The SPEAKER (09:36): I present report No. 24 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 21 May 2018. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.

The report read as follows—

Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business

1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 8 May 2018.

2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 8 May 2018, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 21 May 2018, as follows:

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

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 MS LEY: To present a Bill for an Act to restrict the long haul export of live sheep, and for related purposes. (Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018)

(Notice given 8May 2018.)

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

2 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act2009, and for related purposes. (Fair Work Amendment (Making Australia More Equal) Bill 2018)

(Notice given 6 February 2018.)

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

3 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to air services, and for related purposes. (Air Services Amendment Bill 2018)

(Notice given 27March 2018.)

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

4 MR WATTS: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the role of Government leadership in ensuring the productivity and liveability of Australian cities; and

(2) notes:

(a) the importance of public transport infrastructure in shaping cities and regions;

(b) the record funding commitments for urban public transport infrastructure made under the previous Labor government, including $3.2 billion for the Regional Rail Link project and a further $3 billion committed to the Melbourne Metro rail project (Metro Tunnel);

(c) the recent Infrastructure Australia report, Future Cities: Planning for our growing population, which highlights the need for Australian governments to increase investment in public transport in areas experiencing rapid population growth, including in Melbourne's west;

(d) that if an appropriate route is selected, the construction of an airport rail link to Melbourne Airport through Melbourne's west has the potential to create social and economic benefits across the region; and

(e) that further public transport infrastructure projects for fast growing regions like Melbourne's west will needed in the near future to meet the challenge of population growth.

(Notice given 8 May 2018.)

Time allotted—40 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mr Watts—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

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

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

5 MR CHRISTENSEN : To move—that this House recognises that:

(1) the Australian Labor Party has abandoned workers in Queensland, to chase Green votes in Victoria;

(2) Opposition Leader Bill Shorten:

(a) tells workers in Queensland he is pro coal, and in Victoria that he is against it; and

(b) promised green activist Geoff Cousins that he would tear up the approvals for the Adani Carmichael mine;

(3) the opening up of the Galilee Basin has the potential to create over 16,000 jobs in Queensland;

(4) the Australian Labor Party is gambling with the integrity of Australia and has created a sovereign risk; and

(5) Australia should utilise its natural resources and encourage investment in our mining sector to create much needed jobs for regional areas.

(Notice given 26March 2018.)

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

Speech time limits—

Mr Christensen—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

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

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

Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 MS HUSAR: To move—that this House:

(1) acknowledges that the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS):

(a) supports a better life for hundreds of thousands of Australians with a significant and permanent disability, and their families and carers; and

(b) will provide about 460,000 Australians under the age of 65 with a permanent and significant disability with the reasonable and necessary supports they need to live an ordinary life;

(2) notes that:

(a) the NDIS began in a number of trial sites around Australia from July 2013;

(b) the NDIS is now operational across Australia;

(c) as at 31 December 2017, there were 132,743 participants with an approved plan with the NDIS and 9,523 children receiving support through the Early Childhood Early Intervention approach; and

(d) the NDIS roll-out in Western Australia will commence 1 July 2018;

(3) calls on the Government to urgently address delays and inadequacies in the NDIS operations and roll-out, including:

(a) funding adequacy and access to the scheme;

(b) NDIS plan approvals and plan renewals;

(c) access to adequate health services, care and supports, housing and other essential services; and

(d) ensuring that the pricing structure of the NDIS enables service providers to deliver high quality support to participants in the scheme including for group activities that are being threatened by the current model;

(4) reaffirms its commitment to:

(a) ensuring Australians with a disability continue to get the support they need;

(b) the scheme roll-out continuing to ensure a smooth transition for people with disability and support providers; and

(c) an adequately funded and resourced NDIS; and

(5) encourages all Members of Parliament to support the NDIS roll-out and the access to support it provides to people with disability.

(Notice given 26 March 2018; amended 7May 2018.)

Time allotted—50 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Ms Husar—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]

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

2 MR RAMSEY : To move:

That this House:

(1) expresses its support for continued trials into suicide prevention in rural and regional Australia;

(2) recognises:

(a) the huge toll suicide takes on regional communities;

(b) that people in regional areas are more likely to take their own lives than those in metropolitan areas;

(c) that suicide is the leading cause of death in people aged between 15 and 44; and

(d) that regional communities are affected by economic stress, the effects of natural disasters, isolation and loneliness, leading to increased risk of suicide;

(3) encourages the National Suicide Prevention Strategy to:

(a) commission regionally appropriate suicide prevention activities; and

(b) identify young people at high risk of self-harm or suicide and support them; and

(4) supports funding into mental health research and trials in electoral divisions across regional Australia, such as those conducted in Whyalla, Port Augusta, Port Pirie, Port Lincoln and Yorke Peninsula, in the electoral division of Grey.

(Notice given 28 February 2018.)

Time allotted—50 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mr Ramsey—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]

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

3 MR GOSLING: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the importance of Australia's bilateral relationship with Indonesia;

(2) notes that:

(a) two-way investment between Australia and Indonesia was valued at $10.4 billion in 2016;

(b) 16,200 Indonesian tourists visited Australia and 1.248 million Australians visited Indonesia in 2016, making Indonesia Australia's second most popular holiday destination;

(c) cultural engagement programs like those fostered by the Australia-Indonesia Institute, the Australia-Indonesia Centre and CAUSINDY: the Conference of Australian and Indonesian Youth, are paramount to continuing to develop strong people-to-people links;

(d) Darwin has a key role to play in Australia's relationship with Indonesia through:

(i) educational opportunities such as Charles Darwin University's exchange programs, research groups, and international student places;

(ii) assisting Indonesia in building their emergency and disaster management capacity;

(iii) quick-response health resources like the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre; and

(iv) further strengthening trade capabilities and opportunities in the cattle industry, with Indonesia taking approximately 60 per cent of Australia's overall live cattle exports and more than a third of Australia's live cattle exports currently shipped through the Port of Darwin; and

(e) there are many areas in which cooperation between Indonesia and Australia could be strengthened for mutual benefit, including:

(i) countering transnational crime through cyber-security capacity building;

(ii) improving Defence capabilities and humanitarian aid/disaster relief assistance;

(iii) sharing the expertise of NT health professionals through clinical training and trainee/specialist exchange programs;

(iv) partnering on tourism initiatives like Indonesia's Beyond Bali campaign to provide opportunities to regional areas such as Eastern Indonesia; and

(v) expanding trilateral cooperation with Timor-Leste to improve humanitarian aid/disaster relief and strengthen maritime security, with opportunity for inclusion of other nations;

(3) encourages Members to reflect on recent occasions when the strength of the Australia-Indonesia relationship has been strained by decisions that, with the benefit of hindsight, didn't adequately balance all aspects of the relationship between our nations; and

(4) calls on Members to ensure our words and actions at all times demonstrate our deep, enduring respect for Indonesia and the value we place in maintaining a positive relationship.

(Notice given 8 May 2018.)

