Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (09:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

On 1 July 2016, the coalition government delivered reforms to country-of-origin labelling to provide a clearer, simpler system that enables Australians to clearly see where their food comes from and the proportion that comes from our nation.

Surveys have shown that consumers want this information at their fingertips. Seventy-four per cent of Australians think it's important to be able to identify the country of origin of their food, and 73 per cent agreed that changes to food labelling were required.

We were very proud to bring forward these changes. We've listened and acted. As a result of the work we've already done, everyday Aussie brands like Sanitarium, KR Castlemaine, COON and Cracker Barrel cheese, Beechworth Honey and Carman's muesli are proudly displaying their home-grown products with their new country-of-origin labelling.

The Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017 is an important final step in implementing these reforms for the Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio.

From 1 July 2018, all applicable food must comply with the labelling requirements set out in the Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016. This standard was made under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and provides a more consumer-focused regulatory framework.

The standard will replace the existing country-of-origin labelling, which many found very confusing, for food in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, which will be repealed on 1 July 2018.

This bill will amend the Imported Food Control Act 1992to incorporate the standard made under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

Incorporating the standard will ensure authorised officers can continue to enforce the country-of-origin labelling requirements for imported food products. It will also ensure that the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources can continue its role in enforcing country-of-origin labelling at the border.

The amendments will ensure that it will be business as usual for imported food inspected at the border.

Debate adjourned.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (09:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Every day, ordinary Australians rely on the Australian financial system. It is essential to many of the biggest decisions Australians make in their lives, whether that's borrowing for a house, saving for retirement or investing for their family's future wellbeing.

The financial system is also crucial in many other respects of our day-to-day lives, whether that's buying a coffee, paying our bills or running a small business.

This makes the financial system unique. Australia has many vital economic sectors, but few are so unavoidable and critical to the lives of everyday Australians.

The stability of our financial system is also central to the successful operation of the Australian economy, and a key strength.

That is why it is crucial that the government ensures that the Australian people get the high-quality, safe and secure financial system they deserve.

So, what does the government expect of our financial system?

We expect not only a system that is unquestionably strong but also one that operates with the utmost integrity and is unquestionably accountable. Given the social licence under which the banks operate, we expect a system which is prudently managed, serving the interests of the customers who use the system and the wellbeing of their community.

We expect the system to be robustly competitive, driving prices down and fostering innovative new product offerings. We expect a system that is overseen by world-class regulators which have all the necessary tools at their disposal to execute the mandate they've been given.

Over recent years, the system has not always met these expectations. Time and time again we've seen scandals demonstrate that some in the system are more invested in their own interests than those of their customers and the community they are supposed to serve.

Now, Australians are fair-minded, and they're sensible. Businesses are supposed to make a profit; that's the point. Indeed, many Australians are shareholders in our financial sector institutions and share in the benefits of their profits and success; that's the point. A profitable, well-capitalised financial industry is in the interests of the Australian community and our economy.

But where these objectives are pursued at the expense of the integrity or stability of our financial system, then the broader national and community interests are not being advanced. Too often, Australians have not been given a fair go by some in the financial system. What's worse, the actions of some are damaging the reputation of the system as a whole and the work done by so many thousands who work in the banking system, doing the right thing for the right reasons.

So, what should a responsible government do in these circumstances?

Well, it takes action.

And that is precisely what the Turnbull government is doing—taking action now on our banking and financial system.

We have increased the power and resources of ASIC to deal with malfeasance in the sector. That's done.

We have introduced the Major Bank Levy, legislated through this place, which ensures that our largest banks pay their fair share, in recognition of the advantaged and protected position they hold in our financial system.

We have banned excessive surcharges on credit card transactions, delivering real savings on Australians' everyday transactions.

We have introduced a new alternative way to handle complaints and disputes so there can be fairer avenues to have issues resolved that are more affordable.

We have instituted, through the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, an inquiry that regularly looks into the Australian banking and financial system, including how the major banks balance the needs of borrowers, savers, shareholders and the wider community. And I commend the member for Banks for his outstanding work as the chair of that committee, as well as the members of that committee.

The bills I introduce today build on all of these actions that the Turnbull government is taking. They represent a seismic change in the accountability of our banking system and the executives who run it.

These measures represent world's best practice.

The measures in this package—not just in the bill that I introduce specifically here but in the bills that will follow—will enhance the integrity, stability, resilience and competitiveness of the financial system.

The package I introduce today includes measures that will comprehensively overhaul APRA's powers, including powers to impose consequences under the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, enhanced APRA crisis management powers, and new rule-making and data collection powers for APRA over non-bank lenders.

Together, they represent the most significant overhaul of APRA's powers since its creation by the Howard government.

Financial markets cannot operate efficiently unless participants have confidence in the stability and integrity of the system—and this package gives reason to have that confidence.

The package will also increase the competitiveness of the banking system by opening doors to innovative new entrants and levelling the playing field by opening access to the term 'bank' to all licensed banking businesses.

Competition and innovation are the keys to improving the customer experience for all Australians. Alongside this measure, the government has also encouraged APRA to enhance its licensing processes and APRA has now rolled out a new licensing regime that will encourage innovative new entrants into our banking system, creating more competition. Building on this strong start, the government will have more to say about competition in the financial sector in coming months.

Finally, the package builds on our reforms to the consumer credit card experience by introducing a measure which will improve competition in the credit card market and help prevent vulnerable consumers from building up excessive credit card debt.

I will now turn to the Bank Executive Accountability Regime, also known as the BEAR.

Earlier, I explained why the financial system is so integral to the wellbeing of the Australian people. Banks occupy a particularly central and privileged role within that system.

Given the critical roles banks play within the community, bank directors and executives need to be held to an especially high standard of accountability.

What makes banks so special?

First, it is virtually impossible for Australians to go about their daily lives without a bank account. It's how we get paid, and increasingly, how we make payments. We can choose which bank we want to bank with, but it is very difficult not to bank at all. Given Australians are locked into dealing with banks, it is appropriate that bank executives are held to a higher standard by the community.

Second, banks benefit from an extraordinarily privileged regulatory environment that advantages them, particularly the larger banks. Virtually all depositors in Australian banks are protected by a government guarantee, known as the 'Financial Claims Scheme' or FCS. This makes it much easier for banks to attract depositors, because depositors know that their money will be protected if anything goes wrong. To understand how significant an advantage this is, consider what an equivalent would look like for the car industry—it would be like providing a free warranty on new cars.

Third, banks are fundamentally important to financial stability, and financial stability is fundamentally important to Australia's economic wellbeing. History has shown that crises that begin in banking rarely end there—they infect the entire economy. Our Australian banking system performed extremely well during the global financial crisis as a result of good stewardship, which I would commend, and the forward-thinking regulation by the then Treasurer, Mr Costello, in advance of that crisis. The government is once again taking a proactive approach in ensuring that the regulatory framework continues to protect the financial wellbeing of the Australian community and the economy more generally.

Banking executives share responsibility for the stewardship of the Australian economy and they make decisions that impact upon the lives of ordinary Australians who have no choice other than to engage with the system they help run. As a consequence, the community reasonably expects higher standards of accountability and integrity of banking directors and executives.

The BEAR ensures that where these community expectations are not met, appropriate consequences will follow. It makes clear individual accountabilities so that it is clear where the buck stops in decision making and responsibility.

I'll now turn to some of the provisions of the bill.

Schedule 1 to the bill imposes new heightened accountability obligations on banks, as authorised deposit-taking institutions, or ADIs, and their accountable persons. The definition of accountable persons will encompass both a prescribed and principles based approach and will capture the most senior directors and executives within authorised deposit-taking institution groups; that is, those who influence the overall conduct and culture of the group.

ADIs will be required to register their accountable persons with APRA and clearly allocate responsibilities to accountable persons via accountability statements and accountability maps. These steps will provide clarity of responsibilities and ensure that APRA has greater visibility of the most senior persons in ADI groups in order to more easily assign accountability should there be a breach of the BEAR obligations.

To support these new accountability obligations, the bill increases consequences for ADIs and accountable persons who do not meet their obligations.

ADIs will be required to defer minimum amounts of their accountable persons' variable remuneration for a period of four years. The amount to be deferred will vary with the size of the ADI, so that smaller ADIs will not be disproportionately impacted in their ability to attract senior talent. Mandating deferral of variable remuneration, combined with provisions in the bill that remuneration policies will include provisions for reductions in variable remuneration where an accountable person fails to comply with their accountability obligations, will increase incentives for these people to focus on the long-term outcomes of their decisions.

The bill also provides APRA with enhanced disqualification powers. APRA will be able to disqualify an accountable person directly, without needing to apply to the Federal Court. Importantly, given the significance of such a decision for an individual's career and livelihood, accountable persons will be able to seek merits review and judicial review of APRA's decisions, which is appropriate. These new powers will ensure APRA can more easily respond where an accountable person has failed to comply with their accountability obligations, while ensuring appropriate external oversight.

For ADIs, the bill introduces substantial new civil penalties, of up to $210 million for large ADIs, $52.5 million for medium-sized ADIs and $10.5 million for small ADIs, where an institution breaches any requirements of the BEAR that relate to prudential matters.

Finally, schedule 2 of the bill includes a number of provisions that provide APRA with the power to examine witnesses. These provisions broadly replicate existing powers that APRA has in relation to other institutions, including in the superannuation sector. While these powers will apply to the Banking Act generally, they will support APRA's enforcement of the BEAR.

The BEAR will commence on 1 July 2018, with transitional arrangements for certain elements of the regime.

The 2017-18 budget provided APRA with $4.2 million over four years to implement the BEAR. A further $1 million per year will be provided to APRA to enforce breaches. This funding will be offset by corresponding increases in the financial institutions supervisory levies.

I want to particularly thank the Treasury for the excellent work they have done in working with me and my office as we have sought over the course of this year to prepare these measures, which were announced in the budget. In so doing, I acknowledge the Treasury secretary, Mr Fraser, as well as the deputy secretary, Mr Lonsdale, and the entire team for the outstanding work they have done at a fast pace. They have understood the importance of this issue—getting it right but ensuring that this accountability regime can be put in place and ensuring that the government is in a position to take action now. I commend them on the professionalism of their work and the way they have gone about it. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (09:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

There are few greater threats to the economic wellbeing of the Australian people than a financial crisis. Financial crises have the ability to devastate an economy, leading to mass unemployment and plunging asset prices. In a crisis, credit markets may seize up, meaning no loans for home buyers or small businesses. This would have a severe effect on the wellbeing of ordinary Australians.

Today, the Turnbull government is taking action to put in place a far-sighted framework to protect Australians against an uncontrolled financial collapse in the future.

Australia has avoided a severe financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s and has not experienced a recession for more than 26 years, an enviable record around the world today. While good fortune always plays its part in these outcomes, it can honestly be said that this period of success can be attributed to prudent economic management, in particular of our financial system, which enabled us to withstand the most recent world economic crisis. The strong budget surpluses accumulated by the Howard government had paid off debt as we entered that crisis, ensuring that we had the firepower on the Commonwealth balance sheet to navigate the global financial crisis.

Even more importantly, Treasurer Costello implemented reforms recommended by the Wallis financial system inquiry, establishing the twin peaks system of our financial regulation. Treasurer Costello's forward-thinking structure proved to be the world's best practice during the crisis, and he deserves significant credit for our ability to move through that period. We had a prudential regulator in place in APRA that shepherded our major financial institutions away from the worst excesses that we saw overseas. APRA's excellent supervision and robust capital requirements meant that Australian institutions navigated the crisis relatively unscathed. In short, the Howard government and Treasurer Costello in particular took the tough decisions during the 'good times', which meant that the Australian economy survived the 'bad times'.

The Turnbull government is taking the same approach. Prudent fiscal management is working to repair the budget.

We are also responding to the Murray inquiry into our financial system, established after the coalition took office in 2013. The Murray inquiry followed in the footsteps of the Wallis inquiry, making key recommendations to enhance the stability of the Australian financial system, and I commend Treasurer Hockey for instituting the financial system inquiry undertaken by David Murray. In July I was pleased to welcome APRA's initiative to ensure that capital levels at Australian banks were 'unquestionably strong', in response to the first recommendation of the Murray inquiry.

The government will continue to support APRA's efforts to ensure that the Australian financial system is resilient. The resilience of the financial system is the first line of defence against financial crises.

The Murray inquiry also recommended that government implement appropriate crisis management powers over banks and insurers, and the bill does just that.

These powers will ensure that APRA can effectively prepare for and manage a crisis should it befall one of our banks or insurers.

The prudent time to strengthen crisis resolution powers is when the financial system is healthy. As we've seen, you need to put the effort in during the good times to be ready for the difficult times. The government has done the necessary heavy lifting, from the work of the Murray inquiry through to the substantial volume of legislation I am introducing today.

This bill will significantly enhance APRA's crisis resolution powers.

There are two core themes for this bill.

The first theme is enhancements to the resolution planning framework. Resolution planning refers to the process of banks and insurers working with APRA to ensure that they are ready for stress events. APRA already puts considerable effort into resolution planning, but the legislative framework does not give APRA clear powers to make prudential standards for resolution. We are addressing this gap.

Done right, resolution planning will substantially reduce the cost to the taxpayer of a stress event. It leads to the best chance of a private sector solution or an orderly resolution of the entity. Orderly resolutions reduce the risk of contagion leading to a runaway crisis of confidence in the institutions.

The second theme is resolution powers. Resolution powers are the financial system equivalent of a defence force. You never want to have to use them but, if you need to, you want them to be powerful and you want them to be flexible.

Australia's powers are starting from a reasonable base. APRA can already take control of a failing bank or insurer when needed, and this bill further enhances these powers. However, larger banks and insurers tend to be part of a complex financial group. Group entities will often house critical services, like staff or infrastructure. To ensure an effective resolution, APRA needs to be able to either direct or take control of all of these necessary group entities. This bill makes amendments to the legislative framework to ensure that this is the case.

International experience has shown that the role of directors and senior officers of a distressed institution is critical. A crisis can put these individuals in difficult legal circumstances, where the regulator's attempts to institute a resolution may conflict with 'peacetime' legal obligations. This bill ensures that APRA's resolution actions should be considered paramount, and directors and senior officers will be protected when pursuing these directions in all reasonable circumstances.

This bill also improves APRA's ability to manage a foreign bank branch or insurance branch that is in distress.

Large institutions also tend to have a wideranging amount of complex legal arrangements with sophisticated counterparties. These arrangements often contain default provisions which allow counterparties to break or 'close out' their position with the distressed institution.

Regulators need to be able to 'stop the music'—in other words, to buy time to institute an effective resolution strategy. This bill ensures that APRA is able to freeze the rights of counterparties of a financial group in appropriate circumstances to carve out the time necessary to effect a resolution. This is achieved in a way which preserves, to the extent possible, the certainty of counterparties when dealing with Australian banks and insurers.

This bill makes a number of technical amendments that ensure the machinery of government operates as intended during a resolution event. This includes technical enhancements to the operation of the Financial Claims Scheme and the efficacy of the legal framework for the conversion of capital instruments under the Basel III framework. These mechanical fixes will increase efficiency and certainty in the event of a crisis.

Taken together, these themes represent a significant leap in APRA's capability as a resolution authority, accompanying its traditional core role as a prudential supervisor. They will ensure that Australia's regulatory infrastructure is in line with international best practice.

Whilst government will continue to work to do everything in its power to avoid financial crises, through our prudent economic management, we are taking the prudent step of safeguarding the system for the wellbeing of current and future generations.

I want to thank the Treasury officials for their support in the preparation of this legislation. I also wish to commend and thank APRA; the APRA chair, Wayne Byers; and all of those at APRA who have assisted with the preparation of these measures.

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

Debate adjourned.

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

That this bill be now read a second time.

In this year's budget, the government announced a series of measures that will deliver a stronger, safer financial system, with better competition and consumer outcomes for Australians.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 continues the work of implementing these commitments by further strengthening our financial system.

Schedules 1 and 2 to the bill provide APRA with a new reserve power to make rules in relation to non-bank lenders, called 'non-ADI lenders'. This will provide APRA the necessary flexibility to address risks to financial stability if they emerge. This measure also enhances APRA's ability to gather data to monitor non-ADI lenders. I stress that this is a reserve power.

Importantly, this new rule-making power is not a new 'peacetime' regulation of non-ADI lenders. These lenders are a vital source of competition in the lending market, and they do not rely on ordinary Australian depositors for their funding. Given non-ADI lenders have no depositors to protect, it is appropriate that they continue to run their businesses without being subject to ongoing prudential supervision by APRA which is not the intent of this bill.

The government supports this important sector and the competition it provides for customers.

However, international experience has demonstrated that risks can emerge from the non-ADI lending sector that threaten the stability of the financial system. It is appropriate for APRA to have the power to move decisively to curb these risks should they ever arise.

Having such rules in place should strengthen the non-ADI lending sector, by signalling to market that the sector is well regulated and stable, as appropriate.

I have often spoken of the need to approach financial stability risks with a scalpel rather than a chainsaw, and these powers will provide APRA a new scalpel to deal with risks to financial stability that are specific to non-ADI lenders, as appropriate.

Schedule 3 of the bill lifts the prohibition on the use of the term 'bank', so that all banking businesses with an ADI licence can now use the term.

This will encourage competition in the sector by allowing all ADIs to enjoy the benefit of describing themselves as a bank when they offer banking services to Australian customers.

This will prompt innovation in the sector by opening the door to new banking entrants who will no longer be subject to the systemic barrier to entry of not being able to call themselves a bank when offering banking services.

Schedule 4 of the bill seeks to modernise the Banking Act by incorporating a reference to the importance of APRA considering 'geographic and sectoral' considerations where appropriate. Government is putting APRA's powers and responsibilities to take account of these considerations—in line with its prudential mandate—beyond doubt.

Schedule 5 of the bill implements a package of reforms to reduce the incidence of consumers building up unsustainable credit card debt and to improve competition in the credit card market.

Too many Australians are burdened with excessive credit card debt and incur substantial credit card interest. More than 30 per cent of credit card holders in the lowest income quartile carry interest-bearing debt from period to period. For these consumers, inadequate competition on ongoing interest rates and insufficient protection in the current regulatory framework can contribute to real hardship.

