The SPEAKER (09:36): I have received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator O'Sullivan was discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement on 16 August 2017 and is to be reappointed to the committee on 3 October 2017, and that Senator Bushby is to be appointed a member of the committee on 17 August 2017 and discharged on 2 October 2017.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (09:37): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (09:37): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (09:39): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In moving that this bill be read a second time, I would like to dedicate this bill and its associated bills to my brother-in-law, Gary Warren, who—as I remarked at the National Press Club earlier this year, when I referred to him and his wife, Michelle—has been suffering from multiple sclerosis for many years, and a finer man I don't know, here in this country or anywhere else. He is an extraordinary individual, and his wife and family are everything I think Australian families would aspire to be. It was with him particularly in mind that these measures were brought forward by me as Treasurer in this year's budget and that these bills now find their way into this House.

With this bill, this government is instituting landmark reform to protect Australians in need through fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

This government does not just talk big when it comes to protecting our most vulnerable, but delivers decisively for the benefit of future and current Australian generations.

Sustainably funding our most important programs—such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme—is real, tangible change, not just an empty promise or hot air. It's real, and it will be real to the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Australians who will be impacted by this scheme in a positive way.

We also know that Australians support this change because they believe in looking after their mates, no matter what their own individual means or circumstances are. When we look after each other as a country, we don't look to our own means to see how much we can do; we look to the need of the person we are trying to help. That is an intrinsic Australian character, and it is that character upon which this bill is based. It is that character that I have seen demonstrated around the country in response to our call for Australians to support their mates who live with a disability and the families who live with them and care for them, along with their workmates, their friends, their associates and those they randomly come in contact with on the street and in public transport. It is about the empathy and the care and the passion that Australians feel for their mates, particularly those who suffer with a disability. It was my brother-in-law Gary who said, 'It's not flash being disabled, but, if there's anything good about it, it's that you're disabled in Australia.' That says a lot about the character of Australians. As I said, it is that character which is called upon in this bill.

Australians place great faith in our government's range of essential services. However, the burden is still too great on those living with a disability or caring for a family member. No-one can truly prepare for the hardship or cost of these responsibilities—which they bear through no fault of their own, through the cruel circumstances of life's fate.

By funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme, we are working to lighten their load, to ease their burden and provide a quality of care that they deserve; to give Australians living with a disability the absolute certainty that high-quality care will be provided for them, both now and into the future.

It is not just about easing their physical burden but easing the strain, the anxiety and the uncertainty that they also carry. This bill is about alleviating that pain, that burden, by delivering that certainty and by ensuring we focus on nothing else but them. This bill is about them. It's not about any other debate, it's not about any other issue, as meaningful or relevant as any of all those other issues might be that others may wish to raise, and indeed have sought to raise, in the course of this debate. But nothing is more important than those Australians to whom this bill is addressed. If this parliament cannot put them first, above every other issue in considering this bill, then members of this parliament who fail to do that will have failed the Australian people.

This is about properly caring for people with disabilities. It has nothing to do with the politics of envy or debates about inequality. Such debates should not be an excuse to do the wrong thing here, which is what Labor—as the opposition—have sadly committed themselves to. I pray that they will change their view and reconsider the position that they are taking. It has been reported that in their own internal discussions they have harboured great doubts about the path they have embarked upon. I hope that the better angels of the opposition prevail when it comes to considering this bill, and that they put Australians living with a disability, and their families, first.

That would simply mean that they would follow the same practice that they followed—as the government rightly acknowledges—when the Labor Party were in power under Prime Minister Julia Gillard and they brought this scheme into being. They brought this measure into the parliament, and they brought it in with an increase in the Medicare levy to help pay for it. Sadly, it didn't pay for all of it. But they gained the full support of the entire parliament. When this went through as an increase in the Medicare levy last time, no-one opposed it. Everyone supported it. I can't understand what has changed. Are Australians living with a disability finding it easier to do so than they were when this was first considered? Are their strains and pressures and anxieties any less? They're not. Will that be different 10 years from now, or 20 years from now? They will have to be dealing with it in the same way. Those of us who haven't been so unkindly touched by the hand of fate will go on with our lives, but they will have to labour under the burden that they will have to labour under. So, I can't understand: what has changed? These measures are not put in place for just the next two years or four years. In fact, the measures in the bill don't come into effect until 2019-20. They are put in place to ensure that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is funded to its full capacity, full-time, over decades and decades.

So, I urge the parliament to lift themselves out of the day-to-day morass of political debate and think about the long term. How many times have this chamber and the other, and politicians in general, been accused of focusing only on short-term political interests? I'm not a fan of increasing levies. This does not come naturally to me or those on this side of the House. But I am a fan of sticking up for your mates and I am a fan of supporting Australians living with disability, not just today but three decades from now. So I urge this parliament to rise above the ruck, to consider the long-term benefit and change that this bill provides, and give people who have had a pretty difficult lot in life the encouragement of this parliament by saying: 'We get it. We're going to put all of our other fights and all of our other nonsense aside. We're going to focus on you today and make sure, at the very least, that we do this.'

With this bill, the government is protecting essential disability support that Australians rely upon.

With this bill, the government is providing certainty. Certainty for people with a disability. Certainty for their families and carers. And certainty to all Australians who may find themselves in a situation that requires these services. Certainty that the National Disability Insurance Scheme will be fully funded for the long term.

Today, we can give that assurance to all Australians with permanent and significant disability and those who care for them that this vital service will be there for them into the future.

Let me now turn to the detail of the bill.

The Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017 is part of a package of measures to secure the Commonwealth's contribution to funding the NDIS.

This bill will increase the Medicare levy rate by half a percentage point, from two per cent to 2.5 per cent, from 1 July 2019.

Following this increase in the Medicare levy rate, one-fifth of the revenue raised by the Medicare levy will be credited to the NDIS Savings Fund Special Account. The NDIS Savings Fund Special Account will also hold NDIS underspends, selected saves across the government, and uncommitted funds from the Building Australia Fund and the Education Investment Fund, putting all that money into a lockbox for people with disabilities so never again can there be any questions that the NDIS is not fully funded. Along with the Commonwealth's share of the Disability Care Australia Fund and the repurposing of existing Commonwealth disability-related expenditure, all this meets the Commonwealth's contribution to the NDIS.

Low-income earners will continue to receive relief from the Medicare levy through the low-income thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners.

People who are exempt from the Medicare levy, such as blind pensioners and people who are entitled to full free medical treatment for all conditions under Defence Force arrangements or Veterans' Affairs repatriations health card (gold card), will continue to be exempt.

A number of other tax rates that are linked to the top marginal rate and the Medicare levy will also increase in line with this change, and these include increases in the rate of fringe benefits tax and superannuation excess non-concessional contributions tax.

In these bills, the same exemptions, the same carve-outs, the same protections for vulnerable Australians that exist for the Medicare levy exist for the increase in the Medicare levy to fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Now, if there are those who believe that those carve-outs, those protections for vulnerable Australians, are not strong enough, then I don't understand how that applies to a half a per cent increase in the Medicare levy but doesn't apply to the whole Medicare levy at all. It does puzzle me, the lack of consistency in that argument. The Medicare guarantee levy provides the carve-outs existing for vulnerable Australians—the same carve-outs that were endorsed and approved as being sufficient when the Medicare levy was last increased to support the National Disability Insurance Scheme. They were good enough then. They're apparently not good enough now. And you've got to wonder what's changed, other than the politics?

Bills to give effect to these amendments will also be introduced today and further details of these consequential increases are set out in the explanatory memorandum.

With the decision to increase the Medicare levy rate from 1 July 2019, this government is asking Australians to contribute—according to their capacity—to funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme and ensure it is guaranteed and secure for current and future generations. The more people earn, the more people will pay under this levy. This is an insurance levy. Everyone who is putting in is also someone who may rely on taking it out. And those millions of Australians who are not affected by this levy will also benefit from this competitive scheme.

A few years ago, the Leader of the Opposition asked Australians, as I referred to earlier, to do the same that we're asking this parliament to do now and contribute to the NDIS through a half a per cent increase in the Medicare levy.

The opposition leader voted yes then, and now he wants to vote no, pitting Australians against Australians over something that we should all be united on. When this government was in opposition, we understood and we came to the table. We met in the middle and we all voted on the same side.

When Labor left office in 2013, it is true that they left a $55.7 billion funding shortfall for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Now is the time to finally rectify that shortfall. This is why I now appeal to all in this parliament to put aside these squabbles on politics about funding, and do the right thing by our most vulnerable fellow Australians now.

By fully funding the NDIS, Australians with permanent and significant disability can be assured of access to vital care and support.

Let us not forget that the NDIS has had bipartisan support from the very beginning. Together, the Commonwealth and the states and territories are committed to delivering the NDIS across the country and the NDIS is on track to be fully rolled out from 2020.

But it is a big job, and the government needs to focus on delivering the NDIS, not squabbling with the opposition about how it's funded. We need to get past this debate and allow the efforts in this chamber and the other chamber to focus on delivering the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

There can be no turning back from that commitment. There must be no more playing politics with disability. Now is the time to fully fund the NDIS once and for all, and, with this bill, we will finally achieve that objective.

There will be an ensuing debate on this and the related bills. There will. And we will hear the arguments, we will hear the excuses from the opposition as to why they will not support people with disabilities now. They will only confirm in the minds of Australians, in making that point, that the Labor Party that had the courage to bring forward the National Disability Insurance Scheme and, more importantly, had the heart to do it, and to put the politics aside, is not the Labor Party that sits opposite us now. That's what's changed. The politics of cynicism, the politics of division, the politics of negativity have overtaken their commitment to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and that is a disappointing thing to have to say in this House.

This is one of the few things where I thought we would have agreement. I had hoped for agreement. I had hoped for the support to be forthcoming from the opposition, given their authorship of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and our acknowledgement of that authorship, of which Prime Minister Gillard should be truly proud. Her successors who sit on the opposition benches are letting her down, as well as all of those she worked with to bring this scheme into being. And I would ask them to reconsider their position, as clearly many in their number are urging their cynical leadership to do.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (09:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill forms part of a package of bills that supports the government's commitment to fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (09:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill forms part of a package of bills that supports the government's commitment to fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (10:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill forms part of a package of bills that supports the government's commitment to fully fund the NDIS.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (10:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill forms part of a package of bills that supports the government's commitment to fully fund the NDIS.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (10:02): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill forms part of a package of bills that supports the government's commitment to fully fund the NDIS.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (10:03): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill forms part of a package of bills that supports the government's commitment to fully fund the NDIS.

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.

This bill forms part of a package of bills that supports the government's commitment to fully fund the NDIS.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (10:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill forms part of a package of bills that support the government's commitment to fully fund the NDIS.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (10:06): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill forms part of a package of bills that support the government's commitment to fully fund the NDIS.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (10:07): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I thank the House for its patience with the introduction of these many associated bills. They are all designed to do one thing, and that is to ensure that Australians living with disabilities get the support they need, that the funding is there, that certainty is provided and that we do the right thing by our mates.

This bill forms part of a package of bills that support the government's commitment to fully fund the NDIS.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (10:08): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill 2017 implements a first phase of reforms from a comprehensive review of Australia's anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) regime.

The report on the review was tabled in parliament in 2016. It made 84 recommendations to strengthen, streamline and simplify Australia's AML/CTF regime.

Australia's regime must keep pace with international trends and developments in order to combat and disrupt money laundering and terrorism financing.

Money laundering and terrorism financing methods—by their very nature—continue to evolve and criminals will look for new ways that they can exploit opportunities and avoid detection.

Technological advances, market developments and the emergence of new products and services can create new and emerging risks that currently fall outside the scope of Australia's AML/CTF regime.

Technological advances can also generate opportunities for more efficient and effective regulation.

The bill implements a number of priority measures that will modernise our AML/CTF regime. It will:

regulate digital currency providers for the first time

reduce red tape and provide efficiencies and relief to industry

strengthen AUSTRAC's role as the financial intelligence unit and AML/CTF regulator

enhance Australia's ability to enforce the reporting of cross-border movements of physical currency and bearer negotiable instruments such as travellers' cheques

improve compliance with the international standards for combating money laundering and terrorism financing set by the Financial Action Task Force, and

make a number of minor administrative and definitional changes.

Closing a regulatory gap

Australia's AML/CTF regime was developed at a time that did not contemplate the use of digital currencies such as bitcoin. Bitcoin now represents more than half of the total market capitalisation of all digital currencies, which is currently close to a staggering $112 billion Australian dollars.

Digital currencies largely operate outside of the regulated financial system. They are becoming an increasingly popular method of payment for goods and services, and transferring value, in the Australian economy.

It is recognised globally that convertible digital currencies, such as bitcoin, pose significant money laundering and terrorism financing risks because they allow people to move money around the world on a peer-to-peer basis without revealing their identity.

In view of these risks, the report on the review recommended that the AML/CTF Act should be amended to regulate activities relating to convertible digital currencies.

The bill regulates digital currency exchanges, as this is the point where digital currencies intersect with the regulated financial system.

Businesses that trade digital currencies for money, and vice versa, will be required to:

enrol and register with AUSTRAC

establish, implement and maintain an AML/CTF program, which sets the framework for businesses to comply with their obligations, including customer due diligence requirements

report threshold transactions and suspicious matters to AUSTRAC, and

keep appropriate records.

Closing this regulatory gap will have a number of important benefits. It will:

deter criminals from using convertible digital currencies to move illicit funds and avoid detection

facilitate the collection of transactional information about exchanges in digital currency for use by law enforcement, intelligence and national security agencies, and

align Australia with comparable countries such as the USA, Canada and the member states of the European Union.

The Attorney-General's Department has consulted extensively with the digital currency sector about regulating it under the AML/CTF regime.

Most businesses in the digital currency exchange sector welcome the introduction of AML/CTF regulation, as they are already mindful of the risks posed by the services they provide. Many digital currency exchange providers already comply with a voluntary code of conduct that includes guidance on measures for protecting their services from illicit exploitation for money laundering and terrorism financing purposes. Industry representatives have noted that AML/CTF regulation of activities relating to convertible digital currencies will bolster public and consumer confidence in the sector.

Regulation under the AML/CTF regime will formalise these measures and reinforce the legitimacy of digital currency exchanges. An appropriate transition period will also ensure the burden of complying with the new regulatory regime is limited.

Providing regulatory relief to industry

The report on the review made a number of recommendations to provide industry with regulatory relief by simplifying and streamlining these requirements.

These recommendations are consistent with the government's agenda to cut red tape and reduce the costs of complying with Commonwealth regulation.

The bill deregulates two sectors:

cash-in-transit operators, and

some insurance intermediaries and general insurance providers.

The money laundering and terrorism financing risks posed by the services provided by these two sectors is considered low. The report on the AML/CTF regime considered the risk and recommended deregulation by repealing these designated services.