Time allotted—20 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mr Gosling—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]

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

Orders of the day

1 Mental health: Resumption of debate (from 16 October 2017) on the motion of Mr Wallace—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures one in five Australians report having a mental or behavioural condition, while the prevalence is highest among people aged 18 to 24; and

(b) data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare suggests that 54 per cent of people with a mental illness do not access treatment;

(2) congratulates the Government for its engagement with the mental health community and for its measures to support mental health in Australia including:

(a) additional investment of $170 million in mental health programs in the 2017 budget including $80 million to maintain community psycho-social services for people with mental illness who are not eligible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, $11.1 million to prevent suicide in specific locations where it is a frequent occurrence, $15 million to support mental health research initiatives such as the Thompson Institute on the Sunshine Coast and $50 million for mental illness prevention and support for serving Australian Defence Force members, veterans and their families; and

(b) investment of:

(i) $9.5 million to expand mental health first aid training in 14 high risk communities; and

(ii) $9.1 million to support rural telehealth services for mental health and the appointment of the first National Rural Health Commissioner;

(3) encourages the Government to continue this focused work and to seek additional ways to support the mental health of Australians; and

(4) further encourages anyone who believes that they might be suffering from a mental illness to seek immediate help from their General Practitioner or a qualified mental health practitioner.

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

Speech time limits—

All Members speaking—5 minutes. each.

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

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

Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices—continued

4 MR HAYES: To move:

That this House:

(1) recognises the deteriorating humanitarian crisis that has ensued between the Myanmar security forces in Rakhine State and Rohingya Muslims, since 25 August 2017;

(2) notes with grave concern, evidence from Human Rights Watch of a series of brutal crackdowns carried out by security forces against ethnic Rohingya Muslims, including:

(a) extrajudicial killing;

(b) the torture and suffering of Rohingya women, men and children;

(c) the forced displacement of more than 600,000 Rohingya into Bangladesh;

(d) the destruction, arson and takeover of more than 300 villages by the Myanmar military; and

(e) endemic rape and sexual violence;

(3) further notes:

(a) that Myanmar was home to an estimated 1.3 million Rohingya Muslims;

(b) the long history and persecution of the Rohingya population, including the denial of citizenship under the 1982 Citizenship Law and the denial of most basic government services;

(c) the poor living conditions and widespread inequality facing Rohingya Muslims isolated in Rakhine State and those now living in Bangladesh, including limited access to food, water, shelter, medical treatment and humanitarian assistance; and

(d) that the United Nations and Human Rights Watch have described the situation in Rakhine State as a textbook example of ethnic cleansing;

(4) urges the government of Myanmar to:

(a) recommit to the pursuit of peace and national reconciliation;

(b) allow unfettered humanitarian access to all parts of Rakhine State; and

(c) unconditionally release the two Reuters reporters currently detained in Myanmar; and

(5) echoes the voices of the international community and calls on Australia to:

(a) consider additional humanitarian assistance in response to the Rohingya crisis, particularly to assist Bangladesh respond to the unprecedented levels of Rohingya refugees that have moved across its border;

(b) ensure that the development assistance that Australia provides to Myanmar is appropriately targeted to those most in need, and does not risk contributing to the further suffering of minority groups in Myanmar such as the Rohingya;

(c) exert maximum pressure on the Myanmar authorities to allow independent examination of claims of human rights abuses in Rakhine State, and to hold those responsible for abuses to account; and

(d) continue condemnation of the human rights abuses against the Rohingya.

(Notice given 8 May 2018.)

Time allotted—30 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mr Hayes—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

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

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

5 MR VAN MANEN : To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that the Australian Government:

(a) is acting to provide critical upgrades to the M1 Motorway to deliver safer, less congested roads for the people of Queensland, which will mean people spend less time in traffic and more time with their families;

(b) is delivering a $1 billion upgrade including between Varsity Lakes and Tugun on the Gold Coast end of the M1 corridor, and between Eight Mile Plains and Daisy Hill within the Brisbane urban area; and

(c) has previously committed funding to two projects on the M1 which are scheduled to commence construction in coming weeks, being:

(i) $115 million for the M1 Pacific Motorway-Gateway Merge; and

(ii) $110 million for the M1 Pacific Motorway-Mudgeeraba to Varsity Lakes project; and

(2) calls on the Queensland Government to match the funding on a 50:50 basis.

(Notice given 8 May 2018.)

Time allotted—40 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mr van Manen—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

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

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

Orders of the day—continued

PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE: Debate to be resumed on the motion of Mr Watts—That this House:

(1) acknowledges the role of Government leadership in ensuring the productivity and liveability of Australian cities; and

(2) notes:

(a) the importance of public transport infrastructure in shaping cities and regions;

(b) the record funding commitments for urban public transport infrastructure made under the previous Labor government, including $3.2 billion for the Regional Rail Link project and a further $3 billion committed to the Melbourne Metro rail project (Metro Tunnel);

(c) the recent Infrastructure Australia report, Future Cities: Planning for our growing population, which highlights the need for Australian governments to increase investment in public transport in areas experiencing rapid population growth, including in Melbourne's west;

(d) that if an appropriate route is selected, the construction of an airport rail link to Melbourne Airport through Melbourne's west has the potential to create social and economic benefits across the region; and

(e) that further public transport infrastructure projects for fast growing regions like Melbourne's west will needed in the near future to meet the challenge of population growth.

Time allotted—20 minutes.

Speech time limits—

All Members speaking—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]

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

6 MRS MARINO: To move:

That this House:

(1) recognises the importance of infrastructure to the future prosperity of our nation;

(2) acknowledges the actions the Government is taking in delivering a record $75 billion investment in infrastructure and transport projects focused on building local communities, connecting the regions and our cities, busting congestion and boosting productivity, while creating local jobs;

(3) notes that for the first time, the Government has committed to a 10 year infrastructure investment pipeline with the recently announced significant infrastructure projects; and

(4) congratulates the Government in working to deliver the infrastructure that will help secure Australia's prosperity into the future.

(Notice given 8 May 2018.)

Time allotted—40 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mrs Marino—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

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

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

7 MS SHARKIE : To move:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) the key role that volunteers play in our communities across Australia;

(b) National Volunteer Week is an annual celebration of the contribution of volunteers and this year is from 21 to 27 May 2018;

(c) there are over 6 million Australians volunteers who generously donate their time to a wide range of social and community causes;

(d) volunteering Australia estimates that the annual economic and societal benefit of volunteering is valued at $290 billion or more; and

(e) volunteering provides clear benefits to both volunteers and Australian society;

(2) thanks the Government and Parliament for their support of volunteering and volunteering support services; and

(3) calls on the:

(a) Government to continue its funding support for volunteering support services; and

(b) Parliament to join together to thank our volunteers for their generous contribution to Australia.

(Notice given 8 May 2018.)

Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm

Speech time limits—

Ms Sharkie—10 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins + 5 x 5 mins]

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

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

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill implements the Turnbull government's Personal Income Tax Plan to make personal income taxes lower, simpler and fairer. It's about providing tax relief for working Australians, particularly those on middle to low incomes.

By sticking to our plan for a stronger economy, the government is returning the budget to balance and to surplus and guaranteeing the essentials that Australians rely on.

And because a stronger economy delivers more revenue to the budget we are able to responsibly afford the Personal Income Tax Plan for tax relief for working Australians that is presented in this bill. It is affordable. It is fiscally responsible. More so it is necessary and will help people to manage the household budget pressures that they face.

The government is committed to a tax system that rewards effort and aspiration and promotes opportunity; a tax system that is internationally competitive, capable of driving stronger investment and stronger growth for our economy and, above all, a stronger economy, upon which everything depends; a tax system where all individuals and businesses pay their fair share so the government can deliver essential services.

Without action, the personal income tax system will increasingly penalise Australians for earning more as they move into higher tax brackets. The tax burden borne by workers will rise, reducing the rewards for effort.

