Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (09:31): Australia needs budget repair, and it needs budget repair which is fair. That is what this bill will deliver after government amendments are moved which reflect the agreement between the Labor Party and the government. This bill will deliver $6.3 billion of savings to the budget bottom line over the next four years. Of course, originally the government said that it would deliver $6.5 billion, then it became $6.1 billion, then the member for Rankin found a little $107 million problem in the bill, which brought it below $6 billion; but the arrangements entered into by the government and the opposition, thanks to some stipulations put on this by the opposition, now see the savings delivered rise back to $6.3 billion.

These savings reflect policies which have been aired in the recent federal election. I will not go through all the details, but I will just take one example: the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. The Labor Party took a very comprehensive renewable energy policy to the election. It was a very comprehensive and robust policy in relation to renewable energy targets and proper investments in renewable energy. We had the change to ARENA funding as part of that overall picture. The government has brought in the cut but not the good parts of the policy—not the renewable energy targets, not the investments. So it has been necessary for the opposition to work with the government to deliver the same savings but in a way which reflects the reality that this government is in office and will not be engaging in good renewable energy policies.

This is the context for this debate. As I said, I understand that the government will move amendments which reflect the arrangements entered into by the government and us. They will reflect primarily changes to ARENA funding. The government was proposing a $1.3 billion cut. We are very pleased that it has been agreed that $800 million will be put back into ARENA. ARENA is a very important organisation for our nation's future and for our investment in renewable energy. Australia can and should be a leader in renewable energy, and ARENA has a very important part to play in that. We know that the government has previously tried to abolish ARENA. This is a significant change, which sees $800 million put back into ARENA. Of course that is a reduction in funding, but, as ARENA has made clear, it enables it to continue with its job. It is the investment that it needs to continue with its job.

In addition, a process has been agreed by which the Minister for the Environment and Energy will meet with the shadow minister for climate change, the member for Port Adelaide, to discuss the profile of remaining funds over the forward estimates and a forward work program, and also, importantly, to establish whether there are opportunities for bipartisan agreement surrounding policies to accelerate the transition to modern and clean energy systems.

There are other points. Of course, the government and the opposition disagree about dental care in Australia. The previous Labor government put in place a very good scheme. We want to protect that scheme. It is a scheme which works. The government has a different approach. I am pleased that the government has withdrawn, through its amendments, the changes to the dental scheme. We have agreed that there will be discussions between the minister and the shadow minister to assess other ways of finding savings. The government reserves the right to pursue its scheme under separate legislation and we, of course, reserve the right to oppose that. We, of course, reserve the right to defend the existing scheme, although we have indicated we do think there are savings which might be possible. The psychiatric confinement measure, which the Labor Party had actually opposed previously, we will continue to oppose. I am glad the government has withdrawn that from the bill.

Then there is the change to the clean energy supplement. This is in relation to the government's plan to remove the clean energy supplement for all new recipients of a whole range of payments. We have made a very sensible proposal to the government that the clean energy supplement be withdrawn for new recipients of income which is additional income, not primary income—family tax benefit recipients and holders of the senior health card—but that we protect and defend the clean energy supplement for recipients of Newstart, the age pension, the disability support pension and other payments. This is appropriate. This is budget repair which is fair. This is not saying to Australia's unemployed people and Australia's age pensioners, 'All the burden is on you;' this is saying, however, 'We recognise that budget repair requires difficult decisions.' That is why, in order to ensure that we get a saving better than the one proposed by the government, we have agreed to remove the family tax benefit A supplements for families with income more than $80,000.

Importantly, I am very pleased that the government accepted and agreed to Labor's insistence that the baby bonus not come back. The baby bonus is unsustainable in modern Australia, where we are talking about budget repair. The previous Labor government took the difficult decision to deal with it. Remember, when we first said that the baby bonus would only apply to firstborn children, that the then shadow Treasurer, the holder of my office, said it was akin to the one-child policy. That was their constructive approach to budget repair. It was akin to China; he said, 'It's just like the one-child policy.' He compared us to the Chinese communist party. Well, we take a more constructive approach. We are happy to say to the Australian people, 'There are difficult decisions which are necessary for budget repair, and the baby bonus is one of them.' The Prime Minister can put it into his deal with the National Party all he likes, but this deal takes it out, because Australia should not have a baby bonus—it cannot be afforded. Whereas we have made our agreement with the government public, the agreement between the Liberal and National parties remains secret. That is a matter for them, but we have made public our agreement in a very transparent way which says the baby bonus will not come back.

I am going to be brief today in the interests of the expeditious passage of this legislation through the House so it can get to the other place in an expeditious fashion and allow them the time to pass it, but I do want to say that the Labor Party has led the debate on budget repair and today we lead the way as well. We led the debate when it comes to superannuation. We announced our superannuation policy last April. The government and the now Treasurer railed around the country saying it was an unfair attack on the retirement incomes of Australians. The now Treasurer said he would never tax superannuation; he would never touch superannuation. Of course, on budget night, up he hopped to that dispatch box and launched an attack on superannuation. We have been consistent on superannuation, and a couple of weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition outlined our plans on superannuation, which avoid retrospectivity and raise another $1½ billion for the budget, a more fiscally responsible plan than the one the Treasurer in office has. So we are prepared to help the government out of its mess on superannuation.

And there is more that can be done. If the government deals with the VET FEE-HELP rorts, we will help it with that. The Leader of the Opposition announced our policy in his budget reply—a very good policy; a fiscally responsible policy which cracks down on the rorts. The government should take it up and the government should talk to us about expeditious passage through the parliament. Private health insurance rebates can be fixed as well. We announced our policy in the election. It can be done. If the government chooses to do what it did on this omnibus legislation, there is more that can be done. We can fix VET FEE-HELP; we can fix the private health insurance rebate—and we can fix superannuation, as well, and the mess that this government has created. So, just as we have led the debate, we have led the way.

I do, in all seriousness, want to thank the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance for their engagement in this debate. I want to thank all my colleagues on this side, particularly the member for Rankin, the shadow minister for finance, who has been a very good contributor and a very good source of advice and counsel to me during this process, and the members for Ballarat, Jagajaga and Port Adelaide, who have also made very important contributions to a good result—here comes the member for Jagajaga to receive the accolades that are her due.

I want to thank my colleagues for what has been a good process. I commend the legislation to the House and I commend its expeditious process through the House.

Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (09:40): I also rise to make some comments on the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016. This is a piece of proposed legislation in our parliament, worked on across the government and the opposition, that has, indeed, led to a much better outcome than if we had accepted the government's original proposals in this omnibus bill. The fact that we have taken some time—some weeks—and worked constructively to find not just the savings that the government initially proposed but larger savings than the savings that the government proposed shows that, with cooperation and constructive engagement, we can not only find measures to repair the budget but do it in a fairer way that is in line with Labor values.

We know that it is important to find savings over time and to reduce spending. This government have added $100 billion to net debt. They have tripled the deficit. We are at risk of losing our AAA credit rating, which affects our ability to invest in the things that we care about in the future—in health, in education, in infrastructure and in all of the things that make our society and our economy stronger. I want to pay tribute to our shadow Treasurer, our current shadow finance spokesperson and our former shadow spokesperson—Chris Bowen, Jim Chalmers and Tony Burke—for the very disciplined and methodical way they have gone about finding savings here.

But I want to spend a minute also talking about our spokesperson for family and community services, the member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin, who, during her time in government and in opposition, has had probably the biggest impact on social policy in this country of any person in the last century or this century, with the new programs she has constructed like the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the funding that she has found to support those programs and, most particularly, in recent weeks, the fact that she has managed to find savings that protect the poorest and most vulnerable people—those going onto Newstart, pensions, age pensions, disability payments and other allowances—to protect them from the cuts that this government proposed. These are people who are just making it now. The idea that we would actually cut support for these people in the future is a sign of how heartless this government is. I am proud to be a colleague of the member for Jagajaga and proud of the work that she has done methodically over many months to find a better, fairer package of savings.

I also want to pay particular tribute to our health shadow, Catherine King, who has managed to fight off the attack on the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. This is an appalling policy from the government. The Minister for Health and Aged Care says that this is an under-utilised scheme. I would like to ask her: what advertising and promotion of this scheme has she ever done? It is like the secret scheme that the government does not want your children to find out about. The shadow health minister has done a fantastic job of ensuring that this is not included in our program.

I just want to make a few very brief comments about the higher education measures in this omnibus bill. We did take some difficult decisions before the last election as part of our budget repair strategy. We did that in the context of Labor investing an extra $13 billion in higher education. We will always oppose $100,000 university degrees, we will always oppose deregulation of the university sector and we will continue to oppose the more than $3 billion of zombie measures that are still there from the 2014 budget because we believe a stronger and better-funded higher education sector is not just critical for our individual students but is absolutely critical for the wealth, the productivity, the economic strength and the growth of our nation. So we will continue to fight $100,000 degrees and we will continue to fight the cuts that are still there—the 20 per cent cuts that the government continues to propose which are left over from the 2014 budget. That is an important thing to remember.

I want to finish by saying that as well as protecting the most vulnerable people in this omnibus bill, we have also protected something else that is fundamental to our values set, and that is our commitment to reducing carbon pollution and reducing carbon emissions. Mark Butler, our shadow environment and energy spokesperson, should be proud of the fact that he is the man who saved ARENA.

Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (09:45): I am very pleased to be able to speak on the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill. I think it is true to say that our cautious and careful approach in looking at this bill has been justified. We have looked at all of the measures through the lens of our Labor values. I will not talk on all of the issues that are in the bill; I will just concentrate on those that have been most significant to me, particularly in making sure that we protect the most vulnerable Australians.

We do have some very serious reservations with some of the measures that were proposed in the original bill. Most significantly, Labor does not support the abolition of the clean energy supplement that goes to pensioners, people with disability, carers, job seekers and many others. Labor also does not support cuts to people in psychiatric confinement. Others will talk about the scale of cuts to ARENA. After negotiations with the government—I want to particularly thank Chris Bowen and Jim Chalmers—we have reached an agreement to have these measures amended or in some cases removed from the bill that is currently before the parliament.

My primary objective has been to protect the most vulnerable Australians, and I am very pleased to say that we have done so. We on the Labor side do believe in budget repair that is fair. We believe that the budget bottom line can be fixed without making cuts to the most vulnerable Australians. The task of fiscal repair must not fall on those who have the least to give. We support sensible reforms when they do align with Labor values, and cutting the energy supplement to pensioners, carers, people with disability and the unemployed does not align with Labor values. We certainly do not accept that these people—pensioners, people with disability and the unemployed—should be forced to accept cuts in the budget while the government gives $50 billion away in tax cuts to big business.

Given the time, I will not go through the detailed history of the clean energy supplement. I will just emphasise the impact of this cut if it is ever to go through this parliament. It certainly will not go through with our support. The analysis shows that a single mother on Newstart would be $4.40 a week or $220 a year worse off. A pensioner couple would be around $8 a week or $550 a year worse off. It cannot be argued that it is fair to take $220 a year from someone who is unemployed, and it cannot be argued that it is fair to take $550 a year from an old age pensioner couple. The government has suggested that they may bring back the cuts to the energy supplement in a new bill. If they do, Labor will oppose it. We will protect these vulnerable people.

I want to really emphasise that there is no more vulnerable group in Australia than those living on Newstart. We already indicated before the election that we believe the Newstart allowance is already too low. It is equivalent to just 28 per cent of the average wage, and as a consequence of the low rate of Newstart many recipients of unemployment benefits are living in poverty. That is nearly 800,000 Australians. So it is a large number of people living on a very low incomes and, of course, that very much goes to our decision to oppose any further cuts as proposed by the abolition of the clean energy supplement. We even have the Business Council of Australia saying that the rate of Newstart allowance for jobseekers no longer meets a reasonable community standard of adequacy, and of course there are many others in the community who take the same view.

Newstart is clearly not the safety net that it is supposed to be; it is neither keeping people out of poverty nor providing them with the financial resources they need to look for and find work, so cutting the energy supplement from Newstart would have made an already bad situation even worse. It is bad public policy, it threatens to entrench disadvantage and inequality in this country and it is something that the Australian Labor Party cannot support.

We cannot accept that it is fair to cut a payment that is widely recognised as already being below the poverty line. Labor took a policy to the last election to review the adequacy of the Newstart allowance. We think that is the place the government should start, not to cut this already very low payment.

The original omnibus bill also included a measure that Labor has opposed in the past and will continue to oppose. The government wants to take income support payments away from people in psychiatric confinement who are charged with a serious offence and who are undergoing a course of rehabilitation. This would apply to people who have been found to be suffering with very serious mental health issues like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, intellectual disabilities, acquired brain injuries and so on. We do not believe the government's proposal is good policy and we are concerned that this cut would jeopardise the mental health support that people currently receive from state governments. We have opposed this in the past. I am pleased that it is going to be removed from this legislation, but the government should actually take this proposal out of the parliament altogether.

Just to summarise, I do want to emphasise again that the difficult decisions that we have had to make to get to where we are today have really been led by Bill Shorten. He really has shown that Labor is taking an approach to fairness that is serious—that he is going to make sure that the most disadvantaged people in our country are protected. I want to thank him for his leadership. It is not easy to find the savings that we have. We understand that many families are doing it tough, but I do appreciate the way in which he, Chris Bowen and Jim Chalmers—

The SPEAKER: I would just ask the member for Jagajaga to refer to members by their correct titles.

Ms MACKLIN: Sorry—all of those colleagues of mine—

The SPEAKER: I know she is not trying to be difficult, but I am going to be pulling members up on this.

Ms MACKLIN: That is fair enough. I am—

The SPEAKER: Bad habits are going to be eradicated!

Ms MACKLIN: It is not a bad habit, Mr Speaker; I was trying to be a bit more personal.

The SPEAKER: But operate within the standing orders. I am sorry you find them impersonal!

Ms MACKLIN: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I will do it. I think that the Leader of the Opposition has really shown just how important it is to stand up for those who need it most. That is why so many of us were elected to this place—particularly to stand up for those who are the most vulnerable—and he has done that.

We are, of course, also concerned about the Turnbull government's continuing determination to further cut family payments. That will hurt around 1.1 million families in this country and in some cases take thousands of dollars out of the pockets of low- and middle-income families. Labor have made it clear that for those families earning under $80,000 a year in family income we will not agree to any cuts to their family tax benefit A or B end-of-year supplements. It is not fair and, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated in the past, we will continue to stand up for those families.

I think that is the most important message that I have for the government. We will continue to stand up for vulnerable Australians. That is why we are here. We have done so by securing very important amendments to this bill. Should the government reintroduce legislation to cut family payments further, especially to low-income families, Labor will oppose it and we will oppose any further effort by the government to remove the energy supplement from pensioners, people with disability, carers or the unemployed. We will do everything we can to support the needs of those we have come here to support.

Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (09:55): Three years ago, Australia was riding high in the transition to a cleaner energy system. Over the period of the last Labor government, wind power tripled in this country. The number of jobs in the renewable energy industry tripled during a period that included the global financial crisis. The number of households with rooftop solar soared from just 7,400 when we came to government to over 1.2 million when we left government in 2013. In our last year of government, we approved the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere and the largest PV solar farm in the Southern Hemisphere. Unsurprisingly, the leading global business index in renewables, the Ernst & Young renewable energy country attractiveness index, rated Australia in 2013 as the fourth most attractive destination for renewables investment in the world, up there with China, the United States and Germany.

Over the past three years, though, this industry has endured attack after attack, and each of those attacks has been seen off by the Labor Party. In 2014 and 2015, the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, went after the renewable energy target, in spite of promising at the 2010 and 2013 elections to keep the RET in place. The Labor Party saw off that attack. The then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, tried to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation on a number of occasions, and again the Labor Party saw off those attacks. In the latest attack, we have seen this government seek to abolish the entire budget of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, a move that would see it remain as nothing more than a shell, and with this bill, the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016, Labor has seen off that attack as well.

This bill saves ARENA; thank you to the strong advocacy of the Labor Party and many other stakeholders and other members in this place as well. As the shadow minister for social services has done, I want to acknowledge particularly the leadership of the Labor leader and the Labor deputy leader but also the sheer hard work of the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance minister, who is new to his role but is a person who has a strong commitment to climate change and energy policy. This work reflects our unshakeable commitment to ensure that, through this period of a government which, it would appear, does not support a transition to clean energy, the renewable energy industry is able to survive and do whatever it can so that, when a government returns that does have strong clean energy policies, it can get back to the position it was in in 2013.

This bill secures an additional $800 million over five years in grants. This is additional to the more than 200 existing projects that ARENA is already auspicing and additional to the 12 large PV solar projects that were announced by ARENA last week but are not yet contracted. ARENA has stated that this sum, $800 million over five years, will provide it with a budget that allows it to continue a strong work program into the future. As part of the agreement underlying this bill, the government has agreed to sit down with the opposition to ensure that our priorities are satisfied—those priorities being, first of all, to ensure that the ARENA budget preserves Australia's world-class, leading research and innovation capability, particularly seen in our universities and CSIRO, and also to ensure that there is a budget for demonstrational proof-of-concept stage developments in the industry.

