Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (09:31): On behalf of the Leader of the House, I move:

(1) that this House establish a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation, to inquire and report on the following matters:

(a) best practice approaches to regional development, considering Australian and international examples, that support:

(i) growing and sustaining the rural and regional population base;

(ii) the benefits of economic growth and opportunity being shared right across Australia;

(iii) developing the capabilities of regional Australians;

(iv) growing and diversifying of the regional economic and employment base;

(v) an improved quality of life for regional Australians;

(vi) vibrant, more cohesive and engaged regional communities;

(vii) leveraging long-term private investment; and

(viii) a place-based approach that considers local circumstances, competitive advantages and involves collective governance;

(b) decentralisation of Commonwealth entities or functions, as a mechanism to increase growth and prosperity in regional areas, considering Australian and international examples, including:

(i) examining the potential for decentralisation to improve governance and service delivery for all Australians, considering the administrative arrangements required for good government;

(ii) identifying the characteristics of entities that would be suited to decentralisation without impacting on the ability to perform their functions;

(iii) identifying the characteristics of locations suitable to support decentralised entities or functions, including consideration of infrastructure and communication connectivity requirements;

(iv) considering different models of decentralisation, including:

- relocation of all or part of a Commonwealth entity to a regional area;

- decentralisation of specific positions, with individual employees telecommuting, considering any limitations to this in current Australian Public Service employment conditions and rules;

- co-location of decentralised Commonwealth entities or employees in existing regionally based Commonwealth or State Government offices; and

(v) examining the family, social and community impacts of decentralising;

(c) actions of the Commonwealth that would encourage greater corporate decentralisation and what can be learned from corporate decentralisation approaches, including:

(i) considering the role of the private sector in sustainably driving employment and growth opportunities in regional areas in both existing and new industries;

(ii) comparing the access to early stage equity and or debt finance of metropolitan and regional businesses for both start up and established businesses;

(iii) examining access to capital for regional business, including agribusiness, manufacturing and technology;

(iv) considering the adequacy of regional businesses access to early stage accelerators and incubators, including access to business mentors, business networks and capital (debt or equity);

(v) considering the adequacy to support the private sector to attract and retain skilled labour to regional areas; and

(vi) examining the extent to which employment and growth can be supported by growing existing and new industries in regional areas, leveraging strong transport and communications connectivity; and

(d) any related matters;

(2) the committee consist of 10 members, six members to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, three members to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips and one non-aligned Member;

(3) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

(4) the members of the committee hold office as a select committee until presentation of the committee’s report or the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;

(5) the committee elect:

(a) a government member as chair; and

(b) a non-government member as deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;

(6) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, has a casting vote;

(7) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one government member and one non‑government member;

(8) the committee has power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine;

(9) the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;

(10) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one government member and one non-government member;

(11) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;

(12) the committee or any subcommittee:

(a) has power to call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;

(b) may conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;

(c) may sit in public or in private; and

(d) has power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives;

(13) the committee may report from time to time, but will produce an issues paper no later than 31 August 2017 and an interim report no later than 31 December 2017, with its final report no later than 28 February 2018; and

(14) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (09:32): I would like to add my comments to the minister's and welcome the government's motion here and acknowledge the work of the Prime Minister, the member for Mayo, the Leader of the House and many members of parliament we have worked with on this particular motion over a period of time. I would particularly like to acknowledge the people of Indi, who have asked that this motion be brought to the House. Also, I would like to thank my staff, particularly the work of Jeremy Mickle, for the huge amount of work they have done.

I think this is going to be a visionary committee. I know that the intent is to look at regional development, the future of Australia and the role of decentralisation to assist and support in doing that. There are so many innovative and creative things happening in rural and regional Australia. There are so many wonderful people doing amazing things, so many communities, projects and issues that can really value add to how the government wants the country to be. We can build connections.

Before I address the details of this particular motion, I would like to share with you, Mr Speaker, a couple of moments of history if I could. In the 1990s, as president of Australian Women in Agriculture I was approached by John Anderson, then Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the National Party, to chair the Regional Women's Advisory Council. This was a national representative council reporting directly to the Deputy Prime Minister on issues of important to Australia. As chair of that committee, we did an enormous amount of work of joining up government and talking to the government about how their issues impacted on the lives of people in rural and regional Australia. Our first report was called The success factors. It talked about the success of economic growth and development in rural and regional Australia. It underpinned the next part of the work that I and many of my colleagues did for the next 15 years and directly resulted in me standing to become a member of parliament. There was so much wisdom in The success factors about how government and communities can work together. I am looking forward to bringing some of that knowledge back to this committee.

Before I was involved in Women in Agriculture, in my earlier life I was working for the Victorian Department of Agriculture. The Premier of Victoria at that time was John Cain. John Cain established a committee called the Rural Affairs Committee of cabinet. He brought together some of the key portfolios that impacted on rural and regional Australia. I had the fortune to be a staff member who worked to that committee of cabinet, and I could see the impact joined-up government had. I could see the impact of partnerships between communities and government. I could see the respectful relationships developed when rural communities better understood how government worked. I could see the capacity-building that happened right across rural Victoria as cabinet ministers came out, met with communities and better understood the problem, and then we worked together to actually be solutions focused. It was a most amazing career for a young country woman from a farm to get a really good experience of how government works in partnership with communities.

And the results were amazing. Right across Victoria, communities came together, people put their hands up to become part of government. They joined committees. The capacity-building happened as people understood that they had authority, they had personal power and government was a partner. And in supporting this particular motion I am hoping we can do the same thing. I am hoping we can bring government together. I am hoping we can work with the opposition, and it is so good to have you here today. I know there are issues about the actual format of the committee, but I am looking forward to working with the government, with the opposition and with my crossbench colleagues, to ask, 'What's our vision for rural and regional Australia?'—how we can actually work together and with government as a partner to do the detailed planning that needs to happen for us to be the shining light that I believe we can be for this wonderful country.

Before I talk about some of the key aspects of the committee, I really want to acknowledge the work everybody has put in place to get here today, and particularly for me as an Independent to be standing here to put my hand up to be on the committee—and I certainly hope to—and to work with all my rural colleagues. I know we have the connections, we have the links, and we want to do this. I will note just a couple of things about the committee that I think are going to make a really big difference. It is going to look at best-practice approaches to regional development, considering Australia and international examples, and many of us have great knowledge of how things work in other countries. We are going to look at decentralisation of Commonwealth entities and functions as a mechanism to increase growth and prosperity in regional areas—again, considering Australian and international examples.

Really importantly for me, with my background in business, we are going to look at the actions of the Commonwealth that would encourage greater corporate decentralisation and what can be learned from corporate decentralisation approaches—how we can bring business with us. I will give you one example of this. In my local community of Bright last week I met a woman who has a consultancy company working for Google, out of Bright. She does it all by telecommunications. One of my volunteers this week works for the Victorian Department of Agriculture. He is part of the department's HR team and works from Rutherglen. We have so many examples of this joined-up, clever decentralisation approach that we could bring to parliament and work to.

In closing, I say, the time is now. The right people are here. The parliament is together in its will. And I say to all my colleagues throughout rural and regional Australia, come and join us; this is going to be the most exciting thing we do for the next eight months.

Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (09:38): I thank the honourable member for her contribution. I think this is going to be very good. It works on the back of the inquiry we have had in the Senate, which was also premised on decentralisation and premised on what we can do for regional areas. In the Nationals we are very much focused on making sure that we continue with a process of decentralisation, and people would note the work we are doing with RIRDC, going to Wagga; with GRDC, going to Toowoomba, to Dubbo and to Northam in Western Australia; with APVMA, going to Armidale; and with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, with the decentralisation to Wodonga, to Adelaide and to Toowoomba. The centre of our party's purpose is the development of regional Australia, and we are very proud of the work we are doing there—even recently, the announcement of the Regional Investment Corporation in Orange, which will be capitalised to $4 billion.

With all this, the more that we can get other people to put their shoulder to our wheel in driving this agenda the better, because we know that there is always a tendency that it oscillates—at other times people go back to centralisation. There is never an inquiry about how they close down post offices or close down services and move them out of regional areas and back into major cities. There has to be a concerted push, when the opportunity arises, to decentralise back out to regional areas.

I would never be so bold as to say that this is something peculiar to the National Party. Without a shadow of a doubt the Labor Party themselves have been instrumental in decentralisation. The Albury-Wodonga push by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was a clear example of that. We have also had the Department of Minerals and Energy that went to Maitland. We have had the Labor Party moving other departments into the Northern Rivers of New South Wales. All of these I agree with. All of these I think make abundant sense. It makes sense for a section of the minerals department in New South Wales to be in Maitland, because that is where the coalmines are. That is where it should be.

This is something where, if we as a government and in a bipartisan way can drive an agenda of decentralisation then we make our nation a stronger place, because the essence of our nation only exists in a form of decentralisation in its primary aspects of closer settlement. The idea of a penal colony at Sydney was a policy of a government—not a policy of our government; a policy of an English government—but that is precisely how the closer settlement of Australia came about.

The only reason where we are right now—Canberra—is here is the policy of government. There was no natural inclination for the creation of our nation's capital on the banks of the Molonglo River, but what an incredible jewel it is for our nation now. In fact, it was part of the process that the nation's capital had to be more than 100 miles from Sydney or Melbourne. It was one of the reasons why we are where we are at this moment. Now, with around 380,000 people living in Canberra, I think less than 40 per cent of its GDP is to do with the public service. It is growing under its own speed now, and that is a great outcome.

We support this inquiry. This inquiry adds to the work that has been done by the Labor Party and works on the whole premise of the National Party, which is a party for Regional Australia. It works off the back of the Senate inquiry. I want to commend the work that has been done by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, Senator Fiona Nash. She has done a power of work in this space. Also, Senator Bridge McKenzie has been working so hard in this space. We are only too happy to support people across the parliamentary spectrum who share in this goal of decentralisation.

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (09:42): I want to start by congratulating the member for Indi, who has put a power of work into this. I read an earlier motion that she had prepared and I know she had been in discussion with the government and others on an earlier motion which had envisaged a joint select committee to inquire into decentralisation and regional development. Labor would have supported such an approach. We think the power of having both houses of parliament and the independence that is brought by a joint select committee would have brought a valuable contribution to the subject matter which is going to be covered by this committee.

As the Deputy Prime Minister has just said, Labor has a long and proud history in the area of decentralisation. It is well known that the Whitlam government established the Growth Centres (Financial Assistance) Bill 1973and the Albury-Wodonga Development Bill 1973 as a means of driving through this place a decentralisation agenda. It was not a process that stopped with the Whitlam government. I know, for example, that any of the members who are representing electorates that have an Australian tax office in their electorate have it as a result of a deliberate initiative of a Labor government to ensure that we decentralised the work that was being performed by such a large department of the government.

Some people have often quipped that this is something that is going to give Labor a natural advantage in some of these regional areas; it is a view that, if you are decentralising public servants out of Canberra, they will move to areas and change the political spectrum.

I always remind people who make that observation that actually the member for Farrer used to work in the Australian Taxation Office—I believe she used to be a union delegate in the tax office—and was one of the beneficiaries of a Labor government's commitment to decentralisation. We believe that there is a right and a wrong way to go about this. We think you need a methodical, systematic approach to decentralisation. I see the member for Hunter is here in the chamber with me today. He and I will have an active role in watching and participating in the work of this committee. I know that the member for Hunter has had some critical things to say about the move of the APVMA from Canberra to New England. We see this as an example of the wrong way to go about things: an ad hoc approach, very, very costly and a great disruption to the normal operations of that agency, without any cost-benefit analysis of the long-term benefits of that move.

This cannot be interpreted as a hostility from Labor to the proposition of decentralisation. It is something that we have had a long-term commitment to, dating back to well earlier than the 1970s, to the Chifley and Curtin governments, and even earlier than that. Labor have had a strong commitment to decentralisation. It has to go further than just looking at the activities of government, which is why I appreciate the work that the member for Indi has put into the drafting of the terms of reference for this committee, because they go to those important areas of regional economic development and the role of the private sector as well.

The objective of the decentralisation is to create jobs and economic opportunity in regional areas. That is what it is all about. Therefore, we argue that it does not make sense to be moving agencies or parts of agencies from capital cities into regional centres if, at the very same time, you are cutting jobs from other Commonwealth agencies that already exist in those regional areas. Sadly, that has been the case. We note that within the existing budget there are a further 1,200 jobs slated to be cut from the Department of Human Services—one of the most decentralised agencies in the Commonwealth. These are issues that need to be looked at and will be looked at. We will be looking at them very carefully in our participation in this new select committee. Once again, we want to congratulate all members of parliament who have had a role in bringing this motion to the parliament today, and we will be active and positive contributors to the work and the considerations of this committee.

Question agreed to.

Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (09:48): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Australia has a world-class food safety management system. Our exported food is highly sought after internationally due to our world-class food safety reputation. This benefits our farmers, our economy, and our nation as a leading exporter of high quality safe food. It is essential that we ensure food being brought into Australia is safe. As globalisation changes how food is traded around the world, we need to strengthen our laws to meet the changing landscape.

Australia imports food for a variety of reasons. In 2015-16, we imported $16 billion worth of food. In the same period, Australia exported $40 billion worth of food. Some food is imported into Australia as ingredients to be used in manufacturing of food, some of which is consumed in Australia and some is exported, contributing to our prosperity. For both our economic prosperity through exports, and for the safety of Australians, ensuring all food brought into Australia is safe is a must.

The hepatitis A outbreak in 2015 linked to imported frozen berries highlighted the limitations in our imported food safety management system in identifying and responding to new food safety risks and ensuring importers are accountable for importing safe food across their supply chain. This bill will address these limitations to modernise the system ensuring we continue to have a robust world-class food safety management system.

Food safety management systems are based on science. Some food risks you cannot see. We know for some food, such as raw milk cheese, scientific testing alone of the final product does not guarantee the food is safe to eat. As our farmers know, ensuring every step of the production process, from the grass the cow eats, to the water the cow drinks, to the cleanliness of the dairy, the conditions the cheese is made in, to finally the way the cheese is packaged and transported are all critical. To address these concerns for food where at-border testing alone is insufficient to assure safety, this bill will introduce a requirement that for certain ready to eat or minimally processed foods, importers will need an internationally recognised food safety management certificate that assures the food's production has been managed safely.

One or two times a year there are circumstances where we strongly suspect a problem with an imported food but the scientists are still working out what tests will best show if the problem exists in that particular batch. This was the case with the frozen berries, and we were able to work with the importer to voluntarily hold the food. However, this is reliant on the importer being cooperative. This bill addresses that weakness by introducing new capacity to hold food at the border until the scientific testing approach is being finalised or the extent of the problem is understood. This capacity will only be utilised for a short period until the scientific testing approach is finalised, then we will use the existing provisions.

Under the current system, if we have some information about an emerging risk but the scientific evidence is incomplete, the system is unable to increase the surveillance of that food. This bill introduces the ability to increase the level of surveillance to monitor the risk for a limited period and gather scientific evidence to conduct a reassessment of that food. This will enable us to better respond to emerging risks proactively before a food safety incident occurs.

Australia is a big exporter of food. Our agricultural exports contributed $38.3 billion to the Australian economy in 2015-16. This government has worked tirelessly to develop new markets for our exports. As part of this work we have identified foreign countries who have food safety management systems that are equivalent to our own. Where there are equivalent food safety management systems between Australia and another country, this bill introduces the capacity to recognise the systems and to reduce intervention at the border. This will benefit both countries, enabling the easier flow of trade between Australia and that country.

We are serious about ensuring Australia continues to have a world-class food safety management system. Part of ensuring this is having the necessary tools in place for when somebody tries to break the rules. This bill brings the enforcement tools available to the department up to modern standards and introduces new penalties to make sure when somebody breaks the law they are dealt with appropriately. That's why we are introducing a full range of penalties, ranging from strict liability offences to up to 10 years in gaol and fines greater than $100,000.

The Australian government only has regulatory responsibility for food as it comes over our border. We need to make sure the expectation we have on Australian businesses is the same as expectations on importers. Australian food businesses have excellent systems in place to be able to trace food, which is essential if a recall is required. To make sure importers are able to do the same, this bill introduces requirements for importers to be able to quickly identify who they bought food from and who they sold it to in Australia. This will strengthen our ability to respond to a food incident.

The food safety management system in Australia is a cooperative system where the states, territories, local governments and Australian government have shared responsibilities. To enable information to be used easily within Australia for food regulation, we have improved our information-sharing abilities with the states and territories. The states, territories and local governments play an essential part in Australia's domestic food safety management system, and the Australian government will be able to share information to support jurisdictions to effectively perform their role in food safety management.

Another limitation with current imported food safety management practices is how foods can be specified. Despite the knowledge in 2015 that only berries from a specific location were of concern in relation to that incident, all frozen berries were required to be tested under current legislation. This bill introduces the flexibility to specify food in a detailed way. For example, we will be able to narrow holding orders to specific foods from specific locations or even specific factories. This will reduce the burden on importers at the border as we will be able to target the specific food causing concern, and not all food of that type.

The changing global marketplace of food supply presents new challenges for managing the risks associated with imported food. As the world's population grows, ensuring a safe food supply is critical. This bill introduces the ability of Australia to share information with our international trading partners about any food safety issues identified in food arriving at Australia's border. This will enable a safer food supply chain worldwide.

Australia enjoys a world-class food safety management system. Through these changes we will strengthen our system, enabling Australians to continue to enjoy a wide range of food from around the world. Our food manufacturers will be able to continue to produce high-quality and safe food, which is highly sought after internationally. This benefits our farmers, our economy, and our nation as a leading exporter of high-quality safe food.

A strong food safety management system at the border is essential for our nation.

Debate adjourned.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (09:57): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Turnbull government is guaranteeing Medicare so that all Australians can be assured Medicare is not only here to stay, but will be strengthened into the future.