As outlined in the Australian Taxation Office taxation statistics, the personal income tax burden is carried by the few, not the many. In 2015-16, the top one per cent of taxpayers paid around 17 per cent of the $186 billion tax bill for personal income tax. The top 10 per cent paid around 45 per cent of this total, compared with around 36 per cent 20 years earlier.

The government has set up a tax-to-GDP speed limit of 23.9 per cent of the economy. This prudent fiscal strategy ensures that taxes do not chase spending and overwhelm the economy and have the bizarre situation where it's like a snake eating itself from the tail.

Over the seven years of this plan, the government will provide tax relief to encourage and reward hardworking Australians and to reduce household budget pressures.

The plan will mean that individuals will be able to take on additional work, seek advancement and put the extra hours in, knowing that their extra income and their extra hard work will remain with them and that a higher proportion will not go to the government in higher taxes. Our plan will deliver a personal income tax system that is lower, fairer and simpler, consistent with Liberal-National values.

The plan will be delivered in three steps.

(1) It will provide tax relief to low- and middle-income earners first.

(2) It will protect what Australians earn from bracket creep.

(3) It will ensure Australians pay less tax, by making personal taxes simpler and flatter.

Under our personal income tax plan, 94 per cent of Australian taxpayers will pay no more than 32½ cents in the dollar on their marginal rate. This compares with 63 per cent if we leave the system unchanged and if we do not pass this bill now. That's why it must be passed now, because we are not going to set Australia on the rails, where 63 per cent of the population are paying a top marginal rate of 32½ cents in the dollar, when we can say 94 per cent of the Australian population should be able to understand that that is the tax system that they will be living in over the next decade. They need that encouragement and they need that certainty, and they can get it now. They can get it right now by supporting the full personal income tax plan.

Step 1 of our plan will start permanent tax relief to low- and middle-income earners first as a priority, helping to ease household budget pressures. A new non-refundable low- and middle-income tax offset will provide tax relief of up to $530 to middle- and lower-income earners for the 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 income years. This is what can be responsibly afforded, while keeping the budget on track. That's half a year's electricity bills paid for right there with the tax relief for middle- to low-income earners that is being delivered by the Turnbull government in this budget and in this bill.

The new tax offset is in addition to the benefit lower-income earners receive from the low-income tax offset, and will be paid in the same way—on assessment after tax returns have been lodged.

This tax relief will not be clawed back by other tax increases, including the Medicare levy, which will remain unchanged, nor will it be funded by putting a higher tax burden on others. That's not how you do it. You don't have to punish hardworking Australians to provide relief to other Australians; that's called the politics of envy, not the economics of opportunity that is understood and believed by this side of the House. The other side of the House simply wants to tax more Australians more, to take taxes as a share of the economy to records that even Whitlam in his wildest dreams could never have fantasised about. Tax fantasies will become a reality for the Labor Party if they ever occupy these benches again.

Step 2 of the plan is necessary to be voted on and made certain now. It will help ensure that incomes earned by Australians are protected from bracket creep. From 1 July 2018, the government will increase the top threshold of the 32½ per cent tax bracket from $87,000 to $90,000, providing a tax cut of up to $135 per year to around three million taxpayers. This builds on the 2016-17 budget increase to the top threshold of the 32½ per cent bracket from $80,000 to $87,000, and shows the Turnbull government's long-term commitment to reforming the personal income tax system.

From 1 July 2022, the government will provide tax relief of up to $1,350 per year by further increasing the top threshold of the 32½ per cent bracket from $90,000 to $120,000. This is projected to benefit around 3.9 million taxpayers and prevent around 1.8 million taxpayers from facing the second-top marginal tax rate of 37 per cent in 2022-23.

In addition, the top threshold of the 19 per cent tax bracket will be increased from $37,000 to $41,000 providing a tax cut of up to $540 a year. The low-income tax offset will also be increased from $445 to $645. The extension of the 19 per cent tax bracket together with the increase to the low income tax offset will guarantee the benefits of step 1 are maintained on a permanent basis.

By protecting against bracket creep under step 2 of our plan it ensures that a pay rise, extra overtime or working more hours do not get eaten up by higher tax rates.

Step 3 of the plan will make the personal tax system simpler and flatter. From 1 July 2024, the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent tax bracket will be further increased from $120,000 to $200,000, abolishing the 37 per cent tax bracket altogether and reducing the number of tax brackets from five to four. This is projected to prevent around 1.8 million taxpayers from facing a tax rate higher than 32.5 per cent.

This plan provides certainty to most taxpayers, most of whom will face the same marginal tax rate through their working life. That means bracket creep will be history for the majority of working Australians under this plan to be delivered by a Turnbull government. It should be voted on by this parliament to give that certainty to those Australians right here, right now. Right here, right now is when Australians want certainty about being able to have tax relief—not just today but into the future. They need that certainty now.

I know those opposite will quibble. They'll take any excuse running to not provide tax relief to working Australians. They won't put a speed limit on their taxes and they'll be so mean to not ensure that Australians can have the certainty of tax relief both now and into the future. Any excuse to keep taxes high and to spend the economy into oblivion—that's what you'll get from the opposition time and time again. Any excuse will do.

The plan provides certainty to taxpayers. That's what it's delivering. The personal income tax plan contained in this bill—the whole deal—provides reward for effort. It provides fostering of aspiration in this country, improving incentives to strive for success. Permanent tax relief will put more of Australians' hard-earned income back into their pockets.

High-income earners will contribute to income taxes about the same way as they do now.

The personal income tax plan is a package. We are legislating that whole package, that whole plan, that whole promise, that whole commitment, that certainty that families want about when they go to work for the next 10 years they will keep more of what they earn and they won't have the Labor Party or any government in the future putting their hands deep into their pockets and ripping out their hard-earned money.

They can have that support, that certainty and that guarantee right now. We all know the history of the Labor Party on l-a-w. They know they can't be trusted. This government can be trusted though because we believe in lower taxes. We believe in them because we know it rewards effort and we know it drives a stronger economy.

We are legislating the whole package now to provide that certainty. We are legislating it to provide taxpayers certainty that they'll be protected from bracket creep into the future.

We are legislating the whole package to ensure that personal taxes will be simpler and fairer.

Schedule 1 of this bill implements the low and middle income tax offset and increases the value of the low income tax offset. Schedule 2 of the bill increases the personal income tax thresholds in 2018-19, 2022-23 and 2024-25 delivering significant tax cuts to Australian taxpayers.

We are the party of responsible budgets and lower taxes. This plan is affordable. It's funded in the budget; it's consistent with our fiscal rules; it's returning the budget to a balance of over one per cent of GDP over the medium term; and it's bringing us back to a balance in 2019-20 with surpluses building after that and, at the same time, keeping taxes under the speed limit, which is what taxpayers expect. Under the Labor Party, too much tax is never enough—it's never enough! The Liberal Party and the National Party know that too much tax is too much tax. It has to be restricted so Australians can be guaranteed and have the certainty of their encouragement through the tax system that is in place.

We are the party of responsible budgets. We are the party of lower taxes. There is a clear choice: higher taxes under the Labor Party that suffocate the economy or lower taxes under the Liberal-National Party that provide the stronger economy that guarantees the essential services that Australians rely on—Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Higher funding for schools and higher funding for hospitals are in the budget I delivered last night. That is all delivered by a stronger economy, which the Labor Party wants to suffocate with $220 billion of higher taxes and denying tax relief to hardworking Australians. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (09:49): Given the position of the government and the position of the opposition so far expressed, I'm asking leave to continue the debate.

