, the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2014, amends the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 to provide that the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, be a member of the Security Management Board. Alternatively, in place of the commissioner, a deputy commissioner or senior executive AFP employee, may be a member of the Security Management Board for Parliament House upon nomination by the presiding officers. The bill also amends the existing functions of the board to include the operation of security measures.

As Speaker of the House of Representatives, my primary concern is for the safety of Parliament House, but more importantly its occupants, and to ensure that people may go about their business in a safe and secure environment. As members will be aware, the existing security arrangements for Parliament House have been enhanced and strengthened over the past few weeks, following the national terrorism public alert level being raised from medium to high. As I have said before in this House, the security arrangements in the parliamentary precincts are under continual and careful assessment, and I am working closely with a range of departments including security and intelligence agencies, in carrying out the necessary security works within the parliamentary precinct.

Together with the President of the Senate, we have already implemented additional measures here at Parliament House, including enhanced perimeter controls, changed access arrangements for the public and private areas of Parliament House, and an armed response capability. We have also increased the armed presence guarding our parliament, which now includes long armed weapons. Whilst we have taken the necessary steps on security early, building occupants will notice significant building security works being undertaken in the weeks and months ahead.

As part of the physical security enhancements, we have been reviewing the governance arrangements for security matters within Parliament House. This bill seeks to further strengthen those governance arrangements in two important areas.

Firstly, this bill will enable a representative of the Australian Federal Police to be a full member of the Security Management Board, a board which is established under section 65A of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999. This Board provides advice to the presiding officers as required, on security policy and the management of security measures, for Parliament House.

Other members of the board include representatives from the Department of the House of Representatives, the Department of Parliamentary Services, and the Department of the Senate. The function of the board is to provide advice to the presiding officers on a range of security measures, and having the Australian Federal Police as a member of the board will boost the board's capability and reach on security matters.

Secondly, this bill will amend the remit of the board, which is set out in subsection 65A(5) of the act, to allow the board to provide advice to the presiding officers on the management or operation of security measures for Parliament House. This will mean that the board may provide a wide range of advice to the presiding officers on both short-term and long-term security matters.

Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.

The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, are we moving that the debate be adjourned

The SPEAKER: I think we wish to proceed with the bill at this time.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (10:14): On indulgence—I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has been briefed directly by you on the principles within this bill.

The SPEAKER: Yes.

Mr BURKE: From what has been described to the Leader of the Opposition and what you have now described to the House, the opposition has no in-principle objection to what you have described. We would, as you would expect, want to have an opportunity at least to read the bill. I do not know if it would suit the convenience of the House if the bill were to be adjourned to a later hour this day. If that were the case we would make that sure we go through all of our processes and report back directly to your office, Madam Speaker. We would expedite everything. I just do not want to be in a situation where we as an opposition are being asked to vote on legislation that we have not read, even though we have been briefed on the principles and do not have a problem with those principles.

Debate adjourned.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (10:15): On behalf the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the following reports to the 44th Parliament:

Examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011: Bills introduced 20-30 October 2014, Legislative Instruments received 20 September-10 October 2014 (sent to the Speaker on 14 November 2014, pursuant to standing order 247)—Report, November 2014.

Examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011: Bills introduced 14-19 November 2014, Legislative Instruments received 11-23 October 2014—Report, incorporating a dissenting report, November 2014.

In accordance with standing order 39(e) the reports were made parliamentary papers.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON: by leave—I rise to speak on the tabling of the 16th report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights to the 44th Parliament. The committee considered 15 bills. Of these, four do not require further scrutiny as they are compatible with human rights. The committee has decided to further defer its consideration of eight bills. The committee has identified three bills that it considers require further examination and for which it will seek further information.

Of the bills considered, those which are scheduled for debate during the sitting week commencing 24 November include the Broadcasting and Other Legislation Amendment (Deregulation) Bill 2014, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014, the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2014, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation) Bill 2014 and the Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Amendment bill 2014.

The report outlines the committee's assessment of the compatibility of these bills with human rights. I encourage my fellow members to the look to the committee's report to inform their deliberations on the merits of the proposed legislation.

I would like to make some remarks to remind members of the context in which the committee undertakes its task of assessing legislation on compatibility with human rights. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, or PJC, is one of only three legislative scrutiny committees established or administered by the Senate. It is sometimes forgotten that legislative scrutiny committees perform a unique and important institutional role in the parliament, which is to undertake technical—and I stress that—assessments of bills and legislation against scrutiny criteria or, in the case of the PJC, establish human rights standards. Those points are extremely important to bear in mind.

This unique function of scrutiny committees has always been reflected in the bipartisan spirit in which they operate. With this bipartisan approach and with the support of well-respected external legal advisers, the scrutiny committees' reports have been trusted and credible sources of information since the establishment of the parliament's first scrutiny committee, the regulation and ordinances committee, in the 1930s.

Noting the many opportunities that exist for members of parliament to engage in the robust party and political debates that are a familiar feature of our parliament, the scrutiny committees therefore provide a balanced and objective source of information to educate and inform parliamentarians. However, if scrutiny work is not to have the character of contest that we are also familiar with in this chamber, what is the role of a scrutiny committee member if not to prosecute the case on the merits of policy? The answer to that, I believe, is that the role of scrutiny committee members has been and is to ensure that scrutiny committee reports are legally and technically credible as well as consistent with past practice. That is naturally done at meetings through testing and questioning of the issues and through the analysis provided in the committees' reports.

Members also contribute to directing the tone and nature of the committees' dialogue with ministers and to shaping the committees' actions in cases where legislation may offend a relevant scrutiny principle. Hundreds of parliamentarians have served on the parliament scrutiny committees and have conscientiously worked within the constraints of the scrutiny approach to serve the parliament's ethos of informed inquiry.

However, it is equally important to note that scrutiny committee members are not and have never been bound by the contents and inclusion of scrutiny committee reports. They are obviously free to otherwise engage in debates over the policy merits of legislation according to the dictates of party conscience, belief, outlook or even prejudice, as the case may be.

Scrutiny committee members may also legitimately apply the technical knowledge gleaned from their service as scrutiny committee members to mount arguments outside the technical scrutiny arena. Clearly involvement in the scrutiny dialogues enhances members' technical knowledge of legislation and enhances their capacity to prosecute their own views with reference to established and well-known principles, be they of a human rights or parliamentary variety.

I therefore encourage members who may not have yet performed service on a scrutiny committee to consider, understand and appreciate the distinct character of scrutiny committees and the particular benefits they provide in relation to not only informing debates in this place but also the broader ability of members to engage in informed and principled debate on the merits of legislation.

I want to turn very briefly to the minority report in this particular case. The committee concluded that one piece of legislation looked at in this report infringed upon privacy, equality and non-discriminatory rights in this country. I note that the minister declined to answer questions in regards to proportionality. I note that it was said that the person who would in future have to have all of their previous names on the back of their citizenship form controlled that document. That is clearly not the case because employers can ask for access to that document.

I want to briefly say that in a week where we all in this parliament were running around wearing a white ribbon the particular provision that in future people would have all of their various names listed on the back of a citizenship form could create a situation for people who have chosen to change their name because of very dire domestic violence histories. We could have situations where people have changed their gender. We could have situations where people have changed their name because in parts of the world their name would identify them as a particular ethnic or religious group. Cases that come to mind very quickly are the Tutsis and Hutus from Rwanda; different tribes in South Sudan, where there is conflict; and Christians and Muslims—and different types of Muslims—in the Middle East, northern Nigeria or Afghanistan. People might not travel on passports. They might choose to have these documents as a form of identification in those countries when they visit them. They may have changed their names to avoid being identified, and yet they could be identified, pulled off a bus and shot dead—by the Taliban, for instance.

There is a very serious matter of proportionality in this. It would be extremely dangerous for this country to allow an extension of people's private information to documents such as this, especially when the case has not been made that this would fundamentally aid the alleged campaign to reduce fraud. I commend the report to the House.

Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (10:23): Labor welcomes the Australian War Memorial Amendment Bill 2014. The bill amends the Australian War Memorial Act to prohibit the levying of entry or parking fees at the Australian War Memorial premises in Campbell in the Australian Capital Territory. The Australian War Memorial is located in my electorate and combines a shrine, a world-class museum and an extensive archive. The memorial's purpose is to commemorate the sacrifice of those Australians who have died in war. Its mission is to assist Australians to remember, interpret and understand the Australian experience of war and its enduring impact on Australian society.

In addition to this mission, the Australian War Memorial offers, on a fee-for-service basis, a number of additional services such as venue hire and educational and school holiday programs. The fees from these services contribute to the funding of the Australian War Memorial. These services will not be affected by the amendments in the bill that prohibit the levying of entry or parking fees at the Australian War Memorial premises in Campbell. The Australian War Memorial will continue to provide, and charge a fee for, these additional services. The amendments in the bill will also not prevent the Australian War Memorial from receiving voluntary donations at the Australian War Memorial premises in Campbell.

In the aftermath of the Battle of Pozieres in 1916, Australia's official war historian Charles Bean began to develop plans for a national memorial to commemorate the sacrifices made by his fellow Australians. He felt it was important for such a memorial to include an extensive military collection in order to help Australians at home understand the wartime experience. In the words of Charles Bean:

It had always been in the mind of many Australians soldiers that records and relics of their fighting would be preserved in some institutions in Australia, and to several of us it had seemed that a museum housing these would form the most natural, interesting, and inspiring memorial to those who fell.

Today the War Memorial commemorates the sacrifice of Australians who have died in war. It helps Australians remember and understand through maintaining the Roll of Honour and conducting national commemorative ceremonies.

Each year on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day the memorial holds national ceremonies on the Parade Ground. These are attended by thousands of official guests and visitors, and are followed by the wreathlaying at the Tomb of the Unknown Australian Soldier. Official visitors to the memorial usually pay tribute to Australia's war dead by laying wreaths at the Tomb of the Unknown Australian Soldier or at the Inauguration Stone. School groups and veterans' groups also conduct commemorative wreathlaying ceremonies in these areas. The War Memorial's main building and grounds are conserved and developed as a national memorial to Australians who served and died at war. As well as the Commemorative Courtyard, the Sculpture Garden provides another dignified and attractive focus for commemoration within the memorial grounds.

In the context of the grounds, I cannot help recounting a story of one of my constituents, Gerry, who served in Vietnam. His tank was placed in the War Memorial grounds. While on service in Vietnam his unit had written on the side of the tank, and he went back to show his wife the graffiti that they had placed on the side of the tank. Overhearing this conversation, one of the local guards was shocked and raced up and said: 'You can't graffiti on the tanks!' Gerry said: 'I'm sorry, mate; we did. We did it in Vietnam.'

The War Memorial's galleries showcase one of the world's greatest military collections, thus fulfilling Charles Bean's vision of a national memorial. The displays provide direct evidence of the lives, actions and fate of the men and women who served and died for Australia in war and military operations. The loss of over 60,000 Australian lives in the First World War and 40,000 in the Second World War, as well as the numerous deaths in other conflicts, might become little more than statistical information were it not for the memorial's national collection, which illustrates the effect of war on individuals, families, and communities. The memorial's historians research and foster research into Australia's military history. This provides the depth and breadth of knowledge required to support the memorial's unique displays and commemorative functions. At the heart of the memorial building is the Roll of Honour: a long series of bronze panels recording the names of over 102,000 members of the Australian armed forces who have died during or as a result of war service, warlike service, non-warlike service and certain peacetime operations. The database is compiled from data used to create the Roll of Honour and is available on the memorial's web site. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (10:29): In the first instance, Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing the debate to be suspended for a few moments while the opposition conducted some quick checks. I note that the need for those to be conducted was due to an administrative error at the opposition end and that you, Madam Speaker, followed the necessary protocols in terms of making information available to the opposition. Having now had a chance personally to go through the bill, I can say that it is completely consistent with the oral briefings which had been given. It makes sense for the running of the parliament and particularly for the responsibility that you as one of the Presiding Officers have with respect to the security of parliament itself and for the expertise that is able to be added by the Australian Federal Police. The opposition is happy to support the bill and to see its quick progress through all stages.

Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (10:30): On behalf of the government can I say that the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2014 makes an important change to ensure there is adequate security of Parliament House by providing a senior AFP representative, maybe a member of the board. The board provides advice, as required, to the Presiding Officers on security policy and the management of security measures for Parliament House. It is an important change and will ensure the best advice is provided to the Presiding Officers to ensure the security of the House and all who work and visit here. I want to commend both you and the President of the Senate for your work in relation to these most important matters.

The SPEAKER (10:30): I would like to thank all members from all sides of the House—and that includes the crossbenchers, as well as the government and the opposition—for their cooperation in the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2014. The security and safety of the occupants of Parliament House is my primary concern as Speaker. I believe the arrangements we have made to secure Parliament House in response to the latest lifting of the national security alert level will provide additional assurance to building occupants and visitors.

The presence of the Australian Federal Police, formerly a member of the Security Management Board, is an important part of the changes we are looking to make. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The SPEAKER (10:31): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (10:32): The Commemorative Roll commemorates Australians who died during or as a result of service in wars, conflicts or operations identical with the Roll of Honour but who are not eligible for inclusion on the Roll of Honour. The Australian War Memorial, in my electorate of Fraser, is the centre of the nation's tribute to the courage and sacrifice of generations, the men and women who have helped defend our country.

There is often a need to pause history, to be sure that people will remember what has happened. The Australian War Memorial stands forever as an eternal reminder, as testament to Australia's war heritage and as a symbol of national mourning. It is located on the parliamentary axis so that we in this building who have the solemn duty of sending Australian forces into conflict must look out upon the War Memorial as a reminder of that duty.

War memorials have a number of functions. They are a fixed point for grief, a place for people to remember those who died and they also represent those who are absent. For many Australians, the War Memorial's commemorative focus provides a deeply emotional and personal link with those who have served the nation in a time of war. The Australian War Memorial links the past to the present and enables Australians to remember and respect the sacrifice of those who died during conflict.