The protection of our research budget in this industry is Labor's first priority and I want to particularly mark out a couple of major contributions by members of the Labor caucus. The member for Kingsford Smith is lucky enough to represent an electorate which includes the University of New South Wales. At that university the Australian Centre for Advanced Photovoltaics for years now has been the world-leading research institution in solar PV. This bill secures ACAP's ability to continue their world-leading work. The member for Fenner has strongly advocated for the interests of the Australian National University, which partners with UNSW and a number of other universities around Australia, making sure that Australia leads the transition around the world to solar PV. The member for Newcastle has been strongly advocating for the work that CSIRO's Energy Centre in Newcastle does as a leading institution in the Australian Solar Thermal Research Initiative, an initiative that includes universities and a number of other institutions not just here in Australia but in the US as well.

In addition to securing our research capability, this agreement between the opposition and the government will also allow ARENA to support demonstration and proof-of-concept stage developments in this industry that ensure that the findings by those universities and by CSIRO scientists are able to be shown to be commercially viable and are then able to be presented to lending and equity investors and become a reality across the Australian landscape. It is also important to point out that there is no change—no reduction at all—to the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation Fund that is overseen by that very expert board at the CEFC.

The final matter I quickly want to allude to is that there was also a commitment made by this government as part of this agreement to sit down with the opposition and explore opportunities for bipartisan agreement around policies that would accelerate the transition for Australia to a modern clean energy system and to ensure that that transition is, to use the words of the Paris agreement, 'a just transition for workers and impacted communities'.

We know through experience that there really is no democracy across the world that has a serious, enduring climate policy framework that is not underpinned by a strong level of bipartisan agreement. For three parliaments now, we have not been able to find that bipartisan agreement in this policy area. I point out that the Australian Climate Roundtable has been strongly advocating for this approach that we have achieved through this agreement. The roundtable includes organisations as diverse as the Australian Aluminium Council, the Australian Industry Group, the Climate Institute, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Business Council of Australia, WWF Australia, ACOSS, the Energy Supply Association, the ACTU and the Investor Group on Climate Change. It will not be an easy discussion between the government and the opposition, but the opposition will come to the table on those discussions with constructive goodwill.

I commend the bill to the House.

Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (10:02): I too rise to join my colleagues in supporting the now amended Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016. At the outset, I particularly want to acknowledge the strong leadership on our side of the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer, the shadow finance minister and my colleagues in the areas of family payments and environment, who have all worked very hard to ensure that we do support budget repair that is necessary and that we do so in a way that is fair.

We have always said that this exercise should not come at the expense of cutting payments for some of the most vulnerable families in this country. I am particularly pleased that Labor was able to fight so hard to have the axing of the Child Dental Benefits Schedule and the National Partnership Agreement on Adult Public Dental Services removed. The government will have a significant fight on its hands if it attempts to abolish the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. It is a schedule that has assisted one million children already and it is providing dental services every two years, with a very strong focus on prevention. The government's own Department of Health has said that this is a very successful program, with the only failing being the government's failure to actually promote it to parents.

We also very strongly believe that the National Partnership Agreement on Adult Public Dental Services—the initiative that Labor in fact put in place—has also been important in treating an extra 400,000 adults through the public dental scheme. The government's proposal to scrap both of these schemes and replace it with a scheme which, frankly, would see five million children added to the already long public dental waiting list is an absolute farce and not something that anyone in the sector supports.

The National Oral Health Alliance has basically said that, if the government has its way with its scheme, people will be getting one treatment every 17 years, or it would be $40 per patient, according to the government's own rhetoric about how many people are now to be eligible under the scheme—$40 per year for their care—which is an absolute joke. The Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association have, arguably, also said that it will add significantly to public dental waiting lists.

I am very proud that Labor have fought hard to protect a scheme that we established—a scheme that was put in place to ensure that we would have good oral health into the future. We already have over 42 per cent of children under the age of five experiencing decay in their baby teeth and some 62 per cent of nine-year-olds experiencing decay in their baby teeth. We know that 20,000 children are hospitalised each year because of tooth decay that is avoidable. This scheme is working. It is a scheme that is important, and it is one that Labor is very proud to have stood up to this government on in this bill.

Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (10:05): I am very pleased and very proud to support what will be a far superior version of the omnibus bill than the one that it will replace. The Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 is superior because it is bigger, in terms of savings, and infinitely fairer, and it also ensures that we are investing in the future, as it relates to renewable energy.

We have been saying for some time that the bill that we support in this place will reflect the quantum of savings we took to the election, be consistent with our values, as it relates to things like protecting the vulnerable—people on Newstart and the like—and also invest in renewable energy, particularly with what we have been able to achieve through the ARENA part of the bill.

This bill is also infinitely superior because of the leadership provided by the member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition, who has done an outstanding job in leading a team which has made this bill fairer than it otherwise would have been. It is a superior bill because of the consultation that has taken place with good people in the community and with peak groups like ACOSS and LEAN—the Labor Environmental Action Network—an organisation I am proud to be a patron of in Queensland.

This bill is infinitely superior because of the consideration of the colleagues in our broader caucus—the people that the member for Port Adelaide ran through. There are many people on this side of the House with a view on this bill who have encouraged and allowed us to get to this far superior outcome.

It is a better bill because of the work done by the member for McMahon, the member for Sydney, the member for Jagajaga, the member for Port Adelaide, the member for Ballarat—all of the colleagues in the shadow cabinet. The member for Port Adelaide mentioned I am new to the shadow cabinet—I have only been there five minutes or so—but I am very pleased to see the way that the team worked together so effectively under the member for Maribyrnong's leadership. He and all of his colleagues here did such an extraordinary job making this bill infinitely superior to the one that it will replace.

What we have shown on this side of the House is that budget repair can be fair. It can be in the finest traditions of the Labor Party. It can stand up for the vulnerable people in our community and not ask them to carry the can when it comes to budget repair in this country. What we did on this side of the House was seize the initiative, because something needed to be done about the mess that the budget is in.

Debt has blown out by more than $100 billion under the watch of those opposite. The deficit has tripled since that disastrous 2014 budget—and, perhaps most importantly, our coveted, hard-won AAA credit rating is in serious jeopardy. We on this side of the House will do what we can to defend that AAA credit rating. If we lose it, it will be on the heads of those opposite, because we are playing such a constructive role, helping them out of the mess that they have created in the budget.

In the absence of the economic leadership that was promised a year ago by the member for Wentworth but which never eventuated, we will continue to take that initiative. There are fairer savings in this bill—that is true—but there are more where they come from. There are more savings of this nature that add up to budget repair that is fair. There is more to be done in private health insurance. There is more to be done in capping the VET FEE-HELP arrangements.

We have offered a constructive way out of this humiliating impasse that those opposite have come to on superannuation. We invite them to pick up these fair savings and to run with them. They can have the credit for them. They should build them into the budget. We call on them to do that so that we can continue to fix their budget mess in a fair way—a way that does not ask the most vulnerable people to carry the can.

If they are serious about defending the AAA credit rating and they are serious about improving the budget bottom line, they should abandon the $50 billion tax giveaway to big, multinational corporations in this country. That is the biggest piece of fiscal vandalism on the table at the moment—$50 billion out of our schools and hospitals and into the pockets, onto the bottom lines and into the profits of the biggest companies in Australia at a time when the country cannot afford it.

There is a right way and a wrong way to fix the budget. The wrong way is to lecture people about moral responsibility while you give $50 billion away when the country cannot afford it. The wrong way is to ask the most vulnerable people to do the heaviest lifting. But there is a right way. We are proud of what has been achieved here in this omnibus bill because it is the right way. It is a bigger savings package than the one contemplated in the original bill. It is infinitely fairer than the one it replaced and it invests in renewables. This side of the House has shown again that we can make concessions, we can consult and we can negotiate with the government. I again want to pay special tribute to the member for McMahon for doing the negotiations from our point of view, as he carried that duty from our side of the House. But we have shown that, while we can make the concessions and do the consultations, we will not compromise our values. That is why what we are supporting here, when the bill is amended, is in the finest traditions of the Labor Party. It is a product of our shadow cabinet and our broader caucus that we can be proud of.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (10:11): I rise to support the amended Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016. There is no doubt that the issue of budget repair needs to be dealt with. The government has tripled the deficit since it came into office. The fact is that the debt has increased since this government came into office, at a time when spending has not increased in terms of productivity-boosting expenditure such as investment in infrastructure. If, to boost future economic growth, that had occurred, then there might be some justification; but we know that in the first two years of this government public sector investment in infrastructure fell by some 20 per cent. We know that during the recent election campaign the government refused to commit to important congestion-busting investments like the Cross River Rail project in Brisbane, Metronet in Perth, the AdeLINK light rail project or Western Sydney rail.

The fact is that issues around recurrent expenditure do have to be dealt with. They require tough decisions. I have been saying for some time that those tough decisions and Labor's position on them need to be determined on the basis of Labor values, on the basis of how these changes meet the fairness test. It is very clear that the government's earlier proposal to abolish the energy supplement for pensioners, people with disabilities, carers, recipients of Newstart and single parents was unfair. It was unfair on a range of measures. A range of compensation measures were put in place when the carbon price was implemented by the former Labor government.

We dealt with the issue of the impact on the working poor by tripling the income-tax-free threshold. Middle-class people received income tax cuts. Companies received direct support for the transition to a carbon-constrained economy. As proposed by this government, all of those measures would stay in place. All of the middle-income and high-income earners would keep the tax cuts that were part of the compensation measures. The only people who would be hit by the wind-back of those compensation measures were the poorest people in the community. What made it even worse was the fact that, as a result of the then Labor government not wanting double compensation, we discounted the next normal CPI increase for recipients of income security payments by the next CPI increase, which, of course, would have been impacted by the flow-on from the carbon price. So, in fact, these low-income earners would have been worse off in real terms than had the carbon price not been implemented, and that is why it was unfair to cut these payments by between $4 and $8 a week.

That is bad macro-economic policy because, at a time where the Reserve Bank has cut interest rates in order to stimulate demand and to use monetary policy as a stimulus, it makes no sense for fiscal policy to work in the opposite direction. That is precisely what a cut to real incomes for the poorest people in our society would have done because these people spend all of their income, every dollar, on getting by from week to week. We know that Newstart is already too low. It is not just that people in this parliament suggest that; even the Business Council of Australia suggests that. That is why this clawback of compensation was unfair, and Chris Bowen, the Shadow Treasurer, and others—Jenny Macklin in particular, who always has looking after the most vulnerable in our community at the forefront of everything that she does—deserve credit for negotiating a proposition that can now receive the support of both sides of the parliament. To give the government due credit, the fact that they were prepared to be flexible deserves acknowledgement as well.

We need to give people appropriate respect and not just regard people who are on low incomes and who are vulnerable as people who are expendable. If we do not give them a voice who will? It is the Labor Party that historically has stood up for those people and stood up for Labor values—and, once again, we have done this with this package today.

I will also mention briefly the change to ARENA funding. As a result of the measures negotiated, ARENA will have an $800 million budget over the next five years to continue its important work. This is critical work. The promotion of renewables is consistent with Labor's position of 50 per cent renewables by 2030. We do not think this goes far enough, and it is important that there will be negotiations between the shadow minister and the Minister for the Environment and Energy in order to see if we can get further agreement in the shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables that is so necessary. It is important to acknowledge that climate change is real. It is happening. The quicker we transition to a clean energy economy the cheaper that transition will be. Importantly, this will also support jobs, and the renewable energy sector has seen jobs triple in recent years. The work of ARENA is aimed particularly at early stage developments, and it is important that, as a result of this negotiated outcome, support for clean energy and the renewable sector has been ensured.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:19): Without amendments, the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 is a bad bill because it attacks low-income earners and kids dental, and it is a bad bill with amendments because it attacks clean energy. At a time when we should be putting more money into clean energy, we are being asked to quickly pass through parliament a dirty deal done between Labor and Liberal that takes the axe to renewable energy.

It is no excuse to say, 'Oh, well, somehow these cuts aren't as bad as they might have been.' Labor found it in its heart to say no to some of the measures but apparently not to all, because apparently it is okay to cut half a billion dollars out of renewable energy—which is what Labor has just done. Apparently it is okay not to say no to the cuts to research and development, which is what Labor has just done. And apparently it is okay to give the green light to cuts to student support, to aged care, to newly-arrived migrants and to student scholarships, because that is what Labor has just done.

We have been saying for some time, as the Greens, that we need to secure this country's revenue base. If we want to fund the services that Australians rightly expect and to invest more in clean energy then, yes, we need to find the money from somewhere. The question is: where do you find it from? At the moment we spend several billion dollars a year just so that the likes of Gina Rinehart can put cheap diesel into trucks on their mining sites. We give a tax break to the very wealthy in sectors that, frankly, do not need it.

By removing one simple measure, by saying to the likes of Gina Rinehart, 'You should pay the same tax on your diesel as everyone else in this country pays on their petrol,' we could have raised three times as much as the saving in this package. That is the kind of spine that Labor could have shown to the government, because that is what the Greens have said to the government. This package is not the right way to balance the budget, because in 2016 there are fairer and better ways of balancing the budget than taking the money from clean energy, or taking the money from students or taking the money from newly arrived migrants. But no: Labor has said, 'We are happy to rip half a billion dollars out of world-leading renewable energy research in this country.'

Let us talk about ARENA. What is ARENA? The Australian Renewable Energy Agency is something that was set up by the Greens and Labor in the power-sharing parliament back in 2010. Its job is to take new and innovative projects in the renewable energy space. One might be the printable solar cells that they are developing, where you can print solar cells onto surfaces as diverse as banknotes or fabric. You can print them straight onto corrugated iron so that your roof becomes a solar panel—you do not need to put a solar panel on your roof; the roof is the solar panel. That is the kind of thing that ARENA funds.

ARENA looks at battery technology and says, 'How can we make sure that instead of building new coal fired power stations we can put batteries into businesses and households and make those affordable so that we can store the power that our solar panels generate during the day and save it overnight?' That is the kind of thing that ARENA does. ARENA also says, 'Let's look at some of these large-scale solar projects that can now, and will be able to in the future, replace coal fired power stations.' That is what ARENA does. It gives money to projects that are in an early stage so that they can prove themselves and then become commercial and viable in their own right.

That is exactly the kind of thing we should be doing, and it is exactly what Australians want government money to be spent on. The government says, 'Well, we don't like that. We want to rip over a billion dollars out of it.' And Labor says, 'Well, we kind of like it. Let's just only rip half a billion dollars out of it and call it a victory.' It is not a victory when you take half a billion dollars out of renewable energy. That is not a victory; that is handing a blank cheque to the government to gut renewable energy in this country.

And the more that we find out about this dirty deal that Labor and the Liberals did yesterday the more we understand why they did not want to have a public inquiry into this bill—one of the very few instances that I can remember where Labor and Liberal have got together and said, 'There will be no public hearings into this bill. We don't want any sunlight shone on it.' Well now we see why, because not only is half a billion dollars ripped out but it seems that almost all of that half a billion comes in the next three years. So on our analysis, of the $517 million that Labor has said they are going to give the government a blank cheque to cut, $514 million comes in the next three years. At the very time when this agency is saying, 'We need the money now to give confidence to the industry so that we can grow renewable energy projects and grow renewable energy jobs'—things like solar thermal in Port Augusta or large-scale wind farms just outside of Canberra—Labor signs up to a deal to gut half a billion dollars, almost all of the savings, in the next three years.

That is the dirty deal that has been done, but it gets even worse—we have not even spoken about the con. No sooner had Labor signed up to this deal from the government than two government ministers go out yesterday afternoon and say, 'Actually it's all right because, yes, we've left $800 million in the ARENA bucket, but we're going to find that $800 million from another clean energy project.' Labor says, 'No, that wasn't the deal,' and the government says, 'Well, we're the government and that's what we're going to do.' Finance minister Cormann and energy minister Frydenberg said yesterday, 'We're going to offset this money that Labor has supposedly saved for ARENA by not spending it on another project over here in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.' So this amazing deal that has been done has allowed, in the government's mind, no net change. You have not saved renewable energy, Labor; you have helped kill it. If you had the courage to stand up and say, 'No cuts to some of the low-income earners'—not all, mind you; you are happy in this bill to take the axe to students and newly arrived migrants—why did you not have the courage to stand with the Greens and say, 'No cuts to renewable energy'?

It is very, very easy, as Labor and Liberal are wont to do, to talk about bipartisanship and the benefit of it, but the only bipartisanship we are seeing is cuts. When it came to the question of renewable energy, Labor and Liberal agreed in the last parliament to cut the Renewable Energy Target. In most countries if you set yourself a target for renewable energy and you are on track to exceed it, you would see it as a sign of success. The government said, 'Oh, we've got too much renewable energy—it's doing more than we expected; we need to cut the target,' and Labor went and agreed with them. That was the first outbreak of bipartisanship: a cut to Australia's Renewable Energy Target. Now we are seeing another outbreak of bipartisanship where they are cutting the amount of money going to renewable energy in this country. When the climate groups and the country call out for bipartisanship on climate change they want more action to be taken, not less. It is very easy for Labor and Liberal to agree on cutting renewable energy; what is harder is getting Labor and Liberal to agree to put more money into renewable energy or to have higher targets and to get more renewable energy.