Schedule 5 of the bill implements reforms to ensure consumers can afford credit card contracts, to reduce the barriers consumers face when switching credit cards, and to align the calculation of credit card interest with consumers' expectations.

I'll now provide more detail on these measures.

Since December 2014, APRA has taken a series of steps to address emerging financial stability risks by reinforcing the lending practices of banks and other ADIs, particularly in relation to residential home loans.

While these measures are effective in mitigating financial stability risks, the tightening of credit from ADIs creates room for non-ADI lenders to fill in the gap.

Although their current share of lending is relatively small, these non-ADI lenders may expand rapidly and their lending activities could potentially pose material risks to financial stability—risks that ultimately fall on the broader Australian community.

The global financial crisis showed us how costly these risks can be when left unaddressed.

However, APRA does not have power over these lending activities, even where they materially contribute to financial stability risks.

Schedule 1 to the bill will provide APRA with these powers.

APRA will be able to make rules relating to lending practices of non-ADI lenders, where it considers that their lending activities materially contribute to financial stability risks.

These new rules will be backed by appropriate enforcement mechanisms. If a non-ADI lender fails to comply with a rule, it can be compelled by APRA to comply. If it ignores an APRA direction, the non-ADI lender will face appropriate penalties.

Schedule 2 to the bill enhances APRA's ability to collect data from non-ADI lenders, so it can better monitor the non-ADI lender sector and determine if and when to use its new rule-making power.

In making this determination, APRA will use its independent judgement. However, it is likely APRA will consider a number of factors including: the size of the sector; the nature of activities of non-ADI lenders; and the impact of non-ADI lenders on ADIs.

Before it makes a rule, APRA must consult ASIC, and will also ordinarily consult with the other members of the Council of Financial Regulators.

The rule-making power is a reserve power that would only be used when APRA considers that the lending activities of non-ADI lenders are materially contributing to risks of financial instability. In other words, the government is providing APRA with a new 'tool' in its kit—rather than requiring the day-to-day operations of these entities to be regulated by APRA.

The government believes that non-ADI lenders are not currently materially contributing to financial stability risks and therefore the government does not expect APRA to use these powers on day one.

Schedule 3 helps innovative new banking entrants bring new product offerings into the Australian banking system. New entrants to the Australian banking market currently face a significant obstacle, and that is the prohibition on the use of the word 'bank'.

At present, only ADIs with at least $50 million in capital are permitted to use the term 'bank'.

This has two undesirable effects:

it discourages innovative new players from entering the sector, because they are unable to benefit from the advantages of being able to use the term 'bank' in the critical early phase of their development; and

it may lead the public to mistakenly believe that small ADIs differ from larger players in terms of regulatory protection.

In fact, all ADIs are subject to APRA's prudential framework.

And deposits at all ADIs are protected by the government's Financial Claims Scheme guarantee.

By lifting the prohibition on the use of the word 'bank', schedule 2 to this bill will allow the advantages associated with the term 'bank' to flow to all banking businesses with an ADI licence, especially new fin-tech entrants.

It breaks the vicious cycle for new entrants, where currently they need $50 million to describe themselves as a bank, but must describe themselves as a bank in order to grow.

Nothing improves the customer experience like robust competition in a market, particularly from innovative new entrants.

Competition in banking drives down interest rates for borrowers, drives down fees, increases interest rates for savers, and leads to advancements in the overall customer experience.

This measure will also ensure that there are no misconceptions about the regulatory safeguards that apply to all ADIs in the Australian financial system.

Schedule 3 will also reinforce APRA's discretion over whether or not to permit the use of 'bank' outside of the ADI sector, ensuring that this term is limited to APRA regulated entities except in very unusual cases.

Schedule 4 modernises the Banking Act by inserting an 'objects' provision. This clarifies APRA's mandate under the act, clearly setting out APRA's objectives to protect financial stability and depositors. It also makes clear that APRA can consider geographic and sectoral sources of system risks issues as appropriate and respond as appropriate.

Recent conditions have highlighted the fact that the Australian economy differs considerably from region to region. APRA has broad and flexible powers, but there is no clear statement in the Banking Act that APRA has a responsibility to take account of geographic or sectoral issues where appropriate. Government is putting APRA's powers and responsibilities to address these issues—in line with its prudential mandate—beyond doubt.

Schedule 5 of the bill implements a number of reforms to the credit card market to improve competition in the credit card market and protect vulnerable consumers from building up unsustainable credit card debts.

There are many benefits to the use of credit cards for consumers. However, for some consumers very high interest rates and a pattern of overborrowing and under-repayment can cause them to incur persistently high credit card interest charges. These consumers are often in households with low levels of income, with the lowest income households having credit card debt equal to four per cent of their annual disposable income, compared to two per cent for those in the highest income category.

For these consumers, inadequate competition on ongoing interest rates and insufficient protection in the current regulatory framework can contribute to substantial hardship.

Currently, credit card providers are only required to assess a credit card contract as unsuitable if the borrower cannot repay the loan without substantial hardship. This means that some credit card providers only assess whether a consumer can meet the minimum repayments when determining if a consumer can afford a credit limit. As a result, consumers can be granted excessive credit limits which can lead to cycles of debt.

In addition, the calculation of credit card interest can be overly complex and often does not match consumers' expectations or understanding.

Consumers can also face substantial barriers to switching credit cards or lowering credit limits due to onerous processes imposed by banks. These barriers have a substantial impact on competition in the credit card market.

Schedule 5 of this bill addresses these problems by implementing a reform package to reduce the incidence of consumers building up unsustainable credit card debt and to improve competition in the credit card market.

This is consistent with the government's commitment to implementing the first phase of reforms outlined in the government's response to the Senate inquiry into the credit card market.

Firstly, Schedule 5 will tighten responsible lending obligations for credit card providers by requiring affordability assessments to be based on whether a consumer can repay the full credit limit within a reasonable period. The bill will provide the Australian Securities and Investments Commission with the power to determine that reasonable period by legislative instrument.

This reform is not intended to unduly reduce consumers' access to credit. As such, ASIC is required to balance the need to prevent consumers from being in unsuitable credit card contracts with the need to ensure that reasonable access to credit is maintained when determining the reasonable conduct.

Secondly, schedule 5 will prohibit all unsolicited credit limit increase invitations including where a consumer has previously opted in to receiving these invitations.

The definition of a credit limit increase invitation has also been expanded to include all forms of communication (rather than only written communication), removing the loopholes to prevent credit card providers from circumventing the law and making unsolicited offers by phone or over an online portal.

Schedule 5 will put an end to the unfair and complex way that interest is calculated on credit cards and make it easier for consumers to understand and compare how credit card interest is calculated.

Credit card providers will no longer be able to charge backdated interest or interest on the balance that has already been repaid if a consumer does not fully repay their outstanding balance.

Finally, schedule 5 will require credit card providers to have online options for consumers to initiate a credit card cancellation or lower a credit limit. Consumers can face substantial barriers when trying to cancel a credit card and this reduces competition and limits how consumers can manage their credit card debt.

Schedule 5 requires credit card providers to facilitate any requests to cancel a credit card or lower a credit limit and prevents them from employing tactics to dissuade or impede consumers from cancelling a credit card or lowering a credit limit.

These reforms are a necessary and important step in reducing the incidence of consumers building up unmanageable credit card debts and improving competition in the credit card market.

The Turnbull government is taking action now to ensure a more accountable and unquestionably strong, fair and competitive banking system that does the right thing by Australians.

Debate adjourned.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (10:10): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive) Bill 2017 will amend the tax law to replace the former exploration development incentive with the junior minerals exploration incentive.

The government is focused on promoting investment and driving economic activity. Ongoing exploration and the discovery of new mineral resources are vital to the longer term future of Australia's resources sector. This tax incentive will encourage junior explorers to take risks and to have a go at discovering the next large-scale mineral deposit. We want to back these small businesses.

This government is working to get the economic fundamentals right to build a strong prosperous Australia, improve the business climate and unleash our economic potential. We are doing so to create a stable platform for investor confidence and growth.

This new incentive entitles Australian resident investors in small minerals exploration companies to a refundable tax offset (or where the investor is a corporate tax entity, additional franking credits) if the company in which they have invested issues them an exploration credit.

The ability of an exploration company to give up their tax losses to distribute credits to investors as a tax offset will make investing in a junior explorer much more attractive.

Despite good prospects, Australia has not had a world-class minerals discovery in more than 20 years. Expenditure on greenfields exploration declined by almost 70 per cent over the five years to 2015-16. This incentive will make it more financially attractive for our mineral explorers to find resources in untapped regions, continuing discovery of quality resources. It builds on the EDI which ceased in 2016-17, and aims to improve on the timeliness of the offset and target new investors that participate in new capital raisings. This will help maximise the incentive for additional investment in minerals exploration.

Not only does the extraction and sale of minerals resources make a significant contribution to the Australian economy; it also creates jobs and supports local businesses in regional communities across Australia.

Greenfield minerals exploration is essential to ensuring an investment pipeline to support the future strength of the Australian resources sector. However, these exploration companies often find it difficult to raise the capital they need to explore. A $100 million tax incentive over four years, starting in 2017-18, will make this easier.

Companies can obtain an allocation of credits by applying electronically to the Commissioner of Taxation. Credits will be allocated on a first come, first served basis, until the annual cap is reached, with any unallocated credits carried forward to the next year of the scheme.

The new process will be faster than the EDI as small exploration companies will know with certainty upfront how many credits they have been allocated before they undertake their capital raising to fund additional exploration activities.

To ensure that the benefits of the incentive are widely distributed, there is a cap on the amount of credits that may be allocated to an entity of five per cent of the total amount available for each year.

As part of introducing the new incentive, the excess exploration credit tax will apply to ensure minerals explorers seek to create and issue exploration credits only in circumstances in which they are entitled to.

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

Debate adjourned.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (10:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill is designed to protect—for the workers—the hundreds of millions of dollars held in these funds for workers' redundancy pay, sick leave and other employee benefits and to ensure these funds are spent for the benefit of workers and not for other purposes.

In 2015, the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption estimated that worker entitlement funds hold close to $2 billion. Since that time they will have grown.

The Heydon royal commission, and the Cole royal commission before that, found that, while on the face of it these funds look like they are run for the benefit of workers, these funds in fact funnel millions of dollars back to the unions and employer groups which make up their boards.

Given there is little governance of these funds, Commissioner Heydon found that there was a 'compelling case' for reform and that new laws were needed to comprehensively deal with governance, financial reporting and disclosure in worker entitlement funds.

That is what this bill does.

Given the amount of money in these funds, and that the money in these funds is meant to be for the benefit of the workers, it is crucial that the moneys in these funds are managed transparently and responsibly and spent on genuine benefits for workers.

Currently, basic rules of good governance that apply to other managed investment schemes do not apply to worker entitlement funds. In fact, Commissioner Heydon found that this multi-billion-dollar industry is currently subject to virtually no regulation at all. This bill will change that.

Workers' money will need to be responsibly invested and transparently managed by trained professionals.

Funds will need to have at least one independent voting director on their boards.

They will have to be run by people of good character.

They will have to be managed at arm's length.

They will be required to treat union members the same as nonmembers. And they will be required to be transparent by providing information to workers, to employers and to the Registered Organisations Commission, which will register and monitor the funds and ensure they comply with the law and manage workers' money responsibly.

In short, this bill will ensure worker entitlement funds are run for workers, not for anyone else. These are basic standards that should apply to people who manage other people's money.

The funds will still be able to spend money on training and welfare services for the benefit of workers, such as crisis counselling or health checks, but the arrangements will have to be reasonable, transparent, and made at arm's length.

The bill makes a number of other crucial changes recommended by the Heydon royal commission. In total, the bill implements 10 recommendations of the royal commission aimed at stopping corruption, coercion and financial mismanagement.

The bill ensures that registered unions and employer organisations have written and binding policies on such things as financial decision making, credit card use, procurement, hospitality and gifts. The royal commission found that some unions did not have policies on these basic matters. Sometimes if there was a policy, it wasn't even written down. This is hardly a recipe for good financial management of other people's money and is certainly not in the interests of union members.

The bill provides that enterprise agreements and employment contracts cannot include terms that require people to contribute to 'election funds' that are set up to fund the campaigns of people running for office in a union or employer group. These contributions should only be voluntary and not a condition of working for a union or employer group.

The bill also prohibits people coercing employers to contribute to particular superannuation funds, welfare funds and other worker benefit funds. The royal commission heard cases of union officials placing extraordinary pressure on employers to pay into particular worker benefit funds, basically because the union stood to gain from the arrangement. There is no place for this sort of bullying and coercion in the workplace.

Finally, the bill requires unions, employer groups and employers to disclose any financial benefit they will receive from promoting or arranging insurance products, or payments to worker entitlement, training or welfare funds. This will ensure that employers who make these payments and employees who are supposed to be receiving a benefit are made aware of any conflicts of interest, similar to the arrangements the government introduced in regard to transparency in enterprise bargaining.

This bill is about transparency, good governance and the proper use of money that is there to help other people and should be used only for the benefit of those people.

Debate adjourned.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (10:20): 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: Australian War Memorial, Treloar E Large Technology Objects Store Project, Mitchell, ACT.

As I advised the House when referring this project to the Public Works Committee, the Australian War Memorial is proposing to construct a single-level storage facility on the Commonwealth-owned site at Mitchell, Australian Capital Territory, to accommodate the planned acquisition of large technology objects. The Treloar collection's storage facility at Mitchell is an essential asset and the Australian War Memorial's conservation facility and store for large pieces of military equipment, including aircraft, vehicles, boats, missiles and guns. There is an immediate requirement for increased collection storage, as there is a significant planned handover of collections from the Department of Defence once additional storage capacity is available. These include a P-3C Orion, an F/A-18 Classic Hornet, and Seahawk and Squirrel naval helicopters, which are due to be retired in the coming decade.

The project will provide approximately 5,288 square metres of total floor space. No internal fit-out is proposed. The estimated cost to deliver the project is $16.1 million, excluding GST. This includes a provision for contingencies, cost escalation and associated professional fees. The committee has conducted an inquiry and it 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'd like to thank the committee for, once again, undertaking a timely inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in January 2018 and is expected to be completed by December 2018. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (10:22): 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: Explosive Ordnance Logistics Reform Program Project.

As I advised the House when referring this project to the Public Works Committee, the Department of Defence is proposing to provide additional explosive ordnance logistics infrastructure across Australia. Defence's explosive ordnance logistics network is a key enabler to the capabilities of the Australian Defence Force and provides direct support to the Navy, Army and Air Force. The project will provide new infrastructure for the explosive ordnance network, including storage, processing and administration facilities. The proposed facilities will modernise and align the capacity of the network with the Australian Defence Force's operational tempo. The estimated cost to deliver the project is $230.9 million excluding GST. This includes the construction costs, management and design fees, furniture, fittings and equipment, contingencies and an escalation allowance.

The 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'd like to thank the committee for, once again, undertaking a timely inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in early 2018 and is scheduled to be completed by late 2020 in all areas. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (10:25): 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 Cerberus Redevelopment, Western Port Bay, Victoria.

As I advised the House when referring this project to the Public Works Committee, the Department of Defence is proposing to remediate and upgrade facilities and infrastructure at HMAS Cerberus to better support Navy and Australian Defence Force training operations and base-support services functions. HMAS Cerberus, located at Western Port Bay in Victoria, is the principal and largest training establishment of the Royal Australian Navy, with approximately 6,000 training places annually, over 300 courses, with an average of 1,100 trainees on courses at any one time throughout the year. The project will provide opportunities to improve current site environmental conditions by addressing inefficiencies in engineering services. The project will have a positive social and economic benefit for the region, with the total number of personnel engaged by the project estimated at 1,100 over the proposed delivery time frame.

The estimated cost to deliver the project is $463.1 million, excluding GST. This includes construction costs, management and design fees, information communication technology, fittings and equipment, contingencies and allowance for escalation. The 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, yet again, undertaking a timely inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is scheduled to begin in late 2017 and is expected to be completed by mid-2025. With that, I commend this motion to this House.

Question agreed to.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (10:27): 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: IP Australia Accommodation Project: Building Refresh Discovery House, Woden, ACT.

As I advised the House when referring this project to the Public Works Committee, IP Australia proposes to renew its tenancy, undertake a building refresh and introduce enhanced amenities at its head office in Discovery House, Woden, which in the Australian Capital Territory. The building refresh will provide a new, modern fit-out and create an efficient, adaptable and sustainable workplace designed to support flexible work practices, provide a childcare facility and achieve the whole-of-government occupational density target of 14 square metres of office space per occupied work point. It is anticipated that at the conclusion of the works 2,000 square metres of surplus office space will become available to sublet to another government agency.

The estimated cost to deliver the project is $39.7 million, excluding GST. This includes all capital construction works, fixture fittings and furniture, design, project management, and consultancy costs. The 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, indeed, expedient to carry out. On behalf of the government, I'd like to thank the committee for, once again, undertaking a timely inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is scheduled to start in February 2018 and to be completed by December 2019. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (10:30): 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: JP2008 Phase 5B2 Wideband Satellite Capability—Satellite Ground Station—East Facilities Project.

As I advised the House when referring this particular project to the Public Works Committee, the Department of Defence is proposing to construct facilities to support a satellite ground station at Kapooka Military Area near Wagga Wagga in the Riverina in New South Wales. The project will provide facilities to enable anchoring of enhanced wideband satellite communications. The proposed works will involve the construction of a transmission building, foundations for three satellite dishes, and associated supporting infrastructure and engineering services. The proposed site is an open field inside the southern boundary of the Kapooka Military Area. The facility will be serviced by a small number of maintenance personnel and operated remotely. The capital investment in infrastructure will bring economic benefits to the local economy during construction and throughout its ongoing sustainment. The estimated cost of delivering the project is $34 million excluding GST. This includes the construction cost, professional service fees, management fees, contingencies and an allowance for escalation. The 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 Commonwealth government I'd like to thank the committee for, once again, undertaking a timely inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is scheduled to begin in mid-2018 and is expected to be completed by late 2019. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (10:32): I present the report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table.

Report—by leave—agreed to.

Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (10:33): As I started to say in my speech yesterday, Labor does not support mandatory minimums. We know that they can lead to fewer prosecutions and convictions, sometimes leading juries to acquit rather than sentence, and can conflict with the role of the judiciary. People will not have an incentive to plead guilty or inform the police on others' actions if they know they face a mandatory sentence. It builds in the incentive to fight and appeal against convictions. Even former Prime Minister John Howard has previously commented:

… as a matter of principle I don't agree with mandatory sentencing … in the end I do think these matters ought to be determined by judges and magistrates.

It's a shame Mr Howard isn't getting rolled out for his opinion on mandatory sentencing.

The Law Council of Australia has urged the Senate to reject mandatory sentencing in bills, because of the real risk of unintended consequences with potentially life-shattering outcomes. There is no evidence that mandatory sentencing has the effect of reducing crime rates. Dangerously, this particular piece of legislation will have the unintended consequence of the proposed mandatory minimums possibly applying to teenagers. Examples of this provided in the Law Council of Australia's submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee included: an 18-year-old sexting a 15-year-old would lead to a mandatory sentence of five years for the 18-year-old; an 18-year-old sending an intimate image to a 15-year-old would lead to a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for the 18-year-old; and where a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old might be sharing sexual images with each other in a consensual relationship, the day the older partner turns 18, the 18-year-old would be looking at an automatic five-year sentence. I agree these things may be criminal and, in accordance with the law, those people should be punished, but I'm not sure that the punishment of a five-year minimum sentence would serve that particular crime. We want responsible use of the internet and mobile messaging by our kids and teenagers—I have three children: a 15-year-old, an 11 year-old and a nine-year-old—and I would not find one person who disagrees with that. I hope that our kids are sensible and don't engage in such behaviour, but, if they do, I don't want them to go to jail for a mandatory minimum term of five years.

The financial impact of this bill is stated as being largely limited to the costs associated with housing federal prisoners, and its overall financial impact on the states and territories will be negligible. This is yet another example of the Turnbull government fudging the figures on this. They have cut $184 million from the Australian Federal Police funding in the 2017-18 budget. This significantly reduces our federal law enforcement's capacity to hunt down perpetrators of this crime. The AFP needs funding to fight the paedophile rings that operate on our doorstep. This is a global challenge for our law enforcement agencies and the AFP; it reaches far beyond our borders. Children are being enslaved by paedophile rings with links to Australia, and sexual acts with adults are being live-streamed over the internet. These crimes are horrendous. Children are being held as sex slaves known as 'pay-per-view'. The children are routinely raped and that is streamed live via encrypted online video. The Australian reported that last year the AFP assessment centre received more than 8,000 reports of child exploitation. As of 21 September, it has already received more than 6,776 reports of child exploitation for this calendar year. These criminals are producing thousands and thousands of sexually explicit materials, depicting children being abused and brutalised. We must stop the online exploitation of children, and we must stop it within our communities.

Labor always has and always will fight to protect children here and overseas from exploitation, abuse and sexual crimes. We are proud of our record under the Keating, Rudd and Gillard governments, and our achievements include—some of them we are all incredibly proud of—in 1994 introducing world-leading offences targeting Australians who engage in the sexual abuse of children overseas; bringing federal, state and territory governments together in 2009 to implement the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children, which includes a funding commitment of $63.6 million over four years from the Commonwealth government; introducing new child abuse offences and protection measures in 2010; and establishing the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—the first inquiry of this type at a national level. The royal commission, among other things, inquired into how systems have failed to protect children. It made many recommendations on how to improve laws, policies and practices to prevent and better respond to sexual abuse in institutions. I look forward to the Redress Scheme. Labor's achievements also include appointing Australia's first National Children's Commissioner in 2013 to advocate for the rights of Australia's young people in and introducing the vulnerable witness act in 2013.

We can always do more to protect our kids. I am a parent raising the first generation of social media users. We all have a responsibility to keep our kids safe whilst using the internet. We need to be aware of how much time our kids are on the internet and educate them about the possible dangers of chatting with people on the internet. We can sit with the kids and explore the internet together and monitor the sites they use. We can lock certain sites down and have software that monitors our children's email and social media. We can also check with our kids' schools and other schools in our communities as to what safety measures are in place to make sure our kids can talk with us about what is happening online. They need to be cybersafe. We will be voting for this bill but we will be seeking to amend it in the Senate, as I have pointed out. We need to make this something that we do together, make it tougher and not use it as political pointscoring. We need to make it more effective, because we know this is the best way to stop sexual offenders.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work done by a community group in my community, called the Queen of Hearts Foundation, and the founder and director of that organisation, Michelle Ellery. In 2014 the Queen of Hearts Foundation was established in my community to run a community based resource centre that supports men, women and children. Their mission is to protect kids and support survivors of child sexual abuse and domestic violence on their journey for justice and healing. I would like to take this opportunity to read into Hansard how incredible the work is that they are doing for those vulnerable children who have been victims of sexual abuse. I must admit that, when I first learned of the incredible work that was being done, I had to remind myself we were still in Australia and these things still happen, irrespective of how much we all want them not to. So I thank them for their work and I put on record my thanks and gratitude for all that they do.

Mr IRONS ( Swan ) ( 10:40 ): I rise to speak in support of the measures contained in this bill, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017, which is the greatest crackdown on paedophiles in a generation. I have to agree with the member for Lindsay that we shouldn't do any political pointscoring on this issue. This is something that should be bipartisan. I have spoken about child sex abuse in this place many times, as someone who has family members who experienced it and because of my involvement with the apology to the 'forgotten Australians' and getting up the royal commission into sexual abuse and my continued ongoing patronage of CLAN and other organisations that support people who are no longer called the 'forgotten Australians' but referred to as survivors and also people who have experienced the horror of sexual abuse in institutions under the care of governments, churches and also private institutions.

I have had a number of different jobs in my time. To this day being a dad to my son, Jarrod, is probably the most important job I have ever had in my life. I am sure that all members would agree with me when I say that to victimise and abuse a child is one of the lowest forms of human behaviour. The only other thing I could think of that would be worse, maybe, is murder. The welfare of the children in our society is paramount. I am proud to have been Jarrod's father. As parents we go to extreme lengths to ensure the safety of our children. From the day they enter our lives, we become their most fierce protectors and we do our very best to keep our little ones safe and secure.

But in this job, as members of parliament, we have the capacity to extend these lengths to ensure the protection of every Australian child who doesn't have that protection, safety and security from their parents in their own homes and in our society. In my time as the member for Swan, child abuse is something that I have actively campaigned on. In my maiden speech I said I wanted to bring focus to the national issue of institutional child sex abuse and I shared the story of Shellay Ward, the seven-year-old girl who died in 2007 of starvation after years of abuse and being seriously neglected by her parents. What sort of society do we live in where a seven-year-old girl can starve to death under the nose of neighbours and the bodies that are set up by governments to protect children? Over the following 10 years, I have met with countless victims of child sex abuse—victims who bravely gave evidence during the royal commission, victims who suffered at the hands of those who they trusted and victims who have spent their lives recovering from the trauma of their childhoods. This is why it is so important to support this legislation. I have seen adults who were abused as children collapse under the trauma of their abuse. They have been broken by their childhoods and many have had long battles with depression or addiction and have required ongoing medical assistance. Many of them have chronic health issues that they deal with on a daily basis. Others have tried to move forward with their lives but have shared with me the struggles they have endured, noting difficulties in all aspects of their lives—in their work, in their relationships and when they have had children of their own.

Child abuse hasn't just happened in institutions. It happens in children's own homes. It happens at the hands of guardians. It happens at the hands of strangers and online, as we have heard from other members who have contributed to this debate. It is not exclusive to any demographic, nor is it exclusive to any neighbourhood or region of our country. We have an entrenched system that is failing the children of Australia.

I would like to share with the House a couple of stories. I refer first to a story not in our country but in New Zealand with the story of two half-sisters, Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson, of Masterton, New Zealand. They were two beautiful girls who fell victim to the broken system that existed. Their story spans 10 years. There were 10 years where they could have been removed from the physical and sexual abuse they faced, but instead they were returned to their abusers again and again. Saliel was born in February 1989 and was the second child of Charlene Aplin. In November 1990, Charlene had Olympia Jetson, who was followed by two more children in the following two years.

In 1992, Charlene Aplin applied for a nonviolence order and spent time in a women's refuge. By 1993, Charlene had reconciled with her husband, but after further domestic violence and court involvement the marriage ended. At the end of the year, Charlene Aplin contacted police, concerned that the girls may have been suffering from sexual abuse. Evidence was inconclusive, and the girls received counselling. In 1994, Saliel and Olympia's elder sister repeated the sexual abuse allegations. Police were once more called, but no evidence was found. The counselling was continued. I saw a program on CI which featured this particular episode. These girls were submitted to a situation where they had to give evidence to the police in front of their abuser. Of course, they weren't going to reveal the details in front of their abuser. This is how ridiculous the system is.

Soon after, Charlene Aplin began a relationship with Bruce Howse. In March 1994, Charlene Aplin contacted Child, Youth and Family—CYF—and the police after a dispute between her and Howse. It is alleged Saliel and Olympia, at the ages of five and three respectively, had suffered injuries inflicted by Howse. In an interview the following month with CYF, the children reported physical abuse by Howse again. By the middle of May 1994, all Charlene's children were removed and placed with her parents. By the end of the year, Charlene reported to CYF that she was concerned that her parents were not caring adequately for her children. This woman complained her parents weren't looking after their grandchildren and she wanted to return them to an abusive situation. This is how silly our systems are.

On 1 August 1996, the court ruled that Saliel, Olympia and their brother could return to their mother and the abuser, Howse. By November, their eldest sisters returned to live with them and, by Christmas, Howse's five other children were also living with them. In April 1997, Charlene Aplin again took legal steps to protect herself from Howse, but soon the couple reconciled again. In October 1999, Charlene Aplin and Howse had a daughter. Domestic violence was reported to the authorities on several occasions and eventually Charlene left Howse and took all the children to her parents' home again, the home where she thought they weren't being looked after.

In 2000, after living with her parents for six months, Charlene Aplin moved the family to Ashhurst, and Howse attempted to take the baby from the house. The police were called. A separate violent incident saw police called again. The family moved to Woodville briefly, before returning to Masterton, where Aplin again reconciled with Howse. At the end of September, Howse left home after a violent incident. Soon after, he returned home and abducted the baby. Charlene Aplin retrieved the child and further fights ensued before another reconciliation.

In 2001, Charlene Aplin was pregnant again. She and Howse briefly separated but again reconciled. The pregnancy wasn't easy, and Olympia and Saliel were often left on their own in the care of Howse and their elder sister whilst their mother spent time in hospital. In July, another baby girl was born. After the following three months, on 3 August, Olympia's school contacted Charlene Aplin to say that Olympia had made an accusation of sexual abuse. By the following Monday, she had withdrawn that accusation.

On 20 November, a fight erupted between Howse and Charlene Aplin. The police were called and Howse was taken to his son's address. He phoned Charlene Aplin several times that night threatening to kill them all. He returned to the home the next day and was asked to leave permanently. Howse said Aplin had no legal right to keep him out of the house. On 1 September, Saliel had an argument with Howse and told him she was going to nark on him. Two days later, on 3 December 2001, Saliel and her little sister Olympia were stabbed. Each received a single knife wound. They both died in the early hours of 4 December, having bled to death, stabbed by their abuser, their stepfather. This followed a decade of physical and sexual abuse not by one but by two men. The system had failed them, and it fails so many children around Australia and in other countries around the world. This is why this legislation is what's needed to defeat these people, to put them away and to never let them have contact with children again. If I had my way, I would bring back capital punishment for people like that. This man got 28 years in jail. Hopefully he'll rot and die in jail, because that's what he deserves.

Child sexual abuse is one of the most heinous crimes. To rob a child of their childhood—to abuse those too young to understand or those too afraid to say no—is monstrous. I have another example. I met a woman who, from the age of eight to 14, was raped by her stepfather continually for six years. The only way they found out was the fact that she fell pregnant. This is back in the late seventies in Victoria. She was taken to court. It was one of the first ever sexual abuse court cases in Victoria. The stepfather got 2½ years jail. That is not satisfactory; that is not protection for children.

For too long our laws have been inadequate. The bill introduces reforms which criminalise emerging forms of child sexual abuse and strengthen community protections from child sex offenders. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017 targets all aspects of the child sex offender cycle by strengthening measures at the time of charging, bail, sentencing and upon release. Under the new laws, child sex offenders will spend longer in jail and will be less likely to be granted bail and parole. There has been some discussion that there shouldn't be mandatory sentencing. My support for mandatory sentencing for these people is absolute. They will face mandatory minimum sentences and be closely supervised following their release. They shouldn't be released.

The advancement of technology has seen emerging forms of child sexual abuse. These laws are adding an offence of providing electronic services to facilitate dealings with child abuse material. As it currently stands the code doesn't specifically criminalise the provision of electronic services—for example, website or chat fora, often hosted on the dark web—to facilitate online dealings with child abuse material. This amendment bill will make it an offence for a person to provide an electronic service with the intention that the service be used for access to child abuse material.

We have heard some doubts in this area, in that teenagers might end up in jail. I can tell you a story about a young Aboriginal child in the north of Western Australia who lived in a community where his abusers were his own peers. He was seven and his abusers were 10, 11 and 12, and he was repeatedly raped by these abusers. It is in the environment where these kids live and grow up that we need to take hold of these situations and address these issues. This kid eventually became involved in a system that taught him self-respect, and the abuse stopped; he was so proud, and he wore a special T-shirt. Then the government withdrew funding for that program. It amazes me that as a society we can see something that is working successfully to protect children and then we withdraw funding that assists in those areas. If it takes emotion and the necessary hard line to protect children in our society, that is what we need.

The amendments in this bill also add an offence of grooming third parties using the post or a carriage service to procure children for sexual activity. These measures also clarify that live-streamed child abuse is captured in existing Criminal Code offences. Recently in the UK there was a story about people grooming children online. When the authorities got into the system, they found that over 3,000 children not only had been groomed online but had been blackmailed to take photos performing sexual acts for the people who put themselves up as their peers and friends online, and then they abused them. These men were all from the Middle East, aged from 21. This is the type of stuff we need to stop. The new offences will criminalise the transmission of communications using these services to a third party who is not the child victim, with the intention of making it easier to procure a specific child for sexual activity.

The coalition's new laws ensure the sentencing of child sex offenders is reflective of the gravity of this type of offending. For too long we've read news stories of paedophiles being released on parole after a menial sentence that in no way represents the years of damage their actions have caused—and there is a stat regarding the time they spend in jail. These new laws also increase penalties for certain offences, including grooming offences and offences for using a carriage service to engage in sexual activity.

Since 2012, only 58.7 per cent of those convicted of Commonwealth child sex offences have received a term of imprisonment. This will stop that. That 58.7 per cent of child sex offenders will go to jail. They need to go to jail. That's over half of those sentenced walking free after committing these types of crimes.

In closing I'd like to thank the minister for bringing this legislation on a subject that is dear to my heart. My sister suffered sexual abuse and in the process died, when she was very young, at the age of 12. This is the type of thing we need. We need stronger laws and we need to be far more specific about what we are going to do with these people. I would like to thank those on the other side of the chamber who have supported this for the speeches and contributions they've made on this legislation as well. This is something that we can do as a parliament and as individuals.

Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (10:55): I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017. There is no-one in this chamber who wouldn't agree that the changes we're seeing in society, the changes we're seeing with the internet around child sex abuse and in making it easier for a lot of things to happen that have never happened before because the internet didn't exist—that all of this is really frightening. When my two children were young there was no access to the internet for them. There was no social media. In a very short time the online world has, sadly, made our children more vulnerable.

There is huge growth in the number of people who are viewing and sharing child abuse images. The volume is so large that the Australian Federal Police can't investigate and prosecute more than a very small proportion of the crimes. The AFP receive more than 10,000 reports of child sexual exploitation every year. That's the known number, but it would appear that children often do not report disturbing online activity, even when the offender attempts to contact them outside the internet. If we just look at online grooming, sexual solicitation incidents: in a significant US study, only one-quarter of the children who had encountered a sexual approach reported it to a parent, and only 10 per cent of approaches were reported to the police, to the internet service provider or to any other authorities, such as a teacher. Very little research has been undertaken on the impact on children of these attempted solicitations. The same study indicates that approximately a quarter of the children who had been solicited for sexual purposes reported being extremely upset or afraid, with younger children—those 10 to 13 years—reporting a greater adverse impact. In spite of that, they're not necessarily reporting what we all know is a crime.

Similar findings have been reported in the small Australian survey of adolescent students. Only one-quarter of the children who had been sexually solicited told a parent. No reports were made to police. One-third of the children didn't disclose the solicitation at all. These studies, known as the Finkelhor and NAPCAN studies, provide support for the view that children often keep cyberfriendships—that's the name they're given—a secret from parents and sometimes friends.

We know there is a crime happening there. We have a real problem. Sexual predators are making use of technology on apps that the rest of us use every day, like Snapchat, FaceTime and Skype. Not just Australian children, but children in countries all over the world, are victims of cyber sex abuse. The modern day patterns of behaviour and the use of technology that enable 21st century paedophiles and criminals to harm our children are a frightening evolution of these disgusting people. So reforms that target and punish the offenders are welcome in this bill. We will vote for this bill and wholeheartedly support the object of keeping children safe. There are many things we support in this bill, including the new grooming offences that are contained in it, and the clarification that this bill provides on the scope of some of the child sex offences that are contained in the Criminal Code.

I particularly support the change in terminology. As a former journalist I know words are not something that you take lightly. They have meaning and implications for people. I support the change in words to describe the material in question. 'Child abuse materials' is a much stronger phrase than 'child pornography', which doesn't recognise the seriousness and exploitation of these images. Children are harmed in their creation, but the abuse is repeated every time someone else views those photos, and each of those people should be punished.

In their efforts to be tough on the sexual predators of children, though, I think the government have failed to take the really tough steps that should be put in place for the sake of children everywhere. That's why we will move amendments in the Senate to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. We want to see higher maximum sentences. We believe courts should be able to lock up the worst offenders for life. Predators who go overseas to prey on vulnerable children should face tougher penalties. We want to see the laws better recognise and respond to the technological ability offenders have to watch child abuse remotely through webcams and live streaming, and are sure that this is as much a crime as being in the same room as a child who is being sexually abused. We want to see the people who incite or direct the production of child abuse material—for instance, in online chat rooms—face severe penalties for encouraging people to do hideous things to children.