The Australian War Memorial is also an important source of information for young Australians in understanding the sacrifices made by past generations. The sheer scale of suffering of these major wars is almost beyond our comprehension. The Australian War Memorial stands as the official and public recognition of that pain and those sacrifices.

Earlier this year the Abbott government cut the Australian War Memorial's popular Travelling Exhibitions program, effective immediately. This heartless cut will mean hundreds of thousands of Australians will no longer have access to important history about Australia's involvement in wars and the sacrifice of so many. The Travelling Exhibitions program ran continuously for 17 years, as part of the memorial's National Collection Branch.

Since its inception, the Travelling Exhibitions program has seen 40 exhibitions travel to venues in every state and territory in Australia and to many international venues. To date, an audience of over 3.8 million visitors outside Canberra viewed those exhibitions. The exhibitions in the memorial's galleries take advantage of the exceptional and diverse national collection to deliver interactive visitor experiences that are both engaging and educational. It is a disgrace that, while the government cut the entire funding for this valuable program, they have ticked off on $810,000 in media monitoring and market research programs for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This is yet another broken promise from the Prime Minister, who, before the election said:

The Coalition will take the action necessary to preserve, protect and enhance the Australian War Memorial.

In the year of the Centenary of Anzac it is a disgrace that the Prime Minister has cut the funding of the Australian War Memorial's Travelling Exhibitions program.

Mrs Sudmalis interjecting—

Dr LEIGH: These priorities are wrong and those cuts must be reversed immediately and, as the member opposite says, why does this government always have to be so political?

The Australian War Memorial commemorates the service and sacrifice of Australian service men and women who have died in the wars and conflicts in which Australia has participated. It is a cultural institution of international standing and one of Australia's leading major tourist attractions.

From the time of its inception, the memorial was conceived as a shrine, a museum that supports commemoration through understanding and an archive holding key war records. Its development down through the years has remained consistent with this concept. The memorial is regarded as a unique and special place by many Australians. For many Australians its commemorative focus provides a deeply emotional and personal link with those who have served the nation in time of war.

The exhibitions in the memorial's galleries are supported by high-quality, authoritative scholarship in military history, and by conservation techniques and practices that safeguard the memorial's collection. For the beginning of the commemoration of the Centenary of Anzac it is more important than ever that Australians have access to our proud history. Australians visit the Australian War Memorial to remember and pay tribute to those who have lost their lives in war, conflicts, or peacekeeping operations.

The Anzac Centenary is a milestone of special significance for all Australians. The First World War helped to shape us as a people and a nation. During the Anzac Centenary we not only remember the original Anzacs, who served at Gallipoli and the Western Front, but commemorate more than a century of service by Australian service men and women. The Anzac Centenary program encompasses all wars, conflicts and peace-keeping operations in which Australians have been involved. It aims to give all Australians the opportunity to honour the service and sacrifice of all those who have worn our nation's uniform, including the more than 102,000 who have made the supreme sacrifice. It also aims to encourage all Australians to reflect upon and learn more about Australia's military history, its costs and its impacts on our nation. Labor is fully supportive of this bill and I commend it to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Government Whip) (10:38): I declare that the Australian War Memorial Amendment Bill 2014 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.

Mr PITT (Hinkler) (10:38): It is my great pleasure to rise to speak in the debate on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. Before we got to the details of the bill, we had the unfortunate circumstance of sitting through the contributions from the member for Griffith and the member for Corio last night. I would like to make some comments on the contributions from that side of the chamber.

Certainly, the proposition put forward that Comcare simply do not have enough inspectors to enforce this legislation is plain wrong. My understanding is that, effectively, every state has some accreditors and inspectors from the state population who can enforce not only this legislation, but the state legislation and a whole pile of other things—including electrical safety acts and a wide range of legislation, including Comcare legislation. I wonder how those opposite think that this has been done for the last 15 years or more. Quite simply, we have public servants; we have federal activities; we have federal ownership of assets all over this country. Comcare has been providing those services for well over a decade, to the best of my knowledge. So it is quite simply outrageous that opposition members make these claims.

I will now turn to the bill itself. This is a bill which effectively allows employers who operate over multiple jurisdictions to insure through one agency, which is Comcare. It is about reducing red tape. As someone who has worked in the industry for many, many years, I know that it is exceptionally difficult for companies to cross state borders and operate across a range of legislation. I will give you some very simple examples. Currently—and these are some changes that we have just made—if you wish to construct a building which has a contribution from the Commonwealth valued at over $5 million you need to be a construction firm which is accredited with the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner. Unfortunately, to gain an accreditation with the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner it takes a substantial amount of people and money, and you then need to maintain that accreditation. When you cross the border to Queensland, for example, you need to be accredited under what is called the PQC system for construction in Queensland. Not only do you need federal safety accreditation but you also need to be a prequalified contractor between levels 1 and 4.

The other issue that we have is that in regional areas projects like this simply cannot be built by a local builder—someone who could easily do the work and someone who is accredited inside one of the state systems. Unfortunately, they do not have the capacity to pay to be accredited at the federal level.

This is a good piece of legislation. It provides an opportunity for a large organisation to simply have one system for insurance which looks after their employees. If staff such as electricians in these organisations—and this is a different set of legislation—are moved around different states, they need to be relicensed in other areas. Quite simply, you could be working at the southern end of the country. If you gain employment at a large construction project in the northern end of the country, you would then need to pay for a whole lot of licensing to be accredited in that state as well.

So it is not just around this legislation that this is an issue. It costs an enormous amount of money and it adds onto something that is commonly known as pass-through. Unfortunately, pass-through is costing the Australian taxpayer an enormous amount of money. It means that every organisation that gets involved in a project from top to bottom takes their little piece—their little cut—as they are entitled to. Pass-through could add up to 30 or 40 per cent. Unfortunately, that means that you get less value on the ground. An absolutely outrageous example of this was the BER projects put forward by the opposition when they were in government. BER projects were some of the most expensive projects I have ever seen. Pass-through on those projects was enormous. The actual square-metre rate was outrageous. There were lots of builders who made an enormous amount of money on things which were unnecessary.

Mr Laundy: Hear, hear!

Mr PITT: Thank you, very much. The cost to the taxpayer is important. The bill deals with a number of different areas, including, for example, changes around serious and wilful misconduct. I do not think that it is reasonable, and I am sure that the people of Australia would not think that it is reasonable, that if you leave your workplace in your lunch hour and you go down the road and perform hang-gliding—or go rock-climbing, go for a run, or play Rugby League—you would expect the employer to cover these things if you are injured. Quite simply, this is a good change and it is something that should be supported.

The responsibility for self is something I think we have lost over some decades. You should be responsible for yourself and the actions that you take. The multiple layers of legislation—whether it in OHS, WorkCover or common law—makes it very, very difficult for people to be self-aware. One of the complaints I get from tradesmen, in particular—older tradesmen who have been around for some time—is that the skill base has been lost by those in the younger generation. The things that they need, to have to be safe and to be able to perform the activities that are required, have been lost. Older tradesmen talk about working at heights as something which they were trained in. Now it is something that you receive a certificate for, which in my view is just unhelpful. Unfortunately, all of these layers of legislation result in reams and reams of paperwork for these organisations.

As someone who has been a lead auditor, accredited with RAB/QSA, to assess construction sites and a whole pile of other activities, I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that what this results in is risk-shifting. Quite simply, organisations now try to ensure that they pass audit to be able to get their work done, because if they do not pass audit they quite simply get knocked off the list and no longer win any more construction projects. There are ways that they manage to do this. For instance, as an auditor, you will roll up to the site and in some circumstances there will be no workers there, because on that day they just happen to be unavailable, or the concrete pour was not ready and so they all had the day off. You end up at a site which is literally empty. There is no machinery, no equipment, but there is an office full of paperwork for you to look through. Now, paperwork, unfortunately, does not help in improving OHS risks.

I heard the contribution from the member for Griffith and I agree that 159 deaths or any death in a workplace is unacceptable. However, as someone who has been involved in investigating any number of these things, unfortunately, it is atypical that it is something very simple which causes a fatality. A person steps forward, they step back, they step sideways and they do not look, and that is something which is very difficult to manage and control. It is an absolute tragedy for their families; it is a tragedy for the organisation; it is bad for morale; and it is bad all round for the nation. I agree 100 per cent that we do not want any fatalities in workplaces. The member for Griffith also commented on common law damages in Queensland and how there might be opportunities for these to shift; they are not available under Comcare. Unfortunately, the best benefit out of common law goes to funding lawyers. Lawyers make an enormous amount of money out of common law claims and processes. I think there is a better way to deal with that, and it is something which we should look at in the future.

This bill is all about reducing red tape, and that is something which I support. As I said previously, there are a number of organisations which Comcare already covers for insurance, including Defence and the Public Service. There are systems in place already that are able to deal with enforcement of the act, and of course investigation of that should be warranted.

This is a bill which I support. It allows companies who operate in multiple jurisdictions to reduce some of their costs. One of the great benefits of reducing costs for employers is that it gives them the ability to employ more people, and that is something which we should all be concerned about. Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to make this contribution. I support the bill.

Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (10:47): The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014, if enacted, will directly and indirectly risk the workplace health and safety of Australian workers. Some of the speakers on this bill have highlighted why this bill is so important. I want to draw out one of the comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Hinkler, to show just how out of touch some members of this parliament are. I seriously doubt the majority of workers in Australia go hang gliding in their lunchbreak. I am yet to meet a worker who in their 40- or 50-minute lunchbreak can go hang gliding and that is the reason they should not qualify for workers compensation if an injury occurs. That simply does not happen in Australian workplaces. I have never met a cleaner, I have never met a child-care worker and I have never met a nurse or an ambo who, in their lunchbreak, rather than eating their lunch, rather than doing whatever personal jobs they may have, like going to the bank or paying their bills or sitting down and just resting, has gone hang gliding. That is the quality of the contributions from, and the understanding of, some of the members of the government. It is simply outrageous to attack workers in that way.

This bill seeks to do one thing. This bill seeks to weaken the protection and support for workers who have been injured in their workplace—but we should not be surprised by that, coming from this government, because attacking workers seems to be the No. 1 job of this government. They will tell you that this bill is about reducing red tape and about reducing the cost and the impost on business. That is just simply not true. This bill is about removing the rights of Australian workers to fair and reasonable cover when they suffer the misfortune of a workplace related injury.

The coalition government, in drafting this bill, did not consult or flag these changes prior to the election, prior to their gaining government. So this is another example of where they have not been honest with Australian workers and the Australian people about what they intended to do in government. We on this side of the House are concerned—I am concerned—that the proposed changes will create huge costs in the future by effectively creating high-risk gaps in the health and safety monitoring within this country. What we are saying is that, if people move into a system that does not have the correct care, if workers rights are put at risk, if their safety is put at risk, the long-term costs could be enormous, not just for workplaces, not just for premiums and not just for what businesses will pay but also for our health system. The government must immediately guarantee that no worker will be worse off under this system. That is something they have not done. The government have not come in here and guaranteed that no worker will be worse off—but I am sure they did prior to the election! They seem to be doing that a lot at the moment: there is what they said before the election and what they say after the election.

This government is again attacking the fair wages and conditions and the workplace health and safety of thousands and thousands, if not millions, of workers in this country. An example of the way in which the government is attacking workplace health and safety is through this bill. The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 proposes seriously negative changes to the Comcare scheme. This bill will directly and indirectly risk the workplace health and safety of Australian workers. As I said, the government must stop this from happening. They must fix the problems in this bill before they put workers at risk.

It is clear that the government has little understanding of this issue; they have failed to meet injured workers. Not every professional job is a desk job. Not in every professional job do people have the luxury that we have of donning a suit and being able to walk around. The majority of low-paid workers jobs—whether they be in construction, cleaning, nursing or age care—are manual jobs, they are physical jobs and injuries do occur

In the cleaning industry repetitive work—the lifting, the cleaning and all the rest of the manual work—quite commonly leads to long-term injuries to the back and shoulders. People have to retire early because of serious injury and then are not able to work. To offer those workers decent schemes for occupational health and safety and compensation is not red tape. It is not red tape to ensure that those workers get the support that they need. A survey by United Voice of Spotless Cleaning members found that they do not have enough time to do the job properly and that increases the risk of injury. In fact, almost 60 per cent of Spotless cleaners said that they suffered from stress as a result of unreasonable workloads, and we are not just talking about the emotional stress; we are talking about the physical stress on the body. Stress takes its toll on cleaners, with many reporting physical injuries, personal breakdowns and even sometimes pressure at home because they are simply crippled by their workloads. If these cleaners do sustain an injury, it means that they can no longer work, but what is this government's solution? It is not to support them, but to move to a scheme with weaker support for them.

In construction, forestry and mining industries a worker is seriously injured or dies every six minutes. These are high-risk physical jobs, and rather than offering those who are seriously injured a decent insurance system and the best support, this government, in this legislation, is weakening their rights and their access to decent support. Construction workers frequently rank safety as the No. 1 priority. To give you one example of CFMEU member: Kym was only 17 at the time and he said it was a scary day down there at the Barcoo Outlet. He said:

One of our fellow workers did not come home from work that day. He got pinned up against a panel and got squashed. It was very scary. He was only 24.

Kym's experience unfortunately is not unique in the Australian construction industry. Too many people have attended funerals of friends and family who have died from workplace related injuries; too many have had serious injuries that prevent them from working for the rest of their lives.

Just look at the statistics: the agricultural, forestry, fishing, manufacturing, transport and storage industries have had the highest incident rates of serious injuries for many years. In fact, in 2011-12 the rates were up 80 per cent on other industries. Given these results, there is more need than ever for stronger support for workers compensation—not weaker, but stronger support. Labourers and those in similar occupations—production workers, transport workers, tradespersons—have the highest incident rates of serious injury. The physical and manual jobs have the highest rate of serious injury, and we need to ensure that they get the best support. Yet, as many speakers from this side of the House have noted, this bill seeks to weaken that support. These occupations have consistently had double the rate of injuries of all other occupations. Within the current make-up of the workforce there are some jobs that are incredibly physical and they do take a toll on the body. We need to make sure that there is a workers compensation scheme that can support them to the rest of their lives.