So then we have these crawling words coming from Labor afterwards, suggesting, 'Oh, it's all right, we're going to have discussions with the minster and at some point in the future we might be able to get more money back into renewable energy.' The first thing the minister did after you signed this deal was go out with his finance minister and say, 'We're taking $800 million from somewhere else,' sending a strong message to their backbench: 'It's okay; we've conned Labor.' Labor has been conned. They have fallen for a pea-and-thimble trick, and you need look no further than the boasting of the finance minister and the energy minister to see that.

So what would it mean to have budget savings that come from the top end of town? We can start by saying: 'Maybe in our superannuation system, where it costs us $30 billion a year in tax breaks, most of which go to very wealthy top income earners, we do not need to be giving people on over $100,000 a tax break to save for their retirement at quite the same level as we have so far; let's wind that back a bit.' There is a few billion dollars a year. We have talked a bit about fuel tax credits before, but maybe we can say to wealthy mining companies, 'You do not need to get a tax break for accelerated depreciation of your property; you're doing all right, we think.' There is another couple of billion dollars. Maybe we could say to the big banks, 'You make world-leading record profits off the back of implicit subsidies that the IMF has valued at a couple of billion dollars a year.' The IMF—not the most left-wing organisation that I know of—has said: 'Australia gives the big four banks effectively a couple of billion dollars in subsidies every year. Maybe you should look at winding back some of it or charging them for it.' If you did that—if we stood up to the big banks—there is a couple of billion dollars a year. There are plenty of ways of finding money without hitting everyday Australians, but it requires the courage to stand up to the top end of town.

It requires courage. That is what is remarkably lacking from this government, but you would expect that from this government because they do nothing more than the bidding of big business. But you would expect a bit more courage from Labor. You would expect Labor to say, 'Instead of taking money from students by taking the axe to student start-up scholarships or other forms of student support, maybe we will go after Gina Rinehart.' But, no, quite happily, despite all the bluff and bluster during the election campaign about Malcolm Turnbull being unfair, they have just agreed to Malcolm Turnbull's measures. And it is worse than that because many of those are Tony Abbott's measures.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): I remind the member to use correct titles please, as the Speaker said this morning.

Mr BANDT: Many of these measures are from the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott. These were the zombie measures that he could not get through the last parliament, because in the last parliament people had the courage to stand up to the former Prime Minister and say: 'No, the way that you are raising money is unfair. You should be taking it from those who can afford to pay, not those who can't.' We fended him off for a couple of years but, as soon as the election is out of the way, in the second week of parliament, what does the opposition do? They crawl over to the government benches and say: 'How can we sign up to some of those measures? We opposed them for a couple of years, but that was just for the election. Now that the election is out of the way, let's get on with it and sign up.' That is why they are trying to push this bill through with very short speeches from them, because they know in their hearts that they are signing up to measures that they fought for a very long time and for good reason. They know that they have taken the easy way out by cutting funds for renewable energy instead of winding back the subsidies that the likes of Gina Rinehart gets.

We are calling them out. The Greens will not be supporting this bill. There are too many measures in this bill that attack those who cannot afford it. There are too many measures in this bill that attack clean energy and attack research and development at a time when we should be putting money into those areas. We will not be supporting this bill. I heard some talk from the opposition benches about having saved ARENA and I have explained why that is not the case. In the detail stage of this bill, we will give the opposition a chance to actually do that. I will be moving an amendment to remove the cuts to ARENA, full stop. We can find the money from other places. So I urge the opposition to rethink their willingness to cut half a billion dollars out of renewable energy, because it is not too late. The money can be found from elsewhere. When I move the amendments, I hope that all those words about saving ARENA are put into practice, because we can do it right here, right now. It is a bad bill with or without amendments.

Mr WILKIE (Denison) (10:34): The Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 is a black-hearted bill, and Labor are a pack of quislings for supporting it. Just when the opposition should act like an opposition and stand up for the community and the environment, it has rolled over to have its tummy tickled. It is terribly disappointing and it betrays a great many people who voted Labor. This is a black-hearted bill. Well may people come in here and talk about what a good bill it is. Well may the ALP come in here and say how they have amended it to ensure that it is a fair bill, but it is not. Indeed, it contains 20 of the 24 original measures. I will say that again: this bill contains 20 of the 24 original measures. It still cuts over half a billion dollars from ARENA. It abolishes the family tax benefit part A for some people. It cuts the supplement for new mothers. It cuts the energy supplement for some Centrelink recipients. It fails to clarify the future of dental care for the children of low-income families. Every way you look at this bill, it is not supportable, and I will not support it.

I associate myself with the comments from the member for Melbourne, particularly on the environment and the effect of ARENA—I will come back to that in a moment. I will dwell on another issue that the member for Melbourne spoke about—that is, the other ways to repair the budget. I am the first to agree that we need to re-engineer the budget. We are spending more than we are earning. Our debt is increasing. It needs to be re-engineered and it needs to be put on a pathway to balance over the economic cycle. The question is how you balance the budget over the economic cycle. Do you go after the most disadvantaged people in the community? Do you attack the disadvantaged, those on low incomes and the people who cannot stick up for themselves, or do you go after the money where the money is to be had in a fair economy and in a fair community?

What about a superprofits tax? The big four banks, in the first six months of this year, have posted combined profits of some $16,000 million, an enormous sum of money in simple terms and an enormous return on investment. Rather than going after low-income people or their families in the community who are doing it hard, why don't we go after the big four banks and say: 'You are doing all right. You get a lot of support from the government and from this parliament. So when you are doing all right, pay a bit more tax.' That would be the action of a fair government. That would be something for a decent opposition to support.

What about high-wage earners, people like politicians? The sort of money we earn is an almost unfathomable amount of money for most people in the community. Why can't people like us pay a little more income tax? That would be another way to help repair the budget. That would be another fair act of a fair government. That would be something that a decent opposition could support.

What about this bizarre capital gains tax discount? There is a lot of talk about negative gearing but next to no talk about this bizarre arrangement where, after a very short period, people get an inexplicable discount on their capital gains tax. Yes, I do acknowledge that the Labor Party has had something to say on this, and that is good, but what has the government done about it? Nothing; absolutely nothing. These are all the sorts of areas where we can gain additional revenue.

Then we can turn our minds to expenditure. It is very timely that in recent days a report has been released by a number of organisations who have found that the cost of mandatory detention, offshore processing, turn-backs and the failed Cambodia resettlement plan has been almost $10,000 million just in the last three years. Yes, that is right, Mr Deputy Speaker: $9.6 billion to pay for our response to asylum seekers just in three years. It is forecast to be another $5.7 billion—that is, $5,700 million—over the next four years. In other words, it has cost almost $16 billion just to respond to people who are fleeing for their lives and coming to our shores seeking protection. A good government—a government with a heart, a government with a sense of fairness and respect for international law—would not be busting $16,000 million to deal with asylum seekers. That is one area of expenditure which could be reined in immediately, starting with the closure of the Nauru immigration detention centre.

What about our defence build-up? I do not think I could be called a dove. I served this country in uniform for 20 years and I served in the intelligence community for some years after that. I have a realistic understanding of national security and of the need to have a defence force and equip our soldiers properly. But what on earth are we doing talking about spending $30 billion over the next 10 years on top of our existing Defence budget? There is no way that can be defended. When we are trying to get the budget back into order, when we are taking money off some of the poorest and most disadvantaged members of our community, there is no way we can turn around and say, 'By the way, we are going to spend $30,000 million extra over the next 10 years on a defence build-up.' We are not keeping the budget at existing levels and replacing platforms as they reach their use-by date but building it up. Then we will look at our neighbours and criticise them for joining in our arms race.

What is this about doubling our submarine fleet? At a time when we need to get the budget back into good shape, at a time when this government, supported by the quisling opposition, is going after some of the most disadvantaged members of the community, we are going to double our submarine fleet—when we can't even crew the fleet we have now! It does not make any sense.

Yes, let's re-engineer the budget, let's rein in unnecessary and wasteful expenditure, let's look for efficiencies and other ways in which we can raise additional revenue to fund the needs of this country, but let's do it in a fair way. Let's not go after disadvantaged people and people on low incomes. Let's not go after the children with crook teeth in low-income families. Yes, I note that the ALP, to their credit, have sought to address this in some way in their negotiations with the government, but no-one knows what the answer is yet. No-one can have any confidence that there will be a good outcome from this or, indeed, that there will be an effective dental scheme for the kids in low-income families.

Now let me turn my attention to the environment. I am very pleased that the member for Melbourne spent quite some time on this, because when you look at all the challenges facing this country there can be no doubt that the greatest single challenge, the one thing that jeopardises our future and the future of our kids and their kids, is climate change. Kevin Rudd was quite right to call it the greatest moral challenge. I do not think people in this place have their minds around that. I think too many people in this place still think that climate change is 'crap', or they believe in it but they do not understand the enormity of the problem and the challenge that faces us, or they understand it a bit but they like to say the right thing now and then just to keep the community happy. I do not think that, as a parliament, we get it. I do not think we understand the changes that are coming our way in our lifetime, the changes that are coming the way of people right around the world, in particular in many countries in our region, and the need to do everything in our power to deal with climate change.

Yes, let's set ambitious goals. When I talked at the recent election about the sorts of targets I personally want, I was always greeted with approval and applause—or approval at least; sometimes applause. I would say to my community back home in Hobart, in my electorate of Denison, 'We should be aiming for 100 per cent net zero carbon emissions by 2030 and 100 per cent reliance on renewable energy by 2030.' Some people would say to me: 'Don't be silly! That's beyond what all the parties say. It's just not possible.' I would say to them: 'It is possible. It is possible for a country with ambition. It is possible for a country led by inspiring leaders.' For heaven's sake, the United States, 50 years ago, put someone on the moon from scratch in about half a decade, all because a president and a government said: 'Let's go for it! Let's do it!' And they did it. If we had that sort of mindset in this country, if we went for it, we could do it. We would be the global leader. Not only would we be doing the right thing for our community and our environment; we would be leading the rest of the world and showing them what can be done in a rich and lucky country with inspiring leadership.

Instead, what are we talking about today? We are talking about the government, with this black-hearted bill supported by the quisling opposition, cutting $550 million from ARENA. That is a remarkable betrayal of the Australian community and the public interest and the environment. But then, why would I be surprised? Because it was the Labor opposition that voted with the Liberal-National government to reduce the mandatory renewable energy target from 41,000 gigawatt hours to 33,000 gigawatt hours. So it turns out a lot of people like to come in here and give all the grand speeches and say all the right things, but when the big decisions are to be had, when the votes are to be put, everyone just turns to water and worries about money and the budget. That is why they are cutting $550 million from ARENA. That is why the government during the election campaign basically wanted to gut the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, to turn it into a slush fund for its election promises, because at the end of the day neither the government nor the opposition are really fair dinkum about the environment. If they were fair dinkum about the environment, if they were fair dinkum about our very existence as we know it is threatened by climate change, they would not be putting this in the bill and the opposition would not be supporting it. This is a terrible betrayal.

Let us just think about climate change for a minute. We are already seeing it. We are already seeing in Australia more extreme weather events more often, and that will become more and more commonplace. There will be more droughts. There will be more bushfires. There will be more cyclones. There will be more flooding. We will start to see more and more diseases appear in parts of the country where they have never been seen before. In our region we will see increasing instability as sea-level rise results in mass dislocation of communities, particularly in the low-lying microstates in the Pacific and the low-lying river deltas in places like Bangladesh, Indonesia and Vietnam. We will see wars over water supply. We will see all this because of climate change. When my two little daughters are older and they ask me: 'Dad, what did you achieve in your life? What did you fight for? What you have to say when it really mattered?' I will have to say that far too often I walked into a room and worked with men and women and debated issues about which that group failed our nation and our community.

If I seem to be spending a lot of awful time on climate change in a debate about the omnibus bill, it is because I, like the member for Melbourne, want to make it absolutely clear that at the end of the day it is vitally important to look after community, to provide the essential services and income for disadvantaged and low-income people. To do all of those things is a vital role for government, as is keeping them safe. But the biggest threat coming down the highway at us is climate change, and when I look at the omnibus bill I see the cut of $550 million from ARENA as being biggest single betrayal in the bill. For that reason alone, I will not support this bill. I would hope that I am joined by others—I suspect the member for Melbourne and I hope others will join me.

I started by describing this as a black-hearted bill. I think it gives us an insight into a government that also is black hearted. It gives us an insight into the approach of the opposition in this parliament. I called them quislings and I mean that. This was a time to take a stand; to stand and fight for the people who voted for you, like I am trying to do right now. Your coming in here and supporting a bill which you spent so long criticising and which still contains 20 of its original 24 measures makes you a pack of quislings.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I have the pleasure of calling the new member for Mayo, I will just ask members to reflect on the language being used. It will not be tolerated again.

Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (10:49): I wish to speak briefly about the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016. Whilst a deal has been reached between the government and the opposition, it is important that those who did not vote for a major party in the election—almost a quarter of all Australians—have a chance to have their voices heard on this important bill.

I am encouraged by the news that the proposed $1.3 billion cut to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency will not go ahead as planned but I am disheartened that the compromise between the major parties will still see $500 million worth of funding cuts from the agency. Australia, as a leading developed nation, has a responsibility, not only to those of us who live here but as a global citizen, to face the challenges of climate change. ARENA, since its establishment in 2012, has funded a number of worthy renewable energy projects and feasibility studies. One proposal that has been funded for a feasibility study is that of the Repower Port Augusta alliance in South Australia. Replacing the outdated and polluting coal plant dinosaurs with modern solar thermal plants would create 1,800 jobs for my state, and my state needs those jobs. It would save five million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, improve the health of the local community and ensure energy security and stable electricity prices. South Australia has been a leader in embracing renewable energy, and I am proud of how my state has faced the demands of a changing world. It could not do so without the support of bodies such as ARENA.

There is scope to change the way ARENA currently operates. I believe that there should be change in the funding mechanism to ensure that if renewable energy technology has commercial success the grant ought to be repaid, and there ought to be the ability for ARENA to take equity in the project so it can reap the benefit. If the government is fair dinkum about innovation and agility, it would ensure that ARENA remains fully funded into the future.

I would like to talk about the student start-up scholarships. The purpose of the student start-up scholarships is, and was, to help higher education students in need to meet the up-front costs of study. We should not fool ourselves; the students who are receiving this are students on Abstudy, on Austudy and on youth allowance. Many of those students who received the student start-up scholarships were from disadvantaged rural and regional backgrounds and thus faced significant additional costs in commencing study. These included but were not limited to the significant costs of relocating to a major capital or regional city, where they could not rely on local support from family or friends. And that is many people in my community of Mayo.

Many of the 80,000 recipients of the scholarship will have made major and important financial and life decisions based on the knowledge that they were in receipt of such a scholarship. As it currently stands the bill provides students on start-up scholarships less than one year to make the necessary significant adjustments to their financial and life circumstances to compensate for the removal of the scholarship payments. It is unreasonable to provide the proposed short time frame for these students to make such major financial adjustments to their life. The simple solution to this problem is to delay the repeal of the student start-up scholarships by at least 18 months to 1 January 2019.

I would like to briefly talk about the carbon tax compensation. The Nick Xenophon Team recognises that the budget needs to be set on a solid trajectory towards repair; however, repairing the budget should not be achieved off the backs of the poorest in our society. It was encouraging to learn that the deal struck between the government and the opposition allowed compensation for the carbon tax to continue for those on payments like Newstart, youth allowance, the disability support pension and the age pension. It was, on the other hand, so disappointing that it was those doing it the toughest who were so clearly targeted in the first place.

Admittedly, according to simple logic, if there is no longer a carbon tax then the carbon tax compensation—the energy supplement and single income family supplement—should eventually be phased out. However, this simple logic ignores the effect that the removal of these supplement payments would have on our most disadvantaged communities. In addition to the basic social compassion there are also good economic arguments for ensuring that income supplement payments keep Australians out of poverty. Income and wealth inequality is rising in Australia, which is putting pressure on the demand side of the economy. The poorest in our society must by necessity spend a greater proportion of their incomes on goods and services than the richer end of the income distribution.

Businesses also require consumers to purchase their products in order to prosper. Given the continued uncertainty and weakness of global demand, it would seem a highly inauspicious time to be placing more pressure upon Australian businesses by deliberately cutting social security to the poorest and thus domestic demand. This is of particular concern to small businesses which do not enjoy the same economies of scale as large businesses and thus cannot weather adverse conditions for as long. So, whilst I support this bill and acknowledge that the government has a job to do in repairing the budget, I am concerned about how such savings are being achieved.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (10:56): I thank members for their contribution to this debate on the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016. I think it has been a good opportunity this morning to be able to move with some haste to ensure that this matter is dealt with in the parliament this week. So I thank members for their contribution.

The challenge before this parliament is to arrest the debt that risks the living standards of not just future generations of Australians but also the current generations of Australians. This is the government's task. This is the task that the Turnbull government are focused on. The Turnbull government are interested in getting outcomes. We will leave the politicking and the commentary about the politics to others. There were a few grandstanding speeches here earlier in the debate and a few laps of honour made by those opposite. We will leave the politicking there.

We are interested in outcomes. We were elected to get outcomes in this 45th Parliament and this bill is getting those outcomes. So the Turnbull government are getting on with governing. The agreement reached on this bill demonstrates the ability of the Turnbull government to get the things done that we were elected to do in this parliament.