We want to see these people punished, we want them off the streets and we also want policies that work. Sadly, mandatory sentencing doesn't work, and I'm going to speak about that in a little bit more detail. There are a number of other amendments that we will move. As an example, we think that the defence based on a valid and genuine marriage, which currently exists for child sex offences, should be removed. Both the Law Council of Australia and Anti-Slavery Australia have called for this.

I add that, if you're serious about protecting children—which I believe everybody in this place is—why would you slash the Australian Federal Police budget? They are already unable to investigate the reports that they get. The AFP suffered a $184 million cut in the last budget, and 151 AFP officers have been let go this year. Seriously, a bill won't make up for the fact that the capacity to enforce the law has been weakened by this government.

I turn to the issue of mandatory sentencing. We do reject the mandatory minimum sentences in this bill because they won't work and they lead to fewer convictions. And that's not something any of us want to see; we want to see more convictions. The government's own Attorney-General's Department says that mandatory minimums should be avoided, as they can create an incentive for defendants to fight the charges, even in clear-cut cases. What that means is that victims are more likely to need to go to court—to go through a torturous court process—simply because of the application of mandatory minimum sentences.

Mandatory minimum sentences also mean that there is less incentive for people to plead guilty or to provide information to the police. We need the people who are identified and caught to spill their guts about the other people who are involved in these heinous crimes. We need to have leverage to be able to get information out of them. This is not just me, the member for Macquarie, having an opinion. This is looking at the facts and the evidence, and what that evidence shows us is that mandatory sentencing does not provide that opportunity. Mandatory sentencing means there's less incentive for people to plead guilty, and the other side of it is that juries are less willing to convict. We see, time and time again, that juries are much happier to make a conviction. That's what the evidence shows. You need only talk to the Law Council of Australia to see that evidence.

Lest there be any doubt about Labor's record in this area—and I would really urge the government to consider these things closely, not have some knee-jerk political reaction to them—Labor always has and always will fight to protect children here and overseas from exploitation and abuse.

We're proud of our record under Prime Ministers Keating, Rudd and Gillard, which included introducing world-leading offence categories targeting Australians who engage in sexual abuse of children. That was in 1994. We brought federal, state and territory governments together in 2009 to implement the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children, which included a funding commitment of $63.6 million over four years from the Commonwealth government. We introduced new child abuse preparatory offences and other protection measures in 2010. We established the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the first inquiry of its kind at a national level. The royal commission, among other things, has inquired into how systems have failed to protect children and made recommendations on how to improve laws, policies and practices to prevent and better respond to child sexual abuse that occurs in institutions. We appointed Australia's first National Children's Commissioner in 2013 to advocate for the rights of Australia's young people, and we introduced the vulnerable witnesses act in 2013. We are committed to doing everything that can be done to protect children from harm and abuse, and we wholeheartedly support the object of this bill. We have no tolerance for child sexual abuse.

In the time that remains, I would like for a moment to put aside the fact that mandatory minimum sentencing is an easy, populist, but costly and discriminatory, criminal justice policy that has never actually worked and look at the fact that mandatory minimum sentencing also ignores judicial discretion. Judicial discretion is at the heart of our criminal justice system. It allows the law to be applied to the immeasurable ways in which a crime presents itself. If we remove judicial discretion, we may as well give the gavel to a robot—and yes, we're talking about child sex offenders. Unless those opposite have a crystal ball that allows them to know every way in which a crime will present itself, I think it is safer for us to look at the history of mandatory minimum sentencing and take our lessons from that.

There has been case after case where mandatory minimum sentencing has not worked. The impact of introducing mandatory sentencing for property offences in the Northern Territory in 1997 is an example of how vital judicial discretion is. I'm going to give you one example that unfortunately speaks volumes—that of a 15-year-old Aboriginal boy, Johnno, who stole pencils. He was taken from his remote community in the Northern Territory and imprisoned 800 kilometres away in Darwin. His mum had passed away when he was a baby, his father had been killed in a motor accident a few years prior, and at the time of his trial and sentencing his grandmother, who was his primary carer, was in hospital. But, in the hands of the jurisdiction with mandatory minimum sentencing, none of that could be taken into account. Johnno didn't need jail time to pull him into line. As it turned out, jail time in fact was the worst answer to this question. Five days out from the end of his sentence, Johnno hung himself with his bed sheet in his cell.

This isn't the same, and I know that those on the other side will say, 'Yeah, but that was pencils,' but this is a principle that runs through our legal system. Without the subjective guidance and discretion of judges we find ourselves in situations where kids are sentenced to jail for stealing pencils. The Law Council of Australia told the Senate committee inquiry that there would be similar unintended consequences. For instance, there could be conduct in a relationship between a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old where images are exchanged and sexual stories shared, yet the day the older partner turns 18 they could be liable for mandatory prison time. That is a potential unintended consequence of this legislation and a key example of why the Law Council opposes mandatory sentencing in all forms.

I point out that the government's own Attorney-General's Department says mandatory minimums should be avoided. This is not political. Prominent Liberals, including former Prime Minister John Howard, members opposite and Senator Marise Payne, have expressed concern about mandatory minimum sentencing in the past. I urge the government not to play politics with this issue. We are on the same side. We all want to see harsher penalties. In fact, as our amendments that will be moved in the Senate will show, we want harsher penalties than those opposite want. Children are too important for there to be word games around this issue. The Labor Party is serious about justice for the victims of sex crimes and appropriate punishment for those who commit these crimes. Like those opposite, we have no tolerance for the sexual abuse of children. That is why each of us is standing here today proposing that this bill go further, that this bill be harder, because these crimes should be met with the harshest of sentences, and it is best that we leave the judges to do the judging.

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (11:10): It's with a heavy heart that I rise today—not because I don't support this bill, but because we need to enact legislation to try to prevent child sexual abuse. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017 represents tough new laws. It represents the greatest crackdown on paedophilia in a generation. They say it takes a village to raise a child, but I also say it takes a village to protect a child. I want to thank the member for Swan, and the previous speaker, for their contributions. The member for Swan's contribution was heartfelt and a significant contribution to the debate.

Before I address the House in relation to the specifics of this bill, I would like to recognise a campaign that is being run by YGAP. We held a morning tea for it in my office yesterday. YGAP promotes a campaign called Polished Man, which seeks to raise awareness of sexual and physical violence against children. We had a number of people from this House come to my office yesterday to support the Polished Man campaign, and I would like to point them out specifically. They were: the Chief Government Whip, Nola Merino; the Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation, Angus Taylor; the member for Wide Bay, Llew O'Brien; the member for Bonner, Ross Vasta; the member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson; the member for Dunkley, Chris Crewther; and the member for Mackellar, Jason Falinski. This is not just a 'this side of the House' thing. It was also supported by members opposite, for which I'm very grateful: the member for Burt, Matt Keogh, and the member for Macarthur, Dr Mike Freelander. Importantly, the Minister for the Environment and Energy was there, and, most importantly, the Prime Minister also came and showed his support. The Prime Minister said, 'As we know, not all acts of disrespecting women or children lead to violence, but that's where it begins.' This is about respecting the women and children in our lives and showing them love. That is when we are closest to being our very best and when we are closest to God—when we are showing love. All of us have a vested interest and a duty to look after all of our children.

This event yesterday in my parliamentary office followed a similar morning tea that we had in my own electorate in Fisher, where I had prominent sporting men and businessmen attend the event, such as: Chris Flannery, the CEO of Sunshine Coast Falcons; Matt Soper-Lawler, the winger and top try scorer for the Sunshine Coast Falcons; Jack Hansen, the head coach of Alexandra Headland Surf Club; Ashley Robinson, the general manager of Alexandra Headland Surf Club and the chairman of the Sunshine Coast Falcons; Clayton Williams, a local businessman; and Peppi Bueti, a local businessman. The media got behind us as well, as they did yesterday. People like Danielle Ford, Dan Toney, Charles Hodgson and Hailey Francis painted nails to support the cause of Polished Man.

People might ask: 'Why polish a nail? What's that got to do with sexual assault against children?' I think it would be fair to say that most men don't walk around with a polished nail. The purpose of the Polished Man campaign is to engender a conversation, particularly amongst men, so that we can start to drive a culture in our country that speaks up against violence against children—that we as men, in particular, say, 'Enough is enough.' It is utterly unacceptable for men to disrespect women and children by committing acts of violence against them and even more so when those acts of violence involve acts of sexual violence. For a person to have an instant moment of sexual gratification which will leave a child scarred for life, physically and mentally, is abhorrent and almost beyond words. What is it particularly about some men that they would rather put their own sexual gratification for a short moment above the life of a child who will carry that event with them for the rest of their lives? It's a rhetorical question, but I will never understand that attitude.

According to the World Health Organization, 150 million girls and 73 million boys worldwide under the age of 18 have experienced sexual violence. Just ponder on this: one child dies every five minutes around the world at the hands of an adult. That is part of the significance of Polished Man. We wear a polished nail on one out of our five fingers as one child dies every five minutes. All funds raised in the Polished Man campaign go to trauma recovery and trauma prevention programs for children who've suffered or who are at risk of suffering from violence and sexual violence around the world.

I turn now to the bill. This bill provides a comprehensive re-examination of the way in which we deal with those who commit the most heinous of crimes against our children. It amends various provisions that we currently have in our Criminal Code. It amends vulnerable witness protection measures to prevent children and other vulnerable witnesses from being cross-examined at a committal proceeding. We all know—well, some may not, but, as barrister of 16 years, I can tell you—this is an experience that many children find harrowing.

The bill also seeks to introduce a presumption against bail for certain Commonwealth child sexual offences. If a person is charged with an offence against a person, there should be a presumption against bail. They should be in a show-cause position where they have to show cause for why it is that they should get bail. It is not a landmark concept. Offences of violence in Queensland put an accused person in a show-cause position.

These provisions include additional factors which must be taken into account when sentencing federal offenders to ensure they are appropriate, given the nature of the offending. They create a presumption in favour of an actual term of imprisonment. This amendment will ensure that, unless exceptional circumstances exist, all child sex offenders serve an actual term of imprisonment, rather than receiving sentences that are wholly or partially suspended. It requires that when a court is making a recognisance release order for a child sexual offender the offender be put under supervision, and it sets rehabilitation treatment as a condition unless it's otherwise inappropriate.

The provisions include a presumption in favour of cumulative sentences. Many in this place who aren't legally trained perhaps wouldn't understand that. For example, in the United States we hear about people serving multiple life sentences. In Australia, generally sentences are handed down concurrently—it doesn't matter how many offences you commit; you generally get a sentence which reflects the one sentence. So, if you've committed five offences, you would generally only get a penalty as though it was one. That will not be the case under these provisions, and I think that that's a very good thing. Why do I say that? It is because, if an offender has committed an offence against, say, five or six children, and is sentenced as though it was one person, what does that say to the other four or five kids? What does that say to them? It really demeans the experience that they've been through. This amendment will provide greater disincentive, greater deterrence, for those committing similar offences.

These provisions will list community safety as a factor that can be taken into account to revoke a federal offender's parole without notice. They will require a period of time to be served in custody if parole is revoked.

These provisions will also introduce mandatory sentencing for certain Commonwealth child sex offences. The office of the Commonwealth DPP has advised that it appeals a high number of child sex offence cases due to manifestly inadequate sentences imposed by judges at first instance and for repeat offences. Mandatory minimum sentences will apply to the most serious child sex offences. Mandatory minimum sentences reflect the heinous nature of child sexual abuse. The provisions introduce mandatory sentencing for repeat offenders. Mandatory sentencing schemes will also apply to child sex offenders who have previously been convicted of a child sex offence, including state and territory offences.

Since 2012, only 58.7 per cent of convicted Commonwealth child sex offenders have received a term of imprisonment, and the average for those who do get a term of imprisonment is six months. This issue was raised, interestingly, by a very significant retired District Court judge, Judge Wall QC, who just last week criticised the recent sentences that were being handed down. He mentioned the case not of a child sexual assault but of a physical assault which led to the death of a child. He called them 'manifestly inadequate'. He also said that many of the judges of first instance—trial judges and sentencing judges—are concerned that, if they hand down too harsh a sentence, they'll be slapped down by the Court of Appeal. Whilst I am not a huge fan of mandatory sentencing in all cases, in this case it is called for. In this case, where we have the most heinous of crimes, we need to set a floor. We need to set a minimum so that judges can't go underneath that minimum. The Labor Party has itself supported mandatory minimum sentences in relation to child- and people-smuggling laws. (Time expired)

Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (11:26): I thank all the members of this House who have contributed to this debate, and also colleagues on the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, who scrutinised the bill and recommended that it be passed. In particular I want to thank members who shared their personal stories and convictions—they have expressed a commitment to act against the scourge of child sex offending. However, it's important, if we're going to take action and if we believe that people who commit these crimes need to be appropriately punished, that all of this bill be passed. I genuinely thought that the parliament would come together and pass the totality of this bill in a bipartisan way. That was my expectation. That was what had happened when we announced that we were cracking down on child sex tourists and taking away their passports. Within two hours of our making that announcement, the Leader of the Opposition got up and pledged the Labor Party's support of that measure.

Unfortunately, after a month of prevarication, apparently the Labor Party is going to move to amend this bill in the Senate. By doing so they will cut out the heart of this bill, which is to make sure that people who are committing horrendous acts against children actually serve time in prison. I think most Australians would be pretty shocked to know that only 58½ per cent of those convicted of Commonwealth child sex offences spend any time in prison at all. That means over 40 per cent of Commonwealth child sex offenders never spend one day in prison. There's no such thing as a minor Commonwealth child sex offender. They are all horrendous offences. To deal with that and to make sure that people are getting appropriate punishments for the harm that they have caused, we will insist that the courts apply mandatory minimum sentences that reflect the gravity of the crime that has been committed. We don't believe that having over 40 per cent of convicted paedophiles spend not even a day in prison is acceptable. We don't believe that having the most common length of time served by those that actually serve a prison sentence be just six months is remotely acceptable. I'm surprised anyone in this chamber does, quite frankly.

We already know that there's a problem with sentencing. It was confirmed by the High Court just last week in relation to a Victorian sentence, where they found that a sentence of three years and six months imprisonment for unprotected sex with a 13-year-old, which was based on other similarly low existing sentences for such crimes, was manifestly inadequate—confirming, I might say, some of the criticism of lenient sentencing that has been made by members of the government. The opposition knows this. They know that mandatory sentencing—I endorse what the member for Fisher was saying earlier—is not an option we will use in all cases. We use it for crimes which the parliament thinks are particularly serious and where we need to send a signal that people committing these crimes must serve time in prison.

We've done it in this parliament in relation to people-smuggling. The opposition did it, when they were in government, in relation to people-smuggling. Astonishingly, members of the opposition who spoke in that debate in favour of mandatory sentencing are now speaking in this debate against it. This just shows that their opposition to mandatory sentencing is fickle and hypocritical. They introduced mandatory sentencing for people-smuggling when they were in office. We have mandatory sentencing for Commonwealth offences in relation to people-smuggling and we have mandatory sentencing in relation to terrorism offences. The opposition apparently has an ideological objection to mandatory sentencing. If they win next year's election, will they repeal mandatory sentencing for people-smuggling? Will they repeal mandatory sentencing for terrorism offenders? Apparently they've got some objection to mandatory sentencing in principle. Some quite extraordinary claims have been made in this debate that I want to particularly address to show you the furphy of this absurd ideological proposition against mandatory sentencing for paedophiles. It is an absolute nonsense.

We've heard in this debate that mandatory minimum sentences might make juries feel sorry for paedophiles who they think are guilty of crimes and then move to acquit. Well, I have a lot more faith than that in the common sense of the Australian people who sit on juries. I don't believe they'll be moved to feel sorry for people who have abused kids and therefore ensure that they don't serve time in prison. I think that is a ridiculous proposition, quite frankly. We have also heard that if mandatory sentencing were to be approved by the parliament it would be a disincentive for people to plead guilty. But that completely ignores the reality that we have inserted provisions within this bill that would give an incentive for an offender to plead guilty by an appropriate reduction in their sentence. And we've heard that the bill will reduce incentives to cooperate with law enforcement agencies, which again completely ignores the fact that there are provisions within this bill for an appropriate discount for the sentence when offenders have cooperated with law enforcement—a discount of 25 per cent in both the cases I have just raised.

We've also heard—and this has been repeated ad nauseam by members—about this hypothetical case of an 18-year-old who apparently might go overseas and have sex with a 15-year-old, which completely ignores the fact that that is currently a crime. We're not changing the offences here; we're changing the way they are sentenced. Under current law it is, of course, a crime to have sex with somebody who's under the age of consent, which in most states is 16 years. Not only does this bill not apply to those under the age of 18 but the argument completely fails to take into account the safeguard that currently exists within the system that means we haven't seen cases like this prosecuted where it hasn't been predatory behaviour. It is that the AFP must make a judgement that it's in the public interest to investigate and prosecute a crime, and then the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions must do the same. They need to work out whether it's in the public interest for a prosecution to move forward. On a daily basis, they will make a judgement that a particular crime might not meet that threshold. The CDPP and the Australian Federal Police apply these discretions every day. So, regarding this hypothetical example, it's not a new offence. These offences could be prosecuted now. It's never happened before, because there's this discretion within the system. So, why would it happen moving forward? It is a complete red herring.

This government is taking the global lead in making sure that in Australia tough penalties apply to people who prey on children. In a world's first, we have made sure that Australians who are registered sex offenders can't go overseas to prey on children, particularly here in our region. The opposition—to their credit, as I said in my opening remarks—within two hours of our making that announcement pledged their support for that very important measure. These are world's-first changes, and the parliament, because we've got bipartisan support from the opposition, will pass them.

Unfortunately, in relation to this bill, there seems to have been a month of prevarication in which, apparently, the Labor Party, the opposition, were deciding on what they were going to do. Now they have come out on the side of some crazy left-wing ideology against mandatory sentencing, as opposed to joining with the government to send the message that the parliament finds these crimes abhorrent and, if you commit them, you're going to go to prison—something that is not happening now, because more than 40 per cent of convicted paedophiles don't spend a day in prison. That is unacceptable. Why do the opposition think that is acceptable? Why won't they join with us and support mandatory sentencing?