The SPEAKER: Is leave granted?

Mr BURKE (Watson) (09:49): Leave is not granted. The first speaker on budget bills in budget week, as long as this parliament's been running, is the Leader of the Opposition on the Thursday night. Leave is not granted.

The SPEAKER: Leave is not granted. I'm granting the Manager of Opposition Business that indulgence.

Debate adjourned.

Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (09:53): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

There are a number of amendments which have come back from the Senate which the government has agreed to. Largely, these amendments go to things which we were planning on including in instruments, but which the Senate wanted to be included in legislation—in particular, the labour market testing provisions which, as everybody knows, we are very serious about incorporating as part of the reforms to what used to be called the 457 visas and which are now called the TSS visas, the temporary skill shortage visas. This is the primary visa to enable businesses to sponsor people into the country on a short-term basis. We wanted to ensure that there is very good labour market testing conducted first to give the opportunity for an Australian to accept the job before the business could sponsor a person from overseas into that position. The amendments go through some fairly rudimentary labour-market testing provisions—saying, for example, that the advertisement must be advertised for at least four weeks; that the advertisements must be at least four months prior to the position being requested; and also that the manner of the ads must be sufficient to give an Australian a good opportunity to know about it, to assess that particular job to see if they want it, and to apply for it. It's only if there is no Australian able to fulfil the particular job—having advertised for the position, done the right thing for the requisite amount of time—that the particular business can then sponsor a person into that position.

There's a further amendment, which was requested by the Nick Xenophon Team, now known as Centre Alliance, to review the operation of the SAF levy after 18 months. That seems like a reasonable amendment, and so we have agreed to that amendment. Consequently, I hope that now the SAF bill, with these amendments, will pass the House and be enacted into law.

If I can just reflect upon what this bill, the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill, does. In essence, it amends the Migration Act 1958 to provide for the collection of a nomination training contribution charge from employers nominating overseas skilled workers. The measure is a critical element of the government's employer-sponsored migration reforms, ensuring that Australian workers are given first priority for jobs in this country. The government is considering industry concerns regarding refunds of and exemptions from the nomination training contribution charges. The government, as I said, supports the amendments to the bill moved by the opposition regarding labour market testing, and by Centre Alliance regarding a review of the nomination training contribution charge 18 months after commencement. The administration of the Skilling Australians Fund will increase the transparency and accountability of training contributions made by employers utilising the skilled migration program. This will increase public confidence that the businesses that bring in skilled migrants are doing their part to help Australians prepare for the workforce.

This is an important bill which is a continuation of our reforms to the skilled migration program, which included the abolition of the 457 visas. We were concerned that that wasn't always being used properly, and so we've introduced a new scheme, the short-term skills shortage scheme. That is in operation now and is going along well. We are finding that this is being utilised, but that there are skills shortages across the country as the labour market tightens. We're working with those businesses to ensure that where there's no Australian available, they can get a skilled migrant into those positions. I commend these amendments to the House and I look forward to the passage of this bill.

Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (09:58): Labor has successfully amended this bill, the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2018, in the Senate to ensure that local workers are given the first opportunity to apply for a local job, before an employer can apply to bring in an overseas worker. We're pleased the government has been dragged kicking and screaming to these amendments, and we're pleased they've changed their mind in relation to this issue. We have always believed in genuine labour market testing for employers nominating overseas workers and we fought for it every step of the way, including across two days in this chamber.

Labour market testing requires employers wanting to bring in overseas workers to test the local labour market first. This is to make sure there are no suitable qualified and experienced local workers readily available to fill those positions, prior to bringing in overseas workers. The Turnbull government did not legislate strict labour market testing in the original legislation, and that's why the debate took place across two days. Labor don't trust the government in relation to this issue—or their big-business budget—and we never have; that's why we moved amendments to protect local workers.

The successful amendments will ensure that labour market testing is advertised for a minimum of four weeks, has been conducted no more than four months before the nomination of a worker on a skilled visa and is targeted in a such a way that a significant portion of suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents would be likely to be informed about the position. They will ensure that there are not unrealistic and unwarranted skills and experience requirements for vacant positions with the effect of excluding otherwise suitable Australian applicants.

The Turnbull government have failed to protect local workers in their getting the first shot at local jobs. Labor's strict labour-market-testing conditions will ensure that local workers get the first shot at these jobs. We're pleased the government have changed their position. We had to beat them 38-28 in the Senate, and we're pleased that they've accepted these amendments.

The budget confirms our long-held belief that the Turnbull government botched their skilled migration changes and that their reliance on visa levies is deeply flawed, with $270 million in cuts to the Skilling Australians Fund uncovered in the Turnbull government's big-business budget. That's the subject of the debate before the chamber today. The Turnbull government's mistakes have forced them to make further skilled migration changes in the budget, such as refund and exemption provisions, leaving $270 million less going towards skills and training of young and working-class Australians. Because of this unfair budget, big business gets an $80 billion handout while Australians miss out on essential skills and training that should last a lifetime and lead to real jobs with decent wages.

The Turnbull government even admit in the budget papers their failure to get their act together, by blaming delays in the passage of enabling legislation. They could have accepted our amendments a long time ago when we proposed them, but, reluctantly, stubbornly and obstinately, they refused to accept them, and finally today they have agreed. The budget proves that the Turnbull government's Skilling Australians Fund, their primary source of funding for apprenticeships and traineeships, is deeply flawed and insecure because of its reliance on visa levies from overseas workers.

Only Labor will guarantee funding for TAFE and skills regardless of the number of overseas workers coming to this country. We're pleased that the government have changed their position, and we're happy to support the amendments.

Question agreed to.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (10:02): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Report 179: reprocessing nuclear fuel—France; PACER Plus agreement.

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

Mr ROBERT: by leave—Today I rise to make a statement concerning the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' Report 179.

The report deals with two treaty actions:

the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the French Republic Concerning the Reprocessing in France of Australian Irradiated Nuclear Fuel Elements; and

the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus, or PACER Plus.

The agreement to reprocess Australia's spent nuclear fuel from the OPAL research reactor in France is necessary to satisfy French domestic law. That law requires that radioactive waste from reprocessing not be stored in France past any agreed date. The agreement meets these requirements.

The committee considered several issues of broader concern outside the remit of this agreement. Those included the merits of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and the long-term storage of nuclear waste in Australia. The committee acknowledges the important work being undertaken at the OPAL reactor. In our view the ongoing operation of the reactor is essential. We accept that reprocessing the spent fuel

2

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (10:07): It's 128 years since the 'Father of Federation', Sir Henry Parkes, delivered his famous speech in Tenterfield, which was seen as a landmark on the road to the creation of our nation. One of Parkes's compelling arguments for transforming a group of colonies into a single nation was the need for a standard rail gauge between states to facilitate the efficient movement of goods and military assets by rail. In the 21st century it remains important that we do all we can to facilitate efficiency in transport not only by rail but also by sea, air and road. We must not allow red tape to add complexity and expense to the process of moving freight around our nation. This is particularly important when it comes to road transport. That is why the former Labor government created the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator to administer regulation of heavy vehicles over 4.5 gross tonnes.