Australians place great faith in our world-class health system. In 2015-16, 89.3 per cent of the population accessed a Medicare service, using over 384 million Medicare services.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is a key component of Australia's health system that has provided affordable access to necessary and life-saving medicines for Australians for almost 70 years. Around 208 million services—91.7 per cent of which were concessional—were provided under the PBS in 2015-16.

The Turnbull government is building on our world-class system by strengthening Medicare, with the strong leadership of the Minister for Health and Sport, who is at the table with us today. In this year's budget, the government will provide $1 billion to reintroduce indexation for certain items on the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS). The government is investing record funding for our public hospitals and will deliver an additional $2.8 billion in the 2017-18 budget.

The government has also committed to an additional $1.2 billion to list new and amended, cost-effective medicines on the PBS, as announced in this year's budget. This adds to more than 1,400 new or amended listings on the PBS since 2013, compared to just 330 in Labor's last three years in office.

Labor rationed the PBS. They did not list life-saving drugs, when they could have and should have. We have and are.

The MBS and PBS combined will account for almost 45 per cent of Commonwealth health expenditure in 2017-18.

The Turnbull government is guaranteeing Medicare. According to those opposite, the Labor Party, the government was apparently meant to have sold Medicare by now. With this bill the government is guaranteeing the MBS and PBS so that all Australians can continue to access timely and affordable health care and medicines into the future—proving the deceit that was put to the Australian people by the Labor Party at the last election.

The Turnbull government is guaranteeing Medicare. By law, we will establish a Medicare Guarantee Fund to back up this guarantee, to pay for all expenses on the MBS and PBS from 1 July of this year. The fund will secure the long-term future for the Medicare Benefit Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

The fund will consist of the Medicare Guarantee Fund (Treasury) Special Account and the Medicare Guarantee Fund (Health) Special Account.

Proceeds from the Medicare levy, less the portion set aside for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, will be paid into the fund to meet MBS and PBS costs. Because the Medicare levy does not, and has not ever, covered the full costs of providing health care in Australia, an additional contribution from income tax revenue will be paid into the funds to meet MBS and PBS costs. The money will be placed in the fund every year—transparently, assuredly and responsibly.

In 2017-18 an estimated $33.8 billion will be credited to the fund. The Medicare levy will contribute about $12.1 billion. The remainder, an estimated $21.7 billion, will be drawn from personal income tax receipts, equivalent to around 10 per cent of all personal income tax.

The funds credited from the Medicare levy will be equivalent to three-quarters of the revenue raised by the Medicare levy for the next two years. This will shift to become three-fifths of the revenue raised by the Medicare levy from 2019-20 when the Medicare levy will need to be increased to cover the full costs of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and fill the $55.7 billion funding gap left by the Labor Party for the NDIS.

The amounts credited to the Medicare Guarantee Fund will be held in the fund for the sole purpose of meeting the cost of essential health care provided under the MBS and PBS, thereby guaranteeing those important services, those essential services, that Australians rely on and the Turnbull government is guaranteeing.. They will provide transparency about the costs of Medicare and the PBS and a clear guarantee on how we pay for them.

The fund demonstrates the government's commitment to Medicare by ring-fencing revenue for the sole purpose of MBS and PBS spending.

Ring-fencing the revenue in the Medicare Guarantee Fund will increase the public visibility of the costs of these important services, the quantum of revenue generated by the Medicare levy and the additional revenue necessary to meet these costs, which is drawn from the personal income tax base.

The fund does not change the demand-driven nature of MBS and PBS funding. To make sure that there is always sufficient credit in the fund to meet MBS and PBS costs, the credit to the fund will be adjusted at every budget update. This will ensure that it is in line with forecast future growth in MBS and PBS expenditure over the forward estimates.

In the event that the fund has insufficient contributions to meet MBS and PBS expenses in any year, a special appropriation will meet those expenses. This ensures that Medicare Benefit Schedule and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme funding is always guaranteed under a Turnbull government.

Full details of the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (10:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Medicare Guarantee (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017 makes amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973and the National Health Act 1953 to reflect the proposed operation of the Medicare Guarantee Bill 2017, which secures the ongoing funding of the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).

The MBS and PBS are currently paid under the Health Insurance Act 1973and National Health Act 1953 respectively.

These acts meet payment obligations under those schemes by appropriating from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The Medicare Guarantee (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017 makes a number of consequential amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973and National Health Act 1953to replace the current special appropriations under those acts with the Medicare Guarantee Fund.

These changes will increase transparency around the cost of running the MBS and PBS and will guarantee the government's commitment to fund the affordable health care all Australians rely on.

Full details of the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (10:06): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today, I introduce a bill to amend the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999('GST law') to give effect to changes that were announced by the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer MP, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, on 31 March 2017.

The bill provides that entities buying gold, silver and platinum that have been supplied as a taxable supply for GST purposes will be required to apply a reverse charge. This means they will remit the GST to the ATO instead of the seller remitting the goods and services tax.

In addition the bill clarifies that precious metals are not second-hand goods.

These changes will negate two types of avoidance activity by entities exploiting the different tax treatment applying to 'precious metals' and 'scrap metals'.

Precious metals are gold, silver, platinum and other prescribed metals meeting particular investment form and fineness requirements.

Generally, a supply of precious metals is not taxable, whereas a supply of scrap metals will be a taxable supply under the GST rules.

However, precious metals can be altered to turn them into scrap metals, for example by removing logos or brand markings, or chopping the metal so that it is no longer in investment form.

The first type of avoidance activity involves entities altering precious metals to turn them into scrap metals. On sale of the scrap metal, GST would be charged. However, the seller would go missing without having remitted the GST to the ATO, and the purchaser would still claim an input tax credit on their purchase.

To address the 'missing trader' scheme, the bill applies a reverse charge to supplies involving these metals, which ensures the purchaser becomes responsible for remitting the GST to the ATO. This removes the opportunity for the seller to keep the GST and go 'missing'.

The second type of avoidance activity involves entities altering precious metals to turn them into scrap metals, so they are treated as second-hand goods. The GST law allows entities to claim input tax credits for second‑hand goods bought from the public, in line with the policy rationale that GST is embedded in the price when dealers purchase these goods.

However, scrap metals, broken jewellery and other items that are bought and later sold to refiners for their valuable metal content are very unlikely to have any GST embedded in the price.

Allowing an input tax credit in such situations is not consistent with the policy underpinning the second-hand goods rules.

The bill clarifies the law to ensure it operates as intended and this avoidance, and at times fraudulent, activity is stopped.

The bill will have effect from 1 April 2017, as announced.

To make sure this activity does not simply shift from gold to other metals, the amendments also apply to goods containing silver, platinum or other metals that may be prescribed.

The government is committed to protecting the integrity of the tax system. By making these changes to the GST treatment of precious metals, the government is securing necessary funds for states and territories that provide crucial services such as hospitals and schools that Australians rely on.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (10:10): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Corporations Act 2001to improve Australia's corporate insolvency system.

Firstly, it will create a 'safe harbour' for honest and diligent company directors from personal liability for insolvent trading if they are pursuing a restructure outside formal insolvency.

Secondly, 'ipso facto' clauses, which may allow the termination or variation of contracts based on a company's financial position or the commencement of certain insolvency proceedings, will become unenforceable during and after certain formal insolvency procedures.

Our current insolvent trading laws put too much focus on stigmatising and penalising failure. As part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda, these reforms aim to promote entrepreneurship and innovation to drive business growth, local jobs and global success.

The threat of Australia's insolvent trading laws, combined with uncertainty over the precise moment a company becomes insolvent have long been criticised as driving directors to seek voluntary administration even in circumstances where the company may be viable in the longer term. Concerns over inadvertent breaches of insolvent trading laws are frequently cited as a reason that early stage—angel—investors and professional directors are reluctant to become involved in a start-up.

Broadly, the safe harbour and ipso facto measures encourage Australians to take a risk, leave behind the fear of failure and be more innovative and ambitious. More often than not, entrepreneurs will fail several times before they experience success and will generally learn valuable lessons during the process. Helping these entrepreneurs to succeed requires a cultural shift.

The amendments in part 1 of this bill create a safe harbour for company directors from personal liability for insolvent trading if the company is undertaking a restructure outside formal insolvency. This will drive cultural change among company directors by encouraging them to keep control of their company, engage early with possible insolvency and take reasonable risks to facilitate the company's recovery instead of simply placing the company prematurely into voluntary administration or liquidation.

An 'ipso facto' clause is a provision that allows one party to terminate or modify the operation of a contract upon the occurrence of some specific event, regardless of otherwise continued performance of the counterparty. The operation of these clauses can reduce the scope for a successful restructure or prevent the sale of the business as a going concern.

The amendments in part 2 of this bill will make certain contractual rights unenforceable while a company is restructuring under certain formal insolvency processes.

This reform is aimed at enabling businesses to continue to trade in order to recover from an insolvency event instead of these clauses preventing their successful rehabilitation.

Together, these amendments will reduce instances of a company proceeding to a formal insolvency process prematurely. Where companies do enter into particular formal insolvency procedures, they will have a better chance of being turned around or of preserving value for creditors and shareholders

This in turn will promote the preservation of enterprise value for companies, their employees and creditors, reduce the stigma of failure associated with insolvency and encourage a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (10:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill will increase the excise imposed on roll-your-own tobacco to align it with the excise rate applied to cigarettes.

The bill will phase-in the rate adjustment over four years to match the timing of existing excise increases. The first adjustment to the roll-your-own tobacco excise rate will occur on 1 September 2017.

The rate adjustment will correct a disparity in the treatment of cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco. This disparity exists because there are two excise rates that apply to tobacco, a stick rate which is applied to manufactured cigarettes with 0.8 grams or less of tobacco per cigarette and a per kilogram rate which is applied to all other tobacco products, including roll-your-own tobacco and most cigars.

The stick rate simplifies the taxation of cigarettes and reduces compliance costs. Consequently, cigarettes have excise imposed at the same rate regardless of their tobacco content, as though they contain 0.8 grams in tobacco.

However, the average cigarette contains less than 0.8 grams of tobacco, which means the government imposes excise on the average cigarette at a higher rate than roll-your-own tobacco.

To correct this disparity, this bill will adjust the per kilogram tobacco excise rate to reflect the new assumption that the average cigarette contains 0.7 grams of tobacco.

This adjustment, to be made over four years, will make sure the government taxes tobacco more equally, regardless of its form.

A cognate bill, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco Duty Harmonisation) Bill 2017, will increase the excise equivalent customs duty on roll-your-own tobacco.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (10:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill will increase the excise equivalent customs duty imposed on roll-your-own tobacco to align it with the rate applied to cigarettes.

Consistent with the cognate Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco Duty Harmonisation) Bill 2017, the rate adjustment will correct a disparity in the tax treatment of cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco.

To correct the disparity, this bill will adjust the per kilogram tobacco duty rate to reflect the new assumption that the average cigarette contains 0.7 grams of tobacco and not 0.8 grams of tobacco as applies under the current rate.

This adjustment, to be made over four years, will make sure the government taxes tobacco more equally, regardless of its form.

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

Debate adjourned.

Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne—Assistant Minister for Health) (10:19): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I am delighted to introduce the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017, which is the most important of six bills in a package of legislation to reform the system of industrial chemicals regulation and establish a new scheme for Australia, known as the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme (or AICIS). These reforms also deliver on the coalition's commitment to reduce red tape and improve the safety risk framework for industrial chemicals in Australia.

Industrial chemicals play an essential role in everyday life—they are in paints and petrol, and are used in the production of a wide range of consumer goods and products such as cosmetics, dyes, cleaners and plastics. They are also an integral part of Australian industry and are extensively used in mining, manufacturing, and the building and construction industry. But they can also present risks to human health, worker safety and the environment that require management through fit-for-purpose regulation.

The details for the regulations will be set out under the bills, and contain the technical and operational details to ensure the new scheme remains responsive to scientific development and changes in industry. This regulation will be subject to further public consultation.

Industrial chemicals also form part of a multi-billion dollar international market, with Australian imports and exports of industrial chemicals combined exceeding approximately $62 billion in 2015-16. It is important that Australian regulation aligns, as far as possible, with that of our trading partners, and that it is flexible enough to accommodate changes as they occur internationally and as the science develops.

The bill that I am introducing today introduces a new scheme designed to make regulatory effort more proportionate to risk and to promote safer innovation by encouraging the introduction of lower risk chemicals. The changes will continue to maintain Australia's high standards for protecting the Australian community (both workers and the general public) and the environment from any harmful effects of industrial chemicals.

The regulation of industrial chemicals at the Commonwealth level has existed since 1989 under the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989. However with the passage of time, through successive governments, it has been recognised that reform was required to streamline what has become a very complicated regulatory scheme.

The bill will establish the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme, which will replace the current National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme. Under the new scheme, the executive director, who will be an independent statutory office-holder appointed by the Governor-General, will have a range of important functions in relation to the introduction of industrial chemicals in Australia. The term 'introduction' refers to importation or manufacture. The executive director's functions will include the assessment and publication of information about certain industrial chemicals introductions. AICIS publications will then be used by other bodies, including Australian government and state and territory-based regulators, to aid in the protection of human health, worker safety and the environment. Poisons scheduling, occupational health and safety and environmental protection regulation, performed under state and territory law and coordinated nationally, will be informed by AICIS publications.

The package also delivers on an important coalition government election commitment and an issue that is important to many Australians—banning cosmetic testing on animals. The government has received strong public support to introduce a ban on cosmetic testing on animals. The ban provided for in this bill will bring Australia into line with the EU and other countries introducing a ban on cosmetic testing on animals, prospectively following the commencement of the legislation on 1 July 2018.

Indeed, the new scheme in Australia is moving away from the use of animal test data for other purposes, so that animal test data, like in the EU, would be used as a last resort where science has not yet developed valid alternatives that can assure continued protections for human health, worker safety and the environment.

This ban will apply on the use of animal testing for more than 99 per cent of the cosmetics ingredients introduced into Australia. The remaining less than one per cent are circumstances where these chemicals are also used in other industries and this information is critical to ensure the protection of consumers, the public and workers, and the environment. The coalition believes that the legislation will establish Australia as a world leader in this space.

The coalition government first announced the industrial chemical reforms as part of the 2015-16 budget and since September 2015 there has been extensive consultation with stakeholders to develop the implementation detail for the reforms. We have undertaken four rounds of public consultation, released four consultation papers, held eight public workshops—with over 350 stakeholders in attendance—reviewed 148 written submissions, and sought advice from international regulators. Our consultation will not stop here, though, and an important process of consultation will continue with stakeholders to inform the development of delegated legislation. This will be critical to implementing the new scheme.

I think it is fair to say that our stakeholders do not all share the same views about the level of regulation that should be applied to industrial chemicals—with some favouring a more restrictive approach and others favouring a more deregulatory approach. But, after carefully considering the views of all, I believe that the bill before us strikes a very effective balance. The bill achieves this balance in five main ways.

First, by removing unnecessary regulatory burden and improving IT systems, the costs to industry will be reduced by around $23 million annually. We have found more efficient ways to achieve similar outcomes without in any way jeopardising health and environmental protections.

Second, introduction of a more risk-based approach to regulation encourages innovation and ensures that lower-risk chemicals are not subject to unnecessary restrictions. By enabling industry to self-assess lower-risk chemicals, this reduces the number of chemicals assessed by the regulator by more than 70 per cent—thereby reducing costs to industry, and also enabling the regulator to focus its efforts on higher-risk chemicals.

Third, the bill better aligns industrial chemicals regulation with that of Australia's trading partners. The government has worked closely with regulators in the US and Canada to ensure that wherever possible, definitions are aligned, key concepts are consistent, and most importantly that low-cost, streamlined regulatory pathways will be available for chemicals that have already been assessed by comparable international regulators. This supports the Australian industry to become more competitive internationally.

Fourth, a national inventory of industrial chemicals will be enhanced. Chemicals will be added to the inventory following assessment by AICIS under the new scheme and will be linked to the assessment statement, providing important information about the steps required to safely use these higher-risk chemicals. Critically, this will improve transparency of the scheme and chemicals on the market by publishing information that is more meaningful for industry and the public, including particularly important risk and safety information about the chemicals that have been assessed.

Finally, the bill includes new powers for the regulator to ensure the protection of consumers, workers and the environment. The regulator will be able to refuse the import or manufacture of industrial chemicals where the risks cannot be adequately managed (either by the regulator, or by other Australian risk managers such as environmental authorities). The regulator will also have strengthened enforcement powers in the event of non-compliance.

An important benefit of realigning regulatory effort towards chemicals with a higher risk profile is that the costs to businesses using lower-risk chemicals will be reduced. The faster regulatory pathway to introduction of lower-risk chemicals provides an incentive to introduce safer new chemicals, including replacing more hazardous existing chemicals. A greater focus on post-market assessment and monitoring will assist in maintaining the protection of health and safety of consumers, workers and the environment.

As mentioned earlier, in an area of science that is very dynamic and involves a high level of technical detail, it is critical that the regulatory system can adapt quickly in line with industry innovation, scientific advances and discoveries about the hazards of chemicals. For this reason, much of the detail about the types of chemicals subject to different levels of regulation will be set out in delegated legislation and guidance material. The Department of Health has already undertaken a great deal of consultation on the detail to be included in the delegated legislation, and a fifth consultation paper seeks the further input of stakeholders. I encourage all stakeholders to contribute to this consultation process.

This bill delivers on the coalition government's promise to build a strong new economy by incentivising innovation, supporting Australian exporters and protecting human health and our environment.

This bill also ensures that the regulatory system provides an effective platform for the coming decades—one that is efficient, risk based and proportionate; that encourages innovation and that ensures ongoing protections for consumers, workers and the environment.

Debate adjourned.

Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne—Assistant Minister for Health) (10:33): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I am pleased to introduce one of the supporting bills—the Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017—to the government's package of legislation to reform the industrial chemicals regulation in Australia.

The bill is a companion bill to the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017. It will facilitate the transition for industry and others currently operating under the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989 to the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017.

This bill will repeal the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989and the three industrial chemicals charges acts at a time when the new arrangements come into effect on 1 July 2018. In addition, it will make consequential amendments to a range of other Commonwealth legislation to replace references to the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989 with 'Industrial Chemicals Act 2017'.