We are not going to tolerate people preying on our kids. The parliament has to send an appropriate message that the parliament won't tolerate it. I think we will be able to negotiate with the crossbench in the Senate to get this bill passed, because the crossbench is showing a lot more common sense than the Labor Party have been able to show. Apparently, what they are going to do when this bill reaches the floor of the other place is join with the Greens to gut it. They are going to join with the Greens to stop paedophiles from going to prison when they commit these horrendous crimes. I am astonished by that. The Labor Party should hang their heads in shame.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (11:36): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (11:37): I am speaking today on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017. Labor will not support this unfair bill. It contains unfair cuts to the education entry payment, and it contains unfair cuts to the pensioner education supplement. We oppose this bill because it unfairly targets disability support pensioners, carers, single parents and jobseekers who take up study, and it will jeopardise their chances to continue their studies and find employment. Extraordinary really, isn't it, that this government is attacking people who are trying to do their best to improve their education?

This is not the first time that the Liberals and the Nationals have tried to abolish or cut the education entry payment and the pensioner education supplement. Way back in the horror 2014 budget, the Liberals first proposed to axe these payments. They have tried for three years to destroy these payments. Three different ministers—they keep changing the Minister for Social Services, and there is talk around that it might happen again—have tried and failed to get it legislated. These cuts became part of this Liberal government's so-called zombie measures. Eventually, in the 2017 budget, after three years of failure, they gave up on some of the cuts, but not all of them.

In the 2017 budget papers, they listed the cessation of the pensioner education supplement, a cut of $272 million from the budget, as one of the zombie measures that they were removing from the budget. In that same list of zombie measures, in statement 3 of the budget, the cessation of the education entry payment was also listed—or, so it seemed. But, of course, a leopard never changes its spots—particularly this lot. They hadn't given up. The Liberals brought back cuts to these payments, just in a slightly different form.

Based on data obtained at Senate estimates, there are 11,000 people receiving the education entry payment and around 37,000 receiving the pensioner education supplement. Around 9,400 people receive both payments and are at risk of being doubly hit by these unfair cuts. These payments are received predominantly by people with disability, carers, sole parents and the unemployed who have taken up study or training. I can't emphasise that enough: these are people who are trying their best to improve their education. Sixty-two dollars a fortnight might not sound like much to this Prime Minister, but it is, of course, to a single parent who is trying to find room in an already stretched family budget to afford textbooks.

Australians are sick and tired of the relentless cuts made by the Abbott-Turnbull government. They really have had a gutful from what I can only describe as this weak and lazy government—weak because we know this leader has absolutely no authority, and lazy because they keep reproducing the same changes, year in, year out, that are so unfair, target vulnerable Australians and are very poor public policy.

By way of background, the education entry payment is an annual payment of $208 to assist certain social security recipients with the costs of education so that they can eventually re-enter the workforce. Recipients of Newstart, parenting payment single, disability support pension, special benefit carer payment and some other closing payments are eligible to receive the education entry payment if they're studying an approved course.

This bill creates a definition for 'normal amount of full-time study' and links the amount of education entry payment recipients can apply to receive to their study load based on the relevant percentage of full-time study or the amount of pensioner education payment supplement payable to the recipient. This calculation will be made with reference to the amount of full-time study for each individual course. 'Normal amount of full-time study' is defined in the bill as the amount of study that the institution offering the course considers to be full-time, or an amount of full-time study equivalent to the average amount of full-time study that a person would have to undertake for the length of the course in order to complete it in the shortest time possible; or, if the course is a course of study within the meaning of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and there are Commonwealth-supported-place students enrolled in the course, the full-time study load of the course.

The new staggered payment rates in the bill are defined either by the percentage of full-time study being undertaken or by the corresponding amount of pensioner education supplement received. Where a person receives both the pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment, they face a cut to both. The current payment of $208 a year will continue for students studying at least 76 per cent of the normal amount of full-time study. The payment would then be reduced to $156, $104 or $52 in line with reduced study loads of 51 per cent, 26 per cent and 25 per cent respectively.

In the 2016-17 financial year, as I say, around 11,700 people received the education entry payment. Of those, 4,805 were recipients of parenting payment single, 2,986 were recipients of disability support pension, 2,762 were recipients of Newstart and 826 were recipients of the carer payment. People on these payments are less likely than other students to be able to undertake studies full-time, as they often have health barriers or caring responsibilities that prevent them from doing so. This is a very important point to make, and one that seems to have escaped the government. These are vulnerable people who are often in difficult circumstances, seeking to improve their skills and improve their job prospects by undertaking some study. This is a very important point to make, and one that seems to have escaped the government. These are vulnerable people, often in difficult circumstances, who are seeking to improve their skills and improve their job prospects by undertaking some study. We hear all the time from those opposite, including the Prime Minister, that it's important to get social security recipients into the workforce, yet here they are cutting help that's designed to do exactly that. They are cutting support to these people who are taking a bit of a risk by doing some study in order to get a job.

It is also important to note that the carer payment and parenting payment are paid overwhelmingly to women. Ninety-four per cent of the parenting payment's single recipients are women. Sixty-nine per cent of carer payment recipients are women. This means these cuts will disproportionately impact women who have started a course of training to get back into the workforce. It is unquestionably unfair.

The pensioner education supplement is a fortnightly payment to some social security recipients to assist with the ongoing costs of study. It was actually introduced back in 1987 by the Hawke Labor government. Currently the pensioner education supplement is paid at the rate of $62.40 a fortnight for a full-time student or $31.20 a fortnight for a part-time student. This bill cuts the pensioner education supplement during non-study periods. This will result in a cut for every recipient of the supplement, as it will no longer be paid in every fortnight of the year. The rate of payment will then be reduced to $46.80, then to $31.20 and then to $15.60 each fortnight in line with reduced study loads of 51 per cent, 26 per cent and 25 per cent respectively. To be clear, again: this is unquestionably a cut.

People with disability have stated—and they've said this about the bill—that these cuts will hurt those on the lowest incomes, including people with disability, who will be further pushed into poverty and financial hardship. It will make it harder for people with disability to start or continue undertaking education. The St Vincent de Paul Society said it is 'cutting payments to those who need them most and reinforcing disparities in access to education.' Based on the latest available data, 37,717 people received the pensioner education supplement and, of these, 16,276 were recipients of parenting payment single. There were 15,430 people who were recipients of the disability support pension, 3,336 people who were recipients of the carer payment and 2,619 people who were recipients of Newstart. The Australian Council of Social Service estimates that 75 per cent of recipients of the pensioner education supplement are women.

The third area that is affected by this bill is the relocation scholarship. This relocation scholarship was introduced in 2010 by the Labor government to help students who need to move away from home for tertiary study with the cost of establishing accommodation. The scholarship was designed specifically to address barriers faced by students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, particularly those in regional and remote Australia and Indigenous students. This bill proposes to cease eligibility for the scholarship for students who have both parents living outside Australia, students where their usual place of residence has been outside Australia within six months prior to claiming the scholarship or students who claim the scholarship to undertake study outside of Australia.

In summary, on the one hand the Turnbull government says that they have given up on their unfair cuts; but we know, as this bill shows, that they are just waiting for the next opportunity. They just seem to want to rehash the old, unfair cuts from 2014, giving them a different name. By contrast, Labor stands for fairness. The Liberals and Nationals are all about unfair cuts. The pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment were both introduced to help vulnerable people with the costs of study so that they have the skills that they need to get back into the workforce. Cuts to these vulnerable people are unfair, and the bill should be opposed. Labor will oppose it. I urge the Senate crossbench to reject it as well.

Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (11:49): I stand here today to support the previous speaker, the honourable member for Jagajaga. I also stand here to ask: when will it all end? When will the Turnbull government's relentless attacks on low-income Australians end? When will the Turnbull government's attacks on the most vulnerable people in our community end? When will the Turnbull government's attacks on regional, rural and remote Australian communities end? When will the Turnbull government stop attacking hardworking Australians who are just trying to get ahead? This is a government that kicks a person when they are down. Labor will not support these vicious attacks. What all Australians want is simply a fair go. They want a fair go to be able to travel for study should they need to because of where they live and/or the availability of relevant education and training.

This government talks big about the importance of education and how it is funding the best education system for our children, but the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017 certainly does not support that view for our most vulnerable citizens. One of the key aims of the NDIS is to get people with a disability back into the workforce. If someone from the government could tell me how these cuts will help achieve that key aim, I would be truly grateful. A person's credit card should not determine their ability to access educational training at any age. But this is exactly what the Turnbull government is doing by cutting these vital assistance programs.

The pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment were both introduced to help social security recipients meet the additional costs of study, which would enable them to get the skills that they need to get back into the workforce. These payments are received predominantly by people with disability, mental ill health, carers, sole parents and the long-term unemployed who have taken up study or training to better themselves. In the 2016-17 financial year, 11,662 people received education entry payment. Of those, 4,805 were recipients of the parenting payment single, 2,986 were recipients of the disability support pension, 2,762 were recipients of Newstart, and 826 were recipients of the carer payment. Recipients of these payments are far less likely than any other student to be able to undertake full-time study. The majority of recipients often have health barriers or caring responsibilities that prevent full-time study. The majority of these recipients are overwhelmingly the recipients of the parenting payment single, the carer payment and the disability support pension.

Disproportionately, the carer payment and the parenting payment single are paid to women, where inequality in most areas is real. Therefore, there is a high likelihood that the changes in this bill will disproportionately impact on women. Ninety-four per cent of parenting payment single recipients are women, and 69 per cent of carer payment recipients are women. If you are a single parent, a person with a disability or a carer with a 50 per cent study load, you will receive a 50 per cent cut to your payment. I ask the Turnbull government: how is this fair? The restrictions around the definition in this bill are entirely unfair. The reality is this delivers a result where people will receive a 50 per cent cut. Also, there are some people who will be studying part time who will receive a 100 per cent cut.

Then there is the pensioner education supplement cut. Haven't pensioners already been hit hard by this government? Apparently not, because here comes another wave of attacks. The government's relentless attack on pensioners is completely unacceptable, unheard of and simply plain wrong. First, the Turnbull government wants people to work until they're 70. How is that fair for a roof tiler or a plumber or a concreter, for example? Let's not forget the fact that the government is also cutting the energy supplement. With soaring electricity costs, no renewable target or quality plan, how is cutting the energy supplement fair?

On top of that, this government is cutting the pensioner education supplement. The pensioner education supplement is a fortnightly payment for some social security recipients to assist with the ongoing cost of study. Currently, the pensioner education supplement is paid at $62.40 per fortnight for a full-time student or $31.20 per fortnight for a part-time student. This bill cuts the pensioner education supplement during non-study periods. This will result in a cut for every recipient of the supplement, as it will no longer be paid on a fortnightly basis each year. Pensioner education supplement recipients, like recipients of the education entry payment, are less likely than other students to be able to maintain their full-time study load, as I have already said, due to health barriers or caring responsibilities. If your study load is 75 per cent, you will be $15.60 a fortnight worse off. Like with the education entry payment, it is the most vulnerable people, once again, who are affected. In the 2016-17 financial year, 37,717 people received the pensioner education supplement. Of these, 16,276 were recipients of the parenting payment single, 15,430 were recipients of the disability support pension, 3,336 were recipients of the carer payment and 2,619 were recipients of Newstart.

The Australian Council of Social Service estimates that 75 per cent of recipients of the pensioner education supplement are women. Women are already experiencing inequality relating to wages and superannuation, just to mention two areas. Women will receive the brunt of these harsh Turnbull government cuts. The changes in this bill will disproportionately impact women who have started a course or training to get back into the workforce. With little to no representation of women in the Turnbull government cabinet, of course the interests of women have been overlooked, and it is blatantly obvious.

There are also around 9,400 people who currently receive both payments and are at risk of being doubly hit by these unfair cuts. This government has been trying to abolish the education entry supplement and the pensioner education supplement since 2014. Labor has been fighting to maintain these payments for income support recipients who are trying to achieve an education that will give them a better opportunity at a contributing life and some financial security from a job.

The LNP are relentless in their attacks on our most vulnerable citizens. This is typical of the Turnbull government, which is either constantly underestimating the true cost of living for everyday Australians or they simply don't care. $62 per fortnight may not sound like much to this government, but it is to a single parent who is trying to find room in an already stretched family budget to afford textbooks. Let's revisit the cuts the Turnbull government has made to working families, single parents and pensioners: energy supplement, gone; family tax benefit, frozen; penalty rates, cut; pensioner education supplement, cut; and education entry payment, cut. In fact, the only two things that the Turnbull government has decided to increase are the working age—to 70—and a huge tax break for big business, which equals $65 billion. We know that the cuts to workers and families won't stop there, because you can't trust this government to look after anyone other than big business.

What is even more outrageous is that the Turnbull government wants to get people off the social security system but at the same time will make the cuts to the very programs that assist people to get an education and to get ready for employment. This is just shameful. If the Turnbull government really cared about helping income-support recipients find work, they would stop trying to make it harder for them to just get through the day. Malcolm Turnbull says one thing and does another. Labor will always stand up for fairness. The Turnbull government want to make low- and middle-income Australians pay more so that their wealthy mates can pay less tax. They talk about a fair go, but that is not a fair go. It is not fair that big business gets a huge tax cut and a single parent gets a $62 cut to their education payment—a payment that assists them in getting employment and a better life for their family. It is not fair to also cut the energy supplement at the same time.

Pensioners, families and working Australians pay their fair share of tax and it is about time that big business did as well. The lowest income earners should not prop up the wealthiest. Until Chevron and Google start paying tax, they shouldn't receive any benefits from our taxpayer dollars. The benefits should go to the people who need them the most, and they are certainly not big business. Australians have had enough of the Turnbull government and their attacks on our most vulnerable citizens. You can only kick people when they are down for so long and then they will revolt. People will fight back. There will be a national revolt against this government, and, with 21 bad polls in a row, it appears that people are now making their point very clear as to where their vote will go at the next federal election.

Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (12:00): I rise today to oppose the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017. This bill gives effect to two measures contained in the 2017-18 budget: 'better targeting of the relocation scholarship', and 'aligning the pensioner education supplement and education entry payment'. Currently, recipients of Youth Allowance and Abstudy payments are eligible to receive the relocation scholarship if they are moving to or from a regional or remote area to undertake study. Schedule 1 of this bill tightens eligibility for the relocation scholarship to students who are studying in Australia or whose family or usual place of residence is in Australia. Labor could potentially support this measure if it were separated from the other measures in the bill. The education entry payment and the pensioner education supplement are relatively small payments made to people with a disability, carers, single parents and jobseekers who take up study with the aim of improving their employment prospects and ability to support themselves.

The education entry payment is an annual payment of $208 to assist certain social security recipients with the costs of education so that they can eventually re-enter the workforce—upskill and participate. Recipients of Newstart, parenting payment single, disability support pension, special benefit carer payment and some closing payment recipients are eligible to receive the education entry payment if they are studying an approved course. It's particularly relevant that we're discussing this in a week that is both Anti-Poverty Week and Carers Week, given that both are affected by this piece of legislation.

The pensioner education supplement is a fortnightly payment to some social security recipients to assist with their ongoing costs of study. Currently, the pensioner education supplement is paid at $62.40 per fortnight for a full-time student and $31.20 per fortnight for a part-time student. Every fortnight, the recipient receives a payment from Centrelink. Schedules 2 and 3 of the bill remove eligibility for the education entry payment from recipients who undertake less than 25 per cent of the full-time study load, and progressively cut the amount payable under both payments for those undertaking between 26 per cent and 75 per cent of the full-time study load. The bill introduces a new schedule of payments for part-time study, resulting in some recipients being at least $15.60 a fortnight worse off. It also cuts the pensioner education supplement during long study periods, resulting in a cut for every recipient of the supplement. In pockets of my community where households are living on $600 a week and rental costs are now nudging $400-plus these changes are significant. They make a really big impact on people's budget and on their means for being able to actively participate.

These two measures are yet another example of this government slashing support to low-income and vulnerable Australians. This government continually says it is important to get social security recipients into the workforce. Only yesterday, while debating a matter of public importance, the member for Mitchell said this. Then we find ourselves considering a bill that cuts assistance to social security recipients who are studying so that they have the necessary skills to enter or re-enter the workforce. Actions speak louder than words. Over 11,000 people receive the education entry payment and almost 38,000 receive the pensioner education supplement. The overwhelming majority of people receiving these payments are parenting payment recipients, carer payment recipients and disability support pensioners.

In my previous role to this one, I was a pharmacist in a mental health unit in a public hospital. One of the things that people would commonly set as a goal, as part of getting well and staying well, was to pick up some study that they hadn't been able to finish, maybe go back to the trade that they had been doing, or perhaps go back to TAFE and finish that certificate they hadn't been able to finish. Because of their circumstances, these people were commonly recipients of disability support pensions. The changes being made in this area are significant to people in those situations. Part of getting well and staying well is being able to sit in a classroom again—just doing things that many of us are able to do but that they've been excluded from doing or that they haven't been able to actively participate in. This is really central to somebody being able to get well and stay well and actively participate. The overwhelming majority of people receiving these payments are vulnerable people. The recipients of these payments are less likely than other students to be able to undertake full-time study, as I've discussed, because of health issues that they may experience or because of caring commitments they may have in supporting friends or family members.

The changes in this bill are likely to disproportionately impact women who have started a course of training to get back into the workforce. Over 90 per cent of parenting payment single recipients are women, and nearly 70 per cent of carer payment recipients are women. It's disappointing that the government no longer produces a women's budget to keep Australians informed of the impact of this type of measure on Australian women. From looking at comparable countries, we know that Australia has one of the most segregated workforces. We know that this is largely gender segregation. We've discussed, only this week, some quite prominent women and the real discrimination and gender inequality that still exists. These types of measures will only continue to perpetuate things that we should be redressing.