I will never forget the day that the county court in Victoria handed down a record fine resulting from the death of a worker at the Fosters Abbotsford Brewery. The Fosters Group was fined more than $1.25 million after pleading guilty to two workplace safety charges. Following the upgrade of the Victorian Occupational Health & Safety Act, the fine was the highest ever imposed for an individual. I will never forget the sadness of the workplace delegates on that day. The death of their co-worker could have been avoided, had the company worked with their OH&S committee and complied with various directives and key notices from Worksafe. Worse still, a worker had been seriously injured in a similar accident only 12 months earlier. To this day that worker is still not able to work and requires support.

Finally I will tell the story of Rosa, who was a Crown Casino shop delegate and who worked as a security officer. She turned up to work one day and out of nowhere was king hit. It was an awful incident. As a result of that king hit, Rosa suffered a brain injury, has terrible short-term memory loss and can never work again. Where is the support for Rosa? It is up to us and to states and the Commonwealth to ensure that she gets the best possible compensation and support. But this bill weakens her position and makes it harder for Rosa and people like her to receive the support that they need and deserve.

The government in this bill seeks to weaken the support for any worker and their family who find themselves in tragic situations like Rosa's. Let us put to one side that these workplace injuries could have been avoided with stronger occupational health and safety practices. I am sure it is another area of red tape that this government would like to dismantle. This bill seeks to weaken the support for workers who have been injured. To make a small saving for businesses, injured workers and their families will have to bear the financial and emotional hardship of being excluded from certain aspects of workers compensation. This bill proposes the reintroduction of the exclusion from eligibility for workers compensation during recess breaks. The government's justification for this is that, on their recess breaks, they are not having lunch in the tearoom, but are out there hang-gliding. That is why they have put forward this legislation—because they believe that people are not sitting in the tearoom; what they are doing is hang-gliding or playing rugby. Who on earth does that on their lunch break?

The current act provides for an employee to be covered for temporary absences from work during ordinary recesses. That provision should stay. This bill also seeks to weaken common-law damages claims and common-law rights that should exist. The bill is a series of exclusions from compensation that will make Comcare an outlier for Australia for the harsh and unjust way it would treat injured or deceased workers.

Further issues include that Comcare is not equipped or designed to cope with this level of expansion. Only 44 health and safety inspectors currently work for Comcare. If the government are serious about this bill, are they going to increase the number of inspectors employed by Comcare? Are they going to start talking about a new employment plan? It is really important. If there are currently 44, one of those 44 will probably never make their way to Bendigo for an inspection to look at what possible breaches there could be. So is the government planning to increase the number of inspectors that we have? In my state of Victoria we have already seen a weakening and a reduction in the number of safety inspectors, which is already down to 212. This is why some unions in our state have increased the number of health and safety representatives—because they know that they are not getting the support from their governments that they need.

As I have said, this bill is a bad bill. It will create confusion, anomalies and unfairness. It is sadly true of the government's entire approach to working people. They seek to demonise workers, not support them. They seek to say that laws and acts that exist to ensure that workers get the best possible support in a moment of tragedy, when they incur a workplace injury, are red tape. This bill is a bad bill and it should be opposed.

Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (11:02): We oppose the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 because it is a vicious attack on workers' safety and on their protection at work. It is a throwback to the Howard years, to those years of Work Choices and attacks on workers. It disregards workers' interests and their safety at work.

I would observe that this bill is completely inconsistent with the Abbott government's supposed attitude to federation. What this bill represents is a centralisation of workers compensation by stealth, by loophole, by the back door, by raiding other governments' responsibilities—in this case, raiding the state government responsibilities on workers compensation and workers' safety. There have been no discussions, no conversation with interested parties, no dialogue and no warning that the government will take this approach. There is nothing about it in Real Solutions, that infamous document. This is simply reaching back into the old jumbled toolbox of the Howard years to come up with a bill that viciously disregards people's safety at work. It is completely intellectually inconsistent with every other piece of legislation and act of direction that they might be putting forward.

We have had the Commission of Audit, which the government has relied upon to justify their very unfair budget—$80 billion worth of cuts to health and education and a GP tax on everybody who walks through a waiting room, everybody who gets a blood test or a scan. Yet recommendation No. 7 of the Commission of Audit, 'Reforming the Federation—clarifying roles and responsibilities', talks about the roles of Commonwealth and state governments and then being informed by:

(a) the principle of 'subsidiarity' so that policy and service delivery is as far as is practicable delivered by the level of government closest to the people receiving those services;

(b) ensuring that each level of government is sovereign in its own sphere; and

(c) ensuring minimal duplication between the Commonwealth and the States and, where overlap cannot be avoided, ensuring appropriate cooperation occurs at all times.

That is what the government's Commission of Audit said. What do we find in this bill? We find a completely incoherent raiding of state government responsibilities. Is it supported by state governments? Has there been a dialogue with state governments? No. The shadow minister, the member for O'Connor, pointed out that this is opposed by the Queensland government, opposed by the Territory government—and for very good reasons: this bill has not been thought out, it undermines workers safety and it runs completely against good order between state and Commonwealth governments.

We have been very impressed by some of the speeches and contributions of those opposite. People have been talking about hang-gliding—maybe we should call it the 'hang-gliding bill'; I do not know. There is that sort of fanciful disregard for workers. As if anybody is going hang-gliding on their rest break. It is just a bizarre assertion. I took note of the speech by the member for Lyons yesterday. He was complaining that roofers, people in the building industry, had to wear steel-capped boots. Where is this guy? He is back in the pre-1930s; he is back in the 1890s. It is bizarre. In talking about health and safety, he states in Hansard:

It is, quite frankly, insidious.

That is the word he used in relation to safety at work—'insidious'. The Collins English Dictionary, which has been going since 1819, describes 'insidious' as 'stealthy, subtle, cunning, or treacherous' and 'working in a subtle or apparently innocuous way, but nevertheless deadly'. I would submit that he should not be saying that about health and safety in this country, about people having to wear safety boots—steel-capped boots. He should be saying that about this bill and about the government's approach, because it is insidious. It is insidious and it is treacherous, for all the reasons I said before.

The details of this bill—and we saw this during the Howard years—basically act to undermine state government workers compensation schemes, because it plucks very large employers, national employers, out of the state-based schemes and puts them in a scheme that was basically designed for Commonwealth public servants. So it does not matter whether you are a retail worker in South Australia, or you drive trucks, or you work in warehouses, or you are an electrician. Suddenly, you are plucked out of a system that you might have been employed under for years—and not just a compensation system, but also the regulation of your workplace in relation to health and safety. Suddenly, you are plucked out of the system that you know well, that your employer knows well, that your union might know well or your representative might know well. You are plucked out of that system and placed in a system that is designed for Commonwealth public servants, and nobody else. I have seen cases of workers who have been in that situation—Australia Post is a pretty clear example of where this has happened—and if those workers had a choice of which system they were given, or which system they were to be employed under, they would choose the state-based schemes every single time. And they would be wise to do so, because there is a lot of red tape in the system. It might not be red tape for employers, but it is red tape for workers. They have to jump through many, many hoops as compared to the state-based compensation systems.

We know that there are just 44 inspectors. I think we have about 70 in South Australia, from memory. That might be a bit old now, but it would be at least a third higher than the current Commonwealth number is for the entire country. Yet we expect these 44 people not only to inspect the workplaces of Commonwealth public servants but also to now get on planes to go and inspect workplaces in Adelaide or Port Hedland—

Mr Snowdon: Alice Springs.

Mr CHAMPION: Alice Springs, the Territory, Darwin. The Territory government opposes this bill for these reasons, no doubt. What a farce it is to expect workers to be under such a system.

There are problems in the definition and we have had members opposite, such as the member for Hinkler, get up here and talk about hanging gliding, but what he does not do is talk about police officers, who might go to McDonald's or somewhere like that when they are on their break. They might go somewhere a touch healthier, such as Subway, or somewhere like that, when they are on their break. The member for Solomon would know police officers who go on their break.

Mrs Griggs: I am married to a police officer.

Mr CHAMPION: Well, there you go. Does he want to be in Comcare? Does he want to be covered on his breaks, or not? It is a pretty important question. Some workers do not have a tea room. In my electorate, you see the workers for one company all sitting out on the footpath having a smoko and eating their lunch. These are the problems with the definition.

The other problem with the definitions is this idea that if someone has acted with wilful disregard or in a harmful way we can shunt them out of the scheme. It sounds good if you are on conservative talkback radio, or at the front bar. It sounds good if you just shoot your mouth off. But it is not actually that good, because what you are doing is moving away from a no-fault scheme to a scheme that does apply blame and fault. If you want that system, we will start having industrial manslaughter laws in this country, and we will start assigning blame not just to workers but to companies, to company directors and to managers who act in the same way—who act with wilful disregard for people's lives or for injuring people. That is what happens when you move away from a no-fault scheme, which is the basis of all of these health and safety schemes since they were first introduced in the United Kingdom in the 1970s. I forget the Lord who made the recommendations.

We know that this bill represents a vicious attack on workers. It is not a broken promise, because they just did not tell anybody they were going to do it. But it is, I think, symptomatic of what The Australian talks about: short-term tactical wins overcoming the basic narrative of the government. In this case, they try to tell us that they are for small government, they try to tell us that they want to make changes to our Federation, and then they walk into this parliament with a bill that centralises health and safety in this country without any cooperation or consideration or thinking or consultation with the states, with the unions, with companies or with anybody else. This is a bad idea. It is a bad bill. It is bad for workers, bad for the country, and bad for state governments.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:13): What this government does not realise is that one person's red tape is another person's protection. For people who have to earn a living by going to work to bring home an income, that protection can literally be the difference between life and death. That protection can be the difference between whether you come home safe and sound or whether you come home with an injury. And so to say that we can just look at this bill simply in the context as part of a reduction in red tape is to miss a fundamental point. What we should be debating here in this place is how can we make Australian workplaces safer. What we should be debating is how can we make sure that everyone who goes to work at the start of the day or the start of their shift comes home safe and sound. That should be the guiding principle.

Instead, we have this bill. What will this bill mean in practice? This bill will mean that when someone in an affected workplace fronts up for work there will be fewer requirements that their workplace is safe. It means that if someone who fronts up for work gets injured, they will have fewer rights, and their family will have fewer rights, and less compensation. How will this bill do that? This bill will make it easier for employers to slip out of at times rigorous safety standards in state-based schemes and move into a federal scheme that was not designed to look after people's safety in the same way that state schemes were. The federal scheme has in many significant respects some lower standards. It has less enforcement, so fewer inspectors who go around and make sure the scheme gets enforced, and it provides fewer rights if a worker is injured.

To understand why this is the case it is important to understand how these schemes developed and why there is a difference in our federated country between the Commonwealth scheme and the state schemes. The state schemes have traditionally had primary responsibility for looking after most of the workers in this country—looking after their rights when it comes to safety and looking after their rights when it comes to compensation. Regulation for most of the more dangerous work we have in this country, including in areas like construction and mining, has been developed in the state systems. That is just the fact—it is a reality of our federation and of our Constitution.

It is also a fact that these industries are much more dangerous than other occupations. Safe Work Australia tells us that over the last five years almost one worker dies a week in the construction industry—211 over the five years from 2008 to 2012. That is nearly twice the national rate for other industries. They also tell us that the rate of getting serious injuries in the construction industry is nearly 50 per cent higher than the national average. You only have to look across to New Zealand and see the disaster of the Pike River mine, you only have to look at Beaconsfield in Tasmania and you only have to look at the serious diseases, such as black lung, that mineworkers get elsewhere around the world to understand the dangerous nature of working in the mining sector. There are many other dangerous industries. Over time, in the state-based systems we have developed good systems of safety for those industries. They could always be better but the systems that have been developed in many respects are world leading. After the Pike River collapse, New Zealand looked at the check inspector system of regulating mineworkers that we have here, and they picked up a lot of what the Australian states are currently doing. In mining, for example, people whose job it is to look after the health and safety of workers have a seat at the table and have the ability to ensure that laws are enforced. No-one is going to look out for a person's safety at work quite like someone who is working in the workplace themselves, or who comes from it. They have the strongest interest in making sure that the workplace is safe and they deserve a seat at the table and to have a role in determining whether or not health and safety requirements are being complied with.

Separately from all that, we have had developing over time the Commonwealth system. Because, again, of the division of powers between the state and federal parliaments, the Commonwealth system has been largely developed around white-collar workers who work in Commonwealth agencies or, over time, with privatisation and the like, in competitors to those Commonwealth agencies. When you compare the two, you find that the standards are quite different, the level of rigor is quite different, the level of involvement of people at work in enforcing their own safety at work is quite different and the capacity of the various agencies to enforce safety at work is different. Comcare has 44 inspectors. Queensland has 216—that is just in Queensland, let alone the rest of the country. They are the people who are responsible for doing the jobs you see in the ads that the state agencies run regularly on television, where an employer fears the knock at the door from the workplace inspector, who is able to come in and check that health and safety regulations are being complied with. So there are 216 in Queensland and 44 for the whole of the Commonwealth in Comcare.

There is not only much less regulation and enforcement going on at the federal level; there is a massive difference in what happens if that regulation is breached and a worker gets injured. Under the Commonwealth scheme you cannot sue for damages at common law in the same way that you can in the states. You cannot go and get the payment that you are entitled to if the employer has been guilty of negligence. Instead, you get the equivalent of a pension-style payment under the Comcare scheme. Under the existing federal scheme, and under this bill, you will not be covered when you are on your breaks. It may come as news to those in the government, but most people when they are on their breaks are not necessarily on free time at the place they would choose to be if they did not have to be at work. Most people do not voluntarily on their day off come into the office and sit in the lunch room. Most people on their day off do not voluntarily go out at 10.30 and sit somewhere in the city to have a 10-minute break. You are having a break, because you are having a break from work. That is why you are covered in the state schemes. But under this bill you will not be covered, if people move you into this new federal scheme.