Prior to the COAG agreeing to this landmark change in 2011 and the regulator's commencement in early 2013 there were six state and territory agencies involved in regulating heavy vehicles. This was inefficient. It meant that trucking companies needed to maintain squads of administrative staff to handle vast amounts of paperwork. Truck drivers would travel our road system carrying huge folders full of licences, permits and other forms. This added needless complexity to the system, but it also added costs that were inevitably passed on to the consumer. Thanks to the former Labor government's microeconomic reform, we now have one law covering vehicle standards; mass, dimension and loading requirements; fatigue management; accreditation; and on-road enforcement. The creation of this single set of regulations, administered by a single regulator, along with the creation of single regulators in the maritime and rail sectors, will boost our national income by some $30 billion over just two decades.

The harmonisation of transport regulation was the culmination of a process of regulatory reform commenced by the Labor government in 1991 with the establishment of the National Transport Commission. When I became the minister, in December 2007, one of the first briefings I had from the department outlined how this reform was stuck in bureaucratic wrangling between the Commonwealth and the states and had not been advanced during the period of the Howard government. We had four ministerial council meetings over a series of months to make sure that we got agreement across the board for the national transport regulators. The fact is that Western Australia and the Northern Territory are unfortunately not participating in this national system at this point, but the rest of the states and territories came on board because they understood that these changes would make a real difference to our national economy.

The creation of the national regulator is the key reason the Interstate Road Transport Legislation (Repeal) Bill is before us today. Back in 1987, the Hawke Labor government created the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme, or FIRS, a voluntary alternative to the bewildering array of state and territory regulations still in existence at that time. The FIRS also applied to all heavy vehicles over 4.5 gross tonnes and established uniform charges and operating conditions for interstate heavy vehicle operators. Labor created FIRS in response to industry concerns that interstate road transport rules were restricting their business. Vehicles that operate under FIRS are required to comply with Australian design rules and other standard requirements regarding vehicle equipment and performance standards. They must also have third-party insurance. The state and territory governments administer the FIRS on behalf of the federal government, and registration charges are redistributed amongst the states to be spent on road maintenance.

The FIRS was also designed to promote road safety. Participants are exempt from standard state and territory stamp duties on newly purchased vehicles to encourage them to use newer high-productivity vehicles. This is good for our economy. Importantly, though, it is good for road safety, because the newer the vehicle the better the design standards, and it's also good for the environment because newer vehicles produce fewer emissions and less pollution.

The bill before us today creates a process to abolish FIRS. It would amend the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985. The bill closes FIRS to new entrants and re-registration from 1 July 2018. It allows the scheme to continue for a 12-month transition period—a sensible management exercise—and it would close FIRS to all operators as of 30 June 2019. The Australian Labor Party will support this legislation. We see it as the logical next step in regulatory harmonisation. When FIRS was introduced in 1987, it represented the first step forward in the process of change, but, after more than 30 years of operation and the introduction of the national regulator, the scheme is becoming redundant. Indeed, less than two per cent of the nation's heavy vehicles—about 14,000—operate under this scheme. An independent evaluation of the scheme in 2016 found no evidence that FIRS was achieving its policy objectives, given the changes that have been made to national regulation. It concluded that the stamp duty exemption had neither reduced the age of the heavy vehicle fleet, nor improved road safety outcomes.

It's important to recognise that the transitional arrangements for FIRS vehicles will include a one-off stamp duty exemption for vehicles exiting the scheme. Australia is a vast continent with an ever-increasing freight task. It's important that we invest in freight rail as well as roads to ensure that we can meet the ever-growing need for the movement of goods around our nation and to our ports for export. But it is also important that we keep moving forward on reducing regulatory complexity and that we continue to examine ways in which microeconomic reform can boost the national economy by boosting productivity. That's why this bill is important. Our road transport system needs one set of laws, one set of registration and compliance papers, one log book and as little red tape as possible. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (10:15): I thank colleagues for their support of this bill and the contributions that they have made, and I look forward to the bill passing the Senate. The Interstate Road Transport Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2018 is the first step in the delivery of a new system that better serves the needs of today's dynamic transport industry by removing a well-intended but now fundamentally dated mechanism—the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme.

FIRS was the first national registration scheme for heavy vehicles weighing more than 4.5 tonnes and solely involved in interstate trade or commerce. Established in 1987 to address a perceived limitation on the authority of the states and territories to register vehicles for interstate transport, FIRS sought to address the challenges arising from a lack of uniformity in state and territory registration schemes. However, Australia has changed significantly in the last 30 years. Our needs are different. Our priorities have changed. Our collective regulatory capabilities have improved. FIRS has since been made redundant by increased jurisdictional cooperation, reforms to the heavy vehicle regulatory framework and changes in the business needs of the heavy vehicle industry.

The bill aligns with the policy of successive Australian governments across the best part of the last decade and represents a bipartisan, consistent and continued commitment to close FIRS and progress national heavy vehicle reforms agreed by the Council of Australian Governments in 2009. The closure of FIRS will in turn make way for the introduction of a modern, national registration system for heavy vehicles that better serves the needs of today's transport industry. Accordingly, the initial amendment of the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 and the subsequent repeal of all legislation enabling FIRS is the next logical step in moving Australia towards a fairer, more productive and efficient heavy vehicle industry. I would like to thank members for their constructive contribution to this debate and their support for this bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (10:18): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (10:19): I rise to support the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. Jacques Cousteau, perhaps the greatest oceanographer of the 20th century, once despaired that the sea and the air had become 'global garbage cans'. Cousteau also described the sea as the great unifier. He said that, when it came to the health of the ocean and its impact on people, all of humanity was in the same boat. He was right. When the seas are polluted, we all suffer. Other species, of course, in our oceans suffer directly, but the entire globe suffers. That is why it is so important that we accept and meet our shared responsibility to care for the health of our oceans. It's why we established the largest ever growth in marine parks and protection of our oceans when we were last in office, a reform tragically reversed by a short-sighted coalition government. It is why it is so important that we accept and meet that shared responsibility that we have to care for the health of our oceans.

We can do this in several ways. As individuals, we must take care not to litter our beaches, throw rubbish overboard from boats or, indeed, put things into the system of drainage that end up, quite often, in our oceans. As members of the community, we need to prevent harmful substances entering the oceans as run-off from our farms and other industries. It is a fact that, if you go into any major city around Australia and look at where the factories were located, they were always on water. In my electorate, along the Cooks River, you had everything from flour mills to sugar producers to industrial factories. The reason why they were located along rivers, canals and creeks, of course, was that they were seen as areas for free waste disposal by industry. That has had an enormous impact on the quality of the water in our urban waterways but also around our coasts and our ports. We know better today, but we need to make sure that legislation points the way forward with the modern understanding that we have that the accumulation of garbage and waste in our waterways has an impact on all of us.

As a nation, Australia must always meet our responsibility to collaborate in the forums of the world to improve international maritime regulations relating to pollution. It is in that context that Labor will be supporting the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill enacts Australia's international obligations regarding the way in which we treat pollution from ships. Australia has been an active participant in the International Maritime Organization. When I was the minister, I directly addressed the international conferences of the IMO, because Australia is an island continent with responsibility for such a large proportion of the world's oceans and seas—some one-sixth. Think about that: one in every six square kilometres of the world's oceans and seas is Australia's responsibility. That is why it is critical that we keep up with those international obligations and that Australia continue to lead on these issues.