The Abbott-Turnbull government has been trying to abolish the education entry supplement and the pension education supplement since 2014. For three years, we've been fighting to maintain these payments for income support recipients trying to make themselves work-ready. But this government is relentless in its attacks on the most vulnerable. So, having failed to abolish them altogether, they're now cutting them from those who are not in a position to undertake full-time study: people with a disability, single parents, carers finding it hard to study full-time. I recently met a young woman who was enrolled in training to be a teacher. After her mum, who worked as a cleaner, was diagnosed with breast cancer, she found herself in a situation where she had to withdraw from study. These are the types of people who will be most impacted by these measures—people who are really struggling, who are really vulnerable. Sixty-two dollars a fortnight might not sound a lot to some people, but it is to a single parent who is trying, in an already stretched family budget, to find the means to afford textbooks, travel costs and childcare to enable them to study.

We can also look at this in the context of the proposed changes to enabling education, through Next Step and Open Foundation, where someone may be charged up to $3,200 for a university preparation course for people who otherwise wouldn't have the entry requirements. All of these things stacked up together just put another hurdle, another obstacle, in someone's path. I was recently talking to a friend of mine, Sam, who is now a speech pathologist and whose sister is training to be a teacher. She said she really noticed the impact on her sons of seeing her as a student. They could see that their mother was doing this and that it was something that they may be able to do—something that otherwise would have been out of their reach.

If the Prime Minister really cared about helping income support recipients find work, he would stop trying to make it harder for them just to get through the day or the next step. The pain doesn't stop there. A single mum working one shift a week has just had her family tax benefit rate frozen, and she's probably just lost her penalty rates. This has affected a mum that I met with. She had a young daughter and she was working evenings, because that was the time that her mum was able to look after her daughter, which meant that she had the ability to work which she otherwise wouldn't have.

The Liberals say that they have given up on their unfair cuts, but we know they're just waiting for the next opportunity—and here it is. Cuts to the pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment are just part of a whole raft of government cuts to education, cuts to universities, higher student fees and harsher repayment requirements for student loans—you'd almost think that the Prime Minister doesn't want disadvantaged Australians to be able to access education to improve their circumstances, because he's saying one thing and doing another. He says it's important to get social security recipients into the workforce, yet he's cutting assistance which is designed to do exactly that.

Labor will always stand up for fairness. Labor will always stand up for education. The Liberals want to make low- and middle-income Australians pay more so their wealthy mates can pay less. It's just not fair. These measures particularly affect vulnerable people in regional areas. These measures are expected to save the government $96 million over five years. That might sound like a big number, but it's less than the cost of the same-sex marriage survey, and it's a very small number compared to the annual cost of negative gearing and the capital gains tax concessions.

As a mental health worker and a pharmacist and someone who has worked with vulnerable people for most of my life, I have spent a lot of time working with social workers who are struggling to help people find a place to live and acquire the skills that they need to participate in the workforce and look after their families. I find it really distressing that these cuts are cruelly targeted at some of the most vulnerable people in our community—people that I've spent my life working with and caring for. The strain on them and their families, particularly young carers, is something that's not often recognised: the caring role that young people have and find themselves in in families. Young carers are ones who are likely to be particularly affected by these changes.

As I said, these measures are expected to save the government about $96 million over five years, which really, in terms of the government's budget, says a lot about its priorities. Governments set the priorities and budgets are about that. This government, over and over again, is targeting the most vulnerable people and the most disadvantaged pockets of our community—and it is doing it in a really callous way. But I can tell you a big number: $62 a fortnight is a big number to someone on an income of around $450 or $500 a week trying to meet the cost of study to better themselves, to improve their family's circumstances and to boost their chance of getting a job in what is a really competitive job market. In communities like mine, youth unemployment sits stubbornly high. The latest figures show it at 17.3 per cent, in a community where one in two adults have had the opportunity to have a post-school education.

The government talks about choice, but choice is a privilege. In this situation, we're taking from people who don't have the privilege of choice and who haven't had these opportunities that those on the other side may have enjoyed. The Liberals should stop expecting the lowest-income Australians, the most vulnerable people, those living in disadvantaged communities, to subsidise the wealthiest and the most affluent in our community. They should stop putting barriers in the way of carers, people with a disability and single parents who are using their initiative and using the education system to fight their way to a better life.

Michelle, in my electorate, is a nurse. This year she was recognised as the Wyong Hospital Nurse of the Year. She was someone who went through the Open Foundation pathway. Our community would be so much worse off if we didn't have people like Michelle, working as a nurse in Wyong Hospital, or people like my friend Renee, who is in a similar situation. On this side we all know someone who has had the benefit of this and whose families have changed because of this. It can transform lives. The government must stop putting barriers in the way of carers, of people with disability and of single parents who are trying to access the education system, which has been stacked against them, to find a way to a better life.

Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (12:15): I'm pleased to rise on this side of the House and follow the member for Dobell and other colleagues. Once again we on this side of the chamber find ourselves standing, speaker after speaker, representative after representative, to defend the most vulnerable and defend the principle of the fair go in this country. We believe that Australians should be given every opportunity to be educated, to make a contribution, to join the workforce and to live a life of paid work, of dignity. On this side of the chamber we are again defending those positions. It's important to note that, upstairs in the Federation Chamber, speaker after speaker from this side of the chamber are talking about a $65 billion tax cut for the top end of town. It's important that people in my electorate understand that, in Canberra, on this side of the chamber, we are here on our feet defending them. We are upstairs on our feet trying to stop the largesse to the big end of town, while others of us are here protecting the most vulnerable in our communities and protecting their rights to educate themselves and to become part of the working part of society.

If this legislation in front of us passes this House and the other place, it will be another example of the compounding cuts and measures taken by this government in budgetary processes to determine that people who may not have had the best start, may not have finished their education, or whose lives may have been interrupted by any number of things—having a family, caring for parents who are sick or vulnerable—should have their opportunities reduced once more. We have been in this battle now since 2014. I am reminded of a conversation with a single mother in Little River. The member for Kingston, who is in the chamber today, was there and will remember this well, when we were talking about the cuts to Little River Primary School's out-of-school-hours care. That day we met a young mum, engaged in tertiary education, who beautifully explained that, wherever she turned, her chances of finishing her education—so that she could get full-time employment, break the cycle and ensure her children saw her in full-time work—were being slashed by this government.

Here we are again with a further cut that means that this government has gone out to find themselves a few pennies. Upstairs we're looking at a $65 billion tax cut for the top end of town; down here we're talking about a $68 potential cut to some of our most vulnerable who are trying to undertake study. I'm reminded also of the young carers that we met this year. The minister responsible for this piece of legislation, the member for Pearce, is in the chamber now. He was in that meeting that day, where we met young carers caring for parents—some from my electorate—who were talking to us about how difficult it was for them to continue their education while they undertook those caring responsibilities. We heard about scholarships and bursaries that some of those young carers were fortunate enough to receive to assist them to study, but the young person from my electorate was not a recipient of a bursary. Her opportunity to engage in and finish her TAFE course was reliant upon the exact measures that this piece of legislation would now limit.

Let us put it this way: as an example, say a young person who is a full-time carer for a parent who is disabled and unable to care for themselves is engaging in education in a part-time capacity. That person would now have the assistance that had been given to them by the government, to overcome the hurdles put in front of them, reduced by this piece of legislation. It is an indictment of this government that it brings this legislation into this place on the same day it is seeking $65 billion worth of tax cuts for the big end of town—an absolute shame. Again, who are the recipients here? Who are those who receive both of the measures I am most concerned about—the pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment? The education entry payment is $208 a year for those studying full-time. When I talk to people they tell me it is already incredibly difficult, that it's only for approved courses and that the hurdles you have to jump in the application process result in discrepancies. There are 37,000 people who receive the pensioner education supplement and only 11,000 people who get the education entry payment. It's already difficult, as reflected in those numbers. Why would you want to make it more difficult? Why would you want to exclude people from getting that $208?

There is also this paring back, saying, 'If you're not studying full-time, you're going to get less support.' We're talking about people in my community who may be travelling and trying to put petrol in a car to engage in study and who take that cost out of the single parent support payment, the disability support pension, the carer payment or Newstart. So we've got a structure here that supports people to engage in education, and those opposite are determined to tear it down.

In every sense, it's another attack on education in this country. It's another attack on people who are trying to lift themselves up, when those opposite claim that that's what they're all about—that they're all about freedom, they're all about the individual, they're all about people being able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and climb the ladder of opportunity. Yet here they are, in this chamber today, acting to undercut that and put more hurdles in front of those same people. We know from the figures that—surprise, surprise!—94 per cent of recipients of parenting payments and 69 per cent of recipients of carer payments are women. And we know that withdrawing support from women is going to see women less likely to continue in their education and less likely to join the workforce full-time.

The government talks, and newspaper articles are released. The member for Pearce and others on that side release data on different communities, trying to stigmatise them about the levels of welfare being paid to them. They release this data all the time. Well, they need to understand that when you undercut people's ability to climb that ladder of opportunity, when you undercut their ability to engage in meaningful education, you're going to create a larger cost somewhere else. It doesn't even make economic sense to put things in place that will reduce the chances for women in electorates like mine to engage in education and to find themselves full-time, meaningful work so they can raise their family with less support from government. This is about opportunity, and it's about the rug of opportunity being pulled out from under people in communities like mine. Labor will always—always—work to ensure that everyone can access what they require to ensure that they can have a meaningful life and find employment. But this is a government that talks about jobs and growth yet is tearing down people's capacity to get those jobs. It is extraordinary to be in this chamber today and have these measures before us. It really is about penny-pinching. We are not talking about an extraordinary amount of money here. It is not going to save the budget an enormous amount of money. But it is going to cost the people who are currently being supported to study; it is going to cost them.

The fear for me and my community is that, there will be young people, there will be people in their 30s and there will be people on a disability support pension who will disengage from education as a result of this piece of legislation. Never forget that the education entry payment and the pension education supplement are most commonly paid to recipients of the parenting payment, 94 per cent of whom are women. As someone who worked in education for many years, I was aware of circumstances where young girls became parents and perhaps were at home under the parenting support payment, isolated with a young child and not necessarily engaging in education.

As an educator in the schools I worked in, we made sure we reached out to those young people and got them back working and trying to engage in their education. That's what it's supposed to be about. This piece of legislation will limit their capacity to engage in education. How anyone with an ounce of common sense could think that this is sensible is beyond my understanding. I would think that this government would want to do everything in its power to support those young women to ensure that they continue their education as they raise their small child and to ensure that, when that child went to school and when that child reached the age where government support could be withdrawn from them, they have skills and training that will be readying them to join the workforce full time.

Some of that study is obviously going to be part time. Obviously, it's going to be part time. The thought that everybody who studies needs to be doing it in a full-time capacity is extraordinary, particularly under these circumstances. There are people on the disability support pension, and people who have limited capacities in their life due to health issues. In my community, most understand the level of incapacity required for people to access the disability support pension. The thought that unless they are studying full time they're going to have support withdrawn from them is extraordinary. If someone is on the disability support pension, they have an incapacity. If they are, in those circumstances, engaging in education, that is something that this country should be celebrating and something that those opposite should be celebrating. It's about getting prepared. It's about leaving the door open for a potential return to work. It's about ensuring that their lives are meaningful and that they are engaged, outside their own homes, with the rest of the community. It makes not just economic sense for these supports to be in place but also social sense for these supports to be in place.

I will remind the House that we're here in this chamber acting to support the most vulnerable in our communities and their right to support to ensure that they can stay engaged in education to maximise their capacity to build skills so that they can get full-time employment. While we're here defending that, we're also upstairs presenting a case against a $65 billion tax cut. The contrast couldn't be clearer between what this side of the House care about and what those opposite see as this country's future. To put it simply, we are talking about withdrawing support from people who are actively engaged in accessing education to better their circumstances. We are talking about withdrawing that support so that we can give tax cuts to the top end of town and so that this government can entrench the inequality that we have been confronted with. In a time where inequity is at a 70-year high, we're here quibbling over withdrawing the support that would see many people in my electorate lose their connection to education and perhaps lose hope in their future.

Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (12:30): I rise to speak against the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017 and to strongly support the amendments moved by the member for Jagajaga. I thank the member for Lalor for her contribution to this debate. Like the member for Lalor, I absolutely condemn the Abbott-Turnbull government for their persistent attacks on vulnerable Australians. It is disgraceful and, dare I say it, un-Australian.

By way of background, let's look at the real people this government has in its firing line. The payments the Turnbull government is proposing to cut are predominantly received by people with a disability; by carers—I mention that in National Carers Week; by single parents or jobseekers; and by people who have taken up study or training to ensure they have the skills they need to secure long-term employment in a very competitive workplace. You often hear the government hyperventilating at the dispatch box about breaking the cycle of welfare dependency. I agree that that is a good thing—Labor always agrees that a job is the best thing to give to somebody. I mention the member for Lilley, who has been talking about this for a long time in both books and his policies as Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister. We saw that in Prime Ministers Gillard, Rudd, Keating and Hawke—they always focused on giving jobs to the greatest number of Australians while recognising the reality of the Australian workplace. So I can tell the government something for free: slashing the payments of Australians undertaking study or training to achieve workplace readiness is not how you break the cycle of welfare dependency; in fact, it only entrenches the dependency. These changes will do exactly the opposite of what the Turnbull government purports to achieve. Your credit card should never determine your ability to get a better education. Labor knows this and will always stand up for you. Labor will always stand up for fairness.

One of the payments this bill seeks to change is the education entry payment, the EEP. This is an annual payment of $208 to assist certain social security recipients with their education costs so they can eventually re-enter the workforce. Recipients of Newstart, parenting payment single, the disability support pension and the carer payment are currently eligible to receive the EEP if they are studying an approved course. In the 2016-17 financial year, 11,662 people received the education entry payment. Of those, 4,805 were recipients of parenting payment single, 2,986 were recipients of the disability support pension, 2,762 were recipients of Newstart and 826 were recipients of the carer payment. The bill introduces the definition of a normal amount of full-time study but completely ignores that recipients of this payment are less likely than other students to be able to undertake studies full time, as they often have health barriers or caring responsibilities that prevent them from so doing. The overwhelming majority of recipients are single parents or recipients of the carer payment or DSP. Disproportionately, the carer payment and parenting payment single are paid to women. This bill will disproportionately disadvantage women, as 94 per cent of parenting payment single recipients and 69 per cent of carer payment recipients are women. I cannot support this.

This bill also seeks to change the pensioner education supplement, which is a fortnightly payment to assist with the ongoing costs of study. Currently the pensioner education supplement is paid at $62.40 per fortnight for a full-time student or $31.20 per fortnight for a part-time student.

It's clear that Prime Minister Turnbull doesn't understand real cost-of-living pressures. I would suggest, sadly, that he never has and never will. He tells the old battler millionaire story about the childhood in which, we're supposed to believe, he came up as some sort of battler, forgetting the fact that he had a privileged upbringing and nothing but a positive experience in childhood and was given every opportunity.

This bill caps the PES during non-study periods. This will result in a cut for every recipient of the supplement, as it will no longer be paid in every fortnight of the year. PES recipients, like recipients of the EEP, are less likely than other students to be able to maintain a full-time study load, due to health barriers or caring responsibilities. Where a person receives both the pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment, they face a cut to both. In the 2016-17 financial year, 37,717 people received the pensioner education supplement. Of these, 16,276 were recipients of parenting payment single, 15,430 were recipients of the disability support pension, 3,336 were recipients of the carer payment, and 2,619 were recipients of Newstart. ACOSS, the Australian Council of Social Service, estimates 75 per cent of recipients of the pensioner education supplement are—you guessed it—women.

The final payment this bill seeks to change is the relocation scholarship payment. This was a payment designed by Labor in 2010 to address the barriers faced by students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, particularly Indigenous students and those coming from regional and remote Australia. I wonder where the National Party are when it comes to standing up for kids from the bush? Yet again, the National Party has gone missing—missing in regional and remote Australia.

This government cannot unite their own party on policy but they can unite one specific group in the community, the experts. Nearly every piece of policy they bring into this House is against the united advice of experts. I have heard them recently talk about expert advice. I wish they would listen to experts when it comes to social policy. This piece of legislation, yet again, is no different—they're ignoring the experts. ACOSS has opposed the bill. In relation to the relocation scholarship payment, they say:

… social security payments should be paid on the basis of financial need and not guided by arbitrary conditions. This cut does not stand up to that test.

The National Social Security Rights Network is opposed to each of the measures in the bill. In relation to the relocation scholarship eligibility changes, they say:

Relocation Scholarships should be available to all low-income students who move away from home to study regardless of the location of the family home or where the student chooses to study. This is consistent with the original intention of the payment and provides support on an equitable basis. The scholarship should respond to the need of support to the costs of moving away from home without additional restrictions.

There are other groups in the community who would be impacted by these cuts—groups that already live with hardship on a day-to-day basis. These cuts may make it so difficult for them that they can no longer study, although study is always going to be the way to move off welfare. One of these groups comprises the unsung heroes of our community, our carers. Some carers take on study whilst caring for someone in their life. That allows them to return to the workforce when they are no longer needed in a caring role. Carers Australia opposes the changes to the PES and EEP. They say:

Reducing the amount of EEP and PES payments based on small changes in course loads, and suspending payments during semester breaks and holiday periods, as proposed in the Bill, will adversely affect the capacity of carers to continue their studies.

Another group who will be substantially affected by these cuts, sadly, are people with disability. People with Disability Australia, also an expert group, are opposed to the changes to the PES and the EEP. They say:

If the Bill is passed those on the lowest incomes, including people with disability, will be further pushed into poverty and financial hardship. It will make it harder for people with disability to start or to continue undertaking education. Plans to cut these payments are counter to the Government's focus on increasing employment opportunities through education. Whilst expectations for pensioners to undertake education increase, the very means of supporting access to education for pensioners are being cut.

As the deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights—I see the chair of the committee is here in the chamber—I have scrutinised this bill from a human rights perspective. The committee raised concerns about the cuts to the relocation scholarship. The committee report stated:

… ‘simplifying’ and ‘streamlining’ do not constitute legitimate objectives for the purposes of international human rights law and do not acknowledge the extent of the payment reduction. Rather, a legitimate objective must address a pressing or substantial concern, and not simply seek an outcome regarded as desirable or convenient.