If you move into this new federal scheme, you also will not be covered in cases of misconduct. This is important. This bill says that if someone dies on the job, for example, and their family is then seeking compensation for them, the employer or the insurer can say, 'Hang on—they weren't doing the job properly. I think they were committing misconduct. I'm going to challenge this.' Then, when the person dies, the family is now going to have to be put through a court case to prove whether their mum or dad, who has just been killed at work, was committing misconduct at the time. And their payments will be held up while all of that is happening, because the employer or the insurer will be appealing it.

We will move away from the no-fault scheme that we have at the moment to one that is based on exactly that kind of litigation. As the previous speaker alluded to, you are not going to see, on the other side, the Commonwealth government saying, 'Oh well, it's time to reintroduce Commonwealth industrial manslaughter laws to make sure that employers are held to account and sent to prison if they do the wrong thing.' You are not going to see a lifting of standards. Instead, you are going to be putting families and people who rely on compensation for someone who has been injured through double the pain: the pain of losing someone who has been injured or killed at work and then the pain of having to go through a court case to determine whether they committed misconduct. That is how this government thinks that people who die or get injured at work should be treated. Of course, the dispute settlement procedures under the federal scheme are much more difficult to access than for people in the state system.

On that misconduct point: the government refers to the various reviews all the time during their speeches and in the explanatory memorandum, including the Hanks review. The Hanks review said there was no problem with that clause and did not recommend any change, but that does not stop the government from saying, 'We're going to make life even tougher for people at work.'

What does this government want to do? Faced with those two different schemes and standards of work, the government is asking, 'How wide can we open the door for employers to move as quickly as possible from those state schemes that give workers better protection into the federal scheme, so they can save a bit of money? How quickly can we encourage people through so that standards of safety and compensation can be dropped?'

If you want to have a discussion about harmonising national safety and compensation laws, then the questions should be, 'How can we lift safety for people at work? How can we ensure that everyone has the best access to compensation, if they are unfortunate enough to get injured or someone in their family is getting injured?' Instead, the government is doing it the other way round: 'How can we race to the bottom as quickly as we possibly can?'

It is not a surprise to some of us who followed what this government has done when it comes to protecting people's rights at work for a number of years. It may well come as a surprise to people who voted for the government, because the government did not tell them before the election that this was on the books. The government did not tell them before the election, 'We're potentially going to make your workplaces less safe and give you less compensation if you get injured.' It is becoming clearer day by day that there is a reason this government did not tell people what they were doing or what they intended to do before the election: had they told them, they would have been completely unelectable. Had they told people, 'We're going to charge you more to go and see the doctor, we're going to take money out of public schools and hospitals and we're going to make your workplaces less safe,' no-one would have voted for them.

This is a bill that was not promised or put up in lights before the election. It is a bill that will reduce safety for people at work and will reduce the compensation for people who are injured. On that basis this bill should be opposed.

Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (11:27): I have followed this debate across the chamber and I am sad that we had the member for Lyons refer to the insidious creep of health and safety. You would have thought that even the most conservative member of this parliament would understand the importance of health and safety in the workplace, the need to regulate it properly and look after the interests of workers—as well as employers, I might say.

The intent of this bill is very clear, to me at least. It will tear away safety protections for many all over this country. It will have the effect of directly and indirectly risking the workplace health and safety of Australian workers in every state and territory. It will remove the rights of workers to a fair and reasonable cover when they suffer workplace injury or illness, if their employer comes under this legislation. This is from a government who, as we were reminded before the last election, said there would be no changes to workplace relations in their first term. This is a change to workplace relations, let there be no doubt about it.

We know that in the preparation of this proposal there has been no adequate consultation with those who will be affected by it or their representatives. It was not flagged before the election; it is not part of their election policy; and it is legislation without a mandate but also without any real policy justification. It undercuts all existing workers compensation around this country—that is what its effect will be.

We know that workers compensation legislation should have two main principles: to prevent work-related injury or illness from occurring in the first place; and to provide fair benefits to help and compensate those workers who suffer injury or illness as a result of their work. This will do precisely the opposite. It is indeed a sad indictment of this government and of those who sit on the government benches, because it will mean that there will be workers who will suffer the consequences of work injuries for the rest of their lives without any assistance from a workers compensation scheme, potentially. It means that potentially, workers doing the same job but with a different employer, who suffer a similar injury or injuries, will have different workers compensation rights and different health and safety standards applied to them—even though they might live in the same jurisdiction. How can this be sustainable? The worker who is covered by Comcare will have fewer rights and fewer health and safety protections, all in the name of small savings, apparently, and of cutting red tape.

We have heard discussion around the issue of no coverage under this legislation for ordinary recess breaks. How can anyone contemplate that you should excise recess breaks out of a workers compensation arrangement? It is worthwhile contemplating for a moment the history of this: the Hawke government in 1998—and I was a member of that government; I remember the debates around the country at the time—established the Comcare scheme, which protected workers temporarily absent from work during an ordinary recess like a lunch break. That was in 1988. Is it any surprise to us that in 2007, under the Howard government's Work Choices scheme, this was removed? So why should we be surprised that the Abbott government chooses to reintroduce this precise proposal—to exempt ordinary recess breaks from coverage? That is just a damnation.

It is also proposed in this bill, as we know now, that there be no coverage for death and serious and permanent injury if wilful misconduct is alleged. What a mean and gratuitous proposal this is. Nearly all jurisdictions across this country have exclusionary provision that deny compensation for injuries caused by wilful misconduct; however, in the case of a death or serious and permanent incapacity, Australian workers compensation schemes have historically, over tens of years, made an exception. This bill, if passed, would mean that Comcare will be the only workers compensation scheme in the country to exclude assistance in cases of deceased or seriously permanently incapacitated workers, if the death or incapacity happened as a result of what is described as 'wilful misconduct'. This is really hard to understand. What penny-pinching government would want to deny the capacity for the family of someone who is deceased or permanently incapacitated to have access to support? But that is precisely what this legislation does. And this also: Comcare currently denies workers compensation to those who voluntarily and unreasonably submit to a normal risk or injury during an ordinary recess. This bill extends that conclusion to usual working hours. This change means that what is and is not a voluntary assumption of abnormal risk when undertaking work will be the subject of endless and costly legal disputation. It means no protection for vulnerable workers; those who are asked or directed to do dangerous jobs by their coworkers, who are afraid of losing their jobs. It means—and I notice that some people have just arrived in the gallery—no protection for police, or for nurses, or for workers who are exposed to risk as part of their normal working day. Some workers who are injured or ill because of their job may have no workers compensation whatsoever: no assistance with medical bills, no support for rehabilitation, and no income.

It is not my intention to traverse the whole of the legislation, because others have done that. But I want to go to some of the submissions to the Senate inquiry into this bill. In particular, I want to go to the submission from the Northern Territory government. I do it for two reasons: firstly, I think it is not a bad submission, because it raises some serious questions; and secondly, it makes it very clear how this bill is discriminatory in its effect and impacts upon every community across the country. In that submission the Northern Territory government say: 'It is difficult to estimate how many employers would pursue an option to participate in the Comcare scheme but the potential consequence could be: …loss of an NT based claims service for injured workers.' That is really important, because what they are concerned about is the size of the premium pool, the potential for rates to increase, and the cost of insurance going up. I mention that because I think it is a very good submission, in that context. Yet at the same time, this week—this very week—the Northern Territory government of its own volition has taken the step of selling off the Territory Insurance Office to Allianz. This is going to mean that on the one hand we have them saying, 'we are concerned about this piece of Commonwealth legislation which could have a significant impact on people who need insurance on the Northern Territory for workers compensation'—employers and employees—and on the other hand they are actually selling the Territory Insurance Office—a government insurance office. It will—absolutely—mean that premium rates across the Northern Territory will go up, and that some insurance will not be available. There is real concern about the impact of that stupid decision—that really asinine decision—by the Northern Territory government, and the impact it will have on communities across the Northern Territory, including the people of Darwin, who will potentially suffer some cyclonic event into the future; or floods in Alice Springs; or floods in Katherine. We know that some of these products which are currently supplied and underwritten by the Northern Territory government through the Territory Insurance Office are potentially not going to be provided into the future. And if they are provided, we can absolutely guarantee—absolutely—that every Northern Territory insurance holder who is under the TIO insurance policies and is now transferred to Allianz will have their rates increased, we think by anything up to 200 or 300 per cent. That is a condemnation.

Deputy Speaker, if you accept on the one hand the importance of the submission that the Northern Territory government has made, around this insurance issue of Comcare in the Northern Territory, and around this bill, you have to say to yourself: how can they do that then—and now actually sell off the Territory Insurance Office? The Northern Territory community is awake to them and the Northern Territory community will mark them down. I am positive that they will get the retribution they properly deserve when the next Northern Territory general election comes along.

It is very clear to us that this piece of legislation should not be supported. It is unfair, anomalous and confusing for small business and for workers. Injured workers lose rights and benefits. It weakens occupational health and safety. It reintroduces three unfair and unnecessary exclusions to injured workers claiming workers compensation. It saves little, if any, money. We will oppose this bill.

Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (11:37): I rise to sum up the debate on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 on behalf of the Minister for Education and the relevant minister in the Senate. Let me make this point from the outset: having heard much of the debate from the opposition and the representative from the Greens, I would note that throughout the period of the home insulation program we warned, industry warned, the community warned and the media warned of safety risks. Recently, the royal commissioner Ian Hanger QC made profound findings that warnings had been ignored, that the government had ample opportunity to heed the advice given in the public domain and elsewhere and, most profoundly and significantly, that the deaths that occurred could have been avoided. I will restate that: the deaths that occurred could have been avoided.

Against that background, where we had such significant findings by a royal commissioner, which have led to the government engaging in a process of rightly and appropriately working with the families to provide compensation and working with the effected small businesses to provide compensation, I do not think that those on the opposition benches are in any position to provide any commentary whatsoever in relation to safety matters. Their performance in government was a matter of deep and profound regret for the families of those affected, for the businesses affected and for the nation as a whole.

I thank all members who have participated in debate but note that, to my regret, the opposition are either being wilfully ignorant or making statements about the provisions of the bill that are simply not sustainable. As we know, employers operating in multiple states have to deal with different workers compensation schemes and work health and safety regulations in each jurisdiction around Australia. This myriad regulation increases red tape for employers and is confusing for workers, who are subject to different regulations and benefits depending on which state or territory they are employed in. For example, an employee of a national bank working in a branch in Perth will have different work health and safety rules and a different workers compensation scheme than an employee of the same bank working in the Sydney office. This simply makes no sense.

Consistent with the government's deregulation agenda and simplification and streamlining approach, this bill will reduce the cost of the regulatory burden on the economy by implementing the recommendations of the review of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, a review commissioned by the former Gillard government and undertaken by Mr Peter Hanks QC and Dr Allan Hawke AC, both of whom are distinguished in their field. Allan Hawke of course has a long tradition of service to Australian governments of all persuasions and has assisted recently in matters in relation to the Northern Territory. Additionally, costs will be reduced by removing injuries from the coverage of the Comcare scheme where those injuries occur in circumstances outside the control of the employer.

Specifically, the bill proposes amendments to (1) remove the requirement for the Minister for Employment to declare a corporation to be granted a licence for self-insurance while maintaining the ability for the minister to issue directions to the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, which will streamline the current two-stage self-insurance licensing process for certain corporations under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988; (2) remove the outdated requirement that a corporation must be in competition with a Commonwealth authority or former Commonwealth authority to enter the Comcare scheme; (3) enable corporations currently required to meet workers compensation obligations under two or more workers compensation laws of a state or territory to apply to the commission to join the Comcare scheme as self-insuring licensees—this is the national employer test; (4) enable the commission to grant licences to related corporations; (5) make consequential changes to extend the coverage provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 to those corporations that obtain a licence to self-insure under the SRC Act; and (6) exclude access to workers compensation where either injuries occur during recess breaks away from an employer's premises or a person engages in serious or wilful misconduct, even if the injury results in death or serious and permanent impairment. The amendments contained in the bill will reduce the regulatory impact on the economy by approximately $32.8 million each year for the next 10 years, which are savings that businesses will then have available to invest, including, potentially, in more jobs and better safety in those enterprises.

In relation to issues raised during the debate, the opposition has claimed that the amendments will do a number of things. These claims are not accurate. It was claimed during the debate that the bill was not widely consulted upon by the government and therefore the government has no mandate to bring this bill to the parliament. Not surprisingly, this statement is flatly, plainly false, untrue and incorrect. The amendments in the bill arose largely from the recommendations of the review which was announced by the Gillard government in 2012.

During the development of the report of the review and after the report's release in March 2013, public consultations with key stakeholders occurred. Key bodies consulted included, amongst others, unions, workers, employer organisations, insurers, health practitioner bodies, legal practitioners plus licensees and premium payers under the Comcare scheme. Relevant issues raised in the consultation period were considered by government. This bill flows from the recommendations of one of Australia's most distinguished former public servants, respected by both sides of parliament, Allan Hawke.

Further, relevant state and territory officials were consulted on matters, including allowing national employers to join the Comcare scheme, with responses that were obtained from states and territories being taken into consideration by the government prior to the introduction of the bill on 19 March 2014. If I may speculate, given the provenance of the review, the history of the review and the nature of the recommendations, it is my contention that had there not been a change in government a similar bill with identical or almost identical provisions would have been put forward. That is my opinion.