Most importantly, this bill will provide for the smooth transition of industrial chemicals from the old legislation to the new regulatory framework, to be known as the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme (AICIS).

It will do this by ensuring that the risks associated with the introduction of an industrial chemical that are managed under the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989will continue to be managed following its repeal, and providing certainty to people currently introducing industrial chemicals.

The bill provides a seamless transition to the new arrangements for those authorisations or processes that are already in place by recognising existing approvals under the old legislation and deeming others to be applications under the most appropriate category in the new arrangements.

For example, if an assessment certificate or permit on which a person is introducing a chemical was made under the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989, it will be considered to be made under the Industrial Chemicals Act 2017 and the controls on its introduction will continue to be applied. Importantly, a chemical that was previously on the inventory will be considered to be on the inventory under the new arrangements, providing for its continued introduction.

In some key areas, such as the introduction of chemicals that are of low volume or low concentration, the transition will take place over a 12-month period so businesses have more time to align with the new requirements for introduction.

This bill will also provide for the transitioning, over a period of time, of confidential business information under the old framework to the new arrangement. Decisions to limit access to some confidential information under the old legislation will be taken to have been decisions under the Industrial Chemicals Act 2017. As these decisions are due for reconsideration, businesses will be encouraged to move to the more contemporary mechanisms.

Finally the bill also provides a degree of flexibility to make adjustments to the new arrangements or prescribe other matters of a transitional nature in the rules.

Debate adjourned.

Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne—Assistant Minister for Health) (10:37): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I am pleased to introduce the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2017 as part of a package of six bills that reform the regulation of industrial chemicals in Australia.

The Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989, or the ICNA Act, establishes a national system of notification and assessment of industrial chemicals and for registration of certain persons manufacturing or importing chemicals into Australia.

The bill that I am introducing makes important changes to the ICNA Act to enable early commencement of certain aspects of the coalition government's broader reforms to industrial chemicals regulation that would otherwise commence from 1 July 2018.

The amendments to the ICNA Act in this bill include:

making changes to the definition of certain low-risk industrial chemicals (new synthetic polymers) to more closely align with international approaches to regulation;

making changes to the notification requirements for introducers of certain new chemicals, such that polymers of low concern would be exempt from notification;

removing the requirement for introducers to provide annual reports to NICNAS for permits and self-assessed assessment certificates; and

removing the requirement for certain annual reporting requirements for introducers of certain industrial chemicals in a registration year.

Collectively, these changes reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and provide a faster regulatory pathway for introduction to the Australian market for lower-risk chemicals whilst ensuring that we do not compromise the high standards for health and safety and protecting our environment.

These early reforms also set the stage for the wider package of reforms that will take effect from 1 July 2018, and are reflected in the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017 and the related supporting bills.

This bill I introduce today contributes to the coalition government's commitment, to ensuring that the regulatory system provides an effective platform for the coming decades—one that is efficient, risk-based, proportionate, encourages innovation and ensures ongoing protections for Australian consumers, workers and the environment.

Debate adjourned.

Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne—Assistant Minister for Health) (10:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I am pleased to introduce one of the supporting bills—the Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017—to the government's package of legislation to reform industrial chemicals regulation in Australia. The new scheme will be known as the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme (AICIS).

The Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017 is one of three charges bills being introduced as part of the government's package of legislation; and will replace the current Industrial Chemicals (Registration Charge-General) Act 1997. The other two bills are the Industrial Chemicals Charges (Excise) Bill 2017 and the Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017.

This bill will facilitate a cost recovered scheme, by introducing a charge on a registered person each year they wish to introduce a chemical in accordance with the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017. The legislation requires that the Minister for Health be satisfied that the amount charged will not be more than the likely costs of AICIS regulatory activities. This will provide introducers of chemicals with confidence that the government will not over-recover the costs of managing these regulatory activities.

The bill does not itself set the amount of the charges. The charges and who is liable and exempt from paying the charges will be set in the regulations. Specifying such matters in regulations, as opposed to the act itself, provides the department with sufficient flexibility to ensure that these matters are appropriate in all circumstances.

The Department of Health will be consulting extensively on the mechanism for calculating this charge to ensure cost recovery arrangements for activities provided in relation to registering chemicals are appropriately supported. I encourage all stakeholders to respond to this consultation process.

Debate adjourned.

Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne—Assistant Minister for Health) (10:44): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I am pleased to introduce one of the three charges bills the Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017 to the government's package of legislation to reform industrial chemicals regulation in Australia.

The Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017 will impose charges only when they are considered a duty of customs. The key provisions of the bill mirror those in the Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017 and have the same operative function and effect.

The bill does not itself set the amount of the charge and will not impose any financial impacts. The charges and who is liable and exempt from paying the charges will be set in regulations, which will be the subject of further consultation.

Debate adjourned.

Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne—Assistant Minister for Health) (10:45): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I am pleased to introduce one of the supporting bills, the Industrial Chemicals Charges (Excise) Bill 2017, to the government's package of legislation to reform industrial chemicals regulation in Australia.

The Industrial Chemicals Charges (Excise) Bill 2017 will impose charges only when they are considered a duty of excise. The key provisions of the bill mirror those in the Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017 and have the same operative function and effect.

The bill does not itself set the amount of the charge and will not impose any financial impacts. The charges and who is liable and exempt from paying the charges will be set in the regulations, which will be the subject of further consultation.

Debate adjourned.

Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (10:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2017 gives effect to greater student protection measures and strengthens the arrangements for governing quality in the higher education and international education sectors.

This bill is a further plank in the Turnbull government's ongoing efforts to protect students and taxpayers from the unscrupulous behaviour that we have seen in the vocational education and training (VET) sector and prevent unethical providers from emerging in the higher education and international education markets.

Australia's international education sector is one of the strongest in the world. The quality and integrity of Australia's education providers has seen education become our single largest service export industry, worth $21.8 billion in 2016. The Turnbull government is committed to building on Australia's success as a world leader in international education and is delivering on Australia's first ever National Strategy for International Education 2025.

The quality of our education services, and the quality assurance systems we operate, are critical in maintaining Australia's reputation internationally.

The government's higher education reform bill, introduced to parliament on 11 May 2017, will put the higher education sector on a more sustainable funding base into the future, and make the sector more transparent and responsive to student choice and market needs.

Our universities and non-university higher education providers will continue to flourish, to innovate, and to produce graduates equipped with the skills and knowledge they need to help Australia's businesses and economy grow and prosper.

However, we also have the unfortunate example of some unscrupulous providers in the VET sector to show what can happen if effective regulation and monitoring are not in place.

In the VET sector, unscrupulous providers were able to exploit students and the taxpayer for their own gain due to a funding system set up with minimal regulatory oversight.

VET FEE-HELP suffered serious design flaws that allowed unscrupulous providers and brokers to take advantage of vulnerable students, rip off taxpayers, and tarnish the reputation of Australia's high-quality training providers and the VET sector.

Many students in the higher education sector are not currently afforded the same protection from exploitation by providers, and higher education providers seeking to enter the sector are not subject to the same scrutiny as those in the VET sector. There is also opportunity in the international education sector to build on Australia's rigorous quality controls by delivering greater scrutiny of providers seeking registration to deliver education to international students.

The Turnbull government has decided to act now and apply similar measures in the higher and international education sectors to those recently enacted for VET to identify, monitor and prevent the sorts of unscrupulous behaviours by some VET FEE-HELP providers from tarnishing the reputation of Australia's international education and higher education sectors.

And of course, for the majority of providers who operate with integrity and in the best interest of their students, these measures will require little change.

Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (the ESOS Act) to strengthen regulation and ensure our international education sector cannot become vulnerable to the actions of unscrupulous providers seeking to exploit students.

This bill enables the minister to make a legislative instrument setting out any additional matters for regulators to consider when assessing whether a provider is fit and proper to be registered to educate international students. This will allow the minister to adjust fit and proper requirements as needed, in response to emerging issues in the sector.

This provision will ensure the ESOS regulators are aware of the history of providers or individuals who have had action taken against them due to their unscrupulous behaviour, and who are now seeking registration in the international education sector.

For providers who are already registered, new provisions in the bill expand existing requirements that they notify the regulator of significant changes to their management or business practices. Providers must also notify the regulator where they become aware key personnel have any serious recent past convictions, or have had regulatory action taken against their previous approval to deliver government programs.

These provisions ensure individuals previously involved in dubious business practices will not go undetected if they move into influential positions within international education.

To expand the ability of the government to respond to emerging trends which indicate a potential risk to the integrity of the international education sector, this bill includes provisions that enhance the information sharing abilities of government agencies.

An enhanced ability to share information among enforcement agencies is a sensible, pragmatic action which will enable the government to monitor providers more effectively and proactively address identified concerns.

The measures in the bill also benefit prospective students by enabling information about the actions of education agents to be released to providers and the wider community.

Providers are already bound by a requirement not to use education agents who are dishonest or lack integrity in attracting prospective students to Australia.

This bill builds on that requirement by enabling the government to share information with providers about their agent's recruitment outcomes.

An additional measure in the bill allows this information to be published more broadly.

This will highlight the good work of the vast majority of agents, while providing greater transparency of the small number of agents who may not be providing good advice to students, resulting in poor outcomes for international students.

There are also minor administrative amendments to the ESOS Act to ensure providers have a 30-day timeframe to make late payments, in line with current government money collection practices.

This ensures the time frame for payment is appropriate, and that providers will not be automatically suspended due to non-payment.

Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011(the TEQSA Act) to support the efficient operation of its regulatory regime.

The measures included in this bill are similar to those legislated in the VET sector last year.

The bill clarifies financial viability requirements and stipulates the extent of coverage of TEQSA's regulatory powers.

This bill introduces greater protection of Australian qualifications—requiring vocational education and training courses that lead to the awarding of diplomas, advanced diplomas, graduate diplomas and graduate certificates to be accredited under the TEQSA Act or under vocational education laws. There are also measures to enhance TEQSA's existing compliance capabilities, allowing TEQSA to implement more robust student protection mechanisms and more stringent application and reporting requirements on providers.

These include expanding the fit and proper person test for providers seeking accreditation, and expanding the scope of information TEQSA may consider when deciding whether or not to accredit a provider.

Additionally, TEQSA will require providers over a certain size to provide general purpose financial statements. To support this measure, the definition of a qualified auditor in the TEQSA Act has been amended.

The measures in this schedule also allow TEQSA to delegate its functions or powers to the chief executive officer.

The measures in schedule 3 amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to enhance the existing regulatory framework and mirror the sweeping changes made in the VET sector.

These reforms will only apply to bodies approved as higher education providers under section 16-25 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003, that is, non-university higher education providers. For practical purposes, this excludes universities operating in Australia. This reflects the fact that these measures are directed at reducing the risks to students and taxpayers associated with providers seeking to transition operations and/or students to the higher education sector following our reforms to VET student loan arrangements.

Separate arrangements under the government's higher education reform package will drive improved quality, transparency and accountability for universities.

The Department of Education and Training will continue to monitor applications, approvals and the amount and number of student loans accessed among all providers registered to offer FEE‑HELP, and advise the government if there is a need to extend the measures in this bill.

By ensuring consistent standards apply to non-university higher education providers and private VET providers, we are preventing a transition to the higher education sector of the intolerable behaviour of a few unscrupulous providers we witnessed in the VET sector.

This bill allows the minister to exempt bodies established by a government, be it the federal government, or a state or territory government, from the body corporate requirements.

This is a minor amendment to correct a current anomaly, and will for example, allow organisations such as the Australian Federal Police and Bureau of Meteorology to deliver courses in their areas of expertise and offer FEE-HELP to remove the upfront tuition fees barrier subject to the necessary approvals.

This bill also introduces more rigorous tests for all providers applying to access FEE-HELP, similar to what was put in place last year in the new VET Student Loans program.

Under these measures, the minister can consider whether the provider has a proven history of successfully teaching the courses offered.

We are enhancing the fit and proper person test that providers are assessed against. Providers that fail to gain approval are excluded from reapplying for a six-month period.

For existing providers, those who currently access FEE-HELP, additional financial viability and transparency requirements are also included in this bill.

These arrangements are broadly consistent with requirements for VET Student Loans providers, legislated last year.

This bill provides scope for additional requirements around financial statements and providers' revenue sources to be included in the Higher Education Provider Guidelines as conditions a provider must meet to maintain their approval.

This schedule also applies student protection mechanisms currently available in the VET sector to students enrolled at non-university higher education providers.

The bill will prevent providers from creating barriers to withdrawal such as withdrawal fees.

If a student requests to be unenrolled, the provider must cancel their enrolment without requesting a punitive fee or binding the student in red tape until after the census date.

Additionally, cold-calling, the use of third-party contact lists and other unscrupulous marketing practices will be banned, as they are under VET Student Loans.

This bill will prevent the use of deceitful marketing, and apply penalties to those who fail to abide by these standards, consistent with the VET Student Loans arrangements passed by parliament last year.

Similar to requirements in place for VET Student Loans, we will ensure that FEE-HELP loans are only going to students who have requested them, and who are active and engaged in their course of study, and to those who are academically suited for the course in which they are enrolled.

Requiring providers to assess a student as academically suitable and limiting eligibility for FEE-HELP loans to those students who are genuinely studying will prevent vulnerable people from being signed up for courses they are not capable of completing and incurring debts they may not be in a position to repay.

In order to maintain eligibility for FEE-HELP at these higher education providers, students must also achieve and maintain a reasonable level of completion of units undertaken. The onus should be on both the provider and the student to achieve this—the provider to have high quality teaching and student support in place and the student to engage with the course requirements.

An important aspect of these changes is that they ensure non-genuine students, or those who were not eligible to incur the debt for academic reasons, are able to have their debts remitted.

The bill also triggers powers under the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. This allows the department to monitor and investigate, and to apply enforcement provisions such as civil penalties, again mirroring arrangements for VET Student Loans.

This schedule also introduces measures to allow the Commonwealth to cap the amount of FEE-HELP assistance a provider is able to offer or restrict student numbers or courses for which they are able to offer FEE‑HELP.

These measures will prevent artificial growth due to non-genuine student enrolments and allow the Commonwealth to act quickly if there is evidence that a provider is dishonestly trying to take advantage of the system.

Conclusion

Together, these vital measures represent an important insurance—and quality assurance—policy for our higher education and international education sectors, and are consistent with changes recently enacted in the VET sector.

The bill ensures that as we increase learning opportunities for overseas students and market opportunities for dedicated education providers, we also shut down opportunities for unscrupulous providers to harm the reputation of our education services.

By enhancing the protections in place for students, and strengthening the monitoring framework for international education providers and non-university higher education providers, we are avoiding another disaster like the failed VET FEE-HELP scheme. We will ensure that both the higher education and international education sectors maintain the highest standards of quality and integrity, for which we are internationally renowned.

I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (11:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Act 2015 to implement a streamlined and simplified foreign investment fee framework.

This is part of the coalition government's actions to ensure we have a foreign investment regime that meets community expectations, appropriately scrutinises applications but also balances these needs with supporting foreign investment that is ultimately good for Australian jobs and investment.

This bill gives effect in part to regulatory reforms that the government is undertaking to ensure Australia's foreign investment framework is robust and operates efficiently.

Fees were introduced as part of the 2015 reform package to ensure that Australian taxpayers are not funding the cost of administering this system. Since that time, the government has sought ongoing feedback on how the reforms are working in practice. In response to stakeholder feedback, the government is simplifying the fee framework.

The amended fee framework will reduce complexity, achieve more equitable fee outcomes and minimise the regulatory burden on stakeholders, importantly without compromising the integrity of the review system. These changes are broadly revenue neutral, ensuring that foreign investors continue to meet the costs of funding this system.

The fee framework will reduce the number of fee tiers for some categories and implement a standard fee for low, medium and high value acquisitions. The new fee structure will also legislate some existing discretionary fee waiver arrangements to provide a more transparent and consistent approach.

The changes to the framework are not intended to encourage or discourage any specific investment category, but instead aim to ensure fees payable for different investment categories are applied on a more consistent basis for similar transactions.

The bill will also introduce a 10 per cent fee increase for residential property applications to fund the establishment of the Critical Infrastructure Centre.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (11:07): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill continues the government's agenda to crack down on tax avoidance.

The bill reforms the foreign resident capital gains tax withholding regime from 1 July 2017.

By clamping down on tax avoidance by foreign investors in real estate, the government is ensuring home ownership is more achievable for ordinary Australians, and that they have access to secure and affordable housing.

The existing foreign resident capital gains tax withholding regime, which the current government legislated and came into effect on 1 July last year, was designed to assist with the collection of capital gains tax liabilities owed by foreign residents, and address the low levels of compliance by foreign residents with those necessary Australian tax obligations.

This bill will give effect to changes to the existing regime for foreign residents who sell Australian property, as announced as part of the 2017-18 budget.

These changes involve increasing the withholding rate from 10 per cent to 12½ per cent; as well as increasing the number of foreign residents caught by the regime, by reducing the threshold from property with a market value of $2 million, as it currently stands, to property with a market value of $750,000 or more.

This will mean that from 1 July 2017, a purchaser of certain Australian property that has a market value of $750,000 (reduced from $2 million, as I said, currently) or more must withhold 12½ per cent (increased from 10 per cent) of the purchase price and pay it to the tax commissioner if they purchase the asset from a foreign resident.

These changes will improve the integrity of the existing regime by capturing more property transactions and encouraging greater compliance with Australia's tax rules

Combined with other changes announced in the 2017‑18 budget, which will ensure only Australian tax residents can access the main residence capital gains tax exemption, and will improve the integrity of the capital gains tax rules for foreign residents, the estimated gain to revenue over the forward estimates period is $570 million.

This reflects the revenue gain expected, following a small change to one of these associated changes as a result of initial targeted consultations. These other capital gains tax changes will be introduced later as part of a separate bill, to enable consultation to occur.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) will be provided with an additional $19 million to assist with administering the regime. The ATO is undertaking an education campaign to help raise awareness of the changes, including presentations in major Australian cities, an online webinar and collaboration with stakeholders that assisted to raise awareness when the regime was first introduced, including the Real Estate Institute of Australia, the Australian Institute of Conveyancers, law societies, and various state and territory regulators.