This out-of-touch Turnbull government consistently puts before this House policy which disproportionately and adversely affects the most vulnerable in our society, at the same time as it's rolling out a tax cut for the top end of town. The harbourside mansion focus of this government is disgusting. This legislation falls again within those parameters. What is most disappointing and difficult to reconcile with good policy is that these cuts will stop young Australians, Australians who are carers and Australians who suffer a disability from further educating themselves. It will stop them from being able to enter or return to the workforce. This is bad policy. It is policy without a soul. I do not support this bill. I do not support this legislation. No intelligent, caring politician could.

Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (12:41): Like the member for Moreton, I too for a number of reasons will not support the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017. Firstly, this bill targets women—75 per cent of those people receiving the benefits that this government seeks to cut will be women. I can understand that the government might not understand that. They don't have a very long list of speakers, or in fact anyone in here, to defend it because they probably don't understand what it's like to be a woman. They don't have a high representation of women. But 75 per cent of the people affected by this are going to be women.

Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, is at it again. What does he have against battlers? That should be the question we are all in here talking about. What does he have against people who are trying to study and are already doing it tough? This is a fundamentally unfair bill. As the shadow minister, Jenny Macklin, has already told this House, we will absolutely not support it. This bill contains changes to the eligibility requirement of the relocation scholarship, the education entry payment and the pensioner education supplement. As the member for Moreton asked: where are the Nationals on this? Why aren't they in here? The bill cuts the requirements of eligibility for the relocation scholarship, which will mostly affect kids from the bush.

We have been fighting to maintain all of the payments that will be cut by this bill. Those students are struggling enough as it is. They are income support recipients making themselves ready for work. If Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister of this country, actually cared about helping income support recipients find work instead of demonising them on the front pages of the tabloids, he would stop trying to make it harder for them to just get through their day. The Liberals are relentless in their actions and their attacks on vulnerable people, and this bill shows the Prime Minister yet again trying to slash support to low-income Australians. This is very, very typical behaviour, though. He is constantly underestimating the true cost of living for everyday Australians. I am just here to put on the record for him, again, that the cost of living is three per cent higher in Western Sydney, in the seat I represent, than it is in Sydney. I am not going to go into the details of why that is, but I suggest he does some further reading on the comparative costs of living for harbourside mansions and battlers in Western Sydney. He is saying one thing and doing another.

The cuts are unfair to the students receiving an education entry payment. These students are eligible for the payment if they are in an approved course and are a recipient of Newstart, parenting payment single, the disability support pension, special benefit or a carer payment. In 2016-17, about 11,700 people received the education entry payment. I would put to anybody that that is not a huge number of people—11,700 people, in some of the most vulnerable positions in our community, are recipients of this payment to help them get ahead. This is what this payment is for. They are in study. They are doing everything we're asking of them. They are trying to better themselves. What are the government doing? They are going to cut them down. They are casually going to come along and take some money off them, saying: 'It won't matter to them. What would they notice? How will that affect them?' Of those 11,700 people, 4,805 were recipients of parenting payment single. Let me tell you from firsthand experience about being a single parent. It's tough. It's hard work. Some 2,986 were recipients of the disability support pension, 2,762 were recipients of Newstart and 826 were recipients of the carer payment.

As well as being a single parent, I'm also the carer of a child with a disability. So let me tell those people opposite, because clearly they've missed the empathy gene on the way out the door before being given birth to, it is really, really hard work to be a single parent and to be a single parent of a child with additional needs. It takes an enormous amount of additional time, energy and resources. Making a cut to something that is trying to support them is inhumane. I note that those opposite also have no problem coming along to Carers Week events, posing for photos, wearing badges and espousing the importance of all the unpaid work done by carers, but, when it comes to actually supporting the work of carers through something like this, they've left the building.

In my electorate, 115 people received the education entry payment in the 2016-17 financial year to September 2016. The government likes to talk about corporate tax cuts and the now very discredited trickle-down economics, but the very people they say will benefit from this measure are the people they are penalising with the measures they have on the table now. And all this is to what end? I think the member for Warringah and his mates who are on the other end of the spectrum to where we sit are certainly going to be appeased by measures like this. Cutting the education entry payment will make things more difficult for students. The effect of this bill is that every student who is currently eligible for the education entry payment will be subjected to criteria to determine the level of their study load—from 25 per cent to full-time study. The education entry payment is an annual payment of $208 to assist with the cost of education. Depending on the determination of a student's study load, up to full time study, the recipients of the education entry payment could receive a cut of $52, $104 or $156, or it could be cut entirely.

Does the Prime Minister know how much a textbook costs? In my electorate, at the Western Sydney University Penrith campus in Kingswood students enrolled in the engineering materials course are prescribed by their lecturers Fundamentals of Materials Science and Engineering. A brand-new copy of that textbook costs $196—let's just call it 200 bucks. Second-hand, you can pick one up for $152. If the Prime Minister was studying engineering materials, he could easily afford, from his harbourside mansion, a hundred new copies of this book—a thousand new copies! But for a student on a supplement studying one subject and facing these cuts, the cost of this textbook could be the making or breaking of someone studying that course. Again in Western Sydney, students studying enterprise law are prescribed by their lecture a business and law textbook—$137 for a brand new one and 110 bucks for a used one. The $1.75 million donation that this Prime Minister made to the Liberal Party at the last federal election to secure his own job would have purchased a whole lot of those textbooks.

I raise Western Sydney University because 60 per cent of students at that university—of which I'm proudly an alumni member—are first in family. Sixty per cent of those students are the first in their family to have the privilege to attend university. Fifty-seven per cent of their students are female, 37 per cent are from linguistically-diverse backgrounds and 25 per cent are low socioeconomic students. For the battlers who are struggling to make ends meet, who are on Newstart, living with a disability or caring for someone, it is a massive, massive whack to their budget, and it is fundamentally unfair. This is more of the same of what we've seen from those opposite—pushing the cost of education onto the student and making it more and more difficult to study. We should be supporting students because they're having a go.

These cuts are unfair to students receiving the pensioner education supplement. Almost 38,000 get the pensioner education supplement, and of those receiving that supplement 4,805 were recipients of the parenting payment and are single parents, 2,986 are recipients of the disability support pension, 2,762 are recipients of Newstart and 826 are recipients of the carer payment. That's a lot of people who are trying to study; that's a lot of people who could be affected by these cuts. To be eligible to receive the pensioner education supplement, a student needs to meet the study rules and already be receiving one of the payments outlined. These people are trying to study either full- or part-time at a secondary school or completing an undergraduate degree, a TAFE course for a diploma or a graduate masters course. These payments are predominantly received by people with disabilities, carers, sole parents and unemployed people who have taken up training or studying—which is exactly what we should be imploring them to do and supporting them as they do it.

In my electorate, in September, 391 people were getting the pensioner education supplement—that is, 391 people who are already doing it tough, relying on our social services safety net. The government wants to take away the supplement from these students. We are, in my electorate, battlers. We are strong. We are 'have a go' people. We don't sit around and expect people to do things for us. We get out there and have a crack. I often speak in this place about how good and how salt of the earth the people in my community are. These students in my electorate do not need more cuts from this government. They are single parents, people with a disability, people looking for work, and carers. Let that sink in. The people who are in receipt of this kind of payment are exactly the people that this country and this government should be supporting. They are struggling to stay studying. We want them to stay studying. We want them to have a better life. We want them to do better. We want their kids to do better. They already have barriers to study and work such as health issues, caring responsibilities or simply being on a low income. These cuts are just going to make it more difficult and put more hurdles and more barriers in place. Their studies could lead to a better job and a better life and improve their wellbeing. Now the Turnbull government and all of those people who support this legislation want to make it more difficult for them.

With the proposed changes to the pensioner education supplement, these people will be paid only during study periods and not during their semester breaks or holidays. We have what I would term 'semester breaks' from parliament. Imagine if you said to all the MPs here: 'You're not going to get paid during those breaks. You're only going to get paid when you go to Canberra.' We know that a lot of work is done when we are back in our electorates, but we're on a break from parliament, and these kids are on a break from school or study. The government is going to stop these supplements during that period of time. Imagine you are a low-income earner and studying and you are already struggling to pay bills, but because the semester or term has ended that payment stops. That reliable income that you have budgeted for is not there. These people often have jobs as well while they are studying. When I went to university I had four jobs in my first, second and third years at university. I had four casual jobs to pay my rent and car payments, and it was just enough to make ends meet. Working and studying was a huge load, but I did it—and I did it with the help that I was able to receive. We know that the bills don't stop coming in those semester breaks—the rent still needs to be paid and the lights still need to work—so why would we stop the payment to these students during their semester breaks?

The cuts are cruel. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says that he wants people to find a job—tick; that's great. A fundamental thing for everybody is to have a job, but it makes it more difficult to study. The thing that we know will improve our chances of finding a job is education. I think I have even heard the Prime Minister say those things himself. These cuts will affect the students who are already doing it tough to get a better life. Not only that but the Australian Council of Social Service estimates that 75 per cent of pensioner education supplement recipients are women. The changes in this bill will disproportionately impact women who have started a course or are training to get back into the workforce. Women are traditionally, as we are very well aware, the primary caregivers. Time and time again we see people in Western Sydney who dragging themselves up by their bootlaces being unfairly targeted as not worthy.

The pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment were both introduced to help social security recipients with the cost of studying. The Liberals have been trying to abolish the education entry payment and pensioner education supplement since 2014. The education entry supplement and the pensioner education supplement are commonly paid to recipients of parenting payment single, 94 per cent of whom are women. Women are already subject to great gender bias in Australia. I'm really looking forward to coming in here the next time this parliament sits and, as we come to White Ribbon Day, watching everybody march out their white ribbons, roll up their sleeves and say, 'What great people we are.' When you are just out there as a talking head and are not actually interested in doing the work that goes on to bridge some of the gender gaps in this country, it is easy. But the action required from this government is seldom there.

The slashing of penalty rates also disproportionately affects women. Women face the discrimination of a gender pay gap of 16 per cent in pay rates and hiring, women attract lower wages and carry the load of unpaid caring and domestic work, and women are over-represented in lower paid industries. They are a third more likely to be underemployed and more likely to be employed as casual workers in insecure jobs. We've had a case this week highlighting the gender pay gap. One of our very high profile and esteemed women in the media, quite intelligently and cleverly, has really taken a stand; and congratulations to Lisa Wilkinson. This is why I'm up here talking about the gender pay gap.

Around Australia, 9,400 people receive both payments and are facing the government's cruel and unfair cuts. The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee received a submission from People with Disability Australia and their CEO, Steph Gotlib. In their submission, which succinctly summarised the substantial financial hardship people will face under this bill, they said:

If the Bill is passed those on the lowest incomes, including people with disability, will be further pushed into poverty and financial hardship. It will make it harder for people with disability to start or to continue undertaking education. Plans to cut these payments are counter to the Government’s focus on increasing employment opportunities through further education. Whilst expectations for pensioners to undertake education increase, the very means of supporting access to education for pensioners are being cut.

The government is seeking to make savings off the back of the lowest socio-economic groups, battlers and vulnerable members of our communities, who are struggling to pull themselves up by learning, studying and expanding their horizons through education. I am very pleased not to be supporting this bill.

Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (12:56): Like others on this side of the House, I strongly oppose the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017. As the St Vincent de Paul Society observed in a well-reasoned submission to the inquiry of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee into the bill, these proposals cut existing payments to those who need them most and re-enforce existing disparities in access to education. The main losers here will be the young, the disabled and women. It might be a little bit unfair to suggest that these three groups are among the government's preferred targets, so let's just say that they are among the most familiar ones. It's a recurring theme, isn't it?

The proposed changes aren't just mean and parsimonious but very short-sighted. In one form or another, they have been a dark cloud hanging over the community in education sectors for the last two parliaments. We hear time and time again from the other side about how much they value education. But it appears they only value education to their constituents, not to everyone. These cuts will affect tens of thousands of Australians. Even ex-service men and women seeking to make a fresh start or to better themselves by furthering their education or acquiring new skills will be drawn into the net.

As submissions to the recent Senate inquiry noted, the bill's key proposals have no convincing policy rationale, like many of the changes coming from the other side. While so-called streamlining is given as a justification for one small set of changes, the main elements of the bill will add further complexity to what all agree is already a complex set of legislative and administrative arrangements. The government had the opportunity by way of the recent Senate committee inquiry to expand on its reasons for persisting with the proposed cuts but declined to do so. Having abandoned its totally untenable plan to abolish the education entry payment and the pensioner education supplement, the government apparently now feels that it's entitled to the equivalent of a free pass on this bill.

The government says that the measures will save $96 million in total over five years. That sounds like a lot of money but it's a tiny fraction of the annual cost to the federal budget of negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions given to some of Australia's wealthiest people. It really is a shame, and something that this government should hang its head about. The proposed saving would not even be enough to meet the cost of the same-sex marriage plebiscite, much less the billions the government plans to give foreign based and foreign owned multinationals by way of corporate tax cuts. The government will argue that you have to start somewhere and every little bit helps, but why start here with those most disadvantaged? Why pick on those already struggling? Why pick on those who are undeniably the most disadvantaged? Why do that? For instance, poverty rates among unemployed single parents—one of the principal targets here—are 10 times higher than for lone parents in paid work. It's hard enough to overcome these sorts of odds as it is, without government coming along and cutting one of the few benefits that might help you find a way back to employment. The proposed measures will potentially harm around 50,000 recipients annually. About 10,000 of them will be hit by more than one of the proposed cuts. In the case of the pensioner education supplement, 41 per cent receive the disability support pension and over 80 per cent are women. As you can see, they are targeting the most disadvantaged yet again.

This bill poses a serious threat to those wanting to better themselves in their future job prospects. The proposed changes to the pensioner education supplement, in particular, will not only add to existing complexity but also open up new areas of uncertainty in determining what constitutes a study period for the purposes of accessing support. The proposed savings also come at a cost. In the longer term, both the community and the budget bottom line will end up paying the price of keeping people in poverty and not giving them the help they need to get an education and access to a decent job and a better life. Surely the minister must know that. Surely he can't have forgotten his own fine words in September last year when, addressing the National Press Club, he said:

The hope for a young Australian facing challenging family circumstances today will be that the system is going to provide for them with immediate support, but also surely they should expect that the same system will not just set them and forget them.

Surely they expect that as well as welfare money given in the here and now, that support is going to be thoughtfully structured in a way designed to help them cope, not just in the present, but also in a way that maximises their future opportunities for self-reliance.

The approach taken here is to whip away the immediate support and hope that in the long run self-reliance will magically somehow win through. The contents of the bill have already been extensively debated and examined, including by three Senate committees. In one form or another, the two core elements of the bill have been around since the first Abbott-Hockey budget and have been before this House on five previous occasions. They foundered each time, with very good reason. The substance of the present bill was referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee in late June and the committee, which divided on party lines, reported on 7 September. The committee didn't conduct public hearings and took no evidence apart from eight submissions prepared by community organisations and one prepared by the minister's department. The latter was pretty perfunctory, running to just four pages. It added nothing to the minister's second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum. I guess that after four years, even the departmental officers must be a bit over it. Carers Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service, People with Disability Australia, Children and Young People with Disability Australia, the Australian Association of Social Workers, the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children and the National Social Security Rights Network each made submissions to the Community Affairs Committee inquiry. Each of those submissions opposed the bill. Not one single community organisation supports this bill.

There are four elements to the bill. It will further limit eligibility for the relocation scholarship for youth allowance and Austudy recipients. It will make it harder to access the full education entry payment, currently only $208 per annum, that assists students in meeting some of the up-front costs of entering improved training and education programs—an absolute pittance. It will cut fortnightly supplementary support for many students engaged in other than full-time study by linking student workload requirements to a less generous and more complex formula for calculating entitlements. It will stop the pensioner education supplement being paid to students during non-teaching periods such as semester breaks. I'd add one other thing: it completely complicates the whole access to support for people who already have poor resources and who are already struggling. It is really shameful.

What ties these proposals together is they will cut needs based supplementary support to people undertaking bona fide education and training programs. The bulk of costs of participating in those programs, including the opportunity costs, are met by the participants themselves. The payments under attack aren't handouts. They are a leg-up, they're support and they're help. For the vast majority of those to be affected, government support covers only a fraction of their actual costs. As anyone who has been in training or who has children in educational support knows, the costs are much higher than these pitiful payments. They are not overly generous; they are very poor. For instance, the education entry payment, which is meant to partly cover the start-up costs of entering training or a course of study, has remained largely unchanged since its introduction in 1992. Back then, in the pre personal computer and pre laptop era, the educational entry payment was $200 per annum. Currently, it stands at a magnificent $208 per annum! That is a change of $8, if my maths is correct, in 25 years. It is pathetic.

The supplementary payments that this bill will erode are not available to all students, only those facing particular barriers to entering formal training and higher education. You can't access those supplementary payments unless you are in a disadvantaged or dependent category and meet the stringent eligibility requirements for attracting a primary government pension or benefit, such as youth allowance, ABSTUDY, Austudy, Newstart, the carer payment or the disability support pension—et cetera. That's as well as being an Australian resident and undertaking approved qualifying studies. The requirements are already onerous.

The government is also missing the point in arguing, in respect of some of its proposed cuts, that those who have their payments reduced can take out a student loan. HECS HELP, FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP loans simply don't cover many of the up-front and ongoing costs involved in participating in education, which are met in part by these supplementary payments. Nor are those generic, loan-based forms of support sufficient to meet the particular needs of all of those suffering disability or disadvantage. It also seems to have escaped this government's attention, too, that this is one of the most difficult times in many decades for those seeking to fight their way out of poverty, overcome disadvantage and enter the work force. The proposed measures also form part of a constellation of government cuts to education, cuts to universities, higher student fees and less accommodative payback periods for student loans under HECS and HELP.

The government also seems blissfully unaware that income support and family payments have gone backwards in real and relative terms in recent times. Income support payments have fallen further behind average wages even though average wages are stagnant. If you're a single mum working one shift a week, you've had your family tax benefit rate frozen and there's a good chance you have seen your penalty rates cut too. Cost of living pressures are always most keenly felt by those on lower incomes. You expect that would be the case even if the principal costs faced by those enduring financial hardship weren't rising faster than consumer prices more broadly.