Additionally, during the debate, it was suggested that the commission and Comcare do not have the experience and capacity to manage the changes proposed in the bill and because of this workplace health and safety would be put at risk. The government clearly rejects this claim. The commission and Comcare have the capacity and experience to manage the proposed changes, and this will not risk workplace health and safety. I repeat that—it will not risk workplace health and safety.

Self-insurance under the Comcare scheme is funded by regulatory contributions by the licensees that reflect the cost incurred by the commission and Comcare in the performance of their respective regulatory functions. As such, the increased costs of meeting the regulatory responsibilities for both workers compensation and work health and safety will be resourced through the increase in regulatory funding due to the predicted increase in the number of licences. For example, if more companies decide to self-insure, Comcare would need to expand the number of inspectors. Further, Comcare has over the past decade shown it can increase its capacity to regulate non-Commonwealth licensees, including self-insurers , from a wide range of industries, including banking, defence, transport and telecommunications.

Additionally, the SRC Act requires the commission must not grant a licence to an applicant if the applicant's past and likely future performance in complying with work health and safety legislation reveals that it has not met the standards of state legislators in the past and is not likely to meet those required by Comcare as the regulator of the WHS Act and the commission in the future. This compares favourably and dramatically with the loose and unsafe arrangements which were in place during the Home Insulation Program, which defied the warnings of unions, industry and state bodies.

In relation to the question of the work health and safety needs of higher risk industries, such as mining, for example, it is the government's expectation that the commission would not approve a self-insurance licence until Comcare has built the necessary capacity over time as it has already done for other industries.

It was further asserted on the topic of the impact of the bill and state and territory workers compensation schemes that changes in the bill will undermine all the existing workers compensation schemes in Australia. There is simply no evidence to support this assertion. During the review and the development of the bill, concerns were raised about the possible impact on the viability of state and territory work health and safety schemes and workers compensation schemes due to a potential exodus of large employers from those schemes. In short, the concerns are that, if large employers move to the Comcare scheme, premium rates will increase for the remaining employers in the state and territory schemes. However, the 2004 Productivity Commission inquiry into national workers compensation and occupational health and safety frameworks noted that concerns such as these were not supported by the evidence. In particular, actuarial assessments concluded that, the larger the employer was, the closer the premium the employer paid would be to the true cost of claims and expenses for it such that the impact of the exit of such employers would be relatively neutral for state and territory schemes. Advice provided to the government is that circumstances in the work health and safety and workers compensation areas have not changed materially since the 2004 assessment such that the impact will remain minimal.

Finally, it was claimed in debate that the bill contains a third new exclusionary provision related to voluntary assumptions of a normal risk. That statement is simply incorrect. No such provision exists within the bill. As clearly explained in the explanatory memorandum, the change to the section that deals with voluntary and unreasonable assumption of risk that has been in place since 1988 has merely been consequentially amended. The section that has been in place since 1988 has merely been consequentially amended—I repeat that for emphasis and for the House to understand clearly.

I note the bill excludes access to workers compensation where injuries occur during recess breaks away from an employer's premises where a person engages in serious and wilful misconduct, even if the injury results in death or serious and permanent impairment. This replicates and represents the position that exists in both South Australia and Tasmania and which has done so for some time. I would note that one is currently a Labor jurisdiction and, until recently, the other was a Labor jurisdiction. Where a worker is away from the workplace and undertaking activities, be they dangerous not, associated with the employee's employment or at the request or direction of the employer, they will still be covered if they are subject to injury. In conclusion, I would again like to thank members who participated in the debate on this important legislation. I commend the legislation to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Whiteley ): The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (12:03): I rise to raise some specific matters, particularly in relation to the summing up by the minister at the table in response to genuine concerns by a number of stakeholders, not least of all state and territory governments that have raised questions around the impact of this legislation. Let's be very clear here: this legislation, in terms of its impact, is broad and deep if enacted and, therefore, it is absolutely critical that the government fully understand the implications of this legislation upon those jurisdictions.

Whilst I accept that the minister, on behalf of the minister acting on behalf of the Employment Minister, in summing up, responded in the most oblique and brief way to the questions about the impact on other jurisdictions, there needs to be a better understanding, and indeed a better inquiry, as to the impact. I, therefore, rise to make reference to a submission made by the Queensland Newman government in relation to this bill.

There was a Senate inquiry in relation to this bill, and the Queensland government stands opposed to this bill for a variety of reasons. In that inquiry they submitted that, if enacted, the bill has:

… the potential to lead to increased red tape, increased costs and reduced productivity resulting from duplication and overlap in the regulation of work health and safety arrangements.

So the Queensland government has said: rather than reducing red tape, this legislation will increase red tape and will increase costs for employers in the state jurisdiction and reduce productivity. The Queensland government's submission also went on to say:

… small businesses may not be in a position to absorb premium fluctuations from a reduced premium pool.

The minister at the table referred to a Productivity Commission report conducted about 10 years ago, but these are submissions that were made this year in response to this bill because of the adverse impacts they anticipate in the state compensation schemes if this bill is enacted.

I appreciate the fact that the minister may have been sincere in connecting, for example, the home insulation program issues and reviews and the terrible consequences, the deaths of those four young men, to this bill. I would contend that this bill is in direct contradiction to the submissions made by the minister in summing up, because this would take away the oversight of inspectors of workplaces. There are only 44 inspectors in Comcare and hundreds of inspectors in the state compensation scheme. I ask the minister, on behalf of the government, to answer the question as to why he believes there is greater oversight, greater protection for workers and greater likelihood of prevention of an accident or of injury—or, even worse, of death—as a result of the enactment of this bill. I think that is absolutely vital. If one were to support this bill, one would have to believe the minister's assertions that, indeed, Australian workers would be better off. Yet, of course, that is not borne out by the lack of inspectors currently employed under the Commonwealth scheme.

I also ask the minister, on behalf of the government, to answer the questions put by the Queensland government—namely, that this is indeed an increase in red tape, an increase in costs, a reduction in productivity and an increase in duplication between the jurisdictions. It is the case that the Prime Minister likes to refer to Federation, the federal structure, the regard for state powers and the responsibility of state governments to conduct their own affairs. It would seem that, if enacted, this bill would fly in the face of the Prime Minister's own views about ensuring that state governments are responsible for their own jurisdiction and therefore the responsibilities they have held since Federation.

These are some of the questions I would ask the minister at the table, on behalf of the government, to answer. These are serious questions, and they have been raised by the Queensland government. I think they deserve an answer.

Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (12:09): Let me initially deal with the second of the issues, in relation to the states. Concerns have been raised by the opposition about the impact on the viability of state and territory work health and safety and workers' compensation schemes due to the potential exodus of large employers from the scheme. Let me say this: the Productivity Commission inquiry into national workers' compensation and occupational health and safety frameworks specifically noted that any concerns that exiting premium payers would lead to volatility was not supported by the evidence. In addition, what we have is the review commissioned by the Gillard government and led, of course, by Allan Hawke, who was strongly supportive and in fact provided the basis for the actions we are now taking. So, both the Productivity Commission and one of Australia's most distinguished public servants have provided advice over time in this space.

Furthermore, actuarial assessments commissioned by the Productivity Commission concluded that the larger the employer is, the closer the premium is to the true cost of claims and expenses such that the exit of such large employers would be relatively neutral to the state and territory schemes. In the department's assessment and in the advice that we have, the circumstances have not changed since the Productivity Commission report in any significant material way. Against that background, we have the advice of the Productivity Commission, we have the advice of the Gillard government commissioned reviewers and we have the advice of the department. Unlike—and here I turn to the issue of safety—the previous government, which ignored the advice of the states, of the industry and of the unions in relation to safety under the home insulation program, we have listened to the advice of the Productivity Commission, of the reviewers and of the department. That is why I am confident that not only have we learned from their mistakes on the home insulation program—and we are in the process of having to fix and rectify those tragic errors—but we are making real and significant efforts across the whole of government to ensure that safety and structure are protected in the way in which the reviewers and the Productivity Commission envisaged.

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (12:12): I am not convinced by the minister's views that there will be no impact. I think it is fair to say that the Queensland government is also not convinced, given the extensive submission they made to the Senate inquiry. There are, of course, other concerns that have been raised with respect to the bill by other jurisdictions. I turn to, if I can, the Northern Territory government, which made a very significant submission to the Senate inquiry in relation to this bill. It included:

It is difficult to estimate how many employers would pursue an option to participate in the Comcare scheme but the potential consequence could be:

withdrawal of insurers;

loss of competition;

increased premiums for employers;—

something, of course, the Queensland government raised in their submission as well—

loss of jobs for insurance industry workers;

loss of employment and career opportunities;

impact on other businesses who supply services; and

loss of an NT based claims service for injured workers.

These are clearly concerns that the Northern Territory government, a conservative government, along with another conservative government, the Queensland government, have raised with the federal government. I would have to argue that in relation to the summing up and in the second reading speech by the minister there has been no attention to many of the matters that have been raised in the submissions by these two jurisdictions in terms of the potentially adverse impacts of this bill on their jurisdictions, on small and medium enterprises, on premium costs, on the way in which those schemes will operate and on job losses that may arise. I ask the minister, therefore, to respond, on behalf of the government, to those specific concerns that have been referred to by the NT government in terms of the impact that may arise if this bill were to be enacted. Clearly, the Northern Territory government has serious concerns not only for workers in that territory but also for businesses that are likely to be adversely impacted upon as a result of this bill being brought into law.

I ask the minister to respond to those matters raised by the NT government. There are currently 44 inspectors in the Comcare scheme. If large employers flee their obligations in the state and territory jurisdictions and go to the Comcare scheme, can the minister on behalf of the government explain the extent to which there will be an increase in inspectors under the Comcare scheme? Inspectors do the very important job of preventing injury in workplaces. Is the minister aware of the detail on whether that would be commensurate with the number of workplaces added to the Comcare scheme insofar as their responsibility to inspect sites? In other words, if Comcare were to double, would that mean Comcare inspectors would double, at the very least?

It is fair enough to ask a question about what impact there will be on preventing injury and death of workers under this scheme. There is nothing more important than health and safety in workplaces. When you are dealing with employment matters, there is nothing more important than preventing the serious injury or death of a worker on a site, and yet there have been no answers in the submission made by the NT government and no answers about resources dedicated to preventing industry in Comcare, if it were to increase in size, if large employers fled state schemes and joined the national scheme.

Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (12:17): We are traversing ground which has been discussed at length and in repetition. Let me make this point absolutely clear. In relation to the states—as we have said on multiple occasions and as the responsible minister has said—the 2004 Productivity Commission inquiry into national workers compensation and occupational health and safety frameworks specifically noted that concerns that exiting premium payers would lead to volatility in premium rates are not supported by the evidence. That was backed up by actuarial assessments commissioned by the Productivity Commission itself. They found that the larger the employer the closer the premium is to the true cost of claims and expenses, such that if there were to be any exit of large employers this would be relatively neutral to the state and territory schemes.

That is the answer. Further, the departmental assessment is that circumstances have not changed since the Productivity Commission report in any material way and any impact would therefore be minimal. This is, of course, drawn upon and based upon the work of the widely recognised, esteemed and respected Allan Hawke. In addition, I will say this in relation to safety. The last people to be raising safety issues—given the manifest failures during their last term of government—in the face of statements from industry, unions and the states, to talk about safety, are the now opposition, the then government.

In relation to inspectors, and I quote specifically on advice from the department: 'Comcare has shown over the past decade it can increase its capacity to regulate non-Commonwealth licensees, including self-insurers, from a wide range of industries, including banking, Defence, transport and communications.' That is the express, clear and absolute advice we have.

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (12:19): I was going to leave it there, but given the minister has said there will be no impact on state and territory schemes, if national employers join Comcare, it is very important that we drill down a bit on this matter.

If it is more efficient for national employers, because of the density of employees under their employ, the logical extension of that is if large employers leave a state or territory scheme to just small and medium enterprises it leaves those remaining enterprises worse off under that state or territory system. They do not have the economies to reduce costs.

That is why the Northern Territory government has raised concerns. That is why the Queensland government has raised concerns. That is why employers have raised concerns. Small and medium enterprises are concerned about the commercial impact on their businesses. For a government that likes to say they are the government for small business there are adverse impacts that will arise if this bill is enacted. I do not believe the minister on behalf of the government has adequately justified and explained the impact on the remaining enterprises that will not be eligible to shift from the state and territory jurisdictions to Comcare.

I invite the minister to add to his answer. If you take out of the state jurisdictions the more efficient, larger employers that have economies of scale and which are more efficient because of those economies of scale, you will leave the smaller and medium enterprises having to pay, per capita, greater amounts to sustain a compensation scheme.

Let's be honest here. We know that the biggest advocates for the changes to this bill are not conservative or Labor governments at the state and territory level and they are not small and medium enterprises. This is something that Coles and Woolworths and other large employers want, to escape the obligations of superior schemes in terms of entitlements for injured workers and in terms of more resources to prevent injury and death in workplaces. This is something that has been demanded of the government by larger businesses but it will leave small and medium sized enterprises having to pick up the slack, having to pay for the costs associated with those larger enterprises leaving the state and territory jurisdictions. Again, I invite the minister to explain. On the face of what he has said, it does not make sense that large employers will leave and the costs will not go up. Indeed, they will go up. The organisations affected will be small businesses, mum and dad businesses, enterprises that do not have the capacity to pay and, unlike larger enterprises, do not have the capacity to have more efficient means to resource compensation for workers in the event of injury or death.

Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (12:23): Out of courtesy we agreed to work through a consideration-in-detail process which would actually have represented a consideration in detail. We are now embarked upon repetition and recitation. The opposition may choose to ignore the advice of the Productivity Commission and the advice of their own reviewers, including, I repeat, the eminent Allan Hawke and the advice of the department. They have history and form in having done so, in terms of the home insulation program, which sadly and tragically, as the royal commission found, had the most profound of human consequences.