As a government we inherited accumulated deficits in 2013 of some $240 billion and a debt curse from the previous government of some $317 billion. In the last term Labor did engage in budget sabotage for three years, not only opposing urgent budget repair measures but promising to reverse measures passed and to engage in even higher spending. Over the past year Labor proposed and then walked away from some $50 billion or thereabouts in expenditure measures. This bill though I hope brings that process to an end. This bill I think provides a new way forward from what was going on in the past. This bill brings to book that process. Labor are now supporting things that they previously opposed, and what they called zombie measures are being included in this budget. We welcome that. We welcome the change of heart, but we in this place, particularly we on this side of the House, know it will not be enough.

Some $40 billion in budget improvement measures are before this parliament. The $11 billion of those measures included in what is agreed in this omnibus bill and what will pass in terms of tobacco excise means we are making significant progress on those issues, working in this parliament with the agreement of the opposition. But the balance and focus of these savings measures must be on savings on outlays, and $25 billion of our $40 billion in budget improvement measures are on savings. So, where there are measures that have not been picked up and supported in this bill, the government will continue to pursue those measures because they are necessary for the job of budget repair, and we will seek to do that in partnership with other parties and individuals in both this place and the other place to ensure that we can achieve that job of arresting the debt.

I will be moving a series of amendments in the third reading, which summarises the agreement that has been reached with the opposition.

I want to particularly put on record my thanks to the shadow Treasurer for his engagement in this process, as well as my team member Mathias Cormann, Senator Cormann, the Minister for Finance, and for the strong work that has been done between the two parties. That has been done in good faith. I do acknowledge the strong work that has been done by the shadow Treasurer on behalf of the opposition. We look forward to continuing to work on issues moving forward, wherever that is possible to be done. I would commend that process to the House. And I commend this bill in the form that we will get to. I am confident, as we move through the third reading stage, for an outcome that will deliver $6.3 billion in budget savings and arrest the debt by some $30 billion over the medium term. That is an outcome that the Turnbull government can be rightly very proud of, and we will continue to govern.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): I thank the Treasurer. The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

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

The SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. The second reading is therefore carried.

Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Mr Katter, Ms McGowan and Mr Wilkie voting no.

Bill read a second time.

The SPEAKER: I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor-General recommending, in accordance with section 56 of the Constitution, an appropriation for the purpose of this bill.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:07): I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 5, page 18 (lines 1 to 7), omit the Schedule.

The amendment does a very simple thing. It removes from this bill the cuts to ARENA, full stop. As we know, there are over a billion dollars of cuts to ARENA proposed in this bill. We anticipate that there are going to be some subsequent amendments moved to confirm that there will be over half a billion dollars in cuts to ARENA in this bill. If we are talking about half a billion dollars then the question is: can this chamber and this parliament find a better place to raise half a billion dollars than by cutting renewable energy?

We know that the Australian Renewable Energy Agency has the support of the renewable energy industry, but even more importantly it has the support of companies that run coal-fired power stations, like AGL, and it has the support of multinational companies like GE. They have all said and pleaded with this government and with the Labor Party, 'Please don't kill ARENA.' We now have the opportunity to say, 'Let's work together to find a better place to raise half a billion dollars.'

I think it is not beyond the wit of Labor, Liberal and the Greens to find, for example, a way of winding back superannuation tax concessions to raise half a billion dollars. All sides of this parliament have said that superannuation tax concessions are too generous and need to be wound back. We know that it costs around $30 billion a year—this is what Treasury tells us—to prop up the super system. Everyone has said there is a need for some reform. Okay. So let's give ARENA a stay of execution and instead work together to find half a billion dollars from superannuation. I bet we could do it.

There are plenty of other places that we could find half a billion dollars from as well. We could wind back some of the tax breaks that we give to large mining companies. We could wind back some of the tax breaks that we give to the banks. These measures might have the agreement across the parliament; they might not. But there has to be—I am convinced of it—a better way of finding half a billion dollars than by taking it from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

We heard some statements during the second reading debate that ARENA had been saved. Well, now is the chance to do it. No-one is holding a gun to Labor's head and saying they have to cut ARENA's funding by half a billion dollars. No-one is holding a gun to Labor's head and saying they have to cut clean energy to help balance the budget. No-one is forcing them to do this. I say to the opposition: please support us on this amendment and we can find other ways when it gets to the Senate of making up the difference. Please support us on this amendment because this is a chance to save the Renewable Energy Agency.

I say to the opposition: you found other areas on which you were prepared to stand up to the government and say, 'No go.' And I am glad that you did that, because some of those areas were things that we had previously worked on together, like dental—although, as the member for Denison says, we still do not know what is going to come out of that; it might still be on the chopping block if this deal is any indication of what is in store for us. But if you could say no on some things then say no on this. Say 'No', Labor, to cutting half a billion dollars out of renewable energy. Find that spine that you found on the other measures for renewable energy, because this is critically important.

I say to Labor: please support us on this amendment. And I say to the government: please support this amendment and give ARENA its full funding back and let's work together to find other ways to raise that half a billion dollars, because in the context of the overall budget that is a very doable ask. If Labor and Liberal are really saying that the only way we can repair the budget is by taking money out of renewable energy then they are not looking hard enough, because we can point to billions and billions of dollars in tax concessions going to the top end of town. It would be much better to take the money off those who can afford it rather than taking it out of renewable energy. I commend this amendment to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the amendment seconded?

Mr WILKIE (Denison) (11:13): I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (11:33): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (19), as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

Mr MORRISON: I move government amendments (1) to (19):

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 11), omit the table item.

(2) Clause 2, page 4 (table item 22), omit the table item.

(3) Clause 2, page 4 (after table item 24), insert:

(4) Schedule 5, item 1, page 18 (lines 5 to 7), omit the item, substitute:

1 Subsection 64(1) (table items 5 to 9)

Repeal the items, substitute:

(5) Schedule 9, page 46 (line 1) to page 56 (line 2), omit the Schedule.

(6) Schedule 20, page 180 (line 1) to page 182 (line 12), omit the Schedule.

(7) Schedule 21, items 26 to 35, page 190 (line 4) to page 195 (line 7), omit the items.

(8) Schedule 21, item 38, page 198 (line 16), omit "item; and", substitute "item.".

(9) Schedule 21, item 38, page 198 (lines 17 to 21), omit paragraph (i).

(10) Schedule 21, items 39 to 85, page 198 (line 22) to page 209 (line 6), omit the items.

(11) Schedule 21, Part 3, page 210 (lines 1 to 15), omit the Part.

(12) Schedule 21, items 90 to 103, page 211 (line 4) to page 213 (line 14), omit the items.

(13) Schedule 21, item 105, page 216 (line 6) to page 217 (line 5), omit the item.

(14) Schedule 21, item 106, page 217 (line 23), omit "or a gold card".

(15) Schedule 21, item 107, page 218 (line 26), omit "item; and", substitute "item.".

(16) Schedule 21, item 107, page 218 (lines 27 to 31), omit paragraph (i).

(17) Schedule 21, items 108 to 118, page 218 (line 32) to page 220 (line 14), omit the items.

(18) Schedule 21, Part 5, page 221 (line 1) to page 222 (line 32), omit the Part.

(19) Page 225 (after line 32), after Schedule 21, insert:

Schedule 21A—Income limit for FTB Part A supplement

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999

1 Before subclause 38A(1) of Schedule 1

Insert:

(1A) Despite any other provision of this clause, the amount of the FTB Part A supplement to be added in working out an individual's maximum rate under clause 3, or an individual's Method 2 base rate under clause 25, is nil if the individual's adjusted taxable income is more than $80,000.

Note: If the individual is a member of a couple, the individual's adjusted taxable income includes the adjusted taxable income of the individual's partner: see clause 3 of Schedule 3.

2 Application provision

The amendment made by this Schedule applies in relation to working out the rate of family tax benefit for days on or after the commencement of this Schedule.

I commend them to the House.

Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (11:33): The amendments reflect the agreement between the opposition and the government. I commend them to House.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:33): I have a number of questions for the Treasurer. There is confirmation from the shadow Treasurer that this reflects the agreement that was reached. In the explanatory memorandum there is a reference on page 6. I am looking at the point about Australian Renewable Energy Agency's finances where it says the government has agreed to restore funding to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, of $800 million over the five years to 2021-22 and to reduce by a commensurate amount the capital allocated to the Clean Energy Innovation Fund. Earlier today The Guardian reported that the spokesperson for the shadow environment minister said:

The discussion was progressed on the basis that any save that fell short of what we needed would be made up for by some other area, and that’s exactly what happened. So no cut to the Clean Energy Innovation Fund is needed.

I am seeking clarification from the Treasurer, given that we have just heard from the shadow Treasurer that this reflects the agreement that was reached. Labor is saying publicly that the agreement did not include any cut to the Clean Energy Innovation Fund, but the explanatory memorandum says there will be a reduction of $800 million in the capital allocated to the Clean Energy Innovation Fund. Who is right, and what is the agreement?

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (11:35): The agreement with the opposition on the bill has no impact on the overall capital allocation for the CEFC, which remains unchanged at $10 billion.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:35): I was just asked by the Leader of the Opposition how long this will go on for. I say to the House: part of the problem we have got is that Labor and the coalition refused to have an open hearing into this bill. We now have the opportunity here, for the first time, to ask questions about the amendment. My question—and maybe the Treasurer did not hear it correctly—was not about the CEFC. I understand the point that is made in the explanatory memorandum that there is no overall reduction to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. My question is about the Clean Energy Innovation Fund. Labor says the deal did not include any reduction to the clean energy fund. The explanatory memorandum says there will be a reduction to the clean energy fund by the amount of $800 million that Labor says it saved for ARENA. So I ask again: what is the deal? Can the Treasurer confirm that there will be a reduction to the Clean Energy Innovation Fund, and was that part of the agreement reached with Labor?

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (11:36): The Clean Energy Innovation Fund provides debt and equity, not grants, to target clean energy technologies and businesses that have passed beyond the R&D stage but are not yet commercially ready to attract private sector capital. This type of government financial support will continue to support clean energy, but, unlike grants, will provide a return to the taxpayer. I think that covers the member's question.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:37): I will give the Treasurer one last opportunity to advise the House whether or not part of the agreement with Labor included a reduction of $800 million for the Clean Energy Innovation Fund. The explanatory memorandum says it did. And so unless the Treasurer disavows the explanatory memorandum, it appears to be that the government is saying to the House, in writing, part of the deal was $800 million coming out of the Clean Energy Innovation Fund. That has been contradicted publicly by Labor this morning, and I am seeking clarification about who is right.

We are being asked to vote on this right now, when there has been no public hearing into the effects of these cuts and we have been given an explanatory memorandum and all of five minutes to examine this deal that has been done. It seems I cannot get a straight answer from the government about what is included in the deal, because the Treasurer seems to be unwilling to confirm what is in the explanatory memorandum or tell us whether what is being said publicly about it is right or wrong. So maybe it is the case that the opposition has been played off a break on this: they think they agreed to something, but in fact they have agreed to something else—in which case the government has got one over on the opposition. Or maybe it is the case that what is in the explanatory memorandum is right, that it is part of an agreement—the word 'agreement' is there—and that the Labor Party agreed to take $800 million from the Clean Energy Innovation Fund, in which case it is Labor who is saying one thing in parliament and saying another thing to the public and the media.

This is crucially important because we are being asked to vote on this right now, with all of 10 or 20 minutes to examine this so-called deal that has been done, and there is an absolute lack of clarity about where the money is going to come from to supposedly save ARENA. I ask again: can the Treasurer confirm that what was in the explanatory memorandum is right? If so, how does that square with public statements being made that there was no agreement to cut the Clean Energy Innovation Fund?

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (11:39): Once again I point out to the member, and I refer him to the new explanatory memorandum that I tabled a few minutes ago, that I refer to the fact that there is the difference between debt and equity. This is debt and grants, and that is an on- and off-balance sheet issue. I commend the explanatory memorandum to the member.

Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (11:40): I would seek clarification from the Labor Party. Have they got an agreement that there are going to be no cutbacks, or haven't they? We want to know what the agreements are. It is quite a reasonable question asked by the honourable member for Melbourne.

While I am on my feet and while the ALP decide how they are going to answer the question, which will be rather curious for we crossbenchers, could I add this: I do not feel particularly comfortable in acting like, 'No, we don't agree to any cutbacks in anything.' What people like myself are saying is: for heaven's sake, everyone else on earth has a charge on goods coming into their country. Whether you call it an excise duty or a customs duty or whatever the hell you want to call it—a 'primage charge', as Billy Wentworth used to advocate in this place—even five per cent will bring in $16 billion a year. Surely some benefit for the Australian community would follow if, in fact, we put that charge on. Our manufacturing industries are collapsing because of overseas competition. All of our competitors have protective mechanisms—tariffs and various other mechanisms—that protect them. We cannot send our sugar into Europe; we cannot send our sugar into the United States. All of these other countries have protective mechanisms; we have no protective mechanisms whatsoever. Surely a five per cent or a 10 per cent charge for people who want to buy an item from overseas, instead of buying an Australian made item, is not an unreasonable proposition. In my opinion, that is one of the places where the money should come from—not cutting back on areas that are extremely important.

For the areas I represent in North Queensland, we are at the end of a 2,000-kilometre electricity line. The line losses of 20 per cent and 25 per cent and the cost of servicing the debt on those transmission lines is horrific; it is costing the Queensland government something like $500 million a year. So these ARENA projects are extremely important to us. Right at the end of the line is Karumba, and they are now getting into solar, which is absolutely ridiculous in any normal situation. But when you are trying to carry electricity nearly 3,000 kilometres, then it is very, very intelligent to have solar panels in. We commend Doug Scouller and the people doing it at that end. But they are doing this on ARENA grants. Let us be intelligent about this.

Persons like me would normally be anti the Greens agenda, but in this case we are not—because we are at the end of the line and we need these alternative energy sources, which are highly suitable and cheaper when you are dealing with the end of the line. I speak as a one-time minister for electricity in Queensland. But we would like an answer from the ALP. I do not think it is unreasonable for the honourable member to ask for clarification on this matter.

Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (11:43): The government and the opposition reached agreement that ARENA would receive funding of $800 million over the next five years. That is what is necessary and agreed for ARENA to continue to operate. The government has separate arrangements off-budget, but the government has reassured us and reassured the public that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is unaffected, with capital of $10 billion. That is a result; that is the case. The government has also agreed to a process for the shadow minister for climate change to work with the Minister for the Environment and Energy on the funding profile for ARENA. That is what we intend to ensure occurs, and I am sure it will occur.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:44): Neither of them has answered the question, and it is clear why: they have been caught out. What the shadow Treasurer just spoke about was the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. That is not what my question was about. What I asked about was in the supplementary explanatory memorandum about the Clean Energy Innovation Fund. If there is confusion about this, let me clarify it. Speaking about the Clean Energy Innovation Fund—and I am reading from a transcript—the Prime Minister, on 23 March 2016, said:

… we are establishing a new $1 billion Clean Energy Innovation Fund and what that is going to do is every year invest $100 million in the smartest, most cutting edge Australian clean-energy technologies and businesses to ensure that we not only drive jobs and innovation in Australia but also play our part in cracking the very hard problems, the challenging technical difficulties that we face in terms of reducing emissions.

So it was a key announcement that there was going to be $1 billion for this.

As we know, the outcome of the negotiations that took place about ARENA is that half a billion dollars is coming out but $800 million is staying. The question is: where is that $800 million coming from? No sooner was the ink dry on that deal than the finance minister and the minister for energy went out and said the $800 million is going to come from elsewhere in the clean energy bucket. Labor then went out and said: 'No, that's not our understanding of the negotiations.' Again, so that there can be no confusion, let's be clear what Labor is saying. In The Guardian today, Labor is reported as saying: 'The government's Clean Energy Innovation Fund was never the subject of negotiations. The discussion was progressed on the basis that any save that fell short of what we needed would be made up by some other area'—not clean energy, some other area—'and that is exactly what happened.'

So no cut to the Clean Energy Innovation Fund is needed—that is what Labor is saying. So Labor and the government have been caught out, because there will be a cut to the Clean Energy Innovation Fund to make up for the so-called saving of ARENA. The money that is being left in the ARENA bucket is, according to the government's explanatory memorandum, coming from somewhere else. The government said in the explanatory memorandum: 'The government has agreed to restore funding to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, of $800 million over the five years to 2021-22 and reduce by a commensurate amount the capital allocated to the Clean Energy Innovation Fund.'

Mr Morrison: That's not the EM. It doesn't say that in the EM.

Mr BANDT: I am reading from the explanatory memorandum. If that has been changed then it can be clarified.

Mr Pyne: He's clarified that already.

Mr BANDT: I am seeking clarification. This is the government's bill and the government's amendments.

Government members interjecting—

Mr BANDT: If we have misunderstood it then it can be clarified. Where is the $800 million coming from? It can be very, very easily clarified. So there is a lack of clarity on that.

Government members interjecting—

Mr BANDT: There has been absolutely no clarification. I want to move to another series of questions about the funding scheduled that was referred to in the amendments. I refer to item 4 of the amendments to schedule 5 which sets out a new funding schedule. Can the Treasurer confirm the total amount of the reduction in funding to ARENA under that funding schedule and which years it will be coming out of? I am interested in the profile between years 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. What cuts are being made in which particular years? Can the Treasurer enlighten the House?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Mr BANDT: I have asked—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Melbourne, I am putting the question.