The deregulation of the cash-in-transit sector will deliver savings of approximately $326 million over the next 10 years. Deregulating some insurance intermediaries and general insurance providers will also deliver savings of over half a million dollars over the same period.

The bill also makes a number of changes to improve the operation of the correspondent banking provisions under the AML/CTF Act and better align them with current international banking practice.

This includes:

clarifying the types of accounts that the correspondent banking obligations apply to, and

broadening the scope of correspondent-banking relationships to capture relationships with 'nonbanks' that provide banking services.

The latter change will remove a competitive disadvantage currently faced by Australian banks when engaging in correspondent-banking relationships with 'nonbanks'.

The bill also enhances the ability of related corporate bodies to share information within their group about the money-laundering and terrorism risks associated with a shared customer.

The AML/CTF Act allows some associated businesses or persons to join together as a 'group' and share certain obligations to minimise their compliance burden.

The existing definition of a 'group' does not reflect the way businesses actually structure themselves into 'corporate groups', particularly multinational corporate groups. This prevents businesses from sharing information about shared customers and impedes the ability of the group to manage risks associated with that customer.

The bill will insert a new definition of a 'group' to better reflect the reality of business structures and allow these related corporate bodies to better manage risks across the group.

Enhance enforcement of cross-border reporting obligations

The AML/CTF Act establishes a reporting regime for the cross-border movement of physical currency and bearer negotiable instruments, such as travellers cheques.

The bill will strengthen the ability of police and Customs officers to enforce these reporting obligations, establishing search and seize powers for cash, travellers cheques and other items.

The search and seizure powers will be available for the police and Customs officers to use where:

there are reasonable grounds for suspecting money laundering, terrorism financing or other serious criminal offences, or

there has been a breach of the cross-border reporting requirements under the AML/CTF Act.

The bill will also establish civil penalty orders for the offences under sections 199 and 200 of the AML/CTF Act, which are currently only subject to criminal penalties. A civil penalty option would provide law enforcement greater flexibility in responding in a proportionate manner to such breaches.

Strengthening AUSTRAC's role: Expanded powers and functions

AUSTRAC has a dual role as Australia's financial intelligence unit and AML/CTF regulator.

Over the past seven years, the role played by AUSTRAC has evolved. AUSTRAC now plays a greater role in supporting international and collaborative efforts to combat and disrupt money laundering, terrorism financing, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other serious crimes.

The bill will update the powers and functions of the AUSTRAC CEO to better reflect and support the full range of work performed by AUSTRAC, giving a legislative basis to this work.

This includes:

a broader power to retain, compile, analyse and disseminate AUSTRAC information

a general power to do all things necessary or conducive to the proper performance of any of the AUSTRAC CEO's functions

a new function of providing access to, and the sharing of, AUSTRAC information to support domestic and international efforts to combat and disrupt money laundering, terrorism financing and other serious crimes, and

a new function to ensure that the AUSTRAC CEO can access on a timely basis the financial, administrative, and law enforcement information required to properly undertake his or her financial intelligence functions.

Strengthening AUSTRAC's role: Retrospective remedial directions

The report on the AML/CTF review recommended that the AUSTRAC CEO be given a power to issue remedial directions to require regulated businesses to retrospectively rectify contraventions of a civil penalty provision.

Where a regulated business has failed to submit certain financial transaction reports, the ability to retrospectively secure compliance may enable a financial intelligence gap to be addressed.

The bill establishes checks and balances for the exercise of this power. In particular, it will not apply to any conduct that occurred before this bill enters into law.

Strengthening AUSTRAC's role: Registration of remitters

The bill will implement a number of review recommendations to clarify and strengthen the ability of the AUSTRAC CEO to deal with the registration of remitters.

The remittance sector is diverse, ranging from large organisations that oversee international remittance networks to smaller, informal money-transfer systems that often operate outside the regulated financial system.

The services provided by remitters are considered to pose a high risk of money laundering and terrorism financing because they operate outside of the conventional banking system and often involve sending money to places that do not have established, modern banking networks.

Remitters operating in Australia are regulated under the AML/CTF Act. They must register with AUSTRAC and apply for renewal of registration every three years and are subject to AML/CTF compliance and reporting obligations.

The bill will give the AUSTRAC CEO stronger powers to effectively supervise the registration of remitters and assist in addressing some of the risks posed by the sector.

The b ill will enable the AUSTRAC CEO to cancel the registration of a person if the AUSTRAC CEO is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person is no longer conducting remittance activities.

A power to suspend or cancel a remitter's registration once the registered remitter ceases to carry on a remittance business would ensure that dormant registration certificates are not used by third parties to avoid AUSTRAC scrutiny.

If a registered remitter appears to have an inactive registration, the AUSTRAC CEO would be required to issue a notice setting out the CEO's decision to cancel registration and the date from which registration will be cancelled. A decision to cancel registration would be reviewable.

The bill will also clarify that the AUSTRAC CEO has the power to renew registrations with conditions and that a decision to refuse an application for renewal of registration is reviewable.

Strengthening AUSTRAC's role: expanded infringement notice provisions

The use of infringement notices under the AML/CTF Act is currently restricted to six minor regulatory offences.

For contraventions of other minor regulatory offences under the AML/CTF Act, the AUSTRAC CEO must conduct civil proceedings through the Federal C ourt.

This process is costly and time- consuming and does not always allow AUSTRAC to respond in a timely and proportionate manner to secure compliance.

The report on the review recommended extending the use of infringement notices under the AML/CTF Act. The bill implements this recommendation and extends the use of infringement notices to an additional 11 minor regulatory offences.

This will give the AUSTRAC CEO additional, more expedient and efficient means for promoting and encouraging compliance as an alternative to applying for a civil penalty order through the Federal Court.

Administrative and definitional changes

The bill will also implement a number of minor amendments to the AML/CTF Act.

This includes:

requiring the AUSTRAC CEO to only grant exemptions which could reasonably be expected to impact on money laundering or terrorism financing risk to be satisfied that the risk associated with that exemption is low, and

expanding the objects of the AML/CTF Act to reflect the domestic objectives of the legislation.

Conclusion

This bill is the first legislative instrument to implement recommendations of the review of the AML/CTF regime.

The statutory review provided an opportunity to shape a modern AML/CTF regime that positions Australia to address current and future challenges.

The Attorney-General's Department and AUSTRAC consulted extensively with industry during the review of the regime to ensure that any reforms are relevant, efficient and effective.

The department and AUSTRAC also consulted with industry during the development of the reforms in this bill.

This genuine dialogue between government and industry will continue during the other implementation phase of this bill. I commend this first phase of these very important reforms to ensure that Australia has a world-leading anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing regime to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Human Services) (10:24): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill provides the underpinning legislative authority to enable the expansion of the cashless debit card into new regions.

The government is committed to addressing the serious harm which is caused by alcohol, gambling and drug abuse paid for by welfare payments.

Welfare payments are provided to people in need to help with essential living costs, in particular food, clothing, shelter, and transportation. They are not provided to fuel significant drug, alcohol and gambling problems.

Alcohol is a contributing factor to an estimated 65 per cent of all domestic violence incidents and 47 per cent of child abuse cases in some jurisdictions. Alcohol related harm and illicit drug use costs the Australian economy over $22 billion each year.

The cashless debit card aims to reduce the devastating effects of welfare fuelled alcohol, drug and gambling abuse. The card operates like an ordinary debit card, with the primary difference being that it does not work at liquor stores or gambling houses and cash cannot be withdrawn from it. Consequently, illicit products cannot be purchased with it. The welfare payments are placed into an individual's account which is only accessible by this card.

The card has been in operation since March of 2016 when the first of two 12-month trials began. The first trial was in Ceduna in South Australia. The second trial, in Kununurra and Wyndham in the East Kimberley, began soon afterwards. In each of these trial locations, 80 per cent of an individual's welfare payments are placed into their cashless debit card account, with the remaining 20 per cent being placed into their ordinary savings account.

The results of the trials are encouraging. There is less public drunkenness, less gambling, fewer alcohol related hospital admissions, and people are engaging with the support services and working to improve their lives.

The wave 1 report of the independent evaluation being undertaken by ORIMA Research concluded that the trial:

Overall … has been effective to date … In particular, the Trial has been effective in reducing alcohol consumption, illegal drug use and gambling—establishing a clear 'proof-of-concept'

The evaluation found that about a third of surveyed participants reported a reduction in alcohol consumption, gambling or illegal drug use. In addition, over 30 per cent of people reported being able to look after their children better, and being able to save more money.

The draft of the final evaluation indicates that these results have improved even further.

The bill itself amends the existing legislation to enable the cashless debit card to operate in further locations. It removes section 124PF of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, which limits the number of locations, participants and end date of the cashless debit card trial.

Removing this section will support the extension of arrangements in current sites, and enable the expansion of the cashless debit card to further sites, which were announced as part of the 2017 budget.

Many communities have expressed interest in having the card introduced into their regions, and we have been communicating and consulting with them.

Under the legislation, the locations, cohorts covered and timing of the operation of the cashless debit card will still be determined by a disallowable instrument. These instruments can also specify other parameters, including sunset dates and participant criteria. What this means is that the government can work with individual communities to co-design the particular parameters, and tailor the program to suit that particular community's needs. It also ensures that the parliament itself retains the right to consider each proposed new cashless debit card site on a case-by-case basis.

The cashless debit card is a world first in how it operates. The trials have been completed, an evaluation has been conducted, and it's been shown to work and now there's an opportunity to expand the cashless debit card to new locations. This bill will allow this to occur.

Debate adjourned.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (10:29): I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: HMAS Moreton Unit Relocation Project, HMAS Moreton, Bulimba, Queensland.

The Department of Defence is proposing to construct new facilities and provide new services on HMAS Moreton, Bulimba, Queensland. The proposed works to be delivered from this project include the provision of facilities to support Moreton's operations and to re-establish the base infrastructure with the reduced site. The project aims to provide a fully functioning, work-health-and-safety compliant and secure Defence site for Moreton to conduct operations and support functions for all current and future planned Royal Australian Navy activities. The scope of works includes a new multi-purpose building for office accommodation, classrooms and living-in accommodation. The engineering requirements include the extension of a council road, a new entry gate, a new boat ramp, internal road network, security fencing and connection to potable water, sewerage, stormwater and electrical services.

The Public Works Committee has conducted an inquiry and is of the view that the project signifies value for money for the Commonwealth and constitutes a project which is fit for purpose and expedient to carry out. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for, once again, undertaking a timely inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in November 2017 and be completed by February 2019. With that, I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (10:31): I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: LAND 155—Enhanced Gap Crossing Capability Facilities Project.

The Department of Defence is proposing to build new and upgraded facilities to support the sustainment and maintenance of and training in the enhanced gap crossing capability at four locations across Australia. The project will deliver facilities and infrastructure at Wallangarra, Townsville in Queensland—I note the presence of the member for Herbert in the chamber—Darwin in the Northern Territory and Sydney in New South Wales. It will include permanent facilities for the storage of critical bridging equipment and an open storage hardstand to sustain and maintain the new capacity. The new and upgraded facilities will give the Australian Army a bridging capacity through the acquisition of operationally deployable solutions for use in a broad range of military and humanitarian activities. The proposed works will support an important Defence capability and allow more efficient and effective training to prepare the Australian Defence Force for deployment on operations to enhance Australia's security.

The Public Works Committee has conducted an inquiry and is of the view that the project signifies value for money for the Commonwealth and constitutes a project which is fit for purpose and expedient to carry out. On behalf of the government, I would, again, like to thank the committee for undertaking a timely inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is scheduled to commence in September 2017 and is expected to be completed by April 2018. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (10:34): I present the report from the Publications Committee, sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of that report will be placed on the table.

Report—by leave—agreed to.

Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (10:34): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled Modern slavery and global supply chains: interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's inquiry into establishing a modern slavery act in Australia.

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

Mr CREWTHER: by leave—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, it is my pleasure to present today the committee's interim report for the inquiry into establishing a modern slavery act in Australia. I am honoured to chair the Foreign Affairs and Aid Subcommittee, which initiated and is undertaking this inquiry and which produced this report.

Modern slavery is a heinous crime that devastates millions of people around the world. Slavery is not a crime of the past but is all around us today. 'Modern slavery' is an umbrella term describing a range of crimes including human trafficking, forced labour, bonded labour, child labour, forced marriage, orphanage trafficking, sexual slavery and other slavery-like practices. An estimated 46 million people are victims of modern slavery around the world, including over 30 million victims in our Asia-Pacific region.

The committee's inquiry is investigating how Australia's laws, policies and practices can be improved to better combat modern slavery here and around the world. The inquiry is in particular looking at whether measures similar to or improving upon the United Kingdom's Modern Slavery Act 2015 could be introduced here. This interim report outlines recommendations, statements of in-principle support and considerations focusing on combating modern slavery in the global supply chains of companies, businesses, organisations and governments operating in Australia. The committee resolved to prepare this report to help inform the Australian government's contribution to the Bali Process forum in Perth on 24 and 25 August next week, with the full content of a modern slavery act and other recommended changes to be considered in our final report.

The committee has heard about the devastating impact of these appalling crimes around the world. At its recent hearing in Melbourne, it heard the shocking experiences of Ms Sophea Touch, who became a domestic slave in Cambodia when she was just four years old. Throughout her childhood, Ms Touch was forced to work in appalling conditions as she was passed from one family to another, each more abusive and violent than the next. She was starved, beaten and abused. She could not escape. She was a modern day slave. This human example highlights the importance of this inquiry to ensuring Australia is doing all it can to eradicate modern slavery.

To date, the committee has received and published over 200 submissions and held public hearings in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne, with further hearings planned in regional Australia. Submitters and witnesses have made many recommendations to improve Australia's response to modern slavery, including prevention measures, support for victims, improvements to Australia's visa regime, and prevention of orphanage tourism. The committee thanks all submitters and witnesses who have contributed so far.

As noted, this interim report focuses on supply chains. Under the UK Modern Slavery Act, businesses and organisations operating in the UK with a turnover of 36 million pounds—about A$60 million—must report annually on measures taken to ensure that their global supply chains are free of modern slavery. Similar reporting requirements have also been introduced in the United States and elsewhere in Europe. This interim report summarises the evidence heard by the committee so far. Overwhelmingly, there has been strong support for the introduction of a modern slavery act, including global supply chain reporting requirements and an independent anti-slavery commissioner. Businesses, unions and NGOs are all largely supportive of introducing supply chain reporting requirements here in Australia to raise awareness of modern slavery risk, to eradicate these crimes where found, to reduce corporate risk, to provide investor confidence and to ensure a fair market where businesses using modern slavery do not have a competitive advantage over those doing the right thing.