By contrast we have laid out before the House the sources of advice—the Productivity Commission, the reviews commissioned by the Gillard government and the department. We will simply have to disagree as to whether the Productivity Commission, the reviewers, including Allan Hawke, and the department are credible and authoritative sources of advice. We stand by all three of those sources. It is up to the opposition to reject them.

The fundamental point here, which has been set out by the Productivity Commission and others—indeed, it is the latest advice that I have—is that scaling, whether it is the federal or state systems, will come through the insurance process itself. The more there are in one, the more it is scaled up. The fewer there are in others, the more it is scaled down. That is the simple answer. I repeat that the actuarial assessments commissioned by the Productivity Commission concluded that, the larger the employer, the closer the premium is to the true cost.

Mr Brendan O'Connor: The inverse is true.

Mr HUNT: No. It is not about scaling of costs; it is about scaling so there are sufficient inspectors available in each jurisdiction to cover those that are currently within those systems. Our position is clear and that is final. We are the party that has put in place safety measures. As the home insulation program showed, the previous government for, sadly, the worst of reasons took the worst of processes with the worst outcomes. That is my final word.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (12:26): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (12:27): I offer the support of the opposition for the passage of this bill. The Customs Amendment Bill proposes a number of minor amendments to modernise and remove anomalies in the Customs Act, which provides an important update to these laws. Firstly, in terms of domestic travellers on international flights, the bill extends Customs' powers of examination to the bags of domestic travellers on international flights and voyages and domestic cargo on international flights and voyages. Currently Australia's Customs and Border Protection officers have powers to question all travellers, whether international or domestic, on a domestic leg of an international flight or voyage in relation to dutiable, excisable or prohibited goods. They can also conduct personal searches of travellers on international journeys, including domestic travellers on a domestic leg of international flights and voyages. However, they do not currently have the ability to examine the personal effects of domestic travellers and domestic cargo on an international flight or voyage. Domestic travellers on such journeys have the opportunity to mingle with international travellers during embarkation or disembarkation processes on the aircraft or on the ship and in transit lounges. The advice that was given to the opposition by the department is that this provides an opportunity for bag switches and the like if someone is seeking to break the law. This can occur before international travellers are cleared on arrival or after international travellers are cleared on departure. And this issue is particularly pressing for countries with a considerable land mass like Australia, which feature some cities some distances apart.

These factors increase the prevalence of international flights that make numerous stops within our borders before making a leap overseas or, alternatively, flights returning to Australia from overseas making numerous stops once they are back in Australia. This ability to mingle at various stages presents a border risk as dutiable and prohibited goods can be transferred between domestic and international travellers to avoid detection by Customs and Border Protection staff. The mixing of domestic cargo and goods for export presents risks for diversion of cargo from one stream to another, especially prohibited goods or goods subject to border related duties and taxes. The new section proposed, section 186AA of the act, will provide Customs and Border Protection Service officers with the powers to examine that domestic cargo and the personal effects of domestic travellers who complete a domestic leg of an international flight or voyage. We also note that there is no intention to require domestic cargo to be reported. This is a positive development. It clears up an anomaly in the act and is something that we offer support for.

This bill extends control to places where ships and aircraft arrive that are not proclaimed ports or airports. Currently certain ports are proclaimed under the Customs Act for arrivals purposes. The ship owner reports that the particular ship and cargo will arrive at a specific destination as designated under the act for checking by Customs and Border Protection staff. But with the growth in Australia's offshore resources and cruise ship industries, we have increasingly seen ships requiring to arrive from a place outside of Australia that is not a proclaimed port. In 2013 Australian cruise ship passenger numbers hit a record of 833,000, making Australia the world's leading cruise market in growth and market penetration. Australia's impressive 20 per cent growth in passenger numbers was more than double the rate achieved by any other key cruise market in 2013, with more ships deployed in local waters in 2014 than at any other time. And Australia's growth trajectory seems set to continue.

As the legislation currently stands, Customs do not have the power to control goods that arrive at unproclaimed ports under section 58 of the act. These amendments will extend Customs' control to correct that anomaly. Section 58 states that a master of a ship or a pilot of an aircraft must bring the ship or aircraft to a proclaimed port or airport unless suffering from stress of weather or other reasonable cause. Rather than requiring ships or aircraft to arrive at a proclaimed port or airport where border activities can be managed, the Customs and Border Protection Service will be able to manage risks and conduct necessary activities at places which are not proclaimed ports to provide equivalence of search and examination power. And definitions of a designated place and customs place will be amended in sub section 58(1) of the act.

The bill will standardise the application process for permissions to load and unload ships and aircraft stores, transfer goods between certain vessels and apply for certificates of clearance. The act sets out arrangements for permissions to be granted on several activities at wharves, airports or at sea—for instance, to load and unload ships and aircraft stores, to transfer goods between vessels and to make an application for a certificate of clearance before departure. Currently there is a lack of detail about the nature of these forms and what they must take. The amendments propose to introduce an approved form for such applications. These amendments will give consistency to reporting arrangements that allow for reporting to occur online, so it will simplify the process and make it much more user-friendly.

In respect of reporting arrival of ships and aircraft in Australia and the reporting of stores and prohibited goods, the bill provides for amendments to provide greater flexibility to the CEO of Customs in dealing with reports of arrival of ships and aircraft in Australia and reporting stores and prohibited goods on such vessels and aircraft. Currently ships and aircraft that arrive in Australia must report to Australian Customs and Border Protection Service particulars of their arrival and of stores of any prohibited goods contained in those stores at the time of arrival—for instance, firearms and certain narcotics. These reports must be made in relation to the ship within 24 hours of a ship's arrival—disregarding weekends and public holidays—and within three hours of an aircraft's arrival. It has proved to be somewhat of a burden and an inconvenience particularly in respect of the arrival of ships. A ship may arrive at a designated port with prohibited stores on a Friday afternoon but will be unable to have those stores inspected and the appropriate measures put in place until the following Monday and in some circumstances the following Tuesday if it is a long weekend because of the operation of the act. This will simplify that process and make it much more user-friendly.

These reports are necessary for Customs and Border Protection staff to assess risks of items that may be on board and to establish a plan to deal with them especially, as I mentioned earlier, firearms and narcotics that may be required to be detained or managed in a certain way. These changes do not apply to cargo, only to stores and prohibited goods. These arrangements will allow for the CEO of Customs to specify by legislative instrument, which will be disallowable, when the reports must be made for different kinds of ships and aircraft in different circumstances. That will simplify that process and remove that anomaly that exists in respect of weekends.

The reports will be required to be made at a time that would be more appropriate to minimise impacts on the master or owner of the ship or the pilot or owner of the aircraft or that would enable the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to deal with the information in these reports at a more convenient time and to allow earlier assessment, prioritisation and efficient deployment of Customs and Border Protection resources.

In terms of the operation of infringement notices, the bill corrects a technical error in relation to the interaction of the Customs and Border Protection Service's Infringement Notice Scheme and claims process for seized goods under the act. In February 2014 a new infringement notice system in the act commenced. The infringement notice system allows for the issuing of an infringement notice for strict or absolute liability offences under the act, including imported prohibited items. But there is an unintended consequence of the new act that is not operating the way the act intended. Prohibited imports can also be seized under the act and are then dealt with under the claims process in division 1 of part XXII of the act. Since the commencement of the INS, a technical error has been identified relating to the condemnation of goods. The INS provides that goods that will be taken to be condemned to the crown if the goods are prohibited imports. The person pays a penalty under the INS and the INS is then subsequently withdrawn.

Under the act, if a seizure notice is served a person has 30 days to make a claim for the return of the goods. And, pursuant to section 205C, if a claim for the return of the goods may be made and is not made within 30 days after the seizure notice is served then all goods are taken to be condemned and forfeited to the crown. However, a claim for the return of the goods may not be made if goods have been taken to be condemned as forfeited to the crown. The legal status of the goods is therefore complicated. If a seizure notice and an INS have been issued and the penalty in the INS has been paid but the INS is later withdrawn and the goods are condemned and forfeited to the crown, you cannot get them back, basically.

These amendments will ensure a cleaner interaction with each other and with the operation of those provisions to correct this error. The changes will mean that the condemnation of the goods will not apply if an INS is withdrawn and will allow a person up to 30 days after the INS is withdrawn for the person to make a claim for the goods in circumstances where the goods have been seized and the seizure notice has been served, an INS for an offence in relation to the importation has been given, the penalty notice has been paid within the required time and the INS is therefore subsequently withdrawn. So, it clears up that anomaly that currently exists within the act.

Finally, the bill improves the administration and appointment of authorised officers by class under the Customs Act. There is currently no provision in the Acts Interpretation Act for statutory authorisations. The current provision only allows for the CEO of Customs to authorise a class of persons. The law remains unsettled as to whether an authorisation will apply to future officers or positions within an authorised class that come into existence after the authorisation is given. The amendments will change the definition of 'authorised officer' so that authorisations can apply to offices or positions that come into existence after the authorisation to a class of offices is given. This is a clearing up of that anomaly that, again, exists in respect of authorised officers.

In conclusion, this omnibus bill, proposing a number of minor amendments to the Customs Act, has been in the making for some time. It is important that we continue to refine our border protection measures through such bills as this to ensure that the broader Australian community is well protected and international and criminal enterprises are stopped from perpetrating our borders. This act and these amendments respond to a number of issues that have been identified by practitioners and by the owners and operators in the cruise ship industry particularly. It improves the operation of the bill, and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr IRONS (Swan) (12:42): I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment Bill 2014 and follow on from the member for Kingsford Smith, and I thank him for his support for the bill. Every Australian has an inherent expectation to be safe and protected in their homes and in the community. We have this expectation, which ultimately goes hand in hand with our expectation that those who are tasked with or select the job of enabling this protection are being provided with the appropriate powers and mechanisms to do so effectively and efficiently. In our community this level of protection varies between a number of different tiers, from our volunteer Neighbourhood Watch to the different levels and organisations within our state and federal police forces. At our borders, however, we have a different organisation altogether—our Australian Customs and Border Protection Service officers—who are tasked with protecting the safety of every Australian from prohibited air and sea cargo, protecting us while we travel both domestically and internationally, and protecting personal luggage or cargo when people are trying to enter our country or travel within it with prohibited items.

Over the past year the coalition government has worked with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to identify those areas where officers' powers need to be enhanced and legislative areas that need to be amended or have additional provisions inserted to support officers' ability to appropriately protect our borders and ensure everything that can be done is being done to protect the safety of every Australian. We have introduced vital amendments and new provisions in this place to effectively respond to the very real threat that Australia is facing to its national security both from home-grown terrorism and from those who seek to enter our country to harm us. We have also introduced a number of amendments and provisions with respect to Australia's Migration Act, which will work with many of the proposed measures in the bill before the House today to ensure that our borders are protected from illegal maritime and air arrivals. In many of these measures our Customs and Border Protection officers' powers have been reviewed, and in some cases expanded, to reflect concerns from officers and from the government that the current legislative provisions do not afford them with the powers they need to protect our borders to the best of their ability. Many of these proposed changes to date have been technical in nature to reflect the need to better streamline such things as reporting requirements or to expand officers' ability or the ability of the responsible minister to assess the risk that particular circumstances pose to the community and how these can be better responded to.

Every member in this place would understand the importance of our Customs and Border Protection officers' role and would understand that no person knows the areas where practices could be better streamlined or provisions enhanced than those who are on the ground responding to these instances. That is one of the reasons why I recently welcomed the opportunity to join with the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the Hon. Michaelia Cash, at Perth International Airport's Customs House to see firsthand how our Customs and Border Protection officers are working to keep every Australian safe and to understand the scope of prohibited items that organised crime syndicates in particular try to smuggle through our borders every day. I also note that that particularly Immigration and Border Protection office at Perth International Airport's Customs House is in my electorate of Swan.

From January to October this year alone, over 12 kilograms of methamphetamine, also known as ice; 1.5 tonnes of molasses tobacco and over 2,000 prohibited weapons, including firearms knuckledusters, automatic knives and laser pointers have been seized from air cargo by Perth's Customs officers. This is a significant achievement by officers, as many of these items were expertly concealed.

It is not, however, always our Customs officers who detect these prohibited items. Our officers and this government take great pride in the abilities of our detector dogs, who contributed to the detection of almost 2,379 illicit imports and exports in 2012-13. It is because the coalition government is one which recognises the importance of such programs and listens to our departments' views about those areas they believe to be lacking or in need or additional support that, in February this year, the government committed $88 million of additional funding to Australia's Customs and Border Protection measures.

This significant funding commitment was specifically focused on increasing screening of international mail and air and sea cargo, while an additional $8.5 million was also committed to expand our Detector Dog Program. In Perth alone, this funding boost has provided for an increase in inspections of 250,000 mail articles and 50,000 air-cargo consignments and has prevented a range of prohibited items from arriving on our streets and in our communities. It has also provided an additional 15 detector dog teams to support the increased inspection and examination of cargo across Australia, including three detector dog teams in my home town of Perth. They are now receiving world-class training.

In the 2014-15 budget, we also committed a further $480.5 million over a four year package to bolster the enforcement capabilities of Australia's Strategic Border Command, intelligence systems, trade and travel systems and workforce measures and training. By making these significant funding commitments and introducing legislative amendments in this place, the coalition is ensuring our Customs and Border Protection officers have the appropriate powers to do their jobs effectively. We are being proactive in responding to the ongoing threat to Australia's national security. We could turn away and hide our heads in the sand with the attitude that everything will be okay, but we are a government of reality and we are government which accepts and responds appropriately to our responsibility to protect every Australian and our assets.

The Customs Amendment Bill 2014, which is before the House today, seeks to amend the Customs Act 1901 to extend the powers of Customs officers, make technical amendments to better streamline the act's provisions and correct a technical error in the legislation. Key provisions will therefore be amended or added, with the focus of these measures being in regards to current differences between Customs officers examination powers in relation to domestic travellers on a flight or voyage to that of international travellers.