Mr BANDT: And I seek to speak to that question.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have got to put the question. I can keep going? All right. Member for Melbourne.

Mr BANDT: We have been given a schedule that sets out numbers next to a number of years, and those are the budget allocations for those particular years. Those numbers are obviously less than what ARENA currently gets. I am seeking clarification about where the cuts fall. The cuts are in the order of half a billion dollars, and I am seeking clarification as to which years they fall in. On my quick reading of it—given that we have not had a lot of time to pursue this—$241 million will come out in 2017-18 and $213 million comes out in 2019-20. The overwhelming bulk of the cuts—more than $514 million of the $517 million-odd in cuts—will come out in the first three years. Is that how we should understand the amendments we are being asked to vote on?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Are there any further speakers? The Member for Melbourne.

Mr BANDT: I will just make this final comment. I would just note how outrageous it is that we are being asked to sign off on a half a billion dollar cut and the Treasurer will not even do us the dignity of explaining where the cuts fall. The Treasurer is asking us to accept amendments to cut a government agency. He is giving us the schedule that lists what the funding for the agency is going to be. When he is asked the reasonable question, 'In what years are those cuts going to fall, given that you have given us a schedule?' he will not answer. I cannot recall any other instance in which a Treasurer has come into this House and said, 'I want you to pass a budget cut but I won't tell you when the cuts fall. Just accept the numbers I put in front of you.' This is treating this House with contempt—an unwillingness to simply say when these cuts are going to fall. 'I want you to vote on it right now, but I won't tell you when the cuts are going to fall.' I cannot recall a single instance in which this House has been treated with such contempt.

When the more questions you ask the less information you are given, it is crystal clear that there is something wrong with this dodgy deal. When our Treasurer, who is in charge of the finances of the nation, cannot even tell you when the cuts are going to fall, something is wrong. That is why his bill should be opposed.

Mr WILKIE (Denison) (11:52): Deputy Speaker Broadbent, I defer to your wisdom about the functioning of this place. But before we go to the third reading and possibly a division, I think we need to just clear this up. I am not doubting the Treasurer that there is a more recent explanatory memorandum but—despite my best efforts just then—I was not able to get a copy to see the latest version. The version I have says quite clearly:

The government has agreed to restore funding to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) of $800 million over five years to 2021-22, and reduce by a commensurate amount the capital allocated to the Clean Energy Innovation Fund …

And it goes on. I understand from talking to the Treasurer just then that there is a more recent version of this explanatory memorandum which—I understand from the Treasurer—does not include that statement. I think it is very important that before we finalise this matter we at least get to see the latest paperwork on what is a very, very important piece of parliamentary business. At the moment, despite our very best efforts, this is what we understand to be the facts of the matter, because we have not got a more up-to-date explanatory memorandum—I see the Clerk racing in and hopefully this will clear the matter up.

Through you, Deputy Speaker, I would ask the Treasurer: if the latest version of the explanatory memorandum does not have that paragraph, that would make almost make me even more nervous—because then it will be completely unknown where that $800 million is coming from. I suppose it would probably be a reasonable assumption by honourable members, including by the member for Melbourne and me, that it is still going to come from the Clean Energy Innovation Fund; it is just that the government does not want to broadcast it in the explanatory memorandum. I will keep talking while—hopefully—the latest version makes its way to the crossbench. If that cannot happen quickly enough, Treasurer, I would ask you to explain whether or not that paragraph has indeed been removed from the latest version of the explanatory memorandum and, if indeed it has been removed, what the source of that $800 million funding to ARENA will be. Will it indeed be by commensurate reduction in the Clean Energy Innovation Fund.

Thank you, Mr Pyne—I see here in this version that we have basically just removed the reference to the Clean Energy Innovation Fund. So, after that very longwinded preamble—and I am very grateful for your patience, Deputy Speaker—my question for the Treasurer is: where will that $800 million come from? It is very simple: will it be from the Clean Energy Innovation Fund? A simple yes or no would do the job.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (11:55): As both the shadow Treasurer and I have made clear, the CSC's total balance of funds of $10 billion is unchanged by these measures. This is a package of measures which includes $6.3 billion of savings in some 25 different measures. So this bill pays for itself in the entirety of the savings that have been pursued through these measures.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:56): Perhaps I can assist the House. Earlier this morning we asked the Treasurer's office for a copy of the supplementary explanatory memorandum. The document that we got from the Treasurer's office had at the end of the sentence: 'and reduce by a commensurate amount the capital allocated to the Clean Energy Innovation Fund'. And that is what the finance minister said yesterday. And that is what the energy minister said yesterday as well. That is the document that we got.

Then, during the course of this debate—because we caught them out—they come in here with a revised supplementary explanatory memorandum which takes that sentence out. In the course of the last two hours this morning, because they have been caught out—in that they are robbing Peter to pay Paul: they are taking $800 million from the Clean Energy Innovation Fund—they have taken it out of the explanatory memorandum. This is why this dirty deal must not be rushed through. If we can find that out in the space of a couple of hours—if the Treasurer can go from telling us, 'I am raiding $800 million from this clean energy fund to give it over here,' to 'No, I am not willing to tell the House that'—then what else are we going to find, the more we look into this deal?

This is what happens when you do dirty deals—to cut renewable energy, and to cut support to low-income earners—and then front up to parliament, without a public hearing, and say, 'push them through'. Then, when you ask the simple question, 'Where is the money going to come from?' they will not tell you. And then when you ask another simple question, 'Tell us over what years the money is going to come,' they won't tell you that either. This is a shameful process, and I am astounded that the Labor Party is signing up to it. This Labor Party is prepared to sign up to half a billion dollars of cuts to renewable energy, while the government is out there publicly telling people it is going to come from another renewable energy pot—and the government cannot even tell us over what years the cut is going to come. They are saying, 'Yes; let's push it through without the proper scrutiny that a bill like this deserves'.

The Treasurer treats this place with contempt and will not even get up and say when the cuts are going to fall—a very, very simple question—or where the money is going to come from. The last couple of hours should give everyone in this place and everyone who is watching what is going on here very great cause for concern—because if this is how we are going to work over the next couple of years; if we are going to try and secure this country's revenue base by doing afternoon deals that the parliament does not have an opportunity to scrutinise, where stories change during the course of a morning about where money is going to come from or where the cuts are going to fall, then this country is in a very dire place indeed.

What else is in this bill? What, if we had more than 20 minutes to examine it, would we find? If the last couple of hours tell you anything, it is that this government is intent on trying to balance the budget off the back of renewable energy, and off the back of people who have got fewer means and less money than others. The job of an opposition should be to oppose and scrutinise. It should not be to wave through—in a dodgy process that can be unpicked and unstitched within an hour or two—a bill that cuts half a billion dollars from a signature renewable energy agency, and possibly does a lot more as well. The Treasurer is not even willing to get his story straight. The shadow Treasurer gets up and talks about the CEFC. I am not talking about the CEFC. I am talking about the Prime Minister's signature project, the Clean Energy Innovation Fund. Is it going to be cut by $800 million? The Treasurer told us yes this morning in an explanatory memorandum. They revised it on the run when they were caught out. Who knows what the real story is! What we do know is that dirty deals are being done that will have an impact on clean energy, that will have an impact on people in this country, that will cut money for students and that will cut money for research and development. I, for one, am not willing to wave it through and give it a blank cheque, and I wish the opposition would oppose. You know the clue to your job title is in the word 'oppose'. Scrutinise. Do not let this mob get away with cutting half billion dollars from renewables when you do not know where it is going to come from. Do not let this mob get away with cutting money from research and development. Do not let this mob get away with cutting money from students and aged care. You railed against it for a couple of years when it was done under Tony Abbott. Continue to stand up to it now and we can find a better way to secure the revenue that this country needs. What is happening this morning shames everyone in this place and should shame every Australian who is concerned about good budget management, because good budget management would be done transparently, and you would take the money off those who could afford it instead of taking the axe to clean energy. (Time expired)

Mr Pyne: I think it is fair to say that the member for Melbourne has made his points forcefully and he has had a fair run talking about these matters. The explanatory memorandum has now clarified the question that he was asking. We do have three hours of maiden speeches today and many people have travelled from interstate to be here for those maiden speeches. Therefore, I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie dissenting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): The question is that this bill, as amended, be agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to, Mr Wilkie and Mr Bandt dissenting.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (12:02): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to, Mr Wilkie and Mr Bandt dissenting.

Bill read a third time.

Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (12:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I present to the House today the commitment that we made in the election campaign to put the question of whether same-sex couples will be allowed to marry under Australian law to the Australia people in a plebiscite.

We believe that that commitment is one that all members of this parliament should support and respect. It is thoroughly democratic. It is thoroughly democratic. Every Australian will have their say and, if the opposition support the plebiscite in the Senate, the plebiscite can be held on 11 February, which is the soonest practicable date.

There has been over the years, relatively recent years, a very rapid change in attitudes to same-sex marriage—to same-sex couples, indeed. All of us have seen the way in which discrimination or disadvantage for same-sex couples was removed, whether initially in respect of social welfare legislation or pensions legislation. I remember very well the debate within the Howard government in its last year about whether same-sex couples should have equal rights in respect of Commonwealth and Defence superannuation. To John Howard's great credit, he supported that change and took it to the 2007 election.

So there have been a series of changes over time, and the one issue that has not been addressed is the issue of marriage. Indeed, I remember discussing this point with President Bush many years ago, at the time of APEC in 2007, when we were discussing what were the big moral issues in Australian politics. We talked about this issue of equal access to superannuation, and I remember the president said: 'Well, those are all issues of financial fairness. The big moral issue is the one about marriage.' And we have to respect that it is a very big moral issue. It is an issue of conscience. It is an issue of conscience for millions of Australians who have different views on it—and sincerely held views. It is vital that we respect all of those views in this debate.

I would say to all honourable members: it is utterly wrong, and it shows dreadful leadership on the part of parliamentarians, to characterise those people who do not believe the parliament should change the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to be married as being homophobic, as hating homosexuals. This is so often being injected into the narrative at the moment. It is profoundly disrespectful. Some of the remarks the Leader of the Opposition has made—I will not repeat them—to which great exception has been taken, he should not repeat. We have to respect there are sincerely held views on this issue. They are views very often informed by deeply felt conscience; informed by religious commitment, very often; informed by faith. We have to respect, we must respect—and I can say the government respects—the diversity of views on this issue.

As it happens, as honourable members are aware, my view and that of my wife, Lucy, is that the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. We have been married for over 36 years and we do not believe that if same-sex couples are allowed to have their union recognised as marriage that will undermine our relationship of long standing. I believe there are great threats to marriage in our society and I say from the bottom of my heart that our society would be stronger if more people were married and there were fewer divorces. If there was something we could do to make families happier it would be a wonderful thing. We know that the breakdown of the family unit is one of the great causes of hardship, of poverty, of so many of our social ills. So we are a government—and I am sure the opposition joins with us on this—we are a parliament committed to marriage, and we are committed to people supporting each other and sticking together, working hard, supporting their children and their families and enabling their dreams. And that is why I support same-sex marriage. David Cameron summed it up very well some years ago when he said, 'I support same-sex marriage not despite being a conservative but because I am a conservative, because we value commitment.'

So, that is where I stand; that is where Lucy stands. When the plebiscite is held, we will be voting yes. But there are many other Australians who are equally filled with love, equally respectful of gay couples, equally respectful of the families of gay couples, of same-sex couples, who will in thoroughly good conscience vote no, and they will do so not because they disrespect gay couples, not because they disrespect the couple who were in the House yesterday with their little boy; they will do so because of a deeply felt conscience. It is a matter of conscience and we should respect it.

The passage of change in our society has been one where—and this is where it has differed from the progress in some other jurisdictions; it is an important point to make—one after another of, if you like, the discriminations or the disadvantages affecting same-sex couples were removed. Some were removed during the Howard government and previous governments; more were removed under the Rudd government. That process has been ongoing and it has reflected a very strong social change. As I noted in the lecture I gave, the Michael Kirby Lecture, in 2012, I had always regarded—and I think I can speak for a number of my colleagues here today in saying this—the marriage issue as, if anything, an obstacle to removing these disadvantages. In other jurisdictions—for example, in the United States—the motivation to recognise same-sex marriage was driven, as much as anything else, to remove certain disadvantages, whether it was in social welfare, or tax, or superannuation and all of those areas that had hitherto been addressed in Australia. So we have progressed in Australia, I would say, in a characteristically Australian pragmatic way. We dealt with the issues. The HREOC issues that were addressed in the early years of the Rudd government were a good example of that—a long list of matters that were dealt with and were supported in a bipartisan way. We come now to this issue of marriage. It is a very, very heartfelt one, it is a matter of conscience, it is a matter of faith for many people, and it is one we must respect.

Let me deal with the arguments that have been addressed against the plebiscite—and there have been different views held on the plebiscite by many people. The Leader of the Opposition expressed support of one some years ago. He has got a different view now. Fair enough. We do not criticise him unduly for that. He is entitled to change his mind. But the fact is this: the two arguments that I think have weight against a plebiscite are, firstly, that it is not part of our traditional parliamentary process. That is certainly true, and that is why many conservatives would say it is too much of a novelty—it is too much of an innovation, if you like. Of course, we are in the age of innovation, as I have said before, so that should not be a disqualification. The other one is the cost—and that is substantial—but then you have to ask yourself: what price democracy? So those are two arguments that are valid. We have dealt with them, we have considered them and we have decided to proceed to the plebiscite.

The arguments that are addressed most vocally today by the opponents of the plebiscite are ones that we must reject, because basically the argument against the plebiscite that we hear today is that Australians cannot be trusted to have a civil conversation, that the Australian public are so immature, so unbridled, so reckless that they cannot be trusted to have a debate and make a decision on this issue. That insults the Australian people. It disrespects the Australian people. If ever there was an issue to be put to a plebiscite, this is one that can be and should be, because it is a very straightforward question. It does not have the same kind of implications—far-reaching, often unknowable implications—of, for example, voting on Brexit, as the British did recently. It is a very straightforward question—in many respects more straightforward than a number of the questions that we have addressed in constitutional referenda—so it is perfectly suited for that.

The real reason, I think, many people oppose the plebiscite is because they believe that if there were to be a free vote in the parliament same-sex marriage would be supported, and so they do not want to run the risk of the Australian people giving them the wrong answer. For our part, we put our faith in the Australian people and we know that their answer, whether it is yes or no, will be the right answer, because it is theirs. This is an institution, thousands of years old, that we are talking now about making a fundamental change to. I believe the time has come to do that. Many others in utterly good faith and good conscience do not. And they want to have their say. I would ask the members of the opposition this: cast your mind back to the Gillard government. Remember when Julia Gillard said, 'I believe in our society with our traditions, marriage has a special place and special definition, marriage will be defined as between a man and a woman. The Marriage Act will stay the way it is so that marriage is defined as a man and a woman.' These were her many statements on that subject; that was the position of the Labor Party then. Was she denounced by her colleagues as homophobic? What would have happened if the Labor Party had said, 'Let's have a plebiscite'? Of course, the supporters of same-sex marriage would have welcomed it.

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will cease interjecting.

Mr TURNBULL: They would have welcomed it because at that time there certainly were not the numbers in the parliament for it to be passed.

So what we have to recognise is that this is a commitment we took to the election. It is a commitment we will honour and we are honouring now. It is a commitment that respects the will of the Australian people. It respects their intelligence, their civility, their capacity to make a decision and, above all, it respects the fact that each and every one of them can have a say. Our side, our government, our side of politics, among whom we have different views on this, nonetheless say, 'We respect the Australian people. We want to let them have their say.'

We have offered the opposition a role in the process. We are happy to work with them. We have offered them places on the committees that will supervise the spending of the public funding, which is thoroughly fair and thoroughly based on precedent. We have offered them every opportunity to be involved, and they should take it up. They should absolutely take it up and be part of this process, because the best way to ensure same-sex couples can marry is to support the plebiscite. It will be held on 11 February, and if the Australian people support same-sex marriage, as I believe they will—and certainly I will be voting for it—then this parliament will swiftly, when it returns in 2017, legislate to change the Marriage Act. We put our faith in the people.

I turn now to the specific details of the bill. This bill sets out the framework for a national plebiscite to ask the Australian people whether the Marriage Act 1961 should be amended to allow same-sex couples to marry. It has been designed to be as fair and transparent as possible—scrupulously fair, just as we would expect of our elections and referenda.

The legislation specifies the exact wording of the plebiscite question to be put to the Australian people: 'Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?' This is a simple question. It does not presuppose any particular view. The bill prescribes the date for the vote, Saturday, 11 February 2017. The date fulfils the government's commitment to hold a plebiscite as soon as practicable. The bill authorises and provides funding for the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct the plebiscite. This will be in the amount of $170 million. That funding will include $15 million to be divided equally between official yes and no campaigns. These will be run by committees composed of parliamentarians and citizens, appointed by the Attorney-General and the Special Minister of State. Each committee will include up to five Commonwealth parliamentarians and up to five members of the public. The committees will each prepare material for the respective sides of the debate. As I noted earlier, the opposition will be invited to nominate two of the five members.