This bill represents an important step for Australia in improving housing affordability and strengthening the integrity of Australia's tax system.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (11:12): I present the report of the Publications Committee. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.

Report—by leave—agreed to.

Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (11:12): Today I rise to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017 and state from the outset that Labor will be supporting these measures. This bill contains three schedules which seek to undertake the legislative reform which underpins three elements of the 2017-18 Department of Veterans' Affairs budget. The first and probably most significant schedule amends the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006 to provide Australian participants in British Nuclear Tests (BNT), British Commonwealth Occupation Force (BCOF), pastoralists, civilians and Indigenous people with full health coverage for all conditions. This is a significant move. Currently, the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006 only provides Australian BNT participants with testing and treatment for malignant cancers.

Under these changes a broader class of civilians and BCOF veterans will be eligible to receive treatment for all conditions. This coverage will enable these individuals to access DVA funding for all clinically necessary healthcare needs and all health conditions. These changes are the result of a long and hard-fought campaign over many decades for recognition of the BNT and BCOF participants. As many members here may be aware, from October 1952 until October 1957, 12 British atomic weapons tests were conducted at Montebello Islands, off the west coast of Western Australia, and at Emu Field and Maralinga in South Australia. There were also 600 minor trials, including the testing of bomb components between 1953 and 1963 at Emu Field and Maralinga.

Both military and civilian personnel participated in the tests, with a nominal roll established listing a total of 16,716 persons, comprising of 8,126 service personnel and 8,590 civilians. These 16,716 people performed a range of tasks on and around the site with military personnel undertaking a number of duties including decontamination teams and atomic-cloud sampling and tracking operations. Civilians, who were employed by the Commonwealth or by contractors, provided construction, maintenance and support services relating to the conduct of these tests. In addition there was also a number of Commonwealth police officers and members of the Australian Federal Police on site. Of course it was not just those posted to the site or employed by the Commonwealth who were impacted by these tests. The impact of the detonations spread far and wide, affecting pastoralists, civilians and the Indigenous population.

Over the years, many surveys and reports have been undertaken investigating the long-term impact of the British nuclear tests on participants and other civilians who were in the vicinity of the tests. BNT participants recall being required to line up with their backs to the detonation with their hands over their eyes for the first minute or so and then told to turn around and witness the mushroom cloud of the blast. One witness, who provided a statement to the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia undertaken in 1985, recalled:

The flash was so strong that we could see the bones in our hands and the outline of the huts in the background even through closed eyes. We could see the shock wave moving towards us as it came over the scrub and when it hit us, it knocked us off our feet.

In addition, it is claimed that few wore anything more than shorts or service uniforms to witness the blasts. In a statement to the royal commission, a leading aircraftsman within the RAAF recalled using a Geiger counter, which measures ionizing radiation, and stated:

… every man showed some degree of radio-activity. I cannot remember the level of the readings but there were some that went off the scale, indicating that they had had the highest possible dose which could be registered.

Of course, we are now all too aware of the dangers of radiation and the risks these participants and civilians were in as a result of this exposure. We know that radiation with sufficient energy can cause chemical changes in cells and cause cancer, and acknowledge how dangerous these conditions were and the ongoing impact that this has had on participants lives and on the lives of pastoralists and Indigenous people living in the area.

The impact of these tests on the traditional owners of the land is particularly complex. Prior to the tests, the government attempted to move Indigenous people away from the sites with little regard for their connection to their land. This had the dual impact of fragmenting families and, anecdotally, was not always successful. A patrol officer was given the task of finding and warning all Indigenous people in an 80,000 square kilometre area, and it has been suggested that groups would move out of the area and then return once that patrol had moved on.

At the 1953 test in Emu Field, Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in the area described an extraordinary black mist which stuck on vegetation and household items. An Indigenous man who was walking on the edge of the test site stated:

We thought it was the spirit of our gods rising up to speak with us. Then we saw the spirit had made all the kangaroos fall down on the ground as a gift to us of easy hunting so we took those kangaroos and we ate them and people were sick and then the spirit left.

The ongoing impacts of these tests are significant, and it is appropriate that full healthcare cover be provided to Indigenous people in addition to the BNT participants and pastoralists. These amendments will ensure that any pastoralists and Indigenous persons in the vicinity of the nuclear test areas as well as any other civilians who were present in the areas during the relevant period will be covered. In addition to BNT participants and civilians, BCOF veterans will also be able to access full health coverage.

The BCOF comprised elements drawn from the armed forces of Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and India. It was the first time Australians were involved in a military occupation of a sovereign nation that Australia has defeated in war. BCOF's primary objective was to enforce the terms of the unconditional surrender that ended the war in September 1945. BCOF was required to maintain military control and supervise the demilitarisation of Japan and the dismantling of its war infrastructure.

The impact for those who served as part of the BCOF was significant, with some having been allocated to the severely devastated prefecture of Hiroshima. The BCOF had to work through considerable stocks of war material, including chemical agents and ordnance, to render them safe or to destroy them, exposing them to radioactive material. As we know, this would have had a considerable long-lasting effect. The ongoing impact of these tests has been subject to a number of studies, including the 2006 mortality and cancer incidence study of the BNT participants. This report found that the death rate from cancer was 17 per cent higher in this group than in the general population and the incidence of cancer was 23 per cent higher than expected.

Regardless of the result, the findings of the study did not implicate radiation exposure in the higher than expected mortality and morbidity finding. But veterans and others challenged the finding as those who passed away before 1982 were not included in this study. Without including these people the study did not provide the full picture of the impact of radiation on these participants. Following the release of this report the government finally acknowledged that these participants had a clearly defined healthcare need and established the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006. The 2006 bill provided eligible persons with access to free cancer treatment and ongoing tests. However, it did not provide redress to participants as the service was rendered during peacetime; and, as such, they were covered by military and workers' compensation arrangements.

In 2010 the then Labor government sought to provide additional assistance to BNT participants who were also members of the Australian Defence Force by reclassifying their service as non-warlike or hazardous peacekeeping service; and, as such, they were able to access some assistance under the Veterans' Entitlements Act, including access to the disability pension. The amendments in schedule 1 build on these changes. Labor welcomes the expansion of full health cover to BNT participants, BCOF veterans and civilians, which will enable them to receive the treatment that they need and acknowledges the ongoing impact this exposure had on the individuals who were present on the test sites.

This recognition is the result of a long campaign by BNT and BCOF participants. These individuals, nearly all of whom are over 80 years of age, have spent their lives fighting for recognition of the risks they endured and the need for increased support—people like Avon Hudson, from South Australia, who has been working and agitating for change for decades. I understand that approximately 2,900 BNT and BCOF participants will benefit from these changes. As previously mentioned, the expansion will also include the pastoralists and Indigenous people who were present in the test area during the prescribed time frame.

I take this opportunity in a bipartisan way to encourage those eligible for this full health coverage to register with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I understand also that the department and the government will look at many avenues to ensure that those who do not understand that they are eligible for this treatment will be contacted. A number of communication methods will be used to ensure as many people as possible actually get access to what they are entitled to. I strongly support that and I encourage the government to make all efforts in this area.

These amendments recognise it is appropriate to provide treatment for all conditions for BNT participants, BCOF veterans and civilians who were present during the British nuclear tests during the relevant period, and this is the right thing to do.

The second schedule in this bill seeks to amend the current outdated work history restrictions for the special and intermediate rates of disability pension provided in the VEA to better reflect modern working arrangements. Particularly, this will affect claimants over 65 years of age, who must satisfy the above criteria that they have been working with the same employer for 10 years or, in the case of the self-employed, they have to have worked in the same profession, trade, vocation or calling. This criteria is somewhat outdated. Under schedule 2, these changes will ensure that the work history will only require 10 years of continuous work in any field or vocation.

This amendment acknowledges that the nature of work has changed. Over the course of a lifetime, an individual may have a number of different careers with a variety of employers. It is now far less common for a person to remain employed by a single employer for 10 years or remain in the same vocation or field in the case of the self-employed. Labor is supportive of this change which reflects the reality of modern-day work.

The third schedule in this bill seeks to insert instrument making powers into the Safety, Rehabilitation Compensation Act 1988 and the Military, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, enabling the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to determine a class of persons eligible to participate in an early access to the rehabilitation pilot program. Under the current arrangements, those clients who are under what are currently known as the SRCA and MRCA are required to wait until their claim has been finalised before they are able to access rehabilitation services. This can take around four months to be completed and if the cases are complex, it can take even longer.

Early intervention in relation to rehabilitation obviously has proven benefits, and Labor is supportive of this measure that would look at enabling veterans to access rehabilitation earlier. The importance of this was highlighted in the 2011 MRCA review, which recognises the need for early intervention and noted that access to rehabilitation as soon as a claim is lodged is desirable. Early access to rehabilitation facilitates participation in economic activities and ensures that there are better benefits for wellbeing.

In addition to early intervention in rehabilitation, through-care is equally important. This is an issue that has been raised with me by a number of veterans, most recently at Raymond Terrace in NSW with the member for Paterson. Veterans have highlighted issues where they have begun rehabilitation while still in Defence, which then has stopped while liability was being determined by DVA. Not only does this gap delay improvement but it can also result in a veteran's progress and recovery going backwards. I trust this is an area that could be considered as part of the trial in the pilot program.

Under these amendments, a six-month pilot program will be established by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, involving 100 people whose claims are viewed as likely to be approved. The program will be entirely voluntary with the option of opting out. We have been assured that if the claim for liability is later rejected, the department will transition to individual to a community-based rehabilitation provider to continue their treatment if they wish. Importantly, the MRCC will not seek to recover the costs of the rehabilitation services provided through the trial. These are important assurances that have been provided to Labor. While the trial is initially limited to 100 veterans, I am hopeful that this is just the start and that it will identify good results so that this trial will be able to be extended to more veterans.

Labor is always supportive of processes which are designed to improve outcomes for our ex-serving defence personnel. We certainly think these measures are needed and good. That is why Labor will support these measures. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan—Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) (11:29): As a government and as a country, we must do everything in our power to support Australia's service men and women, veterans and veterans' families. The coalition's fair and equitable 2017 budget supports Australia's veteran community. The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017, a bill welcomed by the veteran community, will implement three of the government's 2017 budget announcements for their community.

Specifically, this bill will provide medical treatment for all conditions to Australian participants of the British nuclear tests and Australian veterans of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force. This is a welcome measure, as the longstanding provisions within the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 had no scope for the participants to be granted treatment for all conditions based on the nature of this service alone. This amendment, however, will provide full treatment for all conditions to those who participated in the British nuclear testing program in Australia at Maralinga. It also seeks to include those veterans who served as part of the BCOF who took part in the occupation of Japan immediately after the Second World War. In recognition of these veterans' possible exposure to ionising radiation, the government will provide a gold card to veterans which will enable them to access medical treatment for all conditions.

A local constituent, a retired serviceman in his late 80s telephoned my office just after the 2017 budget announcement and was incredibly grateful that he was finally getting access to a DVA gold card. For him this not only provides certainty for his health care but also forms a significant recognition of the invisible danger to which he and many of his fellow colleagues were exposed.

I must also note that this measure includes a number of civilians who were in the same vicinity as these tests. This includes pastoralists and members of the Indigenous community.

The second measure of this bill amends the current outdated work history restrictions for the special and intermediate rates of disability pension to better reflect working norms. The special rate of pension was designed for severely disabled veterans of a relatively young age who could never go back to work and could never hope to support themselves or their families or put away money for their retirement. On the other hand, the intermediate rate of pension was designed for veterans who can only work on a part-time basis due to a service-related disability. The changes proposed in this measure remove the current requirement for claimants 65 years or older to have worked for 10 years in the same profession. This further beneficial measure for veterans will now mean that they would require a period of 10 continuous years of work in any field or vocation prior to an application for the special or intermediate rates of disability pension.

The last schedule of this bill will enable early access to rehabilitation through a pilot program by inserting instrument-making powers into the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. This would enable the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to determine a class of persons eligible to participate in an early access to rehabilitation pilot program. Presently, rehabilitation can only be provided once liability has been determined, a matter which can take months to resolve. A six-month pilot program providing early access to rehabilitation to 100 participants will be undertaken in the 2017-18 financial year.

Just like the coalition's determination to ensure our Defence personnel seek early intervention for mental health conditions for positive outcomes, so too are we determined to ensure early access to rehabilitation. Early access will facilitate the individuals partaking in economic activities with all of the ensuing benefits of work and recovery. This participation in economic activity will also assist in minimising the ongoing effects of injury and illness and promote recovery and wellbeing. Currently, veterans and ADF members with eligibility under SRCA or MRCA have to wait until their initial liability claim is accepted before they can access rehabilitation services. Assessing a claim typically takes around four months, and for complex cases it can take even longer.

As those of us from Defence families know, the war does not stop on the battlefield. In most instances—cases may vary by individual—Defence personnel exhibit some form of post-deployment challenge, such as a change in sleep patterns or reclusion. In more serious cases we see violence and substance and alcohol abuse. The families of deployed servicemen and servicewomen bear the brunt of military life, so it is fitting that there are organisations in Australia that seek to help those who fall on hard times.

I segue now to an organisation of which I am patron and in which I take a great deal of interest and support: Wounded Heroes. Wounded Heroes is a national community organisation established in 2008 to provide first response support services for deployed personnel, the wounded and their families. As an emergency crisis support provider, Wounded Heroes provides short-term emergency relief payments to individuals and their families. This can mean paying to put the electricity back on or filling the fridge with food if the family is going through a challenging time. Through my contact with the CEO of Wounded Heroes, Mr Martin Shaw, and their president, Jim Shapcott, I have been told that a lot of emergency response support goes to sufferers of PTSD. PTSD does not rest solely with the wounded hero. It also affects smaller heroes—the children, who, as I mentioned, so often bear the brunt of postdeployment issues.

I mention Exercise Stone Pillow to demonstrate the dedication of Army Corporal Elena Rowland, who established the cause in 2013 when she recognised a need for a better understanding of the issue of homelessness within the Australian veteran community. This exercise also raises vital funds for organisations which provide housing and support to homeless veterans and their families. I commend Wounded Heroes for their continued campaign to care for Australian defence personnel and their families.

To ensure that the benefits of this bill are reaped by the veterans community, the timely passage of this bill is critical. These beneficial measures should be supported by all in this House. I am proud to be part of this coalition government, which has invested an additional $350 million in the 2017 budget to support veterans. I place on record my appreciation and praise for the efforts of our defence force and indeed former, current and future personnel for their service. I commend this bill to the House.

Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (11:36): I rise to speak in support the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017, and I would first like to acknowledge Mr Dean Da Costa, who is with us in the gallery today. Thank you, Mr Da Costa, for being with us. I know that you will benefit from this bill, as you served at Maralinga, and I thank you so much for your service to your country.

I would also like to speak more about the third schedule in this bill, which relates to the establishment of a pilot program by the Department of Veterans' Affairs to provide rehabilitation services to veterans while their claims are being processed. It is this aspect of the bill that I want to focus on. It is very good news for veterans. Currently they have to wait for their liability claim to be accepted before they can access rehabilitation, and precious time is lost. Early access to rehabilitation is so vital. The sooner we get the rehab started, the better it is. It helps the veteran return to work, where possible, with all the benefit that work brings to recovery and wellbeing. And we all know that being productive and having a purpose is important.

Improving outcomes for our ex-service men and women ought to be a priority for all of us. We ask a great deal of our defence forces. Yet sometimes when they return home we do not look after them as well as we could. The Williamtown RAAF Base is in my electorate, and the Singleton Army Base is nearby. Serving personnel and veterans are a part of our communities and our families. They are our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, our friends and loved ones. Recently I was pleased to host Labor's shadow minister for veterans' affairs and defence personnel, the member for Kingston, in Paterson. I invited her because of the issues raised with me by serving personnel, veterans and their loved ones. We gathered together in groups of personnel and veterans. Some had written to me asking for help. Others heard about the visit through their networks and wanted to have their say—and good on them.

Their issues all boiled down to the same theme. When personnel leave Defence, the base gate shuts behind them and stays shut, never to be opened again. They feel a sense of isolation and abandonment that they no longer have a purposeful job, that they are no longer part of that tight-knit Defence family. And even if they are lucky enough to have escaped physical or mental injury, they are scarred by a transition to civilian life that is neither seamless nor well supported in many cases. I would like to read an email I received from one veteran:

Meryl,

I just watched a story about the epidemic of veteran suicides on SBS. I was horrified. It informed me that a man I used to work with took his own life. He was one of the most positive and well-respected people I have ever had the honour of working with.

Defence has failed him, and it has failed countless other victims. The Veterans Affairs Minister was given the chance to contribute to the discussion. He twice mentioned that there are budget allocations for veterans' assistance and that he was "listening". Well, here is a tip for him. Instead of listening, start doing. The longer you make people wait for help, the less likely they will ask for it.

I have been trying to lodge a claim now for at least 10 years. Most of that time has been spent psyching myself up to attempt to deal with the insane amount of red tape.

I suffered in service of my country. All of us who have served our country deserve more than what we are currently stuck with. I am sick of being told I don't matter.

Veterans were raising not just problems with us but solutions, as well. They hold regular coffee mornings, bush retreats, physical challenges and interventions when drugs take their toll.

Look around the world and see what other countries are doing, they suggested to us.

Give veterans access to base amenities – so that they can use gyms and computers.

This happens in other parts of the world.

Involve them in base activities. Make them feel welcome. Give them a chance to work - with the right training for the right jobs. Recognise their skills and their qualities. Prioritise them as employees. Work with their families.

This is such a critical part of it.

Resource their advocates. Do not kick them out of Defence Housing on the day they are discharged. Talk about the drug problems. Talk about post-traumatic stress disorder. Talk about suicide. Make it easier to make claims, and easier to transition to civilian life.

That is one of the most critical messages that they give.