This interim report highlights a number of key principles, raised by submitters and witnesses, that an Australian supply chain reporting requirement should include. These include support for consistency with international jurisdictions and best practice, mandated supply chain reporting and the establishment of a central repository of modern slavery statements. The report makes three recommendations. The first is:

… that the Australian Government consider supporting in-principle the development of a Modern Slavery Act in Australia, including supply chain reporting requirements for companies, businesses, organisations and governments in Australia, as well as an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner …

This reflects the strong support the committee heard for these measures. The second recommendation is that the government consider this recommendation as part of Australia's contribution to the Bali process forum next week. The final recommendation is that the government consider this interim report as part of its current review of corporate reporting in the UK and around the world, with a view to developing legislation in Australia. I'm very pleased to note on this point that in the last week the Australian government has come out in support of legislation to introduce mandated business supply chain reporting, with a proposed $100 million threshold at this stage, and has agreed to a central repository and opened up consultation on these proposals in conjunction with our inquiry.

Importantly, the report also offers in principle support for and consideration of several key principles suggested by submitters and witnesses, including the introduction of a threshold above which businesses and organisations have to report; an optional opt-in for those companies and organisations below the threshold to submit an optional modern slavery statement; a central repository; an independent anti-slavery commissioner; applying reporting requirements to government procurement, which is a key criticism of the UK act; publishing a list of companies who need to report, as well as those who don't report; penalties for companies that don't report; looking at prescribing and reporting requirements in due diligence; and providing guidance for businesses. The report also identifies a number of areas for further consideration, including what possible penalties could be, the role of an independent anti-slavery commissioner, and other measures to combat modern slavery. The committee will continue to investigate these issues in its final report in accordance with our terms of reference, providing further direction to the government on modern slavery legislation.

We have a unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take the lead on stamping out modern slavery for good, particularly with over 30 million victims in our region. I'm proud of the Turnbull coalition government, who initiated this inquiry, who took the proverbial bull by the horns, as well as the bipartisan support this issue has now generated. In particular, I would like to thank the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General, the deputy chair of the inquiry, Senator Alex Gallacher, and colleagues on the committee. Let us not miss the opportunity to continue to take action on this issue. I look forward to working with the committee for the reminder of this inquiry to recommend, and then see implemented, strong action to eradicate this appalling crime. Modern slavery must stop. I commend the interim report to the House. I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (10:43): I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ) (10:43): The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Ms KEAY (Braddon) (10:44): It is a great pleasure that, as a member of an electorate in regional Australia, I get to speak on the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017. What we heard this week in relation to this bill is those opposite trying to praise the Deputy Prime Minister—the minister who brought this bill into the parliament, the minister whose legitimacy to stand in this place, to sit on the front bench, is in question. And those opposite are saying, 'We're the party of regional Australia; we're the party that now has to bring forward this election commitment, this corporation.'

But the history of this government is continued backflipping on these policy commitments that they make. The backpacker tax was a real corker of a one that really had a huge impact on regional Australia. Having these commitments doesn't actually make these commitments good policy. This bill hasn't got a lot going for it, really.

Those opposite are saying that the Deputy Prime Minister is out there, getting out of his electorate of New England, across regional Australia. Sure, he might go out to regional New South Wales, regional Queensland or a little bit of regional Victoria, where the National Party holds seats, but I can tell you now: this Deputy Prime Minister, this Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, very rarely comes to my regional state of Tasmania. In fact, last year, I wrote to the minister when I was newly elected, because my farmers said to me—those dairy farmers who were hit hard by the dairy crisis—that they were not hearing anything from the government or any support for them. So I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister and I said, 'Please come to my state, to my electorate, to my farmers and talk to those farmers.' And he didn't say a word.

Now, this is around the household assistance package for those farmers. That package took the farmers forever to actually apply for; it took them so much time and even a lot of money to actually get their application ready. The reply from the Deputy Prime Minister was a bit of, 'Too bad, so sad. That's the process you have to go through. But I'm not even willing to come to Tasmania to talk to you.' But he's willing to go to National Party seats. That's perfectly fine, but if you're going to be a minister for agriculture—maybe a legitimate minister for agriculture, and we'll see how that pans out—then you need to go through the whole regional area and all the farming areas of this great country of ours.

When we talk about this bill, it talks about the farm concessional loans, which this corporation will look over. There's $4 billion sitting there that farmers aren't even taking up. You have to ask the question of why. I think that's something that the corporation will probably do some work into. I'm the deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, and we're doing an inquiry into irrigation at the moment. Farmers and irrigation bodies are saying to us that one real concern for those farmers, who are looking at water efficiency, is energy prices. That is something that this government is in a policy paralysis on. They're not offering any hope to these farmers that they can then switch to more efficient ways of delivering water when there's this high cost of energy associated with that. So a lot of farmers are now probably going back to diesel generation for their pumps. They're not getting the water efficiencies that we so desperately need, particularly in areas like the Murray-Darling, which has been the topic of conversation quite a lot.

What this minister talks a lot about is water development. Since the election of last year, in this current parliament, he has been to Tasmania just once. Just once, for a little fleeting visit to the Southern Midlands irrigation scheme. This is one of those things that is quite quirky about all this: this corporation is going to talk about how we can fast-track the construction of dams and priority water infrastructure, but not one irrigation scheme in Tasmania and not one dam project in Tasmania was ever thought of, funded and committed to by the coalition or the Liberal party at a state level. We have had significant amounts of federal and state money invested into water infrastructure in Tasmania. Every project has been delivered by Labor or planned by Labor. But it's fine for the Deputy Prime Minister to come to my state and claim credit for at least one scheme. There's one that's being built in my electorate in Smithton. The Deputy Prime Minister may very well claim credit for that one as well, but it has all been planned by Labor and I doubt he will pass that credit onto us.

But there's another part of this legislation that is quite concerning, and that's around where this corporation is going to be located. When you have, before the corporation has even started, said, 'Right, we're going to put this corporation in Orange,' then I have to ask: what is the process? You have to ask yourself what the actual process is. They are putting this corporation, with a number of employees to be employed by it, in a location without a process.

The funny thing is that this process that the government has actually looked at to put it here is not even a process. It's a determination that they used when the Deputy Prime Minister decided that he would put the APVMA in his home town of Armidale. If that's not pork-barrelling, then I don't know what is. I say that because that was an absolute disaster, and we all know that. We had our public servants working out of McDonald's, for goodness sake, because the Deputy Prime Minister was adamant that that's where it had to go.

Now we've got the corporation going to Orange, which is fine. That's great for Orange. I think there are 30 jobs, and its operation costs will be $20-odd million a year that this corporation will have. But even those who have consulted on this bill are asking, 'Why is it going to be here?' The Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia are asking, 'Why has there been a unilateral decision made on this question?' But no-one can tell us why, and I think this is fine if you look at who's actually in the seat of Orange—the member for Calare! It's great for him. He's already talking this up. I think you have to look at whether this is a little bit of a nudge and a wink from the Deputy Prime Minister for the member for Calare where he's saying: 'I'll look after you, mate. I'll look after you.'

Why couldn't this corporation be in a place like Burnie in my electorate, Bairnsdale, Ballina, Bowen, Devonport in my electorate, Deniliquin or Derby? Why weren't they considered? Has the Deputy Prime Minister just spun the wheel and gone: 'We'll put it in Orange because that's where one of my colleagues is. I think the history of that electorate is it was one that was held by Labor for a number of years, then it went independent and now the Nationals have picked it up. We'll bring some jobs there.' That's fine. We're very supportive of decentralisation on this side of the House—absolutely. It has its place, but you have to look at where these people go and what functions they're going to be providing in the service that they're in.

The APVMA was totally one that doesn't work, and I've spoken to people like the CPSU around how we can get decentralisation and bring some of the public sector jobs to Tasmania. We're very cautious about looking at what the functions are that we can support in a state like Tasmania, which is quite removed from Canberra—absolutely. You have to be smart about this. You have to actually think about where these jobs should go. You can't bring a group of highly skilled specialised scientists from Canberra to Armidale and expect it to work without actually doing some consultation. But, no, the Deputy Prime Minister wanted the APVMA right there in Armidale. What about this corporation? The Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia are suggesting it should be in Canberra. That's fairly reasonable. Was that considered? Who knows?

This is quite an amazing bill! This went through the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and there was a dissenting report. I'm just trying to find it amongst all my papers here because it's quite interesting what they have actually come up with. The dissenting report states:

… that the Government:-

Has failed to provide any coherent policy rationale for the establishment of—

this corporation. That's because the functions of this corporation actually exist. The water development projects that happened in Tasmania happened, and they happened well. The future of water development in Tasmania is very, very unknown. We don't know what's going to happen with further opportunities that might arise or that have been identified by Tasmania Irrigation because the government's not really focused on it. Will the corporation focus on the future irrigation needs of Tasmania or dam construction? Who knows? The government has offered mixed messages when enunciating the policy objectives for the establishment of this corporation and has failed to undertake a cost-benefit analysis to give confidence that the $28 million cost of establishing and operating the corporation delivers good value for the Australian taxpayer. That's absolutely quite extraordinary, really. It goes on and on. Thank you to those senators who have provided that dissenting report.

But there's one other issue that others who have looked at this bill and provided some commentary on it have raised, and that is the governance structure. The government has made a really slight amendment to this and they have now established that the board of this corporation will consist of a chair and two people. That's to look after $4 billion of taxpayers' money—two people. Now I think they have extended it in their amendment—because they thought, 'Oh, maybe that's a bit low'—to three. I know that the National Farmers' Federation in their submission stated, 'Oh, gosh, if you're going to be looking after $4 billion, we need a better governance structure here,' and they've suggested at least six. But the government hasn't listened. Of course, they haven't listened. This is $4 billion of taxpayers' funds that is going to be held under a board of three people. There's no accountability around this. If you actually look at the bill, the accountability structure particularly for this parliament is pretty non-existent. When you're dealing with $4 billion of taxpayers' money and you've got a Deputy Prime Minister that said, 'Oh, we're going to place it in Orange, in a National Party-held seat, and we've got a board of a couple of people that are going to dish out this money for water infrastructure development and support for farmers,' where's the scrutiny in it? It's not in this bill.

This parliament has limited say as to what is going to happen under this corporation. A lot of these functions happen now, with our states and territories looking after concessional loans. That's been happening with water development. This goes back to the government having a lack of policy for water development into the future. And I'm sure my colleague the member for Herbert can talk a lot about the lack of water development policy that this government has undertaken, particularly in Northern Australia. The future in irrigation development in my state of Tasmania is really at a standstill. But, thanks to Labor, it has been continuing for the last 10 years with the construction of the Meander Dam in 2007.

This government in the previous parliament and this parliament has really done nothing about water development for Tasmania or Northern Australia for that matter. The policy paralysis around energy is quite staggering. What farmers talk to us quite a lot about, particularly in the agriculture and water community, is: what is going to happen with energy and energy costs and the impost that has on my farming operation? They really do not know. The Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development in Western Australia stated in their submission that anything less than the four members on the board may be perceived as government leaving the decision-making for the $4 billion portfolio in the hands of two people. Two ministers will be overseeing this corporation—the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, but the parliament will not necessarily get a say on it. The government has made four tiny, tiny amendments to this bill after it went through the scrutiny process, with submissions from the National Farmers' Federation, bodies in WA, the DPI, and pastoralists and graziers. The government came up with four teeny, tiny amendments that do not get to the heart of what some of these issues are. I say to the parliament: you just can't support this bill. This needs far more work from a Deputy Prime Minister whose legitimacy in this place is under question and whose record is clearly around pork-barrelling and looking after his mates but not regional Australia—certainly not my regional state of Tasmania, which he's been to once. I've invited him to come to my state—no strings attached. I know that the state Liberal Party don't want him there, because I've had members of the Tasmanian Liberal Party tell me that. And that is sad. That is really sad. I hope we can get over this and I hope this government can start looking at the issues that matter to our farmers the most.

Mr PASIN (Barker) (10:59): I commend the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 to the House. What we're looking at here is delivering the Commonwealth's farm business concessional loans through a system which is nationally consistent. Why? Because the current system, where the concessional loans are allocated through the states, is simply not feasible in the long term. It significantly limits the Commonwealth's ability to respond to the changing needs of the farming sector. With each state delivering the program, loan decisions are not being made in a consistent way across the country.

How do I know that? I know that because I come from South Australia. In my time in this House, my electorate, sadly, has had to deal with drought and the dairy crisis. During the drought, in much of the upper south-east there were farmers across the districts pleading with government for access to drought concessional loans. Of course, funding was made available by the federal government, but applications needed to be made to Primary Industries and Regions, South Australia—the South Australian state department—under the leadership of the current Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries in South Australia, Labor's Leon Bignell. Despite there being incredible need and hardship, despite me sitting at the breakfast table with farmer after farmer pouring their hearts out to me about the circumstances they found themselves in, the financial stress that was transposing itself into personal stress in their family lives, with stories of marital break-ups and difficulty with children and their education, what did we see? We saw a few paltry crumbs off the table arriving to the odd—and I say 'odd'—farmer in South Australia.

You don't need to take my word for it. You perhaps wouldn't want to. But a recent National Audit Office report found that, because of the very low number of successful applications in South Australia, processing costs for each successful application in South Australia for the concessional loans program amounted to—wait for it—$416,000. These loans were available up to $1 million. So, in going through the process of assessing these loans, the South Australian department effectively rendered an invoice to the Commonwealth for each successful application for $416,000. When I calculated the net benefit to the small number of farmers that got access to the concessional loans, it was a small fraction of what the state government had charged the Commonwealth for administering the program. This just can't go on.

Those opposite seem to be railing against it. But do you know who's not railing against it? It's the minister for agriculture in South Australia. Even Leon Bignell gets that the gig's up. Agriculture minister Leon Bignell said he welcomed a nationally administered scheme. Maybe those opposite—the member for Hunter, in particular—haven't got the memo. We have the state Labor agriculture minister saying: 'Please, take this burden away from me. I'm incapable of administering this program consistently or at least consistent with other jurisdictions.'

I have spoken about the drought, but let me speak about dairy farmers and dairy farming. It is a significant industry in my electorate. They are farmers who, probably more than most, are heavily indebted and highly geared because of the nature of the farm work they undertake. I take my lead from serious advocates in this space, particularly those in South Australia. I refer to Andrew Curtis, who is the chief executive of the South Australian Dairyfarmers' Association. What did he say on this front? He said—and it's not too much to ask:

We want clarity (around the scheme) and we’re not getting it from the State Government, so from that point of view it would be good if the Federal Government took it over.

If those opposite are not prepared to accept that the National Audit Office was gobsmacked at the cost of administering the scheme in South Australia, if they're not prepared to accept the plea from the Labor minister for agriculture in South Australia, could they please listen to the South Australian dairy sector? They said:

… from that point of view it would be good if the Federal Government took it over.