In addition, organisations will have reasonable opportunities to pay to broadcast material about the plebiscite. Broadcasting rules and the Broadcasting Services Act and the Special Broadcasting Service Act will be extended to apply to conduct relating to the plebiscite. These rules will also stipulate a blackout period in which broadcasters will be prohibited from broadcasting advertisements about the plebiscite. This, too, is utterly consistent with the framework for federal elections. As for federal elections, voting will be compulsory and in person, with the usual absentee, postal, declaration and pre-polling opportunities. The bill applies provisions for a number of acts, including the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, to ensure this. Voters will be able to cast a valid vote by writing 'Yes' or 'No' in the space provided on the ballot paper. The bill provides that the outcome of the plebiscite will be determined by a simple national majority. The simple majority will be achieved when either the yes or no vote receives more than 50 per cent of the votes cast, disregarding informal ballot papers.

This plebiscite gives all Australians a say. Advocates on either side of the debate will have the opportunity to put their views fully and freely to the public, to make their case to the Australian people. It is thoroughly democratic. Now, I recognise that there are a range of views in the community on this issue, as I have discussed. And as Prime Minister, I will be encouraging a considered and respectful discussion from all sides. The plebiscite will allow our nation to make a decision on this fundamental important issue of same-sex marriage. Then, as a nation, we will respect the outcome. If the plebiscite passes, the parliament will legislate to amend the Marriage Act to enable same-sex couples to marry.

In closing, I remind the House, the parliament, that Australians expect this issue to be resolved in the manner they endorsed at the election. We took this to the election and we won the election. There was no doubt about our policy. There was no doubt about our platform. This was prominently debated every day of the election campaign. Every Australian who took any interest in the election knew that that was our policy. We have a mandate for it, and the opposition should respect it.

I ask the opposition today, I ask the Leader of the Opposition today, to support this plebiscite. This plebiscite will give the Australian people the say on this. I ask Labor to respect the people they represent, to respect the Australian people they claim to support and defend. Respect their intelligence. Respect their civility. Respect their ability to have a discussion about this important matter and resolve it in a manner that is fair and that is democratic. At the end of the day, whoever wins, it will be regarded as a just determination of this important issue. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr Dreyfus: The Australian people have got faith in this parliament.

The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will cease interjecting.

Mr Hunt interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The minister for innovation will cease interjecting.

Debate adjourned.

The SPEAKER (12:23): I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip and the Chief Opposition Whip nominating members to be members of the Selection Committee.

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (12:23): by leave—I move:

That Mr Georganas, Ms ML Landry, Mr Perrett, Mr Ramsey, Mr Robert, Ms Ryan and Mr van Manen be appointed members of the Selection Committee.

Question agreed to.

Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (12:25): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

We live in an information age and the challenges associated with managing that information are clearly something that law enforcement agencies in particular are grappling with. You appreciate in Australia that we have the Commonwealth police and every state and territory has its own police force. The cooperation between those police forces is very good, but of course different police forces keep different information sources, they keep it on different systems. There is the enormous challenge of making sure that a policeman on the beat anywhere in Australia—in Adelaide, in Brisbane or in a regional area—has the information that they need, the criminal intelligence that they need, in a timely manner when they require it. That is very important. It is a big challenge for our law enforcement community to make sure that that is the case. This can be lifesaving information. As a policeman goes about their business we need to make sure that, if they are talking to somebody or apprehending somebody, they can get the background on that person. It is very important. There are legions of examples where police going about their business have not been able to access information in a timely way and have not been able to access accurate information about the job they are about to do. It is dangerous for those law enforcement personnel.

We need to find ways to bridge this gap. We need to find ways so that police officers doing their job can get the information that they need. To do that we have created the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. This brings our intelligence analyst capabilities together with our datasets when we merged the Australian Crime Commission with CrimTrac. We are also merging into that new entity the Australian Institute of Criminology to give the ACIC all of the resources that it needs to be able to do this job of providing timely criminal intelligence to Australia's law enforcement community.

Thisbill brings together the national criminal intelligence, analysis and research capabilities and specifically it merges what used to be the Australian Institute of Criminology into the new entity. We see great opportunity in combining the resources of the Australian Institute of Criminology and the ACIC to provide Australian law enforcement agencies with central access to a consolidated and comprehensive criminal research and intelligence resource.

The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission has actually commenced operations—it did so on 1 July this year—as a result of the merger of CrimTrac and the Australian Crime Commission. Bringing three of our nation's justice, law enforcement and intelligence agencies together does significantly enhance support for law enforcement around the country and bolster Australia's response to serious and organised crime and national security issues. The new agency allows police, justice agencies and policymakers at all levels of government to adopt a more effective, efficient and evidence based response to crime.

Implementation model

Following the merger, the AIC will form a new research branch of the ACIC—the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre—which is headed up by a senior criminologist.

With increased access to classified information, research conducted by the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre is expected to have increased value and relevance for Australian policy decision-making. It will provide an enhanced evidence base to support a proactive and targeted response to crime by all of Australia's law enforcement community.

The research centre's activities will continue to be subject to peer review to maintain the ACIC's capability to produce independent research in order to inform evidence based policy.

While some of the criminological research may be aligned with law enforcement's high-level priorities, the remit of the ACIC's criminological function will continue to be widely defined as crime and justice issues of national significance, extending beyond purely law enforcement.

The Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre will also continue to carry out some of the AIC's national monitoring programs, including the national deaths in custody program, and will continue to carry out commissioned research on a fee-for-service basis.

Key measures

The bill contains a number of measures that would give effect to these proposed arrangements for the merged agency.

Primarily, this bill amends the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002(ACC Act)to enable the ACIC to carry out the AIC's research work. This includes conducting criminology research, sharing that research and other resources, such as the JV Barry library, with the private sector and the public, and holding seminars and conferences on important research issues.

Recognising the importance of making research available to the research community and the Australian public, the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre will continue to have access to the datasets currently available to the AIC, and will continue to make that data and research available in the same way that the AIC did.

The bill also amends the ACC Act to ensure that the ACIC is able to charge for commissioned research, as the AIC did, with charges paid into the Criminology Research Special Account. This will enable states, territories, universities and other interested organisations to continue to commission specific work from the merged agency, as they have from the AIC.

The bill also repeals the Criminology Research Act 1971 to abolish the AIC as an independent statutory agency. As the position of the AIC director will not be required post-merger, the provisions dealing with this position are not replicated in the ACC Act.

Criminology Research Advisory Council

Subsequent to the merger, the ACIC board will become responsible for determining the ACIC's high-level research priorities. However, in setting these priorities the ACIC board will take advice from a non-legislated advisory body, comprising of existing Criminology Research Advisory Council members (being state and territory justice agencies and the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department), two law enforcement representatives, two members from the ACIC and a representative from the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology.

This will ensure that state and territory justice agencies continue to play an important role in shaping the future direction of the merged agency's criminological research program.

Conclusion

The bill implements an important consolidation of Australia's criminal research and intelligence capabilities. The merger will enable the ACIC to better fulfil its role as Australia's national criminal intelligence agency, supporting and informing the efforts of law enforcement agencies around the country.

Similarly, the new Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre held within the ACIC will continue to prepare and disseminate world-leading criminological research, which informs our understanding of the trends and developments in crime and justice.

I therefore commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for Sport and Minister for Health and Aged Care) (12:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today we introduce legislation that signals another significant step towards Australians accessing a safe, legal and reliable supply of medicinal cannabis product for the management of painful and chronic conditions.

Australia is now on track to have a nationally-consistent licensing scheme regulating the controlled cultivation of cannabis for medicinal or scientific processes.

It is another example of the Turnbull government taking on challenging reform and delivering what we promised.

It is also another example of the Turnbull government working with the parliament to deliver sensible changes benefiting Australians in need.

But we must also ensure, in undertaking this important reform, time and consideration is taken to protect the wider community against the possibility of unintended consequences.

As mentioned at the start of this speech, the Narcotic Drugs Legislation Amendment Bill is the next step in this process and contains amendments to protect the integrity of the medicinal cannabis scheme. Cannabis is a crop of significant interest to criminal elements and preventing infiltration of organised crime into the legitimate medicinal cannabis industry must be a priority for the Commonwealth.

As members will well remember, the Narcotic Drugs Act was amended earlier this year to create a regime to allow for the first time the cultivation of cannabis in Australia for the purposes of providing access by Australians to medicinal cannabis. As I said at the time, it is important that we have an effective national licensing system to enable a sustainable supply of safe medicinal cannabis product to Australian patients in the future.

An important element of such a system is ensuring that only those who are 'fit and proper' can be granted a licence. The Narcotic Drugs Legislation Amendment Bill contains additional amendments to the Narcotic Drugs Act to protect sensitive law enforcement information used in making licensing decisions so that infiltration by criminal elements into the medicinal cannabis scheme can be prevented.

It is critical to ensure that participants in the medicinal cannabis scheme are of good character and repute. This is an important part of the antidiversion controls for the scheme and allows the Commonwealth to comply with our obligations under the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961.

The Commonwealth is working with law enforcement agencies from all jurisdictions to put in place arrangements for the sharing of information around the suitability of licence applicants. The Commonwealth accepts that there are limitations to what types of information can be shared through such arrangements, but remains committed to protecting the integrity of the scheme.

The primary purpose of the Narcotic Drugs Legislation Amendment Bill is to put in place protection for information provided by law enforcement agencies used in decision making under the act. These protections prevent the disclosure of 'sensitive law enforcement information', the improper release of which could have the effect of disrupting criminal investigations, revealing law enforcement intelligence gathering and investigative techniques or exposing the lives of people involved in criminal investigations to risk. Leaks of this type of information can have serious implications for the effectiveness of our law enforcement agencies and so it is in the public interest to prevent this from occurring.

The provisions in the bill prevent the release of sensitive law enforcement information to the applicant, their lawyers and to the public at large when decisions are being made on whether to grant or revoke licences. The bill also carries protections against release of this information during related tribunal and court proceedings. The bill creates offences with harsh penalties for revealing sensitive law enforcement information, except within some very narrow confines including, for instance, where it is necessary to allow its use for the proper administration of the Narcotic Drugs Act licensing provisions.

The bill also includes provisions to allow the secretary to refuse to grant a licence where the applicant has provided false or misleading information; to provide for the making of standards and guidelines to support the detailed elements of the scheme; to allow for the revocation of licences and permits where applicable standards are not met; and to allow for the supply of cannabis seeds grown in the course of medicinal cannabis research to be supplied to other cultivator licence holders for further propagation purposes.

In February this year, this parliament supported the introduction of the legislation to enable the legal cultivation of cannabis for medicinal purpose, in order to supply Australian patients and to comply with our international obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. These amendments are necessary so that licences are only issued to persons who will work to meet these objectives. The risk of criminal elements diverting precious medicine to illicit uses is too great—this would be detrimental to the patients who would benefit from the availability of medicinal cannabis and would mean that the government sanctioned system would be creating another public health risk.

Without this bill, law enforcement agencies around the country will be reluctant to engage with the Commonwealth in providing the necessary information to manage these risks. These agencies understand and support the need for this cultivation scheme; but they rightly can only participate fully if doing so will not compromise their own activities.

The cultivation licensing scheme commences on 30 October 2016. It is intended that these amendments commence at the same time to ensure that scheme endorsed by the parliament in February can operate effectively.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for Sport and Minister for Health and Aged Care) (12:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

There is no existing medicinal cannabis industry as cannabis is currently an illegal narcotic drug. Allowing for the creation and existence of a legitimate industry provides a benefit to that industry by opening a new market for commercial cultivation, manufacture and sale of medicinal cannabis products.

It is appropriate to seek to recover the direct costs that government incurs in regulating the medicinal cannabis industry through both direct fee recovery and through the imposition of levies.

Direct fee recovery for services specific to a holder of a licence for cultivation, production or manufacture will be implemented by way of regulations made under the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967. The imposition of charges, typically on an annual basis, to capture the indirect costs associated with regulating this industry do, however, require separate legislation, thus the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Bill.

Charges (or levies) under this bill include those where costs cannot otherwise reasonably be assigned directly to a particular licence holder. For example, the annual charges will fund risk based inspections across industry. While direct fees will be applied for standard and regular inspections of cannabis cultivation and production facilities (such as those required to provide an initial licence), risk based inspections are typically unannounced and will vary in frequency. They are designed to target licence holders where there are concerns over their compliance with licence conditions, regulations or the legislation.

Through this, all licensees participating in the new cannabis cultivation industry will benefit, as the Department of Health is able to ensure that none gain an advantage that might otherwise eventuate if a company were about to breach the strict conditions placed on its licence; conditions designed to ensure that Australia prevents the diversion of cannabis to illicit purposes and fulfils its obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961.

This bill establishes the legal authority to develop regulations that will contain the actual proposed charges. The scheme for the cultivation of cannabis for medicinal purposes commences on 30 October 2016. It is important that the government is able to communicate on the full regulatory costs of this scheme as soon as possible in order to allow potential applicants to plan their businesses and complete their applications.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (12:44): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill will introduce a package of measures announced in the 2016-17 budget that will simplify student payments by:

aligning means testing rules for student payments with other welfare payments;

automatically issuing healthcare cards to recipients of student payments, by removing the requirement for a separate application; and

automatically updating the geographical classification which is used to assess qualification for youth allowance and qualification for, and the rate of payment of, the Relocation Scholarship.

Youth allowance, Austudy and Abstudy living allowances are income support payments that provide financial assistance to full-time students and apprentices. The payments are designed to encourage people to undertake further education and training to enhance their employment and career prospects.

In the 2015-16 budget, the government committed over $60 million to commence the replacement of the ageing Centrelink IT system to support future welfare reform.

The measures in this bill support payment simplification and future welfare reform by aligning payments settings, simplifying the administration of payments and making eligibility for student payments and concessions fairer and easier to understand.

The government will continue to provide assistance for students and those most in need. The changes will not affect the overall value of student payments.

Aligning means testing rules

The first measure, aligning means testing rules, aims to simplify means testing and remove anomalies between student payments and other welfare payments. This measure is set to commence from 1 January 2017 and will be achieved through a number of means.

Firstly, the family tax benefit income test and the youth parental income test will be harmonised, so that family tax benefit income details can be automatically reused for the youth parental income test. Parents will no longer be required to resubmit their income information to support a youth payment claim by one of their children.

Secondly, the integrity of the student payments means test will be improved by removing an anomaly that allows some partnered youth allowance and Austudy recipients to be subject to a more generous assets test than applies to all other youth allowance and Austudy recipients.

Integrity will also be improved by extending the trust and company rules that already apply to all other income support payments, to student payments. As a result, all of the income or assets held by students through a trust or company will be taken into account when establishing their entitlement to a payment.

Lastly, the pension income test exemption for regular gifts from immediate family members will be aligned across the social security system so that it also applies for student payments and other social security benefits.

Extending this exemption will remove a disincentive for families to provide support to family members. For dependent students, the parental means test already reduces a dependent child's youth payment where a parent has the ability to provide support, and it is simply not logical or equitable to further reduce the youth payment when the parent provides the expected support.

This measure will result in savings of $778,000 over the forward estimates.

Simplifying eligibility for the h ealth c are c ard issued to students

The second measure in this bill will ensure that from 1 January 2019 all students receiving income support will receive a concession card.

This change will allow all students receiving youth allowance (student), Austudy and Abstudy living allowances to automatically receive a healthcare card. This will guarantee that around 240,000 students will receive Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prescriptions at the concessional rate and access to the lower threshold of the extended Medicare safety net when they receive a student payment. It will also provide greater access to bulk billing allowing students to focus on their studies without worrying about their medical costs.

This measure will improve consistency by aligning access to concession cards for students with other income support recipients.

Under the current rules, students are the only income support recipients not to qualify for an automatic issue healthcare card. Instead, students can make a claim for a low income healthcare card if their income is below a certain limit. This process is burdensome for students and costly for the Department of Human Services to administer. The automatic issue healthcare card and the low income healthcare card provide the same Australian government benefits to cardholders.

In 2016, holders of the healthcare card and low income healthcare card pay only $6.20 for each Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prescription. Without a concession card these prescriptions could cost students up to $38.30 each. Access to a concession card means that once these students and their families' total out-of-pocket expenses for prescriptions reach the concessional Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme safety net of $372 or 60 prescriptions, they may receive Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prescription items free of charge for the rest of the calendar year. These free Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prescriptions are not available to people without a concession card.

In 2016, the annual threshold for both healthcare card and low income healthcare card holders for the extended Medicare safety net is $647.90, instead of $2,030 for non-cardholders. Once the threshold has been met, Medicare will pay for 80 per cent of any further out-of-pocket costs for the rest of the calendar year for services including general practitioner and specialist attendances, as well as many pathology and diagnostic imaging services.

Currently, the application for the low income healthcare card requires students to meet a more stringent income test, with the student needing to earn slightly less than the income limit for youth allowance over an eight-week period. This measure will also extend these benefits to around 4,000 students who previously were not eligible for a concession card.

Currently, in most circumstances, student payment recipients must wait eight weeks to become eligible for a low income healthcare card. This measure will ensure concessions are available to all students as soon as they start receiving an income support payment.

In order to avoid waiting eight weeks to become eligible for a low income healthcare card, currently an applicant of a student payment can provide proof that their income was below the relevant limit in the previous eight weeks. Following introduction of this measure, students will no longer be required to produce this proof to be eligible for a concession card. Not only does this measure guarantee that student payment recipients will receive health-related concessions, it will cut red tape and reduce reporting requirements for these students.

The financial impact of this measure over the forward estimates will be a cost of $726,000.