In simple terms, this bill puts the responsibility on shippers to classify and declare waste from their solid bulk cargoes and to undertake not to dump waste that is designated as dangerous to the environment. It also prohibits the dumping of waste that is harmful to the environment in designated special areas like the Great Barrier Reef, the Torres Strait, the Coral Sea and the Antarctic zone. When many people think about pollution from boats, I suspect they think of oil spills or garbage thrown overboard, but a lot of the pollution from ships is linked to the shipping of bulk cargo: unpackaged homogenous goods like iron ore, coal, sugar, wheat and livestock. The pollution comes about through operational or accidental events during loading, unloading, cleaning or oil spills. For example, when a tanker carrying bulk goods unloads a cargo hold and is cleaned, it can release between 60 and 100 tonnes of cargo slurry—water which contains residue of the load. Most big tankers have five loads. That's a lot of potential pollution. It's estimated that 0.05 per cent of any given solid bulk load will be lost overboard one way or another. That's about 2.15 million tonnes a year. The waste can also include dead livestock—a matter of real concern, given the horrific revelations that have been made about the deaths of sheep being shipped to the Middle East.

This bill seeks to place restrictions on whether such material can be released into the ocean and, if it can be released, where it can be released. It tightens the existing legislation to reflect Australia's commitments under the latest annexure of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, also known as MARPOL—MARPOL is a convention of the International Maritime Organization—which came into effect on 1 March. The new rules classify pollution from ships as harmful if it poses an environmental threat by affecting the health or reproductive systems of plants or animals, including by causing cancer or mutations. These new rules mean this material cannot be dumped at sea. Some waste that is not designated as harmful may be released; however, this legislation quite rightly prevents it from being released in designated special areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Torres Strait.

The changes create a requirement for shippers to classify and declare their solid bulk cargoes as either harmful to the environment or not harmful. They will then be required to inform the master of the vessel carrying the cargo. This is about introducing responsibility chains to make sure that people are accountable. The master of the vessel will then determine the appropriate manner of discharge of the waste according to whether the ship is inside or outside one of these designated special areas. For example, while cargo residue not deemed harmful to the environment must not be dumped in designated special areas, it can be released in other places as far as is practicable from land. These are sensible changes. In a perfect world, we would never have to release any waste material into our oceans; however, we have to accept the reality that we need to move cargo by sea and that this will inevitably involve the production of waste that will make its way into the ocean. What we should do, however, is absolutely minimise it—do everything within our power to ensure that we protect our oceans. This legislation is a step forward because it bans the release of waste that is demonstrably harmful, while allowing the release of relatively safer material so long as it is outside of areas that are designated as being particularly sensitive.

This is a good outcome for Australia. As an island continent, we move 99 per cent of our cargo by sea. Sea cargo is critical to our economic wellbeing because ships carry our mineral and agricultural exports to our customers around the world. Ships also bring us consumer goods that people rely upon and take for granted, including motor vehicles.

But at the same time, Australia has some of the most environmentally sensitive marine environments on the planet. These wonderful habitats are not just environmental assets; they are, of course, economic assets. They attract tourists from right around the world. In the year to the end of February, some 8.9 million overseas visitors entered Australia, and between them they spent $41.3 billion. Tourism Australia has conducted surveys asking visitors their key reason for choosing Australia as a destination. Putting aside practical concerns like safety, the key reason given by visitors was Australia's aquatic and coastal experiences. The main reason tourists say they come to Australia is our coastline and marine environment. This tourism industry employs around about a million Australians, large numbers of whom are located along the Great Barrier Reef coast. We owe it to future generations to protect our environment, but we also owe it to ourselves to utilise these resources to create jobs and income. The key is to get the balance right.

Another key interest for Australia in this bill is that the Antarctic region will also be designated as a special area. It's a sensitive environment and, in many respects, it is unspoilt. Increasingly in recent years, cruise vessels have been taking tourists to the region. These provisions will reduce the tourism footprint by prohibiting vessels from releasing waste.

Australia has an excellent record when working with other nations of the world to improve international laws on pollution and maritime issues. We have always been members of the International Maritime Organization, and we play an active part, including through our High Commission in London. Usually our considerations in these areas have not been subject to partisan politics, and that is as it should be. We have a national interest here as a parliament, as representatives, as good global citizens, to make sure that Australia's national interest is protected. This parliament has a responsibility to future generations to continue to play a central role in the protection of our environment. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (10:32): I rise to speak on the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. Australia's neighbouring waters are home to beauteous, biodiverse ecosystems of unparalleled wonder. The Australian government has always encouraged the protection of our marine parks, and a recent announcement by our government supports that. Only a few weeks ago, we announced the largest-ever single investment in the protection of the Great Barrier Reef, totalling $500 million.

However, one Google search made me realise that there is still work to be done in protecting the Great Barrier Reef. The statistics are certainly alarming. Each year, 180 million tonnes of toxic waste is dumped into our oceans. In waters around Australia there are, on average, 4,000 microplastic fragments per square kilometre, although some hotspots have concentrations of around 15,000 to 23,000. Further, 100,000 marine creatures die every year from plastic entanglement, and these are only the ones that have been found. Finally, scientists have declared 200 marine areas, amounting to the size of the UK, as dead zones where no life organisms can grow.

Australia's beaches and coral reefs have been detrimentally affected by this futile dumping of waste. Contrary to popular belief, our beaches aren't littered with plastic dumped a million miles away and brought here by ocean currents; our beaches are littered with the plastic remnants of our own consumption. What litters our waters isn't merely solid plastic waste. Large amounts of toxic liquids, including dredge materials, industrial waste, sewage sludge and radioactive waste are illegally dumped in waters near our island home. Moreover, operational discharges from ships, such as sewage, galley scraps and cargo residues, are also tipped into our bordering oceans. Given the fact that five to six million shipping containers are sailing the world's oceans at any one moment, these operational discharges amount to a vast proportion of waste.

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or MARPOL, in which Australia takes part, aims to reduce the amount of dumped operational discharges through six annexes which respectively regulate the following pollutive substances: oil, noxious liquid substances in bulk, harmful substances carried by sea in packaged form, sewage from ships, garbage from ships and air pollution from ships. These annexes are made Australian law via the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983.

The amendment bill suggested today aims to implement in the act alterations to annex V. The existing legislation outlines several conditions to be met before the discharge of cargo residues is permitted. For instance, with exception, the discharge must occur in seas outside a special area of Arctic waters, and the discharge must occur while the ship is proceeding en route and is as far as practicable from the nearest land. The amendments to such conditions are as follows: if the cargo residues are residues of solid bulk cargoes, the discharge will only be permitted if the master of the ship has a written declaration that the solid bulk cargoes have been classified in accordance with the criteria in appendix I of annex V of MARPOL and found to be not harmful to the marine environment. Essentially, this amendment will make it mandatory for shippers to classify and declare their solid bulk cargoes as harmful to the marine environment or non-harmful and inform the master of this classification. The master will thus be able to determine the appropriate manner of discharge for the residues of these cargoes according to whether the ship is located outside or within a special area of Arctic waters.

There are additionally a couple of minor amendments included in this bill. If legislated, the bill will alter provisions of the act to allow regulations and orders to apply, adopt or incorporate relevant documents or instruments. This change parallels provisions in other existing legislation that implements MARPOL and allows Australia to keep up with the frequent amendment and adoption cycle of the International Maritime Organization. The bill will also alter the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy Collection) Act 1981, removing the need for regulations to prescribe the manner in which a protection-of-the-sea levy notice may be served in particular circumstances. This will allow obsolete and now pointless regulation to be repealed. Just like any other Liberal policy, these two amendments will enhance efficient practices in this industry.

In my electorate of Mackellar, almost every suburb is bordered by a beach—a beach where children build sandcastles, bury themselves in the sand and swim until the sun goes down. I'm therefore focused more than most on the health of our seas. We must ensure that our water, in which our children—and my daughter—swim, remains free of toxic substances and grimy waste.