Before I highlight the proposed amendments to Customs powers, I will first outline a number of technical amendments that are proposed in the bill. The first technical amendment is in relation to the definition of an authorised officer. Currently, the act precludes authorisations by the chief executive officer of Customs applying to any offices or positions which come into existence after the authorisation to a class of offices is given. The proposed amendment seeks to amend this definition to extend such authorisations to an office or a position that comes into existence after the authorisation is given. While this amendment is largely technical in nature, a key proposed amendment in the bill before the House seeks to address an identified vulnerability in our Customs control for goods on ships and aircrafts.

Currently, all goods on board a ship or aircraft are subject to Customs control while the ship or aircraft is within the limits of any port or ship in Australia. There are, however, a number of incidences where a ship or aircraft may go to a place other than a port or airport, including when there is bad weather or permission has been granted. An example of an industry where this regularly occurs in Australia is for those industries involved in resource activities who request permission to bring vessels directly to an offshore installation. In these instances, the goods on the ship or aircraft are not subject to Customs control and can therefore not be examined by Customs officers. The bill before the House seeks to rectify this vulnerability in our Customs control orders by amending the definition of a 'designated place' to include a place where a ship or aircraft has been brought under stress by weather or other reasonable cause to ensure that Customs officers are able to exercise certain seizure, detention and personal search powers. Further amendments will also be made in relation to the reporting of goods on board these ships or aircraft.

Under the act's current provisions, an international ship that arrives in Australia must report the particulars of their arrival to Customs within 24 hours of the ship's arrival or before the issue of certificate of clearance, while an aircraft report must be made within three hours. These same time frames also apply to a ship's stores, an aircraft's stores and prohibited goods reports. These time frames are currently posing difficulties for Customs officers to effectively and efficiently process ships and aircraft when the particulars of their goods are not known.

As the bill's explanatory memorandum states, in most instances Customs Officers will conduct:

…physical boarding and intervention activities of ships and aircraft at the time of arrival at the first port or airport in Australia. However in some circumstances, it would be beneficial for ACBPS to be notified of particulars of the stores and prohibited goods including firearms, weapons and narcotics, before the arrival of the ship or aircraft.

To respond to these difficulties, the bill before the House proposes to amend the Customs Act by inserting additional provisions which allow the CEO to specify when a report must be made for certain ships or aircraft. This will effectively allow different reporting time frames to be provided for different circumstances and will enable Customs officers to appropriately assess the risk of such goods prior to their arrival in Australia.

Before a ship then departs, a certificate of clearance must be provided by the collector. Under the act's current provisions, an application must be made to the collector in writing and must contain a series of regulatory information that is outlined in the act. This method of reporting is, however, inconsistent with other application and reporting requirements. This bill seeks to rectify this by amending the provisions to ensure that reporting requirements are streamlined across this act.

A series of amendments will therefore be made, including (a) removing the requirement for the regulations to prescribe particulars for an application for the certificate of clearance; (b) requiring applications to be made in writing, in an approved form, contain such information as the form requires and be signed in the manner indicated in the form; and (c) allowing the CEO to approve different forms for applications to be made in different circumstances, by the different kinds of masters or owners of ships or pilots or owners of aircraft, or in respect of different kinds of ships or aircraft.

Further technical amendments will also be made with regard to the content requirements for goods to be unloaded or used before the departure of a ship or aircraft, to clarify when the consent must be sought from a collector and in what form. Under the proposed amendments, the application process will be standardised in line with the proposed changes to other reporting requirements, such as those I previously outlined with regard to applications for a certificate of clearance.

Similarly, the act does not currently contain any provisions which detail how to apply for permission to transfer goods between certain vessels and what form these applications must take. Again, the bill before the House will rectify the current lapse in the act and will streamline its provisions with other outlined application processes to ensure there is consistency, with the eventual aim of these permissions to be applied for online.

As mentioned earlier, although there are a number of technical amendments being made in this bill, there are also a number of key legislative changes, which will respond to the current vulnerabilities in Australia's customs and border protection measures.

As all members in this place would be aware from their own travels, domestic travellers often mix with international travellers prior to, during and after the domestic leg of a flight or voyage. An example of this would be when one plane, which is being used to travel from a country outside of Australia such as China, arrives in Melbourne and continues on to Perth. Under the act's current provisions, domestic cargo can be loaded and unloaded from this aircraft when it arrives in Melbourne without any authority or permission; however, this domestic cargo and the personal effects of domestic travellers are not currently subject to Customs control once they are loaded or unloaded. Only the goods of international passengers would fall under the control of Customs.

The bill before the House, therefore, seeks to amend the act to provide that domestic goods on international flights or voyages can be examined by an officer of Customs in the same manner as goods on a purely international flight and voyage with no domestic stop-overs. These additional examination powers would apply to goods which have been loaded onto a ship or aircraft, and those which have been unloaded. An additional measure will be inserted into the act in this regard to provide that the expense of any examination under these new powers is borne by the owner of the goods. As stated in the bill's explanatory memorandum, it is expected that this would 'mainly be applicable in the cargo environment as opposed to the traveller environment'.

As I stated earlier, this Customs Amendment Bill also seeks to correct a technical error in the legislation in relation to a new infringement notice scheme which commenced on 1 February this year. This scheme allows for the issuing of an infringement notice in relation to strict- or absolute-liability offences. The technical error that has been identified is in the interaction of this infringement notice with the claims process when dealing with prohibited imports. When an infringement notice is issued under this scheme, the person to whom the notice has been issued is given the option to pay the fine specified in the notice, or they may choose to have the offence heard by a court.

Under the provisions in the scheme, if a person opts to pay the fine and the infringement notice is not withdrawn, the prohibited goods are condemned as forfeited to the crown and, as a result, cannot be claimed. In these circumstances, where a claim can be made it must be made within 30 days of a seizure notice being issued. A problem, however, arises between these two requirements, in these instances, when a fine or penalty has been paid and the infringement notice is later withdrawn. An issue arises because the time frame for making this claim may have expired—it may be past the required 30 days. The proposed amendments will rectify this issue by inserting a provision that will allow a person to have 30 days after the withdrawal of an infringement notice to make a claim for their seized goods.

Although many of the amendments in this bill are technical in nature, this does not detract from their importance in bolstering Australia's overall customs and border protection measures and ensuring that every Australian is protected to the best of this government's and our agencies' abilities. They are important amendments and provisions to ensure appropriate powers are afforded to our Customs officers and identified vulnerabilities are swiftly responded to.

Again I acknowledge the support of the member for Kingsford Smith and the opposition for this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (12:57): I rise to speak in this debate on the Customs Amendment Bill 2014. I support this bill because it strengthens our customs framework, which I believe is vitally important. Given my former role as a police officer, I am very pleased to be speaking on bills such as this that strengthen frameworks.

This bill amends the Customs Act 1901. The bill consists of six measures which seek to improve the customs framework that is in place. Fundamentally, this bill will, firstly, extend the control of Customs to places where ships and aircraft arrive that are not proclaimed ports or airports. It will standardise the application process for permissions to load and unload ship and aircraft stores. It will also standardise the process for the transferring of goods between certain vessels and applications for a certificate of clearance. It will also provide greater flexibility to the CEO of Customs in dealing with the reports of the arrival of ships and aircrafts into Australia, and reporting stores and prohibited goods on vessels and aircraft. It will extend Customs's powers of examination to the bags of domestic travellers on international flights and voyages, and domestic cargo on international flights and voyages, which is also very important.

The bill will also correct a technical error in relation to the interaction of Customs and Border Protection's infringement notice scheme and claims process for seized goods under the act; and it also improves the administration of the appointment of authorised officers by class under the Customs Act.

With regard to goods on ships, currently, only certain shipping ports are proclaimed, or defined, for arrival purposes under the Customs Act 1901. Due to the ongoing growth in Australia's offshore resources and cruise ship industries, ships have increasingly had to arrive from a place outside of Australia at a place that is not defined as a proclaimed port. The bill before the House will provide that all goods on board any ship or aircraft from a place outside of Australia are subject to Customs control while the ship or aircraft is within the limits of any port or airport in Australia. The bill will rectify any ongoing issues of a passenger or freight ship arriving at a port which is not proclaimed.

Currently, the act does not allow for Customs control to goods which are on board a ship or aircraft at a place other than a port or airport in Australia to which a ship or aircraft has been brought because of stress of weather or other reasonable cause under subsection 58(1) of the act, or the master of a ship or the pilot of an aircraft has received permission from a collector to bring the ship or aircraft under subsection 58(2) of the act. This means that currently Customs officers cannot inspect goods on board a ship or aircraft which has arrived in these circumstances. The proposed section 58 of the bill currently before the House will address these issues. Section 58 states that a master of a ship or a pilot of an aircraft must bring the ship or aircraft to a proclaimed port or airport, unless suffering from stress of weather or other reasonable cause. Rather than require ships or aircraft to arrive at a proclaimed port or airport where border activities can be managed, the Customs service will be able to manage risks and conduct necessary activities at a place which is not a proclaimed port. However, to allow for ships and planes which had not been able to arrive at a proclaimed port or airport, this bill will also modify the definitions of a 'designated place' and 'Customs place' so as to provide equivalence of search and examination powers.

The bill also makes changes to the regulation of arrival reports and certificates of clearance. Fundamentally, these amendments are aimed at clearing up a range of inconsistencies. As it stands, ships and aircraft that arrive in Australia from a place outside Australia must report to Customs services the particulars of their arrival and of stores, and any prohibited goods contained in those stores at the time of arrival. The bill ensures that these reports must be made in relation to a ship within 24 hours of the ship's arrival, or for aircraft within three hours of arrival. These reports are vital for Customs to be able to assess risks of items that may be on board and to establish the most practical way to deal with them—for example, it may be items such as firearms or narcotics that may be required to be detained or managed in a particular way.

These amendments will allow the CEO of Customs to specify by legislative instrument when the reports must be made for different kinds of ships and aircraft or in different circumstances. Reports will be required to be made at a time that would be more appropriate to minimise impacts on the owner of the ship or pilot or owner of the aircraft. This would enable Customs to deal with the information in these reports at a more convenient time to allow earlier assessment, prioritisation and efficient deployment of their resources, which is vital to take into consideration. However, it is important to recognise that these changes do not apply to cargo but apply only to stores and prohibited goods. The amendments contained in this bill will allow for greater security and protection of our citizens in Australia in and near our port structures and will remedy the inconsistencies in the reporting structure. Overall, these measures do move towards strengthening our systems within the Customs framework.

In terms of the Certificate of Clearance, the act sets a regulatory regime to enable permission to be granted for some activities at wharves, at airports or at sea. Activities regulated in this manner can include loading and unloading the stores of ships and aircrafts, transferring goods between vessels, or making an application for a Certificate of Clearance before departure. However, at present, the regulatory regime does not provide great detail as to the nature of the necessary formalities. As a result, items 12 to 16 in the bill propose to amend section 118 to remove the requirement for the regulations to prescribe particulars for an application for the Certificate of Clearance. It also requires applications to be made in writing, on an approved form, containing such information as the form requires, and be signed in the manner indicated in the form. It also does the allow the CEO to approve different forms for applications to be made in different circumstances, by different kinds of masters or owners of ships or pilots or owners of aircraft, or in respect of different kinds of ships or aircraft. Through these proposed amendments, an 'approved form' for such applications will be introduced, which will give consistency to reporting arrangements and, very importantly, allow for reporting to occur online.

In addition to the measures that I have outlined, this bill will also seek to enhance the interaction of the Infringement Notice Scheme, with the claims processing under the Customs Act in relation to prohibited imports. Since the commencement of the Infringement Notice Scheme earlier this year, a technical error has been identified relating to prohibited imports. The legislation currently provides that, where goods are deemed to be prohibited imports, they will be taken to be condemned to the Crown. The person then pays a penalty under an Infringement Notice Scheme, and the Infringement Notice Scheme is then subsequently withdrawn. However, at present, if a seizure notice is served, a person has 30 days to make a claim for return of the goods and, if a claim for the return of the goods has not been made within 30 days of the service of such a seizure notice, the goods will be taken to be condemned as forfeited to the Crown.

However, pursuant to section 205B(1A) of the act, a claim for the return of goods may not be made if goods deemed to be prohibited imports have already been taken to be condemned as forfeited to the Crown. Therefore, the legal status of the goods is somewhat contradictory in the event that both a seizure notice has been served and an Infringement Notice Scheme has been issued and the penalty in the Infringement Notice Scheme has been paid and is later withdrawn. The current amendments will ensure a much 'cleaner' interaction with each other. Correcting this error is indeed a very positive step. The changes will mean that the condemnation of goods will not apply if an Infringement Notice Scheme is withdrawn and will allow a person up to 30 days after the notice is withdrawn for the person to make a claim for the goods in circumstances where the goods have been seized, a seizure notice has been served, an Infringement Notice Scheme for an offence in relation to the importation of the goods has been given, the penalty has been paid within the required time, and the Infringement Notice Scheme has been subsequently withdrawn.

I now come to what I believe is the most important part of these measures in terms of the extension of Customs powers. As I said at the beginning, as a former police officer, I am supportive of these measures. When we are looking at any sorts of pre-emptive and preventative measures, they are of course always much more preferable to reactive measures. It is why I think some of the changes in this legislation are very positive.

Indeed, that is why those of us on this side are supporting the amendments contained within this bill, particularly those regarding the inspection of domestic cargo and personal effects. At present on a domestic leg of an international flight or voyage customs officers have the power to question all travellers, whether they are international or domestic travellers, in relation to dutiable, excisable or prohibited goods. They can also undertake personal searches of travellers on international journeys, including domestic travellers, but at present customs officers do not have the ability to examine the personal effects of domestic travellers and domestic cargo on an international flight or voyage. As it currently stands this has the capacity to pose a security risk, as domestic travellers on international flights or voyages have the opportunity to liaise with other international travellers during the embarkation or disembarkation process. In some cases this can occur before international travellers are cleared on arrival or after international travellers are cleared on departure and so could pose a security risk because dutiable and prohibited goods could potentially be transferred between domestic and international travellers so as to intentionally evade detection by customs officers.