I'm not particularly disturbed by the attitude of those opposite—I understand that, invariably, if I come into this place and say, 'White is white,' those opposite will say, 'No, white is black,' and we'll go on this never-ending carousel ride of yes/no blame politics.

What I was most disturbed by yesterday was the contribution from the member for Hunter. The shadow minister with responsibility for this sector indicated to the House yesterday that this bill did not have the support of the Senate crossbench. It takes a bit to shock me. My staff entered my office and asked if something serious had happened. I had gone white, because I thought, 'I get that those opposite are just going to play politics, but not the Senate crossbench, not Senator Xenophon.' I remember Senator Xenophon leading a Friesian heifer in support of the dairy industry. Indeed, Senator Xenophon ran a candidate against me who, by the way, didn't live in my electorate, but was previously associated with the dairy sector. I thought that, of all the crossbenchers, he would be the one rushing to support a bill which has been called for by the South Australian Dairyfarmers Association and Primary Producers SA and supported by the National Farmers' Federation. Hence I had gone white—this could not be true; this could not be right.

So I made inquiries. At this stage, the only person we have on the record is the member for Hunter. He is speaking on behalf of the coalition of Labor and minor parties, but the good news is I see from the speaking list that after my contribution there will be a contribution from the member for Mayo. The member for Mayo is the only person in this House who represents the Nick Xenophon SA Best party. She represents an electorate that has a significant proportion of dairy farmers and dairy farming industries. She has an opportunity, when she makes her contribution in this place, to give unconditional support to this bill—not conditional support, not in-principle support, not any other series of words that seek to enable Senator Xenophon's flexibility in the other place; the member for Mayo has to walk into this place and say, 'Madam Deputy Speaker, colleagues, anyone listening around the nation, we in the NXT unconditionally support this bill, because we unconditionally support dairy farmers and unconditionally support farmers around Australia.'

If she is unable to do that then, in effect, she and the Nick Xenophon Team are saying that they're perfectly comfortable with Minister Leon Bignell in South Australia and his department continuing to administer these loans. They might be perfectly comfortable with that, but I've spoken to a number of dairy farmers and I'm yet to find a farmer, let alone a dairy farmer, who's comfortable with that position. If it is the case that we end up in a situation where the member for Mayo is incapable of confirming in this place that her Senate colleagues will unconditionally support this bill in the other place, she is going to have to deal with some seriously angry farmers. It wouldn't be my approach, if I could offer them some free advice.

Why are the dairy men and women of South Australia angry? Well, in dairy recovery concessional loans alone, the federal government made available $15 million to South Australian dairy farmers. Bear in mind that these are dairy farmers who are dealing with a crisis the likes of which we haven't seen in this sector. The commodity price hasn't so much fallen as taken a nosedive off a cliff. Of course, this is a sector which is particularly input hungry—that is, the cost of churning out milk involves significant inputs. Those inputs are expensive and, at this point, there are a number of dairy farmers who are operating below the cost of production or at least achieving prices below the cost of production.

So you would have thought that every single dollar allocated by the federal government to this program for the benefit of South Australian dairy farmers would have been allocated to them—every single dollar—and every application would have been accepted, or at least every application within the funding envelope that the federal government gave to the South Australian government to administer. But you will be surprised to learn that wasn't the case. Of the $15 million that was allocated by the federal government to the South Australian state Labor government to allocate to their farmers—very many of whom live, work and employ people in my electorate—only $8 million was allocated. Of the $15 million, only $8 million was allocated. Now, you might say: 'Well, look, you're being cute. That's probably all the applications there were.' No, there were 14 applications received and eight applications granted. So, there are six dairy farmers—I happen to know a large percentage of them in my electorate—who went to the considerable trouble of making an application for a dairy concessional loan.

For those, perhaps those in the gallery, who are not as au fait with what a dairy concessional loan is: it's a loan, not a grant. It's effectively a mortgage from the federal government, just like you get a mortgage from a bank, but it's at a significantly reduced interest rate. It basically means you can go to your bank and say: 'Of that $5 million I owe you, I will transpose that to $4 million for you and $1 million for the federal government. The nine per cent interest I'm paying to you is on the $4 million and I will pay the much lower interest rate on the $1 million loan from the federal government.' It has to be repaid. These aren't grants. Nobody in the sector is after that. But there are six farming families who went to the considerable trouble of making an application, and they were rejected. They were told: 'No, we've got the money sitting here, but you're not having it. Keep getting up every morning, keep milking your cows and keep seeing the equity in your farm whittle away day by day, because we're not going to allocate that to you.' That's what has happened.

The member for Mayo will contribute to this bill later today; she's on the speaking list. I would hate for her to take the opportunity to delete her name from the list. If she is incapable of coming in and saying that not only she but the senators of the Nick Xenophon Team give unconditional support to this bill, then she's saying to those families and the swathe of other families who didn't make an application, because they knew PIRSA would knock them back and they were waiting for the federal government to take charge, 'I don't care.' That's what she's saying: 'I don't care. I'm particularly and personally happy with the work of the minister in South Australia, Leon Bignell, and his department.'

Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (11:14): I give thanks to the member for Braddon for her fantastic comments about what it's like to live in the regional part of Australia in Tasmania. I too am pleased to stand, as a regional member in North Queensland, to speak against the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017. I have Magnetic Island and also the remote location of Palm Island in my electorate, so issues that are raised in this bill are particularly pertinent to my community.

I have just one question for the Turnbull government: how well is the last concessional loan scheme you set up—that is, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund—going? The answer is: not very well. More than two years on, not one project has commenced; there is not one shovel in the ground; there is no economic boost for North Queensland; and the only jobs the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund has created are for board members, the CEO and staff. More money has been spent on paying the board and organisational wages than on funding for actual delivery of projects. Instead of the Turnbull government learning from their mistakes, they have created another concessional loan fund. So how long will the regions have to wait for this one? How long will you be paying the board's wages on this before delivering anything?

After the Turnbull government's budget announcement, I met with local business leaders who work across sectors including the agricultural industries, regarding this fund. I was genuinely interested to know how they thought this fund would benefit them and our region, and what it meant for North Queensland in general. Every single one of them said they were taking this announcement with a grain of salt and had no high expectations at all. All business leaders commented they expected it to be like the NAIF: a nice announcement by the Turnbull government but unlikely to actually do or deliver anything. This goes to show just how out of touch this government really is when it comes to regional Queensland. They can't even sell the first concessional loan scheme, and, instead of trying to fix the issues with the NAIF mess, they set up another loan scheme and then another and then another before they manage to get the first one right. The Turnbull government have created more concessional loan schemes than they have created projects to fund.

Let's talk about the slap in the face that the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund has been for the north—another loan scheme where a community is drought declared, on level 3 water restrictions, with less than 20 per cent in our Ross River dam, and Townsville does not qualify to access funds from the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund. How does the fund deny drought-declared communities, including the largest city in north Australia that has a desperate need to secure long-term water security? Why would the minister for resources, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, create such ridiculous red-tape rules? What's even worse is that the Queensland state government has to make funds available because the Turnbull government could not get its own announcement right. The Palaszczuk Labor government had to find $15 million for interim funding to support the Deputy Prime Minister's National Water Infrastructure Development Fund to ensure that feasibility studies could go ahead in Queensland. The Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, made such a mess of his own fund that he forgot to advise the proponents that they would receive their funds in arrears. Let's not forget the new drought concessional loan, which has also experienced a very poor take-up rate. And why has it had a poor take-up? Because once again the Turnbull government did not consult.

The Regional Investment Corporation will face the same difficulties as the drought concessional loan. Its role is to provide loans to farm businesses, subject to the applicant meeting specified criteria. The 'subject to the applicant meeting specified criteria' will be centred on the viability of the farm business. It is important to understand that the RIC will be the bank of last resort, as farm businesses will need to be assessed as being viable. Determining whether a farm business is viable has been a major issue for the states when developing the guidelines for concessional loans, and this will continue under the RIC. Furthermore, the concessional loans are only for a period of 10 years. Post 10 years, the farm business will need to re-engage with their bank to secure finance if necessary.

Why can't the Turnbull government get just one of their concessional loan funds right before they start another? This new fund will be like all of the other Turnbull government loans, because the fact is that this government has done no cost-benefit analysis at all. The concept of the RIC has been developed with no cost-benefit analysis as to whether or not the corporation will actually deliver any of the claims put forward by the Turnbull government. In particular, there are no costings on whether the RIC will help fast-track the construction of dams and the priority water infrastructure projects needed to stimulate investment, economic growth and increased agricultural productivity in rural and regional communities.

The location of the RIC in Orange makes sense, building on the existing base of agricultural investment institutions in the city, including the New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority and Macquarie Bank's Paraway Pastoral livestock enterprise. The Farm Business Concessional Loans Scheme and the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility are intended to be budget neutral over their life, with the establishment and operating costs of the corporation recovered by the interest charged on loans to farm businesses and state and territory governments.

The Turnbull government has not done any cost analysis on any of the issues I just raised—more proof that the Turnbull government are great at making announcements but totally lacking in their ability to deliver actual projects. You cannot do this to the people of North Queensland, because they have very long memories. Our communities are facing tough times, and we need real answers, not pie-in-the-sky ideas from the Deputy Prime Minister. The true cost of establishing the Regional Investment Corporation is $81 million over the forwards, with the potential to be higher if the uptake on the loans is low. The existing loans administered by the states and territories will remain the responsibility of the states and territories. Establishing a new body to administer new loans is a waste of taxpayers' money, is inefficient and is costly; $81 million would be better off spent on delivering real projects and real jobs, and I could give the government a list that Townsville would certainly benefit from.

If the Turnbull government really wants to deliver for regional Australia, in particular North Queensland, they should invest in delivering infrastructure projects and not concessional loans. As I said, if this government is short on ideas regarding regional investments they could take a moment to go to my Facebook page and view the dozens of speeches I have made in this place outlining my demands for North Queensland: water security for Townsville, energy security for Townsville—and no, the answer is not a pamphlet plan—reinstate the 200 jobs that the LNP government have cut from the Australian Taxation Office in Townsville, reinstate the jobs in the Department of Veterans' Affairs that have been relocated to Brisbane, and reinstate all regional job losses and relocations, including the five jobs lost from CASA in Townsville. The bare minimum the Turnbull government could do for regional Queensland and this concessional loans scheme would be to at least locate the RIC office in North Queensland.

There has been no transparency in this process; it's just been decided to locate the Regional Investment Corporation in Orange. Why Orange? Why not the Burdekin? The Burdekin has a strong agricultural economy, and their diversification and business models are absolutely amazing. Mayor Lyn McLaughlin has been a great driving force, together with many agricultural organisations in the Burdekin region. North Queensland will become an agricultural hub with growing connections to India and other Asian markets for agriculture, so why would the government not locate the RIC in the Burdekin? Where is the member for Dawson? I ask again: where is the member for Dawson, George Christensen? Why did he not stand up for the Burdekin, which is actually in his electorate? I am here standing in this place, fighting for the Burdekin community, which isn't even in my electorate, and I note that he is not even on the speaking list.

Allow me to reiterate the facts on this bill so far. The Regional Investment Corporation has not been costed. It costs $81 million—possibly more—to administer. No transparent or fair process has been undertaken by the government to determine where to locate the RIC. It is highly likely to be similar to the other useless Turnbull government concessional loan schemes that do nothing. And any funds from the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund, as and when they cross over with this fund, are potentially going to be in arrears, with the Queensland government likely to be forced to pick up the federal government's bill again. How could any reasonable person support this bill, especially knowing these facts?

The Turnbull government has to stop making useless announcements and get on with the job of actually delivering projects. I am opposing this bill, because it is a complete and utter waste of taxpayers' money. It will do nothing to deliver projects for North Queensland that could and will create jobs, beyond what the state and federal governments are already doing. I do not support the location in Orange, and I am not supporting any harebrained loan scheme that won't do anything for North Queenslanders, who are desperately in need of jobs. My advice to the government would be: go back to the drawing board. The north is not fooled by this announcement. It is not going to help us in the north. If this bill passes, we will expect the same results as are evident with all of the other announcements from the Turnbull government—all fluff and no guts.

Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (11:25): Drought, floods and fires are, of course, constant companions of Australian agriculture. As a farmer, I know that—it's in my DNA, if you like. As farmers, we do need to have resilience. We do need to be able to cope on a day-to-day basis with most of those challenges. But there are times when we are tested beyond our limits: when a drought enters a second year, a third year, or a fourth year. There is no realistic way for any business to be able to budget and allow for that type of catastrophic failure. It's a repeated story in Australia. We could just let the market rip, and there would be some agriculturalists—those who are in a stronger position—who would get bigger on the back of those types of rationalisations. But what we also need to consider is the fabric of our rural communities.

By and large, governments, over a long period of time, have tried to reach some middle ground when it comes to drought and disaster relief. While we accept that we need farmers to be competitive and to be up to the challenges of both the market and the environment, there come times when we just cannot allow a large number of them to fail, and we need some kind of mechanisms to back them up. A lot of these policies, despite the best intentions of both sides of parliament, are made in an ad hoc manner—'Yeah, we've got a policy'—but then they get tested. The weather tests us beyond the limits of the policy, and then governments have to make another move.

Upon coming to government in 2013, the drought policy cupboard was bare. We'd had the previous exceptional circumstances arrangements, which accompanied the millennium drought, under the Howard government. Then it began to rain right across Australia, and it got to the point where there was nowhere in drought—in fact, we were dealing with floods, to be quite honest—and so those policies were wound up. But there was nothing put back in their place. Upon coming to government, the droughts have returned—certainly not the Australia-wide droughts of the millennium drought, but there have been some very difficult patches. Some of my electorate of Grey has been significantly affected.

The Regional Investment Corporation Bill is progressive policy. We are trying to cement into place policies that are developed not under the pressure of the minute but have a long-term prospect for underwriting Australian agricultural production in the nation's interest. The bill establishes the Regional Investment Corporation as a corporate Commonwealth entity and delivers on the coalition government's election commitment of $2 billion farm business concessional loans, and $2 billion for water infrastructure loan programs in the Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio.

I said that essentially we came into this area having very little policy on the shelf. Since 2013-14 the Commonwealth has been offering concessional loans to farm businesses to help them through these times of difficulty. Concessional loans are a very important part of the government's drought policy framework. One of the main reasons is that the enthusiasm of the banks—who are the major financiers of agriculture and many other things in Australia—for agriculture and other things waxes and wanes. It's not a consistent source of money that farmers can rely on. Sometimes, as farmers, we feel as though the banks are throwing money at us. At other times, you can't get two and six out of the banks to get you through to the end of the week. So having the Commonwealth concessional loans in place actually presents a sort of stability in the market. It's the lender of last resort, but it does help stabilise the market and it helps stabilise the commercial market as well.