As the most recent ABS figures confirm, it's pensioners and persons who rely most on government support who are under the most pressure from healthcare costs; gap fees; and housing, insurance, gas and electricity costs, which are rising much faster than the CPI average and are also rising much faster than their wages. Unemployment rates are stuck at near-record-low GFC levels. Underemployment rates are at record highs. This is not an easy time to be digging your way out of poverty or confronting hardship and debt, yet this government is not making it any easier. In his 2016 National Press Club speech, to which I referred earlier, the minister rightly bemoaned the complexity of Australia's social welfare arrangements—and he has just made them more complex. If anyone in the country has a right to complain about government red tape and overregulation, it's the poor and the disadvantaged.

Presently, only about 300 of the 23,000 students in receipt of the relocation scholarship fall into this category. A further 150 Australian resident students who are currently studying overseas were also able to access the relocation scholarship. The government asserts that such students can only access the scheme because of a loophole in the current law and that the relocation scholarship should only be available to those having to move to and from remote and regional areas within Australia for study purposes. Whatever the intention of the parliament in enacting the scheme in 2010 and then amending it in 2015, there is a solid argument for not disadvantaging the small number of Australian students with both parents based overseas who also meet all the other mandatory requirements necessary to qualify for a relocation scholarship. Such students are up against the same problem that remote and regional students living in Australia face—through no fault of their own they have to relocate a significant distance to further their studies. I note, too, that there are humanitarian concerns that young people who arrive in Australia as unaccompanied minors might also be disadvantaged by the proposed amendments as they currently stand.

In conclusion, I'd like to say that, despite the claim of better targeting, none of the savings made will be distributed to enhance continuing entitlements but will simply be skimmed off into consolidated revenue. The government does not have the luxury of arguing that funding is being shifted from the deserving to the even more deserving. Nor is this bill about better targeting or streamlining. They are merely euphemisms. This is a government grab for cash—nothing more, nothing less—and it's from the most disadvantaged people in our community. It really is shameful. We have seen a litany of these bills come through the parliament in the last few weeks. One has to wonder about the psychology of a government that continues to attack, time and time again, those in the community who are most disadvantaged yet is continuing to allow concessions to the wealthy, such as capital gains tax concessions and negative gearing, and also major tax cuts to big business.

This is a government that does not seem to want to give the poorest a leg-up. Perversely, it's an attack on the very sorts of people this government says deserve support and encouragement, but it does the opposite—the self-starters and the very people who are trying their hardest not to let adversity get the better of them. This is really quite a comedown from the lofty ideals outlined by the minister. It's lazy, unimaginative and bullying government at its very worst.

Ms BURNEY (Barton) (13:11): I rise today with my Labor Party colleagues—including the member for Macarthur, who articulated very well what Labor feels about the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017 and what Labor's position is—to oppose this bill. Here we go again. The Prime Minister and the Liberal coalition government are making yet another attempt at cutting support to ordinary and low-income Australians. The changes proposed in this bill will predominantly affect people with a disability, carers, sole parents and unemployed people who are reskilling and retraining. I see this bill not just in the context of social policy but also in the context of economic policy. The bill shows that the Prime Minister and the government are absolutely out of touch and are completely oblivious to the true costs of living for most Australians. In fact, it is uncaring.

I am deeply concerned by the proposals contained in schedules 2 and 3 of this bill—namely, the government's proposal to remove the eligibility for education entry payments for recipients who undertake less than 25 per cent of the full-time study load and the government's proposal to cut the amount payable under the education entry payment for those undertaking between 26 per cent and 75 per cent of the full-time study load. These payments function to give income support recipients the opportunity to reskill and to re-enter the work force, and isn't that what we want, so that this country has a consistently evolving and innovating workforce? The Prime Minister says that it's important to get income support recipients into the workforce. Yet there is a cut to the very payments and supports designed to do exactly that. I don't know whether it's incompetence, chaos or just a lack of caring.

Schedule 2 is the education entry payment. The education entry payment is an annual payment of $208 to assist certain social security recipients with the cost of education so that they can eventually re-enter the workforce. Recipients of Newstart, parenting payment single, the disability support pension, special benefit payments and the carer payment and some closing payment recipients are eligible to receive the education entry payment if they are studying an approved course. But what this bill proposes in schedule 2 is to link the amount of support received under this payment to study loads or the amount received under the pensioner education supplement.

The bill creates a definition for a normal amount of full-time study, and the payment received will be determined by the study load as a percentage of the full-time study. Students with a study load of between 51 per cent and 75 per cent will be $52 worse off per annum. Students with a study load of between 26 and 50 per cent will be $104 worse off per annum. In the 2016-17 financial year, 11,662 people received the education entry payment. Of those, 4,805 were recipients of the single parenting payment, 2,986 were recipients of the disability support pension, 2,762 were recipients of Newstart and 826 were recipients of the carer payment.

Recipients of the payment are less likely than other students to be able to undertake studies full-time, as they often have health barriers or caring responsibilities, as just articulated, that prevent them from doing so. The overwhelming majority are recipients of single parenting payments or the carer payment and disability support pensioners. Disproportionately, the carer payment and the parenting payment are paid to women, and it follows that this schedule will disproportionately impact on women; 94 per cent of recipients of single parenting payments are women.

I am also concerned about schedule 3, which includes cuts to the pensioner education supplement. The pensioner education supplement is a fortnightly payment to some social security recipients to assist with the ongoing cost of study. Currently the pensioner education supplement is paid at $62.40 per fortnight, or $1,622 per year, for full-time students or $31.20 per fortnight, $118 a year, for part-time students. That is a lot of money. It is paid in every fortnight, and the recipient receives the payment from Centrelink. This bill cuts the pensioner education supplement during non-study periods. This will result in a cut for every recipient of the supplement, as it will no longer be paid every fortnight of the year. How stingy and how mean is that?

Recipients of the pensioner education supplement, like recipients of the education entry payment, are less likely than other students to be able to maintain a full-time study load, because of health barriers and caring responsibility. Those with a study load of between 51 and 75 per cent and those with a study load of 25 per cent will be $15.60 worse off per fortnight. In the 2016-17 financial year, 37,717 people received the pensioner education supplement. Of those, about 16,000 were on the single parent payment, about 15,000 were recipients of the disability support pension, over 3,000 were recipients of the carer payment and well over 2,000 were recipients of Newstart—the same groups I spoke about earlier. The Australian Council of Social Service estimated that 75 per cent of recipients of the pensioner education supplement were women. It follows, as I said regarding the previous schedule, that this will disproportionately impact on women.

There is a theme emerging here. This is the latest attack on everyday, ordinary Australians—most significantly, Australians who are in receipt of those payments and who are desperately attempting to retrain and reskill themselves and get into the shrinking job market. And we have heard much about the fact that there are so many people who are underemployed. This is the very group of people the government says it wants to get into employment, yet these two schedules are doing everything to make it difficult for that group of people.

The Prime Minister and the government talk about getting income support recipients standing on their own feet and getting back into the workforce, as I just said, but how can one believe that? How can the public believe it?

More importantly, how can this significant group of people believe the government's rhetoric when the reality is that the mechanics of government are making it much more difficult?

The Prime Minister's favourite buzzwords of 'innovation' and 'agility' hold about as much political substance as something that evaporates. They look good; they sound good; but, ultimately, you just don't know what the Prime Minister actually stands for—and, by association, what this government stands for. If we want income support recipients off income support and back into the workforce, we need to help them reskill and skill up to ensure they are best placed to re-enter the workforce. If we want a constantly evolving workforce that meets the constantly evolving needs of the economy, we need to provide income support recipients with the capacity to reskill and skill up. These Australians, who so happen to need a bit of help to support them while they undertake further study, are being disproportionately punished.

I find astonishing the contempt with which this government views income support recipients. I have articulated this week and in the past, as my colleagues have, on countless occasions, the—I can't even find the words—veil of invisibility over that rhetoric. The pursuit of 20,000 Australians with the robo-debt recovery; forcing older Australians to wait for almost a year to qualify for the age pension; drug testing income support recipients despite the evidence against; 42 million unanswered calls to Centrelink; underfunding and under-resourcing Human Services, including axing 1,100 jobs; cutting back backdating payments, cutting back eligibility for the age pension: the list goes on in this victimisation. Those opposite are only interested in making it so difficult and so painful, and in feeding negative stereotypes about people who need our support—people who rely on governments of both persuasions to help them in the most difficult of times. This means that you on the other side are completely out of touch, and people understand that.

One of the principles of this country, one of the things that Australians pride themselves on, is the notion of a fair go, and this bill and these measures are not about a fair go. A fair go includes the times when many Australians require support. To cut these payments is, as I said earlier, stingy and mean. The education entry payment and the pensioner education supplement are most commonly paid to recipients of the parenting payment. As I said, most of them are women. A single mum working one shift a week has just had her family tax benefit rate frozen and her penalty rates cut, and she could be facing a loss of the energy supplement as well. The government say that they have given up on their unfair cuts, but we know—and this is an example—that those unfair cuts are well and truly alive.

This is a war being waged by the Liberals on the social safety net, something that we as Australians have built, should be proud of and should be protecting. We believe those who are unable to help themselves should be supported. We believe those who make a reasonable attempt at contributing to the economy, contributing to the community, but are unsuccessful, for many reasons, should be given the necessary support until they are in a position to do so. That is socially responsible. It is economically responsible, which is of course an important point. Labor believes in strengthening our social safety net, not diminishing it or overseeing its demise. Labor believes it can be and should be accessible and accountable to all Australians when they need it.

I finish my comments by saying that those of us on my side of the House are the people that are taking up the cudgels for those that need support. It astounds me that, in the desperate search for a negative narrative about people on income support, the government is undertaking these stingy, mean cost-saving measures to the cost of people who are seeking to improve their lives; to the cost of people who want to contribute to the economy; to the cost of people who are demonstrating, by re-entering the education and skilling system, that they are committed to what we are all committed to in this place, and that is getting people into employment.

Do not try to paint Labor as not wanting to get people back into employment. That is scandalous. That is what we want to do, and that is what these measures are doing, yet you see fit to slash those measures. You see fit to take away the very thing that is giving some people the hope of being able to re-skill and re-enter the workforce. Do you really think people want to be unemployed? Do you really think people want to have a disability? Do you really think people want to rely on a social safety net for their entire lives? No, they don't. Labor has been clear: if people are scamming the system, they should bear those consequences, but to put this bill into this place, attempting to undermine the very people you say you want to support, is nothing less than scandalous. It's duplicitous, and you should be ashamed of yourselves for doing so.

Mr HILL (Bruce) (13:26): I wasn't on the list but I am called to speak. I am moved to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017, not just to fill three minutes and avoid a division but because I wish to condemn the government in the strongest possible terms for this latest attack on the most vulnerable Australians. This bill slashes support yet again to low-income Australians. Abolishing the pensioner education supplement, paid to 11,000 people, and the education entry payment, paid to 38,000 people—and I note there are about 9½ thousand people who get the double whammy and lose both—is a disgrace. These payments, quite simply, are to help social security recipients with the costs of study. $62 may not seem a lot to those opposite, who've just awarded themselves—and everyone in this House, to our shame—a tax cut, along with everyone else earning over $180,000, but to people on the disability support pension, carers, sole parents and the unemployed, these payments are critically important to helping them into study or training.

I know this, because I was raised by a single mum. When we were at school, I saw the difficulties that going back to do a year 12 subject caused my mum. That was one subject, while trying to raise two kids. I'm proud to say that she topped the state in VCE psychology—probably trying to understand her two kids! I saw the difficulties firsthand, and I know the difference that these kinds of payments can make in my community. They incentivise and help people.

These are zombie measures. We have seen them before. They've been hanging around since 2014. You can kill a zombie only by finding its brain and hacking it out. Obviously the government hasn't managed to find its own brain and hack it out, or we wouldn't be having this debate yet again, day after day, month after month. They're based on the flawed trickle-down theory embedded within this government's political and budgetary priorities—that is, if you cut spending, take away from the most vulnerable in society, give tax cuts to the rich, give Gina Rinehart and her mates the biggest tax cuts in the country with $65.4 billion, somehow everyone will be better off. I'm going to say the 'p' word. I know those opposite get sensitive when you say the 'p' word: poverty, poor people. If you take that trickle-down economic theory to its logical conclusion then you should plough poor people into the fields for a more efficient use of their carbon.

We have seen the big picture that this budget measure sits within. There is the tax cut to the top end, the $65.4 billion of multinational tax cuts, and further defence of regressive taxation loopholes—negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. Yet this budget measure is also accompanied by a tax rise for everyone else in the country. There is bill after bill, taking away five bucks here, 10 bucks there, a hundred bucks there. They are having another go at the age pensioners: 'Let's take a little bit off migrant pensioners who spend eight weeks overseas visiting family before they die.' They are cutting funding for education and lowering repayment thresholds for any young person earning $42,000. Apparently that makes you rich enough to repay your uni debt and start a family while putting up with frozen family payments. The list goes on. When you compare and contrast who gets benefits, who gets money, where they spend the money and where they take, you see what the government really thinks of those at the bottom.

The other word they get sensitive about is inequality, because they do not accept there's a problem. Any self-help manual says, 'You have to accept there's a problem before you're able to address it and do anything about it.'

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Bruce will be given an opportunity at that time to conclude his contribution.

Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) (16:19): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Ms KEAY (Braddon) (16:22): It is like groundhog day to be back here in the chamber speaking on a bill that again attacks the most vulnerable in our community. I have only been in this parliament a short time—hopefully, I will be here a lot longer—but I can say that, day after day, the government seem to bring into this place legislation that attacks women, pensioners, carers and students. It seems to attack all those who have very limited ability to go out there and get a job because of some reason—whether it is that they have left school before grade 12; they are at home caring for a parent, particularly if they are a young carer; they have a disability and there are a number of barriers in their way; or they are a student in a regional community. The government seem to really not like them very much at all.

With the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017, it is like the zombie measures of 2014 rearing their ugly heads again. I really like the comment from the member for Bruce earlier today when speaking on this bill that to kill a zombie you need to find its brain. This government has yet to find its brain. I wonder when the Australian public will find that brain—maybe never. Maybe an election is needed for the Australian public to realise that they cannot have a government which continues to attack the people in our community who need our help the most.

I will welcome the opportunity to speak on the second reading amendment to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017 that will be moved by the member for Jagajaga. I know that people in this House hold the member for Jagajaga in high regard, particularly those on this side. She is a person who has been relentless in her pursuit of fairness. I use the word 'fairness' because I remember hearing the Prime Minister use the word 'fairness' like it was some epiphany to him: 'I can say this word 'fairness' to the Australian public because my 2017-18 budget is about fairness.' How can it be fair to cut payments that help people in our community actually be in a position to go out there and get work? This is what the bill does. Those on the other side just cannot seem to help themselves. They bring forward a bill that, in part, Labor could support; yet there is absolutely no way we could support most of the bill, because it is simply not fair.

It is just rank hypocrisy that people on the other side have been walking around this week wearing Carers Week badges and lining up to have their photo taken in front of Carers Week posters to say 'I support carers'. What I can say for the carers in my community is they would not be very supportive of this bill. I don't know what the members on the other side think when they talk to carers, particularly young carers who have had to sacrifice years or maybe even full-time education in the state system to look after a sick parent and might think, 'I've got some time; I might go out and study part-time, and there are some payments I can get from the government to help me do that.' But this bill cuts those payments. It is absolutely shameful.

I want to talk about those payments, because there is a young person in my community that I know very, very well who is a young carer. He has been trying very hard to better his education because when he was at school he had to sacrifice so much time to look after his mother. His name is Jaeyden. Jaeyden has just turned 18 and he is a full-time carer for his mother. Earlier this year he visited this parliament with other young carers, as part of a delegation of young carers from across Australia, to raise awareness of the struggles they face. They met with the minister. I was in the room, and the minister seemed quite engaged with what these young carers were saying about the support they need to be in a position to access education and to be able to afford to do that. But it seems that was paying lip service to the situation of Jaeyden and other carers, if this legislation is any indication.

I have known Jaeyden since early last year and I would like to share with the House his story, as published in our local newspaper almost 12 months ago. He is one of an estimated 73,800 carers in Tasmania. That's a huge number for a small state like Tasmania. Jaeyden looks after his mother, who has been diagnosed with a heart condition. The article says:

Jaeyden takes his mother to her appointments, cooks and cleans.

Besides having the responsibility for looking after his mum's medication, Jaeyden also manages his family's finances and cares for his siblings.

And he's been doing this for a long time. It says:

He's been his mother's primary carer for three years and has helped manage her chronic condition since he was 10 years old.

It wasn't until he was 13 people recognised the role he'd taken on.

It continues:

This is a tough job that is deserving of a reward, not a punishment.

Jaeyden, is not unlike many other carers in our community who are on call 24-hours a day, and the effects on their lives is real and worthy of more than just negativity from the Turnbull Government.

Let's look at what is in this bill in relation to someone like Jaeyden who may decide to study part-time—and I know he has. This bill reinforces the point made by the shadow minister and other speakers on this side that this legislation is about cutting payments to people that really need them—those people whose study load is 76 per cent or less. A person whose study load is between 51 per cent and 75 per cent has their payment cut by $52 in the case of an education entry supplement recipient. A similar pensioner education supplement recipient has their payment cut by $15.60. That may not seem like a lot of money to those on the other side, but if you speak to these people it is a huge amount. It is the difference between making ends meet and not making ends meet in those households. A person whose study load is between 26 and 50 per cent has their payment cut by $104 in the case of an education entry supplement recipient. A similar pensioner education supplement recipient has their payment cut by $31.20.

I know that for the member for Wentworth and many on the other side these aren't huge sums of money, but for people like Jaeyden it is a lot. It goes to demonstrate how out of touch those on the other side are—or they just don't care. The most vulnerable, the group this government constantly targets, the group famously described by the former Treasurer as 'leaners', are again being attacked. Yet, if they really want to get ahead and undertake study, they are punished.

Jaeyden has completed three community service diplomas but has had to stop doing this because of his caring responsibilities. Clearly, he is unable to study full-time. This is a concept I think those opposite don't quite grasp—that these people really are not in a position to study full-time. It doesn't seem to matter to those opposite. But, if someone like Jaeyden wants to return to study, why should he be punished?

There is another aspect of this bill that I think those opposite really don't understand either. It's the continual attack on women—

Debate interrupted.

The SPEAKER: The honourable member will be able to continue her remarks when the debate resumes.