Scientific research has shown that polluted oceans potentially engender hormonal and reproductive problems, nervous system damage, kidney failure, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and heart disease. Of even greater significance is the fact that 70 per cent of the oxygen we breathe is produced by marine plants. If we continue to dump toxic waste in the ocean, our sources of oxygen will diminish.

Those who do not care for the environment should at least care for the health of their own children, not to mention themselves. I want my daughter to be able to play on a beach as clean as those in my youth. We should aim to be the first generation that can say we left our children a better environment than we inherited. Through Australia's participation in the international marine organisation, we have taken steps to count back the years and bring our oceans to the state they were in 50 years ago. We have enacted legislation to prohibit sea dumping, conserve our biodiverse marine ecosystems and protect our waters from the adverse effects of shipping.

We have made great progress, but there is still a long voyage ahead. The fact that it takes 400 years for plastics to degrade in the water, the fact that we have spilt 1½ million tonnes of oil in the past 30 years and the fact that our millions of crates of cargo are producing tonnes of ocean-dumped waste are ringing alarm bells, reminding us to take action for our sake and for the sake of future generations.

Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (10:39): I rise today in support of the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2018, and I do so because it is a good bill and the right thing to do. We heard the member for Grayndler earlier talk in support of this bill and about why it's important to do so. I've spoken about this issue many times before in this parliament, and I would just like to reiterate one more time that the seat of Hindmarsh that I represent has 18 kilometres of seafront, coast, that affects our tourism and recreation. They are the beaches for the western suburbs and, in fact, for most of the metropolitan area of Adelaide, so it's very important that we keep them pristine, beautiful and very well looked after, as we have done so for many years.

I'm very proud to represent such an area. It has some of the best beaches in Australia, like Glenelg, Henley, Grange and all the way up to West Beach, Somerton, Tennyson and parts of Semaphore Beach. These are absolutely beautiful seafront, sandy beaches that the entire Adelaide region uses for recreation, barbecues, swimming and a whole range of other things. Not only South Australians but also many international tourists use them. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see why a bill like this is so important. A short distance further north is the port of Port Adelaide and the harbour of Outer Harbor, which have lots of ships coming in. We want the ships that visit the coastline all around Australia to do the right thing and to do what they can, through legislation such as this, to ensure that our beaches around the country and their beautiful ecosystems are kept in place.

As I said, my electorate and its beaches are a tourism hub that draws people from all over the state, all over the country and, of course, all over the world during the summer. I and my constituents are privileged to be surrounded by such a beautiful environment, and that is why this bill is so important. The international treatment of pollution from ships is something that we have to be engaged in as a nation. We have to ensure that we take part, as we heard from the previous speakers earlier, in international forums, agreements and discussions that support and strengthen our ability to keep our coastlines pristine. In fact, this is such an important issue to South Australians that back in 2001, I think it was, there was a Senate inquiry into the Gulf St Vincent, which is basically the gulf that Adelaide's coast is on. The inquiry recommended that action needed to be taken to ensure that the gulf and its recreation fishing, fishing businesses and tourism et cetera were there for many years to come. We also had, back in 2005, Labor's inquiry—we were in opposition at the time—into the Gulf St Vincent, and many of the issues in this bill were mentioned at that time. When we came into government we implemented many of those findings, but there is still a long way to go.

This legislation affects just about every coastline around the country. In my electorate, the coastline is home to a variety of birds, insects and reptiles, many of which are native to the area. I also have one of the last sand dunes in the metropolitan area, Tennyson Dunes, which is a pristine environmental ecosystem that is being preserved. We also have some dunes further south at Somerton Beach. This is why my constituents recognise that this is such an important issue and such an important bill. It is a delicate ecosystem, and we appreciate the area for what it is. We can see how perhaps some ships that are coming in aren't doing the right thing and could damage the entire coast. They could damage not only the coastline and its waters but also the tourism, businesses and a whole range of other things that go with it. This is something that I've fought very hard for to ensure that we can preserve and conserve it for future generations. I'm sure that all members in this House whose electorate has a coastline feel the same way.

The River Torrens goes through the middle of my electorate. Many years ago, there were lots of industries along this river such as Onkaparinga Textiles, Michell leather, and Mason and Cox. They were all put there for a reason, and that was that the waste would go straight into the river and out to sea. Lots of those archaic practices have now stopped, because the flow to the sea means damage to the ecosystem in our waters, the Gulf St Vincent. I suppose this bill is there to do the same thing: so that ships who are carrying goods that shouldn't be let out into the sea are stopped from doing so. That is why it's an important bill and something that we on this side are supporting.

The first Sunday of March each year is Clean Up Australia Day, a day where thousands of Australians go out and clean up in their areas and on the coastline. We had some wonderful groups that did some clean-up on the day. We saw the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Adelaide West community create a Clean Up Australia Day event along Tapleys Hill Road, which is basically the coastline of my electorate. The danger of everyday littering is a real concern to our coasts, and we recognise the efforts of the people who volunteer their time for the sake of conservation. The local community are committed to the conservation of our environment and they do their part. Accordingly, all of us in this place should stand up for legislation such as this that will protect the marine environment and our coastlines.

Members in this chamber will be well aware that nearly all of Australia's exports travel via ship, with a significant portion consisting of solid bulk cargo. In fact, we heard earlier speakers say that one-sixth of every kilometre of water in the world is Australia's responsibility. That's why this bill is so important. It's important to our national export trade, and it does no unnecessary harm to our shores and our imports. It's crucial that we take action—in particular, in sensitive marine areas such as the Great Barrier Reef, the Torres Strait and Antarctica. What is terrifying about bulk cargo shipping is that we do not know for certain what the environmental risks are. This bill will ensure that shippers classify and declare solid bulk cargoes which could be harmful to the marine environment, and goods which are not harmful to the marine environment, and inform the master of this classification. This will allow us to determine the appropriate manner of discharge for the residues of these cargoes according to whether the ship is located outside or within special areas, or Arctic waters.

It's estimated that 2.15 million tonnes enter the ocean every year just as the result of bulk cargo shipping. Deputy Speaker, you can see what this does to our environment. Australian households—each and every one of us—are also encouraged to do our part for the environment and to introduce environmentally conscious measures that work for everyday household goods as well. As such, I welcome this reform, which ensures that this parliament does its part for conservation and for our seas. Australian cargo that ends up in the sea ends up there as a result of the ship which holds the waste being washed, or because the waste was dumped, or for one of a range of other reasons. This bill will put the responsibility back onto the shippers. Shippers will have to classify and declare their cargo. Shippers will be advised of the methods of discharge which are the safest for the environment, depending on what's appropriate to their circumstances.

This is not a reform that's done in isolation. It's done to align Australia with its latest obligations internationally. As I said earlier, it is our duty to ensure that we take part in forums, international discussions and international agreements, because one-sixth of the ocean is Australia's responsibility. We're an island, we're surrounded by water, most of our exports and imports come via the water, so it's very important to ensure that we keep our beaches and our environment and a whole range of other things pristine and clean. Worldwide, 9.5 billion tonnes of solid bulk cargo are transported annually.