Automatically updating the geographical classification

The third measure in this bill will, from 1 January 2017, simplify the process for adopting the latest version of the Australian Statistical Geography Standard remoteness structure published by the Australian Statistician which is used in the assessment of eligibility for student payments under the Social Security Act 1991.

Currently, youth allowance recipients whose family home is in a location geographically categorised under the remoteness structure as inner regional Australia, outer regional Australia, remote Australia or very remote Australia can access additional benefits or concessional qualification requirements under the Social Security Act that are not available to students from major city areas. These additional benefits are:

qualification for youth allowance on the basis of being independent under the concessional workforce participation arrangements, provided their parental income is below $150,000 and they are required to live away from home to study; and

qualification for the relocation scholarship at the rate at which it is paid for dependent youth allowance recipients and some independent recipients. The relocation scholarship is paid to eligible youth allowance recipients undertaking higher education to assist with the costs of moving away from home to study.

These additional benefits are in recognition that students from regional and remote areas are more likely to have to relocate to study and therefore have significantly lower participation rates in higher education than students from major city areas.

The geographical remoteness structure currently used in the Social Security Act to determine eligibility for these additional benefits is the 2006 Australian Standard Geographic Classification published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The 2006 remoteness structure has been used to determine eligibility for student payments since 2011. However, the 2006 remoteness structure is out of date and was subsequently superseded, in January 2013, by the 2011 Australian Statistical Geography Standard remoteness structure. The remoteness structure is updated every five years by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, following each census. The next update, which will be to the 2016 remoteness structure, is due in January 2018.

This measure will introduce amendments to the Social Security Act so that qualification for student payments will automatically draw upon the updated remoteness structure without the need for future legislative amendment when a new Australian Statistical Geography Standard remoteness structure or any replacement remoteness structure is published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The 2011 Australian Statistical Geography Standard remoteness structure will apply from 1 January 2017, with the 2016 version having effect from the first 1 January or 1 July to occur after the day of its publication. This will ensure that the assessment of qualification for youth allowance and the relocation scholarship is based on the latest available information on geographical classification.

This measure will result in some students, who were previously ineligible for payment, being able to qualify for youth allowance under the concessional workforce participation arrangements and the relocation scholarship, and they may qualify for a higher rate of the relocation scholarship.

It is expected that the numbers of students who are found ineligible for youth allowance under the concessional workforce participation independence criteria due to a change in the remoteness structure will be very small, and they may still qualify for youth allowance as a dependent or under one of the other independence criteria.

Students who are no longer eligible for the relocation scholarship due to their family home being reclassified as located in a major city area rather than a regional location will still retain access to youth allowance provided they continue to meet the qualification criteria.

Students who had previously qualified for youth allowance under the concessional workforce participation independence criteria using an earlier remoteness structure will not have their qualification for youth allowance reassessed if their family home is classified as in a major city location of Australia under an updated remoteness structure. These students will retain their independent status.

The reclassification of areas is unlikely to have lasting or recurrent effects on students' payment eligibility given the cycle of five-yearly updates of the geographical classification document and that on average tertiary courses are completed in three to four years.

This measure is expected to have a cost-neutral effect on the budget over the forward estimates.

Conclusion

Together these measures will assist in simplifying the payment system and support future welfare reform.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) (12:56): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill reintroduces measures that were introduced by the government earlier this year but lapsed when the last parliament was prorogued. The bill, which contains four schedules, amends various taxation laws to improve their flexibility and effectiveness while reducing red tape on individuals, businesses and community organisations.

Schedule 1 to this bill establishes a remedial power for the Commissioner of Taxation, to allow for a more timely resolution of certain unforeseen or unintended outcomes in the taxation and superannuation laws.

Schedule 2 improves the flexibility of the income tax averaging rules for farmers, allowing income averaging to reapply 10 years after a farmer has chosen to opt out, rather than permanently excluding them from the benefits of averaging as is currently the case.

Schedule 3 will amend the luxury car tax to provide tax relief to certain public institutions that import or acquire cars for the sole purpose of public display.

Schedule 4 makes a number of minor amendments across the tax and superannuation laws to provide certainty for taxpayers.

Schedule 1 of this bill will establish a remedial power for the Commissioner of Taxation to allow for a more timely resolution of certain unforeseen or unintended outcomes in the laws under the commissioner's administration.

The government announced on 1 May 2015 that it would provide more certainty and better outcomes for taxpayers and reduce the regulatory burden on them by providing the commissioner with a remedial power.

Taxation laws are very complex. The nature and volume of taxation law can produce unforeseen and unintended outcomes in its application.

These outcomes can result in taxpayers generating tax liabilities where this was not intended, or taxpayers being subject to record keeping or other compliance requirements that were not intended or are no longer necessary. These outcomes can create significant uncertainty and compliance costs.

The commissioner endeavours to interpret the law to give effect to its purpose or object, but instances remain where this is not possible. For example, this can occur when dealing with new scenarios or scenarios which were not contemplated when the provisions were originally drafted.

Unintended outcomes may be addressed through changes to the primary law. However, law change is resource intensive and is undertaken to give effect to the full range of government priorities. It can therefore be ill suited to resolving smaller unintended outcomes.

The challenge of effecting primary law change is illustrated by the 92 announced changes to the tax and superannuation law that had not been enacted at the time the government was elected in September 2013. Had the remedial power existed, it may have been able to address some of the smaller unintended outcomes and could have allowed constrained legislative resources to deal with more significant primary law change.

The remedial power allows the commissioner to make a disallowable legislative instrument to modify the operation of a taxation law to ensure the law can be administered to achieve its intended purpose or object. This will help to create flexibility, allowing the commissioner to resolve smaller unintended outcomes.

The delegation of this power to the commissioner must be subject to the necessary checks and balances.

Importantly, parliament has oversight of all instruments made under this power. Instruments would not take effect until after the expiry of the parliamentary disallowance period.

Safeguards are built into the remedial power itself. The power can only be used where:

the modification is not inconsistent with the purpose or object of the provision;

the commissioner considers the modification to be reasonable, having regard to both the intended purpose or object of the relevant provision and whether the costs of complying with the provision are disproportionate to achieving the intended purpose or object; and

any impact on the Commonwealth budget would be negligible.

Any modification to the law will not apply to a taxpayer if the taxpayer would be adversely affected.

The proposed power is to be used as a power of last resort, when unintended consequences cannot be ameliorated by the commissioner in any other way.

In the past, there have been instances where there has been a misalignment between the stated purpose of a particular provision and the technical language adopted in the legislation. In these instances the commissioner has not been able to address these issues or administer the legislation in a way that gives effect to its intended object or purpose.

This measure provides an avenue for efficient resolution of these issues, as and when they arise, and fits well with the existing commitment by the commissioner to administer taxation legislation in accordance with the stated policy intent.

The measure will allow a smooth administration of the taxation and superannuation laws, in particular, when dealing with smaller unintended or unforeseen outcomes. This measure will assist in cutting red tape and provide greater support for taxpayers across Australia.

Similarly, schedule 2 amends the law so that farmers can re-access the benefits of tax averaging 10 income years after they decided to opt out of the system for year-to-year smoothing of primary production income taxation. This change is necessary to ensure the rules do not continue to permanently and unnecessarily exclude eligible farmers from the benefits of income averaging.

Currently, a farmer who chooses to opt out of income averaging can never re-access the scheme.

Farmers' income is often volatile due to factors outside of their control, such as drought and fluctuating commodity prices. The averaging rules even out a farmer's income tax liability from year to year, so that they pay fairer amounts of tax in relation to taxpayers on comparable but steadier incomes.

The government heard from stakeholders in consultation that the current averaging rules are inflexible and do not make sufficient allowance for changing business circumstances. A farmer choosing to opt out of income averaging may later realise that this choice was no longer appropriate for their circumstances—for example, they may not have anticipated future income volatility, acted on the basis of poor advice, or assumed they would experience many years of declining income. Currently, these farmers can never re-access the concession, even where they remain in primary production and face volatilities from market conditions and natural disasters.

While it makes sense to have rules that prevent farmers from opting in and out of income averaging simply to gain tax benefits, a permanent exclusion is longer than necessary to prevent possible abuse of the concession.

Over the past four decades, the value of agricultural output has been 2½ times more volatile than the average for all the major sectors of the Australian economy. Australian farmers also experience greater volatility in yield and price than most other farmers in the world. The government recognises the need for Australia's tax system to account for the agriculture sector's operating environment.

This schedule will benefit farmers as averaging will only recommence when they are eligible for a tax offset. A farmer may always choose to opt out again if it does not suit their circumstances to remain in income averaging. Their choice will be effective for another 10 income years.

This change was announced in the Agricultural competitiveness white paper on 4 July 2015 and is the product of extensive stakeholder feedback and consultation.

Schedule 3 amends the luxury car tax to provide tax relief to certain public institutions that import or acquire cars for the sole purpose of public display.

Currently, if a public museum or art gallery imports a car for display and it is over the $63,184 threshold, the museum or gallery will have to pay the luxury car tax.

This bill implements the 2015-16 budget measure allowing public museums and public art galleries that have been endorsed by the Commissioner of Taxation as a deductible gift recipient to acquire cars free of the luxury car tax.

Relief from the luxury car tax will only be available for cars acquired solely for the purpose of public display. The cars must be exhibited or shown in an environment that is accessible to the general community—for example, display in a museum that is open to the general public.

Finally, schedule 4 makes a number of amendments to tax and superannuation laws to provide certainty for taxpayers. These amendments make sure that the law operates as intended by correcting technical or drafting defects, removing anomalies, and addressing unintended outcomes.

This furthers the government's commitment to restore simplicity and fairness to the Australian tax system, and to the care and maintenance of the law. By clarifying the law and repealing unnecessary provisions, these amendments also reduce the regulatory burden and make it easier for Australians to access current law.

These amendments include:

updating the specific listings of deductible gift recipients to reflect name changes as advised by the listed organisations, which ensures these entities continue to attract public financial support for their activities; and

repealing 45 inoperative amending acts relating to excise, reducing regulatory burdens for Australians.

This bill is aimed at better targeting and strengthening our tax system to ensure that it is fair and sustainable.

Further details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (13:07): I declare that, at the adjournment of the debate on each of the following bills, the bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: Statute Law Revision (Spring 2016) Bill 2016, Statute Update Bill 2016 and the Corporations Amendment (Auditor Registration) Bill 2016.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (13:07): This bill is called the Statute Law Revision (Spring 2016) Bill 2016, but it did not appear in the parliament this spring. No, a bill that was almost identical to this was introduced into the last parliament, on 17 March this year—so, not actually spring 2016; rather, autumn 2016. The bill has reappeared as part of the Prime Minister's so-called 25-point battle plan, 25 reforms which we have been told would have to be rushed through this parliament as a matter of priority.

It is consistent with the dithering and general incompetence of this government that here we are now looking at a bill—an entirely routine bill that it would be impossible to describe as a matter or priority—first introduced into the last parliament, on 17 March this year.

Labor is happy to support this bill, which does no more than implement a range of drafting amendments across this Commonwealth statute book. Happily, on this occasion the government—other than calling it part of the Prime Minister's 25-point battle plan—has not seen it necessary to dress this bill up as part of some huge war on regulation or bonfire of regulation. I say this because, back in March 2014, the government was desperate to be seen as an anti-red-tape government, when it has been nothing of the kind; it is increasing the size of the Commonwealth regulation book and increasing the size of the Commonwealth statute book. But so keen was the former incarnation of this government, the Abbott government, to claim that it was an anti-regulatory government that it dressed up entirely routine legislation like this, a statute law revision bill, as part of some huge attack on regulation.

Bills of this kind are of course part of the routine work of any parliament. The first statute law revision bill appeared in this parliament in 1931, introduced by the then Attorney-General, Sir John Latham, and statute law revision bills have been part of the work of the House of Commons since the late 19th century. No government should attempt to pretend, as the former, Abbott government did, that this is somehow a work of miraculous importance. It is simply part of the routine work of any parliament.

This particular statute law revision bill, the relabelled Statute Law Revision (Spring 2016) Bill, makes a number of technical changes to existing acts of the Australian parliament. It corrects drafting, clerical and typographical errors. An example would be correcting the numbering in the Excise Act and replacing the words 'a item' with 'an item' in the Customs Act. It amends the Public Lending Right Act by replacing references to 'the Attorney-General' with the more flexible 'minister administering the Copyright Act', and it repeals a number of spent and obsolete provisions.

All of these are worthwhile measures; all of them are aimed at improving the ease of understanding of Commonwealth law. I commend the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for the diligent and thorough work that they do which produces bills like the Statute Law Revision (Spring 2016) Bill.

The Prime Minister should be embarrassed that his stocks have sunk so low, that his government is so adrift, that he has to dress up routine legislative work like this as some kind of policy masterstroke. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): As per the declaration of the Chief Government Whip, the bill is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at a later date.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (13:12): This bill, the Statute Update Bill 2016, is really in a similar category to the bill to which I have just spoken. Like the previous bill, it has been dressed up by this government as part of the 25-point battle plan that, as we were told in late August, the Prime Minister 'will challenge the parliament to fast-track'. He described it as a challenge to 'fast-track 25 priority reforms in a policy onslaught'. This particular bill was one in the 25-point battle plan.

One has to say that for this bill to be described as urgent is pretty much as laughable as describing the previous bill that was before the House as urgent. This bill, like the last bill, was first introduced on 17 March and unfortunately lapsed on the proroguing of parliament for the election. Far from being urgent, it was simply not given any debating time in the last parliament. It is not part of some tremendous policy reform. It is not part of a policy reform at all. This bill implements a range of drafting amendments across the Commonwealth statute book.

The amendments, I think it is fair to say, would properly be described as having little if any legal effect. They are matters that are largely of drafting style. That said, it is very important that the Commonwealth's statute book is tweaked and reviewed and examined, and amended if necessary, to make sure that at all times the law is as clear and coherent and comprehensible as possible. Of course it is the case that courts, officials, lawyers and the general public should be able to understand the effect of the law as easily as possible. The Statute Update Bill makes some changes that assist with that task and, for that reason, Labor is happy to support it.

But let us be very clear about this: this is not part of some vast attack by the Liberal government on regulation. It is not part of the anti-red tape push—nothing of the kind. It is certainly not something that could be described in any sense as a priority reform or as part of a policy onslaught. The idea that it would form part of a 25-point battle plan introduced by this Prime Minister is laughable. It is not groundbreaking reform. It is not bold policy action. The Prime Minister, again, should be embarrassed. On the anniversary of his accession to the job, the Prime Minister should be embarrassed that his stocks have sunk so low, that his government is so adrift and that he has to dress up routine legislative work like this as some kind of policy masterstroke—let alone that it should be part of a 25-point battle plan. Heaven help Australia if the battle plan of our government needs to consist of bills like the two that have just been before the House: the Statute Law Revision (Spring 2016) Bill 2016 and this bill, the Statute Update Bill 2016. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (13:16): Thank you, Deputy Speaker Kelly. I commend you on remembering the changed name of my seat!

I rise to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Auditor Registration) Bill 2016. I am delighted to have the opportunity to outline Labor's position with respect to this bill. The bill, as presented, is worthy of the support this House and, indeed, enjoyed Labor's support when introduced to the House in the last parliament. But, like so much of the legislation that was before the House, it was trampled in the rush to the polls the Prime Minister engaged in for his own political benefit.

When will that joint sitting take place? Australians are thinking to themselves, 'Well, we had a double dissolution. Doesn't a double dissolution normally get followed by a joint sitting?'

Mr Stephen Jones: He prorogued it!

Dr LEIGH: As the member for Whitlam said, the parliament was prorogued for a very specific purpose and yet, now, surprisingly little is heard of that joint sitting. This bill could have been passed in the 44th Parliament, as it enjoyed bipartisan support. That is not the first bill this week that I have said that of—I spoke on another bill, just yesterday, that enjoyed bipartisan support but whose reforms were delayed. Indeed, the income tax cut for Australians earning over $80,000 a year was deferred. Australians will miss out on the first three months of benefit from that income tax cut as a result of this government trampling bills in its wake as it raced to the polls.

In this case, the bill's contents are fairly technical, but they go to the heart of ensuring we have a robust and stable financial system. As is appropriate, the federal government imposes regulatory requirements on the conduct of registered company auditors, whether individuals or firms, in an effort to safeguard investors and to improve the integrity and stability of our financial system and the broader economy. This bill seeks to assist in those efforts by addressing the legal consequences of not registering, in contravention of the Legislation Act 2003, the approval by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in November 2004 of one these auditing competency standards. ASIC approved an auditing competency standard in 2004, produced by Chartered Practicing Accountants Australia—what is now known as Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand.

But the Legislation Act 2003 required that legislative instruments made in 2004 were registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments and in the case of the aforementioned CPA/ICAA standard, this did not occur. The failure to lodge the instrument has had the effect that the CPA/ICAA standard is taken to have been repealed. The practical effect of that is that from 2 December 2005 the legal validity of auditors registered in reliance on the standard has been uncertain. This bill remedies that by amending the Corporations Act to retrospectively ensure that the Legislation Act has always had effect, as if approval of the CPA/ICAA competency standard had been lodged and registered immediately after it was given, and that all other requirements of the Legislation Act are taken to have been met.