To come to the detail of the Regional Investment Corporation, the concessional loans that we've had in place since 2013 have been delivered through the states. In my state of South Australia, that means Primary Industries and Regions, SA—or PIRSA. That is what we call it. I'll come back to that in a moment. This is a very important point to do with why I am so strongly supportive of this legislation. As well as administering the farm business loans, the Regional Investment Corporation will administer the government's National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. In the past, delivering through the states has proven unwieldy, with a lack of consistency across the country. Currently the Commonwealth has to negotiate separately with each state government to change existing arrangements or roll out a new program for farmers.

I said I'd come back to PIRSA and their role in the concessional loans that have gone out to South Australian farmers. The Commonwealth has delivered $724.4 million of loans throughout Australia since this program was instigated in 2013. In South Australia, despite vast regions being in drought, there has been $17 million. It doesn't matter how you slice up the pie, there is something intrinsically wrong with this. I and the member for Barker, who spoke previously on this bill, have tried and tried to get to the bottom of why that discrepancy exists. Why is it possible for farmers interstate to access these concessional loans but it seems all but impossible for farmers in South Australia to do so? We keep coming back to the door of PIRSA and the South Australian government. I am bereft of an explanation as to why they have made it so difficult. It is not as if we asked the South Australian government for a co-contribution. All we asked them to do is run the concessional loans program, and yet they seem to be so reluctant to support our South Australian farmers. I don't know why that is.

If I were a state government, I would be out there backing my farmers all the way. But, for whatever reason, these blokes—and I use 'blokes' as a generic Australian term—don't seem to have any enthusiasm for our South Australian agriculture at all. In fact, that is across a wide range of programs. We have seen state governments in Queensland and New South Wales putting in state contributions around drought relief—like freight subsidies, for instance. We've never been able to entice the South Australian Labor government down that path. They just do not seem to want to back agriculture. They will refrain, in fact, from declaring an area drought-declared in case there is a financial implication for them. But, in the case of these Commonwealth concessional loans, they don't have to put any money in and yet they still won't back it. We got $17 million out of $724 million. It's a disgrace.

So I am absolutely in favour of us at the Commonwealth level taking over this entire capacity so we can get consistency across the nation. We are, after all, a national government. We are a national government and we should have nationally consistent programs. The trouble is that, when we filter things down through the state governments, they get corrupted at that level. I think we can probably say that across a wide range of programs, but on this particular day we are focusing on agriculture. Those figures that I have quoted to the House so graphically demonstrate exactly what is wrong with the current system.

So the loans under the new regional investment strategy will not be exactly the same as those currently offered. The system will be broader, with the loans drawing on constitutional authority that includes the Commonwealth's trade, commerce and external powers. The restrictive approach to assessing loan applications, which has had very low approvals, will be upgraded. We will reduce some of those restrictions. There's not much point putting money on the table for people who are struggling to stay on their properties and then making it too difficult to access, so we are here to help, as I think this government have been since we were elected in 2013. I get to talk to a lot of farmers. I have been very proud of this government's engagement with agriculture. I think over that period of time we have done very well.

We certainly now are making the 10-year commitment on farm business concessional loans, but we have upgraded the access for farm household allowance during times of financial hardship. One of the things that I argued for very strongly—and I approached the agriculture minister over it repeatedly, let me say—was the lifting of the thresholds, the limits, in the farm management deposits scheme. This is something that I used as a farmer before I entered politics. I found it one of the most enabling pieces of policy to allow farmers to plan for the inevitable droughts—and the inevitable floods, but generally the droughts—and it became quite apparent to me that many of my farming friends continued to expand their properties. As I have said in this House on many occasions, that's good for the farmers, it's good for the state and it's good for Australia. They farm the land in a very good environmental fashion, but it does tend to claw at the intestines of regional communities, unfortunately.

Some of these farmers are spending up to $4 million putting in a crop. The idea that they had $400,000 set aside to cover a drought—it was simply not enough in this environment. Farming is a very big business. It's a very expensive business. It doesn't have big margins, so it is high investment for moderate returns. So the lifting of the farm management deposits to $800,000 per person was a great step forward. We have delivered on that.

We have accelerated depreciation on water reticulation, fencing and fodder storage. There is a 100 per cent write-off on water reticulation, one of my favourite schemes. I keep telling farmers on Eyre Peninsula, 'You need to put in plastic-lined dams and plastic water runs.' I can give you some figures, but I haven't got the time now. But the water run-off, when you get 100 per cent, is enormous. It is absolutely enormous. It is a great opportunity for farmers at the moment to take advantage of the accelerated write-offs that this government has put in place for them.

We've also guaranteed the future, if you like, and put in a better funding line for the Rural Financial Counselling Service. It's a vital service to so many farmers when they're under pressure.

We've had the $20,000 instant tax write-off for capital equipment—not just for farmers, of course, but for businesses right across Australia. We have extended that time frame. I personally hope that we make it permanent, but let's see what future budgets bring us. We have lowered the tax rates for small and medium businesses. I think something that's probably not been well advertised out there to our businesses, many of which operate as partnerships, is that there are commensurate reductions in taxation for partnerships as well that are running those same and similar businesses. We put an extra $100 million into agriculture research.

One of the things that I say brought me into parliament in an indirect way was access to good levels of education, particularly to tertiary education for our kids from the country. I am a great supporter and very appreciative of the government's moves to eliminate farm assets from the assets test for independent youth allowance and just rate that on an income assessment, because we know well the old story about farmers being asset rich and income poor. This has addressed an anomaly that has sat in the system for some time. Sometimes our assets are worth more than others, but with the vagaries of agriculture that I addressed right at the start—drought, fire and flood—these are variable assets which sometimes are locked up very tightly and in times of drought are producing no income.

All across a wide front, across a wide range of areas, this government has delivered for farmers. It's not surprising that we do deliver for our regional areas, because the coalition are largely, almost exclusively, the federal political representatives of rural and regional Australia. Thank you.

Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (11:39): I rise to support the passage of the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017. As many of you know, from my previous speeches in this place, my passion and commitment to regional Australia knows no bounds. My electorate of Mayo contains some of the best agricultural produce in the world. In fact, the Adelaide Hills just won the nation's most outstanding region award at the 2017 delicious. Produce Awards. We have a myriad of apples, pears, cherries, strawberries, beef, sheep and crops. There are 93 separate dairy farms within my electorate borders, along with seven separate wine regions.

The future of agriculture in Australia directly impacts on the future economy of my electorate, and I see a very bright future for Australian agriculture. I have previously discussed in this House that, by 2050, the world's population is expected to increase to 10 billion people. A large majority of this increase will be on our doorstep in Asia. This creates an enormous opportunity for Australia's agricultural sector. I have long advocated for putting the right measures in place now to ensure that Australia benefits from the incoming great dining boom. The growing Asian middle class demands high-quality produce, and who better to provide that produce than Australia? We are perfectly placed to reap the rewards of increased demand.

I'm a very strong supporter of the measure in this bill to give control of the Farm Business Concessional Loans Scheme to the Regional Investment Corporation. I stood in this House earlier this year and discussed how, by leaving it to each state and territory to administer the scheme, perverse outcomes were being created. There is inconsistency in application. In my state, the dairy recovery loans have been under-utilised, due in part to the state government refusing to consider water allocations and livestock as part of the land value when assessing eligibility. This is different to other states and territories, particularly Tasmania, which assess both water rights and livestock.

Since the dairy recovery loans were introduced, there have been 228 farm businesses approved for funding. Of this 228, only eight South Australian dairy farmers have had their loans approved. The total value of loans approved in South Australia is $7.5 million—compared to $109 million in Victoria. For all concessional loans programs from 2013 onwards, South Australian farm businesses have been paid $17.2 million out of a national total of $724 million. That is just two per cent of the total value of loans approved going to farm businesses in South Australia. A move to a nationally consistent application of the loan scheme is fair for all farmers. It means some farmers will no longer be denied federal assistance just because their land is on one side of the border.

Similarly, a $2 billion investment in water security and infrastructure is very welcome. I'm privileged to have the Lower Lakes in my electorate. I think I can speak for all South Australians when I say we know about the importance of water security, and thankfully my state is no longer in drought. But I am not so naive as to think drought won't return in the near future. Investments in water infrastructure will help to protect our regions in the future. While I'm on water security, I want to again address the allegations of theft aired in the ABC's Four Corners program on 24 July. These allegations are shocking, but perhaps what's worse is the seeming lack of concern from members of the coalition. It is hypocritical and condescending for the government to introduce measures designed to boost water security while also turning what I see as a blind eye to serious allegations of water theft in the Murray-Darling Basin. I have previously called on the Deputy Prime Minister to step aside from the water resources portfolio, and I reiterate that statement here today. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is not perfect, but it is a strong plan. It's a national plan and it's a shared plan. It's born out of compromise and it's is endorsed by this parliament.

While I applaud the federal government for its $4 billion commitment to the Regional Investment Corporation to Australian farmers, I want to make a point I have previously made in this House: Australian farmers are not looking for a handout. I speak to farmers every week in my electorate. They pride themselves on not having to lean on government for subsidies like farmers do in other countries. But, as farmers have supported this country in the past, the country must also lend its support to farmers at times when needs arise. These measures secure that assistance, and I commend the government for introducing them.

I would like to speak briefly on the controversy that has come up with the announcement of the Regional Investment Corporation to be located in Orange in New South Wales. Critics will point to the Deputy Prime Minister seeking to shore up a marginal New South Wales electorate. I want to say here that I am a supporter of decentralisation. However, decentralisation needs to be a policy beyond placement of jobs in northern New South Wales. I want to make special mention of the member for Indi, Ms Cathy McGowan, who has pushed hard for a House select committee inquiry on regional development and decentralisation, and I look forward to this committee examining the benefits of decentralisation and the positive impact it can have on regional communities.

I note the Labor Party have raised some concerns with this bill, including the lack of accountability and parliamentary oversight. While I understand that the Regional Investment Corporation will be able to be called before the Senate estimates process, I would like to see more parliamentary oversight for a corporation that will be handling billions of dollars of taxpayer money. I'm supporting the passage of this bill so that my Nick Xenophon Team colleagues can review the Senate committee report and examine the bill in further detail. Like me, my NXT colleagues are committed to ensuring that regional Australia continues to prosper.

Deputy Speaker, I was just in my office listening to the debate on this bill and I would like to raise with the House what appears to be something that I am finding quite awkward, and that is the member for Barker's fixation with me. It's becoming quite weird. Instead of talking about farmers, the member for Barker, who spoke just moments ago, spent a considerable amount of his time talking personally about me. I know that the Nick Xenophon Team candidate, James Stacey, who is a former dairy farmer and a true grassroots representative of his community, only had six weeks to campaign in Barker and during that time reduced the member for Barker's margin from 16 to 4.7 per cent—the closest margin in Barker since 1943. Perhaps the member for Barker has received some new polling that he is finding deeply concerning. I'm not sure, but I must say that I am finding this rather perplexing and certainly awkward and weird. I don't presume to give the member for Barker advice in this place, but I will say that his constituents, judging by those who ring me to pledge their support, want a member who cares and connects with their community and who is not distracted by petty party games.

In closing, regional Australia is the lifeblood of this country. Over 314,000 people are employed in Australian agriculture, which is fast becoming the major driver of the Australian economy, with the end of the mining boom. Too often the federal parliament and state parliaments focus on the metropolitan areas at the expense of the regions. If we want Australia to grow and to succeed over the next 50 years, investment in our regions is of paramount importance. For that reason, I support the passage of this bill.

Mr COULTON (Parkes—Deputy Speaker) (11:47): I rise today to speak on the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 and to speak against the amendment moved by the member for Hunter. Just for those who might be listening to this broadcast, I will read the member for Hunter's amendment. It states:

That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

'the House declines to give this bill a second reading as it places the Government's political interests ahead of the interests of Australia's farmers'.

That is the member for Hunter, the agriculture spokesman for the Labor Party. The reason I quote that is that I have been listening to the contributions of the members of the Labor Party in this House and they're speaking, supposedly, in support of the amendment that says that they don't want to give this bill a second reading, but they spend most of their time saying how the Regional Investment Corporation should be in their electorates. Either they are opposed to this bill or they are for it. I think it is a little strange.

I am in strong support of this bill. I think it fulfils a promise that was indicated in the ag white paper that Minister Joyce introduced several years ago. What this bill will do is streamline the concessional loans to farmers, those who are struggling with issues around drought, dairy deregulation, decline and other such things. I do believe it has the potential to grow into much more over a period of time. I was listening to the member for Hunter's contribution to this debate. He was talking about the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Minister Joyce, and his contribution to his portfolio. I might say I believe that the ag white paper and the policies that have grown from it have been, possibly in my lifetime, some of the most influential changes to agriculture. I might remind the member for Hunter, who is sitting at the table, that the farmers in Australia in my electorate are a resilient lot, but there is one thing that the farmers in my electorate fear more than a hailstorm at harvest time, and that's a Labor ag minister. A Labor ag minister is about as welcome as lousy weather at shearing time.

For the member for Hunter to move this scurrilous amendment to discredit what is an essential piece of legislation, I think, is indeed very short-sighted. That is because agriculture has now regained its rightful place as one of the leading drivers of the Australian economy and certainly one of our largest income-earning exports. The policies that have been put in place by this government are having a real effect, not just for the farmers in Australia but for entire communities that are economically intertwined with the farmers. I will give you a great example: the instant write-off for water and fencing has put a huge boom into the ag supply business for contractors right across Australia and particularly in my electorate. If you drive around my electorate, you'll see there is a shining new tank on the top of nearly every hill and a water supply that will enable those farmers to much better manage their property and pasture the next time a drought hits. There is the ability to re-fence their properties and get an instant tax deduction for that so that they can manage their assets in a more efficient and sustainable way. There is the ability to have accelerated depreciation on fodder and grain storage. If you once again drive around my electorate you will see shining new silos and sheds all over the place because of the taxation advantages that these farmers can take to prepare themselves for the next time there is a dry period of time.

I was here in 2008—from memory, I think the member for Watson might have been the agriculture minister at the time—when the agriculture minister removed the word 'drought' and replaced it with 'dryness'. He said, 'This is climate change, and we've just got to get used to it.' In contrast to that mindset, this is a policy where farmers take control of their own future and invest in their own sustainability, a policy that has faith in the rural community because they are the ones who know how to best manage what is happening. The other thing is recognising the fluctuation in income. For instance, in the north-western part of my electorate, around Walgett, they've had four drought years in the last five years. Last year was an exceptionally good year. Farm management deposits being increased up to $8,000 gives those farmers the opportunity to level out their income and control their cashflow to a degree so that they can manage these times better and they are not coming to the government in a dire circumstance like we've seen in the past.

The other change from this government that has been a real boost to the economies of rural Australia, and particularly my electorate, has been the $20,000 instant asset write-off. Suppliers of small equipment—bikes, quad bikes, side-by-sides and cattle yards—and a whole range of people have had a real economic boost because of policies that have been put in place by this government, in this parliament, driven by the agriculture minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, that are having an effect day after day in regional Australia.

We can combine that with some of the larger projects. The one that is of particular interest to me is the Inland Rail. About 700 kilometres of the Inland Rail will come through the Parkes electorate. Already, we're starting to see businesses and farmers looking at how they can take advantage of the efficiencies that that will bring in their freight, and we're starting to see councils align their planning for roads and infrastructure to tie in with this rail network so that we will have not only the cities of Melbourne and Brisbane connected but also every capital city in Australia connected for the first time. The farmers, the agribusinesses and the manufacturers that are in western New South Wales will have access to cheap and efficient freight all over Australia and to numerous ports around the country.

This is a red-letter day for regional Australia—to have another piece of legislation coming through to back up the economy of that region. I might comment on the member for Mayo's contribution and some of the contributions from the other side over the last couple of weeks about the Four Corners program. There are four investigations under way at the moment about the accusations that have been raised, and they are accusations. My electorate is particularly affected by this because not only do I have the downstream people who are affected by the water management in Broken Hill—Broken Hill is the canary in the coalmine when it comes to the health of the Murray-Darling system, more so than Adelaide, even—but also the irrigation industry that I represent is also important to my community, so I've got both sides of the argument.

Members have come in here and spoken like an accusation on a television show is somehow a fact. The people that have been caught up in that television show have been denigrated without any form of redress. I think we should wait and see what these inquiries come up with. If they indeed show that there has been illegal behaviour, corruption or any misdemeanour of any sort, then action should be taken. But, until then, I think people should be very, very careful about what they say. The Labor Party has form on this. We saw the Four Corners program on live-cattle trade. The federal government now has a lawsuit running from the northern cattlemen because of that program. An entire industry and an entire region was decimated by a knee-jerk reaction. I need to remind the people of Australia that, if the Labor Party were on the government benches last week, we would've had the same knee-jerk reaction. Where was the former minister for agriculture then instead of sticking up and defending the farmers that were supposedly the responsibility of his portfolio? Where was he then? He was lock, stock and barrel with the rest of them—chanting across the table baying for blood. I just think everyone needs to be very, very careful. The people of Broken Hill are very concerned about what's going on upstream, and so they should be. But we just need to wait and see what comes out of this.

So, I strongly support this bill. I'm strongly opposed to the amendment by the member for Hunter, and I would encourage everyone who's involved with regional Australia, everyone who's involved in the agriculture industry, to have a look at the amendment from the member for Hunter and see where his energies are being placed in his role as the Labor Party spokesperson for agriculture.

Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (12:00): The Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 claims to achieve two outcomes, and both of them are intended to support the agricultural sector. The first outcome is to establish a national water funding program. Secondly, it's intended that this legislation will provide funds by way of loans to farmers during times of need and events that are beyond their control.

Governments, particularly the federal government, have an important leadership role in building the nation's infrastructure. Governments also have responsibility in building industry sectors, and in times of need to ensure that those industry sectors remain viable. It is in the national interest to do that. Good governments have always done that and should continue to do so. During the economic downturn of 2008 the Rudd government's economic stimulus measures ensured that Australia did not go into recession. Coalition members are all too quick to criticise the Rudd government's initiatives at the time, which saved Australia's economy, but they are just as ready to boast that the Australian economy has continued to grow every year for the past quarter of a century. That would not have happened were it not for the Rudd government's economic stimulus measures during a time of need.

Despite that growth, there have been industry sectors that have gone through difficult times and for which government intervention could have made a substantial difference. The farming sector is one of those industry sectors. Agriculture contributes significantly to both national employment and national economic productivity. It is and always has been a major economic driver of the Australian economy and contributes around $60 billion a year right now. A third of Australia's population live in regional or remote Australia, where those communities rely predominantly on the agricultural sector for their livelihood, as do many urban businesses and residents. The farming sector is also vulnerable to both fluctuating markets and variable weather conditions. This was no more evident than between 1998 and 2008, when the decade-long drought brought many farmers, including cattle farmers, to their knees. Coalition members conveniently forget that the long drought did more harm to most of the cattle growers than did the suspension of trade with Indonesia. They seem to have a memory lapse with respect to that, but I can say to coalition members: at the time, I spoke to many cattle farmers, who came to Canberra from around Australia. The drought was hurting them just as it was hurting farmers across the nation, and quite substantially. In the same way, coalition members pretend that the global economic downturn never really happened—until, of course, it suits their argument to say otherwise.

The Regional Investment Corporation Bill sets out the framework for establishing a government corporation—a quasi government bank—that will provide up to $4 billion in concessional loans to farmers or repayable grants to fund national water infrastructure. In keeping with the corporation's bank role, the skill set required of the three board members who will oversee the corporation include banking and finance, economics, financial accounting, and auditing.

As the name of this legislation clearly implies, this proposal is focused on supporting regional communities. Yet, when the Rudd government proposed a similar initiative, in partnership with the four major banks, to support the construction industry during the global financial recession years, coalition members ridiculed and opposed that proposal. How different is this proposal to that in terms of its objective? Indeed, that proposal was a partnership with the four major banks, who would have had a direct say in how the loans were made. Again, the double standards and hypocrisy of government members are evident.

Likewise, when Australian manufacturing industries were struggling, largely because of a very high Australian dollar, the Abbott-Turnbull government failed to intervene. In fact, the coalition government did the opposite, by taunting GMH to leave Australia, knowing that Toyota would follow suit and, in turn, end Australia's auto manufacturing industry. It was the most callous decision of the coalition government. It left Australia as one of the only advanced countries without a car-making industry, it left tens of thousands of Australians out of work and it left whole communities reeling. More Australians will lose their jobs over the coming months as the car makers finally close down their operations in Australia. The stupidity of that decision is that the loss of tax revenue to the government and the welfare payments it now has to make far exceed the assistance car makers were asking for at the time. Just as regrettable, the Australian dollar subsequently fell, as expected—which, once again, makes Australian car makers very competitive. Had the Australian dollar at the time been what it is today, perhaps the decision would have been different. Members opposite, who know nothing about the car industry, should think carefully about their comments with respect to what provoked GMH into leaving Australia.

I note that the member for Calare, in his contribution, lamented the loss of jobs from the closure of Electrolux. He, understandably, alluded to the devastating impact on the local community. I can relate to that impact, because it's happening in my own community. Yet there was no such compassion or care shown by members on his side of politics for the jobs of the auto workers in Adelaide and in Melbourne. They too have families and they were also working in factory jobs, just as the Electrolux workers were. I don't criticise the member for Calare, because he was not in this place at the time. But he makes the very same argument that members on this side of politics made in respect of the auto industry, which fell on deaf ears when it came to coalition members. The double standards are breathtaking.

My concern is not with the intent of this legislation but with the framework under which the corporation is being established and the influence of the minister in the role of the corporation. I note that both the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and the Minister for Finance have joint responsibility for the corporation. The reality is that this legislation is being driven by the agriculture and water resources minister, who will use the corporation for political pork-barrelling and to shore up seats in parliament for his side of the House.

I note that the corporation's headquarters will be in Orange, in the National Party seat of Calare. We're not told why Calare was chosen as the seat where the headquarters would be based, or why Orange was chosen. While I make no criticism of that choice, it would have been good for the minister to have come in and said, 'Yes, we looked at a range of sites, and for these reasons the headquarters will be based in Orange.' But we were not told. It was a decision made by the minister, who, under this legislation, has the power to do so. I have no problem with decentralising government operations from capital cities. But, again, I have no doubt from my travels around the country that there are many regional centres that would dearly love government operations to be established within them. If we're going to do that, at least let's look at it in a balanced way and then come back with justification for the decisions made by the government such as this one. But, yet again in this case, we are not told why Orange was chosen.

The more serious concern, however, is section 11 of the bill, which identifies the operating mandate for which the minister has responsibility. It is a mandate which includes, firstly, the eligibility criteria for loans and financial assistance. I will just repeat that: the eligibility criteria for loans and financial assistance rest with the minister. It includes 'directions on other matters'. It doesn't tell us what the other matters might be; it just leaves it open-ended. It is whatever the minister wants to give directions to the board about. And it includes the performance of the corporation, which effectively says to me that, if the minister doesn't like the direction that the corporation is headed, he can simply do away with the board and replace it. The mandate will be—and this is even more concerning—by way of a non-disallowable instrument. In other words, parliament doesn't get to see the mandate and cannot reject it if the mandate does not appear to be reasonable.

These powers give extraordinary control over the corporation to a minister who has shown his preparedness to pork-barrel and, even worse, his bias towards farmers in his part of Australia. We saw that with his handling of the water portfolio, which includes the Murray-Darling Basin. Firstly, the minister abandoned the return of the additional 450 gigalitres of water to the environment. We had a debate about this only the other day. But, even worse, when allegations of theft of one billion litres of basin water were made, he downplayed the seriousness of that. He refused to support a judicial inquiry into the claims, knowing full well that only a judicial inquiry would get to the bottom of the facts in respect to the claims being made because none of the other government departments or bodies that have been asked to look into the matter have the powers to do a full investigation and ensure that all the matters are addressed. Simultaneously, the minister says he wants a $4 billion bucket of money to build water infrastructure, while he shows little concern for alleged water rustling, as I call it, or water theft taking place under his very watch. He shows little concern for delivering on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. He wants money because he argues that the nation needs to do more about storing water and having water available for our farmers when they need it. Yet, under his very nose, there are allegations that water has been taken away and he shows very little concern about that.

In closing, I support the amendment moved by the member for Hunter, and I do so because, as the member for Hunter quite rightly points out, this proposal comes at an $81.4 million cost to Australian taxpayers. There is no new money, as far as I can ascertain, in respect of the $4 billion. It is just a collection of money that will then be put into the hands of the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources so that he can use it as he sees fit. It gives extraordinary control to a minister of government who has shown not only his preparedness to politicise his portfolio but his incompetence in managing the water portfolio. Yes, we need to support our farmers. The money that is being proposed under this legislation is already there. It's just a question of who decides which farmers get the support.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (12:14): I join Labor members in this House in opposing the bill that's before us and in supporting the second reading amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted to insert the words 'the House declines to give this bill a second reading as it places the government's political interests ahead of the interests of Australia's farmers'.

We have a bill before us where we don't know if the person who has moved it is allowed to be a member of this place. We are currently debating a bill which, because it's opposed, will come to a division, and, therefore, the House—now with its eyes wide open, having carried a resolution on Monday—will be voting on legislation where we don't know whether it has been lawfully moved, and the person whom we don't know is lawfully here will turn up when the bells ring to vote on it. This is unprecedented in Australia, completely unprecedented.

We have continued to ask the government with respect to bills like this, with respect to who is the sponsor of the bill and with respect to divisions, to follow the practice that has been adopted in the Senate. The practice that has been adopted in the Senate for Senator Canavan is that he has stood aside from his role. He may end up being cleared by the court, and then I expect he will come back. But, in the meantime, he has stood aside and has decided to not participate in votes until the High Court has concluded deliberating on that. We have asked for nothing less in this House. There is nothing that we can do that will stop the government from persisting with what they do today. But I would advise the House that, if we are still in this extraordinary situation in two weeks time, when we come back on 4 September, there will be a motion on the Notice Paper at that point.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The member for Corangamite, on a point of order?

Ms Henderson: Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, I would ask that you ask the member to return to the substance of the bill. He's straying too far from the substance of the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Watson has the call.

Mr BURKE: If we are still in this situation when we return, there will be a motion on the Notice Paper that would deal with the problem we're facing with the legislation that's in front of us right now. It would simply have the House resolving that, on anything where a division is called, where there is not agreement on both sides of the House—on national security issues, for example, we usually don't have divisions; we get agreement so the House is able to do its business—the decision on how that division is resolved would be deferred until after the Court of Disputed Returns had returned its decision, following its meetings, based on the resolution that we had on 14 August.

That would be a way of avoiding what's in front of us right now with this bill. I would rather the government simply did in the House what they would do on this bill in the Senate. The minister there who has been referred to the High Court has stood aside from his ministerial role and won't participate in the vote. The same should be happening here. If that has not been resolved by the time the House returns in September, then we will have before us a question on the Notice Paper simply asking that all divisions be deferred until the High Court has resolved this matter. I accept and appreciate that there is government business that needs to be done, and I support that. But I don't believe we can be in a situation where bills are being sponsored by somebody where we don't know if he's legally allowed to even be a member of parliament, and, when they come up for resolution, he's turning up for the vote.

Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (12:18): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017, as this bill delivers on our commitment to establish the Regional Investment Corporation. We're establishing the corporation because we recognise the enormous contribution that regional and rural communities make to this nation. Agriculture is playing a more crucial role than ever in this nation's prosperity. The value of Australia's farm production and farm exports is estimated to be breaking records in 2016-17. This is why I believe an investment in our farmers is an investment in our nation's future. For our agricultural sector to reach its full potential, we need strong, resilient farm businesses that can seize opportunities in a competitive and ever-changing environment. We also need to have the right water infrastructure in place, so that agriculture can expand and further increase its productivity.

The corporation will support both these goals. The corporation will improve the delivery of the Commonwealth's farm business loans. It will remove the states as the middleman, allowing us to be more responsive in providing loans to farm businesses. We will also be able to deliver a nationally consistent program focused on the needs of Australian farmers. The corporation will be offering a new, expanded farm business loan program. Its loans will give viable farm businesses in hardship a hand-up to take advantage of the opportunities available to diversify and strengthen the markets that they supply. They will also boost farm productivity and cash flow, and provide positive economic and social flow-on effects for regional Australia. The corporation will also administer the government's National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. Water and water infrastructure are critical to our future prosperity, particularly for agricultural industries and regional areas of Australia. The corporation will provide independent expert advice to the government on water infrastructure projects. The projects funded through the facility will help our agricultural sector achieve its full potential.

To conclude, the corporation will make a significant contribution to building stronger and more prosperous rural and regional communities. Its loans will help farm businesses build and maintain diversity in markets they supply and take advantage of new and emerging opportunities across Australia and overseas. It will also help fast-track the construction of priority water infrastructure needed to stimulate investment, economic growth and increased agricultural productivity in rural and regional Australia. Time and time again, this government has proven its commitment to backing our farmers, because we know that agriculture has been and will always be an integral part of our nation's prosperity. I will be introducing amendments shortly, but I certainly commend the bill to the House.

The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. So, the immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

The SPEAKER (12:34): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (12:40): I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and I seek leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (4) together.

Leave granted.

Mr HARTSUYKER: I move government amendments (1) to (4) together:

(1) Clause 4, page 5 (after line 3), after the definition of start day, insert:

vacancy, in relation to the office of a Board member, has a meaning affected by subsection 20(3).

(2) Clause 16, page 14 (lines 2 and 3), omit the clause, substitute:

16 Membership

The Board consists of:

(a) the Chair; and

(b) at least 2, and no more than 4, other members.

(3) Clause 20, page 15 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) For the purposes of a reference in:

(a) this Act to a vacancy in the office of a Board member; or

(b) the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 to a vacancy in the membership of a body;

there are taken to be 4 Board member offices in addition to the Chair.

(4) Clause 29, page 18 (lines 15 to 17), omit the clause, substitute:

29 Quorum

At a meeting of the Board, a quorum is constituted by:

(a) at any time when the Board consists of 3 Board members—2 Board members; or

(b) in any other case—3 Board members.

The government amendments to the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 will increase the corporation's board to between three and five members. The government has considered a range of views, which were raised following the introduction of the bill, on the proposed governance arrangements. This included submissions to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill. For example, in its submission, the National Farmers' Federation discussed the size of the board, suggesting it be increased to five members. Other submissions also queried the proposed size of the board. These are valid concerns, and we thank interested stakeholders for sharing their views.

The bill currently provides for a board of three. This reflects our aim to keep the size of the board modest, given the operating costs of the entity are intended to be offset by the interest charged on its loans. However, we agree that including scope for a slightly larger board will further ensure the government can configure a board with the breadth of skills and experience needed to oversee what are significant Commonwealth investments in farm businesses and water infrastructure. The amendments therefore provide for a range in the board size of between three and five members. This also requires flow-on amendments to clarify the number of board members that constitute a quorum, as well as the circumstances that constitute a vacancy in the office of a board member. The Regional Investment Corporation will make a significant contribution to building stronger and more prosperous rural and regional communities. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (12:42): I note that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture is not here closing debate on this bill, as one would expect. The opposition makes no complaint about that, because it's consistent with the demands we made on him earlier in the week about removing himself from participation in this House while this dark cloud hangs over the validity of his place here. The opposition will not be opposing these amendments. We still believe this to be very bad policy, designed only to curry favour on a pork-barrelling basis. We see no policy merit in this corporation whatsoever. It's shifting the administration of existing loans—there is no new funding—to a new body, which is going to be created at great expense to the Australian taxpayer. Existing loans will continue to be administered by the states. There is no policy merit in this proposal. The same can be said for the water infrastructure loans, a scheme which I believe is designed to fail. This reflects other schemes like the NAIF, which have 'money on the table', as the Deputy Prime Minister likes to say, but are designed to fail. I don't expect too much of that money to be expended. I'm sure the Treasurer and the finance minister will be more than pleased about that.

The amendments being proposed by those opposite are to expand the board. As the assistant minister points out, this is something the NFF picked up in their consideration of the bill. It's certainly something that was also picked up by other submitters to the Senate inquiry into this bill. It's certainly something that was picked up by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The problem, of course, is that this is just one of many flaws in this bill which were picked up by other contributors, including the NFF. I think the NFF raised at least three issues in the Senate inquiry, and the assistant minister went to great lengths to make the point that the NFF had raised this, giving it weight. Well, if he's giving weight to the NFF's concerns on this particular issue—that is, the constitutional size of the board—he should give equal weight to the NFF's concerns about other flaws in this hopeless bill.

The flaws in the bill are wide-ranging, but, to keep my contribution as short as I can, they certainly go to the extent to which the minister has designed this bill to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and veto. We have seen this before with respect to the relocation of the APVMA, where he went to extraordinary lengths to make sure that the process for putting that forced relocation in place avoided the scrutiny of this parliament and, therefore, the veto opportunities of this party. That is what's happening with this bill as well. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee went to great lengths to express concern about the extent to which delegation powers were going to be exercised under the policy proposal in this bill. The assistant minister chooses to express no concern and not to address any of these concerns. Indeed, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee even went on to talk about the constitutionality of this bill and the extent to which the government has gone to validate the constitutionality of this bill, even going to the external affairs power. Think about that. We are going to get a different organisation, at great taxpayers' expense, to administer these loans, and it's so important we've had to invoke the external affairs power to do so, such is the weight of this issue.

So, if the assistant minister is going to rely on the NFF's submission and the expression of concerns over the constitution of the board, he should give equal weight to the other concerns raised by the NFF and he should certainly give weight to the concerns of the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I have been around this place for a long time, and I have not seen a Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee report that has been so critical of a bill before this parliament. It is very extensive.

This is a flawed bill. While we don't oppose the amendments that have been put forward, because they do no harm and they are a minor improvement, the assistant minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have failed to address the very serious flaws in this bill, let alone the fact it is a very bad policy proposal.

Debate interrupted.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ) (12:48): The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (12:49): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr MARLES (Corio) (12:50): I rise to speak about the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2016. As members may be aware, as it stands, pensions, compensation, rehabilitation, treatment and other benefits for veterans, members of the Defence Force and their families are provided for under three separate legislative acts. These are the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. The VEA primarily provides benefits and entitlements for those who undertook service in wartime, certain operational deployment and certain peacetime service between 7 December 1972 and 30 June 2004. For peacetime service eligibility, a member who had not completed a qualifying period of three years service prior to 7 April 1994 is not covered unless they were medically discharged. British nuclear test defence service during the 1950s and 1960s in Australia is also covered when relevant criteria are met. If a veteran suffers an injury or disease arising out of or aggravated by a period of full-time service while covered under the VEA, they may be entitled to a disability pension and medical treatment. They may also be eligible for compensation under the SRCA for the same disability, with offsetting against the pension.

The second piece of legislation, the SRCA 1988, provides coverage for illness, injury or death suffered as a result of peacetime and peacekeeping service from 3 January 1949 to 30 June 2004 and for certain periods of operational service between 7 April 1994 and 30 June 2004. Coverage under the SRCA is essentially linked to peacetime ADF service between 3 January 1949 and 30 January 2004, with no coverage of ADF service prior to 3 January 1949 or any period of operational service prior to 7 April 1994. The final piece of legislation, the MRCA, covers members who served on or after 1 July 2004. The MRCA provides rehabilitation and compensation coverage for warlike, non-warlike and peacetime service. The SRCA and the MRCA are more like modern workers compensation legislation, providing rehabilitation and compensation coverage for military service related injuries, illness or death.

This legislation proposes to remove all the Defence Force elements from the SRCA and create an exact replica called the DRCA, which applies only to Defence Force members. The creation of this act will also bring all legislation relating to Veterans' Affairs under the responsibility of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs—as it stands, both the VEA and MRCA. However, the SRCA, as it applies to the ADF, is part of a larger act which covers all employees of the Australian government. Consequently, this means that the act sits with the Minister for Employment. When the MRCA took effect, responsibility for determining and managing defence related claims under the SRCA was given to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission by virtue of the addition of part XI of the SRCA. Essentially, while decisions about compensation and rehabilitation fall within the responsibility of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the legislation itself sits with a different minister. The new legislation is designed to fix this.

In addition, the bill makes a number of minor language amendments to the DRCA and amends the SRCA to remove cover for members of the Defence Force and their dependants. The implementation of the DRCA will provide for a complete separation of the legislative framework for defence related claims from the Comcare scheme under the SRCA and will provide the Minister for Veterans' Affairs with responsibility for all three of the separate compensation acts that cover Defence Force members.

Given the complexity of the bill, Labor supported the referral of this legislation to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to consider the detail of it. The committee received a number of submissions and held a public hearing to work through the concerns of interested parties. The DRCA should be viewed as a snapshot in time, an exact replica of the Defence Force elements of the SRCA as of the day the DRCA is enacted. Given the complexity of the SRCA, which has been amended 68 times since its inception, a considerable amount of effort was concentrated on ensuring that the DRCA was an exact replica of the legislation and that nothing had been inadvertently omitted.

An example of this work relates to the functions of Comcare in relation to rehabilitation and acting quickly to minimise the duration and severity of injuries. This was also raised by Senator Lambie during the committee process. On reading the explanatory memorandum and the bill, it would appear that section 69, which deals with Comcare and claims, has not come across to the new bill. While this is correct, section 69 of the SRCA has not applied to veterans since the insertion of section 142 when the Military, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission was created, which then became responsible for compensation claims and rehabilitation. Section 142 has been duplicated in the DRCA and, through a number of other sections in both the DRCA and the MRCA, the commitment to determining claims which include rehabilitation quickly and accurately remains. We are satisfied that the element that currently applies to veterans is maintained under the DRCA. However, Labor encourages the government to consider making the pathway that leads to this conclusion clearer in the future.

A number of other technical concerns were raised during this process, and I would like to acknowledge the diligent work of parties to identify areas where the legislation appeared not to have been duplicated across its entirety. Labor has worked through each of these concerns with stakeholders and the government and is confident that the issues raised have been addressed. However, due to the complexity of the legislation, under advice by the Australian Government Solicitor a Henry VIII clause was added to provide a remedy for any unforeseen adverse consequences that may arise from the unique manner in which the DRCA was enacted.

The government has been clear that the intention is for the clause not to be utilised; it is there only as a fail-safe, in case something has been overlooked in the process that would have left a veteran worse off. Henry VIII clauses essentially enable the government to make regulations with the power to modify the act, which are then introduced to the parliament as a disallowable instrument. In the DRCA a condition has been added to the Henry VIII clause which requires any regulations made under this provision to act in a way purely beneficial for the veteran in dealing with any anomalies that may arise where there is a retrospective application of the DRCA. This condition states:

(2) Before the Governor-General makes regulations under subsection (1), the Minister must be satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to make the regulations to ensure that no person (except the Commonwealth) is disadvantaged by the enactment of this Act.

As such, it is clear that in the unlikely event of this clause being utilised it can be only when someone has been made worse off by the creation of the DRCA and only to the benefit of an individual and not the government. This is a very important condition, and it is the reason Labor is in a position to support the inclusion of this clause in the bill.

In addition, it is important to note that any regulations brought in under this provision would be a disallowable instrument and be brought before both houses of parliament and sit for 15 days of parliament before coming into operation. While this gives some assurances, concerns have been raised about notification of these instruments. Although they are disallowable instruments, this rests on interested parties becoming aware of the tabling of these documents. Consequently, Labor senators recommended that proposed section 121B be amended to include a consultative element. This amendment would essentially require the minister to be satisfied that appropriate consultation had been undertaken with relevant parties and include disclosure of the proposed regulations.

The government has declined to accept this proposal, stating that the intention of the clause is to quickly provide relief to an individual who has been made worse off by the creation of the DRCA. The government argues that the inclusion of a requirement to consult would result in delaying the provision of relief to the individual. It is worth remembering that, in the unlikely event the clause is utilised, there would be an individual veteran who has been made worse off by the creation of this bill, who has had to have this acknowledged by the department and regulations drafted, approved and tabled. To delay them the provision of relief is unfair, particularly given the circumstances that if the DRCA had not been created there would have been no delay and they would have received this assistance immediately. In the event that this clause is utilised, we call on the department to exhaust all avenues to ensure that anyone else who would benefit from the changes is made aware of the regulations. The government has agreed to this at Labor's request and committed to ensuring that everything possible will be done by the department to locate and contact any person who would be affected by a DRCA Henry VIII clause. Labor supports the inclusion of this clause without the requirement to consult prior to making the regulations for one reason only: to ensure there is no delay correcting the issue which has come about due to the creation of the bill and is impacting the veteran.

Significant concerns were also raised in relation to the consultation conducted by the department on this and other legislation during the committee process. While the government stated that the development of a standalone act for ADF members and veterans was announced two years ago—with consultation continuing during this period, predominantly with Ex-Service Organisation Round Table members—they conceded that the ex-service round table members were not able to view the bill until it was introduced into parliament last year. However, the president of the Australian Federation of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Ex-Service Men and Women stated:

… the bill was not really brought to ESORT's notice as being a piece of legislation that was due to be passed.

In addition, members of the Alliance of Defence Service Organisations highlighted the lack of resources available to ex-service organisations to assess and analyse proposed legislation in general. Their representative noted that their organisation and its partners are voluntary associations and, as such, have limited access to personal and financial resources.

As members may be aware, there have been a number of Senate inquiries into veterans affairs in recent months, along with a high-profile Senate inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel. This has stretched voluntary organisations' capacity to respond to and critically examine new legislation. This was an issue raised by a number of submitters, who were concerned about the speed with which this legislation appeared to be tabled and required feedback. While this legislation may have been broadly discussed some time ago, the evidence provided indicated that consultation was not thorough enough or wide enough to capture ex-service organisations and other interested parties.

The issue of widespread consultation was also raised by Mr Brian Briggs of Slater and Gordon, who highlighted that lawyers representing claimants were generally unrepresented in DVA consultation processes on legislative changes. Mr Briggs raised concerns that by:

… restricting of consultation to organisations that are higher up in the chain of command such as ESORT and Defence does not paint a holistic picture of the effects of these reforms [and] excludes the opinions of those who are at the heart of the system and those who will be most deeply affected.

As such, the committee concluded that there is room for improvement in the way in which DVA consults on changes to legislation and engages with the veteran community.

The committee raised concerns about DVA's current consultation and engagement practices in relation to proposed legislative changes, noting that, while this is partly due to the limited resources of ex-service organisations to examine legislation, ultimately it is for the Department of Veterans' Affairs to improve this relationship. This is an issue which is regularly raised by veterans and an area of deep concern. Consultation on these issues is vital not only to capture the lived experiences of those working through the system but also to prevent unnecessary angst or concern. Effective engagement is fundamental and is an area which the department needs to address as soon as possible.

The committee also highlighted another issue, which has been raised with me a number of times, which is the adversarial relationship of the Department of Veterans' Affairs with some veterans advocates, veterans advocacy groups and lawyers acting on behalf of veterans. This adversarial culture in the department was something Labor sought to resolve by committing prior to the election to undertaking a first principles review of veterans affairs. This review would be based on a set of agreed upon first principles and would examine the department and seek to rectify administrative governance and process failings to ensure the department is able to meet existing and future challenges in a clear and efficient manner. Most importantly, this review would help to re-establish the veterans and their representative organisations' trust in DVA. It would ensure that we have a system in place which works for the people who need it the most and puts our veterans first.

The committee also stated that the Department of Veterans' Affairs should be seeking out and actively engaging with those persons who are best informed and capable of providing analysis of proposed legislation, noting that critical feedback on proposed legislative reforms should be encouraged at an early stage and utilised to identify areas where communications strategies may be required to answer questions in the veteran community.

In addition, the committee noted that, if DVA does not adequately consult and respond to issues raised, it can create environments where misinformation or unwarranted fears regarding legislative reform can flourish. As such, the committee recommended that the Department of Veterans' Affairs conduct a review of its consultation and engagement practices in order to receive informed critical feedback on proposed legislative amendments, rapidly respond to concerns raised in the veteran community and increase the understanding of proposed legislative changes in the veteran community. We understand that the government accepted this recommendation and undertook to review the Department of Veterans' Affairs consultation processes. Labor urges the department to ensure the review is thorough and considers all potential avenues of communication to engage with the ex-service community. While there is benefit in placing information on the website, this cannot be with the width and breadth of consultation. Consideration must be given to both traditional and non-traditional avenues of communication. Labor calls on this review to be completed in a timely fashion and urges the government to take any recommendations seriously and implement changes as soon as practical. This inquiry, along with the recently completed inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel, has clearly highlighted that there is a disconnect between the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the ex-service community.

The Senate committee process also highlighted the anxiety veterans, interested parties and the ex-service community feel about future changes to the SRCA, particularly with regard to alignment to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. In his second reading speech, the minister described the changes as:

… a foundational step towards … reform being undertaken by the Department of Veterans' Affairs to significantly improve services for veterans and their families by re-engineering DVA business processes.

This was reiterated by the department in the hearing process, by a representative who stated that bringing the policy control over the three acts under the one minister will:

… give him opportunities to start examining streamlining, simplification and alignment of legislation.

While it was made clear these areas for alignment are at an embryonic stage, significant concern has been raised by respondents.

It is generally acknowledged that legislation in this space is complex, with each act operating slightly differently. There is a desire in the ex-service community to see this process made easier for veterans and their advocates to navigate. This desire is equally measured by concern that, with the harmonisation of the provisions, the lowest common denominator will become the standard. DVA did indicate:

… there will be appropriate consultation with the veteran and Defence communities on any areas of potential alignment between the DRCA and the MRCA.

While this assurance is certainly welcomed, how this consultation is undertaken continues to raise questions. Broad consultation is important to ensure that veterans and their advocates are aware of proposed changes and are able to provide detailed feedback. Feedback by those who work within the system or benefit from the system is vital to ensure that changes are necessary and worthwhile.

Labor senators continue to hold concerns about future alignment of legislation and urge the minister to clarify the details of the proposed reforms to provide certainty to ADF members and veterans. We concur with this request. Labor is supportive of changes that make it easier for veterans to navigate the system; however, not at the expense of entitlements and support structures. Labor will continue to watch this space to ensure veterans are not made worse off for the changes.

The purpose of the DRCA is to create a Defence-specific bill which applies only to members of the Defence Force and their dependants. In addition, it will place all current veterans legislation with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It is reasonable that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs should be responsible for matters regarding veterans. As the DRCA is an exact replica of the elements of the SRCA, we have been assured no veterans or Defence Force members will be worse off for the creation of this bill.

Labor would like to thank the committee for its diligent examination of this legislation and acknowledge the feedback provided by the ex-service community and other interested parties, in particular the Hervey Bay Veterans Advice and Social Centre, the Alliance of Defence Service Organisations and Brian Briggs from Slater and Gordon, as well as the representations made by members of the public. Labor would also like to thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Veterans' Affairs for their assistance with this legislation and their willingness to work through any issues. Given their assurances that no veterans will be worse off for these changes, Labor offer our support to this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (13:11): I rise to speak in support of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2016. I'm pleased that the government has committed to improving services for veterans and their families by providing a military-specific compensation scheme. I accept and applaud the government's statement that eligibility and benefits under the standalone Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2016 will be the same as those under the current act available to serving and former members of the Australian Defence Force.

In general terms, the new bill strips all Defence-Force-specific legislation from the existing SRCA to create the DRCA. The DRCA will cover only Defence Force members and their families and will apply specifically in relation to injury, death, disease, loss or damage that relates to certain employment in the Defence Force—in other words, military-specific compensation and rehabilitation schemes. This is entirely appropriate and affords our service people the tailored service and respect they deserve.

Labor does have some concerns with the bill, as pointed out by the shadow minister for defence, the member for Corio. One of them is the proposed Henry VIII clause. The government argues that this is being inserted into the act as a safeguard to ensure no-one is worse off. That may well be, but I believe that any regulations introduced in this manner should be subject to rigorous scrutiny. If the normal parliamentary process is removed, we must ensure that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs consults with relevant ex-service organisations and the veteran community before introducing changes, and releases the full text of any proposed regulations subject to the clause for public scrutiny. But, overall, I'm greatly heartened to see the welfare of our Defence personnel, both active and non-active, brought front and centre.

In my electorate of Paterson, we've heard many concerns from veteran communities regarding their experiences engaging with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This organisation should exist specifically to support those who have served our country at home and abroad, at war and at peace; those who have spent time separated from their loved ones and support networks, who have missed the birth of children or who have been absent during significant family milestones; those who have been unable to be part of their families' lives to the degree that you and I, Mr Deputy Speaker, take for granted.

In addition to the separation from their support network, many of our Defence personnel will experience and witness things that injure them mentally and, in some cases, affect them for the rest of their lives. The DVA exists to support these people and their families, yet time and time again my office hears from veterans who, once they leave active service, feel the gate is shut behind them. Their dealings with DVA leave them feeling broken, unwanted, unimportant. We must ensure we consider the way interactions with DVA can impact on our veterans, making them question the value that our nation places on their service and enormous contributions.

Even with the government's new legislation in place, I fear that the reform of the Department of Veterans' Affairs does not go far enough. The government has chosen to allocate 85 per cent of the funding in the budget for the next financial year. A great portion of this will, no doubt, be devoted to the department's ageing and inefficient computer systems. In Labor's opinion this is simply not a whole or holistic solution to a complex and pervading issue. Prior to the last election Labor threw its support behind a first principles review of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I truly believe it is still desperately needed. This review was intended, first and foremost, to help re-establish veterans' trust in DVA. It is that trust that is so critical—knowing that the Department of Veterans' Affairs is truly working and advocating for veterans. This, I believe, is the best response to grave concerns—concerns that veterans feel the need to fight to have their claims recognised, are being made to feel like malingerers, believe that they're being perceived as broken or terminally damaged, or are finding that the process of seeking compensation is inherently humiliating and that this dehumanising process greatly exacerbates existing mental health issues.

In the business world it's widely accepted that the greatest cause of lost-time injuries is depression, caused by a loss of routine, a breakdown of social networks or a loss of the sense of self and of self-esteem. This can be a by-product of the isolation caused by injury or illness. To borrow from the civilian workforce: it's not a broken leg that sends Bob the Builder into a spiral of depression or makes him anxious and unable to engage with friends and colleagues; it's being unable to operate as he once did, disenfranchised from that which defines his professional competence, and feeling disconnected from workmates. By the time the leg heals, the heart and mind are injured. Our veterans experience this, amplified, and for those with an existing mental health issue it is so much more fraught—because being part of the ADF is not a job; it's a vocation, a life choice and, very importantly, a creed.

I had a glimpse into the microcosm that is the world of Australian Defence Force personnel when I recently took part in the week-long ADF Parliamentary Program at the RAAF Base Williamtown. I was the on-base residential guest of base commander Air Commodore Craig Heap. I ate and slept on base, wore the uniform and was given access to the people, experiences and technologies that keep Australia safe. While this in itself was fascinating and inspiring—and I did get to fly a Hornet—I found there was a whole culture within the base: a whole family, if you will. I found a lot of good people, many of whom are quite young, cooperating to work as a team on very complex ideas and on solving problems. I found a cohort that carried with them an overwhelming sense of service to their country that went far deeper than the uniform they donned every morning. I found a community that supported one another through the migratory nature of the role and its impact on their families. I found a place where many felt they were home, even though they'd inhabited many different addresses.

Choosing to serve in the ADF is, for many, the only constant in a world of change and sometimes stress, fear and threat. When that world disappears, particularly when the separation is involuntary, through injury or incapacity, it is a huge shock. The one gateway back into this world is, for many, the DVA, but sadly, when they knock on the door, many of our veterans find that they are no longer part of that Defence family. Somehow, they've become the enemy. They're no longer part of the Defence community, no longer part of the team. In many cases, they are forced to relinquish their homes and stripped of their jobs—their means of financial independence and, for many, a defining factor in having a sense of competence, achievement and contribution. This can be incredibly traumatic, even for those lucky enough to have escaped physical or mental injury during service.

I've been contacted by veterans in the electorate of Paterson asking for help navigating the transition to civilian life which is neither seamless nor well supported. The issues they raise are varied, but they all boil down, really, to the same theme. When personnel leave the Defence Force, the gate to the base shuts behind them and it stays shut, never to be opened again. We must find a way to help our personnel transition from the ADF to civilian life, especially if it was not their choice to leave.

So, while I believe that the government's DRCA safety, rehabilitation and compensation legislation bill is a positive step in the right direction, there is, we all know, a great deal more to be done for those who have served our nation so valiantly.

Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (13:20): I'm delighted to rise to speak in support of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2016. It is one of those areas that doesn't often get a lot of headline attention, and it is often overshadowed by a lot of other things, both in this place and the community more generally. But I say as someone who, over many years—16 years before coming to this place—has worked in this area of compensation for those who have been injured through no fault of their own, that we are dealing with really, really important legislation here. The mechanisms proposed in this bill separate the Defence Force compensation from the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, which is a pragmatic, sensible and effective move that one hopes will have the ultimate aim of making it easier for injured veterans and injured workers to navigate what can be a very complicated system in relation to seeking compensation simply to put them back in the position they were in before they suffered their injury.

Safety, rehabilitation and compensation legislation has some history, and it is a history worth touching on, albeit only briefly, because it demonstrates how important it is to get the balance right: to make sure that workers spend their time having appropriate treatment and rehabilitation and receive compensation whilst they are injured, and to make sure that, whether it is an injury through no fault of their own or the injury has occurred as a result of the negligence of an employer, there is an appropriate level of recourse available through the act insofar as that remedy is concerned.

The reason why a no-fault scheme is fundamentally important—and the reason why this legislation is fundamentally important—is that, if one is injured in the course of one's employment or in the course of one's service to our nation, what we don't want from our community and what we don't want from our governments is a situation where, in navigating the path just to try to be in the position you were in before the incident or injury occurred, that path adds stress and complication to what is already a very stressful time and circumstance.

The introduction of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act in 1988 achieved that goal. It gave injured workers and injured service people—and injured sailors, for that matter; merchant seamen and the like, through an equivalent piece of legislation, the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—the ability to make a claim once they had been injured and to be paid compensation and offered rehabilitation upon proof of causal connection to the injury, not necessarily upon proof of negligence. That's important, because we do want to keep these cases out of the courts and we do want to focus on a return to work for these injured workers and a return to service for these injured service personnel as quickly and as practicably possible.

That is what this act does, and it is important to make sure that we keep amending this legislation so as to properly reflect the concerns of the community. There were holes in the legislation, going all the way back to 1988. For me, one of those seminal moments in one's career before coming to this place involved this legislation and this terrific fellow whose name was Stephen Smith, funnily enough.

An honourable member: Great name!

Mr HAMMOND: Not my predecessor who walked the halls of this place for some 20 years but another Stephen Smith, a merchant seaman. He was trying to move an electric generator across the deck of a ship just off the Port of Sakai in Japan and horribly injured his back in a circumstance in which one could not necessarily say that there was negligence but there was a failure of a safe system of work, as it ultimately transpired. It was a circumstance in which that Stephen Smith could have otherwise made a claim of negligence against his employer for a lump sum of compensation. But the act was changed back in those times in order to implement the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and replace those common law rights. So, all of a sudden Stephen Smith couldn't go down that track of a common law claim and had to access compensation under this act. The problem was that the act did not transfer upon him the same rights he would have had if he'd brought a common law claim of negligence against his employer. That was an acquisition of property on other than just terms.

I don't know whether many of my colleagues here remember that fantastic Australian movie The Castle. One can't forget The Castle. You'll be pleased to know that Mr Smith came to see me and my firm at that time and said, 'I'd like to make a claim, because the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act is denying me my right to bring a common law claim', and I said, 'Tell 'em they're dreamin'!' And we sued the Commonwealth and the Australian National Line under section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution—the precise same provision through which the Kerrigans sought compensation in the famous movie.

Mr Husic interjecting—

Mr HAMMOND: Well, that's another story; I'd need an extension of time to talk about that! But I'll tell you what we did. The claim was lodged in the Supreme Court, and Mr Smith lost. It was appealed to the Court of Appeal in Western Australia, and Mr Smith lost, 2-1. We then made an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court, and Mr Smith was successful in that appeal. So there we were, just down the road, in court No. 1, and I tell you what: you've never in your entire life met a junior lawyer looking and feeling more like Dennis Denuto than I did! There I was, shivering and quaking, looking up at the seven Supreme Court justices. Peter Hanks QC, as he then was, was eloquently making submissions as to why, under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, Mr Smith had his common law claim taken away on other than just terms.

Well, I tell you what: I passed a few notes, I asked Mr Hanks if he wanted a glass of water, it all went swimmingly and three months later a judgement was handed down from the High Court in which Mr Smith was successful, 5-2. Mr Smith had his day in court. We argued a couple of fairly technical arguments. We didn't argue Mabo, but what we argued got Mr Smith a historic common law claim in a circumstance in which—just as for the Kerrigans—without pushing all the way through he would not have managed to receive the compensation to which he was entitled.

That really was a great moment in time. You'll note in this legislation that there is a clause commonly known as a Henry VIII clause. The reason these clauses can be important, provided that they are drafted in the right way, is that in circumstances like Mr Smith's, where property is taken away on other than just terms, we can ensure that no-one will be worse off. Sometimes there are unintended consequences, and sometimes there are people who don't have the tenacity of Mr Smith to spend eight years of his life in litigation just to have his day in court and make sure that they are properly compensated. That is also why I'm pleased to speak in support of this legislation to make sure that there are mechanisms in play to ensure that there are no unintended consequences of the bill.

I'd like to use the time I have remaining, before we move on to other matters, to pay tribute to all those hardworking service men and women who commit so much of their lives to keeping us safe. It's only appropriate that we bend over backwards to make sure they are compensated in the unfortunate circumstance of being injured. We're very grateful for their service.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour—the member for Perth may continue the sequel of his fascinating tale at that time!

The SPEAKER (14:01): The question is that the motion moved by the honourable the Prime Minister be agreed to. As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.

Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.

The SPEAKER (15:24): I present the Presiding Officers' statement regarding the condition of Parliament House.

Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (16:28): I will make a couple of unscripted comments on the importance of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2016. It's not perfect. There could've been some more consultation. But at the end of the day we want to make sure, as I'm sure the government does, that there's less red tape. The less red tape, the better. And if our men and women who have served this country can get a more commonsense approach to the handling of their issues under the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, then that's a good thing, and I encourage the minister to re-dedicate himself to that most important task of looking after the men and women who have served our country.

Debate interrupted.