Another problem that can occur in these circumstances is the mixing of domestic cargo with imported goods or goods for export. At its most fundamental, this presents a risk for the diversion of cargo from one stream to another and so may evade regulation of prohibited goods or goods subject to border related duties and taxes. However, with the amendments proposed in this bill, custom officers will now, quite rightly, be equipped with powers to examine domestic cargo and the personal effects of domestic travellers who complete the domestic leg of an international flight or voyage. In conclusion I believe that the reforms proposed in this bill are very positive, and Labor supports these moves and moves that improve the security and protection of Australians at home and abroad. This bill and its amendments are fundamentally aimed at achieving this goal. I support this bill and commend it to the House.

Mr VARVARIS (Barton) (13:09): I am very pleased to speak in favour of this bill, which amends the Customs Act in a number of minor ways to streamline, extend and enhance the way that our customs personnel are able to operate at the border. It goes without saying that our Australian Customs personnel do an indispensable job in maintaining the security of our borders. Whether it is preventing the flow of illicit drugs, minimising losses to revenue—due to smuggling and revenue evasion—protecting industry from non-compliant importers or improving the security of our sea cargo trade, our customs personnel ensure that Australia retains control over its own borders.

Under the Howard Government we saw a gold standard of customs and border protection at work. Significant improvements included the establishment of the Border Protection Command in 2004, increased funding for the Customs Service by 180 per cent, the more efficient processing of arriving international passengers and new drug-detection dog teams all across Australia. Key performance indicators, such as the inspection rate for air cargo consignments, were at a strong 60 per cent. Over the span of the Rudd and Gillard years, these figures dropped dramatically to less than 5 per cent of air cargo consignments inspected. Other figures saw a similar drop, with percentage of sea cargo inspections down to 3.5 per cent from 5.7 per cent and physical examinations of sea cargo down to 0.5 per cent from 0.6 per cent.

This government is determined to pick up where the Howard government left off by restoring customs management to a high standard and making progress on key performance indicators. The decline in the rate of air and sea cargo inspections was one of the most significant and damaging legacies left to our customs performance by the previous government, as it meant that irregular and criminal elements were more likely to slip through the cracks of the customs net, especially as the volume of incoming cargo was projected to rise. At a time when their responsibilities were most demanding, the previous government cut 700 employees from customs services. At a time when our borders faced some of the most significant challenges we have seen in recent times, budgetary cuts of $734.8 million were made, the effects of which will continue to be felt out to 2017-18.

Cuts to the customs cargo-screening program meant that our rate of sea cargo inspections plummeted, leaving our borders less secure because our customs teams were inadequately resourced. This led to an incident in 2012 when 220 Glock pistols were intercepted on Australian soil, not by the customs services, but by the New South Wales Police Force. This was a concerning incident which exposed the holes in front-line services as a result of a deficiency of Commonwealth funding. Reductions in resources, funding and jobs in the area of Customs and Border Protection reflected the misguided priorities at work in the mindset of the previous government. When there are holes in vital front-line services that the Commonwealth funds at our nation's borders, we expose our nation to a greater risk—the risk posed to the community and law-abiding industry by smugglers and crime syndicates.

This bill will ensure that future officers and positions, which come into existence after class based authorisations is given, are allowed, and this will save significant legislative work into the future. This legislation will work to resolve blind spots in our customs activities, extending control to the ports where ships and aircraft arrive—places which may not currently be subject to any customs checks. Greater flexibility in reporting the arrival of ships and aircraft will mean that our custom officers will be able to extend their jurisdiction to all excursions that carry cargo or goods into Australia. The changes brought about by these amendments will ensure that the reporting and inspection mechanisms within the Customs Act are consistent, modern and flexible so that our customs personnel will have an expanded capacity to manage the risks posed to our border security.

The establishment of the streamlined Australian Border Force, announced in May of this year, is proof positive of the forward-thinking approach of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and his department. Furthermore, under the Abbott government, immigration and customs have been combined into a single cabinet portfolio which has permanent status on the National Security Committee of cabinet. The recently announced funding increase of $630 million to law enforcement and border protection industries is a resounding sign that this government has got its priorities straight when it comes to strengthening the capable work being done at our borders. The Australian Border Force will re-invest the budget savings, which we make in combining Customs and Border Protection responsibilities into a single force, back into the front-line of customs activities—exactly where the resources need to flow to reach key performance indicators.

In summary, the coalition's focus is extending and enhancing our border protection capabilities, rather than rein them in. By streamlining areas where we need greater efficiency and investing in areas where we need an increase in resources, jobs and capacities, the government is bringing a smart and tailored approach to this portfolio for the sake of our border integrity. Just as Howard left office confident that our house was in order and that he had kept the people of Australia safe from the compromise of our borders, I am confident that our work in this place will aspire to the very same standards and even exceed them.

One way in which we are building on the success and innovations of the Howard government is in technological update. Our customs processes are moving with the developments of the 21st century, as applications permissions under the act will be able to be completed online. These amendments will ensure that our customs capabilities advance and refine into the information age. We are determined to deliver results in the sphere of customs and border protection. I am proud to be part of a team who has acted on its word, restoring order on our borders and heeding the will of the Australian people. Our priority is to ensure that our capable Customs and Border Protection personnel have the resources and legislative provisions that they require to do their job to the best of their ability. We want to see an Australia in which sea and air cargo are regularly inspected, in which passengers are facilitated with the utmost efficiency and in which criminal syndicates are met with vigilance and disruption at our border.

This bill is commendable in the action it takes to resolve customs blind spots, such as those places where ships and aircraft regularly arrive in Australia which are not officially proclaimed ports or airports. International flights and voyages will also have domestic legs of their trip eligible for customs checks. This will extend Customs presence and control to these areas, ensuring that fewer blind spots exist that can become an advantage for those who would compromise the integrity of our borders.

The electorate of Barton is a particular stakeholder to the security and efficiency of our port districts and airports. Almost totally surrounded by waterways, including Botany Bay, and immediately adjoined by Sydney Airport to the east, Barton is interconnected with our federal port and customs networks. Notably, Port Botany immediately adjoins my electorate of Barton and holds a strong relevance for the people and industries within my electorate. In 2012-13 alone, 2.1 million containers were traded through the port across both import and export operations. Clearly the people and businesses of Barton stand to gain from maritime security at our ports, as well as a robust system of inspection and screening at our major airports. According to New South Wales Ports' executive summary for 2012-13, import quantities continue to rise on average four per cent per year through the port, as volume of cargo reliably increases at ports all around Australia. This cements our understanding that, when the volume of cargo consignments and passengers coming through our air and sea ports increases, our Customs authorities must be given corresponding increases in resources to maintain their standards of professionalism.

The bottom line in regard to this legislation is that we are moving steadily towards the gold standard of border protection that was at work under the leadership of the Howard government. This bill demonstrates that the priority of this government is to keep our people safe and never to surrender control of our borders. It maintains appropriate safeguards in the interests of privacy and simplicity of travel, while making the security of our borders a priority. And, indeed, it acts on the understanding that the first priority of government is to keep our people safe—to resolve blind spots and to extend our professionalism, efficiency and vigilance in the cause of maintaining and strengthening the integrity of our borders. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (13:18): The Customs Amendment Bill 2014 makes a number of amendments to the Customs Act aimed at increasing Australian Border Security and Customs powers. While these changes are rather technical and minor, it would be wrong to assume this bill is somehow insignificant or less important than others.

Currently, the Customs Act does not contain the provisions that customs agents require to fully carry out their duties. This is not the fault of any party or person but rather a technical oversight that we now must fix. Through due diligence, this government has identified where the legislative holes are and has dedicated itself to ameliorative action.

One technical issue that this bill will resolve relates to the crossover between domestic and international flights and voyages. Currently, customs agents do not have the powers to search the baggage of domestic travellers on international flights. Nor can they examine domestic cargo on international flights. This is problematic as passengers often travel domestically on a leg of an international flight. These passengers are mixed with international travellers; their baggage goes in the same storage. This is further problematic as Customs officials lack the powers to search and examine baggage on flights or voyages that arrive in places other than proclaimed ports and airports.

All of these loopholes provide opportunities for those who want to avoid Customs officials to exchange goods with other travellers. This creates numerous problems for authorities, each serious in their own way. Airports and docks are supposed to be sterile environments in every sense of the word. Anything that can be done to ensure the high standards of quarantine in this country must be done.

First and foremost, we must ensure that all items coming and going are essentially clean and free of any pests or diseases that may be dangerous to our ecosystem. We all know of the importance of biosecurity. Our diverse ecosystem, our stunning landscapes and our bountiful agriculture all depend on biosecurity. Stopping potentially harmful material from entering the country is the backbone of preserving these things.

This bill serves to improve our defences in two ways. First of all, with these measures, customs agents will be able to carry out their duties at places where ships and aircraft often arrive in Australia that would otherwise not be proclaimed ports or airports. Ships and aircraft land in areas that fall outside the current regulations for numerous reasons. Cruise ships, for example, can often land in non-proclaimed areas. Both vessels and aircraft can land in non-proclaimed areas due to weather as well. Numerous other exceptions also apply.

This bill also relates to security of the general kind. For every time I mention biosecurity, my point would still ring true if I discussed security generally instead. It is our ability to regulate what comes in and out of our country that grants us the protective shield against prohibited items such as firearms and narcotics.

We all know of the dangers our country now faces given our escalated security climate. The savage advance of the so-called Islamic State in the Middle East underlines the seriousness of it all. We know that this terror risk has already come to our shores. We know dozens if not hundreds of Australians have joined jihadist groups overseas. We know they have fought, killed and died. Some have even returned to Australia, bringing back their terrorist know-how and bloodlust to our streets.

These amendments will be able to give our Customs agents the power they need to better control the entry points for goods. Currently, the opportunity exists for those intending to smuggle prohibited items, firearms perhaps, into Australia.

It is well known that this government is committed to restoring the country's finances and getting the budget back on track. This involves both cutting costs and raising revenue. The Australian government went to the previous election with the solemn promise that the necessary decisions would be made in order to get the country back in the black. After six years of Labor, the task is unsurprisingly large, but by no means insurmountable.

What this bill does more than anything else is send a very clear and strong message to the Australian public, and those intending to try their luck, that this government is serious about law and order. The government has, over the last 15 months, consistently brought forward legislation to significantly strengthen the hand of Customs officials. Our commitment to defending the homeland, and thwarting those who seek to do us ill or undermine our rule of law, is resolute. This resolution has not only been confined to financial support, though we have increased the allocations in this regard. Innovation and vision are also a feature of what this government is doing in the customs space.

Take for example the announced Border Force. This will represent a new departure for both the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, and Customs. This is logical. It is a holistic approach that seeks to utilise to best effect every bit of acquired expertise and experience available to the Commonwealth. The days of agencies not being in sync is coming to an end. The right hand will know what left hand is doing. This measure, due to come into effect on 1 July 2015, is timely and benchmarks against international best practice.

Crime and criminality, like any industry, are evolving and becoming ever more complex and sophisticated. We need a government of ideas, commitment and vision. I am pleased to report to this House that in the Abbott government, and in Minister Morrison in particular, we have such leadership.

It is disappointing but not surprising that even on an issue of national importance such as the reform and strengthening of border protection agencies, the Labor Party cannot take a 'Team Australia' approach. Labor run scare stories and feed fantasies to the media about tensions, factions, and leadership tilts inside the cabinet. As if describing their own sorry story of government, they make up any old thing—just destructive and negative. The Australian people are sick and tired of that same old relentless negativity.

The people and drug smugglers know fact from fiction, and it is as simple as this: the coalition is tough on crime and even tougher on the criminals. There are no bleeding hearts here. Our side cares about the results and doing whatever it takes to keep our streets clean from the scourge of drugs and keep our country safe.

Though the particular bill under discussion is not a revolutionary piece of legislation, it is important. Important in the specific but also in the general. In the specific, tightening up and closing down loopholes is critical to keep ahead of the crims. In the general, it adds to a growing mountain of bills that this government have brought forward to strengthen the hand of our law enforcement officers. It clearly shows our commitment to keep our promise to the Australian people to stop the boats and secure our borders.

It really boils down to a question of who did we make legislation for: the criminals or the law abiding citizens? Too often Labor, and particularly the Greens, will loll between lambasting the government and putting out a dirge, all for the benefit of the innocent criminal. Let me tell them that there is no such thing as an ordinary, decent criminal. There is always a victim. The popular notion that some crimes and drugs are harmless is one of the most insidious and damaging fallacies circulating in our community. It must be put to bed for good. Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason, and our reasons are the health and wellbeing of the Australian public. Similarly, when this bill expands the eligible search zone and area for Customs officials at ports and airports, there really should be no restrictions on search zones at airports and ports.

So I applaud the minister for not only talking tough, but also matching his words with actions. This bill is testimony to that. The problem we face is that a terrorist could be anyone, and that terrorist need only be lucky once. We need to be lucky every time.

There cannot be anyone of sane and sound mind in this place who could argue against putting our domestic passenger and freight arrangements on the same footing as our international ones. Likewise, this bill extends common sense to the area of where ships dock. If a ship docks outside a designated port or major shipping point it will be open to the same level of checking. There are practical measures that address lacunas in the current legislation. It is not insignificant, as the volume of passenger and commercial ferries increases daily. Their cargo of people and products should be eligible to be checked if docked at a non-major shipping port. This bill makes the case. The cruise ship industry regularly seeks permission to visit non-proclaimed areas on the Australian coastline. Industries involved in offshore resource activities do not utilise traditional port facilities, and often seek permission to bring vessels direct to an offshore installation. The master of a ship or pilot of an aircraft—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed.