Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (09:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 to increase the maximum number of members of the board of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency, known as the NDIA.

Replacing the current provision for eight board members, the minister will now have capacity to appoint up to 11 members, aside from the chair. As a minor consequence, quorum arrangements for board meetings will also be clarified.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme, of course known as the NDIS, is a significant social reform, and the government has an intense focus on its design, administration and implementation.

It is a significantly complex reform, with governance shared between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. It requires close oversight of financial sustainability, potential risks to scheme participants and providers, and delivery of the scheme across Australia.

The NDIA will be responsible for implementing the transition from trial to the full rollout of the NDIS across Australia, which, when fully established, is estimated to provide support to over 460,000 participants, with a full scheme budget of around $22 billion per annum.

Over the next four years, the NDIS will be moving into a rapid growth phase, where participant numbers will increase from 19,758 people across its trial sites as at 30 September 2015 to over 460,000 people across the country in 2019-20. As the NDIS enters the transition stage, the NDIA will commence increasing the size of its workforce, outsourcing arrangements for many NDIS functions and implementing its full scheme Information Communications Technology solution.

The NDIA board is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the NDIS and its long-term sustainability. The board manages the financial and delivery risk of the scheme, including maintaining an actuarial and insurance approach to decision making within the scheme. The board develops the NDIA's business strategies, manages risks to the organisation and the NDIS and, through its chief executive officer, handles the day-to-day management of the NDIA.

The government, along with the states and territories, has therefore reached the view that the NDIA needs a board with a broader range of skills and experience to manage the rapid increase in participants and to address the emerging challenges that come with a reform of this scale.

State and territory governments, along with the Commonwealth, have agreed that the board requires skills suited to the specific challenges of the transition phase, including strategy, risk, insurance, corporate governance and implementation, as well as experience in large enterprises of an equivalent national scale and complexity.

An independent review of the skills and experience required in the NDIA board for the transition stage found that the next iteration of the board should have strong ASX 50 or large government business enterprise level experience in operation and financial systems and controls. The review identified a need for better representation of experience in change and financial management and deep expertise in the management of insurance-based schemes.

Following this independent review and consultation with state and territory governments, the Commonwealth government has concluded that a board of eight members plus a chair does not allow for the diversity and strength required of a board that is managing the anticipated rapid increase of participants and administering a $22 billion insurance based scheme.

A larger NDIA board will ensure that it has a balance of skills, knowledge and experience in disability services, financial management and corporate governance management of insurance or compensation schemes to enable the board to meet the challenges of the next phase of the NDIS effectively.

To implement this measure, a staged approach to changing the membership of the NDIA board has been agreed with members of COAG's Disability Reform Council, to ensure continuity while also producing optimal governance outcomes during the transition to full scheme. Our view is that, until the NDIS reaches maturity, the board should consist of 11 members and a chair.

The size of the NDIA board is set out in section 126 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013. This bill amends section 126 to change the number of members, aside from the chair, from eight to up to 11, providing the minister with the flexibility to decrease the size of the board at a point when it is considered appropriate and prudent to do so.

As a minor consequence of this change, section 138, providing for a quorum for board meetings, is also amended to ensure that a quorum is constituted when a majority of the members are present.

This government remains committed to the full rollout of the NDIS, with its attendant benefits for people with disabilities, their families, their carers, and the broader Australian community of which they are a valued part.

These changes ensure that the NDIA board overseeing this major social policy reform will have the mix and diversity of skills, capabilities and leadership to bring the NDIS to full scheme within the time frame agreed to with states and territories and within the allocated budget. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (09:07): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill will establish a new ongoing special account that will assist the Commonwealth to meet future financial commitments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This special account will be known as the National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Fund Special Account.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme, known of course as the NDIS, is one of the largest social and economic policy reforms in Australian history. The NDIS supports Australians who are born with, or acquire, a permanent and significant disability before the age of 65 so that they are able to lead a more independent and inclusive life.

The NDIS provides this support by assisting people with disabilities to meet the costs associated with their conditions. Importantly, the scheme empowers people with disabilities to make their own decisions about how they are supported.

NDIS trials are well underway across Australia and, by the completion of the trials in June 2016, there will be around 30,000 people with disabilities participating in the scheme. From July 2016, the NDIS will begin a large-scale expansion, being introduced in a staggered and well-managed transition over the next three years.

By 2019-20, the NDIS will be supporting around 460,000 Australians with disability. At that time, the NDIS will be injecting $22 billion each year into the Australian economy.

The NDIS provides the support directly to each eligible person, rather than to a service provider to then deliver the required support. As a result, the NDIS will also change the landscape of the disability sector. New opportunities will be created by empowering people with disability. A new source of demand will be created within the wider economy for disability support services. As the scheme grows, it will create a national market for care and support based on empowerment, choice and control—a market that drives innovation and creates greater efficiencies and effectiveness.

The Productivity Commission concluded that, over time, the economic benefits of the NDIS will outweigh its costs and will add close to one per cent to GDP. The NDIS is not only good for people with disability, it is good for the Australian economy and it will drive jobs growth over the long term.

In 2019-20, the NDIS reaches 'full scheme' with $22 billion of funding. The Commonwealth's share of the total funding will be around $11.3 billion per year. At that time, eligible people with disability who are currently receiving support through Commonwealth and state disability programs will be receiving support alternatively through the NDIS.

The government is fully committed to properly, adequately and sustainably funding the NDIS. It is for these reasons that the government is bringing forward the National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Fund Special Account. The special account will give a clear line of sight of the funding set aside by the government for the NDIS.

It is critical that the government manages its funding in a way that is transparent and quantifiable, and meets the Commonwealth's funding commitments to ensure the NDIS is fully funded.

The government is, of course, 100 per cent committed to delivering and funding the NDIS in full. The coalition government has supported the NDIS from day one and this special account demonstrates that ongoing commitment.

In addition to this special account, the Commonwealth is redirecting existing disability-related spending and the DisabilityCare Australia Fund towards the cost of the NDIS. In 2019-20:

existing Commonwealth disability funding redirected to the NDIS is estimated to be $1.1 billion;

the Commonwealth share of the increase in the Medicare levy through the DisabilityCare Australia Fund is estimated to be $3.3 billion; and

redirected funding, which is currently provided to the states for specialist disability services, is estimated to be $1.9 billion.

In total, the Commonwealth will direct $6.3 billion from these three sources to the NDIS. However, because of the failure of the previous Labor government to specifically set aside funding for the NDIS gap, this will leave a funding shortfall of $5 billion from 2019-20 onwards, which this government is committed to meeting.

While the Medicare levy is an important contribution to the NDIS, it only provides a portion of the Commonwealth's annual new contributions to the NDIS at full scheme.

It falls to this government to set aside the remainder, which equates to $5 billion worth of funding shortfalls from 2019-20 onwards.

This special account is the mechanism for securing that funding shortfall. It is proof of the responsible and sustainable way that this government follows through on its NDIS promises.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Fund Special Account, which will be created by this bill, will be in the form of a special account. The special account will be administered by the Department of Social Services, with its funding sitting within consolidated revenue. This will ensure that savings deposited into the special account are not returned to the Consolidated Revenue Fund itself and effectively lost for the purposes of the NDIS.

The special account will allow the government, over future budgets, to identify savings from existing programs and set aside those savings to assist in meeting the Commonwealth's future financial commitments to the NDIS. Effectively, the government will, over successive years, put aside savings that are clearly identified, quantified and defined so that the $5 billion annual funding gap from 2019-20 is met within existing funding.

By clearly identifying savings in the special account, it will provide an enduring response to the concerns raised by the disability sector in relation to how government will fund the shortfall for the NDIS. The previous government had identified some savings to assist in meeting the funding requirements of the NDIS from 2019-20. However, those savings were not set aside to meet future NDIS costs and were effectively lost for NDIS purposes.

The special account provides a sustainable way to meet the funding gap from 2019-20 onwards that does not require borrowings for the NDIS that would need to be paid back by future generations.

This bill gives the government the flexibility to identify savings from any portfolio, not just the Social Services portfolio. That approach will ensure that many areas of government contribute to supporting people with disability.

There will be an upper limit on the balance of the special account—it will only hold enough money to fund the future value of the Commonwealth's NDIS commitment. Over the next few years, savings can accumulate in the special account to meet future funding commitments. From 2019-20, when the NDIS reaches full scheme, if the balance of the special account becomes greater than required, the excess will be returned to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Further, a review of the special account will be conducted in 2026-27.

Identification of savings to be deposited into the special account will be a decision of government. Those savings to be credited to the special account will be committed over a 10-year period. The quantum of individual savings will be consistent with the Budget Process Operational Rules. The Minister for Social Services will be the responsible minister, with responsibility for the policy and management of the special account.

The government will establish the special account with an opening balance of $162.4 million in 2015-16 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The government will make further deposits into the special account as soon as the budget occurs in May 2016. Further deposits will be made over coming financial years.

In bringing this bill forward to create the National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Fund Special Account, the government is providing a robust and enduring solution to meeting the government's funding commitments for the NDIS, and I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (09:16): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The bill introduces the 2015-16 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook measure previously announced, being the Commonwealth parental leave payments—consistent treatment for income support assessment.

This measure will amend the social security and veterans' entitlements legislation to ensure Commonwealth parental leave payments under the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010are included in the income test for Commonwealth income support payments.

The bill, in so doing, removes an anomaly in the current arrangements so that government provided parental leave payments will be treated in exactly the same way as employer provided parental leave payments when determining eligibility for income support payments.

Currently, recipients of the government funded parental leave pay (PLP) and dad and partner pay (DAPP) can receive the full rate of an income support payment at the same time as parental leave pay or dad and partner pay.

This situation arose because, when government funded paid parental leave was first introduced, the non-taxable baby bonus was valued at $5,294 such that a family could potentially be better off receiving both the baby bonus and an additional income support payment rather than receiving paid parental leave.

To ensure that the level of financial assistance available to those choosing paid parental leave was worth more than the financial assistance provided to those who chose the baby bonus, paid parental leave was at that point in time excluded from being counted as income for income support payments.

One of the objectives of paid parental leave is to encourage workforce participation, and its value relative to welfare type payments is important.

When the PPL scheme was introduced, the baby bonus existed as an alternative payment for those not eligible for PPL—that is, families with a mother not in the paid workforce—and those who were eligible for PPL but might choose the baby bonus instead.

PPL is taxable and at the time it was introduced was worth $10,260 in total, whereas the baby bonus was untaxable and at the time worth $5,294.

Since PPL is taxable income it can also reduce the amount of family tax benefit part A a family receives and families are precluded from receiving family tax benefit part B during the PPL period.

These interactions with other payments and the tax systems mean that a family may have been better off at the time choosing the baby bonus instead of PPL when they were also eligible for PPL.

In order to make this less likely, the decision at the time was taken that PLP and DAPP would not count as income for income support payments. As the baby bonus has subsequently been abolished and the newborn supplement has been introduced, along with the increase in the PLP rate which is now worth $11,826 over 18 weeks, the original rationale for the exclusion no longer exists.

As previously mentioned, under existing arrangements, payments made under the government funded PPL scheme do not count as income for determining the eligibility and the rate of income support payable to a person.

What this means in practice is that a person can be receiving a government funded parental leave payment of $1,314 per fortnight and at the same time receiving the maximum rate of an income support payment, being $731.20 per fortnight for parenting payment single or $472.60 per fortnight for parenting payment partnered.

If the $1,314 per fortnight was earned income from employment or paid leave from an employer it would reduce the parenting payment single from $731.20 to $280.24 and reduce the parenting payment partnered amount from $472.60 to nil.

It is estimated that approximately 5,000 families will receive a reduced rate of income support payment and 6,000 will no longer be eligible to receive income support during the relevant period—just as families who receive the same amount of PPL from their employer would also not be eligible to receive income support.

The proposed changes will make it fairer for all working mothers, and provide a consistent level of government support. This measure does level the playing field amongst income support recipients by treating all types of income in the same fashion, irrespective of the source of that income.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (09:21): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce this bill which amends our taxation laws to implement a range of new incentives to drive economic growth and jobs in our transitioning economy. How we manage the successful transitioning economy is the most significant challenge facing our country today; certainly from an economic perspective. It is the key to how we ensure future prosperity and to how we ensure future jobs in the 21st century, and this is the key challenge that we face economically, particularly as we lead up to the budget.

These measures will help encourage innovation, risk-taking and an entrepreneurial culture in Australia. It is backing the risk-takers to be the growth-makers in our economy.

These measures go to the heart of the government's National Innovation and Science Agenda, and represent its commitment to making Australia a more modern, dynamic, 21st-century economy. There has never been a more important time for innovation to be at the centre of government policy, because that innovation will drive the productivity that is essential to support national incomes, at a time when we have seen the terms of trade turn to historical levels, coming some 30 per cent off its peak. The country cannot rely on those factors to support national incomes, going forward. We need to earn more, and we need to earn more by increased innovation to drive greater productivity—and that is why innovation sits at the heart of the government's economic agenda and plan to manage the successful transitioning of our economy.

These actions also go towards ensuring Australia remains a world leader when it comes to doing business.

The government is investing $1.1 billion to incentivise innovation and entrepreneurship.

This bill delivers upon two commitments: providing concessional tax treatment to investment in innovative, high-growth start-ups; and reforms to the arrangements for Venture Capital Limited Partnerships to improve access to capital, and make the regime more user-friendly and more internationally competitive.

The first measure, schedule 1 to this bill, amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to improve investment into early stage innovation companies through incentivising investors with business expertise and experience to assist entrepreneurs with commercialising their concepts and ideas.

The second measure, schedule 2 to this bill, will amend the Venture Capital Act 2002 andthe Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to reform the arrangements for venture capital investments, which is expected to attract greater levels of investments at the growth stage of developing a concept, while improving the international competitiveness of investing in entrepreneurs at this stage of the financing life cycle.

This bill is an important step for Australia—investors, venture capital funds and innovation companies in all industries will benefit from these measures.

These measures have specifically been designed to foster a shift towards a culture of innovation, whereby entrepreneurial risk-taking is encouraged and rewarded.

The tax incentives for early stage investors measure aims to support early stage investment by encouraging more businesses to develop innovative ideas.

Within the early stages of an innovation company's financing life cycle, difficulty attracting funding can prevent entrepreneurs from developing and commercialising their ideas. In fact, this stage is sometimes described as the 'valley of death' where many start-ups find themselves unable to meet their cash flow requirements. It is important that the government help connect business expertise with entrepreneurs so that innovative ideas can reach the market through commercialisation. This is what we mean when we say that we are backing Australians in our transitioning economy to make that transition a success.

The tax incentives include a 20 per cent carry-forward non-refundable offset on investments capped at $200,000 per year, and a 10-year exemption on capital gains tax for investments held in the form of shares in the innovation company for at least 12 months, provided that the shares held do not constitute more than a 30 per cent interest in the innovation company. The tax offset will be available upon investment, not when the funds are used by the innovation company, and any sale of the shares will be taxed on a 'deemed capital account' basis.

Innovation in Australia is dynamic. A regulation-making power is also included so the government can keep the measure up to date and up to speed.

The tax incentives for funding provided through venture capital limited partnerships including early stage venture capital limited partnerships are designed to attract investments at the growth stage of a company's development. At this stage, entrepreneurs can face further difficulties accessing funding, despite typically receiving a few rounds of initial funding, as they are not yet able to market themselves for public or broader investor buy-in. Although Australia has experienced recent momentum in this field, with over $600 million in venture capital raised or planned since 30 June 2015, this funding has been generally concentrated within the technology sector. The measure will continue to build on the current momentum through improving funding for promising projects across the economy and in industries beyond the technology sector.

We are introducing a number of new arrangements to venture capital limited partnerships and early stage venture capital limited partnerships. Notably, there will be:

a non-refundable tax offset of 10 per cent of the value of new capital invested into early stage venture capital limited partnerships during the income year;

an increase in the maximum fund size of early stage venture capital limited partnerships from $100 million to $200 million;

improved access to funding from managed investment trusts; and

broadened and simplified rules for both venture capital limited partnerships and early stage venture capital limited partnerships.

The cost of all of these measures were fully offset in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook statement that was released in December of last year.

Once the bill receives royal assent, these incentives will apply to the 2016-17 income year.

Consultation has been conducted across a range of sectors and industries, including experienced investors, start-up founders and pioneers and industry bodies, to design these measures in a way that attracts investment without creating unnecessary regulatory burdens on either the government or entrepreneurs.

We are answering a call from industry. We are creating the ecosystem that Australia needs to succeed in this modern world and for our transitioning economy.

We are setting up the environment to reward our innovators and our entrepreneurs who have the concepts and ideas and the passion that will benefit all Australians.

Backing innovation to drive productivity is a cornerstone of the Turnbull government's economic plan to successfully manage our economic transition. The Turnbull government know that our transitioning economy requires increased investment and we will create and continue to create the conditions necessary for that investment, as demonstrated in these measures, by reducing the tax burden on those who are investing in our economy.

This is another practical example of how the Turnbull government is acting to support the positive transition that is taking place in our economy and why the Turnbull government can be trusted to continue to undertake that task.

Debate adjourned.

Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:29): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Customs and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 is an omnibus bill that makes a number of amendments to the Customs Act, as well as amendments to the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act, and the Maritime Powers Act.

The Customs Act does not currently contain any mechanism by which an owner of goods can be exempt from liability to pay the import declaration processing charge. Schedule 1 of the bill will amend the Customs Act to allow a determination that certain parties or goods are exempt from liability to pay this charge. These amendments will allow Australia to comply with international agreements and treaties involving the application of fees and charges at the border. These amendments ensure that people who pay the charge but are exempt from doing so are able to have their payment refunded.

Schedule 2 of the bill will amend the Customs Act to extend the circumstances in which a person can apply to move, alter or interfere with goods for export that are subject to customs control. Outwards duty-free goods, including those issued under the current duty-free 'sealed bag scheme' require the same screening as any other baggage of travellers on international flights and voyages.

Screening staff at international gateway airports are required to screen all liquids, aerosols and gels presented at a departure screening point. If an alarm is triggered while screening the goods, the goods are required to be re-screened. If the item is a duty-free item, this means removing it from the sealed duty-free packaging. However, the opening of sealed duty-free bags and/or tampering with the contents without permission while they are subject to customs control is an offence punishable under the Customs Act.

These amendments will allow screening authorities to apply for permission to open sealed duty-free bags for re-screening without breaching the Customs Act. Granting this permission will be relevant at international gateway airports, such as Melbourne, where departure screening occurs prior to customs processing.

Schedule 3 of the bill will amend the Customs Act to remove unnecessary requirements for producers when demonstrating that they have made goods in Australia. Currently, when Australian manufacturers apply to have a tariff concession order revoked, or object to the making of a tariff concession order, they must meet two tests. They must demonstrate that at least 25 per cent of factory costs of substitutable goods occur in Australia and that a substantial process of manufacture is also undertaken in Australia.

Where a substantial process of manufacture in Australia is proved, the Australian content always exceeds the 25 per cent threshold as a matter of fact. Therefore, the requirement is to be removed. Providing evidence of factory costs requires detailed and confidential company accounting information and is a significant and costly administrative burden for manufacturers. Its removal is consistent with the government's deregulation agenda.

Schedule 3 of the bill also clarifies the requirements for Australian producers of made-to-order capital equipment when seeking to revoke a tariff concession order, or object to the making of a tariff concession order. If the TCO relates to goods that are made-to-order capital equipment, Australian manufacturers need only demonstrate that they have the capacity to produce substitutable goods. Australian producers of made-to-order capital equipment do not need to have actually made substitutable goods the subject of a TCO application or revocation.

The amendment also extends the evidentiary window for a local manufacturer to demonstrate capability of production of substitutable goods from two years to five years. The current period of two years is often insufficient for an Australian manufacturer to demonstrate such capability in relation to large-scale capital works, such as unique mining machinery, given the amount of time and labour involved in such manufacture.

Amendments to the Customs Act proposed in schedule 4 of this bill will repeal an obsolete provision relating to the collection of duty on goods imported for a temporary purpose.

Schedule 5 of the bill amends the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act to allow an officer to inspect and examine goods that are, or that the officer reasonably believes are, goods prescribed by the Commerce (Imports) Regulations which are imported, and allows the Commerce (Imports) Regulations to prescribe penalties, not exceeding 50 penalty units, for offences against those regulations. These amendments are made in anticipation of the Commerce (Imports) Regulations being re-made in the near future, and also reflect modern drafting practices.

Finally, the amendments proposed in schedule 6 of the bill are intended to confirm the government's clear intent that the powers under the Maritime Powers Act are able to be exercised in the course of passage through or above the waters of another country in a manner consistent with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:35): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016 amends the Migration Actto introduce an assessable sponsorship framework for family sponsored visas.

Under the current system, sponsorship for family visas is assessed as part of the criteria for the grant of a visa. Arrangements vary across family visa products, but under current settings for most visas there is little focus on the character of the sponsor or the responsibility that attaches to their sponsorship.

In all instances under the existing arrangements, sponsors are required to give undertakings. However, these are considered to be 'unenforceable', because there is no consequence for noncompliance with these undertakings. Generally, these undertakings require the sponsor to assist the visa applicant, to the extent necessary, financially and in relation to accommodation, for two years from the date of grant of the visa or from the applicant's first entry into Australia as the holder of the visa.

Further, full character checks are a mandatory requirement for all visa applicants, but sponsors are required to provide police checks only when a minor child is included in the application.

In the sponsored family visa program and, in particular, the partner visa category, the lack of focus on sponsors has led to problems with:

sponsors who the department considers to be vulnerable being targeted by visa applicants who are motivated solely on a permanent visa outcome; and

Australians who have a violent history, including against family members, being able to sponsor noncitizens without having to disclose details of their past to either the department or other parties to the application.

Currently, all visas in the family stream have a sponsorship requirement as part of the criteria for grant of the visa. However, claims of family violence in the program and the lack of sponsorship enforcement mechanisms mean that government is moving to improve program integrity and to provide more suitable visa options for victims of family violence.

The improvements introduced with this bill will address these shortcomings by extending the sponsorship framework that currently applies to the temporary work sponsored visa program to the family sponsored visa program as well. Amongst other things, this framework requires the assessment and approval of sponsors, imposes statutory obligations on sponsors, provides for civil penalties and administrative sanctions for breaches of sponsorship obligations and facilitates the sharing of information between relevant parties. This framework consists of two elements:

1. Provisions in division 3A of part 2 of the act, which provide the necessary heads of power to implement the framework; and

2. Part 2A of the Migration Regulations, which prescribes details for and in relation to the operation of the framework.

The bill will extend relevant aspects of this sponsorship framework to apply to family sponsored visas in order to:

separate sponsorship assessment from the visa application process for family sponsored visas;

require the approval of persons as family sponsors before any relevant visa applications are made;

impose statutory obligations on persons who are or were approved as family sponsors;

provide for sanctions if such obligations are not satisfied;

facilitate the sharing of personal information between parties identified in the sponsorship application; and

improve the management of family violence where it occurs in the family visa program.

To give effect to this extended framework, amendments will be made to the Migration Regulations to:

prescribe details for and in relation to the operation of the framework for family sponsored visas; and

make consequential amendments to the existing framework for the temporary sponsored work visa program to reflect new terminology referred to in the bill.

The introduction of an assessable sponsorship framework for family sponsored visas will improve the integrity of the family sponsored visa program as it will:

replace the current unenforceable sponsorship framework insofar as it relates to family sponsored visas;

place greater emphasis on the assessment and approval of family sponsors;

require the approval of persons as family sponsors before any relevant visa applications are made;

separate sponsorship assessment from the visa application process to ensure, amongst other things, that sponsorship obligations , rather than undertakings , are imposed and enforceable with civil penalties and administrative sanctions;

allow the m inister to refuse a sponsorship application; and cancel and / or bar a family sponsor where inappropriate use of the program or serious offences are detected —e specially those involving family violence; and

improve the sharing of personal information between parties identified in the sponsorship application and the program more generally.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer) (09:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today, I introduce a bill which will ensure the ongoing validity of certain auditor registrations from December 2005.

Government regulation of company auditors requires minimum standards of both competence and integrity to help protect investors and other users of financial reports.

This is an important part of a robust financial reporting and auditing framework. Audit quality and independence is important to ensuring the integrity of financial statements. Transparent and credible financial reporting, coupled with an effective audit regime, underpins confidence in our financial system and is essential for sound and sustainable economic growth.

The bill remedies the legal uncertainty surrounding the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's approval in November 2004 of an auditing competency standard produced by CPA Australia and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, now known as Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand.

In November 2004 certain administrative requirements which legislation required be followed in relation to ASIC's approval were not met. After 1 December 2005 the legal validity of auditors registered in reliance on that standard has been uncertain.

The bill remedies this uncertainty by retrospectively validating the registration of auditors registered under the relevant audit standard. It provides a clear and permanent legislative solution to an issue that has so far been dealt with through a solution that must be periodically renewed. In doing so it reduces compliance costs and increases certainty for business.

The retrospective effect of the amendments will not add any new regulatory requirement. Rather, the retrospective effect of the amendments is necessary to ensure that decisions and actions taken by auditors, ASIC and business which relied upon the enforceability and integrity of the approval are valid. The retrospective operation of the bill provides certainty for those past decisions and actions.

The bill will commence the day after the bill receives royal assent.

Finally, the Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to the amendments and has approved them as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.

Debate adjourned.

Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer) (09:44): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I introduce the Financial System Legislation Amendment (Resilience and Collateral Protection) Bill 2016.

This bill will create a more resilient and stable financial system and provide for the continuing participation of Australian entities in international capital markets.

In doing so, the bill amends six existing pieces of legislation: the Payment Systems and Netting Act 1998, or Netting Act; the Banking Act 1959, or the Banking Act; the Financial Sector (Business Transfer and Group Restructure) Act 1999, or the Business Transfer Act; the Insurance Act 1973, or the Insurance Act; the Life Insurance Act 1995, or the Life Insurance Act; and the Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Act 2015, or the PHI Act.

In response to the global financial crisis (GFC), the Group of Twenty (G20) committed to improving transparency, mitigating systemic risk and protecting against market abuse in derivatives markets. Significant progress has already been made in pursuit of these aims, in Australia and international over-the-counter derivatives markets.

However, there is still more work to do. The international over-the-counter derivatives market is large, and requires further regulation. The Bank of International Settlements reports that the notional amount of outstanding over-the-counter derivative contracts was US$553 trillion (at the end of June 2015).

The next significant stage in the post-GFC reform of over-the-counter derivatives is to establish margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) and the board of the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) have agreed on an international framework, to be implemented by national regulators. These margin requirements are expected to be phased in from 1 September 2016.

However, under existing law, Australian entities may not be able to comply with all of the relevant requirements. Without this bill, they will likely face increasing costs and other barriers to participation in international markets.

This bill creates a facilitative regime which will allow Australian entities to comply with the new requirements, and in so doing, remain globally competitive and efficient traders. The bill does not establish the margin requirements per se, but will complement and support any margin requirements for derivatives and risk mitigation standards set by Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, in accordance with the international framework, and by international regulators.

This bill also resolves other issues of concern to regulators and industry participants in Australian financial markets. For example, this bill strengthens the protection of certain payment systems, settlement systems, exchanges and central counterparties. These are fundamentally important to the stability of the Australian financial system and it is critical that they benefit from robust legal protections in all market conditions.

This bill is a result of careful and rigorous consultation with the Council of Financial Regulators (the Council, which is comprised of the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, and the Australian Treasury); as well as a range of industry bodies, market participants and their advisers.

The government has consulted the public on various forms of the measures in this bill, and made a call for submissions on the entire reform package following the release of the draft bill. Submissions primarily came from the financial services sector, including from Australian and international industry bodies and other market participants. As a whole, they were highly supportive of the reforms.

The legislative framework

This bill will ensure Australian law continues to provide a strong foundation for modern, and truly international financial markets; and for the effective participation of Australian entities within them.

This bill establishes a functional and protective framework which is flexible enough to cope with a range of sophisticated financial market structures and inevitable changes in market practice.

It contains reforms which are technically sophisticated and which are expected to provide a pragmatic and practical regime for market participants and their advisers.

This bill does not impose onerous regulation. Rather, it allows entities which are subject to Australian law to provide, and enforce rights in respect of, margin provided under derivatives transactions in accordance with internationally developed regulatory requirements. It does this by expanding the protections afforded to close-out netting, to cover the enforcement of security.

This bill resolves an inconsistency in Australian law as to the circumstances in which a counterparty to an Australian regulated body may exercise its termination rights (that is, when it can close-out transactions related to a contract). This brings Australian law into line with international best practice, and supports efficient resolution of Australian financial institutions in distress.

This bill strengthens the protection of certain payment systems, settlement systems, exchanges and central counterparties. These are fundamentally important to the stability of the Australian financial system and require robust legal protections in all market conditions.

This bill also contains a number of regulatory powers to allow the government to move quickly to adapt to significant upheaval in financial markets and any events which could otherwise threaten systemic stability.

In addition to the reforms I have described, the bill also contains a number of more technical and consequential amendments to certain Australian acts related to Australian financial markets.

The new regime draws on a wealth of sources. It builds on lessons learned in other jurisdictions, including in the United Kingdom and European Union, the products of extensive consultation, and the input of technical experts.

MINCO approval

This bill will alter the effect, scope or operation of the corporations law. Accordingly, as required by clause 510 of the Corporations Agreement between the Commonwealth, the states and the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth has notified the states and the Northern Territory of the bill.

Summing up

This bill advances the Australian government's reform agenda for financial systems, by enhancing the integrity and safety of the derivatives markets in particular, and the financial system as a whole.

Passage of this bill will complement other important reforms to the regulation of Australian over-the-counter derivatives markets, and corresponding international efforts.

Passage of this bill will ensure Australia maintains its position as a regional financial centre with a strong regulatory and legislative framework, and that Australian entities can continue to transact with domestic and international counterparties—supported by Australian law.

Debate adjourned.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (09:52): Aviation and maritime security should be above partisan politics. It is the responsibility of any federal government of any political persuasion to ensure that our nation's transport security arrangements are fit for purpose and up to date with the security threats of the day. It is equally the responsibility of any federal opposition to scrutinise proposals put forward by the government in the spirit of cooperation, offering advice where it can while avoiding needless political partisanship. That is the approach that Labor has always taken over my 20 years in this parliament, and for the most part it has been the approach of the coalition.

The member for Wide Bay and I had much conflict over transport policy over the many years that we shadowed each other prior to his recent decision to step down from the frontbench and the leadership of the Nationals and, therefore, the Deputy Prime Ministership. But during that time we worked together on the serious issues that related to the safety of the travelling public, regardless of which of us was in government. I am sure that the new Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Darren Chester, will take the same approach. However, I want to point out to the minister that this bill, toughening background checks on Australian aviation and shipping workers, comes as the government is actively encouraging Australian shipping companies to sack their Australian crews and replace them with foreign crews whose background is simply not subject to the same level of checks. Indeed, yesterday afternoon we learnt of yet another Australian crew being sacked and replaced by a presumably foreign crew. I refer to BP's decision to terminate use of the British Loyalty oil tanker and sack its Australian crew. I will return to that point later in this contribution.

While this legislation seeks to ensure that Australian workers in airports and ports have no links to organised crime or terrorists, the government is pursuing an approach to the maritime industry that actually undermines that goal, because it undermines the very presence of an Australian flag on the back of ships around our coasts and the presence of Australian mariners on those ships. That makes no sense. That is why I have not just referred to the economic and environmental consequences of an explicit policy that favours foreign ships over Australian ships around our coast. The policy also has national security implications.

As I referred to a moment ago, the world of transport safety is a dynamic one. The frequent emergence of new threats requires constant vigilance on the part of law-makers. For example, in the 20th century no-one would have imagined the huge changes to the world's airports that were made necessary by the terrorist attacks on New York on 11 September 2001. We have to respond to threats as they arise, and we also have to anticipate what those new threats are and take actions in a precautionary way, if we deem them to be necessary. We should take proper advice and not play politics with national security.

When introducing this legislation, the member for Wide Bay said that it was part of the government's response to the recommendations of last December's report from the National Ice Taskforce. The task force found that 200,000 Australians use the crystalline form of methamphetamine, also known as ice. It called for stronger law enforcement measures to tackle the trafficking of the drug, including toughening background checks made on people seeking Aviation Security Identification Cards and Maritime Security Identification Cards.

In response, this bill proposes strengthening the Aviation Transport Security Act and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act. These are laws that were created in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In their current form, they are designed to prevent unlawful interference in the aviation and maritime sectors that could cause damage to passengers, crew, workers or property. They are aimed at preventing terrorist attacks on airports, ports, aircraft and ships. They ensure that before any port or airport worker is granted an identity card, he or she is subject to strict background checks to ensure that he or she has no connections to terrorist groups. The bill before us today seeks to broaden the scope of these checks to also include checks on an applicant's background for links to, 'serious and organised crime'. It, therefore, adds to the existing laws a secondary purpose aimed at preventing drug trafficking.

Labor will not oppose this legislation in the House of Representatives. We agree that parliament should respond to the recommendations of the National Ice Taskforce with respect to drug trafficking. We need to focus on law enforcement as well as helping addicts with treatment. However, the opposition does have concerns about this bill, relating to the possibility of unintended consequences. That is why we reserve our position when it comes to the Senate, after there is a proper, open and transparent process to make sure that there are not unintended consequences of this bill. I appreciate the fact that the minister ensured that I had a departmental briefing on this legislation. Hence, we will not be moving amendments at this stage in the House of Representatives or opposing the bill.

We want to make sure that these issues are not partisan, but we also want to make sure that combining checks relating to terrorism and organised crime is the most appropriate way to deal with maritime and aviation security. Specifically, we question whether the addition of an organised crime check to the existing terrorism check might inadvertently affect the level of rigor that applies to the terrorism check. That is a standard which applies to security in the transport sector. There are very specific reasons why, for example, we check for the presence of certain goods being carried on aircraft and do not check for others. We do it so that those people responsible for the checks can concentrate on what can cause real damage if someone acts inappropriately, for example, on an aircraft. That is why through the changes I made as aviation minister we deemed that the previous ban, for example, on cutlery on aircraft was not appropriate given the circumstances of what could occur on an aircraft. We constantly have to update these regulations and laws. I understand that. At that time that practical change received bipartisan support—eventually—from the then opposition.

We know from events in New York the consequences of terrorist infiltration of aircraft. We know that one terrorist attack on an aircraft can literally cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars. That is why the ASIC and MSIC card regimes were brought into effect. It is essential that authorities maintain a laser-like focus on protecting the travelling public. The parliament must be very careful about making changes to existing security arrangements without serious and widespread consultation. The last thing we want to see when dealing with drug trafficking is our efforts compromising transport safety. That is why Labor has already moved to establish a Senate inquiry on this matter. Call it due diligence. We would like to hear a range of views on how transport security checks are working and how the system might be affected by the proposed change.

I stress again that the opposition understands that the intent of this legislation is to address drug trafficking and specifically the scourge of ice that is having such a terrible impact on so many of our communities, particularly those in rural and regional Australia. The impact on young people is quite horrific. It is a drug that leads to violence, break up of families and literally death and destruction in local communities. We as a parliament should do what we can to get rid off this scourge, but we also need to ensure that transport security is not compromised in that process.

That is why the new minister across the table here, Mr Chester, should examine these issues carefully. He should also, I think, examine the clear inconsistencies between this legislation's aim of ensuring that maritime workers have no links with terrorists or organised crime and the government's parallel agenda of encouraging greater use of foreign flagged ships crewed by foreign crews. The legislation that was rejected by the Senate last year explicitly stated in its explanatory memorandum and in its regulatory impact statement that it would result in the reflagging of Australian ships with foreign flags and the replacement of Australian mariners with foreign mariners on those ships.

It is unfortunate that, ever since it took office, the government has been seeking to undermine the Australian domestic shipping industry. Last year it attempted to legislate to end any preference for Australian flagged vessels in the domestic cargo trade. This legislation would have required Australian flagged vessels that pay crews Australian-level wages to compete directly with foreign flagged vessels crewed by foreign mariners being paid Third World wages. Obviously, given their lower wage rates, the overseas flagged vessels would have had a competitive advantage. That is why we have labelled this legislation 'Work Choices on water'. That is why the legislation was rejected in the Senate.

Since the Senate rejected that move, the government has sought to achieve its objective through the back door. It has been abusing a provision of existing maritime law which allows the use of foreign vessels for temporary work where no Australian ship is available. The former government introduced legislation that was flexible and gave preference to Australian ships unashamedly but said, where they were not available, foreign ships could be used but that their workers would have to be paid Australian wages under Australian conditions. The new government has abused the fact that this was not protectionist legislation and did not close our coast to foreign ships to indeed close the coast to Australian flagged vessels. That is basically what has happened here. The government facilitating the sacking of 40 Australian mariners by granting Alcoa a licence and allowing it to replace the MV Portland with a foreign vessel is, perhaps, the most explicit abuse of these laws. For decades the MV Portland had taken the raw material in Western Australia around the coast of the Great Australian Bight to Portland where it was off-loaded at the refinery. It then got taken back to Western Australia.

Nothing could be less temporary than a freight task, purely domestic, from one destination to another and return. That was the sole duty of the MV Portland. Yet a temporary licence was granted, even though temporary licences are for temporary work where no Australian ship was available. But the MV Portland, of course, was there, as were those 40 Australian mariners, who were real Australians with real families, earning real wages, paying real Australian taxes, putting real food on the table for their families and contributing to that local regional economy in Portland, and they were wiped out by the ideology of this government. It is quite extraordinary that the visas were given to the foreign crew and that the former minister, the member for Wide Bay, was notified on 17 December that this was going to happen, but he remained silent on it for weeks while those workers and their families defended Australian jobs.

The problem is that Australian authorities have far less awareness of the backgrounds of overseas mariners than they have of local mariners, whose backgrounds have been vetted as part of the process of issuing a Maritime Security Identification Card. That is the truth. We have this legislation before the parliament, which would enhance what are already very rigorous security checks for anyone working in our airports and ports, but we are allowing essentially a free-for-all around our coast and in our harbours on these vessels without any real security checks, and we are favouring that. So if you are working on the dock unloading a ship, or if you are the truck driver taking goods from the port, or if you are anyone accessing that area, then you go through this extraordinary level of security checking already. Yet, if you are on one of these ships from a country in our region,—and a lot of the countries, of course, use Third World workers from the Philippines or from Indonesia or other countries because they pay them Third World wages—which are full of petrol and are in our harbours around the most populated areas of the country, what could go wrong? Yet this government favours it.

In 2012, so you do not have to take my word for it, the Office of the Inspector of Transport Security said with respect to the offshore oil and gas sector—the Office of the Inspector of Transport Security is independent of the government of the day, and it was an office that was established by the Howard government:

As the Australian-based industry and associated employment demands continue to grow, the employee profile of many companies is changing and more foreign workers, generally operating under 457 visa arrangements, are being engaged.

As is the case internationally, the ability to effectively vet potential employees, either through company recruitment processes, Maritime Security Identification Cards (MSICs), passport or 457 visa related checks is essentially limited to basic character style assessment and cannot operate as a genuine security clearance process. These limitations need to be understood and reflected in other and wider complementary security arrangements.

Let me repeat those words of the Office of the Inspector of Transport Security, not my words. They said, 'cannot operate as a genuine security clearance process.' What this means is that while this parliament is today being asked to consider toughening up the MSIC and ASIC process, the government is going out of its way to replace Australians with MSICs with foreign crews which have not been through a proper security clearance process. That is a fact and it is very concerning. I am advised that there are ports in regional Australian where people can access them with nothing more than a passport or a driver's licence of whatever country they come from. We need to tighten security not undermine it.

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection also has security concerns about the implications of a shift to the use of more foreign flagged ships registered in flag-of-convenience nations like Panama and Liberia. They are ships whose very ownership is often hidden in structures which are far from transparent. In a submission to the Senate inquiry being conducted now into the increasing use of flag-of-convenience vessels in Australian waters, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection warned this government:

… there are features of FOC registration, regulation and practice that organised crime syndicates or terrorist groups may seek to exploit.

It went on to say that, in many flag-of-convenience nations, there was limited transparency about the identity of the owners of vessels. This is the government's own department of immigration's submission. It said:

Reduced transparency or secrecy surrounding complex financial and ownership arrangements are factors that can make FOC—

flag-of-convenience—

ships more attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organised crime or terrorist groups.

This means that FOC ships may be used in a range of illegal activities, including illegal exploitation of natural resources, illegal activity in protected areas, people smuggling, and facilitating prohibited imports or exports.

These are very serious issues for a government that talks about border security, from a department that is in charge of border control. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection said that flag-of-convenience ships 'may be used in a range of illegal activities', including people smuggling and facilitating prohibited imports or exports. That did not come from the Labor Party. That did not come from the trade union movement. That came from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. That is why the opposition is concerned about the government's position: there needs to be a consistent attitude towards the national interest and national security when it comes to our coasts.

I note that it has been reported today that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection recognises that the previous minister's legislation, which was rejected by the Senate, was flawed and understands that there is a need to have a different policy. I say again to the minister, as I have said before in private and in public, that the Labor Party are up for reform that assists Australian shipping, assists productivity and is in the national interest, and we are prepared to work with the government, with MIAL—the peak body for the Australian shipping industry—and with the workforce to ensure the growth of the Australian shipping industry. But we are not prepared to sit back and see that industry simply wiped out, which is what the previous legislation explicitly called for.

So the opposition will allow this legislation to go through the House of Representatives unopposed by us, but we do reserve our right to give consideration to changes to the bill when it is in the Senate, on the basis of the committee inquiry and on the basis of submissions that might be made to it, because we do want to make sure that we get this right and that all of these areas have bipartisan support. I say again: you cannot be tightening up security in ports and airports whilst you are ideologically pushing to remove the Australian flag and the Australian workforce from our coastal shipping.

I refer again to the development with BP that I mentioned earlier in my contribution. The British Fidelity is the last Australian-crewed fuel tanker in service around the Australian coast. It takes oil product from Kwinana primarily to Adelaide and other coastal points, with an Australian crew. If this route is now undertaken by a foreign crew, then all of Australia's imported fuel and all other fuel moved around the Australian coast will be done by foreign crews. Think about that. If you do not think there are national security implications to there being no presence of Australian crews when that fuel is moved around the Australian coast, then you have not thought about it very deeply.

And I do not understand how Australia's fuel security is aided by this decision. Our fuel security is so essential to our national economy. I do not know how the minister could possibly have properly applied the act when he issued a temporary licence for a vessel to replace the British Fidelity, knowing, as he must have, that it would be used to facilitate the sacking of Australian workers from work that is done here in Australia.

I say to the minister: he needs to get on top of the national interest here. The National Party, named as it is because, it says, it stands up for Australia's national interest needs to see that, of all of the coalition. I can understand perhaps someone with a small-l libertarian, economic free market philosophy saying there is no need for any Australian flag or Australian presence in this context. Well, there is. There is, due to our economy. But there is also a national security interest here.

I conclude where I began. Transport safety laws are beyond politics. They should also be beyond ideology. That is why we need to have a consistent view on these issues. The government needs to heed the warnings given by experts at the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and by the Inspector of Transport Security, put ideology aside and make sure it acts in the national interest when it comes to national security. We on this side will continue to support the national interest and to do so in a consistent fashion.

Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (10:22): I support the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016. As with any legislation we debate in this House that acts to reinforce national security measures, this bill is an equally important bill to speak to. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act, otherwise known as the aviation act, and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003, or the maritime act. The amendments contained in this bill seek to reduce criminal influence at Australian airports and seaports by strengthening the aviation security identification card, or ASIC, and the maritime security identification card, or MSIC, schemes. The bill seeks to provide the regulatory framework to support the introduction of revised eligibility criteria for the ASIC and MSIC schemes to better target serious or organised crime-related offences. Criminal intelligence coupled with inquiries for extra security measure to combat identified vulnerabilities in the ASIC and MSIC schemes have directly influenced the government's commitment to tightening these security measures.

The provisions within this bill provide effect to the government's 2013 election commitment to reduce potential risks associated with criminal influences at our air and sea ports. The provisions therefore give effect to the government's commitment, as part of the coalition's policy to tackle crime, that people with a relevant criminal history can never receive security clearance to work at airport and seaport entry points.

In addition the bill provides completion to a key action in the government's December 2015 response to the final report of the National Ice Taskforce, specifically the implementation of changes to the eligibility criteria for holders of ASIC and MSIC as a means to disrupt the supply of the drug ice in Australia. Along with a comprehensive package of actions the government is taking to combat the ice epidemic in Australia, protecting our air and sea ports from organised criminal activity is another important step in stamping out this insidious blight in our community. I am and always have been a vocal advocate for tackling the epidemic of the drug ice that has laid siege to so many in our local communities. I will continue to advocate for any measures that we as a government can take to provide the care, resources and support for users, their families and children and the wider community to overcome the scourge of ice.

While our frontline health staff deal with admissions of users in drug-induced psychosis and while our frontline law enforcement officers tackle the drug and the destruction left in its wake and while our community services staff work tirelessly to support the families of users gripped by addiction and while our schools keep a watchful eye on children who are witness to the atrocities of this drug, we as a government are committed to taking every step imaginable to stem the flow of this abhorrent drug into our communities. Preventing organised criminal groups from being able to smuggle drugs, especially ice, into Australia to be distributed throughout our communities is another paramount step in turning the tide on the ice epidemic.

At present per capita Australia has the highest number of ice users of any other nation in the world and in my own electorate of Dobell frontline services are facing the daily trials of destruction caused by this drug. The National Ice Taskforce did an outstanding job in identifying a holistic approach to tackling the ice epidemic, and I am continually supportive of the government's vigilance in taking every step possible to eradicate the drug in a strategic and coordinated approach. Organised crime is estimated to cost the Australian economy $36 billion a year and presents a serious threat to our national security. The government recognises that organised criminals are devious in their attempts to peddle drugs such as ice and other contraband into Australia through our airports and seaports.

The reforms proposed by this bill are also designed to protect the aviation and maritime transport systems against acts of terrorism and unlawful interference. The reforms enhance the abilities of law enforcement agencies to combat transnational and domestic organised crime through the introduction of additional offences to capture high-risk criminal activities. This government is committed to ensuring Australia is secure and not at risk of exploitation by serious or organised crime.

The August 2015 Australian Strategic Policy Institute special report titled A web of harms: Serious and organise crime and its impacts on Australian interests stated:

The harm is seen clearly at the borders, where serious and organised crime constantly challenges the Australian government's right to control imports and exports. By doing so, organised crime compromises biosecurity, evades taxes and introduces items that the community wishes to exclude from the country. The level of harm is hard to quantify.

There's an ongoing and increasing concern about links between terrorism and organised crime in Australia … These include for instance, terrorist or insurgent groups like the Afghan Taliban or the Colombian FARC, who produce or ship drugs that are consumed in Australia The recent situation in Syria and Iraq, and changes to terrorist recruiting and financing methods, have made such links more prominent over the past year.

Serious and organised crime presents a substantial hazard to Australia' airports and seaports. In the 2009 submission to the parliamentary inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures to combat serious and organised crime, the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service described serious and organised crime groups' strategies as infiltrating airports and port and related service providers in the supply chain by gaining employment for their members or associates as airport or port workers—they endeavour to corrupt individuals or groups currently operating within airports and ports to obtain their assistance in circumventing border and security controls.

The high-criminal intelligence organisations exploit inside industry knowledge position and networks of corrupt workers in maritime ports and airports to execute criminal activities, including the movement of prohibited goods such as illegal drugs and their chemical ingredients. I do acknowledge, of course, that the vast majority of those operating within the aviation and maritime sectors are legitimate, ethical employees; there are nonetheless the few who seek to exploit vulnerabilities in businesses or individuals working with port workers and others in the supply chain for the express purpose of providing cover for the criminal activities of organised syndicates. The infiltration and corruption of serious and organised crime groups within airports and seaports is a serious concern. The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service submission notes:

The maritime environment poses the highest risk in relation to the importation of prohibited goods into Australia, as the bulk of illicit imports enter Australia through the sea cargo environment. Serious and organised crime groups seek to increase the likelihood of a successful importation by concealing larger quantities of illicit good within or amongst large items, such as machinery, in the cargo stream.

The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 will provide the regulatory framework to support the introduction of revised eligibility criteria for the ASIC and MSIC schemes that will better target serious or organised crime related offences. Under the ASIC and MSIC schemes, identification cards are issued to all personnel, including foreign nationals who legitimately require access to aviation and maritime areas and zones. It provides the capacity for unescorted access for the card holder to secure aviation and maritime zones, including offshore oil and gas facilities. They will be required to have successfully undergone background checks, which are conducted by AusChec within the Attorney-General's Department. The AusCheck system includes an assessment of information relating to an individual's identity, criminal history, security assessment, citizenship status, residency status or entitlements to work in Australia. The background check assesses whether an applicant for an ASIC or MSIC is likely to pose a security risk, should they be given clearance within airports or seaports.

This bill will: create an additional purpose in the aviation and maritime acts in relation to aviation and maritime area and zones to prevent the use of aviation and maritime transport or offshore facilities in connection with serious or organised crime; establish a regulatory framework supporting the implementation of harmonised eligibility criteria for the ASIC and MSIC schemes, which better target serious or organised crime related offences. It will also clarify and align the legislative basis for undertaking security checking of ASIC and MSIC applicants and holders; allow for regulations to be made prescribing penalties for offences against the new serious or organised crime requirements that are consistent with existing penalty provisions across the ASIC and MSIC schemes; and insert an additional severability provision    to provide guidance to a court as to parliament's intention.

The new eligibility criteria for the ASIC and MSIC schemes to be specified in the aviation and maritime regulations will introduce new offence categories, such as offences under anti-criminal organisation legislation, Foreign Incursions and Recruitment Act and offences related to the illegal importation of goods and/or interfering with goods under Border Force control. Unlawful interference includes conduct that threatens the safe operation of aircraft and airports and ships and ports, which in turn can potentially cause threat or harm to any crew or personnel, passengers, the public or even damage to property. The amendments will apply to all persons required by law to hold an ASIC or MSIC. The bill also provides for regulations to prescribe penalties for offences against requirements made for the purpose of preventing the use of aviation and maritime transport or offshore facilities in connection with serious or organised crime. It also creates a greater consistency between the aviation and maritime acts. Bringing the two into line facilitates transparency and accountability with powers for making regulations and administering both the ASIC and MSIC schemes.

The coalition committed to pursue a zero tolerance approach to corruption in customs agencies and those protecting our borders in our policy to tackle crime. We committed to making sure that people who are or have been involved in serious or organised crime would be prohibited from being able to gain access to or work within our Australian airports or seaports. Coupled with this commitment has been the government's commitment to take emphatic steps to disrupt the supply of ice, as identified by the National Ice Taskforce. The report noted:

Disrupting the ice supply chain through seizures and arrests of key players in importing and trafficking networks remains a critical part of the response to ice. ... An enhanced focus on the supply chain is required, particularly offshore... It is also necessary to remove any potential for infiltration of air and sea ports by organised crime…

Recommendation 24 of a total of 38 recommendations contained in the report is:

The Commonwealth Government should continue to protect the aviation and maritime environment against organised crime by strengthening the eligibility criteria for holders of Aviation Security Identification Cards and Maritime Security Identification Cards; and establishing a legal mechanism to enable compelling criminal intelligence to be used in determining suitability of workers to hold such a card.

The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 is expressly addressing this particular recommendation and gives effect to this part of the government's package of actions to tackle ice.

I thank the Hon. Warren Truss, the Minister for Justice and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism, Michael Keenan, and all stakeholders for their dedication and commitment to tightening security at our airports and seaports. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (10:36): What we have before us is a bill that could, if not scrutinised properly, radically change who works at our airports. I stand today on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 to issue a bit of a 'let's wait and see' and a warning about how changing the eligibility criteria for existing Aviation Security Identification Cards and Maritime Security Identification Cards could affect the workforce at our airports.

Yes, Labor supports well-targeted measures that address serious and organised crime. Those who use our aviation and maritime transport systems as a means to distribute drugs or other contraband into and out of Australia do commit crimes and should be prosecuted. We have seen from the report of the National Ice Taskforce of December last year that there is work that needs to be done not just in enforcement but in supporting people who are seeking rehabilitation and help. Labor did welcome that report when it was released, and we do support measures to refine the ASIC and MSIC system. However, we are cautious about the eligibility criteria that could be changed.

Let us for a moment reflect on who our workers are who currently have these passes in our airports and our maritime industries. What has not been acknowledged—and what many people in this place may not be aware of if they do not talk to workers as they go through the airport as they come to Canberra, and what many Australians may not be aware of—is that it is not just our security officers or our baggage handlers but every person who works air side. So it is everyone who works at the Boost Juice, everyone who works at the newsagency, every single cleaner in the building and every single person who works at Hungry Jacks. Every single person who works in an airport is required to have an ASIC card. We need to make sure that any eligibility criteria that we put forward is targeting those who are at risk of committing serious crime and not targeting those who just want to go to work and get paid for doing a decent job.

I know the Melbourne Airport quite well. In a previous role, I used to represent the cleaners and the security guards at the airport in my capacity as a union organiser for United Voice. At the moment at Melbourne Airport, they are going through a contract change. It is the third contract change in as many years. The first company was ISS. It held the cleaning contract for Melbourne Airport for many years. Then it went to Assetlink. It cleans other airports around the country. Now, the contract has gone to IKON cleaning. Long-term cleaners, cleaners like Victor, who have cleaned at the airport for 15 years and who have an ASIC card, have been told that there is no job for them with the new incoming company. There is no job for them. Despite his safety record, despite his work ethic and record, he has been told by the new company, 'You don't have a job.' So there is a real safety question about who IKON, the contracted cleaning company, will be employing to work at the airport in the future. We need to make sure that any of those new cleaners who come through do pass the relevant safety checks for ASIC. More importantly, we need to make sure that the new criteria does not discriminate in a way that makes it hard for them to do their job.

I am not suggesting for a moment that anyone from the government believes that cleaners are at the forefront of serious crime in this country. But if you are going to change the eligibility criteria for the ASIC and MSIC cards, we need to make sure that we are not bringing into it people like our cleaners and hospitality workers who work at the airport. Victor will be replaced by an IKON cleaner. IKON, like other cleaning companies, does not have the best track record in the cleaning industry. It does rely on subcontracted labour. Again, it brings into question who will be working in our airports. We hope the company will change its mind and give first preference to the cleaners who have worked there for a long period of time people. They are people that the Melbourne Airport and airlines trust. They are people who have demonstrated that they are able to do a good job and who have passed the necessary safety checks.

If you do not have an ASIC card, or if you are waiting for an ASIC card, what currently happens is that you are escorted by another cleaner or by another worker in and out of the workplace. When you are air side, basically you are not able to wander around without being escorted. One of the things that I do question with the eligibility criteria is whether they will be excluding occupation health and safety reps from applying for ASIC cards. Will they be excluding union officials and organisers from applying for ASIC cards? If you are somebody who represents transport workers in the baggage handling area, it would be very hard to do your job if the eligibility criteria is changed and you are no longer able to have an ASIC card. It would be very hard if you are somebody who works for WorkSafe if you are excluded from being able to obtain an ASIC card. These are the practical workplace issues that could be caught up if we do not have proper scrutiny of the criteria and how it changes.

Our airports employ thousands and thousands of people. The Melbourne Airport is the biggest employer in the north. People in the Bendigo electorate—people in Woodend, people in Kyneton—commute from there to work at Melbourne Airport. People who live in McEwen, people who live in Gorton—people who live in the surrounding electorates—make up the workforce at Melbourne Airport. We need to make sure that any changes to the eligibility criteria will not see people currently working there lose their jobs. How strict are these new rules going to be? What offences will be excluded? We cannot take the government's word that it is only serious crime. Is it somebody who may have committed a minor crime when they were younger but who has admitted their mistake, been through the court system and are now working? It could be something that happened 20 or 30 years ago. Will those people who are currently working be excluded from having an ASIC or an MSIC card in the future? So I have a few questions for the government on its changes to the eligibility criteria. How many people currently working as cleaners, baggage handlers and in cafes at our airports will fail these new eligibility criteria? What offences did they commit? Are they minor offences? Are they misdemeanour offences? There are lots of questions that remain unanswered by the government in this debate. Our airports are some of the biggest workplaces in this country. Yes, we must do more to stop organised crime and the import and export of drugs and other contraband. However, we need to make sure that we are not going too far and demonising people within a workforce who may have made a mistake in the past, admitted it, done their time for it—for lack of better words—moved on, have careers and are currently working in our airports.

I mentioned security officers before. Our security officers do a tough job at our airports. Since 9/11 the face of security at our airports has changed. All of them are responsible for ensuring that people have the correct ASIC card. They ensure that all of us who get onto planes are not carrying anything that is inappropriate and that may cause harm. What is interesting is that, whilst the government is so stringent about the actual pass that you have, it is not stringent about the number of visa workers that might be working as subcontractors in our security industry. The government should be backing this up with rules to ensure that every subcontractor that works at an airport is paying and being paid Australian wages and conditions.

As we heard earlier, Australian workers within the security contracting industry, the cleaning industry and the hospitality industry are quite often being undercut by workers who are not being paid the correct wages and conditions in jobs that have been subcontracted out. I would like to see the government ensure that, in areas like aviation and maritime security, where we want the utmost security, people who have an ASIC or an MSIC card are directly employed, paid the correct wages and conditions, and that the company who employs them is responsible for them and cannot subcontract out their responsibilities.

Unfortunately, too often we have seen breaches of security at some of our Defence bases where the security company has sub-subcontracted to somebody whose Defence clearance is pending. We do not want to see that happen at our airports. I would like to see the government move forward and make the client more accountable in making sure that people working at our airports are paid the correct wages and conditions and that these are good jobs and have the security that goes with them.

For these many reasons Labor supports the Senate inquiry into this legislation. Let's be clear: transport security is a mission that needs to be clarified. We need to make sure that we are targeting our rules and focusing on law enforcement to stop the drugs coming in and the contraband coming in and going out of Australia. The last thing we want is our agencies spending too much time reviewing eligibility criteria and having to go back and give special consideration to the one individual who may have made a minor mistake in their life 20 years ago. It takes bureaucracies a lot of time dealing with and wasting resources on going after the cafe worker, the cleaner—someone like Victor, who has worked at the airport for 15 years—someone who has worked in security for a long time or someone who has worked in hospitality at the airport for a long time. We want to make sure that our agencies in this space are doing everything that they can to go after the real crooks—not the cleaners, the cafe workers and the baggage handlers, but the people who are doing the wrong thing.

I will finish on the point that I raised earlier—that is, the other people who access airside. We need to make sure that these eligibility criteria do not exclude union officials. We know that this government has a vendetta against unions. We know that they will do whatever they can to stop unions from being able to represent workers. We need to make sure these eligibility criteria do not exclude safety officers, whose purpose in going to the airport is to make sure the workplace is safe and that people are being treated properly and being paid the correct wages and conditions. We need to make sure that the eligibility criteria are not going to exclude people who are turning up to work to do a decent job. We need to make sure that the agencies in this space are not chasing after cleaners and hospitality workers and that they have the resources to go after the people who are doing the wrong thing.

Drugs are an issue in our community. There is an issue, and we need to make sure we have the right framework to deal with it. We need to make sure that we have the right resources in place to support people when they say, 'I need help and rehab.' It is disappointing that we again have bills coming into this place that focus on one aspect of the drugs and ice crisis that we have in this country. We all want to see this government put more effort and funding into front-line support services, for people who may want rehabilitation services; into our health agencies, who are doing the tough work on the front line; and into our hospitals and community groups.

It is time that the government got the balance right between supporting work on the ground through our not-for-profits and our health agencies and legislation like the bill we have before us. I look forward to the Senate inquiry and hope the government answers some of the questions that I have raised in this debate.

Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (10:51): I am pleased to rise today and join my colleagues to talk about the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016. I congratulate my friend and colleague the Hon. Darren Chester on his appointment as Australia's new federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. I look forward to hosting the minister in his new role in my electorate of Capricornia again very soon.

Capricornia is a vast area with many access points by sea and by air. The amendments we are reflecting on today are an important measure to safeguard our nation, people, agriculture and industries from the impact of organised crime.

In the past, a number of reviews have revealed that serious and organised criminals have been exploiting secure maritime and aviation ports for criminal purposes. Our amendments aim to stamp that out. Currently, anyone who has regular access to secure areas at Australia's regulated airports or seaports is required to hold either an aviation or a maritime security identification card. This bill ensures that people with a relevant criminal history can never receive such a security clearance to work at any Australian airport or seaport. In doing so, we are delivering on our coalition's policy to tackle crime.

This marks a big point of difference between our solid Turnbull-Joyce government and a chaotic Labor Party. Under Labor, people with a criminal history were able to get a security clearance to work at ports and airports where cargo comes in and out of our country. On some occasions, these workers were found to be acting corruptly by aiding criminals and facilitating illegal smuggling operations. This allowed for narcotics and dangerous drugs to enter Australia more easily via seaports and airports.

In December 2015, our government's National Ice Taskforce reported a substantial increase in ice imports to Australia in recent years, mainly via our airports and maritime ports. In fact, over five tonnes of ice was seized at the Australian border from 2010 to 2015. Alarmingly, there is a growing trend of ice use in regional Australia, and this must be appropriately addressed. Tighter security procedures at our airports and shipping terminals will help to crack down on ice trafficking. Banning criminals from obtaining work passes on these sites will also help.

Last year, I was pleased to facilitate a high-profile ministerial hearing in Rockhampton to discuss the local impact of ice in my electorate of Capricornia. It was attended by the Minister for Rural Health. Local ambos, the front-line medicos who help us in an emergency, described the fear and danger of treating young people who are high on ice in the streets. And, sadly, parents described the devastating impact of ice on their children. They described how the behaviour of a teenager hooked on ice also harms siblings and family members. Crystal methamphetamine is a significant issue for Central Queensland. I was shocked to learn that ice was more commonly used in regional and remote areas like mine and has even made its way into some primary schools in the country. One delegate, who operates a rehabilitation service in Rockhampton, told of how he was inspired to help because his own daughter was an ice addict. Local police say that ice addicts account for violent crimes, armed hold-ups and break-ins to obtain cash to feed their habit, while the director of Rockhampton Base Hospital's emergency department reported that ice addicts who fall into a violent psychosis were a danger to themselves and to other patients and families in the hospital waiting rooms. Drug pushers are targeting regional Australia because they can get some of the highest prices in the world for ice here.

Tackling the ice scourge that is harming so many communities is a top priority for our coalition government. Nationally, statistics show the growth of ice and meth use is very alarming. One in 14 Australians have tried ice, and 200,000 Australians have used ice in the past 12 months. Meth or ice imports jumped from five per cent of all illegal drug imports in 2011 to 59 per cent in 2014. The rate of people receiving treatment for meth use has doubled in Australia in the last three years.

Our Australian government's National Ice Taskforce inquiry has been a positive step to help identify ways to combat the issue through health, education and law programs. The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 will safeguard against unlawful interference with our aviation and maritime transport sectors, through which ice is often imported and distributed.

In the meantime, people in Central Queensland, fed up with the impact of the drug ice, can take action by dobbing in a local drug dealer. Last week, I joined police, Crime Stoppers and civic leaders to launch a Dob in a Dealer campaign in Rockhampton to combat the ice epidemic. The Turnbull-Joyce coalition government is partnering Crime Stoppers and providing $1 million to fund this campaign. The aim is to encourage local people to contact Crime Stoppers in a bid to help tackle the manufacturing and distribution of ice in this area. Crime Stoppers plays a valuable role in collecting information from the public to help police. I urge everyone to say, 'Enough is enough,' and to rid our streets, parks, neighbourhoods, airports and shipping ports of ice dealers, who are profiteering and leaving a trail of sick and desperate users, not to mention devastated families. The Dob in a Dealer campaign will help send a clear message to local and international drug kingpins targeting Central Queensland that they we do not want them operating here. To dob in someone who is manufacturing or dealing in ice, call Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or go online at crimestoppers.com.au. If we can stop organised criminals from peddling ice, we can potentially save lives.

The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill will make our ports and airports more secure to combat ice being smuggled across our borders. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (10:58): The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 amends two acts that cover aviation security and maritime security respectively to add an additional purpose to these acts to prevent the use of aviation and maritime transport in connection with serious and organised crime.

Organised crime is a blight on our nation. The Australian Crime Commission conservatively estimates that serious and organised crime costs the Australian economy $15 billion each year.

Unsurprisingly, considering the huge sums of money involved, those who perpetrate this type of crime are becoming more sophisticated, more devious and more determined. Their aim is to always keep one step ahead of the law, and we are seeing quite a bit in modern times just how sophisticated some of the crime networks are, particularly those associated with money laundering and drug crime. Organised criminal groups involved in international drug trafficking are diversifying. They are no longer trading in one drug or commodity; some groups have begun trafficking in a number of commodities, including multiple drug types in the same shipment. Cooperation between organised crime groups is becoming more apparent, as is the intertwining of different types of criminal activities being undertaken by some organised crime groups.

As the member for Kingsford Smith, my community—our community—is home to the largest airport and the second-largest container port in the country. So our area is the gateway through which many organised criminal gangs seek to traffic their drugs and illegal goods and substances, to gain access to the Australian market, and over the course of the last decade in particular we have seen the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission foil a number of very big and very sophisticated attempts at the airport and the port—in particular, to smuggle drugs into the country.

Those busts led to a review of the operations of our security and the border force laws. The review was undertaken when the member for Blaxland, Jason Clare, was the minister, and it led to a number of reforms in the latter years of the previous Labor government. Those reforms, it is pleasing to see, have been taken up on a bipartisan basis by the current government. The reforms relate to changes to accreditation around ports and airports for people who are employed by organisations to work in these areas, to cracking down and strengthening the criteria and the testing of people's criminal records before they are given employment in these areas, and, of course, to extra law enforcement powers that have been quite effective.

Marine ports such as Port Botany are large, with significant workforces, and this creates certain difficulties for effective regulation and security, which can leave open loopholes for criminals and criminal gangs to exploit. Airports too can be subject to criminal infiltration, making levels of security, screening and vetting vital to preventing the proliferation of criminal behaviour. It is of course vital that we maintain strong processes to ensure that our borders and the staff that patrol them are resourced sufficiently to do this important job in the most effective manner possible.

Labor supports well-targeted measures that address serious and organised crime. Those who use our aviation and maritime transport systems as the means to distribute drugs and other contraband into and out of Australia commit crimes. We know it happens, and unfortunately it happens quite regularly. A recent example I can point to was the seizure of 22 kilograms or $23 million worth of methamphetamine, or ice, and one kilogram of cocaine from a cargo ship at Port Botany. This seizure took place only a couple of months ago, in January. Also in January there was another seizure at Port Botany of almost 500 kilograms of illegal drugs, including 159 kilograms of ice and 340 kilograms of ephedrine, a precursor to methamphetamine. Concealed in three shipping containers that arrived in Sydney on 1 January—on New Year's Day—was this contraband. This haul had a street value of more than $105 million.

So we know that the syndicates are becoming more sophisticated and that we need to ensure that our law enforcement agencies are equipped with the necessary backup and laws to ensure that they can enforce and uncover these crimes whilst they are taking place, and Labor of course supports sensible and effective measures to minimise this trade, detect the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

The National Ice Taskforce reported in December last year. It was chaired by former police Commissioner Mr Ken Lay. The report was welcomed by Labor. We supported measures to align and refine the Aviation Security Identification Cards or ASICs, as they are known, and the Maritime Security Identification Cards, or MSICs, to ensure that persons accessing secure areas around airports, ports, aircraft and ships are subject to proper background checks. Labor also welcomed the release of the report and noted that:

Despite the best efforts of officers on the ground, law enforcement efforts have actually failed to halt the supply of ice even though there have been increased seizure and arrests rates.

To divert for a moment, one of the important recommendations and realisations that was made by Ken Lay and the Ice Taskforce was that, unfortunately, with respect to this issue, we cannot arrest our way out of it—that simply pumping more money into law enforcement when it comes to ice is not the answer and that we do need to look at rehabilitation and harm minimisation programs.

There has been a stark contrast between the approach of this government and the approach of the New Zealand government when it comes to tackling ice. In New Zealand, as a result of an inquiry similar to that of the Ice Taskforce, they devoted almost all of their additional funding to rehabilitation and harm minimisation programs. The evidence is that they are getting better results in New Zealand than we are in Australia because in Australia we spend a very low proportion on those programs. I think it is close to 70 per cent of the funds that are expended in tackling ice and other drug problems in our community go to law enforcement and only about 11 per cent of the funding goes to harm minimisation. We do really need to look at the mix of that funding and whether or not we are being effective. Reports from the Ice Taskforce and evidence that the problem is growing, that more and more people are being arrested for this, going to jail, coming out worse and getting back on the ice—the problem proliferating in our community—are something we need to seriously consider.

The current purpose of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 is to establish regulatory frameworks to safeguard against 'unlawful interference' in aviation and maritime operations. These acts were created in a post-September 11 risk environment. 'Unlawful interference' is currently defined, in both acts, as being acts that impede the operation of airports, aircraft, ports, offshore facilities or ships, or which place the safety of ships or aircraft at risk—with exceptions for mere advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action. The focus is, accordingly, on targeting behaviour that may cause death or other harm to passengers, workers or the general public, including damage to property.

The changes proposed for these acts will add a new, secondary purpose to both acts, as per above, and administer this through changes to eligibility criteria for existing aviation security identification cards and maritime security identification cards. There are approximately 130,000 ASIC and MSIC on issue. In respect of what is proposed, Labor has identified that there is a potential risk, that widening the purpose of transport security legislation will confuse the two missions of transport security and targeting serious or organised crime in the transport system. Both these tasks are important. The question is whether achievement of both is best done via the mechanism here, and it is still in doubt.

For this reason, Labor has indicated it will refer this bill and these important reforms to a Senate inquiry, for the Senate to have a look at those issues of the purpose of transport security legislation and whether or not we are confusing the two missions of that particular legislation. Otherwise, I am happy to add my voice to the importance of ensuring that our aviation and maritime security legislation is first class and ensures we are doing all we can to keep pace with the sophistication of crime syndicates and networks that are posing a big risk to the productivity of our nation and, ultimately—unfortunately—doing a lot of harm to our community through the drug trade.

Mr HOGAN (Page) (11:10): I rise to support this Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016. The current ice problem is not some nightmare based in a distant land. It is on our streets, in our towns and in our homes. The unfortunate addicts are real. They are in our communities. They are our neighbours and family members. Between 2010 and 2014 the amount of ice seized at the Australian border grew almost 60 times. Police made record busts and 26,000 arrests for possession or distribution of this drug.

This bill will ensure that people with a relevant criminal history can never receive a security clearance to work at Australian airports and seaports. It will make it harder for drug dealers to bring ice into our country and our community. Organised crime is a serious threat to our security and prosperity as a nation. Recently, the Australian Crime Commission estimated that organised crime cost the Australian economy $36 billion annually. In 2013, the government made a commitment to ensuring that people with a history of serious or organised crime would not receive a security clearance to work at our Australian airports and seaports. In 2015, the government also committed to comprehensive action on the drug ice. The National Ice Taskforce, in its final report released late last year, estimated that there are currently well over 200,000 Australian users.

The National Ice Taskforce identified as a clear priority the need for targeted and coordinated law enforcement efforts to disrupt the supply of ice, specifically by protecting the aviation and maritime environments against organised crime, by strengthening the eligibility criteria for the aviation and maritime security identification card schemes also known as the ASIC and MSIC schemes.

The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 will amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003, aimed at reducing criminal influence at our airports and seaports by strengthening the ASIC and MSIC schemes. The aviation and maritime acts establish a regulatory framework to safeguard against unlawful interference with the aviation and maritime sectors. Unlawful interference is defined in the aviation and maritime acts as conduct that threatens the safe operation of aircraft and airports, ports and ships, and behaviour that may cause harm to passengers, crew, aviation and maritime personnel and the general public, or damage to property.

This bill will create an additional purpose to prevent the use of aviation and maritime transport or offshore facilities in connection with serious or organised crime. This additional purpose will only apply to the administration of the ASIC and MSIC schemes and not to the regulation of the aviation and maritime sectors more broadly. The ASIC and MSIC schemes are important security measures that are intended to protect both sectors. They require all persons, including foreign nationals, who require unescorted access to secure aviation and maritime areas, including offshore oil and gas facilities, to undergo a comprehensive background check. The background check includes a criminal history check, a national security assessment and, for non-citizens, an immigration status check.

Under the current system, if an applicant is convicted of a wide range of serious and minor aviation or maritime security related offences, this person is likely to be given an adverse security status. The list of aviation and maritime security relevant offences is contained in the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2003 and is collectively known as the eligibility criteria for the ASIC and MSIC schemes. Applicants who receive an adverse security assessment are ineligible to be granted an ASIC or MSIC. However, they can make an application to the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development for discretionary approval to be granted, depending on the nature of the offence.

The amendments proposed by the bill provide the regulatory framework to enable the introduction of new eligibility criteria for the ASIC and MSIC schemes. The new criteria better target serious or organised crime and will ensure that people with a history of serious or organised crime do not receive clearance to access secure areas and exploit our aviation and maritime sectors However, modelling suggests that the new eligibility criteria will also result in more people with minor criminal offences being found eligible, without needing to go through the discretionary card process.

The new eligibility criteria will be set out in the aviation and maritime regulations and introduce additional categories of offences such as offences under anticriminal organisation legislation, foreign incursion and recruitment offences, illegal importation of goods and interfering with goods under Border Force control. Currently, the same offence can have different implications depending on whether you are applying for an ASIC or an MSIC. The bill will provide for the alignment of the eligibility criteria in the aviation and maritime regulations so that the same criteria apply across the aviation and maritime sectors.

The bill also promotes greater consistency between the aviation and maritime acts. The change will also result in greater transparency and accountability, with express regulation-making powers for the administration of the ASIC and MSIC schemes, rather than the current reliance on general regulation-making powers in the act. Specifically, the bill will amend the maritime act to clearly provide for all persons seeking to access secure maritime zones to undertake background checks. This change in the bill seeks to reinforce and clarify the legislative basis for a system that is already in place in administering the ASIC and MSIC system and reflects existing provisions in the aviation act.

This bill will continue to give effect to Australia's international obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. It will also improve the government's ability to combat transnational and domestic organised crime.

Importantly, this bill implements one of the government's key strategies in the fight to combat the drug ice. In December last year, the National Ice Taskforce, chaired by Ken Lay APM, released its final report, which made 38 recommendations across five priority areas. One of these recommendations, adopted by the government in its response to the final report, was to continue to protect the aviation and maritime environments against organised crime by strengthening the eligibility criteria. This bill will give effect to this element of the government's comprehensive package of action. I commend this bill to the House.

Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (11:17): I rise to make a very brief contribution to this important debate on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016. I reiterate some of the comments made earlier by the member for Kingsford Smith, who I think made a very interesting contribution. The shadow minister has worked so hard in this area for such a long time, and I commend his comments to the House. My colleague the member for Perth, who is now present in the chamber, will now make a contribution to the debate.

Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (11:18): Mr Deputy Speaker, I do apologise for delaying the House. I thank the member for Adelaide for very kindly stepping in to speak in my absence.

Labor are supporting the thrust of the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016. I really want to use this debate as an opportunity to raise our deep concern about what is happening with the government's policies on the granting of visas and how this must be compromising safety and security in our ports and in our coastal waters. I find it almost incomprehensible that we could be jumping up and down and talking about the degree of concern that we have about maritime and aviation safety—I will be focusing on the maritime issues today—while at the same time we are opening the floodgates to people coming into this country with very minimal, if any, checks whatsoever.

In their ideological determination to crush the union movement and to crush working conditions for seafarers, the government, led in particular in this area by Minister Michaelia Cash, have been freeing up the introduction of poorly paid foreign workers into Australian coastal waters. We get a great deal of correspondence from seafarers—from mariners down to deckhands—complaining about what they are seeing. They are obviously concerned about their employment levels and their opportunities for employment and the opportunities for younger people to gain experience in the maritime industry, but they are also concerned about this disjunction in safety requirements. They are currently going through a new regime of safety requirements, under which it is no longer sufficient just to carry a maritime security identification card with you. The new regulations require the card to be worn externally, and there are significant penalties if you are found to be walking in a maritime security area without your security card being attached to your person in the regulated way. At one level, we see that the legislation before us today is focused not just on terrorism but on organised crime. Yet, at the same time, as I said, we are seeing a whole new class of foreign workers who are not being scrutinised in that same way, not required to meet these security standards and, at the same time, are being paid appallingly low wages.

We could look to the Australian crews that have now lost their jobs on the freight that goes between Kwinana and Portland for Alcoa, where we carry the bauxite over to Victoria for aluminium smelting, and, likewise, the shipping between Weipa and Gladstone. These were tasks that, until three to six months ago, were done by Australian maritime workers. They are tasks that are now being performed by foreign workers who are working for around US$3 an hour—appallingly low rates of pay. Many of the foreign seafarers who are working on these vessels coming into Australia are reporting to their Australian fellows that they are at sea for over a year. A number of captains and pilots were telling us last night that they are working with foreign crews who are just completely exhausted—Filipinos who have been away from home and at sea for over 380 days.

If we are concerned about organised crime, surely we would think that people who are highly stressed out because of the long time that they have been away from home and are being paid appallingly low wages might be in the very circumstances, the very environment, where they would be ripe to be exploited by organised crime. These vessels could well become the environments where we see organised crime being introduced to, extended in and operating within this country.

It just seems to be, for us, a massive disjunct here. On one hand, we have the desire, the need, the urgency, to deal with organised crime. I have no doubt that we have major problems with organised crime. I have no doubt that our drug laws have enhanced and provided a business model for organised crime for the last hundred years, and so there is no hesitancy on my part or on the part of the opposition to say that we really need to tackle this problem. But what we are doing on the other hand, in opening up and reducing the controls over the people who are coming into our ports and plying trade on our coastal waters, is at complete odds with what the proposed intention of this legislation is. We are bringing more and more people in without any security clearances and we are putting them in very difficult and financially trying circumstances, and again, as I said, we are creating the ecology where organised crime could indeed flourish.

Another factor that we see and another demonstration of this is the sheer number of vessels that are now originating from overseas and plying their trade. There were 7,732 vessels that originated from overseas and plied their trade here in the last six month period and only around 2½ thousand of those, approximately a third of those 7,732 vessels, were actually checked by our officials. That gives you some idea of how big a problem this indeed might be.

We see desertions occurring because of the increased number of vessels and the worsening conditions that are being experienced on these vessels. As international freight rates are going down, we are seeing a very real race to the bottom in international shipping where wages and conditions are declining, and, as a result of that, we are seeing more and more desertions. In the six-month period to December 2015, there were 11 reported desertions from foreign ships in Australia, but, in talking to maritime workers and officers last night, they believe that is a very significant understatement of the number of desertions.

There are a whole range of issues that we could discuss. There are safety ramifications with the ways in which we are allowing untrained workers on these vessels. As I said, because the freight rates are so low internationally, it is a race to the bottom. Ship pilots who are engaged to help steer ships into port are telling us about the incapacity and the lack of knowledge that they are encountering on the part of the captains and crews of these vessels and the fact that these people have been working such long hours that they are exhausted and the fact that they have minimal English and are unable to respond appropriately to the instructions of the pilots. They are seeing now in our ports and in our channels as they are trying to direct these vessels into and out from shore that there are increasing numbers of near misses.

We have a very real problem. It is a problem that has been exacerbated by the absolute obsession of this government to drive down the influence of unions, drive down the conditions for people in the maritime sector and, indeed, drive away jobs. Just looking at the temporary work visas that are being granted, the increase in particular of the use of the 400 visa is quite extraordinary. Those visa numbers went up from just 6,000 in the year 2012-13 to 54,688 in 2014-15. That was a massive jump. Now that we are seeing a pro rata basis for the 400 visa this year we can expect to see around 71,000 of these visas being granted. They are supposedly for skilled workers. We know if the minister gets her way we are going to see no requirements for visas at all. So there will not even be the minimal controls we have at the moment in the issuing of these 400 visas, and special category visas will disappear. We will have absolutely open season. People will be coming and going without us having any knowledge of who they are.

How can you plausibly argue that you are worried about our ports and our airports being used by organised crime when you are actually seeking to completely and utterly deregulate the entry of foreign crews into this country, you are completely and utterly failing to instigate even the most basic and routine checks on ships that are arriving in this country and you are encouraging an employment environment on ships of shame where people are worked extraordinarily long hours for extraordinarily low pay? We are indeed creating all of the conditions that will see organised crime thrive and prosper. The modest measures that we have introduced here are not going to be at all capable of standing up against the ecosphere that we have created in this deregulation of the maritime environment.

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (11:33): It is my pleasure to be speaking on this bill, the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016, that amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, hereafter referred to as the aviation act, and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003, hereafter referred to as the maritime act. The purpose of this legislation is to regulate access to secure aviation and maritime areas and zones to safeguard against unlawful interference. The originating legislation had its history in the heightened levels of security concerns that followed the September 11 attacks. That legislation enjoyed bipartisan support across the chamber and this amending legislation continues to do so.

Organised crime is a serious threat to Australia's security and prosperity. There is no contention about that proposition in this place. Those who use our aviation and maritime transport systems as a means to commit organised crimes will not be tolerated. Labor support targeted measures that address serious and organised crime. Sensible measures which are going to minimise this illegal trade and detect perpetrators and bring them to justice are initiatives which Labor will of course support. But there are aspects of this government's policy that touch upon these issues that we will not support. I will have something more to say about what we describe as 'Work Choices on water', because it goes directly to the issues that we are debating in this House today—and that is the security of our borders, particularly our maritime borders.

This legislation rests in part on the recently published recommendations of the National Ice Taskforce, a task force commissioned by the previous Prime Minister. The report was released by the current Prime Minister. The report of the National Ice Taskforce was welcomed by Labor. The report recommended that the Commonwealth government continue to protect the aviation and maritime environments against organised crime. It was particularly concerned with the porosity of our borders and the fact that organised crime gangs are connecting with supply routes through South-East Asia and bringing drugs, not only methamphetamines but also those, through our borders on board ships. In part this is in response to a crackdown on the domestic production of methamphetamines in meth labs in this country. The report recommended that the government strengthen the eligibility criteria for holders of aviation security identification cards and the maritime equivalent, the MSIC. Labor support measures to align and refine the systems. We believe that they are sensible reforms. We must ensure that persons accessing secure areas around airports, ports, aircraft and ships are subject to proper background checks that are appropriately balanced against the risks that we are attempting to mitigate.

I represent a region where there are several hundred men and women who put to sea out of the port of Port Kembla. The livelihood of the region depends, in part, upon the security and the vitality of the port of Port Kembla. We are critically interested in the security and the issues that this bill touches upon. We have a few concerns and we have said that we will not object or oppose this bill in the House. We believe, given the subject matter that it deals with, that it should be subject to a very efficient Senate inquiry if the course of this parliament allows it. The speculation around this building today and over the last couple of days has been frenzied. It may not be allowed to occur because of the early calling of an election—that is entirely within the government's hands—but it is our view that an efficient Senate committee inquiry into the subject matter of this bill is warranted.

We have a few prima facie concerns. The first is that the bill attempts to amend two acts that deal with aviation security and maritime security. This is in an effort to prevent the use of the services in connection with serious and organised crime. We are concerned about the confusion of priorities for transport security. We support a transport security framework that has a clear purpose in its own right. Transport security is a vital mission for government but it is a very different task from that of targeting organised crime in our transport system. The two acts that this bill attempts to amend currently target unlawful interference in the aviation and maritime sectors. As such, the current focus of these acts is on targeting behaviour which may cause harm to passengers, crew, aviation and maritime personnel, the general public, and damage to property.

This is not, however, related to organised crime, which is a new secondary purpose that the government is attempting to insert into these acts. The government hopes to administer this new purpose solely through changes to eligibility criteria for existing aviation, security and Maritime Security Identification Card holders. Labor believes that there is a potential risk in that widening the purpose of transport security legislation will confuse the two missions of, firstly, transport security and, secondly, targeting serious organised crime in the transport system. We rather suspect that the government is alive to this issue given the severance provisions that have been drafted into the bill. They are both important but the question is whether achievement of both is best achieved via the mechanism that the government suggests. We are not an obstacle to these occurring, we just want to ensure that it is done in the best way possible.

I want to talk about the great risk to maritime security that is not being addressed by this legislation. It goes to the government's increased use of flag-of-convenience vessels for the maritime trade plying our coastline. The government is actively encouraging shipowners to sack their Australian crews and to replace the Australian flag—the red ensign—from the back of those Australian owned ships so that they can replace them with a flag of a foreign nation and replace the crew with a crew of a foreign nation. We are calling it 'Work Choices on water’ for very good reason. In fact, the most dangerous place for an Australian flag in Australia today is at the back of an Australian owned vessel. This government is attempting to remove those flags and the Australian crew and to replace them with a foreign crew. What does that have to do with national security? I want to explain exactly what that has to do with national security, because the people that we are talking about, the Australian crew who are working aboard those vessels plying the coastline, who are coming in and out of our ports, are required to be in possession of a Maritime Security Identification Card. They have to go through all of those checks and I can tell you that, if they do not meet those checks, they do not get a card and they do not get a job on board that ship.

It is a tough system but it is a system which is designed to preclude the sorts of criminality that the government is intended on excluding from our maritime trade by the bill before the House today. Let's be clear about this, if you are Australian maritime worker working on one of those boats, you are required to have an MSIC. No card, no job. What is the situation with one of the foreign crew who is working on one of those flag-of-convenience vessels? They are not required to have an MSIC. There is no card requirement for one of those crews.

You have to ask yourself: where are the government's priorities? I want to draw your attention to the provisions, because they are broad, indeed, and could lead to the exclusion of somebody getting an MSIC, because the regulations which are supported by the current legislation have five tiers of exclusion. The highest tier is one that everyone would agree with. It includes offences such as terrorism, treason, foreign incursion, the recruitment offences, offences relating to weapons of mass destruction, and offences and crimes and misdemeanours of a similar sort. People smuggling is also listed as a tier 1 offence. They go through to tier 2 offences, which are slightly less but also serious, of an adverse finding against somebody, for example, if they have been involved in threatening or assaulting persons in or on an aircraft, an airport, a vessel or a port, and the theft of government or commercial aircraft or vessel. You could understand why this is the sort of person who we would not want to be carrying an MSIC. We would not want somebody who has been involved in terrorism or who has been involved in highjacking or somebody who has been involved in a tier 1 offence or even a tier 2 offence. We would not want a person such as this working on a ship, whether it is a foreign owned vessel or an Australian owned vessel coming into our ports, and all the risks that are associated with that.

Tier 5 offences are offences that of course we do not approve of—offences such as theft; forgery or fraud; offences involving sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor; assault, including assault of an indecent or sexual nature; affray or riot; and tax evasion. So there are a whole range of offences that could exclude an Australian from having an MSIC and, therefore, from working on board an Australian ship.

If a government is seriously concerned about protecting our borders and ensuring that the crew on board ships—including ships that maybe a couple of months ago were Australian flagged vessels but today are carrying a flag of convenience, the flag of a foreign nation, and the crew of a foreign nation—do not have criminal backgrounds, why would it not make the same rules apply to everyone? You end up scratching your head and saying, 'This does not add up.' But this is exactly what is happening under this legislation and the policies of this government. We call it 'Work Choices on water' for a very good reason: it is driven by a blind ideological agenda to replace Australian crews, including people from my own electorate.

I had the opportunity to catch up with Zach Kinzett, from Shellharbour, in my electorate, and several other shipping workers. He was one of those seafarers who lost their jobs because of the government's policy. He was marched off his ship, the MV Portland, by security guards in the middle of the night. A couple of days later, his entire crew was replaced by foreign seafarers. He makes the point: 'We should have the right to work in our own country. We pay taxes, we buy things in this country, we have a mortgage in this country.' He should have a right to work in this country, under its laws. He cannot for the life of him see why he has been excluded from working on board an Australian owned ship, plying its trade in the ports of Australia, and why the rules that apply to him are different from the rules that apply to these foreign workers.

And it is not just Zach. Joanne Kerin from Kanahooka, who I have spoken about in this House before, lost her job aboard the Alexander Spirit. She and the other 36 Australian crew that she had worked with for many, many years lost their jobs and were replaced by a foreign crew—no warning, no respect, no concern for Australian jobs.

This is a perverse situation, where we have legislation before the House today to beef up the requirements under and expand the objects of the act to ensure that MSICs and ASICs are being provided to people in the right circumstances and in accordance with the legislation, yet somewhere else we have this massive back door, this massive loophole, that the government has created because of its own ideological obsession with pulling down the Australian red ensign flag on the back of Australian ships and replace it with a foreign flag, and replace the Australian crew with a foreign crew. Yes, it might be allowing the shipowners to pay cheaper wages, but it is doing nothing for national security, and that is what the parliament, as we have said today, are very concerned about. These are the issues that should be traversed when and if a Senate committee gets the opportunity to scrutinise this bill. (Time expired)

Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (11:48): I acknowledge that there are some great young people in the gallery today. I rise to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016.

There were over three million aircraft movements at Australian airports, with 149 million regular public transport passenger movements through Australian airports, in the year ended December 2015. With such significant numbers of people moving through our airports, the potential for organised crime to take advantage of any gaps is very real. Australia's borders, both maritime and airspace, have been made more secure through significant investment by the coalition government. While the global threat of terrorism is clearly significant, the scourge of organised crime is a very serious issue, and this government is getting on with the job of dealing with it.

This bill implements an election commitment to ensure that people with a relevant criminal history can never receive a security clearance to work at Australian airports and seaports. A number of independent reviews, including the 2011 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures to combat serious and organised crime, have noted that those involved in serious and organised crime are exploiting secure maritime and aviation areas for criminal purposes.

Under Labor, people with a relevant criminal history were able to get security clearances to work at ports and airports where cargo comes into the country. On some occasions, these people were found to be acting corruptly to help criminals and make smuggling operations easier. An example of the results of organised crime activities at our airports was addressed in December 2015, when the National Ice Taskforce reported a substantial increase in ice imports to Australia in recent years. Over five tonnes of ice were seized at the Australian border between 2010 and 2015. Not only did the task force report that airports and maritime ports are gateways for these imports; it also noted that the growing use of ice in regional Australia must be recognised and appropriately addressed.

In 2013-14 alone, the work of the multiagency task forces targeting criminal exploitation of Australian ports and related supply chain activity at the waterfronts in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane resulted in 56 arrests and the seizure of 138 kilograms of illicit drugs and precursor chemicals, as well as the seizure of 177 tonnes of tobacco and seven firearms.

This bill responds to the National Ice Taskforce recommendation to strengthen the eligibility criteria for the aviation security identification card, or ASIC, and the maritime security identification card, or MSIC. As at 31 December 2015, there were approximately 138,000 ASICs and 118,000 MSICs in use.

This measure also responds to recent cases where people with serious or organised criminal backgrounds have successfully challenged on their eligibility to hold a card. This bill will strengthen the government's ability to tackle the supply of the drug ice, the importation of the chemicals used in its manufacture, and the individuals and criminal gangs or syndicates who traffic them. The parents of Australia are particularly grateful for this. The changes will not remove any of the existing appeal rights, and there will be no additional burden on applicants for an ASIC or MSIC. The current eligibility criteria mitigate the risks of unlawful interference with aviation or maritime transport, and do not include a number of offences relevant to securing our infrastructure and border environments. They fail to consider offences from anti-gang and criminal organisation legislation, illegal importation of goods and interfering with goods under Australian Border Force control.

By anyone's standard, persons with a history of committing these types of offences constitute a risk if given unsupervised access to the secure areas of our transport infrastructure. For example, currently a person convicted of the illegal importation of goods is able to receive an MSIC. The new criteria will address these vulnerabilities. People with serious criminal convictions will no longer be eligible to hold either card. This bill takes a proportionate approach to the application of these new eligibility criteria: Less serious offences will require a longer term of imprisonment to become an aviation or maritime security-relevant offence, while more serious offences will only require conviction. This would mean that a single irresponsible or ill-considered act would not automatically exclude a person from the schemes. The shift in focus from low-level or minor offences to higher risk offences related to serious or organised crime means that more applicants will be found initially eligible for an ASIC or MSIC. This will mean these people will be issued their ASIC or MSIC more quickly, reducing impact on their employment and increasing the staff available to employers. This change will be good for aviation businesses around the country, particularly in regional Australia. Aviation links are a crucial part of bridging the vast distances in Australia, and they have been since 1910 when the first powered flight was made. The potential for aviation in this country has been realised ever since.

Existing cardholders need not be concerned. They are already required to self-report relevant offences. On commencement of these measures all cardholders will be required to self-report against offences in the new eligibility criteria. This is hardly a huge change and the intent to further strengthen our borders is prudent. Cardholders with relevant convictions against the new criteria will have their cards cancelled and will no longer have the ability to work unescorted in the secure areas of ports and airports. If you were talk to passengers, they would tell you they were very pleased about this. All existing appeals processes remain available for applicants. ASIC and MSIC requirements apply to all persons when in secure areas. These are the parts of Australia's air and sea ports that are subject to higher security measures specifically to protect critical or vulnerable aspects of our transport infrastructure—as they should.

I heard the member for Bendigo in her contribution discuss the proposed eligibility criteria for the ASIC and the MSIC. The proposed criteria are set out in the bill and are structured to give the respective agencies maximum flexibility: tier 1, disqualifying offences; tier 2, adverse with any form of conviction; tier 3, adverse with any form of imprisonment; tier 4, adverse with 12 months or more imprisonment; and tier 5, adverse with 30 months or more imprisonment. The new eligibility criteria offer relevant agencies flexibility in managing the ASIC and MSIC scheme, ensuring that there are safeguards against people with a serious criminal background working in sensitive areas of our ports and airports—a very good outcome. The member for Bendigo raised questions about whether the changes in eligibility criteria will prevent union officials or OH&S representatives from accessing airports and ports. She raised these questions in the context of saying that this side of the House was well known to hate unions and uses all means available to break them. I think it is a dreadful shame that the member for Bendigo has injected such spurious suggestions into this debate. It is clear that this legislation is not aimed at union officials or OH&S representatives, and any such suggestion is nonsensical—it is beneath any member of this place to make such a suggestion. It is self-evidently aimed at ensuring the people who work at our airports and ports are people of good character. As the member for Grayndler said earlier, national security should not be a political plaything, and I direct the member for Bendigo to the member for Grayndler's very sound comments. I commend the opposition in a broader sense for supporting this sensible and important legislation.

Organised crime is a serious threat to our national security and is estimated to cost the Australian economy $36 billion a year. We in our electorates frequently see evidence of the impact of serious and organised crime. These amendments deliver on the Australian government's commitment to ensure that people with a relevant criminal history can never receive a security clearance to work at Australia's airports and seaports. The ASIC and MSIC schemes are designed to protect the aviation and maritime transport systems against acts of terrorism and unlawful interference. If we did not do that, the Australian people would hold us to account for that inaction. These changes will boost our law enforcement agencies' ability to combat transnational and domestic organised crime—the very creative sectors that they are—by introducing additional offences to capture high-risk criminal activities. This will mean Australia's airports and seaports are less susceptible to exploitation from serious or organised crime.

As I previously stated, a number of reports have indicated that Australia has become a target for organised criminals from all around the world. Importantly, today's changes will implement the National Ice Taskforce's recommendation to strengthen the ASIC and MSIC schemes to limit the distribution of ice throughout the community. The new criteria will be applied to new applications and applications by existing ASIC and MSIC card holders from 1 July 2016. Given the issues around ice which exist within our communities, I am very well aware that not only parents but a range of individuals and community groups will be very grateful for any action this government takes to reduce and limit the distribution of ice in the community. This legislation is intent on tackling the impact ice has on families and individuals, the damage it does and the way it ruins lives. I commend this bill, and its intent, to the House.

Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (12:00): In summing up, I would like to thank all those who have spoken on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill—the member for Grayndler and the shadow minister, the member for Bendigo, the member for Kingsford Smith, the member for Perth, the member for Throsby, as well as the members for Dobell, Parkes, Page, Capricornia and Forrest, whom we have just heard from. I note that the opposition supports the bill and has not moved amendments in the House. This continues the bipartisan support we have had for other security measures in relation to transport.

The purpose of the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill is to reduce criminal influence at Australia's airports and seaports by strengthening the Aviation Security Identification Card, or ASIC, and the Maritime Security Identification Card, or MSIC, schemes by amending the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. The ASIC and MSIC schemes are critical part of securing the aviation, maritime and offshore oil and gas sectors. This bill will prevent the use of aviation and maritime transport or offshore facilities in connection with serious or organised crime by creating an additional purpose in the aviation and maritime acts in relation to access to aviation and maritime areas and zones.

These amendments will provide the regulatory framework to support the introduction of new criteria and harmonise existing criteria for the ASIC and MSIC schemes to better target serious or organised crime related offences. The revised eligibility criteria will be set out in the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2003. In addition to the amendments already mentioned, the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 will clarify and align the legislative basis for undertaking security checking of ASIC and MSIC applicants and holders. It will allow for regulations to be made prescribing penalties for offences against the new serious or organised crime requirements that are consistent with existing penalty provisions across the ASIC and MSIC schemes and by inserting an additional separability provision to provide guidance to courts as to parliament's intention.

The bill will give effect to the government's election commitment to reduce criminal influence at airports and seaports. People with a relevant criminal history can never receive a security clearance to work at Australian airports or seaports. In addition, the bill completes a key action identified in the government's December 2015 response to the final report of the National Ice Taskforce to prevent serious and organised crime by strengthening the ASIC and MSIC schemes. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (12:03): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (12:03): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (12:04): I will be very brief in my comments on this bill. The bill amends the Registration of Deaths Abroad Act 1984 to resolve the current anomaly with respect to depths of Australian citizens overseas and to clear up some of the current confusion which can cause quite a deal of concern for Australians as they come to grips with the death of a loved one overseas and, importantly, with the settlement of estates associated with that particular person.

The amendment seeks to simplify the process for registering an overseas death by permitting the appointment of a federal Registrar of Deaths Abroad. The circumstances in which the registration of a death overseas may need to occur include: where a foreign government will not issue a death certificate for the death of an Australian citizen, perhaps because there is no body or some other extenuating circumstance; or where a state or territory government refuses to register a death abroad in similar circumstances. The amendments will allow the Registrar of Deaths Abroad to register deaths which could have been registered under the law of a state or territory where the state or territory concerned has provided notice that it will not register such deaths. Such circumstances could include, as I said earlier, the fact that a body has not been recovered or a foreign government will not issue a death certificate.

Currently the act provides that the registrar is not authorised to register a death that may be registered under the law of the state or territory. However, a new paragraph 8 (2)(b) permits the registration of such deaths on the condition that the state or territory registrar concerned notifies the registrar of its decision not to register the death. Under current arrangements, applicants can remain in procedural limbo, as they negotiate with a state or territory government or registrar to register a death overseas. This amendment is intended to simplify that process by providing clear authority for the registrar's discretion where the appropriate notification has been provided.

The principal amendments to the bill are to: provide the foreign minister with the flexibility to appoint a state or territory registrar as the registrar for deaths abroad; validate the prior appointment of the ACT Registrar-General as the registrar for deaths abroad and any previous registrations of deaths under the Registration of Deaths Abroad Act 1984; allow the registrar to register deaths that could have been registered under the law of a state or territory where the state or territory concerned has provided notice that it will not register a death; and remove any references to 'registering officers' from the RDA act to ensure that only the registrar can register deaths under this particular act.

As I said, this is a simple amendment but is one that is necessary to clear up this anomaly, to provide more certainty for Australian families who may be coming to grips with the death of a loved one overseas and to ensure that, importantly, they can have a death, in extenuating circumstances overseas, registered as quickly as possible by the registrar appointed by the foreign minister.

I commend the bill to the House.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (12:08): In summing up, the bill amends the Registration of Deaths Abroad Act 1984. This is an important measure to prevent the families of those who have died overseas from being unable to register the deaths of their loved ones. The purpose of the amendments is to correct an anomaly which had left some applicants in procedural limbo, unable to register the overseas deaths of family members. These amendments will once more allow the ACT Registrar-General to act as the registrar of deaths abroad. The amendments will also provide the foreign minister with the flexibility to appoint any state or territory registrar as the registrar of deaths abroad.

Overall, this bill seeks to simplify the process for registering overseas deaths, and I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr PITT ( Hinkler — Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister ) ( 12:09 ): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ) (12:10): The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr SWAN (Lilley) (12:10): This bill, the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day 2015) Bill 2015, is part of a disturbing pattern that we have seen from this government not just on superannuation but, of course, in its attitude to the entitlements of people on low and middle incomes right across our country. I think it says something about this government that among its highest priorities in the super system is to make it easier for people to dodge their super guarantee obligations. This very much reflects the approach of the government to regulation, whether it is superannuation or taxation, or the intersection of the superannuation and taxation system. I think it shows a real pattern of behaviour and where the heart of this government really lies.

The heart of this government really lies, I think, with an overpowered and overpaid financial and corporate elite. Basically, this government dances to their tune. The overpaid and over-empowered corporate elite are trying to, basically, pull down many of the key policy platforms that have driven growth and social mobility in our society and in our economy. Over the last 30 years, Australia has been one of the most successful developed economies when it comes to both economic growth and maintaining social mobility. But the over-empowered and overpaid financial and corporate elite seek to take us down the American road of an increasing concentration of wealth and income at the top, a hollowed out middle-class and an even bigger army of working poor.

These people, who this government represents, are really targeting two areas of policy to achieve their ultimate aim—that is, to continue to put in place a series of policies which in United States are basically known as trickle-down economics. Give more money to the wealthy and the well to do, and the fruits of that will somehow trickle-down to those in the middle and those at the bottom. But, of course, that has not happened in the United States, where people on middle incomes for over 30 years have not had an increase in their living standards. And, of course, there is a bigger army of working poor. They do not have in that country what we have in this country—which is a progressive taxation system and a decent system of industrial relations with a decent minimum wage and decent minimum conditions for that job.

The policy justification, as I said before, behind measures like the one before us today in this bill and like what the government is trying to do elsewhere in taxation, are all about trickle-down economics. What this government is intent in doing is, basically, seek to put structural inequality into our economy and into our society, and then try to wrap it up in some form of respectable intellectual and policy framework. Year after year we see glossy reports from bodies like the IPA, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and all of those bodies that support and run this government. They put forward so-called modelling and claim it to be reputable. But what it is really all about is shifting the tax burden onto low- and middle-income earners and away from corporates and wealthy individuals.

Over the past year we have seen some stunning revelations from the Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance. It has exposed how hollow all of these glossy papers and the modelling that underpins them are. It has exposed the unethical behaviour of some of our most respectable companies. That unethical behaviour tears at the very fabric of industry and the trust that the public has, more generally, in the business community. That inquiry has shone a light on the ethically bankrupt and legally questionable tax practices of some of our largest companies.

Corporate tax is a vital part of the Australian social contract. Over the past four years corporate income tax collections have totalled $267 billion. Assuming, conservatively, that 10 per cent of corporate revenue is lost due to aggressive minimisation and evasion, at a minimum the cumulative cost to the budget is $26 billion over four years. That is a lot of money. We could do a lot of budget repair and a lot of good work in education with $26 billion over four years.

The data released by the tax office shows that over one-third of corporate entities operating in Australia did not pay any tax in the relevant year. Now, of course, among this group there were some that would have done the right thing, but there were some that did not. There are some companies that are serial tax avoiders. When a large number of public corporations are paying no tax that impoverishes all of us. The lost tax revenue must be found elsewhere from other businesses and individual taxpayers or at the expense of funding critical services. Organisations such as the Business Council have a solution to this: ignore it. Their solution to this is to make the punters pay. Their solution to this is to increase the GST by 50 per cent from 10 to 15 per cent.

As this government's tax agenda has lurched from one policy debacle to another—in fact, they are happening daily now—the BCA, through all of this, has been an ever-present voice calling for lower company tax and a higher GST. Rigorous analysis of what the BCA and others have been putting forward shows that it would result in an increased concentration of wealth and income. This would come at the cost of long-term growth because wealth concentration is not wealth creation. Wealth concentration is a drag on economic growth. We know this now from the work that the IMF and many other reputable organisations around the world have produced in recent times. But the Business Council of Australia, the Institute of Public Affairs and all the other fellow travellers who run this government are clueless or do not want to know about this advice.

It is in this context that I was stunned last week to read in The Financial Review what one of our leading, respectable businessmen said about tax. The head of the Commonwealth Bank said at The Financial Review roundtable that people think businesses are not paying tax, 'when the facts are that they are'. Well, the facts are that many are not. When many do not pay, everybody else—small businesses and individuals—pays, or we pay through the loss of services in health and education. While I acknowledge the Commonwealth Bank is—or may be—meeting its legal responsibilities, many other large, so-called respectable companies are engaged in outright tax evasion. That is what we have seen come out of the Senate inquiry. But the BCA has not spoken out about this once—not once. Yet it has the gall to go public suggesting a 50 per cent increase in the GST when the 30 per cent nominal corporate tax rate is not being paid by all corporates.

The data published by the tax commissioner is incredibly important. Few companies pay anywhere near the 28 per cent rate that the BCA is now arguing for. Few companies even pay anywhere near the 25 per cent rate that the BCA is arguing for. The effective rate for all companies is 24c in the dollar. So the very notion that this 30 per cent nominal rate is making us uncompetitive is a farce and ought not to be considered in any serious debate about taxation. The effective rate is 24c. That is the rate that is being paid by those who are paying their tax, because many are not paying anything or are paying considerably less than 24c in the dollar. Let's consider this fact: if all the companies that reported taxable income paid the full 30 per cent, the additional amount from these companies would equate to more than $11 billion. That is the extent to which people are not paying the 30c nominal rate or a 28.5 per cent rate. The average effective rate is 24c in the dollar.

Then we come to the argument from the BCA, which cites a Treasury roundup paper, which says that two-thirds of the growth dividend of a company tax cut flows to labour, with only one-third flowing to the owners of capital. This is a highly theoretical model based on an internationally-competitive scenario. It does not take into account the rampant tax evasion and avoidance that we are afflicted with. It does not take into account the beggar-thy-neighbour policies implemented by countries like Singapore, where there are many multinationals that have a zero rate. It does not take any of that into account. The zero rate in Singapore acts as a tariff against countries like ours and the good investors in this country. It is a tariff against responsible taxpayers in this country. That is how it acts. There is no way a country like Australia can compete with a zero rate. Even if we were to take the effective rate down to 15, companies would ignore it because they would be seeking to minimise their tax. This is the backdrop to the government's pattern of behaviour. They do not consider these factors when they come along and suggest big shifts in taxation, from an increase in indirect taxation through to a cut in the company rate. They will try to claim that a cut in the company rate will produce all these magical benefits, when the modelling is not realistic and does not, in any way, comply with the real practices that are going on in the community.

Much of this agenda—the BCA, the IPA and all of the other constituent elements of the Turnbull-Abbott government—is all about wealth concentration, not wealth creation. It is nothing like the 1980s and 1990s agenda of the Hawke and Keating governments. What it does resemble is the 1980s and 1990s American style trickle-down economics that I was talking about before. It is an agenda for growing inequality. At their core, Prime Minister Abbott, Prime Minister Turnbull, former Treasurer Hockey and current Treasurer Morrison all have it in their DNA that inequality is good for us because they work on a 'survival of the fittest' ideology. They do not see that the things we do together are the things that make us strong. They do not see an effective role for government to put in place effective long-term national policies like compulsory superannuation—perhaps the greatest achievement of the Hawke and Keating years. It is a savings pool unmatched just about anywhere else in the world. It is the product of a government intervention in the market to ensure that people saved for the long term. It was not just for the good of the individual but for the good of the country. But because it is a collective initiative, it is in the DNA of people who think that inequality is good for us to tear it down.

What we are seeing with this bill is an attempt to tear apart the essential infrastructure of superannuation for ideological purposes. The ideological purpose is to get the government out of the savings part of the economy, which is so important. Whilst we are the 12th largest economy in the world, we are vulnerable as a consequence. We have a small population and a large landmass with heaps of opportunity. We have always been an importer of capital, but being an importer of capital means that you are vulnerable as well. That is where superannuation comes in. It will only ever be achieved if government stands in the middle of the market and makes it a reality.

Our superannuation savings pool is bigger than our GDP. Why did that happen? It was because Labor governments, who are always the governments that put in place the big structural reforms in this country, put it there. When those big structural reforms are put in place, it is always the mission of the Liberal and National parties to tear them down. That is precisely what this bill is about. It is what the government has tried to do in industrial relations, it is what it is trying to do to Medicare, and it is what it is trying to do with the tax system. It is about tearing up a progressive taxation system and getting stuck right into the basis of fairness in the wage system in our society because, at the end of the day, what the Liberals stand for is trickle-down economics— (Time expired)

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (12:26): It is a great pleasure to speak after the member for Lilley on this matter. He is a man whose passion and, I argue, whose expertise in the areas of superannuation, which this bill goes to, knows no bounds. When this genus of a bill first burst upon the scene after the 2013 election, it was referred to as the red-tape repeal day bill. When I saw the bill on the Notice Paper, I thought that, perhaps, the change in name—the fact that they had dropped the reference to red tape—had led to a change of heart by the government. Then I went to the subject matter of the bill and it became patently clear that nothing could be further from the case.

When it comes to the government, they do not know the difference between red tape and a guardrail. The government see every instance of protection and regulation which has a public good and a public purpose at its core as a target for watering down and redressing. That is exactly what we see in the bill before the House today. The government are completely lost on economic policy. They are talking about a big game but delivering precisely nothing. In these dying days of the 44th Parliament, we thought that we would see bills that went to the heart of economic management. Nothing could be further from the case. They are completely lost on tax. It now appears that they are going to introduce some vanilla form of the Labor policies announced by the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, but they are not going nearly far enough. They are simply adrift. They cannot get their story straight.

I want to talk about the amendments to the superannuation laws because there is a serious and growing problem in Australia with the nonpayment of superannuation. The Australian National Audit Office has found that up to 20 per cent of employers are not compliant with their superannuation obligations. According to experts, it is absolutely endemic. CBUS warns that Australians are losing somewhere in the vicinity of $2.6 billion a year on superannuation; that is right: $2.6 billion is being lost to workers because of the nonpayment of entitlements. Instead of addressing this issue that affects hardworking Australians, the government is this very day instead introducing a bill which will actually make the problem worse.

Schedule 1 of the bill is the main culprit. It strips down the firm penalties in place for employers who do not comply with their superannuation obligations. The situation is this: where employers do not pay their adequate superannuation guarantee contributions on time, they are liable for a charge that includes an interest component and an administration fee, and rightly so. But the bill makes it easier for those who are seeking to dodge their responsibilities under Australia's widely respected superannuation scheme. It lowers the base of the calculation of the shortfall charge, decreases the period over which the interest is calculated and removes the administration fee.

For those who work for an employer doing the right thing—and this is the overwhelming majority—these changes will not mean much at all, but, unfortunately, it is those workers who need the protection of this legislation who are going to be most affected. Unfortunately, almost 700,000 Australians—that is right: 700,000 Australians—are being dudded of superannuation that they are owed.

That is why the member for Rankin, who has seized upon the weaknesses in this bill, has moved a sensible amendment to remove the component from the bill which makes it easier for employers to flout their obligations. This amendment should be supported by all right-thinking members of this House, and we encourage members of the government to support the amendment moved in the name of the member for Rankin.

The bill dares employers to dodge their superannuation obligations, effectively. The Assistant Treasurer has said publicly that she is focused on making sure that every employee gets the super they deserve. But, like so much that the Assistant Treasurer does, it is all talk and no action. What is worse is that she has failed to read her own government's talking points, again—either that or she is simply unable to tell the truth on this. She has claimed that the changes in the bill are specific to the period in which the penalty interest is charged, but that is not actually right. The bill not only changes the interest calculation, as she has stated, but also decreases the base of the penalty calculation and entirely repeals the additional admin charge.

We feel very strongly about this—very strongly indeed—because it was the Australian Labor Party, in partnership with great leaders like the former secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Bill Kelty, who introduced occupational superannuation into this country, to ensure that the benefits of a dignified retirement, the benefits of superannuation, were spread beyond those who had previously enjoyed it. Government employees, defence employees, managers in white-collar employment and salaried employees had traditionally enjoyed occupational superannuation. It was not always as good as it looked on paper, but they enjoyed the capacity to get some occupational superannuation. But the vast majority of the Australian workforce and the overwhelming majority of women did not enjoy this benefit.

We feel very strongly about it. We are the architects of superannuation, and it has been Australian Labor governments that have sought, whenever in office, to advance the provisions of occupational superannuation, and it has been the coalition partners who have stood in the way of increases in occupational superannuation, every single time. Every single time that Labor has moved to increase the statutory requirements for occupational superannuation, it has been the coalition members who have voted against it, opposed it and done their darnedest, whenever in office, to ensure that those provisions did not succeed.

So we are proud of our strong record. In fact, in the last term of government, not only did we move to increase the statutory requirement for superannuation; we sought to make it easier for small businesses to comply with their obligations. We set up the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House which was, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, a one-stop facility to pay their superannuation. That is what we are about: ensuring that the rights are there and that it is easier for employers—particularly small businesses—to meet their obligations. Not only that, we want to make sure that we have a fair and sustainable superannuation system—one that provides for all Australians, including low- and middle-income earners. That is why we put in place measures that would ensure that low-paid workers received a rebate.

One of the first actions, paradoxically, of this government—and it shows their values when it comes to superannuation—was to remove the rebate of the low income superannuation offset and, in the very next breath, to give a tax cut to people who had superannuation balances of over $1.5 million. Nothing says more about the priorities of this government and who they stand for than that act—one of their very first acts—of removing the rebate from low-income workers and giving a rebate to high-income superannuants. Nothing says more about the priorities of the government than that one act.

So we are opposed to those provisions of this bill, and we are opposed to them for good reasons. We on this side of the House know the difference between red tape and a guard rail. Provisions such as this are a guard rail, put in place to ensure that employees have access to their superannuation entitlements as and when they fall due. We know the problems that beset employees when a company goes bust: they are pushed down a level when it comes to prioritised creditors, although the tax office does have some advantages in this area over other creditors. But we know how hard it is for those workers to chase their superannuation entitlements and their other entitlements when an employer has ceased to pay. Ceasing to pay super is one of the early signs. It is like a canary in a coalmine. You know a business is starting to falter when it is starting to fall behind in paying its superannuation entitlements. It sends up a red flag. Workers are often three months or six months out of pocket before any action, and many workers I have spoken to say it can take up to 12 months to get the Australian tax office—which is struggling, because of a lack of resources and a lack of priority from this government to resource this function—to act. Workers can be out of pocket and can struggle to ever regain their lost entitlements.

So we understand what it means. We understand that this is a guard rail, not red tape, and that is why we oppose the proposition put forward by the Assistant Treasurer and the government and why we support the sensible amendments which were moved in the name of the member for Rankin.

Mr HOGAN (Page) (12:36): These repeal day bills that we have been introducing are exceptionally important to our local economy and obviously to every small business person in this country. Everyone would remember that, in 2013, before the election, we made an election commitment to cut red tape costs by a billion dollars a year, to improve our competitiveness, create more jobs and lower households' costs.

This target has been well exceeded. We have announced more than $2.45 billion in regulatory savings in just over two years from the last election. While these figures can be lost in the big numbers, it has meant that on the ground we are helping small businesses—out there having a go and trying to make money by employing people and trying to create wealth for this country—keep their focus on what is important to them: their core business and making sure they are employing people and making money. Every small business that you walk into, Deputy Speaker Goodenough—and I know, with your background, you would know—in this country, across every sector, says, 'We have too many forms to fill out; we have too much red tape.' They spend a lot of time not focusing on their business. They are—literally—crossing t's and dotting i's.

With this repeal day legislation there are a lot of reforms. There are reforms with ASIC to facilitate business to take up digital disclosure, leading to annual savings of nearly $300 million, and the Australian Taxation Office upgrade of ATO online, providing access for businesses to manage their tax affairs in a digital environment. There are upgrades to the online portal, which is estimated to have an annual saving of over $100 million as well. For smaller businesses, changes to pay-as-you-go instalment entry thresholds remove an estimated 500 thousand small businesses from the system. This means that 45,000 small businesses that have no goods and services tax reporting requirements will no longer have to lodge the activity statement. The remaining 400,000 small businesses with modest or negative incomes that are still required to lodge business activity statements will no longer have to interact with the pay-as-you-go instalment system. This is going to save small businesses tens of millions of dollars each year in red tape. We have also expanded access to the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House, which means additional employers can now use this free service. This will save them time and reduce their paperwork. The reforms through the new franchising code will also deliver millions of dollars in red-tape savings across the sector.

We also have a $5.5 billion Growing Jobs and Small Business package in this year's budget. That will build upon these initiatives. The package allows for small businesses to immediately deduct every eligible asset costing less than $20,000 purchased between budget night and the end of June 2017. Many small businesses I have visited in my community have had a lot of people making capital purchases that would have been put off. It also includes lower taxes for small business. There has been a 1½ percentage point cut to the company tax rate for small companies and a five per cent tax discount for unincorporated entities. Providing small business with a reduced rate tax enables them to retain more earnings, which is important for their cash flow, their survival and the number of resources and money they have for employing more people.

This bill forms part of our commitment to repeal counterproductive and often redundant legislation. There are also amendments to the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act to simplify this and makes the superannuation guarantee charge and penalty more proportionate to the noncompliance. There is also a tax imposed upon employers by the tax office when the employer does not meet their superannuation requirements on time. The guaranteed charge regime can be very punitive if they inadvertently make small mistakes, and this will be recognised.

The government is committed to employees receiving their superannuation so that Australians can save for their retirement. However, it is important to right-size the regulatory environment where appropriate. For example, this schedule will change how nominal interest is calculated. Currently, nominal interest is charged from the beginning of a superannuation guarantee quarter rather than from the due date of superannuation guarantee contributions, so employers have to effectively pay an additional four months of interest. This change will fix this problem by aligning nominal interest.

The second change this schedule makes to the guarantee is to align the penalties under the superannuation guarantee charge regime with the administrative penalties that exist under the Tax Administration Act 1953. This is all about simplifying penalties. The third change will align the earnings base for calculating the superannuation guarantee charge with the earnings base used to calculate the superannuation guarantee. Currently, these are different.

Schedule 2 will amend superannuation laws to enable the Australian Taxation Office to pay certain superannuation amounts, such as unclaimed super balances, directly to people with a terminal medical condition. It will also remove the requirement for superannuation funds to lodge a lost members statement with the Australian Taxation Office. The first change ensures that people who are dealing with the circumstances of being diagnosed as terminally ill or injured do not also have to deal with unnecessary complexity to get access to superannuation savings held by the ATO. Superannuation balances are, generally, able to be released tax free to people with a terminal medical condition. Super funds can already pay balances they hold directly to such people when a valid claim is made.

However, the existing law only permits the ATO to pay unclaimed super directly to terminally ill or injured people in limited circumstances. In most cases, when a terminally ill person makes a claim, currently, the ATO first has to transfer the money into an existing account in a super fund before they can access it. This creates unnecessary delays and paperwork for people who should be able to access their super. In fact, if the person does not have a super account, the red tape they face under existing law increases. For example, if a person on finding out they are terminally ill withdraws their balance and closes their super account, the person needs to create a new account just to receive their unclaimed super held by the ATO. We as a government do not want to subject people to needless bureaucracy, particularly when they are facing difficult life circumstances and are likely to be at their most vulnerable. Enacting this bill will allow the ATO to pay super amounts they hold or administer directly to a terminally ill or injured person. This will eliminate a pointless step in the claims process and provide people with faster access to their super when they need it most.

The Commissioner of Taxation also, in schedule 2, maintains a register known as the Lost Members Register, which contains details of members who have been reported by their super providers as lost. This register is maintained for the purpose of reuniting people with their lost super. The register is updated, periodically, using information reported to the ATO by super funds. This information is currently reported to the ATO by super funds, twice a year, through the lost members statement. This is a requirement under superannuation law. However, since 2013 similar information has also been reported by funds to the ATO as a result of a separate reporting obligation under tax administration law. This bill will remove the extra requirement for funds to lodge the lost member statement. It will remove an additional reporting burden for funds and reduce their compliance costs without reducing access to information as it will continue to be collected under tax administration law. People will continue to be able to use myGov to search the register for their lost super.

Schedule 3 to this bill contains amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 to modify the notification and reporting obligations applying to certain corporations that have property in receivership or property in respect of which a controller is acting. These amendments remove the unnecessary compliance costs, reputational damage and investor confusion caused by having to include 'in receivership' on all of a company's public documents, rather than only those documents that relate to the affected trust. The amendments will also reduce the administrative burden on corporations' officers by reducing the matters upon which they are required to report to a controller.

Schedule 4 to this bill repeals inoperative acts and provisions of the tax law. This includes: the repeal of the Commonwealth borrowing levy, which has been inoperative since 1997; the repeal of the tax-exempt infrastructure borrowing concession, which has been inoperative since 2012; and the repeal of various provisions relating to concessions for equity investments by financial institutions in small and medium enterprises, which have been effectively inoperative since 1999. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Human Services) (12:46): I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. It is disappointing, however, that those opposite would stand in the way of this bill simply because they do not understand how the changes outlined in schedule 1 to the bill benefit business, particularly small businesses. That said, this government will not subject people to needless red tape, which is why the government is proceeding with the other important measures in this bill.

Schedule 2 to this bill will amend superannuation laws to enable the Australian Taxation Office to pay lost member superannuation amounts directly to people with a terminal medical condition. Enabling the Australian Taxation Office to pay these amounts directly will cut out needless paperwork and delays for terminally ill and injured patients wishing to access their super benefits. Schedule 2 will also remove the requirement for superannuation funds to lodge a lost member statement with the Australian Taxation Office. Removing this report will reduce regulatory costs for funds that already provide similar information to comply with other reporting obligations.

Schedule 3 to this bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to simplify the notification and reporting obligations applying to licenced trustee companies and other corporations that a property in receivership or property in respect of which a controller is acting. This will remove the unnecessary compliance costs, reputational damage and investor confusion caused by having to include 'in receivership' on all of a company's public documents, rather than on only those documents that relate to the affected trust. These amendments will also reduce the administrative burden on corporations' officers by reducing the matters upon which they are required to report to a controller.

Schedule 4 to this bill repeals inoperative acts and provisions of the tax law. This includes: the repeal of the Commonwealth borrowing levy, which has been inoperative since 1997; the repeal of the tax-exempt infrastructure borrowing concession, which has been inoperative since 2012; and the repeal of various provisions relating to tax concessions for equity investments in small and medium enterprises, which have effectively been inoperative since 1999. Removal of these inoperative acts and provisions will make it easier for businesses, agencies and other stakeholders to identify the current law. On our fourth repeal day, we are building on the progress we have already made right across government to cut red tape. I commend this bill to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): The question is that the words proposed to be omitted—that is, Mr Chalmers' amendment—stand part of the question.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ) (13:01): The question is that the bill be read a second time.

An incident having occurred in the chamber—

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (13:04): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What the minister is doing—you normally get named for that. It is completely disorderly, and he should be called to order for it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second reading has been agreed—

Mr BURKE: No, point of order. A point of order has been taken, and you must make a ruling. We have had a member of parliament walk around the chamber during a division. It is quite disorderly.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe that Mr Tudge did not move till the result was announced, so we will proceed. I call the minister.

Mr Burke: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We had the member for Rankin on his feet at the dispatch box, seeking the call. You clearly saw that he was on his feet and were about to acknowledge him. You cannot have a situation where the call is then changed.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What has happened is that the second reading has not been agreed to, so I will put that now.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Human Services) (13:06): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments 1 and 2, as circulated, together.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Is leave granted?

Mr Burke: No, it is not. You have given the call to the wrong member. They want leave to be able to deal with things quickly. If the parliament is not going to be run in a sensible fashion, if this minister is going to just wander around and think that he gets the jump whenever he feels like it, then you are not going to get cooperation. Leave is not granted.

Leave not granted.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My advice is that the amendments will have to be moved singly if they cannot be moved together.

Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (13:09): by leave—I move opposition amendments 1 and 2, as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item. [superannuation guarantee charge]

(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 11 (line 4), omit the Schedule. [superannuation guarantee charge]

The Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day 2015) Bill 2015 is a disgraceful attempt to dud Australian workers by a government that does not believe in superannuation. These are the bad motivations that are at the very core of this bill that we are debating today. I will come to the government's embarrassing and humiliating backdown in a moment. But, first, let us deal with the issues that are absolutely at the core of what the government is trying to do now.

Our approach on this bill, as I have said before, is that Australian workers deserve to be paid the superannuation that they are entitled to, and they deserve to be paid that superannuation on time. It is disturbing but not surprising to understand that the government wants to weaken the penalties for employers who do not pay their workers super and pay it on time. It is also disturbing—but, again, not surprising—that when the government is confronted with an issue like this they discard the interests of Australian workers as some sort of red tape to be dismissed with all the other farcical parts of the so-called red tape repeal days.

This government either does not understand or they do not care that 690,000 Australian workers each year miss out on the super that they are entitled to by law. That is, every 15th worker in our economy is not getting paid the super that they are entitled to. That is worth $2.6 billion a year to Australian working people. That problem is growing by five per cent per annum, and it means an average of $3,800 per year out of the pockets of those 690,000 workers, which is $100,000 by the time of retirement for a 20-year-old worker who misses out on that amount this year.

The tax office describes this problem is 'endemic'. The audit office says that between 11 and 20 per cent of employers are non-compliant with their obligations to their workers. This is a big, growing problem, and it says it all about this government that when presented with these facts by the tax office, the audit office, by Trio Investments and by Cbus, they decide to make the problem worse. They decide to include it in some kind of red tape stunt. They decide to combine this disgraceful act with all of the other disgraceful things that they are doing in superannuation: abolishing the low-income super contribution, freezing the super guarantee—all of the things they are doing to strike at the very core of the retirement aspirations of working people in this country.

This part of the bill, schedule 1, that we are seeking to split out is one of four schedules. We agree with the other three components of the bill, so my amendment is all about splitting out this disgraceful act of theft from the superannuation balances of Australian working people. We support the bit about the terminal conditions, we support the bit about duplication in unclaimed super and we support the bit about disclosure as it relates to in receivership. But we will never support any attempt by this government to make it even easier for employers in this country to dodge their obligations to their workers. We will never ever support that.

I want to thank all of the people around the Australian community who have stood with us on this issue and who are about to win a terrific victory on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Australians. Together we call on the government now not just to perform this humiliating backflip that they are about to perform when the minister finally gets up here and agrees to Labor's amendments. That will be humiliating for them. But, more important than that, more important than today's humiliation, is that they abandon for all time these disgraceful attempts to dud Australian workers out of the superannuation that they are entitled to. Do not just abandon it today on the eve of an election. Abandon these plans forever, because Australian workers deserve better. The fight for fairer superannuation continues beyond today. It will always continue while those opposite are in government. They have shown their true colours when it comes to this bill, and we are right to resist them. The Australian people are right to resist them.

We are about to see a humiliating backflip from the government. We are about to see a victory for Australian working people and we are about to see the full farce of the government's economic policymaking machinery before our eyes. The minister is about to move amendments to the very bill that their speakers were defending wholeheartedly 20 minutes ago as an important change that needed to be made. We had the poor old member for Page stand up with his talking points and read out how important it was that we progress with this disgraceful act at the same time as the assistant minister sat over there about to amend it to cop Labor's amendments. It says it all that the Assistant Treasurer will not come and own this problem, and no-one else in the government will own this problem. That is why it is left to the assistant minister. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan—Assistant Minister for Disability Services) (13:14): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (13:16): I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Welfare Payment Integrity) Bill 2016. This bill seeks to amend the social security legislation in two ways.

The first is to introduce departure prohibition orders into social security legislation, so that orders may be made preventing a person from leaving the country when they have outstanding social security debts and a repayment plan is not currently in place. These orders could be applied to debts incurred through social security, family assistance, paid parental leave or student assistance payments. Departure prohibition orders can already be applied for when people have child support debts.

A departure prohibition order may be applied where the person has one or more debts to the Commonwealth; there are not arrangements satisfactory to the secretary in place for those debts to be wholly paid; and the secretary believes on reasonable grounds that it is desirable to make the order to ensure the person does not leave Australia for a foreign country without having wholly paid the debt or there being arrangements in place satisfactory to the secretary for the debt to be repaid.

Before making an order, the secretary must have regard to certain matters. Firstly, the person's capacity to pay the debt; secondly, whether any debt recovery action has been taken and the outcome of that action; thirdly, the length of time the debt has remained unpaid; and fourthly, any other matters the secretary considers appropriate. Departure prohibition orders may only be made when the secretary believes it is appropriate to do so.

The second amendment in this bill seeks to abolish the six-year limitation on debt recovery currently in place for social security, family assistance and paid parental leave debts. These amendments will mean that relevant methods of debt recovery, including deductions from payment, legal proceedings and garnishee arrangements, can commence at any time.

The amendments proposed in this bill are due to commence on 1 July 2016 or the day after royal assent. The financial impacts of these changes are quite modest. A total cost of $29.5 million is expected from the overall measure. The measure is anticipated to achieve a net underlying cash balance saving of $157.8 million, reflecting the recovery of debts owed to the Commonwealth government.

Labor will not be opposing this bill in the House. However, a Senate committee is currently looking at the detail of this legislation and is due to report back to the parliament on 20 June 2016. Labor believes we need to carefully examine the implications of these changes and we believe a Senate committee is best placed to scrutinise the detail of the bill. As with many issues within the social security system, these changes are complex. It is therefore very important that the bill be given proper scrutiny to ensure that there are no adverse consequences, intended or unintended, for vulnerable Australians. Therefore Labor will reserve its final position until the Senate committee reports its findings.

However, I will put on the record today my concern about some of the language being used by the Turnbull government when it comes to people who rely on government support to get by. Labor believes that people who deliberately defraud the system should be investigated and required to repay the money. That is only fair. But far too often all we see from the Turnbull government is a lot of empty talk about welfare crackdowns and a nasty habit of demonising people who rely on social security.

I do not think that such an approach is helpful. I will say on behalf of many constituents in my electorate that they often come to me feeling very upset about headlines in the papers and comments that government ministers have made, and particularly upset that there is a lack of understanding, it seems, from those on the other side about the impact of their language and the way the government will often portray people who rely on social security. That is quite concerning and certainly not helpful. Indeed, I fear that it will further stigmatise Australians who are jobless and would love nothing more than to find a job. If the government listens, there are many, many people out there who are not just lining up to get social security, but who desperately want to get a job and are desperately looking for a job. In my electorate I hear reports over and over again of people who say that they want nothing more but feel very much locked out of the job market. We do not want to use language that further stigmatises these Australians, who want desperately nothing more than to get a job.

Labor believes that the best way to help Australians who are struggling is to assist them in finding a job—for people who do not have the skills or expertise to find a job, ensuring that they get the right skills and support to be prepared for those jobs; or for people with a disability, ensuring that they are supported in finding a job. Indeed, I speak to many people who have a disability and who want to work but unfortunately are not given that opportunity. That is why Labor believes in—and this will be Labor's approach if we win the next election—supporting those who do want to find a job and ensuring that they get the support they need.

Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan—Assistant Minister for Disability Services) (13:22): As I said in my first speech in this place 5½ years ago, it is the individual who stands front and centre, and it is by empowering the individual that we will unlock the real potential of our society. Then, as now, I strongly believe that the role of government is to provide the environment to give individuals the opportunities to create and succeed, but not to unreasonably interfere or restrict the freedoms and rights of individuals. I believe in a hand up, not a handout. I believe that the best form of welfare is a job. Indeed, if there is a choice between a handout or a hand up—a choice between receiving a fish or being able to fish—I know that most Australians, especially those living and working in my part of Australia, would choose self-sufficiency.

The coalition believes the best form of welfare is a job. That is why this government is working so hard to get as many Australians into gainful employment as possible. It is why we are providing more pathways to get people back into study or work, rather than providing incentives for people to get stuck on set-and-forget welfare payments. However, while we all value our independence and autonomy, it is important that governments also recognise that some people do need some help. A generous public welfare system is something that is provided only by the good grace and hard work of Australian taxpayers, so the Australian government has a responsibility to ensure that our welfare system is efficient, effective and well targeted. It is meant to be a safety net, not a permanent taxpayer funded salary in lieu of a genuine welfare need or a job.

On this measure, it is worth reflecting on the experience of Benjamin Franklin, who in 1766—even before Captain Cook traversed the eastern coast of our great island continent—warned of an unintended social cost for an institutionalised public welfare system. He said at that time:

I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Roll on 250 years and there are still some people who seemingly think Australia's welfare system should provide a sofa in front of a TV, a bar stool at the local pub, a comfortable bed, a nice house and even a publicly funded overseas holiday. Those who accumulate a welfare debt to the taxpayer for claiming and then spending public money—taxpayers' money—for which they were not lawfully entitled should be forced to pay back this debt. As the old saying goes: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

I welcome the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Welfare Payment Integrity) Bill 2016, because it continues this government's focus on protecting the integrity of our welfare system so we can provide welfare for those who need it most—the most vulnerable. I thank the minister for bringing this bill forward. Ironically, when thinking about the key principle at the heart of good government in 21st century Australia, it is also difficult to better Franklin's guidance: failing to plan is planning to fail. Our mission must be to improve the lifetime wellbeing of people and families in Australia and not accept an imperfect welfare system that will attract individuals, whole families and communities in Australia to intergenerational welfare dependency.

The enhanced welfare payment integrity measures in this bill are estimated to achieve net underlying savings of $157.8 million over the forward estimates. However, I believe it is the way the legislation 'disincentivises' receipt of public welfare money under false pretence that will be most transformative, especially with regard to enhancing a welfare recipient's reciprocal responsibilities under this new social contract. The bill introduces the legislative amendments required for the 2015-16 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook Enhanced Welfare Payment Integrity expended debt recovery measure. It includes two measures. First, amendments allow for the use of departure prohibition orders to prevent targeted social welfare debtors from leaving the country, as is the case for child support debtors. Second, amendments remove the current six-year limitation on the recovery of social welfare debt that would otherwise be non-recoverable, which aligns the treatment of social welfare debt with the recovery arrangements in place with other Commonwealth agencies.

At the end of June 2015 there were more than one million debts with a value of $3.04 billion. This is a significant amount of taxpayers' money that could have been better spent. It is worrying that welfare debts have increased by almost 10 per cent in value since June 2014. In effect, the current system has inadvertently created an illegitimate—albeit publicly funded—interest-free loan facility. It is the government's belief that all debts should be repaid. It is important to recognise that a debt arises only where a person receives a payment to which they were not entitled, such as failing to advise the department of a change in personal circumstances. Of this debt base, approximately $870 million is held by around 270,000 former recipients who do not make sufficient or regular payments. This works out to be an average interest-free debt to the taxpayers of Australia of about $3,220 for 270,000 former welfare recipients, whereas current recipients of social welfare who also have a social security or family assistance debt have their welfare payments reduced until their debts are paid. However, there is no similar arrangement in place to recover debts once a person no longer requires social welfare or family assistance payments.

If we ignore moderate changes now, worrying issues and concerns like a 10 per cent increase in the value of welfare debts will grow into even bigger problems and remedial action will get harder. Unlike Labor, we do not raise taxes to balance the budget or pay for higher spending. Higher taxes for higher spending are not a plan for jobs and growth. The way to fix the budget is to control spending and grow the economy.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (13:29): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.

Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (16:25): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's Seventy-ninth Annual Report (2015).

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Mr PERRETT: by leave—I know, Deputy Speaker Goodenough, you fully appreciate the important work the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works does, because you are a member of that committee. The report outlines the committee's activities for last year.

2015 was a busy and productive year. The committee held more meetings and processed more referrals in 2015 than in any of the preceding five years.

In 2015, the committee reported on 22 works, with a combined cost of $3.1 billion. Eleven of these were for the Department of Defence, totalling approximately $2.7 billion. During 2015 the committee had 44 meetings, including inspections and public hearings right across the country.

During the year the committee also reviewed 40 medium works notifications. Medium works are projects with an estimated cost of between $2 million and $15 million. The committee approved 37 medium works, with a combined cost of $235.3 million. Of the remaining three medium works, one was withdrawn and two were combined and referred to the committee for full inquiry.

In July 2015 the committee wrote to all agencies that had made referrals since 2010 reminding them, very clearly, of the requirement to provide post-implementation reports when a project has been completed. As a result, the committee received 18 post-implementation reports and several status updates for projects that are still in the delivery phase.

The committee strongly supports the requirement for post-implementation reporting. Not only does it support improved accountability and transparency, but there are real benefits to be gained by the agencies critically assessing their own project outcomes against key objectives such as timeliness and cost. For these reasons, the committee will continue to put great emphasis on findings noted in post-implementation reports. Departmental heads might note this well. I know the chair, Senator Dean Smith, is particularly passionate about these post-implementation reports.

At various times during the year the committee considered operational matters. These include a review of the monetary threshold for referral and possible amendments to the Public Works Committee Act. The Department of Finance is currently reviewing these matters and the committee expects to be consulted on proposed changes in due course. The committee recognises the importance of reviewing aspects of this operation from time to time to ensure its practices continue to be consistent with the Commonwealth's property management framework and the broader construction environment. However, such considerations are made in a context that supports the fundamental principle of parliamentary scrutiny. I say that clearly, as the deputy chair, to every Commonwealth agency, whether they be onshore or offshore.

In concluding, I would like to thank all who have assisted the committee in its work during 2015 and I commend this report to the House.

Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra) (16:29): On behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights I present the following reports: the Human Rights scrutiny report, Thirty-sixth report of the 44th Parliament, and an inquiry report, 2016 Review of Stronger Futures measures.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Mr RUDDOCK: I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with these two reports.

Mr Perrett: Leave is granted.

Mr Fitzgibbon: Reluctantly!

Mr RUDDOCK: Reluctant, but I will endeavour to do justice to the topic!

I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Thirty-sixth report of the 44th Parliament.

The committee's report examines the compatibility of bills and legislative instruments with Australia's human rights obligations. This report considers bills introduced into the parliament from 25 February to 3 March 2016 and legislative instruments received from 5 to 25 February 2016. The report also includes the committee's consideration of seven responses to matters raised in previous reports.

Thirteen new bills are assessed as not raising human rights concerns and the committee will seek a response from the legislation proponents in relation to two bills and two regulations, as well as a further response on one legislative instrument. The committee has also concluded its examination of six bills and one regulation.

By way of example, this report concludes consideration of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015—a difficult matter for the committee to deal with. The bill amends the Citizenship Act to expand the existing grounds on which a dual citizen's Australian citizenship will cease. Now, a dual citizen over 14 years of age who engages in terrorist activities with the intention of coercing, influencing or intimidating the government or the public will find their citizenship automatically having ceased. Additionally, a dual citizen's Australian citizenship may be revoked if the person is convicted of a specified offence and the minister is satisfied that it would be in the public interest and that the conviction demonstrates a repudiation of allegiance to Australia.

The committee recognises the importance of ensuring that national security and law enforcement agencies have the necessary powers to protect the security—and, I might say, the right to life—of all Australians. Moreover, the committee recognises the specific importance of protecting Australians from terrorism and individuals who have engaged in terrorist conduct. The Australian government and the parliament have the responsibility to ensure that laws and operational frameworks support the protection of life and security of the person. Additionally, Australia has specific international obligations to detect, arrest and punish terrorists.

Human rights principles and norms are not inherently opposed to national security objectives or outcomes. Rather, international human rights law allows for the balancing of human rights considerations with responses to national security concerns.

Legal advice—and I might say sometimes it is very proscriptive—to this committee indicates that a number of the measures are said to be incompatible as measured against the standards of international human rights law, and that the revised statement of compatibility does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that these measures are compatible with human rights.

However, and I might say that some lawyers are amongst this group, notwithstanding this advice, some committee members remain of the view that the deprivation of citizenship of those who endanger the security of Australians is desirable as a matter of policy, and that this measure will help to ensure that Australians are kept safe from terrorism and individuals who have engaged in terrorist conduct.

It is to be remembered that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights is a scrutiny committee that undertakes a technical examination of bills and legislative instruments with reference to the content of seven international human rights law treaties that Australia has voluntarily accepted. It does not assess the broader merits of, or community support for, particular measures, but nevertheless these matters are often, as they are here, of fundamental importance.

Stronger Futures

I want to also speak about the future measures report. In tabling this joint committee report, we have the review of the Stronger Futures legislation. In broad terms, the measures in this legislation are directed at improving certain social outcomes in Indigenous communities of the Northern Territory.

This report follows the committee's 2013 inquiry into the human rights compatibility of the Stronger Futures legislation. In that report the committee made a number of findings, and determined that it would undertake a subsequent review to evaluate the continuing necessity of the measures. Accordingly, the report I table today examines the latest evidence as to the effectiveness of key aspects of the Stronger Futures measures, and makes a number of recommendations that flow from that evidence.

Significantly, the report finds that a number of measures, including those concerning food security and land reform, promote important human rights.

However, the evidence before the committee also suggested that some of the measures are not operating as intended. To offer a particular example, I draw members' attention to the School Enrolment and Attendance through Welfare Reform Measure, also known as SEAM.

SEAM has two main elements: increasing the number of children of compulsory school-age being enrolled in school; and identifying children who are enrolled at school but have problems with attendance, and putting in place strategies to address these issues. Where a child fails to attend school regularly, a parent's income support benefits may be suspended.

Research indicates that there is a negative cycle whereby poor school attendance is likely to result in poor education outcomes, and an increased likelihood of welfare dependency and unemployment. In light of the poor school attendance records in the Northern Territory, the committee found that measures that improve school engagement are a legitimate objective for the purposes of international human right law.

However, two substantive evaluations of SEAM have demonstrated that its effectiveness is mixed. Enrolment and attendance outcomes have not improved. As such, the committee recommends that SEAM be redesigned with a focus on the strategies that we now know to be the most effective. While highlighting that sanctions are a legitimate and effective mechanism to encourage families to assist their children to attend school, the committee therefore recommends that sanctions regimes differentiate between voluntary disengagement and non-attendance resulting from causes or factors outside the child or family's control.

As always, I encourage my fellow members and others who may be interested in these matters to examine the committee's report to better inform their understanding of the committee's deliberations.

With these comments, I commend the committee's Thirty-sixth report of the 44th Parliament and the committee's 2016 Review of Stronger Futures measures to the chamber.

Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan—Assistant Minister for Disability Services) (16:37): As I was saying earlier today, Australian taxpayers are not in a position—and are not willing—to gift 270,000 former welfare recipients a further $3,220. The government considers it entirely reasonable for people who owe debts to Australian taxpayers to make the necessary arrangements to repay that debt in full and within a reasonable amount of time. We have a responsibility to protect the financial interests of our employer, financier and major shareholder: Australian residences and businesses.

This bill also introduces the legislative amendments required to remove the six-year statute of limitations on the recovery of social welfare payment debt, which will allow Centrelink to recover the social welfare payment debt regardless of the age of the debt. It is worth noting that as at the end of 2014-15 there were 36,834 debts worth $131.2 million that will reach their expiry date before this legislation is passed. That is right—more than $130 million can no longer be recovered because of the statute of limitations. There are also 54,200 debts worth $166.81 million that have already reached their expiry date and cannot be recovered by compulsory means—for example, by withholdings, tax garnishee, garnishee of salary or civil action. So that is more than $165 million that we cannot recover either. There were also a further 4,595 debts worth $12.96 million that were permanently written off over the 2014-15 financial year because they were past the statute date.

The write-off process is not automatic. The Department of Human Services periodically checks the statute of limitations date for an outstanding debt and writes off debts that have passed the six-year limit in which no recovery action has been taken. This bill will make the social welfare debt system consistent with those that currently operate in the tax and child support systems. The government encourages people with debts to talk to staff at Centrelink about their ability to pay off their debt over time. In cases of severe financial hardship, a thorough review of their capacity to repay will be undertaken and debtors will be given a fair amount of time to repay their debt.

However, we also know that some debtors deliberately avoid their obligation to repay their debts to the Commonwealth by not entering into acceptable repayment arrangements and, in extreme cases, heading overseas beyond Australia's jurisdiction. The bill before us will allow the secretary to issue a departure prohibition order to prevent targeted social welfare debtors from leaving the country, as currently applies to child support and taxation debtors. We know that this operating principle works, because 4,551 new departure prohibition orders were issued between 2005 and 2015, resulting in the collection of $52 million in outstanding child support payments.

If a local resident in my area lent a neighbour $3,220 because they are going through tough financial times, but then that neighbour went on an overseas holiday, that resident who lent them the money in the first place would obviously ask for their money back. Again, as the old adage goes, 'Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.' Why should Australian taxpayers by default be forced to delay public services and infrastructure delivery so that someone who has a debt with Australian taxpayers can go on an overseas holiday? The government considers it is not appropriate for an individual to travel overseas when they have the means to fund that travel but have not set up an appropriate arrangement to repay their outstanding debt to the taxpayer.

However, the government is mindful of reasons people may be required to travel overseas, and procedures will be put in place to allow people, subject to departure prohibition orders, to travel in specified circumstances. Obvious humanitarian reasons include to attend to an ill relative, to attend the funeral or cultural ceremony of a deceased relative or where international travel is a condition of employment.

Unrecovered social welfare debt is taxpayers' money that could have been better used to provide other public services or better targeted services for those who need more help to help themselves—for the vulnerable in our community. Those who can work should work. There should be no excuses. Those who have accumulated a welfare debt to the taxpayer by claiming and then spending welfare money to which they were not entitled should be forced to repay this debt. This bill will enable the Department of Human Services to recover debts from current and ex-recipients of social security and family assistance payments. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (16:43): I too rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Welfare Payment Integrity) Bill 2016, and it is my great pleasure to do so. As we have just heard from the very fine contribution from the member for Ryan, this bill contains two measures which strengthen our capacity to recover social welfare and family payment debts. There are amendments to allow for the use of departure prohibition orders to prevent targeted social welfare debtors from leaving the country, as currently applies to child support debtors. The bill also contains amendments to remove the current six-year limitation on the recovery of social welfare debt that would otherwise be non-recoverable, aligning the treatment of social welfare debt with the recovery arrangements in place for other Commonwealth agencies. While the average value of social welfare debt is some $2,350 and the average length of debt is just over three years, the oldest outstanding debt that the Commonwealth is currently facing is over 30 years old and the greatest amount of debt is in excess of $300,000.

The situation is this: at the end of June 2015 there were over one million debts owed to the Commonwealth, with a value of $3.04 billion. It is with great pride that I stand here and say that is not good enough. Why didn't Labor tackle this question? Why didn't Labor pass these amendments when it was in power? This is a monumental amount of money. It is taxpayers' money. It is owed to the taxpayers. Consider what this amount of money could do—the schools and hospitals it could build, the passenger rail that it could develop, the roads, the contribution it could make to our economy in many different respects. Led by the Minister for Social Services, Minister Porter, this demonstrates that our government has a very strong commitment to making sure that every single dollar that we raise by way of revenue is properly spent and making sure that we deliver the money into the Commonwealth with great responsibility. Where there are these very significant debts, we will make sure that we do everything we can to recover them.

These debts have increased in value by almost 10 per cent since June 2014. They are skyrocketing. And yet, under the previous Labor government, we did not see appropriate action put in place to recover these debts. I think most Australians would agree that this is a very fair and reasonable measure. This money is owed to the Commonwealth. In many respects it concerns those who were on a welfare payment and who have now exited the system. We assume that they are working, earning an income and making a contribution to their family and, of course, to the broader society, but they are doing this with a black cloud hanging over their head, and this is impacting on the Australian economy very significantly. We are determined to do something about it.

Of this debt base, approximately $870 million is held by around 270,000 former recipients who do not make sufficient or regular payments. Current recipients of social welfare payments who also have a social security or family assistance debt have their welfare payments reduced until their debts are paid, so there is a mechanism in place for the Commonwealth over time to recover those debts. However, there is no similar arrangement in place to recover debts once a person no longer requires social welfare or family assistance payments, because, of course, they are no longer part of the system, including Centrelink. The government considers that it is entirely reasonable for people who owe debts to the Commonwealth—to the taxpayers of Australia—to make the necessary arrangements to repay that debt in full within a reasonable amount of time.

Some debtors deliberately avoid their obligation to repay their debts to the Commonwealth by not entering into acceptable repayment arrangements. In extreme cases, they head overseas, beyond Australia's jurisdiction. This legislation will allow the secretary of the department to issue a departure prohibition order to prevent targeted social welfare debtors from leaving the country as currently applies to child support and taxation debtors. This has been a very effective mechanism. Departure prohibition orders have been very effective in recovering outstanding child support debts. Between 2005 and 2015, 4,551 new departure prohibition orders were issued, resulting in the collection of $52 million in outstanding child support payments. We say that, if it is fair enough to recover child support payments from those who are refusing to meet their obligations—and I think every mother and father would agree that child support must be paid and a parent wo has that obligation leaving the country should not reasonably be able to do so without paying their debts—we should take the same approach for other social welfare debtors.

People who have a departure prohibition order issued may still depart Australia in certain circumstances such as for humanitarian reasons or in Australia's best interests. This might include a visit overseas to attend to an ill relative, a funeral, a cultural ceremony of a deceased relative or where international travel is a condition of employment. Where people do need to depart Australia on humanitarian grounds without paying their debt in full, they can make an application for a departure authorisation certificate. The application must be verified by, for example, provision of a medical report regarding the condition of the relative or a death certificate. But we say we are not going to allow this to continue any longer. We have a good system in place to recover child support debts when parents attempt to leave the country and not meet their proper obligations, and why should other debtors in our social welfare system be treated any differently? This was, frankly, a form of discrimination that prevailed under the previous government. We think this is a very important issue to address and to fix and we are very pleased to be doing that.

The other important aspect of this bill, as I mentioned, is that it introduces the legislative amendments required to remove the six-year statute of limitations on the recovery of social welfare payment debt. This will allow Centrelink to recover the social welfare payment debt regardless of the age of the debt. This is a very important measure. As at the end of 2014-15, there were 36,834 debts, worth $131.2 million, that will reach their expiry date within one year. That is before the legislation has been passed. Centrelink has not touched these debts for six years and will not have the capacity to reach those debtors and recover those debts. There are 54,200 debts worth $166.81 million that have already reached their expiry date and so cannot be recovered by compulsory means, which includes by withholding, garnishing wages, garnishing through taxation means or any sort of civil action.

When you look at the amount of money involved, it absolutely stands to reason that this limitation period of six years should be extended so that at any time the Commonwealth can rightly say, 'This money is owed to us. We want it back.' We want it back because we need to spend it on behalf of the Australian taxpayer for our schools, our hospitals, our roads, our rail, our social services and the many other functions that the Commonwealth performs in looking after the Australian people. What has been happening is that these debts have been written off, and we are literally seeing money going down the drain. This has become, in effect, an interest-free loan from the taxpayers of Australia. Stay out of the radar of the Commonwealth for some six years and then you get off scot free. We say that is not good enough. Those Australians who do owe a debt to the Commonwealth should not be able to get off scot free. As the chair of the Coalition Backbench Policy Committee on Social Services, I am very pleased that Minister Porter, the Minister for Social Services, received very strong support from the committee to implement these measures.

That is not to say that there are not some Australians with these debts who will encounter some hardship and who may need some time to pay these debts off, and we encourage them to talk to staff at Centrelink about their ability to pay off the debt over time. In cases of severe financial hardship, a thorough review of their capacity to repay will be undertaken and debtors will be given a fair amount of time to repay their debt. We are not expecting this debt to be paid overnight and we do not want to put someone through acute financial hardship as a result of the recovery of the debt, but we want something in place to make sure that over time this debt can be recovered.

This is one of the many measures the Turnbull government is undertaking to implement a fairer system that makes sure that the money that the Commonwealth raises is spent on those who most need our help. We have done this in many ways. Another very important way is the government's new multinational tax avoidance laws—unfortunately, opposed by Labor; inexplicably opposed by Labor—which came into effect on 1 January. They will ensure that major international companies operating in Australia but booking profits offshore have to pay tax here.

Mr Fitzgibbon: What about the threshold?

Ms HENDERSON: I will take that interjection. It is a shameful reflection on the Labor Party that we joined with the Greens in the Senate to pass this legislation, and this goes to show that we are serious about making sure that dollars do not get thrown down the drain, whether it is debts owed by Australian taxpayers or whether it is multinationals ripping off Australians and ripping off Australian jobs. In not supporting our legislation the Labor Party has said, 'We do not have any interest in combating multinational tax avoidance. We do not care. We are quite happy for this money to keep on going offshore, denying Australians important revenue and denying Australians jobs.' This is not good for Australians. I say very strongly that this is a good example of where the Greens have joined with our government to support this legislation to ensure it gets through to maximise the revenue for Australians and to maximise the revenue for this government. It is a shocking indictment, and we know it is a shocking indictment because whenever this is raised, as happened today in question time, members opposite hang their heads in shame. They know that this is a terrible error. This sends an appalling message to Australians that the Labor Party is not serious about combating multinational tax avoidance, and it really is a disgrace.

In so many ways we are very proud of these important measures that we have taken. There is other legislation to ban excessive credit card surcharges. It is such an important consumer protection measure but the Labor Party never took it on. It is incredibly important that Australians know they are governed by a government which cares with compassion and with a sense of fairness. That is another great example of how we are standing up for Australians and saying we will not cop people being ripped off. Again, we never saw any movement on that issue under Labor.

Whether it is implementing our free trade agreements, signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership or rolling out our $1.1 billion innovation agenda, we are very, very proud of the work we are doing. Locally, so much is happening in my electorate. There is the new ABS Centre of Excellence, the Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre, $2.6 million for Geelong Region Job Connections, a new TradeStart office and hundreds and hundreds of jobs being created through the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund. Whether it is our peak national policy changes or whether it is locally on the ground in Corangamite, I am very proud of our government's efforts. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (16:58): I acknowledge the member for Corangamite, who has just completed her contribution as the chair of the Coalition Backbench Policy Committee on Social Services, and the passion and understanding that she has for this issue and for the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Welfare Payment Integrity) Bill 2016, which is before the House today. It is interesting just to reflect on some of the comments, and I do not want to repeat all of those very factual and evidence based comments that the member for Corangamite made. But I just want to put them in context and look at the welfare spend that government makes in terms of the overall budget.

The social service and welfare budget of the country accounts for 35 per cent of every dollar of spend that the Commonwealth government makes. Comparing with the rest of government, if I could show you on this graph, it is very clear that the substantive side of the social services and welfare budget makes the health budget, for example, pale into insignificance. It is a quantum almost three times as much as the payments that Treasury makes to the states, local governments and different things. It is a quantum nearly seven times as much as education and training. The social services budget is responsible for almost eight or nine times as much as regional infrastructure and development.

It is also interesting to reflect on why we are in this situation now and why we are putting in place what I think are very reasonable measures. Most Australians would understand that payments made through the welfare system are based on a concept of mutual obligation between the recipient and the taxpayer who funds it. It is not government that funds it—it is the taxpayers. The taxpayers fund payments that are rightly made to people who are less fortunate, and long may that be the case. But when payments that have been made are greater than they should have been, I think most reasonable Australians would consider, particularly given the circumstances that we have in respect of the budget—and I will go into that a bit further in a minute—that it is reasonable that the government, on behalf of the taxpayers who make those contributions, look to recover payments that have been made over and above what the recipient was entitled to receive.

Similarly, if you look at the budget between 2015-16 and 2018-19 and you look at savings and revenue measures that have either been blocked by those opposite or not supported by the Labor Party, the total is $13.4 billion, of which $7.1 billion in revenue or savings measures are in the social services portfolio. Spending that Labor says we must restore is $30.3 billion in the total budget, of which $3.7 billion is in the social services portfolio. Additional Labor spending proposals are $11.4 billion and $1 billion or thereabouts within the social services portfolio. In total, Labor's budget black hole, when it comes to the overall budget, is $46.9 billion, of which nearly $10 billion resides within the social services budget.

We have inherited a situation, if you will, akin to the bad tenants that trashed the joint. They trashed the rental unit and not only that, they locked the door. So when we came in to try and clean up the mess that the bad tenants left and the repairs that needed to be done, we were unable to get in. Those on the other side created the damage that has left us as a nation spending $1 billion every month in interest on the money that we owe. $700 million of that we owe overseas. We must repay $1 billion every month on our debt thanks to those opposite. Australians should never forget that. When we tried to bring in a range of different measures to clean up the mess that the bad tenants had left us with, they blocked it. They blocked it in the Senate with the support of the Greens and the crossbenchers.

That is why this bill is important. We have been unable to make those substantive changes that we proposed to make in respect of payments to people where we needed to reduce our level of spending. Balancing a budget is not only about revenue—it is also about spending. I think most Australians understand very, very clearly that we have had difficulty dealing with the Labor Party in respect of cleaning up the mess that they left us with.

We have before us today a measure to make sure that when payments have been made over and above what was entitled to be received by somebody on child support or other payments made through the social services budget, the government has the capacity to recover those debts. As the member for Corangamite before me highlighted, this will not be done in a way that compromises people's lives and the standard of living that they enjoy. They will be able to enter into repayment plans with the department to make those payments in modest ways. It has happened on many occasions that a recipient who owes the taxpayers of Australia outstanding debts has effectively been stopped from travelling overseas until they have repaid their debt. I do not know that most Australians think that is unreasonable.

There are exceptions based on humanitarian grounds—for example, where somebody wants to visit overseas in the case of a relative who is deceased. Of course there are those exemptions. But it is not reasonable, when the taxpayers of Australia are owed a debt, that somebody is going overseas to lie on a beach in Bali. I think most Australians would understand that.

The second component of this bill before us today looks at the amendments to remove the current six-year statute of limitations to recover social welfare debts that would otherwise be non-recoverable. This aligns the treatment of social welfare debts with other arrangements in other Commonwealth agencies. Just by way of practical example—and I note those people in the gallery there—if you have a debt to the Australian Taxation Office, they will come after you and they will seek you. They have the capacity over—

Mr Whiteley: They know where you live.

Mr HUTCHINSON: They know where you live. That is quite right, the member for Braddon. They will come after you. And there is no statute of limitations there for the Australian Taxation Office to—rightly again—recover that taxable income. This is quite simple. Those on the other side seem to forget this: governments do not have money. Government only have money that has been raised in revenue from taxpayers, be that individuals or be that businesses. It is right, and it is proper.

In the measure before us, in respect of debt recovery—and the member for Corangamite touched on this—what has restricted the capacity of the Department of Social Services to recover the outstanding debt has been a six-year statute of limitations on those debts. To put it in perspective, the average social welfare debt is a quantum of only $2,357 per person. The average length of debt is just over three years. But there are outstanding debts which are over 30 years old. The greatest amount of debt is in excess of $300,000. An appropriate repayment plan is something that I think is not unjustified at all and something that I think most Australians would consider reasonable and fair. The proposal here is to remove that current six-year statute of limitations on the ability of the Department of Social Services to recover those outstanding debts, in line with similar agencies, such as the Australian Taxation Office. It is not something that I think most Australians would consider unreasonable.

It is important to understand that those on the other side, in six years of government, in six years of trashing our economy, trashing the budget, leaving this nation with a legacy that we have had to deal with—and deal with it we will, albeit with no help from those opposite—did nothing. They did nothing in any constructive way to try to recover these outstanding debts that are owed to the taxpayers of Australia. So they sit there. But this is the lot that we have. As I described before, we have come in to clean up the mess that the bad tenants left us.

I mentioned that at the end of June 2015 there were over one million individual debts, with a total value of $3 billion. These debts have increased by almost 10 per cent. The issue that I described earlier, in respect of the statute of limitations, is that people effectively go dark. They go underground. I did not realise that this was something that occurred. How on earth do you get away, with your credit cards and different things that we have in this day and age, with that situation? It probably says something about what a great country this is—that you can actually survive and you can live in a cash economy out there. You go dark for six years, and as it stands at the moment—

Mr Whiteley: The Labor Party went dark for six years!

Mr HUTCHINSON: Indeed. They left this country in a very dark place. But how good it is to see that now small business confidence in this country is returning, particularly in my state of Tasmania.

With the introduction of these amendments that we see before the House today, there is the opportunity for the Commonwealth to recover those debts after a period of six years. There has been a lot of success, particularly in respect of not allowing people without genuine reasons and humanitarian reasons from being able to travel overseas. So the measures that are before the House, in respect of that part of the legislation, have been shown to work. The second component, as I have just mentioned, is removing that six-year statute of limitations on the recovery of debt. On that note, I finish my contribution and I commend this bill to the House.

Mr WHITELEY (Braddon—Government Whip) (17:12): Thank you to my good friend and colleague from one of the other Tasmanian seats, the seat of Lyons, for warming of the crowd. I would like to thank Mr Hutchinson for that. It is a great opportunity to take the stage after him, because he made some very valid points. This man, who represents the seat of Lyons exceptionally well, fully understands—like every other member on this side of the House—that we have a job in front of us. We have a big job in front of us. We have been trying to do that job for 2½ years. God willing, and with the support of the Australian people, we will continue to do it for another three and a bit years.

The member who just concluded his contribution very clearly articulated the state of the nation's finances, so I do not necessarily need to go over that ground, other than to say that he is spot on. We have, on this side of the House, since our election in September 2013, been trying to do everything we possibly can to get this country's finances under control. 'Under control' is very simple in its methodology. It means that you spend less than you earn. It is a pretty easy principle for every Australian to understand: you spend less than you earn. We have all been brought up that way, I would hope. And we all understand the ramifications, should we enter into a lifestyle that continually leads to spending more than we earn, because we end up with big debts that we cannot pay and that cost interest that is then taken out of our disposable income, which leaves us with less money to spend on food, in a family sense, or less money to spend on health, education or infrastructure, in a governmental sense.

It is pretty well standard accounting practice that you try very hard to spend less than you earn. But that was not the case with the previous government, and the ramifications were left to us to fix up. As I often say, every morning when the alarm clock goes off we still find ourselves having to spend $100 million more than we earn. That will go on tomorrow and the day after and the day after, until such time as a credible government—a government that is hell-bent on living out that model of lifestyle of spending less than you earn—gets it under control. We have worked exceptionally hard, up against some very strong headwinds by those opposite, to try to find ways to bring about budget constraint and to try to find ways to bring the budget closer and closer to a surplus position.

It may be of interest to those listening to know that the welfare bill in this country now exceeds $150 billion—

Mr Simpkins: Per year.

Mr WHITELEY: Thank you, Member for Cowan—per year. That is what we spend on welfare. That includes the disability pension, the age pension, Newstart, youth allowance and so on and so forth. I think it is fair to say, and I am sure everyone would agree, that Australians are very generally fair-minded. They generally work hard for their income. They pay their tax—all of us with a degree of hesitation—in the full knowledge that part of the hard-earned money we pay tax on will go to provide a safety net for those Australians who, from time to time—or in some cases, in perpetuity—find that they need our help; they need a safety net. We provide welfare provisions to those people.

Every fair-minded Australian has no issue with providing a safety net. Where I think they leave the train on this matter is when they see a safety net for some become a trampoline. They do not like that. They do not like their hard-earned taxes being abused or used or taken for granted. They like to know that their hard-earned taxes are being put to work fairly and in proportion to need. That brings me to the point of this bill.

I congratulate the Minister for Social Services, Mr Porter, and those who have gone before him in this portfolio role for their work. It is a tough gig to be Minister for Social Services, with a welfare bill of over $150 billion every year. Another point that I forgot to mention is that, when you walk down your local main street in your community, of the 10 taxpaying individuals that you come across, the taxes of the first eight that you meet are going to meet the welfare bill of this nation. That is eight out of every 10 payers of personal income tax. That is a fact that should not be missed on anyone. So I do understand the pressures in this portfolio area and I thank the minister for his ongoing tenacity in trying to find ways to maintain the safety net, to maintain the fairness but, at the same time within his budget, to find those areas where we can claw back some of the funds that hardworking taxpayers are paying.

In this case, this one is an absolute monte. To cut to the chase, in this country you can owe money to the government because you have been overpaid—possibly for reasonable reasons or maybe not so reasonable reasons. You have been the beneficiary of the hard-earned money of taxpaying Australians, sometimes in the full knowledge that you did not really deserve it, but you have taken it anyway because you know you have not updated your information with Centrelink or you have not been quite transparent in the declaration of your income. I also accept that there are some people who find themselves to be making genuine mistakes, so let me put that on the record. But hardworking taxpayers across Australia do not expect for one minute people to be recipients of their hard work in the full knowledge that they are receiving money they should not be receiving. Then, to make matters worse, they find out that the government agency that is the mediator of the provision of that money to these people fails to go after that money and, up against the legislation it works with, after six years basically forgets that it ever existed.

The numbers presented to this chamber a few moments ago by my fellow amigo, from the seat of Lyons, are very startling figures. Why is it that we have a situation where someone can do the wrong thing—or not do the wrong thing, but, irrespective, find themselves owing the country, the government, money that no longer has to be collected? It just falls off the end of a cliff somewhere and people wake up one day and say, 'How lucky are we? The government has lost its passion to follow the pursuit of that debt,' and we just say: 'It's all okay, brother and sister. Don't worry about it. We are not fussed.' On behalf the hardworking taxpayers of Australia, that is not what they expect their taxes to do.

This bill provides two measures which strengthen the capacity of the agency and the government to recover social welfare and family payment debts—and I stress the word 'debts'. It amends legislation to allow for the use of departure prohibition orders to prevent targeted social welfare debtors from leaving the country. There are some conditions around that, which I will come to if I have time. These are the same rules, I hasten to add, that already exist for debts in child support. Every man and woman in this place would stand behind the fact that, if someone owes child support, they should pay it. The legislation around child support does allow the capacity to actually chase debt and prevent people from leaving the country if in fact they still owe child support money.

The second amendment to the piece of legislation we are talking about is to remove the current six-year limitation on the recovery of social welfare debt, which, otherwise, would be non-recoverable. It aligns the treatment of social welfare debt with the recovery arrangements in place for other Commonwealth agencies. I am not sure who the goose was who suggested it some time ago. Whether it was on this side of House or the other, I do not really care. It was not a very smart move to suggest that, after six years, people could just fall off the end of the cliff and we would not care anymore. To use the previous speaker's language, you could 'go dark'. Hardworking taxpayers have willingly stepped up to the plate to provide a safety net to the vulnerable, only to have it smacked back in their face.

I think this is a tremendous rearrangement of this legislation. It is a very positive amendment that hardworking taxpayers in Australia would have expected we would have done years ago. A debt to the Commonwealth can occur, as I said a moment ago, under differing circumstances, sometimes intentional and sometimes unintentional, but, irrespective of the motive, the money is owed. I hasten to add that sometimes I unintentionally accrue too much of an electricity bill in my household. Sometimes it is intentional, sometimes it is unintentional, but, at the end of the day, the bill comes. The last time I checked, they still wanted their money and, if I did not pay the bill, I suspect I would end up with a big sticker or, worse still, I would go to turn my lights on one night and they would not work. It is a principle of life that, if you owe money, you pay it back.

The average value of social welfare debt is $2,357. You might say, 'Gee, member for Braddon, that is not a lot of money.' The average length of debt is within the six-year limitation period—it is just over three years. The oldest outstanding debt, according to the records, is over 30 years old, and the greatest amount of debt is in excess of $300,000. At the end of June—this is a really important figure—there were over one million debts with a value of $3.04 billion. That is $3,000 million of hardworking Australian taxpayers' money. I am not, for one moment, going to stand here and justify why we should not go after that money, particularly when these hardworking taxpayers are doing everything they can to support their families.

These prohibition orders are an obvious place to start. Why should those who are providing the hard-earned taxpayers' money to provide for welfare have to save up for years and years to go on a family holiday when someone can leave the country tomorrow to sit on a beach and read a book in Honolulu owing $10,000, for example, to Centrelink and the Australian government? This is common sense. This is absolute common sense. Yes, it is carrot and stick—I accept that—but, at the end of the day, why should someone be able to leave this country when they have sufficient enough funds to go on a holiday but still owe money to the government?

Very quickly, in the one minute I have left, I want to assure people that, where there are hardship issues, the government has not failed them. The government has taken those into consideration within this bill. If there are extreme cases and hardship cases—if someone does not have money and, for example, they are being lent money by other members of the family to go to someone's funeral, and so on and so forth—these prohibition orders can be lifted for that period of time. The Commonwealth also reserves the right to hold onto a bond of some description to make sure that people are not leaving the country and not returning.

I cannot think of a fairer piece of legislation. It takes into account genuine cases of hardship. We are not going to stop someone from attending a family event such as a funeral, even if they do owe money, but we want to ensure that we are very good stewards of the hardworking, taxpaying men and women of Australia who every week see their taxes provide a safety net. Let's make sure that they maintain their faith in that system. This amendment allows for that. (Time expired)

Mr LAUNDY (Reid—Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (17:27): I rise to add my voice to those who, like my good friend from Tasmania, Mr Whiteley, have spoken before me in support of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Welfare Payment Integrity) Bill 2016, which Minister Porter has introduced into the House. I will pick up on something that Mr Whiteley mentioned: the fact that we are talking about taxpayers' dollars here. I have said many times prior to coming to this place that there are a lot of things that my father has always said to me—I spent 23 years working for my father—and they will stay with me for life. When I leave here, I will go back to work for him. One of them is: 'If you watch the pennies, the pounds look after themselves.'

Minister Porter oversees a budget that sits at around $147 billion today and that is forecast over the forward estimates to rise to a tick under $190 billion. We are talking here about $3 billion, but we are talking about taxpayers' money and we are talking about a principle. I have been in this place for 2½ years and the thing that has surprised me more than anything else is the mindset of people in response to spending taxpayers' money. I do not know whether it is—as the minister for agriculture alluded to in question time today—because not a lot of people currently in this place have a background in business. After being elected and coming here, I joined the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. For 2½ years I have in week after week of sitting weeks listened to reports from the Auditor-General of this country on programs delivered across a wide range of topics, including the Early Years Quality Fund where $300 million went out the door in about three hours to a team that had worked on the compilation of the policy. One of the department officials said that in his 23 years in working for the department he had never seen a 'first in, best dressed' tender system design. The department strongly advised the former government against it, but they went ahead with it and we ended up with a debacle—$300 million out the door.

The problem with this mindset is that it is not just at the politician level. The risk we run when dealing with taxpayers' money is that the mindset will permeate down through departments. One of my favourite examples is that, in inquiring into the management of the disposal of specialist military equipment, we had a situation where we agreed to sell six aircraft refuellers to a foreign company for $10.5 million. There was just one problem, and it was pretty major: no-one did any due diligence on the company's ability to pay the cheque. After the company had agreed to buy them, we then worked out there was a delay in getting the replacement aircraft refuellers. So over the next seven to eight years, in a tale of woe, it ended up that the company at one stage—I underlined this at the time and I will today—offered a contra to paying the money back because of the defence capability gap that had been created. The Department of Defence saw this approach as potentially supplementing their budget by obtaining some $6.2 million in services. That was in lieu of the money they were owed by the purchaser of the aircraft. Cash received would have had to be returned to consolidated revenue rather than retained by Defence.

It is this mindset that has to change. The risk we run in not making the changes that are enshrined in this legislation is not only that we will be allowing this mindset to continue inside government and bureaucracy but also that it will permeate large parts of our community. The risk we run is that people will say, 'We don't need to pay back government.'

The quantum is, to be brutally honest, staggering. As at the end of 2014-15 there were 36,834 debts worth $131.2 million that were due that year to reach their expiry date. So there is another $131.2 million that would have been written off. The total as of June 2015 of loans in this category was $3.04 billion. You are talking about big bickies. 54,200 debts worth $166.81 million have already reached their expiry dates, so they cannot be recovered. They are out the door. A further 4,595 debts worth $12.96 million were permanently written off over the 2014-15 financial year due to the statute of limitations, which is the six years that my friend from Tasmania so eloquently mentioned.

What are we doing here? We are doing what is right. We always default to 'the government', but it is not that the people involved in this owe the government this money. They owe the taxpayer this money. This money was given to them in a time of need. That is the social compact. I get that. But if you incur debt then you should pay it back. If it is good enough to receive from the taxpayer, it should be good enough to give back what you owe.

This bill contains two measures which will strengthen our capacity to recover social welfare and family payment debt. The amendments allow for the use of the partial prohibition orders to prevent targeted social welfare debtors from leaving the country. But there is a safety net in that. There is the ability for those people to make an application for reasons such as family ill health. It will be viewed empathetically and sympathetically at the time if so needed. That is fair. If you owe money to the Australian taxpayer—I want to keep saying that: it is not the government; it is the Australian taxpayer—and you have the funds to head off on an overseas trip for no good reason I think it only fair that you use those funds to pay back your debt to the taxpayer who funded your life in your time of need. The second amendment is to remove the current six-year limitation mentioned in the figures before.

Year by year we have more money falling off the cliff into that $3 billion abyss that we are talking about. A debt to the Commonwealth is obviously incurred when a welfare recipient receives an overpayment. That does happen. While the average value of that debt is $2,357 and the average length of time taken to pay that debt is just over three years, we have instances where the oldest debt is 30 years old and the amount is in excess of $300,000. These are situations that quite clearly need to be fixed. Of the debt base that we are talking about, approximately $870 million is held by around 270,000 former recipients who do not make sufficient or regular payments.

What the minister is doing here—and I note that he has joined us in the chamber—is bringing this system in line with how other parts of government operate, most notably the taxation system. As the member for Lyons so eloquently put it, try avoiding paying money that you owe the Australian Taxation Office. In his traditional Taswegian way he explained, all so subtly, that, 'They know where you live.' I can tell you, firsthand, from employing people whose wages were subject to garnishing that they are the first to line up for their money. I think it only fair that the Minister for Social Services has the exact same ability but, more importantly, defaulting to the position that the Minister for Social Services is recouping the money that the taxpayer has paid. Some debtors deliberately avoid their obligation to repay their debts to the Commonwealth by not entering into acceptable repayment arrangements and in extreme cases they head overseas, beyond our reach. This is why the changes made to the travel order are just so important, with the exception of the compassionate clause that if application is made for reasons that are deemed appropriate then that travel will still be allowed.

As I said at the start of this contribution, if it is good enough for the welfare recipient to receive welfare in a time of need—as it should be and as is our social compact—then it is good enough for that welfare recipient, who is off welfare at the time, if owning money to the Australian taxpayer, to pay it back. I said at the start, my father has always said to me, 'If you watch the pennies, the pounds will look after themselves.' We are talking about $3 billion in a budget that comprises almost half of the Minister for Social Services $147 billion this year on its way to a tick under $190 billion at the end of the forward estimates. Is it a big amount in the grand scheme of the minister's overall budget? No, but it is the right thing to do because, not only does it bring it into line with the way other parts of the government function, but it also sends a strong message to the taxpayers of Australia that this government will always be responsible with the way that, not only it spends its money, but also, if money is owed, the way that is goes about recouping it on behalf of the taxpayer so that it can be spent in ways that we deem completely appropriate.

I commend the minister for, as he has done in his time in this portfolio, introducing sensible, common-sense legislation that, not only looks after the taxpayers of Australia, but also allows us, if recouped, to either use the money to decrease our existing deficits or to use it in a more suitable fashion. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (17:40): I thank all of the members for their contribution, including members opposite. I might just make one brief comment before giving the more technical summary of the bill before us, which is the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Welfare Payment Integrity) Bill 2016. The brief comment is in respect to a contribution from one of the members opposite, the member for Kingston, who said—I think this is a direct quote—that the Turnbull government 'demonises' people who rely on social security to get by. I must say that in general terms I think that is an inaccurate and most unfair criticism, particularly with respect to this bill. It cannot possibly be an accurate or fair depiction of the measures in this bill, or the way in which the measures in this bill have been advocated, or any possible or reasonable inference that could be drawn from this bill because this bill applies to former recipients of social security and family payments. The very point of this bill is that it seeks to recoup monies that were once paid to people who were once in the welfare system but who have, laudably, come out of the welfare system and become self-sufficient through pay as you earn employment or some other form of endeavour, but who have come out of the system with a debt.

The notion that somehow this is in the bill or that the Turnbull government in any way demonises people who are on social security or who find social security necessary from time to time to get by is inaccurate. As far as such a criticism relates to this bill, it is far off the mark because the very point of this bill is to look at proper and appropriate processes to apply to debts held by former recipients of social security and family payments. Indeed, part of the purpose of doing that is to ensure that the future payments inside the social security and family payment system are sustainable.

People who have accrued a social security or a family payment debt and are currently in receipt of payment have a portion of their payment withheld until their debt is repaid. That is the rule of thumb for those people who are inside the welfare system. However, there is no such option available, naturally enough, to the government to recover debts once the person has left the payment system. The whole point of this legislation is to ensure that the same rules apply to debtors who are outside the payment system, that is outside the welfare system,—and they are arguably in a better position to repay their debt in any event—as to those who are inside the system, who regularly have their payments reduced until their debt has been repaid.

I might also make the point that, had the previous Labor government, when in office, acted during their time in government to recover these debts and do more to exact more stringency and more robustness in the process to recover these debts, then we would not be in the unenviable situation that we find ourselves in today with over one million debts totalling $3.04 billion. Of that debt base, approximately $870 million is held by around 270,000 former recipients who do not make sufficient or regular repayments.

This bill introduces the legislative amendments to allow the use of departure prohibition orders to prevent targeted social welfare debtors from leaving the country, as the system currently applies to child support and taxation debtors. The bill also removes the current 6-year limitation on the recovery of social welfare debt that would otherwise be non-recoverable, aligning the treatment of social welfare debt with the recovery arrangements in place for other Commonwealth agencies. With specific respect to departure prohibition orders, the government firmly considers, as was noted by the member for Reid, that it is not appropriate for an individual to travel overseas when they have the means to fund that travel but have not yet set up any arrangement to repay their outstanding debt to the Commonwealth. The new legislation proposes that the secretary may make a departure prohibition order, prohibiting a person from departing Australia for a foreign country, if the person has one or more debts to the Commonwealth and there are no arrangements satisfactory to the secretary for one or more of the debts to be wholly repaid. That is consistent with the treatment of people with child support and tax debts.

The government is of course mindful of the multiple reasons why people may be required to travel overseas from time to time, and so procedures were put in place to allow for people subject to a departure prohibition order to travel overseas in certain circumstances. So there is a discretionary safety valve here. Departure authorisation certificates might also be granted on humanitarian grounds or where the person's travel may be in Australia's best interests. It is further important to note that people who owe a debt or debts to the Commonwealth and are honouring their repayment arrangements will not be issued with a departure prohibition order.

With respect to the second measure—that is, the limitation of the debt recovery period—the government considers that, where there are debts owed to the Commonwealth, these debts should be recovered wherever possible and they should not be time limited and thereby bound by arbitrary time lines. The government is therefore introducing an amendment to allow for the pursuit and recovery of debts, similar to arrangements for the recovery of taxation debts. This will increase the Department of Human Services' capacity to recover outstanding debts. The measure requires the government to remove the current limitation on the recovery of debt where recovery action has not been undertaken in the preceding six years.

Social welfare debtors generally have more than one debt. Given the resources that social welfare recipients have to repay debts, debts are generally paid off one at a time over an extended period. It is possible in such circumstances for some of an individual's debts to reach the six-year limitation before recovery can be actioned. Individual debts to the Commonwealth form an increasing asset base that continues to impose very significant financial costs on the community, and these are critical financial resources that the government could use to support other priorities for the Australian community. Indeed, one of those priorities is to sustain, and make sustainable, the entire welfare system.

The enhanced welfare payment integrity expanded debt-recovery measures will also better enable the Department of Human Services to recover debts from current and ex-recipients of social security and family assistance payments. The measures provide additional funds to expand Centrelink's debt recovery operations and capacity to utilise the full extent of powers contained within existing legislation for pursuing the recovery of debts. These include pursuing an additional 1,500 high-value debt cases relating to ex-recipients who have been identified as having the capacity to repay the debt; increasing negotiated repayment arrangements with ex-recipients by 8,000 per month; negotiating higher repayments from ex-recipients currently making debt repayments but identified as having the capacity to pay more; and targeting current recipients who are on a partial rate of payment due to employment income so that they are in repayment arrangements suitable to their circumstances.

The government will also, of course, continue to focus on protecting the integrity of the welfare system. The enhanced welfare payment integrity expanding debt-recovery measure is estimated to achieve net underlying cash savings of $157.8 million over the forward estimates.

I consider that these sensible measures will resonate with the taxpayers of Australia, who know that in everyday life the need to manage a household budget often includes managing the repayment of debts.

This bill, in conjunction with the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Interest Charge) Bill 2016, provides a suite of measures that strengthen the government's ability to recover debts from former social welfare and family payment recipients. The government is of the view that people who owe money to the Commonwealth should be required to pay that money back before heading overseas on holiday or departing Australia permanently. The government also considers that the law as it stands, which allows people to repay their debts over time, is fair, but that it is not fair or equitable for other debts to remain unrecovered because they fall outside an arbitrary time limit. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (17:49): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (17:49): As the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources indicated in the second reading speech, the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016 makes legislative changes to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 which will allow the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to provide levy- and charge-payer information to rural research and development corporations for the purpose of developing levy-payer registers.

I begin my contribution by indicating that the opposition will be supporting this bill. It appears consistent with the findings of a number of parliamentary inquiries into the R&D levy system. But I will be raising, throughout of my contribution, some concerns we have about the lack of information and transparency. I think there are a number of questions left unanswered by the minister's second reading speech, the explanatory memorandum and other information we have been provided in the course of internal discussions on this legislation.

Because of the complex nature, in a sense, of the minister's contribution—and that is not a criticism; ministers in this place need to make straight-bat, direct second reading speeches—for those listening to this debate who do not understand those complexities because, arguably, they do not follow the agriculture and R&D levy system, I feel it is my duty to at least attempt to put what this bill seeks to do in plain English.

In this country, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, and as most people know, we have a world-class research and development system, a co-funded system which allows money raised from producers, growers and the like to be partly matched by government funding, further leveraging the money raised by levy payers, and then invested in the research and development system. It is a bit of a complex web, but, in the first instance, that money typically goes to agents and then, eventually, on to the department of agriculture as the holder of the money. It then makes its way to the research and development corporations. In this country we have five RDCs that are what we describe as a statutory bodies and I think nine that are best described as industry-owned bodies.

Up until the passage of this legislation, if it passes both houses of parliament, information about exactly who is paying what through the agents and to the agriculture department are not known to the people who spend the money—the research and develop corporations. This further exacerbates concern amongst many growers, producers and the like—fishers, foresters and the rest—over where their money is being spent. Obviously a number of producers, growers, pay more than one levy. Mixed farming operations will be paying a number of levies and even although those levies might be invested very wisely, because of the time lag and other reasons the producers often do not see the benefits of the levies. That is exacerbated when there is no real link between the RDC and the levy payer—in other words, the RDC does not have sufficient information about who and where the levy payer is.

Effectively, this bill will for the first time—although two commodity sectors, dairy and wool, have been able to do this for some time—allow all RDCs access to information about levy payers. It will allow them to access their name and address, their contact details and their Australian business number. At first glance that appears to be a good idea and the opposition is absolutely supportive of that concept. What concerns us, as I said, is that there are a few unanswered questions about how that information might be shared, and in particular, for example, how it might be shared by the peak industry bodies or councils. In this equation we have levy payers—producers, growers et cetera—we have agents collecting money, we have the department and we have the research bodies. For those who are not familiar with research bodies, I cite organisations like the Grains Research and Development Corporation or Meat and Livestock Australia. There are many more but I will not go through them all. They are the research bodies and in some cases the marketing bodies, and then of course there are the peak organisations—the Dairy Farmers' and Cattle Councils of the world; groups that often take membership fees and seek to represent and act as a voice for the industry.

I have questions about access to information by those peak industry bodies. The explanatory memorandum and the minister's second reading speech are quite vague about the protection of this information. I do acknowledge that the department secretary will be the arbiter in determining where this information is shared, if I understand it correctly, but I do note that the explanatory memorandum says that the release of data can be 'only permitted for specific uses which directly relate to improving consultation, voting systems and the operations of an RDC.' Even the use of the word 'and' I find confusing, uncertain and unclear in terms of definitions. These are very broad, sweeping statements. I am not suggesting they are not sufficient to give integrity to the new system that we require, but I am suggesting it is appropriate for questions to be asked about those issues.

I also note, thanks to the explanatory memorandum, that there is an opt-out clause and that any levy payer who does not want their name, contact details or ABN provided can opt out of the system but I cannot see any reference to how a farmer goes about opting out of the system—is it a simple phone call or do they have to go online to fill out a form or do they make three phone calls or do they have to write an essay? I do not know but it sounds to me as though there is the potential for there to be a red tape burden on a farmer, but I am concerned even more that a farmer is unlikely to know that he or she has the opportunity to opt out of the system. We would like to have these questions and others tested by the relevant Senate legislation committee to ensure that this legislation is robust and that our normal expectations about privacy are guaranteed, notwithstanding some of the guarantees made in the explanatory memorandum and I think potentially in the minister's second reading speech. We want some answers, and particularly we would like to get the secretary's views about the circumstances in which he would, for example, allow the MLA to share information with the Cattle Council. What would his interpretation be of the words in the explanatory memorandum around the criteria for the release of information? What would be his definition, for example, of directly relating to consultation, voting systems and the operations of an RDC? I think these are legitimate questions.

The opposition has no interest in holding up the bill, although the Senate seems to be doing a fair job of holding up bills itself. I notice we had a filibuster on the bill just before this debate because the government does not have enough ideas or policies to keep the House of Representatives going for the evening. The Senate is somewhat of a different proposition and it is likely to cause the government more problems than the opposition might in terms of delay, through the referral of the bill to a Senate committee.

We need to be sure that all the intentions of these changes are as stated and that there will not be an opportunity for levy payments to be misused, deliberately or otherwise, especially by peak industry bodies or councils, which might see an opportunity in using the information to promote their own views about the industry or to canvas other people's views or to run a political campaign. This information would be very powerful in the hands of a peak body, as it is something that has not been available to them before. It could dramatically change the dynamic of any particular sector and it might allow a peak body to advocate increases in levy charges directly to levy payers. These are legitimate questions and we will be seeking to have them answered in the Senate. I am sure that the secretary of the department will be able to help us out in that regard.

There are many facets to the research and development efforts in agriculture. As I said, it is a world-class system, but it is a system that can always be improved. I have previously talked about one RDC, the Grains Research and Development Corporation, using money beyond its statutory remit—money collected for certain purposes but used for other purposes. I have said before that Grains Research and Development Corporation is sponsoring conferences and paying for Alan Jones to go out on roadshows to talk to growers and the like. I cannot for the life of me see how that falls into the responsibilities of the Grains Research and Development Corporation.

The GRDC is a statutory corporation, an arm of the government, which collects and spends about $170 million of farmers 'income in any given year. We in this place, including the minister, should be making sure that that money is appropriately spent and well spent. As a statutory corporation, the GRDC has no marketing role—not without specific authority to do so and not without raising a specific marketing levy. The minister's silence on this issue has been deafening. I have called upon him on a number of occasions to haul the chair of the GRDC in to ask questions about the way levy money is being spent, but the minister has simply refused to do so. Of course, he might have chosen to do so privately, but he has not shared that information with me or the broader community. What the broader community and levy payers are entitled to know is not necessarily whether the minister has had that conversation, but whether the minister has secured some answers and outcomes. They are also entitled to know whether the minister is prepared to make some pronouncements, which might put the minds of levy payers at rest. Levy payers might then be assured that the substantial money they pay for research and development is being spent for those purposes. If you were to knock on the door of any grower around the country and ask them whether they believed an Alan Jones panel discussion in Toowoomba or anywhere else was value for money I am very confident that they would say. 'No.' I do note that on at least two of those panel discussions with Alan Jones conservative politicians have taken to the stage. I have asked Minister Joyce for a guarantee that he himself would not be taking the stage at future GRDC Alan Jones roadshows. He has not been prepared to give me an answer or a guarantee, although I do note that he has not appeared yet and so I suspect that, having belled the cat, he is not so unwise as to turn up to one of those events.

I also note that the crowds have not been particularly strong at these Alan Jones roadshows and again that underpins my concern that hard-earned grower money is being frittered away on sponsorships, roadshows commercials, et cetera, which in no way assist much-needed R&D efforts. R&D is too important to be treated in this way and money for R&D is too hard to get to be wasted on roadshows and the like. We know in Australian agriculture productivity has been flat lined for some time now, and our R&D, innovation and extension efforts will be critical in turning that around.

The government said before the election that it was going to spend some $100 million in addition to the current spend on R&D—$100 million over four years. We welcomed that pronouncement, but what the government did not tell us at the time was that it also proposed to cut money from one RDC, the rural industries RDC—it never explained why this but no other one—and further substantial cuts to the CSIRO and a number of CRCs. Indeed, the cuts imposed elsewhere on agriculture are greater than the $100 million additional being spent on other RDCs. In round 1 some $26.7 million was spent, while not one cent has been spent in round 2, which has been out there for some time. I will make a prediction that some of the money in round 2 will be announced prior to the election, whenever that might be—sometime in the not too distant future, I suspect. The equation is a simple one: more than $100 million has been taken out of R&D areas affecting agriculture and, of the $100 million put back in on the other side of the equation, only $26.7 million will be allocated over four years. It is no longer $100 million over four years; it is $26.7 million over four years. It will not be spent before the election, no matter when they announce it. That is a substantial loss to the industries. Given those cutbacks, the minister needs to ensure that the reduced money is being spent effectively.

There is more to this, of course, because we know that the minister is still determined, I am told, to move the RDCs out of Canberra and into regional areas. I will not dwell on this for too long because I have laboured it before, but, basically, despite their names, research and development corporations do not undertake research. They do not undertake research; they take levy payers' money from the department and make decisions about where that research should be spent. That is where this new database is important, because now they can communicate directly with those who pay the levy. That will no doubt assist RDCs in setting their research priorities. This idea proffered by the minister that we need to get the RDCs out closer to the growers and the producers is a fiction. They do not need to be out closer to the growers and the produces. They do need to be situated where they are efficient and, of course, they do need to be able to retain professional staff. Moving them out of Canberra is not going to help that effort. Indeed, they are likely to lose good staff. The transition out of Canberra to various regional areas is going to cost substantially. Part of that cost will be very significant redundancy payments, which, of course, is less money available to spend on agriculture research and development.

I will just briefly touch on the APVMA. It is not necessarily directly related to this bill, but the APVMA is another Canberra based organisation, or regulator, critical to the future of agriculture in this country. The relocation—the forced move—of the APVMA, outrageously to the minister's own electorate in Armidale, is nothing more than a pork-barrelling exercise which is going to dramatically impact on agriculture. Agriculture needs the regulator to push through the process for those crop protection chemicals and other products as quickly as possible. The APVMA move is going to cause a dramatic loss of professional staff, scientists and the like. Again, there will be redundancy costs, because those scientists and professionals, with their kids in school in Canberra, are simply not going to be prepared to move to Armidale. The APVMA's customers are not farmers; they are the chemical companies—often multinational chemical companies—based in here or in other capital cities. They are not going to be very happy, I am sure, about the prospect of getting a once-a-day, or whatever it is, plane to Armidale every time they need to talk to the APVMA.

I just want to go back to GRDC because it is linked to the concerns I have raised about this bill and the questions that we want to test in the Senate committee. In my view, when the GRDC starts spending money outside its remit, it lowers trust in the grower community. I am sure plenty of growers out there have less trust, or less confidence, in the GRDC today than it did before it started the Alan Jones roadshow. So that undermines confidence. On that basis, we need to be able to test these questions in the Senate. Of course, we will be doing so on behalf of those growers who pay those levies.

The other point is: this is a minister, in a sense, asking us to take him on trust. This is the same minister that doctored his Hansard, misled the House on the Hansard and is now fighting at every opportunity to stop us procuring under FOI documents that go to both the circumstances in which that Hansard was changed and the circumstances in which a very good departmental secretary, in the name of Dr Grimes, was sacked from his position. So this is not a minister we take on trust. These are not necessarily changes that we take on trust for very good reason, and we will be testing them through the Senate process.

I saw the minister's media release on this change in this bill. It was a reasonable explanation about what this bill seeks to do, but let us not get too carried away with what it achieves. It is a step in the right direction. It is one which we will support if our answers are provided. There are two reports relevant to this bill from the Senate, neither of which have been properly responded to by this government. In particular, the report specific to the R&D system has not been responded to by this minister. The cattle transaction levy inquiry, so promoted by the minister during the last election campaign, has been done and dusted, but it has still not been specifically responded to—I should not say 'not specifically responded to'; not adequately responded to by the minister. It is always very easy from opposition to make promises to the beef industry, the cattlemen, but the minister has found out it is not so easy in government. I will be asking Labor senators on the committee to test any relationship between what the minister was trying to do but was unable to do when, pre-election, he was promising new arrangements in the beef industry and this bill. I will be interested to see what departmental officials have to say about that.

There are many things that the minister could be doing for this sector that he is not doing. We saw a white paper that was failed white paper, lacking any strategic narrative. We hear lots about dams which we know have either already started or will never come to fruition. Today, the minister was boasting that the government was going to change section 46 of the Trade Practices Act. I know that that will be popular in some rural seats. I know that members on the other side will be out there exploiting it, but this is bad policy. We know it is bad policy. The Treasurer knows—

Mr Neumann: A lawyers' picnic.

Mr FITZGIBBON: A lawyers' picnic, my colleague suggests—and I think that is true. We know that the Assistant Treasurer and, indeed, the Treasurer are longstanding opponents of this change to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act, but, for some reason, it seems that the Prime Minister has decided to roll all of them and go with what he believes is the most popular thing to do out there in some rural and regional seats where the government is under substantial pressure a short time before an election.

Section 46 has been studied to death in this place. I have been here 20 years and I have been involved in a number of inquiries into section 46. Section 46 is there for the interests of consumers and it does that by promoting and protecting competition. At the moment a firm with a substantial degree of market power that misuses that market power to the detriment of a competitor—obviously, more often it is a smaller competitor—is guilty of a breach of section 46.

Under the current law someone needs to prove that the big firm intentionally set out to misuse that market power to the detriment of the smaller player. I acknowledge that that hurdle has been quite a high one in a number of court cases. But this sledgehammer approach will have a chilling impact on competition in the market. Larger firms will not be game to take a step to the left or to the right, or to take a step forward, for fear that someone might find that it had the effect of taking out a competitor. But what is good for a consumer is plenty of competition. We need competition in the market. It may be that, in some circumstances, the loss of someone from a market is a good thing, if they are not competitive. That is what competition in markets is all about. The fact that someone drops out of a market is not, in itself, proof that someone has misused market power. So, rightly, we have had to test it before the courts. This change is, if you like, a complete reversal of that onus, and one which will, in my view, have a chilling effect on the market.

Mr Taylor interjecting—

Mr FITZGIBBON: I can hear the assistant minister at the table groaning a little. I acknowledge that he knows a little bit about these things. But I would be very surprised if he agreed with every word that I am saying. I will pose a question to him in case he speaks next on this bill. Given the minister's rhetoric, how many plumbers, electricians and other tradesmen or farmers in his electorate will now be going to the ACCC seeking a victory in the courts under the new section 46 of the trade practices act?

Mr Taylor interjecting—

Mr FITZGIBBON: Where it will have a chilling effect is in medium-sized companies, with maybe 100 employees, that take action against a larger player who made a smart move in the market which had the effect of adversely impacting on the medium-sized firm. The court will have no choice, given that there was an adverse impact, but to find that the bigger firm had a deliberate intention of injuring that medium player in some way. That is not good law, Minister, and you know it is not good law. If you were very honest, you would jump to your feet at the first opportunity.

I can see the member for Hughes at the back of the chamber. He was challenged in an earlier speech to mention section 46, because the member for Hughes has been on the record more than once opposing these changes to section 46. Maybe he will have another opportunity to rise to his feet on this bill—we will give him leave, if he needs it—to explain his position on section 46. He joins the Assistant Treasurer, I think the Treasurer and many others on that front bench who have been railing against this change to section 46 all of their political lives, but who are now not even prepared to stand in this place and talk about it. It is a damning indictment on all of them. That is the truth of it.

Those opposite say they are standing up for rural and regional Australia and small business people, but we know it is not about that. It is about saving the Prime Minister's backside. That is what it is all about. They have done a strategic plan. They have said: 'We are going to look silly in the big end of town. The business community will come down on us, but at this point in the electoral cycle what matters is how this plays out in certain rural and regional seats.' That is all that matters: how this plays out in certain rural and regional seats. That is exactly what this is all about, and they will be found out eventually.

The minister was on television today saying, 'We fixed milk. People are only paying $1. We fixed that. We'—as if he did it—'exported milk to China and we got $11. So we fixed that.' In other words the minister thinks that Australians should be paying somewhere between $1 and $11. I am not sure which; he did not nominate the price. But there are two people at the table: the producers, who need a fair return, and the consumers, who expect a fair go. The real way to make sure that they are both winners is to have a productivity agenda, so that there is a win-win. But this government has no productivity agenda for agriculture.

Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (18:19): It is clear, by those comments that he just made, that the member for Hunter has never been a dairy farmer like me and been an absolute price taker in the marketplace. As someone who has been through this process, I would desperately have liked to have had access a number of years ago to the revised section 46 to assist my group of farmers in what we were trying to do.

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

Ms MARINO: I would remind the member for Hunter that I have been through that process with the ACCC. The process was particularly difficult. There were many breaches of what was then the trade practices act associated with that. So I speak from a position of experience of being an absolute price taker in the market, and focusing on consumers is a challenge when you are in that position in the marketplace.

It is important that we minimise the regulatory burden on our nation's farmers and food manufacturers. It is also vital that we maintain our reputation for producing high-quality, safe food that is the envy of the rest of the world. This is our greatest advantage in the international food marketplace. Australia's gross value of farm production is worth an estimated $48.7 billion a year, with an export value of farm commodities well over $30 billion a year. We export 60 per cent of what is grown in this country by some of the best farmers in the world.

There is no doubting the quality of Australia's food production. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said:

Australia has a worldwide reputation for producing superior quality, premium food. Australian food producers are committed to providing the highest international standards of quality management and food safety.

As a dairy farmer myself I can say that that is exactly the case in my industry. It is an industry that is focused, and has to be focused, on innovation. It is focused on increased productivity, often with less land, less water, less fertiliser and less profit. Agriculture keeps many rural and regional communities alive. Although the nation may no longer ride on the sheep's back, as we have heard historically, agriculture is still the lifeblood of the bulk of the Australian landmass. Australia's rural industries are among the most innovative and productive in the world. Continued investment in rural research and development is vital to ensure ongoing growth and improvement in the profitability and competitiveness of Australia's agriculture, fisheries, forestry and food sectors. In recognition of this, the Australian government works with industry to co-invest with the growers in research through our world-leading rural R&D system.

The RDCs were established under the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989 to provide research and development services or, as they are commonly known, research and extension services. They are vital to keep Australian primary producers at the forefront of industry around the world. Continuous innovation underpinned by pertinent—it has to be pertinent—and high-quality research is essential to maintaining competitive and profitable industries and maintaining the rural communities that depend on them right around Australia. There are 15 R&D corporations—five statutory and 10 industry owned—supporting a wide range of rural industries. Through them, primary producers invest in themselves and their future. They invest in research, development and extension. Like all industries, it is essential that the agricultural sector invests in its own future, as we have for many years. With the development of an RDC, the respective industry has the capacity to set up and collect a levy paid by its own members. Government helps this process by doing the collection and passing on the proceeds after, of course, recovering costs. To encourage producers to invest in their own productivity and to support the industries themselves, the government matches the corporations' eligible R&D up to legislated limits.

The national interest demands a healthy agricultural sector, and a healthy agricultural sector requires farmers to be both competitive and profitable. There are approximately 134,000 farm businesses in Australia, 99 per cent of which are Australian owned. Australian farmers produce almost 93 per cent of Australia's daily domestic food supply and export 60 per cent of what they produce. There are around 300,000 people directly employed in agriculture, and over 1.6 million people are employed in food and fibre production, processing, distribution and marketing. Farmers themselves contribute around $48.7 billion, or three per cent, of Australia's total gross domestic product. With the value-add, this comes to around 12 per cent of GDP—approximately $155 billion.

There is no doubt that farm profits have been squeezed in recent years. We have seen constant demands for farmers to become more efficient. Australian farmers have responded magnificently. They remain internationally competitive, often in one of the toughest environments to produce, if you look at Australia. They have done this through efficiencies and productivity growth. This has been strong relative to other sectors of the economy and comparable with other OECD countries. It had increased steadily over a 30-year period at 2.8 per cent, consistently outperforming other sectors to the point of doubling the rate of some other industries. Without this level of growth, the gross value of production in Australian agricultural sectors would be approximately $12 billion per annum rather than $40-odd billion. In recent times, agricultural productivity growth has slowed to one per cent per annum, further highlighting the need for research and development to ensure that the industry can continue to grow and develop, and, of course, those profits are received at the farm gate.

Rural industries are engaged with and firmly support the R&D corporation model. The development of levy-payer registers has been identified in a number of reviews and inquiries as important to the ongoing strength of Australia's rural R&D system. The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry into industry structures and systems governing the imposition of and disbursement of marketing and R&D levies in the agricultural sector recommended the imposition of and disbursement of marketing and R&D levies in the agricultural sector, legislative amendments to allow for the development of a levy-payer register, improving consultation with levy payers and ensuring the accurate allocation of voting entitlements.

The Agricultural competitiveness white paper identifies a number of measures aimed at improving Australia's world-leading rural R&D systems. These measures and the outcomes they seek to deliver, including new R&D priorities, improved governance of RDCs and increased funding for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, will benefit from timely improvements to consultation between RDCs and levy payers.

I also want to touch on a few organisations. I looked at the Cotton Research and Development Corporation. There are 1,250 growers and they are running 150 R&D projects. There is $20.6 million, between the government and the growers, available to five key priority areas: farmers, industry, customers, people and performance. This is just a snapshot, but they look at weeds and pests—there is critical R&D in weeds and pests—water and self-cooling cotton fabrics for the market. Around the priority area of people, there is rural leadership investment. Frequently, CSIRO is a researcher in this space, along with these organisations. I looked at what the Grains Research and Development Corporation were doing: meeting market requirements; improving crop yields; protecting farmers' crops; advancing profitable farming systems; building skills and capacity; rot resistance; fertiliser, fungal and viral R&D; adaptive practices; and climate change. Of course, again, researchers were from CSIRO.

As to MLA, I looked at the R&D on grass-fed cattle and grain-fed cattle, and on sheep and goats and their supply chain. And I looked of course at Dairy Australia. I am aware of what is happening with Western Dairy on the ground in R&D. But, equally, at a Dairy Australia level, the investment arm is returning a $3 benefit for every levy dollar raised from the farmers. They are investing in things such as farm margin improvements, animal performance and elite genetics, in herd fertility and in milk quality, in farm business management and in benchmarking between actual farm businesses. They are also investing in resource management; in the things that are really live issues for our dairy farmers: issues around nutrients, water, soil and energy; in industry natural resource management strategies; in on-farm emissions mitigation; and in water-use efficiency. These are the practical matters.

So the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016 makes legislative changes to the act which will allow the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources provide levy and charge payer—levy payer—information to the rural research and development corporations for the purpose of developing levy payer registers. As it stands, the act only permits the distribution of levy payer information to the wool and dairy RDCs. This bill remedies this by allowing the government to provide the levy payer information to the 13 other RDCs. Levy payer registers allow RDCs to identify and consult directly with the levy payers—the levy payers who actually fund the R&D system—and ensure accuracy in the allocation of voting entitlements. That is very important if you are the grower. Through greater levy payer engagement in their work, RDCs will be better able to align research investments to industry priorities, to improve returns to farmers, fishers and foresters, and to contribute to a more profitable, competitive and sustainable agricultural sector. The bill removes the legislative impediment to the development of levy payer registers.

However, recognising that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be appropriate, given the diversity of Australian agricultural industries, as we know well, the bill allows for the distribution of levy payer information to an RDC to occur only where an RDC, in consultation with industry, requests it and that request is approved by the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. The department would then work with the RDCs on the administrative design and development of a register. This is consistent with the government's approach to the broader R&D levy system where levies can be introduced or amended at the request of industry.

The bill allows an authorised person to provide levy payer contact information, and details of the levy paid or payable, to an eligible recipient. The bill defines an eligible recipient as an RDC or the Australian Bureau of Statistics; it is prescriptive in that form. This is consistent with the government's Public Data Policy Statement, which commits to securely—securely—sharing data between Australian Government entities to improve efficiencies, and inform policy development and decision making.

The bill also sets out the purposes for which the information provided to the eligible recipient can be used. This includes matters relating to the development and maintenance of the levy payer registers, the ability to make public any statistical, de-identified information, and any functions required of the recipient under Commonwealth laws or under a funding agreement between the RDC and the Commonwealth. The RDCs will also be able to use levy payer registers to allocate voting rights for industry polls more efficiently and accurately, without the need for paper based statutory declarations.

I will go back to where I started. The work of RDCs and the contribution of the growers, the farmers, to this, with the government, are critical for the future of the agricultural sector, and for the growers in particular, as well as for the industry as a whole. We need to not only maintain our international reputation as a clean and green producer of some of the highest-quality products and fibres in the world but also make sure that our farmers have sufficient profitable businesses to maintain the capacity to be effective in a constantly changing world.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (18:35): I rise today to speak on the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016. This bill makes it possible for rural research and development corporations or RDCs to identify and connect directly with the primary producers who fund their work.

My region is one of the largest and most diverse agricultural regions in the nation. It produces a wide range of fruits, vegetables and nuts, and beef, sugar, pork and dairy, just to name a few. Data from the 2015 ABARES report for the Wide Bay region—which takes in the five local government areas of Bundaberg, Fraser Coast, Gympie, North Burnett and South Burnett—states that, in 2012-13, the gross value of agricultural production in Wide Bay was $1 billion, or 10 per cent of the total agricultural production in Queensland. Of that $1 billion, vegetables contributed 23 per cent or $239 million, with the major crops being tomatoes at $90 million, potatoes at $25 million, and beans at $20 million. In 2012-13, the Wide Bay region accounted for almost 98 per cent of the total value of Queensland mandarin production, and 85 per cent of the total value of macadamia nut production. The region is home to about 4,356 farms, or 16 per cent of all farm businesses in Queensland. About 24 per cent of all people employed in the Queensland agriculture, forestry and fishing sector are based in Wide Bay. The sector employs about 12,700 people locally, representing about 12 per cent of the region's total workforce. All the producers of these products, the hardworking farmers of Hinkler, pay levies on their production that are invested in research and development—invested in the future of agriculture; invested in securing the livelihoods of our farming families and the jobs in our communities.

This bill allows a levy payer's contact details and the amounts of levy paid to be provided to RDCs. This information is currently only available to the wool and dairy RDCs. Access to levy information would provide RDCs with the ability to identify and consult directly with levy payers on the strategic direction of research activities. It will place levy payers—our farmers—in a more central role on how levies are spent for their benefit. It will allow RDCs to better rely on research investments to industry priorities, improving returns to primary producers and contributing a more profitable, competitive and sustainable agriculture sector.

Australia's primary industries have a strong tradition of being innovative and of being able to adapt to new challenges. They are highly efficient and competitive international markets. The outlook for the sector is strong, with the demand for good-quality food on the rise. Investment in research, development and innovation is vital for the ongoing growth and improvement in the productivity, profitability, competitiveness and sustainability of the nation's agriculture, food, fisheries and forestry industries.

The coalition government currently provides around $250 million every year in matching funding for RDCs. This is on top of the approximately $500 million provided directly by producer levies. This is a significant commitment from both farmers and government and we need to make sure it is used as effectively as possible and delivers the best outcomes for our farmers, rural communities and the nation. This funding is used by the RDCs to commission and manage targeted investment in research, innovation, knowledge creation and extension. There are also Rural Research And Development Priorities to balance new and ongoing R&D investment needs for the primary production section and to ensure R&D objectives of the Australian government are met.

These priorities, which were developed in consultation with state and territory governments, industry, research funders and providers,    are: productivity and adding value, improving the productivity and profitability of existing industries and support the development of viable new industries; supply chain and markets, to better understand and respond to domestic and international market and consumer requirements and improve the flow of such information through the whole supply chain, including to consumers; natural resource management, to support effective management of Australia's natural resources to ensure primary industries are both economically and environmentally sustainable; climate variability and climate change, to build resilience to climate variability and adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change; biosecurity, to protect Australia's community, primary industries and environment from biosecurity threats.

The June 2015 report from the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee stated just some of the gains in the agricultural sector brought about by research and development investments. In the cotton sector there was an increase in domestic cotton yields at almost three times the world average, a 95 per cent reduction in the use of pesticides, a 40 per cent improvement in the use of water, and the generation of over $2 billion in annual export earnings.

In the vegetable sector there was greater access to vital crop protection products; export development and capacity development activities have contributed to increased export of Australian vegetables, improved soil health and productivity solutions as well as innovative soil DNA testing for potato disease. In the dairy sector the total factor productivity for Australian dairy farms increased at an average annual rate of 1.6 per cent from 1978-79 to 2010-11. While there were other factors involved, research and development provided the basis for much of this productivity improvement. Independent experts estimate the overall benefit of R&D expenditure to the levy as being in the range of 3.3 to six to one.

In the horticultural sector, the cross-benefit analysis of R&D investments undertaken within the apple and pear industry suggest the benefits of $1 invested range from $2.10 to $5.20. An assessment of Cotton Research and Development Corporation research projects has shown CRDC R&D research returns around $13 for every dollar invested to levy payers, but $30 for the wider community.

In the same Senate committee report, the Australian Lot Feeders' Association made the observation:

In the pioneering days of Australia's history, technology and innovation were used to overcome the obstacles faced by farmers trying to make a living off impoverished soil and very dry land.

Since then, we see farmers making use of technology and innovation to remain viable players in a keenly competitive international market, while ensuring the sustainability of their social, economic and biophysical environments. Into the future, rural R&D will continue to help the agricultural sector meet the challenges associated with the rising cost of agricultural inputs, declining commodity prices, climate change and meeting the increasingly discerning needs of consumers.

Bundaberg—in my electorate of Hinkler—is home to the world's largest macadamia processing plant and is the second largest macadamia-growing area in Australia after the Northern Rivers of New South Wales. With an estimated yield of just short of 20,000 tonne of macadamias grown in the Bundaberg region, this industry is worth well over $100 million.

According to the Australian Macadamia Society, macadamias have one of the highest investments in research and development relative to its size of any Australian horticultural industry—more than $4 million every single year. Macadamia research and development projects have focused on improving soil and orchard floor management, disease management in macadamia, progressing integrated pest management in macadamias, regional macadamia variety trials, and optimising kernel processing for shelf life.

Other programs being undertaken by the Australian Macadamia Society are: a breeding program, which has identified new selections that are expected to outperform existing commercial varieties and one of the potential benefits from these selections include 30 per cent higher yield; a precision agriculture project that aims to improve farm operational efficiency and reduce impacts on natural resources; and research is underway to develop a functional-structural model that helps identify and prioritise the physiological processes affecting macadamia growth, yield and quality.

Another example of the benefits of research and development was a 13-year $20 million joint investment led by the Sugar Research and Development Corporation, now Sugar Research Australia, to halt sugarcane yield decline, which returned independently evaluated benefits to industry of $237 million. According to the Council of Rural Research and Development Corporations, the investment returned a benefit cost ratio of 7:1 and an internal rate of return of 19 per cent. The then SRDC led the investment and was supported by BSES Limited, CSIRO, Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, and Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water. The program hinged on successfully integrating legume rotations into sugarcane production systems that involve minimum tillage and controlled traffic.

Former chairman of SRDC Mr Ian Knop said growers who implemented the farming practices reported savings of up to $500 per hectare. This represents money straight onto the bottom line of a farm business. The Sugar Yield Decline Joint Venture—a three-phase research, development and extension investment—was established in 1993 after yield decline and yield plateaus had been a concern for the sugar industry for a number of years.

Economic, environmental and social benefits from the venture included: cane yield increase after the legume crop in the cane plant crop and subsequent ratoon crops, due to improved soil health; savings of nitrogen fertiliser and its application in the cane plant crop and, in part, the first ratoon crop; reduced cultivation costs for the plant cane crop; labour savings and improved timeliness and flexibility of operations; capital savings due to lowered requirements for high-powered tractors and tillage equipment; and an overall likely reduction in any impact the cane industry could have been having on the water quality and biodiversity of proximate coastal waters and possibly on the Great Barrier Reef.

The 2011 Productivity Commission report into rural research and development corporations also highlighted how research and development could benefit consumers and the wider community. There were benefits such as: better standards of living, through cheaper and higher quality food; improved environmental amenity; and greater capacity within rural communities to adjust to changing circumstances, which may in turn reduce calls on the welfare system.

The report stated that any given R&D investment can lead to a mix of benefits for different parties:

For example, pests that cause damage to crops might also blight backyard gardens, and hence efforts by producers to prevent or limit pest outbreaks may be beneficial to others in the community. In the other direction, the provision of high quality food can generate health benefits for consumers — and insofar as this encourages them to buy more fresh produce, benefits may flow back to producers. Indeed, in many ways, benefits to producers and benefits to the community are heavily intertwined.

In summing up, it is important to note that the bill does not create levy payer registers. The distribution of levy payer information to an RDC will only happen where an RDC, in consultation with industry, requests that it occur and that request is approved by the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Whether an industry sees benefit in implementing a register is a matter for each RDC and industry to consider.

The coalition government considers that the ability to hear directly from the levy payers who fund the system will result in a positive outcome for RDCs and Australian agriculture. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Assistant Minister for Defence) (18:46): It is always good to follow the member for Hinkler, the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister. I listened closely to his contribution. I tell you what, it was a lot better than the member for Hunter's effort earlier in this debate. I heard the member for Hinkler say quite clearly that, for every dollar of research and development levy money spent, $13 goes back to the farmer and $30 goes back to the wider community—and he is so right. R&D is so important, and that is why it is crucial that the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016 be passed by this parliament. This bill amends the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 to allow for the distribution of levy payer information to rural research and development corporations, RDCs, for the development of levy payer registers.

Just as I listened carefully to the member for Hinkler, while sitting in my office a short while ago I also listened very carefully to the member for Hunter, the so-called shadow minister for agriculture, who rubbished the decentralisation of research and development corporations to regional areas. He ought to be sticking up for regional areas. He ought to be advocating for decentralisation. He is one of the alleged Country Labor members. You would think he would be coming into this place and talking up decentralisation, talking up the relocation of RDCs to rural and regional areas.

I have to say that Wagga Wagga, my home town, is the beneficiary of one of these decentralised projects. Wagga Wagga, on 10 February this year, was announced as the new home of a dozen jobs in the core function of the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, RIRDC, in a shake-up announced by the federal government. I welcomed the announcement.

Mr Champion: I bet you did!

Mr McCORMACK: I did, Member for Wakefield. Of course I did. It is jobs. You stick up for jobs in your electorate, as you should, as I do—any jobs. When it was announced, it was a dozen jobs. That might not mean much, but I tell you what, it is 12 large pay packets. It is 12 professionals. When 12 professionals of that ilk move into a city the size of Wagga Wagga—admittedly it is 66,000 people; it is a good sized city—they bring not just 12 large pay packets. Quite often they bring two or three kids, who go into the Catholic or public schools. They end up getting involved in school parents and citizens associations. They get involved in local Rotary clubs, Lions clubs and sporting groups. They contribute so much to our community. Not only was it a dozen jobs, Member for Wakefield, but, on 5 March it became 21 jobs, because there were nine additional jobs with that particular RIRDC. So there were 21 jobs in total. They will provide a very much welcome boost not just to Wagga Wagga but to the wider Riverina region.

Everyone in this place ought to know, because I have talked about it often enough—goodness knows the member for Barker has heard me say it often enough—that our region is a proud and productive agricultural hub. This commitment by the coalition government, by the Nationals in government, builds upon the region's leading agriculture research at places such as Charles Sturt University—what a marvellous institution that is—as well as ensuring more government agencies are on the ground in the regions and closer to the places where our food and fibre are grown and produced. When it comes to food and fibre, the Riverina is a leader.

Decentralisation is not just an abstract idea; it is a real priority for this government. It is a significant priority for the Nationals in government. The 10 February announcement is living proof of our election commitment being put into action, with a dozen jobs and then, on 5 March, an additional nine jobs—21 jobs in total.

The formerly Canberra based RIRDC is going to increase its regional presence. When I say 'formerly based', they will still have a presence in Canberra, in the nation's capital, but they will now be extending that to boost jobs and opportunities and prosperity in places such as Wagga Wagga, Dubbo, the electorate of the member for Parkes—what a wonderful representative he is—Toowoomba, the electorate of the member for Groom and other areas. These RDCs are focused on rural research, including grains, fisheries, aquaculture—small and emerging industries—and are taking advantage of the National Innovation and Science Agenda that this government is fostering, enhancing and making a significant financial contribution to. So it just makes good sense to locate them away from Canberra where the boots actually hit the dirt in their respective sectors. I am very pleased that 21 jobs are coming Wagga Wagga's way.

I listened carefully, as I said, to the member for Hunter's contribution. I did not hear him talk about foreign investment. Foreign investment is good—it made this country great and it continues to make this country prosper—but it has to be in the national interest. I have to say, when Labor has a policy to have $1,000 million being the trigger point at which the Foreign Investment Review Board would look into the foreign takeover of an agribusiness or farmland, I worry. The people I serve worry. The people I represent worry.

Mr Champion: You worry?

Mr McCORMACK: I do worry about that, member for Wakefield and you should too. We do not need foreign takeovers that decide what the price of our wheat or our rice is going to be in a boardroom in, for argument's sake, Illinois in the United States of America. We need to have control over our agribusinesses right here in Australia. Sure, foreign capital is welcomed. It always has been. As I said, it has made this country great. But, when the Labor Party has a foreign investment takeover policy that does not even offer a trigger to FIRB until it actually passes the billion-dollar mark, I worry. I know a lot of the people out there on their tractors or in the shearing sheds, working hard and listening to parliament and to this speech—and they do—and a lot of people who will be reading the Hansard are concerned, as they ought to be.

The member for Hunter is very anti-Nationals. I cannot understand why. He should be getting on board with some of the policies, if he were a fair dinkum country representative. If he were fair dinkum about agriculture, he should actually be endorsing and not rubbishing many of the policies—indeed, all of the policies—that the Nationals bring to the table. We have produced many achievements in just 2½ years of being in government, including abolishing the carbon tax and the mining tax, those job-destroying and regional-Australia-destroying taxes. We have signed preferential trade agreements with South Korea, Japan and our largest trading partner, China. They are very, very important.

We are unlocking the logjam of Commonwealth environmental laws which are impeding rural, remote and regional growth. We have a drought support package—a comprehensive package supporting farmers, particularly those in north-west New South Wales and Queensland areas which have not seen rain for a considerable amount of time. We recommenced the live export of sheep, cattle and goats to such countries as Bahrain, Iran and Egypt, while rebuilding the live cattle trade with Indonesia. Wasn't that a disaster. Wasn't that an absolute diplomatic disaster. It was an economic disaster. Honestly, to do that over just a television program was an absolute disgrace and one of the worst decisions that many people have seen. It is not just me saying it; many, many people are saying it. It was one of the worst decisions that this parliament has perpetrated on the hardworking cattle producers of this country.

The National Stronger Regions Fund is already rolling out money to regional Australia. The Roads to Recovery Program enables the food and the fibre to be taken from regional areas to export markets. I did not hear the member for Hunter talking much about those—we provided $565 million in our first year alone to black spots on roads. When I talk about black spots, I also refer to the significant amount of money—tens of millions of dollars—being spent on mobile black spots. Not one cent was spent on mobile black spots during the six sorry years of Labor.

I am so glad that in my electorate we are finally funding the Bridges Renewal Program. I say 'finally', because Margaret Merrylees, a councillor and a wonderful local government representative for the Murrumbidgee Shire, has fought hard for a new bridge over the Murrumbidgee at Carrathool for many, many years—decades, in fact. Finally, this government, in conjunction with Duncan Gay and his New South Wales coalition government, are funding that bridge.

At the Barralong in Gundagai Shire, there is another new bridge. Just recently, I announced funding for Eunony Bridge, which is a vital linkage to the Bomen industrial area at Wagga Wagga City Council. These are all important linkages which are all providing value or eliminating road network pinch points. I could also talk about the Kapooka Bridge—this side of government provided $27½ million for that. They are all important. They are linking in with primary industry research and development, which is so significant. We have provided hundreds of millions of dollars for the heavy vehicle safety projects.

I hear those opposite so often condemning the 2014 budget, but it contained $100 million for rural research and development, $15 million to support market access and $20 million in extra money for biosecurity. I have to say that biosecurity was ignored under Labor. I made a trip to New Zealand—a self-funded trip, mind you—to ensure that the potential apple blight did not come across from New Zealand apples and onto those fine orchards of Batlow. When the Asian honey bee incursion threatened our fine honey producers, what did Labor do? Nothing. Absolutely diddly-squat. They did not care, they did not know and they did not want to know.

I was very pleased to take part in the turning of the soil at Mickleham, in the member for McEwen's electorate. I have to give him credit: he was there too and he was a supporter of the post-entry biosecurity facility just near Melbourne Airport. They are the sorts of things that our government is getting on with and doing in the R&D space in rural Australia.

The northern Australia push has been complemented by this government looking after southern Australia. Just recently, last August, farmers and irrigators in my area were told that they were going to share in $263.5 million of on-farm irrigation in New South Wales, particularly around the Coleambally area. I had the chief executive officer of Snowy Hydro, Paul Broad, a former guru with Infrastructure New South Wales, in my office this morning. He was praising the work that they do there and the fact that every single drop of water at Coleambally is accounted for. They know where it is. They know how it is being dripped out onto those wonderful rice paddies, the marvellous cotton crops and the vegetables that they grow in the huge paddocks that they supply to many wholesalers and supermarkets.

It all comes about through R&D. It all comes about because this government is prepared to spend money on infrastructure, research and development and making sure that every drop is accounted for. That is not like those opposite. All they wanted to do was make sure that every drop of water flowed down the rivers, down the systems and down the Murray-Darling Basin and out of the mouth of the Murray. That is all they cared about.

Mr Champion: What about Broken Hill? Tell us about Broken Hill.

Mr McCORMACK: I hear the member from South Australia opposite. They forget that our areas are fine producing areas. I know he originally comes from an irrigation area. I know he knows of the importance of irrigation in communities. I know he knows the importance of those farmers who provide the food and fibre that keep this nation great. It is also important that we have water reform. We are doing that. But it is equally important that this primary industries levies bill passes this House, as it will.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): Before I call the next member, I will remind the member for Wakefield that he should not continually interject.

Mr PASIN (Barker) (19:02): We should not admonish the member for Wakefield too much; he adds some colour to this place, if not intellectual rigor! It is a privilege to follow the member for Riverina. He is a staunch and strong advocate for rural Australia. It was a double pleasure to have him highlight to the member for Wakefield the important achievements of our coalition government over the course of this term. That is something which I think the member for Wakefield knows, deep down in his heart.

I rise today to speak on the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016. It is a bill of significance for many primary producers across my electorate of Barker. Barker, the agricultural hub of South Australia—that is something the member for Wakefield may take issue with, but it is a title we own—is home to some of the best primary producers in the nation. From the Riverland to the Lower Lakes and right across the region, agriculture is the most significant industry sector in my electorate. Indeed, agriculture employs more of my constituents than any other sector. From small owned family farms to large corporate enterprises running farms across the electorate, Barker is home to the full range of primary producers from beef to cheese and all manner of horticulture.

Whilst my electorate is perfectly suited for the production of agricultural produce, farmers across my electorate are constantly striving to capture the opportunities that new developments in research and development may have for their industry. Across the spectrum of primary production, the government collects levies which are directed towards R&D. Importantly, it is estimated that, for every dollar that the government has invested in rural research and development, farmers over 10 years have generated $12 in return. That is worth repeating. For every dollar this Commonwealth invests in rural research and development, farmers generate a $12 return.

This government remain committed to facilitating innovation across the agricultural sector. I think it is fair to say that farmers were the regional innovators. Having announced our comprehensive national innovation statement in December of last year, the government have laid the foundation for the transition from the mining investment boom to the new economy. It is, if you like, the mining boom to the dining boom. I echo the optimism of the Deputy Prime Minister when it comes to the healthy state of prices for primary produce across the nation, whether it is beef, sheep meat or other products which are grown and distributed to the world by my electorate.

1t is against such an agenda of economic transition and innovation that this bill clears the constraints which currently block the dialogue between rural researchers and the primary producers who fund them. This bill will seek to clarify the current situation through enacting such measures as would facilitate a healthy and productive dialogue between these important partners.

The bill amends the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 to allow for the distribution of levy payer information by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to rural RDCs for the development of levy payer registers. Doing so enables the levy payers, the bodies that represent them and the research entities to collaborate on issues relevant to their respective industries. The information that may be distributed is the name, address, contact details and ABN of any entity that has paid, or is liable to pay, a levy or charge. The information may also include details of the amount of levy or charge that that person or entity has paid, or is liable to pay, on a leviable commodity. This will provide clarity when it comes to the size and scope of each levy payer's contribution to the research process, which in turn will enable representative bodies and research entities to better understand the state of their respective industries.

The bill allows the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to permit levy payer information to be provided to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and used for the performance of its very important functions. This is consistent with the government's public data policy statement, which commits to securely sharing data between Australian government entities to improve efficiencies and inform policy development and decision making.

The bill also allows the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to approve the disclosure of information given to an RDC, under limited circumstances, to another party such as to a ballot provider for a levy vote or to an industry representative body to consult on a levy proposal. However, the information must be used for an activity related to research and development or marketing, or for biosecurity or National Residue Survey purposes. Essentially, the bill delivers greater situational awareness when it comes to the primary production sector. This will enable government to better formulate policy decisions in a targeted and informed manner. The bill, in and of itself, does not create levy payer registers. The distribution of levy payer information to an RDC for a levy payer register will only occur where an RDC, in consultation with industry, requests that it does occur, and that request is to be approved by the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources.

This bill is consistent with the government's reasonable and responsible approach to agricultural policy creation in the nation. It is only the coalition that understands the plight of rural and regional Australians and understands the importance of rational and sensible policy when it comes to agriculture. Today the coalition is delivering a better outcome for primary producers across the nation, and in my case particularly those in Barker. The provisions in this bill will provide greater clarity for our primary producers, their representative bodies and their related research entities. It has been widely acclaimed by representative bodies, such as the Cattle Council of Australia, whose CEO, Jed Matz, said:

This will have multiple benefits such as improved disease management and prevention, improved extension services, more targeted communication and policy.

The sheepmeat industry welcomes this legislation too, with the President of the Sheepmeat Council of Australia, Jeff Murray, saying:

The introduction of this legislation is an important step in empowering industry representative organisations.

He also said:

Once passed, these amendments will enable peak bodies such as SCA—

the Sheapmeat Council of Australia—

to identify the industry issues and priorities of the levy payers we represent through better engagement with them and therefore empower us to oversight levy expenditure more effectively.

These are ringing endorsements and are but a few of the multitude of organisations who have lent their support to this legislation today. Those opposite could not say the same of the endorsements they received from the primary production sector. Primary producers in this country have long memories; long memories indeed. They have not forgotten the live export fiasco that was initiated by the Labor government to halt the exports of our hardworking producers. The primary producers of Barker, in particular, have not forgotten that decision, a decision I should remind the House that was supported in the other place by Senator Xenophon.

We probably should have an award given daily for the hypocrisy of the day. My nomination today is the member for Bendigo. It would be unparliamentary for me to refer to her as the 'bleater from Bendigo,' so I shan't.

Mr Champion: Withdraw!

Mr PASIN: I will. I cannot help myself. In her contribution to the matter of public importance, which I think we should call a matter of rank hypocrisy today, she said that Labor had fixed the live cattle issue for the nation. I appreciate that mine is only one nomination for the award of hypocrisy of the day, but I think it is a strong candidate for victory, because, whilst it is true that Labor ultimately undid the harm that they occasioned on the northern cattlemen and the cattlemen of this nation more generally, it was their act and their act alone to prohibit the live export of cattle to Indonesia which caused that very harm. Effectively the member for Bendigo was seeking credit for fixing a problem that was wholly the product of Labor in government.

I think those opposite might grow tired of us continually referring to this fiasco but we must, and we must continue to remind them of the harm they wreaked to regional Australians as a result of that knee-jerk reaction, that kind of ill-informed policy making on the run that does real and substantial damage. We could draw a correlation to that kind of decision making and the decision making that has led the now opposition to come up with a negative gearing policy which would wreak the same sort of harm across this nation.

Thankfully, they are developing that policy position from opposition. If they were in government, it would be the policy today and no doubt it would be enacted into law and we would see rents increase, we would see a flood of investment into new residential dwellings that would effectively drive the price of those dwellings up, but, at the same time, effectively pulling the carpet from under existing housing stock. Owning a house in that situation, or buying one, or a house and land package would be the same as taking a new car off the lot. It would see an immediate diminution in the value of that property. The nation has learnt in recent days that, not convinced that that was enough harm to wreak on the nation, their proposal would see negative gearing prohibited from commercial property. It would see it prohibited from margin loans. For some reason they think that the best way for Australians to work, save and invest is to make it harder for them to do those things.

I do not think it is too much of a stretch to take the kind of decision-making methodology that led us to the live cattle fiasco which led to significant harm to rural and regional Australia, and, sadly, resulted in very tragic circumstances. It is not too much of stretch to take that lack of policy development rigour and compare it to the lack of policy rigour that it takes to develop a crazy policy which would do nothing but harm hardworking Australians who have invested in property or have interests in business. At the same time, the opposition are proposing increases in capital gains tax and other taxes. They really are about putting a handbrake on our economy.

When it comes to agriculture, this government delivers policy based on consultation, not knee-jerk reactions. They are policies and legislation born of deep consideration, and methodologies that come to the right conclusion because we consult widely and we consider third-party consequences—and that is why we get the kinds of third-party endorsements that I have referred the House to this evening.

I look forward to seeing the fruits produced as a result of the new arrangements facilitated by this legislation. Through a strong commitment to innovation across the agricultural sector, this government will ensure that the future of primary production in the nation is secured for a very long time. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr HOGAN (Page) (19:15): I rise to speak on the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016. I commend the previous speaker, the member for Barker, for a wonderful contribution to this debate.

This legislation is about primary industries. I know because of the seat that I represent, and I want to reinforce—because sometimes it is forgotten—just how important the agricultural sector is to not only rural and regional areas but also the wider country of Australia. The primary industries sector has had a couple of great years because of the many things that this government has done, not least the free trade agreements we now have with China, Japan and South Korea, as well as the Transpacific Partnership Agreement, which are opening markets for our industries in many other parts of the world and, in parts of the world where we already are, making access easier through lower tariffs.

That has already had a real impact on my local community, because all of the rural industry sectors across my community, whether they be beef cattle, dairy, sugar, macadamias or blueberries—I could go on—are getting better farmgate prices. A lot of them have had good seasons as well. That has had a real impact on our towns, because those sectors have better cash flow and they are employing more people, and so, when those people come into our towns, they are spending more money, which is obviously good for every small business in our community as well.

As a coalition, particularly as members of the Nationals, we have always had a focus on and an interest in making sure that these sectors do well and flourish, and these achievements have had a real impact on and are causing some great flow-on effects for our regional communities.

Australia is a competitive country in agriculture because we have always exported a lot of what we produce. Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, I am sure you would be interested to know that, like other sectors in my community, the local abattoir—which by the way is the biggest private employer in my community, employing over a thousand people—export close to 70 per cent of what they process. The local macadamia industry also exports close to 70 per cent of what it produces. There is a blueberry producer who is developing a huge venture at a place near Tabulam. He has a window to access and provide blueberries to the Chinese market that other people do not, just because of the seasons. These are really export-orientated businesses, and, when you are an export-orientated business, of course you have to be competitive, because you are competing against the rest of the world in those markets.

Australia's rural industries have always been recognised as being among some of the most innovative and productive in the world, and continued investment in rural research and development is vital to ensure ongoing growth and improvement in profitability and the competitiveness of our agriculture, fisheries, forestry and food sectors. In recognition of this, we have worked closely, as the member for Barker said, with industry to co-invest in research, through our world-leading R&D system, and much of this work is delivered through the 15 rural research and development corporations. These RDCs provide a mechanism for industry participants to come together and invest collectively. We have assisted by establishing and collecting a levy on behalf of an industry, if the industry requests this. The government also matches an RDC's eligible R&D spending up to a legislated cap. It is estimated that, for every dollar that the government invests in rural R&D, farmers generate a $12 return over 10 years. That is a wonderful return on the taxpayer dollar.

Feedback from primary producers is an integral part of how RDCs work. They are required to consult with industry on their activities and to give those who fund the research via levies an opportunity to provide input into the strategic direction of the corporation. Recent reviews and inquiries—including the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee's inquiry into industry structures and systems governing levies on grass-fed cattle, and its inquiry into industry structures and systems governing the imposition of and disbursement of marketing and R&D levies in the agricultural sector—have identified improved consultation with levy payers as key to the ongoing strength of Australia's rural R&D system. Several of these inquiries recommended that the establishment of levy-payer registers would offer a way for RDCs to consult more effectively with the primary producers who fund them.

The government agrees that levy payers should have more of a say in how their levy funds are spent. RDCs should know who their levy payers are. Levy-payer registers would provide RDCs with the ability to identify and consult directly with the levy payers on what they perceive the research priorities to be and where they want the levy expenditure to go, and therefore allow the RDCs to accurately and efficiently allocate voting entitlements, where this is relevant.

This bill makes possible the establishment of levy payer registers by RDCs by amending the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991. As it stands, the act only permits the distribution of levy payer information to the wool and dairy RDCs. This bill remedies this by allowing the government to provide levy payer information, for the purposes of a levy payer register, to the 13 other RDCs. The bill removes the legislative impediment to the development of levy payer registers. However, recognising that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be appropriate given the diversity of Australian agricultural industries, the bill allows for the distribution of levy payer information to an RDC to occur only where an RDC, in consultation with industry, requests it, and that request is approved by the minister. The department would then work with the RDC on the administrative design and development of a register. This is consistent with the government's approach to the broader R&D levy system, which is centred on industry support.

The bill also allows the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to permit levy payer information to be provided to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This is consistent with the government's public data policy statement, which commits to securely share data between Australian government entities to improve efficiencies, and inform policy development and decision-making. The bill maintains current practices for distribution of the name and address of the person or body that lodges levy returns with the department to RDCs, industry representative bodies and others. In limited situations, the person that lodges returns is also the levy payer—for example, in the turf industry.

The bill does not permit secondary disclosure of information included in a levy payer register, except in limited circumstances and where expressly permitted by the secretary in writing. This aims to protect the integrity and security of levy and charge payers' personal information. Where an eligible recipient is permitted to disclose levy payer information to a secondary recipient, that person or body may only use the information for restricted purposes relating to R&D, marketing, biosecurity or the National Residue Survey. Where levy payer contact details are to be provided to an industry representative body, the administrative arrangements will enable levy payers to choose to opt out and not receive information.

The passage of this bill is the first key step in allowing for the development of levy payer registers, making it possible for the RDCs to identify and connect directly with those who fund their work. Through greater levy payer engagement in the R&D system, RDCs will be able to better align research investments to industry priorities, improving returns to primary producers and contributing to a more profitable, competitive and sustainable agricultural sector. We will work with the RDCs and industry to make this happen. The government is committed to an Australian R&D system that remains transparent and consultative and delivers tangible benefits to our very valuable and very important agricultural industries into the future. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (19:26): The Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016 amends the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991. This bill makes possible the establishment of levy payer registers by RDCs by amending the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991. As it stands, the act only permits the distribution of levy payer information to the wool and dairy RDCs. This bill remedies this by allowing the government to provide levy payer information for the purposes of a levy payer register to the 13 other RDCs. The bill removes the legislative impediment to the development of levy payer registers. However, recognising that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be appropriate given the diversity of Australian agricultural industries, the bill allows the distribution of levy payer information to an RDC to occur only where an RDC, in consultation with industry, requests it and that request is approved by the minister. The department would then work with the RDC on the administrative design and development of a register. This is consistent with the government's approach to the broader R&D levy system, which is centred on industry support.

In the electorate of Macquarie we have apple growers and some significant mushroom growers—one of the largest privately owned mushroom growers is in the electorate of Macquarie—and of course we have other agricultural industries such as winegrowing. Recent reviews and inquiries, including the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry into industry structures and systems governing the imposition of and disbursement of marketing and research and development levies in the agricultural sector, have identified improved consultation with levy payers as important for the ongoing strength of Australia's rural R&D system. Several of these inquiries recommended levy payer registers as a way for RDCs to consult more effectively with the primary producers who fund them.

The government agrees that levy payers should have more of a say in how their levy funds are spent. RDCs should know who their levy payers are, and levy payer registers would provide RDCs with the ability to identify and consult directly with levy payers on research priorities and levy expenditure, and to accurately and efficiently allocate voting entitlements where relevant. This is certainly important to the producers in my electorate that have spoken to me about their levies and how they are spent. As it currently stands, the legislation does not allow for levy payer information to be distributed by the department to RDCs except in the wool and dairy industries. This bill remedies this by making it possible to provide this information to the other 13 RDCs.

Debate interrupted.