Retrospective legislation is rarely acceptable to this side of the House, but, in an instance in which we are clarifying widely understood practice, it is indeed appropriate. That is what this bill before the House does, and I am pleased to say that it enjoys bipartisan support in the 45th Parliament, as it did in the 44th Parliament.

Debate adjourned.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) (16:13): The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Whish-Wilson has been appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, and Senators Bushby, Fawcett, Gallagher, McKenzie and Wong have been appointed members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (17:35): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (17:36): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (17:36): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (19:14): I present the report of the inquiry into the effect of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal's payments order on Australian small businesses.

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (19:15): I rise to speak on the so-called Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016. This is a bill giving effect to the government's opportunistic intervention in a state issue. In the middle of an election campaign, a campaign in which the Prime Minister performed so badly, the government sought to involve itself in what was a state matter. The Labor Party has said all along that whatever differences there are between the volunteers and the CFA, the United Firefighters Union or any parties that are fighting fires in Victoria, we would like to see leadership and we would like to see an effort to reconcile differences not inflame tensions.

The Prime Minister, in his second reading speech, said this bill will protect Australia's emergency services. But it is unclear whether this is true. The Department of Employment, who I thank for their briefing, has advised that: 'This bill only applies to emergency services in Victoria, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, and the Commonwealth has no constitutional power to intervene in respect of emergency services that currently exist in other states. However, it should be noted that, if any emergency services were deemed to be corporations, they could be captured and, in a recent court case, the Country Fire Authority was found to be a trading corporation. It is entirely unclear whether any other fire authorities or other emergency management bodies in Australia are captured by this legislation, and this will only be able to be determined through litigation.'

The government almost seems to have accepted this uncertainty, giving itself power to both exclude and include bodies to be captured by the legislation. No matter how broad or narrow the application of this bill turns out to be, it is clear that it is the government's response to an industrial dispute between Victoria's Country Fire authority and the CFA employees represented by the United Firefighters Union.

For members of the parliament who are not from Victoria, the country fire authority in Victoria is a community based volunteer organisation protecting communities from the outer suburbs of Melbourne to the most remote parts of the state. This is confirmed in the CFA Act, which states:

… the Authority is first and foremost a volunteer-based organisation, in which volunteer officers and members are supported by employees in a fully integrated manner.

This is reflected in the membership of the CFA. As at the end of June 2015, the CFA had around 57,000 volunteers, 35,000 of whom were operational, and around 1,800 permanent staff, of whom 970 were operational. Volunteer numbers have been relatively stable over the last decade, fluctuating between 55,000 and 59,000 volunteers. The number of permanent staff has increased by about 50 per cent in that period—from 1,300 to 1,900. According to the CFA, this has been because the rapid growth in Melbourne's outer suburbs and regional Victoria is putting more pressure on CFA to respond to the growing number of fires and emergency incidents.

The statutory objective of the CFA in performing its functions in exercising its powers is to:

(a) contribute to a whole of sector approach to emergency management;

(b) promote a culture within the emergency management sector of community focus, interoperability and public value.

These functions are to be exercised with regard to the commitment and principles set out in the Volunteer Charter. It is also the CFA's responsibility to develop policy and organisational arrangements that encourage, maintain and strengthen the capacity of volunteer officers and members. The interests of the volunteers are represented by Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria, and the CFA is required under the state act to recognise, value, respect and promote the contribution of volunteer officers and members to the wellbeing and safety of the community and to consult with Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria on behalf of volunteer officers and members on any matter that might reasonably be expected to affect them.

In respect of its paid employees, the CFA may appoint, transfer, suspend or remove such officers and employees as it deems necessary and is required to pay wages consistent with any agreement or award and provide for leave. While there is statutory obligation to consult with the volunteers about matters that affect them, there is no obligation on the CFA to consult with its paid workforce. This can only be achieved through consultation requirements in the enterprise agreement between the United Firefighters Union, on behalf of its members, and the CFA.

It is against this backdrop that we have seen tensions arise between Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria and the United Firefighters Union. These tensions have resulted in Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria bringing an action in the Supreme Court of Victoria. This case is to commence on 3 October and is expected to take 10 days. The listing of this matter was expedited and the opposition is hopeful that the court will determine the matter quickly as well. This case could determine whether the proposed agreement between the CFA in the paid firefighters is consistent with the CFA's obligations under the CFA Act. As the court case makes clear, this is a dispute which is not between parties to an enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act but between Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria and the CFA.

Labor's view is that this has always been, and remains, a state issue. It is our firm belief that, as this may be resolved in the Supreme Court of Victoria, this federal parliament should stay out of the way—at very least, in exercise of the precautionary principle. The government has not convinced Labor that this bill is warranted. As I said from the outset, we believe it is an ill-motivated government that is acting in this manner, dragging this matter into the parliament in Canberra when it should be resolved between the parties within Victoria.

But I think one of the most telling examples of the insincerity of the government is the recent interview between David Speers and the Minister for Employment, who, after being asked the question 14 times and in many different ways, was unable to answer why and in what way the agreement would affect volunteers. David Speers asked Minister Cash how the agreement—if approved by the Fair Work Commission—would affect the volunteers, and on 14 occasions the minister was incapable of providing any answer as to how the agreement would have an adverse impact on the volunteers. If the Minister for Employment cannot explain the impact of the proposed agreement upon volunteers, then why should this parliament seriously entertain the intentions of the government—when it cannot even prosecute its case? The fact is, the minister has been unable to explain the intention of this legislation, and she could not explain, when asked 14 times by David Speers, the impact of the agreement on volunteers. It begs the question, why are we dealing with this matter in this way when the minister is unable to explain the government's position?

I want to make one other point in relation to that interview and in relation to other comments made by the minister. The minister thought it was fitting to use Ash Wednesday as a metaphor for this dispute. As a Victorian, I am affronted by one of our most fatal state tragedies being used as a metaphor for an industrial dispute. I do not believe it is fitting, nor is it in the interests of the family members of the victims of Ash Wednesday to be using that metaphor, and I would ask the minister to desist. It is not the kind of language that a cabinet minister should be using in such a matter.

The opposition has grave concerns that this is just another example of the government deciding to overturn the decision of an independent tribunal it does not like. It did not like the decision of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, so it abolished the tribunal. In this case, the government does not like the Fair Work Commission's recommended resolution of a longstanding dispute between the CFA and its paid firefighters, so it seeks to impose itself in this matter by legislating. Imagine if the government—or some future Labor government—were to legislate every time they were unhappy with an agreement reached between an employer and unions or its employees. It would create chaos within the workplace system. It would create chaos within workplaces across Australia. That is why there are grave concerns about this proposed legislation. It is also why the Police Federation of Australia have made submissions against the enactment of this legislation; why the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation are opposing this legislation as it currently stands; and why Ambulance Employees Australia Victoria have also made submissions against this proposed legislation.

In justifying intervening in the decision of the independent tribunal, the government has raised a number of concerns that they have about the substance of the proposed agreement between the CFA and the United Firefighters Union. The opposition has sought a Senate legislation committee inquiry to get the bottom of the government's claims in respect of the bill. The opposition will use this inquiry to examine whether the bill is warranted at all, or desirable, having regard to the safety of the community and the opportunity to resolve the concerns of the VFBV. The opposition is concerned that this bill will only serve to extend the conflict between the volunteers and the CFA.

If the government's legislation is passed before the agreement is submitted to the Fair Work Commission for approval—having been agreed between the CFA and its employees—then the Fair Work Commission must consider whether any term of the agreement is an 'objectionable emergency management term'. In doing so, the Fair Work Commission will hear from the CFA, the United Firefighters Union, any other employee bargaining representatives, and Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria. As an aside, the Fair Work Commission already has an unlimited discretion to hear from organisations like Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria in proceedings under section 590 of the Fair Work Act. It is of grave concern to the opposition that this government is preparing to throw one of the fundamental principles of enterprise bargaining out the window, in order to provide standing to a stranger. What precedent does this set, beyond this matter, to allow non-parties to request automatic standing in every step of an agreement-making process in order to intervene between the parties? Having heard from the parties, the Fair Work Commission of course could determine that a term of the agreement was not an 'objectionable emergency management term'.

For example, one of the terms the government considers would be objectionable under the legislation is a term related to cross-crewing. The Prime Minister claims that this clause requires union agreement, at integrated stations, to cross-crewing of fire trucks by volunteers and paid firefighters. However, the Fair Work Commission could conclude that this clause does not deal with volunteer and paid firefighters working together, and that it does not affect volunteers at all. The opposition is advised that this clause is part of the CFA's move to appliance-based staffing, and will prevent the problem of new appliances being introduced without the firefighters necessary to cover them. Our understanding of this clause is that it does not prevent new appliances being introduced which could be staffed by volunteers, and that it does not prevent volunteer and paid firefighters working together on existing appliances.

Another term the government considers that the Fair Work Commission could determine to be objectionable is a term providing that 'paid firefighters can only report to another paid firefighter, with the exception of the incident controller'. However, the Fair Work Commission could conclude that this term is entirely consistent with current operating procedures for fighting fires, that it does not change the relationship between volunteers and paid firefighters, and that the clause is intended to ensure that paid firefighters are not directed by paid pen-pushers with no operational experience. The opposition understands that what occurs now is that the crew leader of the first appliance attending a fire is the incident controller and any subsequent crews that arrive are directed by their own crew leaders, but that the crew leaders of those crews are directed by the incident controller. The incident controller can be a paid firefighter or a volunteer. The appliance could be crewed by volunteer or paid firefighters, or a combination of the two. The opposition has been advised that these arrangements are not changed by the proposed clause. In fact, the Fair Work Commission might determine that no term of the proposed agreement is an objectionable emergency management term given that clause 7A of the proposed agreement specifically provides:

The role of volunteers in fighting bush fires and maintaining community safety—

(Time expired)

Debate interrupted.

The SPEAKER (19:37): I present report No. 1 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of private members' business on Monday, 10 October 2016. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and the committee determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.

The report read as follows—

Report relating to the consideration of private Members' business.

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 14 September 2016.

2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of private Members' business on Monday, 10 October 2016 as follows:

Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 MR KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to establish a commission of inquiry into banking in Australia with the powers of a Royal Commission, and for related purposes. ( Banking Commission of Inquiry Bill 2016 )

(Notice given 30 August 2016.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

2 MR KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 , and for related purposes. ( Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Amendment (Strategic Assets) Bill 2016 )

(Notice given 30 August 2016.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

3 MR KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Dairy Produce Act 1986 to establish a Milk Marketing Board, and for related purposes. ( Dairy Produce Amendment (Milk Marketing Board) Bill 2016 )

(Notice given 31 August 2016.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

4 MR WILKIE : To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 in relation to gifts from foreign sources, and for related purposes. ( Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Foreign Political Donations) Bill 2016 )

( Notice given 13 September 2016. )

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

5 MS COLLINS: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Act 2013 to require a review of various matters, and for related purposes. ( Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Amendment (Review) Bill 2016 )

( Notice given 13 September 2016. )

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

6 MS FLINT: To move:

That this House:

(1) recognises the importance of changing the national culture to make disrespecting women un-Australian;

(2) welcomes the Government's $100 million Women's Safety Package to combat domestic violence;

(3) supports efforts at the upcoming COAG meeting to engage all levels of government and the broader community on this shared national endeavour;

(4) places on record its deep concern about the use of new technology and in particular smart phone tracking applications by family violence perpetrators to obtain and monitor the location of their victims; and

(5) calls on all governments to consider this as part of their strategy to combat domestic violence and technology facilitated abuse.

( Notice given 14 September 2016. )

Time allotted—30 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Ms Flint—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

7 MR WATTS: To move:

That this House:

(1) recognises that 18 August is Vietnam Veterans Day;

(2) notes that:

(a) prior to 1987, Vietnam Veterans Day was referred to as Long Tan Day;

(b) 2016 marks the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, a battle that took place on 18 August 1966; and

(c) at the Battle of Long Tan:

(i) less than 120 soldiers from Delta Company faced over 2,000 soldiers;

(ii) 18 Australian soldiers lost their lives during battle, with 25 more injured; and

(iii) over 245 North Vietnamese soldiers also lost their lives;

(3) further notes that:

(a) approximately 60,000 Australians served in Vietnam; and

(b) upon their return to Australia, many Vietnam Veterans struggled with post-traumatic stress disorder and a disregard from an Australian public unsupportive of the Vietnam War;

(4) acknowledges:

(a) that Australia would have suffered many more casualties if not for the South Vietnamese soldiers who the Australian Army fought alongside;

(b) the hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese soldiers and civilians that lost their lives during the Vietnam War;

(c) the sacrifices of the South Vietnamese are rarely mentioned in Australia's collective stories of the Vietnam War; and

(d) that Vietnam Veterans and the South Vietnamese deserve the respect and recognition of all Australian Society; and

(5) recognises the:

(a) bravery and heroism of the soldiers of Delta Company that fought at Long Tan; and

(b) sacrifices made by Australian and former Republic of Vietnam soldiers that fought alongside each other during the Vietnam War.

(Notice given 13 September 2016.)

Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon

Speech time limits—

Mr Watts—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 MS CLAYDON : To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that the International Day of the Girl Child:

(a) will be celebrated globally on 11 October 2016; and

(b) is an international day of observance that promotes girls' human rights, highlights gender inequalities that remain between girls and boys and addresses the various forms of discrimination and abuse suffered by girls around the globe;

(2) recognises that:

(a) the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals include key targets for gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls by 2030;

(b) achieving these targets will require increased investment by national governments, national aid agencies, and global companies and foundations; and

(c) increased investments in gender equality are vital if the world is to achieve sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth and development;

(3) calls on the Australian Government to work towards the longstanding internationally agreed aid targets in order for Australia to contribute its fair share to international development and aid the empowerment of all women and girls under the Sustainable Development Goals; and

(4) urges all Members to be leaders in their community and in Parliament, to act on the advancement of gender equality.

( Notice given 14 September 2016. )

Time allotted—30 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Ms Claydon —5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

2 MR T. R. WILSON: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that Australia is a prosperous nation with a high standard of living and low levels of poverty by international standards;

(2) recognises that despite our national prosperity, poverty remains an issue for some Australians;

(3) notes that 11 to 17 October is Anti-Poverty Week, a week where all Australians are encouraged to organise or take part in activities to highlight and overcome poverty in Australia and overseas;

(4) understands that the main aims of Anti-Poverty Week are to:

(a) strengthen public understanding of the causes and consequences of poverty and hardship; and

(b) encourage research, discussion and action to address these problems, including action by individuals, communities, organisations and governments; and

(5) commends the organisers and sponsors of Anti-Poverty Week for their ongoing efforts to raise awareness and take action to address poverty.

( Notice given 14 September 2016. )

Time allotted—40 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mr T. R. Wilson—5 minutes.

Next Member speaking—5 minutes.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

3 MR HAYES: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that National Police Remembrance Day is observed on 29 September;

(2) acknowledges the significant role police make to our local communities and the high degree of risk and personal sacrifice that comes with their duty;

(3) honours the courage and commitment of the men and women who serve in our state and territory police forces together with the Australian Federal Police, and who dedicate their careers to protecting and serving our community;

(4) remembers the ultimate sacrifice that has been made by police officers who have been killed in the course of their duty, and honours their lives;

(5) commends the good work of Police Legacy, who look after the loved ones of police who have died as a result of their duties; and

(6) reaffirms our support for the nation's 56,000 police officers, and honours their efforts to make a difference, defend our way of life and safeguard the peace and security of our communities.

(Notice given 13 September 2016.)

Time allotted—40 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mr Hayes—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

4 MR HASTIE: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges and supports the deployed Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel currently serving overseas;

(2) recognises that:

(a) there are currently well over 2,000 ADF personnel serving overseas; and

(b) these men and women are playing a critical role in supporting Australia's national interests by contributing to international security operations; and

(3) notes the Government's ongoing support for our deployed ADF personnel and the $910.7 million provided in the 2015 budget to support major overseas operations including Okra, Highroad, Manitou, Accordion and Resolute.

( Notice given 14 September 2016. )

Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm

Speech time limits—

Mr Hastie—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Orders of the day

1 Victims of family violence and court proceedings: Resumption of debate (from 12 September 2016) on the motion of Mr Perrett—That this House:

(1) notes that Women's Legal Services Australia and 90 other organisations concerned with family violence wrote to all political leaders in May 2016 calling on them to put safety first in family law;

(2) recognises that:

(a) unrepresented litigants have been an increasing feature of the Family Court of Australia and Federal Circuit Court of Australia for many years;

(b) due to the cuts made to Legal Aid funding by the Government, the number of unrepresented litigants continues to increase;

(c) unrepresented litigants are entitled to cross-examine the other party to test their evidence in a trial; and

(d) where a victim of family violence is subjected to direct cross-examination by their abuser, the:

(i) victim can be severely traumatised;

(ii) quality of the evidence given to the court can be compromised;

(iii) perpetrator can use the court process to further abuse the victim; and

(iv) victim may discontinue the proceedings because they are unable to endure the cross-examination;

(3) further notes that the Opposition took to the election a commitment to protect victims and survivors from being personally cross-examined by alleged perpetrators; and

(4) calls on the Government to immediately act to protect victims of family violence by introducing amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 to ensure that victims of family violence are not directly cross-examined by their abusers during court proceedings.

Time allotted—40 minutes.

Speech time limits—

All Members speaking—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.