These people are the personality types who want to be in service. They want to serve their country. They step forward to serve their country. They want to have purposeful lives. Then, when that is cut off, it is not just that they have not got a job to go to. It is part of the very core of who they are—having that purpose to be in service to others. That is also cut off in many cases. That is really part of the scars that you cannot often see.

We need a cultural shift in the way that we think about our ex-serving personnel. We need to be not just listening but doing. One veteran told me:

I have seen many broken people after service. Everyone has bad days, but if our medically-discharged personnel cannot get a foot in the door of a workplace because of a mental health issue, then what does that say? Give vets a chance to belong again - do not write them off.

And from another:

As Defence personnel, we are top of the pops. And then we are worthless. It's us and them, and we are no longer them.

It was an emotional day that we spent with veterans in my electorate. The messages were very important.

In an uncertain world, Australia is being asked to commit more troops to faraway conflicts. Our young people step forward to serve their country. Our more experienced personnel choose to go back. We need to make sure that when they come home we step forward to look after them. This bill goes a small way towards recognising that we need to make it easier for veterans, but we do have a long way to go.

Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (11:43): Australia has led the world in taking care of its veterans. The Returned and Services League was formed in 1916 to continue the camaraderie, concern and mateship shown amongst Australian diggers. It focused on the welfare of returned servicemen from the First World War. From a population of fewer than five million, 416,809 men enlisted—of whom more than 60,000 were killed and 156,000 were wounded, gassed or taken prisoner. It is worth noting that more than a quarter of those who landed at Gallipoli on 25 April were Western Australians. In fact 32,231 men volunteered in WA. This was 10 per cent of our population at the time. It was the highest proportion of any state.

The RSL was born from that conflict and it has looked after Australia's veterans from all subsequent conflicts, including our current veterans returning from more recent operations. The 2017 budget represents some very significant changes in how we look after and respect our veterans, and our current serving members. The Turnbull government is investing an additional $350 million to support our veterans. A major focus of that is on mental health. The rate of suicide especially amongst recent veterans is far too high, and the government is committed to turning those numbers around. We are building on the measure announced last year that gave free and immediate treatment for those suffering from depression, anxiety, PTSD and alcohol and substance abuse. Under this increase in spending, the government is committing to providing treatment for all mental health conditions. From now on, active personnel and veterans will receive free and immediate treatment without the burden of proof that prolongs the process and can actually worsen the health outcomes. It will make an immediate change in how veterans receive health care and relieve them of the anxiety—and it is anxiety—of going through a sometimes torturous process with the Department of Veterans' Affairs to simply prove their condition. There will be additional funding to streamline the DVA processes.

I know all of this will be welcomed by the nine RSLs and the veterans they support in my electorate. I now want to acknowledge, and thank them for, the huge amount of work done by my local RSLs' welfare officers and advocates, who assist our veterans—wonderful volunteers like Ken Parish of the Bunbury RSL, Bev Streeter, Rob Lennox and Graeme Caddy of the Busselton RSL and Les Liddington of the Harvey RSL, to mention just a few. I also want to thank the office bearers and members of all RSLs in my electorate of Forrest, who are so genuinely committed to the physical and mental health and wellbeing of their members.

There are several other important measures, one of which has relevance to my home state. The government will provide health care for Australian participants of the British nuclear tests and Australian veterans of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force. This is very important, because in Western Australia three tests were conducted by the British government on the Montebello Islands off the coast of WA. This measure is significant, and I thank and acknowledge the minister and the Turnbull government for this initiative. The extension of a gold card to access medical treatment will also be granted to veterans of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force.

All of these measures are of practical value to our veterans. They show the government's ongoing support for and commitment to veterans for the service they have provided to this country. I would say it extends to the families by default. I think I would be one of the few people in this House who is the daughter of a war widow, and I know what my older sisters and mother went through as part of that.

So I commend this bill to the House and thank the government for taking these initiatives to show respect and support for our veterans and those ahead who will access these services.

Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (11:47): I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017. In doing so, I support the comments of the member for Kingston who spoke earlier today and reflected Labor's position on this legislation—legislation which we will support.

This legislation is long overdue. It recognises the injustice that many Australians have lived with for decades—an injustice that I have spoken about in this place on other occasions. I refer to the injustice that arose out of the British atomic testing program carried out between 1952 and 1963 at the Montebello Islands off the coast of Western Australia and at Emu Field and Maralinga in South Australia. The contamination and health effects from those tests still affect some Australians today.

When I spoke about this matter in 2014, I quoted the words of Reuben Lette, who summarised the injustice so well in a letter that he had sent to me and, I expect, to other members of parliament. At the time, Reuben Lette believed that there were fewer than 700 veterans still living who had been affected by the testing. Today, I pay tribute to Ben Lette and all of those people who, over the decades, have never given up the fight for justice, not just for themselves as servicemen but also for the civilians whose lives were placed at risk because of the testing. To use their language: 'We were used as human guinea pigs.'

The even greater shame is that governments in Australia and Britain continued to deny the realities of what happened and continued to deny the compensation and medical support that victims were entitled to. Service records disappeared, and a culture of deny and frustrate prevailed throughout government departments that had responsibility. Just as disgraceful, personnel who were in any way associated with the tests were obliged to sign a secrecy statement at the time preventing them from speaking about their experience and knowledge of testing in the subsequent years.

Because the Edinburgh RAAF base and the co-located weapons research establishment were linked to Maralinga, several people I came to know from Adelaide's northern suburbs had personal knowledge of the tests. One of those persons is Brian, otherwise known as Mick, Lennon. Mick was employed at the time by the Department of Supply at the weapons research establishment and was later sent to Maralinga as a fire safety officer. He was there from 1955 to I believe the end of 1956. He was there when, he believed, eight of the tests were carried out at Maralinga and Emu Field. I believe there were two at Emu Field and six at Maralinga. He also went through the so-called safety measures, which included having an antiradiation injection before the test occurred. The procedure itself confirmed that the serious risks were known and anticipated. I have also seen documents from a person who was based at Maralinga at the time, which confirmed to me that the serious risks that were associated with the tests were known to authorities at the time as well.

Mick was one of the fortunate ones who survived, but he saw several of his colleagues die within months or within a few years of the testing. He recounts to me how one of his colleagues in the days after the testing literally glowed in the dark. He saw firsthand the horrific health effects that they died from.

One of the pilots who flew the plane which dropped one of the bombs was also a Salisbury resident and also known to me. I will not name him because he has since passed away. After dropping the bomb that he was instructed to drop, he turned to return to base at Woomera using the flight path that he expected would enable him to avoid the huge dust cloud from the explosion. Unfortunately for him, the wind unexpectedly changed direction, causing his plane to fly straight through the plume of dust and smoke. Years later he too became very unwell, and he eventually died of cancer.

Throughout those years, he attempted to be granted the gold card for his service, but his applications continued to fall on deaf ears. He was never given the gold card. His medical records went missing, with some claiming that they had been sent back to the UK. Indeed, many of these service personnel who were there at the time were UK service personnel. Interestingly, a lot of them, after the tests, were immediately sent back to the UK because they had also been in the front line of the risk. There were also Canadians there at the time.

If a private company had denied their responsibility, as the Australian and British governments have, there would be community outrage and very likely government intervention. Yet, regrettably, a different set of rules has applied for governments. Six decades later, the recognition that has been denied for too long has finally been acknowledged. Whilst we support this legislation, as will, I am sure, those who are still surviving and will be entitled to the gold card and other benefits that arise from it, regrettably, for too many it is too late.

Mr RAMSEY: I rise to speak in support of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017. I am proud to be part of a government which supports our veteran Australians. The government has invested an additional $350 million in this year's budget to support our veterans. More than 300,000 Australians rely on the government through support from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. These veterans, their families, dependents, widows and children, are a community that is growing younger, which sounds a little counterintuitive. As our World War II vets and even our Korean war vets pass away, the new point of focus is increasingly on those who have served in the Middle East.

Our service men and women put their lives on the line for the nation in the defence of our values. They have served their country with the belief that democracy and freedom are ideals to be upheld around the world. The sacrifices made by veterans and their willingness to fight in defence of our nation merit our deep respect and praise, and they deserve the very best Australia can offer in benefits and medical care. Often veterans return from service with wounds that are not obvious—wounds that we cannot see. Young men and women who are damaged by their experiences need support. Our older veterans struggling with psychological issues as a result of war experiences also need support, as do their families.

The coalition is committed to providing veterans with the mental health care services they deserve and need, and the coalition will continue to support the mental health of our veterans. Our deepest gratitude and unparalleled respect must go to the men and women who keep us safe. Sometimes, unfortunately in the past, we have failed at repaying them in the ways they need when they most need it. It is the commitment of the coalition government that we ensure that we have a better understanding of the difficult mental and physical health issues that veterans face each day and help these men and women and their families face the battles they fight when they get home. Too often those emotional scars of service and resultant mental health issues can contribute to veteran homelessness or place veterans at the risk of homelessness.

We have committed to mental health services for veterans to help them get back on their feet by making treatment for depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and drug and alcohol misuse free for everyone who has served a day in the full-time Australian Defence Force. The coalition are committed to ensuring that current and future veterans and their families have the support they need, and we have a strong record in supporting veterans by ensuring more financial support and services to individuals than ever before. This bill will help this happen, but it is just part of a raft measures that we have provided to veterans over the last 12 months.

The government has already created a significant legacy of achievements, including veteran mental healthcare treatment on a non-liability basis, gold cards for the British nuclear test veterans and the British Commonwealth Occupational Force veterans and, most importantly, delivering fair indexation for military superannuation. These measures focus on both the physical and the mental health of the veteran community and their future. We have assisted thousands as they have dealt with these difficulties.

The government is providing more than $11 billion a year to support veterans, including through healthcare, income support pensions and allowances, by providing: $9.8 million to pilot new approaches to suicide prevention and improve care support available to veterans; $2.7 million to get veterans into the workforce through the Veterans' Employment Program, launched in November last year; $166 million to be provided in this year's budget to implement and modernise the Department of Veterans' Affairs antiquated ICT systems to provide easier access through DVA services; $18 million as part of the government's energy for the future package so that more than 235,000 DVA clients will receive one-off payments for energy bills; $9.1 million for accelerated access to rehabilitation services, incapacity payments and improved access to totally and permanently incapacitated disability pension for veterans working past the age of 65; $1.2 million to continue the income support bonus for DVA clients receiving an education allowance under either the Veterans' Children Education Scheme or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme; and $5 million for the Australian War Memorial to examine ways to provide additional exhibition space.

In my electorate of Grey, we have a veteran community that strongly supports veterans. It is, I think, very poignant that in these bills we are recognising those who served in those British atomic tests, whether they be military or not. They were, of course, largely conducted in my electorate at Maralinga and Emu Field and other places. These tests have long been a mark of perhaps misdemeanours—things that we did not understand at the time—and it is right that we should move to help those who were most affected.

We are blessed to have strong, outstanding members of the veterans community in my electorate, like Vietnam vet Haydn Madigan of Port Pirie, who has supported and helped his fellow veterans for decades. He served in Vietnam in 1968 and 1969. He has been local pension and welfare officer since 2005 and he is a TIP trained to level 4. Haydn spent nine years as president of the Port Pirie RSL sub-branch and three years on the SA state board. He knows his veteran community. He recently told me just how much his community has benefitted from the coalition's veterans policy. He congratulated the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Dan Tehan, for improving the accessibility of mental health support to all veterans. He said:

This has previously been a traumatic process for the Veterans to go through and not all veterans have been able to access it at all. It finally recognises that veterans can be affected by their service.

Haydn said the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service has been of great benefit to veterans and their families and that its continued government support will benefit veterans and their families. He said:

Veterans find it difficult to seek employment outside the Services. The proposed 'Employment Programme' will greatly help their prospects of finding employment.

And he has welcomed the adjustment to schedule 2, which removes one of the major tension points in veterans applying for intermediate and special pensions.

Haydn said once you are part of DVA they are terrific, but the process of being accessed is a terrible painful process and it stops a lot of veterans applying for a disability pension. In his words, 'This was an archaic requirement and caused many veterans great hardships when applying for a pension.'

So, in conclusion, I support this bill. I am confident that the combined efforts of our veteran support networks and the coalition government will ensure the best outcomes for those who have given selflessly to the service of their nation. I end this contribution by quoting John F Kennedy:

As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.

Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (12:02): I welcome this bill, the Veterans Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017, whose chief purpose is to provide better health care for those affected by the British nuclear tests, and I give credit to the government for including this measure in the budget.

Considering those tests occurred 75 years ago, the measures are long overdue, and the people who will benefit from them are a very small proportion now of those who were affected, because many of those affected have died, often from being exposed to atomic radiation. A study in 1999 for the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association found that 30 per cent of those involved in the tests died of cancer, most in their fifties. The experience of Australian veterans and affected civilians has been the same: high rates of cancer, bowel disease, hip and spine deformities, and crippling depression. That is why it is important to reflect on the long and painful road that has brought us to this point. And I thank other members for making contributions, including the member for Makin, who I listened to earlier.

Not many Australians would appreciate that we consented to having 10 atomic bombs exploded in Australia, a number of which were more powerful than the weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Three were detonated in the Montebello Islands off the coast of Western Australia. Seven more were detonated in South Australia. On 27 September 1956, a 15-kiloton atomic bomb of the type called Red Beard was detonated from a tower at Maralinga. The mushroom cloud rose to a height of 11,400 metres, and radioactivity was detected in South Australia, the Northern Territory, New South Wales, and Queensland.

These facts are not well known because the tests were conducted without proper scrutiny, and their impact was covered-up. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the people who worked hard and against a great deal of obstruction for many years to bring this part of our history to light—people like South Australian whistleblower Avon Hudson and journalists like Brian Toohey and Mark Colvin. And I encourage members to consider reading the fantastic recent book by Elizabeth Tynan called Atomic Thunder, about this dark episode in our history. It is available in the Parliamentary Library. I have it out currently, but will return it very soon.

I am grateful to have the opportunity in this week to reflect on the British nuclear tests. That is partly because it is Reconciliation Week. Among the several and severe shortcomings in the decision-making process that led to the British nuclear tests was the unthinking and careless dispossession and displacement of Aboriginal people.

It also happens this week that when I am back in Fremantle I am scheduled to meet with two Western Australian members of the Australian ex-Services Atomic Survivors Association—Mr Ray Whitby and Mr Rex Kaye. Ray Whitby was present at the Montebello tests, aboard HMAS Fremantle. He was 18 years old. He has suffered ill-health ever since, and he and his wife experienced five miscarriages. Those have been prevalent in the families of fellow sailors. Rex Kaye was in the Air Force and based at Woomera in the 1960s. On three separate occasions he was given the job of cleaning down a Vickers Valiant bomber that had flown through the mushroom clouds to collect samples. In 2000 he was diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukaemia.

The decision to detonate and blow-up atomic weapons was made without reference to the Pitjantjatjara or Anangu people. Whole communities were forcibly relocated to Yalata and Oak Valley, and traditional lands were poisoned forever. The area that South Australian Len Beadell surveyed as a test location was initially called X300. It was then named Maralinga for the purpose of the tests. It is not a local name; it is from a language group in the Northern Territory and it was chosen because it means thunder.

The worst contamination at Maralinga was not caused by the detonation of the atomic bombs but by the hundreds of explosions in the Vixen test series, which involved blowing up plutonium to see what would happen if a nuclear bomb should ever be in a plane crash or subject to an artillery strike. This involved 22 kilograms of plutonium, and it left thousands of fragments of plutonium all over the land's surface. Maralinga is now one of the most contaminated places on the planet.

Several clean-ups occurred over the decades from the 1950s to the present—the 2000s. The early ones were poorly planned and ineffective. The most recent clean-up occurred as one of the processes that followed the McClelland royal commission, which the Labor government initiated in the 1980s. That clean-up actually took place between 1996 and 2000. It cost $108 million and I understand it took some considerable effort to get the United Kingdom to agree to pay for half. Three-hundred and fifty thousand cubic metres of soil and debris from within a two-kilometre area at Maralinga was removed and buried in trenches.

I will finish by again welcoming this important, if long-delayed, further instalment in responding to the profound damage inflicted on our people and our country by the British nuclear tests, which we agreed to. We would do well to reflect on the cultural and structural decision-making framework that existed in Australia at the time, because it allowed harm to occur—enormous harm—and allowed that harm to be covered up and to go unaddressed for a long time. It is still unhealed.

The Australian government of the time was utterly careless in its consideration of Aboriginal people. It perpetrated a 1950s form of terra nullius in the dispossession and displacement of Pitjantjatjara and Anangu people. And the Australian governments at the time and since have not shown sufficient care for Australian service people, many of whom had their lives severely blighted and shortened by exposure to atomic radiation. As Rex Kaye has said, 'I spent years trying to be recognised as an atomic veteran, and I don't trust the government anymore.'

Finally, I think it is crucial that we reflect on the fact that nuclear power and nuclear weapons continue to pose an extraordinary threat to human life and to the health of our planet. We should not regard that as someone else's problem. More Australians should know that their government is currently boycotting the United Nations process to advance a draft treaty banning nuclear weapons. One-hundred and thirty countries signed up last week; we continue to obstruct that process. More Australians should know that earlier this year we entered into a new agreement to supply uranium to the Ukraine for its civilian nuclear program.

As we adopt an important but long-belated and imperfect measure to deal with the atomic radiation we inflicted on ourselves 75 years ago, let's be careful that we are not sleepwalking along the path to the next nuclear disaster.

Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (12:09): It is a great honour to be here today speaking in favour of the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017 and the recognition it provides for our veterans—people who have fought so hard for our country, who have fought to preserve our nation's security and our democracy. I thank these men and women for their service to Australia and I also thank current serving Australian Defence Force members for their service to our nation, their continuous protection of our nation.

This bill has been amended to address many facets of veterans' affairs and post-service life that until now have been overlooked, including allowing interim incapacity payments at 100 per cent of the normal earnings to be paid until superannuation entitlements and a final incapacity rate are determined. It extends access to non-liability mental health treatment to all past and current serving men and women irrespective of the length or type of service. It aligns the end date of veterans' incapacity payments with the incremental increase in the age pension age and it acknowledges the experiences of the veterans involved in British nuclear testing here in Australia.

Labor welcomes this expansion. It means these veterans can now get the treatment they deserve. Also, it acknowledges the long-lasting consequences of the nuclear tests. In addition to providing full health coverage to British Commonwealth Occupation Force veterans, the bill will also cover pastoralists and Indigenous people who lived or worked in the vicinity of the testing sites. Including Indigenous people in health coverage for the British nuclear testing in Australia is a landmark decision. In the 1950s and the 1960s, when this testing was underway, Indigenous people, as we have found out in this chamber over the last two weeks, were the invisible people. In 1956 a test site and airstrip, known as Section 400, was built at Maralinga in South Australia, the home of the Anangu people. It served to achieve Britain's nuclear power status during the Cold War.

Nuclear testing at the site greatly affected the Anangu people. Many were forcibly removed from the area and others refused to leave. Around 12,00 Anangu people were exposed to radiation at the time, suffering not just from radiological damage but psychological, social and cultural damage. The Anangu people lost their ability to deeply connect with their land, with their country, which was a huge blow to their spirituality, their sense of self, their identity, their being, their culture. And they lost their health. The radioactive fallout had serious effects such as sore eyes, rashes, vomiting, fever and early death. We have all seen the consequences of this radioactive fallout and how shattering it is physically and how appalling it is physically.

In 1985 the royal commission into British nuclear testing in Australia showed little concern about the safety of the Indigenous people living off the land around these testing sites. Fortunately, in many ways, the issues have been addressed in terms of Indigenous justice since settlement. We still have a long way to go in terms of closing the gap; and this bill in some way helps to close the gap on this appalling issue, this tragic issue, which in many ways is a blight on Australia's history in terms of the treatment of the Indigenous community in this area.

I cannot think of a better time than Reconciliation Week for this bill to be debated. Last week, we had the anniversaries of the Mabo decision and the 1967 referendum. The issue at stake here is reconciliation and an acknowledgement that the Anangu people suffered. In a small way, this bill acknowledges the anguish that the Anangu people faced when they were forced to live with the health consequences of the British nuclear testing in Australia. The bill addresses coverage for those people, who at that time were written out of history, were invisible in history, and whose health needs and needs in general were ignored for so long. The treatments available will include treatment for all conditions, not just malignant neoplasia, and its expansion has been welcomed by the veterans of the British nuclear testing and British Commonwealth Occupation Force. I am sure it will be welcomed by the Anangu people and Indigenous communities right around Australia who suffered during the testing.

We need to ensure this kind of history never, ever repeats itself. As we have heard from my colleague beforehand, the land at Maralinga is still contaminated, despite the government's best efforts to cleanse it, clean it and rehabilitated it. That has happened three times—not once, not twice, but three times. That was in 1967, 2000 and 2009. The contamination of land is debilitating for all the people who live around the area: for the farmers, it affects their ability to make money and to feed their families; for the families, it creates uncertainty about whether kids are safe playing in the backyard; and for the Indigenous communities, the Anangu people who live in that area, it decimates their whole culture and their connection to land—that ability to connect land with their culture and to connect with their country.

Before a close, I just want to acknowledge the service, hard work, tenacity and tireless efforts of the National Boer War Memorial Association. Yesterday, after decades of fundraising, the National Boer War Memorial was finally dedicated. It was a wonderful ceremony. I attended it with the shadow assistant minister for veterans affairs. I just want to, for the record, say the names of who contributed so much after so long. This has been a tireless effort and a great exercise in tenacity. It is a great showcase of tenacity.

I acknowledge Colonel John Haynes, Lieutenant Colonel Ron McElwaine, Lieutenant Colonel Tony Larnach-Jones, Lieutenant Colonel Ian Guild, Major General Iain Spence, Bill Woolmore, Lieutenant Colonel David Deasey, Donna Hampton, Colonel Bob Guest, Chris Dawson, Lani Davis, George Bazochka, Major John Neenan, Lieutenant Colonel John Howells, Peter Wilmot, Monty Smith, David Thomas, Nigel Webster and all of the fantastic Boer War Memorial Association people here in the ACT who I have become very close to over the course of the last few years. I acknowledge Paul Hanlon, Reg Watson, the fund committee that was involved in this and everyone who is involved in making this National Boer War Memorial a reality after so much time and after so many decades. Thank you, congratulations. It is a major contribution to the memorialisation of those who served and died in the Boer War. It is a beautiful addition to Anzac Parade. It was an honour to be there at the dedication with my colleague, the shadow minister for veterans affairs, yesterday and it has been absolute showcase of tireless dedication and tenacity. Congratulations to all involved.

Mr HART (Bass) (12:18): I rise today to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017 that is currently before the House. I have listened with great interest to the very insightful contributions that have been offered to the House by the members for Fremantle and Canberra. In particular, regarding the decisions that were made many, many years ago. I do trust the decisions that we take these days in this place have a greater sense of the impacts that we have on others and, in particular, on our Indigenous peoples.

The first schedule of this bill amends the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006. It legislates for treatment for all conditions with respect to participants in the British nuclear tests, the BNT program in Australia; the British Commonwealth Occupied Force, the BCOF program; and civilians who were present at a nuclear test area during what is referred to as a relevant period. As I said earlier, these are obligations created in a bygone age at the commencement of what we now know to be the Cold War, when our understanding of what was appropriate with respect to nuclear materials handling was in its infancy.

The BNT program saw the United Kingdom conduct 12 major nuclear weapons tests in Australia during the 1950s on the Montebello Islands off Western Australia and at Emu Field and Maralinga in South Australia. As we heard in the address of the member for Freemantle, it seems that the obligations that we took upon ourselves at this time were to comply with the wishes of others overseas—particularly from the United Kingdom—without regard to the effect upon our people, our citizens and, in particular, our servicemen and women and Indigenous landowners. It seems from the present day looking back that there was no regard, or insufficient regard, for the rights of the Indigenous occupants or traditional owners of those lands. Again I thank the member for Freemantle for his insight into the practical effects and the loss of connection with country. We are still dealing with the consequences now, 75 years later.

In this bill before us the definition of 'nuclear test participant' is deliberately broad and it includes a person present in a test area and individuals involved in the transport, recovery, maintenance or cleaning of a vessel, a vehicle, aircraft or equipment that was contaminated as a result of its use in the nuclear test area. The definition also includes those BCOF veterans sent to Japan in 1946 to oversee the removal of the country's war-making capacity and maintain military control. As the legislation currently stands, there are no provisions for BNT participants and BCOF veterans to be granted treatment for all conditions under the Veterans Entitlement Act based on their nature of service. In 2010, the then Labor government provided additional assistance to BNT veterans who were also members of the ADF by reclassifying their service as non-warlike or hazardous peacekeeping service. This classification provided some nuclear test participants with access to some assistance under the Veterans Entitlements Act. This included access to the disability pension and the war widows pension. The bill that we have before us now extends that treatment to BCOF veterans and civilians, as well as providing full health coverage for all conditions. This is a good measure.

I do note that the expanded coverage does not extend to the wives and widows of the veterans or to their children. Nevertheless, a widow may be entitled if that person can satisfy the usual requirements for a war widow's pension. This is a concern to me personally, given reports that the children and grandchildren of participants in the BNT program suffered from increased rates of a range of medical problems such as cancer, birth defects and heart disease, and increased rates of miscarriage and stillbirth. In fact, during the address from the member for Freemantle we heard the personal experience of one veteran in that respect. However, unfortunately that is not a matter for veterans entitlements legislation but another far more complex conversation about our obligations with respect to past wrongs. I acknowledge that the expansion as it stands has been welcomed by BNT and BCOF veterans, many of whom have experienced significant health complications. Veterans should be able to not only receive the treatment they deserve but also have their experiences, and the long lasting consequences of those experiences, acknowledged.

Schedule 2 of this legislation seeks to amend the current outdated work history restrictions for the special and intermediate rates of disability pension provided to the VEA to better reflect modern working arrangements. These changes will remove the current requirement for claimants over 65 to have worked for 10 years with the same employer and for self-employed clients to have worked a minimum of ten years in the same profession, trade vocation or calling. Rather, the work history will only require a period of 10 continuous years of work in any field or vocation prior to applying for the special or intermediate rates of disability pension. This is an inherently sensible reform, given the reality of the modern work environment, where people have the potential to have many careers over their lifetime.

The final schedule of this legislation inserts instrument-making powers into the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, and the Military, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, enabling the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to determine a class of persons eligible to participate in an early access to rehabilitation programs. This is a most desirable outcome, given that early access to rehabilitation facilitates participation in economic activity, with all the ensuring benefits of work, recovery and wellbeing. The benefits of an early intervention such as provided for here are well recognised, and Labor is supportive of a process which is designed to improve outcomes for our ex-service Defence personnel.

Indeed, Labor is supportive of all three measures in this bill. However, I would echo the sentiments of the member for Kingston, the shadow minister for veterans' affairs. It is imperative that our veterans are able to get assistance when they need it. I meet regularly with veterans and representatives of service organisations who consistently indicate to me that the complicated and adversarial DVA claim process and the prolonged waiting times diminish their feelings of value and, in some cases, leave them questioning why they served at all. We must recognise and value the experience and sacrifice of current and former service personnel in serving their country both at home and abroad. They deserve specialised, tailored assistance. Further investment in frontline services and towards structural improvements within the Department of Veterans' Affairs must be a priority moving forward to best honour and support the veteran community.

Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (12:26): I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017. In honour of our veterans, citizens and first nations people involved with the British nuclear tests in South Australia and Western Australia, I pay homage and respect to the battle these people have had to fight to get to this point today. I have the utmost respect for all veterans for the selfless service they have given to this country to ensure that we live in the democracy we experience today. I welcome this bill.

Between 1952 and 1963, the British government, with the agreement and support of the Australian government, carried out nuclear tests at three sites in Australia: Montebello Islands off the Western Australian coast, and at Emu Field and Maralinga in South Australia. Britain wanted attainment of nuclear power, and Australia was to be the dumping ground for Britain to get there. More than six decades later, the decisions of the then-Menzies government still cast a horrible shadow over our nation. These decisions were made by a government with a political agenda for national security and tapped in to the Cold War fearmongering. Menzies's decisions forever changed the lives of thousands of people, and they serve as a timely reminder in this place that political agenda must never be placed above the lives of Australian people.

What was referred to by the Anangu people as the puyu, meaning black mist, was a deadly cloud—as deadly as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. UK servicemen, Australian soldiers and civilians including our first nations people were exposed to radiation. Illnesses reported include cancer, blood diseases, eye problems, skin rashes, blindness and vomiting, which are all symptoms of radioactive poisoning. The decision by both the British and Australian governments to forcibly remove the Anangu people in Maralinga from their traditional lands in the lead-up to the testing was disgraceful. The forced relocations destroyed the traditional lifestyle of the Aboriginal families. The damage was radiological, psychosocial and cultural.

We can give compensation, but nothing will replace the land and the cultural connections, and no amount of compensation will make up for the loss of life that has occurred. Service men and women, citizens and our first nations communities not only had to fight deadly illnesses for their lives, but over the years have been forced to fight for recognition of what had been done to them and to continually fight for compensation. In 1984 a royal commission was established to inquire into these tests, and although the royal commission was welcomed it was still a long battle for those affected to reach this point today. In 2010 the then-Labor government provided additional assistance to British nuclear test veterans who were also members of the ADF by reclassifying their service as non-warlike or hazardous peacemaking service. This classification provided some nuclear test participants with access to some assistance under the VEA. But more needed to be done, and this brings us to the bill here today.

Approximately 1,800 British nuclear test participants and 1,100 British Commonwealth Occupation Force participants will benefit from these changes, which are intended to begin on 1 July 2017. Labor is supportive of all three measures in this bill which seek to deliver on legislative reform. The first item this bill seeks to address is to legislate treatment for all conditions to participants in the British nuclear test program in Australia, the British Commonwealth Occupation Force and civilians who were present at a nuclear test area during a relevant period. It was not only those servicing who were affected; it was also the people cleaning equipment, vehicles and aircrafts who came into contact with nuclear waste and later suffered major health issues.

The amendments in this bill build on those changes by the Labor government in 2010, extending treatment to veterans and civilians as well as providing full health coverage for all conditions. Schedule 1's amendments recognise that it is appropriate to provide treatment for all conditions for BNT veterans and BCOF veterans and civilians who were present at a British nuclear test area during a relevant period due to their possible exposure to ionising radiation. Changes have been included to contain a broader class of civilians to receive treatment, including our first nation people and other citizens in the vicinity of the nuclear tests. The amendments go a step further, by providing treatment for all conditions, not just malignant neoplasia.

Furthermore, this bill rectifies the current outdated work history restrictions for the special and intermediate rates of disability pension provided in the VEA to better reflect modern working arrangements. The final schedule inserts instrument-making powers to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, enabling the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to determine a class of persons eligible to participate in early access to the rehabilitation pilot program.

As it stands SRCA and MRCA claimants have to wait until their initial liability claim is accepted before they can access rehabilitation services. This process can take around four months to be completed, and for complex cases even longer. By contrast, those covered by the VEA are able to access assistance under the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme without submitting a claim, as long as they meet service eligibility requirements.

Today's bill represents many years of campaigning for these veteran citizens and our first nation people. As the member for Herbert, whose electorate is home to the largest garrison city in Australia, with a large veteran population, I welcome these necessary changes. Any bill, amendment or necessary change which seeks to make life better for our veterans, I will always strongly support. This bill not only enables all people who were affected by the Black Mist to receive treatment they deserve but also acknowledges their experiences and the long-lasting consequences they have endured as a result of these tests.

Nothing will bring back lives, but this bill seeks to rectify those wrongs made more than six decades ago and to pay homage to the lives of those citizens. May governments never act on political agendas to the detriment of our Australian people but rather act in the best interests of the people they are elected to represent.

Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (12:32): The Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017 contains three schedules, and I particularly wish to focus on schedule 1. It legislates treatment for all conditions for participants in the British Nuclear Testing Program in Australia and the British Commonwealth Occupation Force and civilians who were present at a nuclear test area during a relevant period. This last category includes the Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara peoples of Central Australia. They have fought for many years for recognition of the impact of the British Nuclear Testing Program on their country and people. In 2010 the then Labor government provided additional assistance to the British nuclear test veterans who were also members of the ADF. This gave some of them access to some assistance, and the current amendments build on these changes. They extend treatment to occupational forces, veterans and civilians as well as full health coverage for all conditions.

Under these changes a broader class of civilians and Australian veterans will be eligible for treatment—pastoralists, other civilians and Indigenous Australians, like the Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara peoples who were in the vicinity of the nuclear test areas—and they will be covered. The changes have been welcomed by veterans, many of whom had experienced significant health complications. They are a result of many years of campaigning and as a result of campaigning by Aboriginal organisations and individuals such as Yami Lester, who as a 10-year-old lost his sight after British nuclear testing at Emu Field.

Labor welcomes these amendments. Not only do they enable veterans and civilians to receive the treatment they deserve; they also provide acknowledgement of their experiences and the long-lasting consequences they have endured. Sadly, many of those impacted have long passed. They were unable to access support and services. They have gone, but before they could know the dignity of acceptance of their experiences. These amendments provide an opportunity for us to reflect on all the men and women, Defence personnel and civilians, who have been impacted by war during peacetime.

I would like to particularly acknowledge a long-forgotten part of our military history, the occupation forces. Members of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force who were based in Japan from 1945 to 1952 included Australian troops who arrived there in February 1946. For two-thirds of the period of occupation the Commonwealth was represented solely by Australians. Throughout its existence the force was always commanded by an Australian officer and, although small when compared with the US occupation force, the Australians made a strong contribution proportionally to our population—as always has been the case. Australia has always fought above its weight.

From 1946 to 1952 Australian forces were responsible for the military occupation of Hiroshima Prefecture. About 16,000 Australians served there in the force. At the peak of its involvement the Australian force was responsible for over 20 million Japanese citizens and 57,000 square kilometres of country. It is worth reflecting on the role that those 16,000 Australians played for our country after the war. Their role was to disarm and demilitarise the former enemy and rebuild its basic infrastructure, including democracy after the long period that Japan was under imperial rule. I wish to acknowledge all Australians—as I said, around 16,000 of them—who served in the British Commonwealth Occupation Force. These amendments are for them.

I acknowledge also those impacted by British nuclear testing at sites like Emu Field and Maralinga. These amendments are for those people, too—people like Yami Lester. They act as a reminder of our history and the often shameful way we have treated veterans and those impacted by activities involving exposure to hazardous materials and chemical agents. I remember as a young boy Dad's equipment from the Vietnam War being in Pop's back shed. I remember wanting to play with it when I was a boy—even then I think I wanted to join the Army, as Dad had and as Pop had—but I remember Dad saying, 'No, don't play with that stuff yet because we need to give it a good wash—there was this stuff called agent orange.' It took some time for the harmful effects of that chemical to be known, and it behoves us to do our bit to make sure that our veterans, who may have been exposed to any form of hazardous materials or drugs, are looked after.

Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro) (12:37): It is a pleasure and a privilege to speak in support of the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill and the measures it contains. Obviously the issue of the nuclear test veterans has been a longstanding one and it is good that in recent years we have been coming to grips with some of these issues, including taking measures to fix the situation of our former prisoners of war of the Japanese as well. Obviously the member for Solomon and I had similar circumstances in our growing up, completely surrounded by the stories of veterans and our family's veterans' history. Every generation of my own family has served in the Army. I remember very vividly growing up with stories from both of my grandfathers, my uncles and my father, and then as a young man going to university I used to do a night shift cleaning toilets in a rehabilitation ward in a veterans hospital. I watched veterans suffering from the effects of their wars, and then when they passed away during the night I would have to clean them up and take them down to the morgue. I would see comrades watching their friends being taken away like that. The stories, their circumstances and what they were enduring were seared on my memory. Then, of course, I served with some wonderful people over the course of a couple of decades in many situations and saw the circumstances of our modern veterans.

My father also worked on the nuclear test sites as a young man, and I remember him giving me a book about the nuclear tests, which I read as a young kid in the late sixties—I am giving away my age! Sadly, he passed away about 17 years ago so he will not see the benefit of this, but it is good that those veterans and civilians with us who were involved will be able to fall back on this legislation. The other provisions are also welcome.

I would like to compliment the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Tehan. I really do feel that he is a man who has these issues close to his heart. I have always had a lot of time and respect for him, going back to when he was chair of the intelligence and security committee. He always had the nation's security interests at heart. I am a bit concerned about the workload that he has, though. There are not enough members assigned to the portfolio. This is the lowest number of people involved in the Defence portfolio that we have seen, and I know that the Australian Defence Association has called for that to be addressed. The minister certainly needs some help, as he has quite a load of work, to free him up to concentrate even more on these issues.

I spoke yesterday about the impact on veterans of the approach to pensions that we saw in earlier budgets through this time of the coalition government. Thankfully those matters have been largely resolved. But I have been concerned about the impact of the removal of the energy supplement on our veterans, war widows, war orphans and their families. I have been inundated with emails about the effect of the removal of that supplement, and I really do call on the government to have another think about it, because it is going to cause a lot of grief out there in the community.

But I also welcome the minister's focusing on mental health issues. This has been a really serious concern for the whole community, looking at these terrible suicide rates that we have seen amongst veterans. For many years this was not being tackled properly, and I was pleased to see, when we came into government, that we came to grips to it in appointing Professor David Dunt to conduct a review of mental health services and support in the ADF. The review was a catalyst for more than $92 million to be invested and committed across DVA and Defence to improve mental health services for serving personnel and veterans. And we increased funding for the applied suicide and intervention skills training program to assist in that as well. We did the independent study into suicide in the ex-service community and the review of mental health care in the ADF and transition through discharge and introduced key initiatives such as case coordinators in DVA, who are now in place, and supporting clients who have complex needs. There were many aspects to tackling this, and I note that we worked on a project developed with the Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health to improve the training and competency of secondary mental health workers, which started in 2009. That was in addition to the $145 million that we spent altogether on veterans' mental health annually. A comprehensive Australian Defence Force mental health life cycle package was also produced in association with the ACPMH. That progressed the first three initiatives of the life cycle package, including the longitudinal study of psychological resilience, resilience-building programs, and models for the annual mental health screen.

These were all really important initiatives, and they needed to be built on. One problem in this space, of course, is that there is never enough that you can do. You never get to the full answer to these problems. But that does not relieve us of the responsibility of continuing to work towards finding those solutions. And I think we need to really look at creative solutions and better stress management regimes for serving personnel as well as making sure that we are tracking these situations when people separate from the service and that there is a better fusion of data between serving personnel and DVA.

One thing I am pleased about is now working with the member for Berowra in the Parliamentary Friendship Group on the prevention of suicide. This is one area that we will be focusing on, trying to provide a collecting point for great ideas and solutions to help resolve that issue as well.

Suicide among veterans is a serious, serious problem at the moment, and it needs a full-court press. The old saying says that it takes a village to raise a child. Well, it also takes a village to support and sustain veterans. All of us in the community can play a role in that, and I commend some of the organisations that have sprung up, who I was pleased to help, like Soldier On and Mates4Mates. I encourage the community and all those providers to reach out to those organisations and help support veterans in dealing with their transition from those situations into civilian life.

Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (12:44): I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017. I know that my colleagues, both on this side of the House and on the other side of House, have addressed most of the issues that we would want to address in terms of the needs of these victims of the nuclear test decisions, taken by a government so long ago, but for which they are wearing the consequences. It is absolutely true that we need to make sure that their interests are properly looked after and protected, and, most importantly, that they get the support they most properly need.

I note that the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006 currently provides Australian nuclear participants with testing and treatment for malignant cancers. Under these changes, of course, as we have been told, a broader range and class of civilians and Australian veterans would be eligible to receive treatment. In addition to those veterans, pastoralists and Aboriginal people in the vicinity of the nuclear test areas, other civilians who were present in those areas during the relevant period will be covered.

I want to spend a few moments to talk about the Yankunytjatjara people who were the subject of being removed from their country, as they were in those days. There was no real recognition of Aboriginal interests or Aboriginal rights, and, sadly for us, that meant that many of these people in the area of Maralinga and the Emu Junction area became victims of these tests. I want to refer to one man, who is a very good friend of mine and someone I have known since the late 1970s, Yami Lester. Yami is a Yankunytjatjara man who was born, I think, a little before me, although probably not too much before me. In the 1950s he was blinded by a black mist from the south. After this mist passed, and he was a young Aboriginal man living with his family, his family experienced sudden deaths, outbreaks of skin rashes, vomiting, diarrhoea and temporary and permanent blindness. Yami, sadly, suffered the consequences of this and became blind. Yami tells us that some of the people were so weak they could not go down to the nearby waterhole and skim the black scum off the water which came from the black cloud, and actually died of thirst.

It is generally accepted that this mist came as a result of the nuclear tests—the Emu Junction tests and the Maralinga tests—which were taking place at the time. I have known Yami because he is an advocate and a leader for the Yankunytjatjara and Pitjantjatjara communities of the southern part of the Northern Territory and the northern part of South Australia. He has been active, and it was, almost certainly, his activity that led to the recognition of the impact of these atomic bomb tests, particularly at Maralinga, and to an acknowledgement that Aboriginal people had been adversely affected. Remember, these people had been shoved off their land. Their land was stolen from them for the purposes of a foreign nation, in partnership with us, holding controlled nuclear tests on the land. Is it any wonder that they were concerned about the impact?

His actions most certainly helped lead to the McClelland royal commission in 1985, which found significant radiation hazards still existed at the Maralinga test sites. Recommendations included group compensation for the Maralinga and Tjarutja people and an extensive long-term clean-up operation to restore the land.

Minister Tehan, who is at the table—and I thank him for being here—on ABC radio, on Q&A, said in relation to this legislation we are talking about this morning: 'The measure will provide gold cards to Indigenous people present at or near Maralinga, Emu Field or the Montebello Islands at the time of the British nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s.'

Minister, I thank you for that. But sadly, I am standing here as a former minister and as a member of governments who over the period really failed to recognise, apart from in the Maralinga royal commission, the personal impact that this has had on individuals and families. For that I am sorry. As Yami has said, blinded by the atomic test himself, his family and extended family suffering immeasurably as a result of these bomb tests: 'This support comes 60 years too late … Most of our people have passed away. They were young ones then. Now they are older ones, a few of them still living today' So the benefit will be limited to the extent of the numbers of Aboriginal people it will impact upon, and that is a worry. It is significant that Yami said: 'Our people were sick, very sick. They were on the lands, they needed help. They're doing it too late. They didn't do compensation before, early. They didn't do it.' Yami's daughter, Karina, whom I know very well, and who is active in fighting against the possibility of nuclear waste dumps in South Australia, has said: 'Why now? This was recommended by the royal commission into the British nuclear tests in the 1980s. It is too late for those who have passed, but I am pleased to those who are still alive.'

It is very difficult, for me particularly, because I have lived and worked in the Pitjantjatjara lands with the Yankunytjatjara Pitjantjatjara people, and I know families who are directly affected by these bomb tests, including Yami and his family. They are right. This is 60 years too late. I apologise, because as a member of this parliament I should have been advocating a lot more strongly than I have done for their cause. I pay tribute to the minister for at last cooperating in recognition of their suffering. Whilst we are talking about the veterans—and I pay my great respect to those veterans who are impacted by these bomb tests—I cannot let pass the opportunity to try and get people to understand the absolutely horrific impacts these bomb tests had on the Aboriginal people of South Australia. I suspect there may be a few people who will be properly recognised in terms of treatments as a result of this legislation, but absolutely nothing we can do here will ever alleviate the pain and suffering of those who have passed, and their families who have felt that in an ongoing way.

Minister, I am thankful for the legislation. I am so sad that it has taken 60 years for us to at last recognise the health impact this has had on the Yankunytjatjara Pitjantjatjara people of South Australia. To understand this and to know that country as I do is to understand that it is about not only the physical health but the mental wellbeing and the social and emotional wellbeing of a group of people whose rights and interests were totally ignored by the governments of the day. Whilst they have been recognised subsequently—thankfully—it is a lesson to us about why it is important to listen to the voices of Aboriginal people when it comes to understanding the history of this country.

Mr DICK ( Oxley ) ( 12:55 ): I rise to join colleagues to speak in support of this bill, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017. In following on from the member for Lingiari, the father of this House, I want to acknowledge that it is 30 years since the member for Lingiari was elected on 11 July 1987. In listening to his contribution today, I note the sorrow and pain that he demonstrated on behalf of those impacted by decisions of the past. But I also acknowledge that this is a positive day. It is a positive day for both sides of the House to join, recognise and acknowledge pain and suffering that has happened, but, also, it is a way forward for other serving veterans.

I want to acknowledge the minister today. When we make decisions in this House, such as we are doing today, it may not be on the front page of the news tomorrow and it might not lead the news tonight. But I think in the last 12 months since I have been elected, today is one of those important days in our Commonwealth where both sides of the politics—and I think all 150 members—acknowledge what has happened in the past, but also pave a way for the future. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, as the son of a World War II veteran, I am particularly moved by the stories, the suffering and the pain of those who have served our nation, but also empowered by what this Commonwealth and parliament can do to honour those sacrifices.

I want to speak briefly today to show my support for these changes for this bill that the government is putting forward. In doing so, I acknowledge the good work of Minister Tehan and the shadow minister, the member for Kingston, in making sure that the mistakes of the past are not made in the future, as well. The three important measures will provide better and more appropriate support for our veterans. As we have heard from speaker after speaker, we acknowledge that the bill legislates treatment for all conditions to participants in the British nuclear test program in Australia. I have listened to the debate in my office today. I have heard and witnessed firsthand the testimony from people involved—the thousands of Australians. Although we are only dealing with a small number, it is an important number for the civilians and ADF members that were part of that program, particularly those civilians. We heard from the Indigenous members of the community who were present at a nuclear test site during that relevant period. It may have been 60 years ago but it is still important to place on record that period in Australia.

Currently, there is no scope for British nuclear test participants and the British Commonwealth Occupation Force veterans to be granted treatment for all the conditions under the VE act based on the nature of their service. This changes that. This ensures that there will be the treatment given. Although we are dealing with the three sites and we have heard that former governments have made the decisions, it is up to us now to make sure that we are honouring that service. Schedule 2 seeks to amend the current outdated work history restrictions, especially in intermediate rates of disability pension provided in the VE act, to better reflect modern working arrangements. That is an important initiative that Labor will be supporting today, alongside the government. We understand that it reflects the reality of a modern work environment where people have the potential to have many careers over their lifetime.

Schedule 3, the final schedule, inserts instrument-making powers into the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, enabling the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to determine a class of person eligible to participate in an early access to rehab pilot program. This is something that I am really supportive of. Having read the amendments, I know that if they are confirmed, as I am sure they will be, a six-month pilot program will be undertaken for a group of 100 participants over the next 12 months.

Members on both sides of the House know the recognised benefits of early intervention, and we are supportive of a process which is designed to improve outcomes for our ex-serving defence personnel. Representing many ADF families in the electorate of Oxley, many who have served overseas and have served in difficult situations, I know the importance of these pilot programs. On top of that, as a supporter of veterans groups, particularly in the south-west of Brisbane, I know the great work that they do, particularly in supporting younger veterans and ensuring that they have pathways to employment and pathways to success.

So we support these recommendations before us today. I thank the minister for his work, and I acknowledge the good work of many members of this parliament. And I look forward to supporting future legislation to honour the work of our veterans and to support them in everything that they do.

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security and Minister for Defence Personnel) (13:01): I thank all members for their contribution to the debate on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017. The bill gives effect to three of the veterans' affairs 2017 budget measures, all of which will benefit the defence and ex-service community.

The first measure would provide improved health care for Australian participants of the British nuclear tests and civilians present at a nuclear test area during a relevant period and Australian veterans of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force. In recognition of the possible exposure to ionizing radiation experienced by both Australian veterans of BCOF and the BNT veterans, the government has decided to provide a gold card to these veterans, which will enable them to access medical treatment for all conditions. This program will also provide healthcare coverage for pastoralists, Indigenous people and other civilians determined to be within the same vicinity as the participants of the British nuclear tests. From 1 July 2017, it is expected that 2,800 people will be able to access these expanded services. The government has committed $133.1 million over the forward estimates to this measure.

The second measure would amend the current outdated work history restrictions for the special and intermediate rates of disability pension provided in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 to better reflect modern working arrangements. The changes would remove the current requirement for claimants over 65 to have worked for 10 years with the same employer, and for self-employed clients to have worked for 10 years in the same profession, trade, vocation or calling. In the modern workforce, these expectations are unrealistic, and the government recognises this. Instead, the work history requirement for special and intermediate rates of disability pension would just require a period of 10 continuous years of work in any field or vocation, with potentially multiple employers, prior to applying for the special or intermediate rates of disability pension.

The third measure would facilitate early access to a rehabilitation pilot program for certain veterans and Australian Defence Force members. Early access to rehabilitation facilitates participation in economic activities, with all of the ensuing benefits of work and recovery, assists in minimising the ongoing effects of injury and illness and promotes recovery and wellbeing. A six-month pilot program providing early access to rehabilitation assessment to a group of 100 participants will be undertaken in the 2017-18 financial year.

I would like to acknowledge the contribution to the debate of this bill made by the member for Grey, who noted that over 300,000 Australians rely on support from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. He knows that the government's extra investment of $350 million will mean to them. As he put it, this money, particularly in mental health support, will help veterans fight the battles they face when they return home from service. For his electorate, this budget has particular significance; it is where some of the British nuclear tests took place. As he said, we are correcting some things we did in the past that we did not understand by doing something today that we know is right. I thank the member for Grey for his support in making this possible.

I would also like to thank the member for Solomon, who noted the significance of this budget and the measures for the BNT veterans and civilians. He knows what it means in particular for the Indigenous people who were impacted by these tests. I thank the member for Forrest, who has a long history of involvement with veterans and knows what some of the changes in this budget will mean for her community. As she mentioned, streamlining the DVA processes will be welcomed by all veterans in her electorate because it will mean wait and claims times will come down. I would also like to mention the contribution of the member for Lingiari, who spoke of his personal dealings with families who have been impacted by the British nuclear tests and apologised on behalf of previous governments who have not acted in this area. I commend the member for Lingiari for his heartfelt contribution to this debate.

Finally, I would like to thank the shadow minister for her support and contribution and for helping ensure that we get this bill through in time so we can provide the support come 1 July. Thank you, shadow minister, for your help and cooperation in ensuring that we can get the help to the veterans as soon as possible. The shadow minister knows that this budget will deliver a revolution in how we provide mental health support to veterans. We will now commence the job of making sure all veterans who need help know they can get it.

I will finish by asking all members of the House to reach out to veterans and ensure that the word is publicised that there is help and support for all mental health conditions now. We want to make sure they get help as early as possible because we all know that is the best way to make sure you can recover.

I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security and Minister for Defence Personnel) (13:07): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (13:08): I rise to speak on the Comcare and Seacare Legislation Amendment (Pension Age and Catastrophic Injury) Bill 2017. Labor will support this bill. This bill amends the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Seafarers Act to ensure that injured employees in receipt of weekly compensation payments for incapacity can continue to receive those payments until they reach pension age as defined in the Social Security Act 1991. The qualifying age for the age pension under the Social Security Act 1991 will begin to increase on 1 July this year. By linking compensation for incapacity with the pension age rather than age 65, these amendments will result in no gap between the cessation of compensation for incapacity and eligibility for receipt of the age pension.

This bill also amends the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the seafarers act to align these acts with minimum benchmarks for catastrophic workplace injuries in the National Injury Insurance Scheme. The bill removes the cap on weekly compensation payable for household services and attendant care services for employees with catastrophic injury. An employee with a catastrophic injury will also be eligible to receive compensation for household services from the day of the injury, without the current 28-day waiting period.

While we support the bill and the measures it takes to align the payments to the pension age, it is worth noting the Turnbull government's agenda to increase the pension age to 70. This signature unfair policy from the horror 2014 budget is still there. The policy to have the pension age increased to the age of 70 is still an objective of the Turnbull government. In effect, the Prime Minister of this country and of this government wants to give Australia the oldest pension age in the developed world. The Prime Minister wants to make construction workers, nurses, tradies, farmers, seafarers and other workers work until they are 70 before they are eligible for the age pension. It is something that underlines how out of touch this Prime Minister and this government are when it comes to the difficulties that confront workers in workplaces over this period.

The idea put forward, without any planning whatsoever, that people who have much of their work being of a physical nature could actually work until 70 says how little the government understands workplaces. We are not suggesting that people should not be able to voluntarily work beyond the age that is currently set down for the pension, but we know that there are many people who just cannot work up until that age. It is quite extraordinary that this country will be in a position to have the highest pension age of the developed world as a result of the objectives of the government.

I applaud the bill to fix up the current arrangements and increase the age so that there is no longer a gap insofar as insurance and compensation are concerned and their intersection with the pension age, but I think this bill is a reminder that we have a government which is in pursuit of lifting the pension age to 70 years of age. There are people now in their 40s and 50s who will have to work until they are 70. If people understood the nature of the work of construction workers or nurses or people who work in aged care, the difficulties they confront, the injuries that arise and the wear and tear on their body, then the idea that they would have to work until 70 would just not be tenable. What it would need, if we were to ever consider it at all, would be much greater involvement in the way in which people would undertake work in the period up until their retirement age. I do not think there has been sufficient work undertaken. But I do know this, though: before I was in this place, I represented working people and I saw too many unable to continue to undertake work because of injuries—hernias, carpal tunnel syndrome, back injuries or whatever it was—and the stress placed on their body. People think it is a problem that afflicts male occupations, but, as I have said and as everyone knows who has any understanding of these issues, this applies to nurses as much as it does to construction workers. It is extraordinary that the government has not contemplated this problem.

We do support this bill, because we are removing the gap that exists currently. We do accept that there are people who want to work beyond the current pension age—there is no problem with that—but we do not accept the idea that you cannot get a pension until you reach age 70. The pension age keeps increasing and people have to keep watching it move away from them when they have worked so many years of their life, particularly if they have been vulnerable physically in their workplace and are feeling the wear and tear of work over many, many decades. We feel that little consideration has been given to this initiative.

Indeed, it is extraordinary too that much of the 2014 budget has been revoked, rejected and repudiated by the current Prime Minister and the government, but not this policy and not the policy to lift the pension age to the highest level of any comparable country. I think the government has to rethink its position. The Prime Minister likes to say he believes in fairness, but he actually is trying to force millions of Australians to work until they are 70 before they can access the age pension. We will support this bill, but we will not support Malcolm Turnbull's cruel attempts to increase the pension age.

While I am on my feet, I would also like to say that it is worth reminding the parliament, and through it hardworking Australians, that the Turnbull government is still pursuing two other bills to amend the Comcare scheme. These are related; these are incidental to the bill before us. The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Improving the Comcare Scheme) Bill 2015, with its Orwellian title, will exclude workers from the Comcare scheme and significantly reduce the compensation available for those who remain eligible. This bill attempts to reduce the liabilities of the Comcare scheme at the expense of people injured at work.

There is also the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 which, if enacted, will directly and indirectly risk the workplace health and safety of Australian workers. It will also remove the rights of Australian workers to fair and reasonable cover when they suffer the misfortune of a work-related injury or illness. This government will stop at nothing to attack workers. It is only because of the staunch opposition of the Labor Party that these bills have been stalled and have been prevented from being enacted, and we will hold that position because of the unfairness intrinsic in those two other bills.

To sum up, we do support this bill. This is fixing something that needs to be fixed, and for that reason we will support it. But we will never support the coalition's agenda to create coward workforces that are easy to hire, easy to fire and more open or more vulnerable to injury, where if you are injured they deprive you of the things you need to return to work or have a decent life in the event you cannot return to work. This bill, for the reasons I have outlined, is something we can support; but we are concerned that the government still has not given up on pursuing those other areas to change compensation and Comcare arrangements in this country.

We would ask the government to rethink its position on that and we would ask the government to rethink its position on the harsh policy to increase the pension age to 70 that it announced in 2014, which I believe has been ill thought out. It shows a callous disregard for workers and it shows no understanding of workplaces and the difficulties that workers confront, whether they be construction workers or nurses, in dealing with the wear and tear on their bodies and the difficulties each and every day when they do such magnificent work in this country.

Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:18): As the previous speaker has said, Labor will be supporting this bill. The Comcare and Seacare Legislation Amendment (Pension Age and Catastrophic Injury) Bill 2017 does correct an anomaly that has been created because we have lifted the pension age, yet there is the flow-on effect to other areas of legislation, like safety rehabilitation and compensation for seafarers. This bill corrects that. It ensures that people who suffer a catastrophic injury at work, who are being covered by compensation, will continue to be covered. It will not finish at 65 and then force them into the unfortunate situation of being on Newstart for two years. It means they will continue on the current schemes until they reach the pension age of 67.

I rise to say a few things about injured workers and about how it is the responsibility of all of us in this place to ensure that we have best practice laws and to ensure that in a time when workers are in need our help, when they have suffered a catastrophic injury at work, we are doing all we can to support their recovery. But if they not able to recover to return to work, we will support them in their life and until they reach the pension age.

One of the other good things about this particular bill is that it ensures that household services will continue without the current 28-day waiting period. An employee with a catastrophic injury will also be eligible to receive compensation for the household services from the day of the injury without incurring the current 28-day period. This is good news for families where this occurs. Let's just think about these families for a moment. Someone gets up and goes to work as everybody does, and a catastrophic injury occurs. The first thing that happens is that person goes to hospital. All of a sudden, what is happening at home? If they have children, who is picking up the children? If they have to modify the home, who is there to do that? If they need a nurse at home, who is there to help with that? When you have a catastrophic injury you need help from day 1. The 28-day waiting period is something that does not fit with what has actually occurred, so it is a good development that people will now receive household services from the day of their injury.

Where do these injuries occur? We have a lot of dangerous industries in this country, such as manufacturing. I recall in my time at United Voice when I was there as an organiser that some of the most heartbreaking phone calls I would receive were from delegates to say there has been a serious incident at work and asking us to come down and meet with the members and talk to the staff about what has happened. In manufacturing food and beverages there was a particularly bad incident at CUB where somebody was quite severely injured. They have not and will not return to work. In that particular case, unfortunately, the company did not follow the direction of WorkSafe or the PIN notices that proceeded. Almost 12 months later, another catastrophic incident occurred and an individual—a worker—lost their life. At the time, the fine handed down against the company at the county court was the largest in Australian history for negligence in a workplace causing death of an employee. Unfortunately, since then there have been other fines issued for employers who have knowingly not followed safety instruction from the authorities and bigger fines have been issued. It is a problem for us in this country in industries where there is dangerous work going on. Incidences are increasing, not decreasing.

I would like to talk about another industry where we have injuries and incidences on the increase, and that is the construction industry. We know through media reports, investigations and public findings that in workplaces that are not unionised, where there is not a good safety committee in place, where there are employers that are not acting in the best interests of their workforce and where they are rushing to get things completed we have seen an increase in the numbers of deaths or serious injuries. In Perth, two backpackers were killed because they had lunch in the wrong spot and a big concrete sheet fell on these individuals. There was the very public case of a backpacker who took off her safety harness and fell down a shaft. Another, working for the same company, was killed at work when she had been working on the site for less than six months. All of these cases are going through their process of inquiry. What is frustrating is that they could have been avoided if the company had been proactive, had engaged the union—the CFMEU—had engaged their workforce and had proper safety arrangements and training requirements in place.

The injuries within construction are rising. It is no coincidence that it is at the same time the ABCC has been reintroduced. It appears that, just as in the past, the moment that the government introduces a draconian regime like the ABCC, the focus is all on the union officials and not on the employers. We see a body that chases people about right of entry notices rather than one that chases employers who have not ensured that they have a safe workplace.

I will give one example from before it was the ABCC, when it was Fair Work Building and Construction. It was in my own area, the Bendigo electorate. This was during the process of building the Ulumbarra Theatre. There was a significant contribution from the federal government and state and local governments to build the Ulumbarra Theatre. There was a serious workplace incident: a worker fell into the orchestra pit. The safety equipment that had been in place, the barriers that had been up, had been removed, and he fell in, and almost literally lost his head—there was some quite serious damage to the back of his neck and to his head. He was then in hospital for quite some period of time. He, to this day, has not returned to work and may never return to work. At the time, it made the news. Union officials were on site. Workers were on site. They got him the best quality care that they could.

This is also a site where we had a number of contractors. They were not paid on time by the builder. They went to the wall. They lost everything. Their workers lost everything. They were able to get some stuff back through GEERS.

So this was a project that was riddled with problems. Yet what happened six months later was not that the company was fined for this worker almost literally losing his head and suffering a catastrophic workplace injury; it was not that the companies that had gone broke received compensation because the builder had not paid them on time—no. The organiser for the CFMEU was pulled up before Fair Work Building and Construction, which said: 'You didn't produce your worker's permit when asked.'

I am really concerned that the government is putting workplace health and safety at the very end of its list, as their dogged pursuit and their ideological hatred of unions become the first priority of this government—not ensuring best practice when it comes to workplace health and safety; not ensuring that workers are paid on time; not ensuring that we are cracking down on phoenixing so that employees are paid by their employer and do not have to go through the FEG program to receive their basic entitlements.

There are so many areas in our workplaces that this government needs to improve on, yet their only focus has been on bullying and on pushing forward on draconian rules and laws like the ABCC that target unions and target workers who are only trying to ensure that all of their workmates, at the end of the day, go home safe.

As a previous speaker also said, there is a real problem with this government trying to push the pension age from 67 up to 70. It is something that was in this government's first budget in 2014, in their 2015 budget, in their 2016 budget and now is in their 2017 budget.

This government is still not listening. They are still not listening to people who work in trades—in trades where you need to use your physical body. These people are not like politicians, who get to sit on the nice green benches; these are people who, day in day out, are on their feet and whose bodies, for many of them, will not last until they are 70. I am talking about tradies, nurses, farmers, seafarers, and cleaners—like our own Parliament House cleaners, who have still not received a pay rise since this government scrapped the Clean Start guidelines; they are still on the same money.

I note that, whilst we, the politicians in this place, have received a pay rise and whilst our staff have now received a pay rise, the cleaners here in Parliament House have not. They work really hard. Cleaning is a job that is tough on the body. They have not received a pay rise yet. I would like to take this opportunity to call on the government to think about their cleaners and reward them with a fair and decent pay rise. They have not had one, and it is not right.

Cleaning is a job which people struggle to do until they are 70. Whilst some are still cleaning until they are 70, when you chat to a cleaner who is 70 they say it is because they still need to keep working. They still need to keep paying the bills, they still have a mortgage or their husband or wife is not working. But they should not have to be made to clean—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Bendigo will have an opportunity that time to continue her remarks.

Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (16:17): I rise today to support the Comcare and Seacare Legislation Amendment (Pension Age and Catastrophic Injury) Bill 2017.

Seacare is a workers compensation scheme especially for seafarers. It is necessary because most seafarers work outside of the state they live in. The Maritime Union of Australia surveyed its members, and around 70 per cent who had filed a compensation claim lived in a different state from the one they were injured in or which they regularly worked in. That is not surprising, given the nature of the work.

Given the complex and state based nature of Australia's legal and workers compensation frameworks, this can cause significant difficulty in accessing lawyers and independent medical examiners with the appropriate accreditation and expertise. This bill amends the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Seafarers Act to ensure that injured employees in receipt of weekly compensation payments for incapacity can continue to receive their payments until they reach pension age as defined in the Social Security Act 1991. The qualifying age for the aged pension under the Social Security Act 1991 will begin to rise on 1 July this year. By linking compensation for incapacity with a pension age, rather than the defined age of 65, these amendments will ensure that payments continue without a gap. Without this amendment, payments or compensation could cease at age 65 and injured workers could find themselves ineligible for the pension until they reach the new age threshold, which will change year on year from now on.

This bill also amends the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Seafarers Act to align these acts with minimum benchmarks for catastrophic workplace injuries and the National Injury Insurance Scheme. The bill seeks to bring into line benefits for catastrophically injured workers who will require intensive care and support for the rest of their lives because of the severity of their injuries. Currently there is a cap on weekly compensation that is payable for household services and attendant care services for these catastrophically injured workers, and I am very pleased to see that this cap will be removed. An employee with a catastrophic injury will also be eligible to receive compensation for household services from the day of injury, whereas under current legislative arrangements there is inexplicably a 28-day waiting period.

While Labor will support this bill and the measures it takes to align payments to a pension age, it is worth noting that the government intends to steadily increase the age for eligibility to the age pension to 70 years of age. Labor opposes lifting age pension eligibility to 70. It may be all right for a stockbroker or a solicitor to contemplate a longer working life, but for a seafarer or a stevedore—where the work is physical and at times dangerous—there are very real health and safety implications associated with forcing people to work into their 70s.

Professor Mark Harris, executive director of the Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity of the University of New South Wales, notes:

As we get older [health] becomes more unpredictable … Increasing the pension age from 65 to 67 was pretty non-controversial. But [in] increasing it by another three years, we're starting to get into a situation where the risks are greater. So we need to be more thoughtful about that.

Professor Harris notes that people in their 70s are more prone to conditions such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis and cognition, vision and hearing loss. That means more risk to self and potentially more risk to others.

In their 2013 book Lives in Peril: Profit Or Safety in the Global Maritime Industry?, workplace safety experts David Walters and Nick Bailey note that:

… seafaring remains a hazardous occupation. Indeed, by these measures it is clearly ranked amongst the most hazardous of occupations.

In a survey, 38 per cent of 1,594 respondents said that they had worked on a ship where there had been a serious injury or fatality to another member of the crew. Twenty-eight per cent of respondents had made a compensation claim for an injury or disease due to their own seafaring work. In 2012, it is estimated that worldwide 1,051 seafarers lost their lives at work. The year before, the number was 1,095. As far as I am aware, more current figures are not available.

I recommend the book by Walters and Bailey to members. It illustrates how seafarers are, in a world increasingly dependent on global trade, a vulnerable group of workers who operate in an industry where profit is clearly prioritised over safety and other conditions and which operates with limited regulatory oversight. Walters and Bailey note that the situation is likely to remain broadly unchanged:

… as long as global maritime governance and regulation remains in thrall to the neo-liberal economic and political arguments that drive globalisation; and fails to enforce regulatory standards more robustly.

There is a major role for government in the maintenance and enhancement of Australia's maritime trading routes both domestically and internationally. The three monkeys approach of see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil has no place in a modern democracy that purports to have some regard to the notion of fundamental human rights. Trade is vital to Australia, and we on this side understand that. As a member for a small island state that derives much of its income from the export of agricultural produce, I understand it only too well. But just because I understand the importance of trade and the importance of remaining competitive does not mean I will turn a blind eye to injustice. I will not stand idly by while shipping companies and others sack Australian workers so they can cruelly exploit men and women overseas who are desperate for any work at any cost. I will not remain silent when governments are complicit in that exploitation, whether by ignorance or design.

This week in Senate estimates, Senator Doug Cameron quizzed the Fair Work Commission on allegations that foreign seafarers working on flag-of-convenience ships operating in Australian waters are being paid $1.25 an hour. 'Yes, those allegations are being investigated,' came the reply. When Senator Cameron asked if it was time the Fair Work Commission or other authorities started conducting random checks on flags-of-convenience vessels to ensure compliance with the requirement to meet Australian standards, the response was, 'No.' The Fair Work Commission will consider investigating when a complaint is made, but it is not interested in finding out for itself whether there is a systemic abuse of Australian law.

So let us be clear about what we talking about here: a flag-of-convenience vessel is a vessel registered in a country that pays no heed to international standards of vessel safely. These are the rust buckets of the sea, kept afloat by owners desperate to squeeze every last dollar of profit out of them. And if on a journey they should split in two in heavy seas, casting their crew into the deep, or spill oil or diesel onto a reef, they shrug their shoulders and say that is just a cost of doing business. My strong personal view is that flag of convenience vessels should have no place in Australian waters. They should be kept out. The mere fact that an owner has decided to register a vessel like this, rather than register in a nation that requires compliance with international standards, should be all the warning we need that we are dealing with a vessel and an owner who pay more regard to profit than safety.

The issue of safety for seafarers is important to this bill. Because conditions in the industry are poor, we are likely to see more cases for compensation. A well-regulated Australian based maritime industry is better for everyone, not least the workers inside the industry. That is something that the residents of King Island, part of my colleague the member for Braddon's electorate, are learning to their sorrow. Due to the inept oversight of the Hodgman state liberal government, and particularly the state transport and infrastructure minister, Rene Hidding, this important island is facing a shipping service crisis. The new ferry service started just three months ago, but it has proved to be entirely inadequate in getting passengers and freight on and off the island in a timely manner. The Liberals appear to be all at sea and at a complete loss when it comes to a solution.

Unfortunately the federal government still wants to open up and further deregulate Australian ports, leading to more uncertainty and risk to Australian seafarers. Its plan to create Workchoices on water was sunk in the Senate in the 44th parliament, but it is not giving up and is now instead seeking to amend existing legislation. The Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 was introduced under Labor and granted preference to Australian vessels between Australian ports. There was provision in the act for temporary licences to permit flag of convenience vessels. This government, rather than issuing them in exceptional circumstances, is dishing those licences out like lollies at a birthday party. This is yet another example where Labor has sought to play a straight bat and provide provisions for exceptional circumstances, only to see the Liberals misuse those provisions to further their ideological obsessions. The result of this ideologically driven agenda is Australian shipping routes that are less safe and an industry that is more dangerous for those who work in it, leading to more claims for compensation and death.

It is not often that you will find me looking to America for inspiration, but we really could learn something from the Americans' high regard for their own domestic maritime and seafaring industry. The US Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly referred to as the Jones act, requires that all goods transported by water between US ports be carried on US-flagged ships crewed by a minimum three quarters US citizens or permanent residents. Furthermore, the US-flagged ships plying those routes must be built in the US, and in the event they are repaired while overseas, the steel of foreign repair work is limited to 10 per cent by weight.

The Jones act sends the neoliberals wild, but it ensures that the US has a strong maritime and shipbuilding industry. This is important not only for jobs, but for national security. Compare that to Australia, an island nation that has run down its shipbuilding and maritime crew capabilities. For jobs, for national security and for fuel security we must do more to rebuild our capabilities as a maritime nation. I am hopeful that the government will abandon its more ideological tendencies and see the practical sense of this. There are positive signs. This government did have to be dragged kicking and screaming to invest in domestic shipbuilding rather than sending the work to the cheapest bidders overseas, but it has at last bitten the bullet, however reluctantly. Now that the government has finally committed to a local defence build, the member for Sturt is almost hopping with joy, with much of the work ending up in his home state. It is a complete coincidence, I am sure, that he happens to be the commissioning minister.

I am certainly proud of the continuing shipbuilding capabilities in my home state, which was unfortunately ignored by the $30 billion defence investment. Incat is a significant international player and deserves a closer look. Indeed, I would urge the maritime industry more generally to take a closer look at what we are doing in Tasmania with the Australian Maritime College in Launceston and the Tasmanian Maritime Network based in and around Hobart's northern suburbs and Prince of Wales Bay. This group of businesses, including Incat, can provide a one-stop shop for shipbuilders who want access to the latest technology and quality products and services, including training a construction workforce or fitting out a finished ship. Members of the network, most of whom grew as suppliers to Incat, are significant exporters in their own right.

Debate interrupted.