Our overseas friends, neighbours and trading partners have already stepped up and implemented protection for the sea from ships, and they follow the convention put forward by the International Maritime Organization. The IMO is the UN agency which is responsible for improving maritime safety and preventing pollution, and Australia is a member state. For five decades the IMO has worked with governments and industry to establish less harmful systems that won't affect the environment in an adverse way. Internationally, this convention came into effect in March 2018, a month ago. There are many other nations which will be encouraged to ratify this convention as well. There is broad support internationally for the further prevention of pollution from ships, so I wouldn't be surprised if we see further international agreements being signed, strengthening the prevention of pollution from ships et cetera as much as possible.

As a resource-rich maritime nation, which Australia is, we should be cooperating internationally to prevent toxins and anything else from being dumped into the sea. Loading and unloading of bulk cargo presents a risk. There'll always be a risk with it for Australian ports, and we should have regulations that encourage the very best practice. We need to do much more to prevent further accidents that risk the condition of the sea. As I said, we're an island nation, so it's understandable that 99 per cent of all our trade is done via bulk cargo shipping. It's important to highlight that this bill does not seek to impact this trade—far from it. In comparison to Australia, there would be very few nations in which a strong shipping industry is so imperative.

I support this bill and I ask that other members consider doing so, to protect the sea not just for now but for future generations of Australians who will continue to use our pristine beaches and our pristine environment, and to ensure that the enjoyment that we get out of the beach and through recreational fishing, swimming et cetera is handed down to many generations of Australians.

Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (10:52): I speak in support of the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 and in support of the comments made by the member for Hindmarsh and the member for Grayndler earlier on. This is important legislation because the world's oceans are critical to our wellbeing. We have a responsibility, as do all countries, to protect the ocean environment. The world's oceans are already heavily polluted, and marine life is dying. Oceanic ecosystems are seriously at risk. Land based runoff, oil spills, floating plastics, radioactive waste, untreated sewage, pesticides and other matters are all making their way or being directly discharged into the oceans, with catastrophic consequences. Inside the Pacific Ocean, it is reported that there is an island of garbage, mainly plastics, twice the size of Texas. That's just one location. There are now several dead zones in ocean waters across the world.

I will go on to some other statistics, which obviously are very hard to verify, but I can only take them at face value. Ocean pollution is killing one million seabirds each year. Over 100,000 marine mammals die every year from plastic entanglement and indigestion, and 300,000 dolphins and porpoises die each year because of entanglement with discarded fishing nets. There are other statistics that I could allude to as well which just highlight the incredible damage and destruction that is being caused throughout our oceans each and every day. If the same level of destruction were occurring on land, there would be widespread public outcry, but, because it is occurring in the oceans, the damage is out of sight and out of mind. Of course, it is also much more difficult to bring to account those responsible for the pollution and to quantify the pollution itself.

We also know that a considerable amount of ocean pollution is directly caused by sea vessels. The latest figures state that there are at present about 11,000 bulk carriers operating around the world and over 52,000 merchant ships. The combined pollution to oceans being caused by those vessels is immeasurable, but it is never quantified or seen. Yet we have come to rely on them, because 90 per cent of goods are transported across the world on sea vessels. As the member for Grayndler pointed out, for Australia the figure is 99 per cent because we are an island country and, indeed, we are also a great exporter of minerals and the like, and those all require bulk carriage, whether it's oil containers, gas supplies that we sell overseas, coal or iron ore.

The member for Grayndler also pointed out—and I want to quote these figures—that it is estimated that 60 to 100 tonnes of cargo slurry per hold is discharged into the ocean after washing down at the end of each voyage. The average bulk carrier has five holds, which equates to, on average, between 300 and 500 tonnes of slurry dumped into the ocean waters at the end of each journey. When you multiply that figure by the thousands of carriers operating throughout the world, the pollution levels are staggering. Just as concerning is that many of the carriers are operated by entities that have shown little regard for ethical practices with regard to both the crews they employ and their general operational methods. As we know, many of those carriers are flagged in jurisdictions such as the Bahamas and others where oversight is at best questionable. Being on the ocean and out of sight makes it extremely difficult for authorities to monitor their activities. Indeed, I ask the question: who does monitor activities on the high seas? Australia has jurisdiction over its own coastal waters. Perhaps that jurisdiction in some cases extends to the 200-kilometre mark or thereabouts, but what happens beyond that? That would apply to each country: who does monitor the activities of ocean vessels once they get into the high seas and outside of jurisdictional waters?

I note that this legislation relates to the transport of solid bulk cargo, which includes iron ore, coal, bauxite, alumina, minerals, sugar and wheat. It also includes livestock. As we know, Australia is a major exporter of live animals. It's a subject we debated in this House only yesterday. It was the matter of public importance. It's a matter which has been the subject of much public interest and controversy over many, many years. The debate to date has been essentially about live animal exports, and it's been focused on the horrific cruelty associated with that trade. Today I want to raise an additional concern that I have about the trade: the ocean pollution that is associated with live exports. Over the eight-year period between 2010 and 2017, according to government figures, Australia exported 25 million live animals. That number was made up of mainly cattle and sheep: 7.6 million cattle and 17.4 million sheep. Of those animals, 144,000 died. Two questions arise in my mind from those figures. Firstly, how much waste was created from those transports; how was that waste disposed of; and where was it disposed of? I don't know. I doubt that anybody else knows. Secondly, how were the dead livestock disposed of? If we look at the photos and the footage of the recent incident, where 2,400 sheep died aboard the Awassi, we can see how they were disposed of. They were simply dumped into the ocean. Many of those dead animals were already infected. They weren't just dead; in many cases they died because of disease and infection, and yet they were simply dumped overboard. The reports would suggest that they were in a terrible state. What damage is that doing to our ocean waters? Indeed, which waters were they dumped in and was there a management plan for the way that they were discarded? I doubt that very much. I also doubt very much that the figures that we have on the number of animals that were thrown overboard are accurate. Quite frankly, looking at some of the material that's been provided to us in the past about those carriers, the figures that they provide, I believe, are at best questionable.

In 2003, when the Cormo Express was in the Middle East and there were suggestions that all of the sheep on board—in excess of 50,000—should be dumped overboard as a way to save them from further cruelty, the Australian Veterinary Association president at the time said that to dump those sheep overboard would be 'an environmental disaster'. In other words, it would be an environmental disaster for the ocean waters where they would be dumped. Yet that is exactly what we continue to do with animals that die on board these ships. And that's not to mention the risks to the crew that have to handle those dead animals.

So, I say, with respect to this legislation and that particular matter, that it is important legislation, because government should know what's on board vessels, what is being discharged into the oceans and how it is being discharged. If we at least know, there might be some opportunity to establish regulations, procedures and protocols for how it should be done. Again, whether it can be monitored and regulated is another matter, but at least knowing what is occurring is a very good start to managing a very serious problem. It's all well and good to say that the oceans cover 75 per cent of the earth's surface—that there's a lot of water out there and anything that is discharged into the oceans will inevitably dissipate and present little environmental risk. But the evidence shows otherwise. Discharge presents a very serious risk, wherever people are across the world, because of ocean currents which carry the waste material from one side of the world to the other, and so we are all affected by the bad practices of those who use our ocean waters and are prepared to turn a blind eye to, or not apply, the standards that one would expect of them. The International Maritime Organization standards try to manage that as best as they can.

For Australia there is additional importance to all of this. As other speakers have pointed out, the Great Barrier Reef has an economic value of some $56 billion and an annual economic contribution of $6.4 billion to this country. We're talking about serious values here which in turn generate economic activity and jobs for the people of Australia, but this will only continue if we're able to preserve the Great Barrier Reef in its current state. Similarly, we have a fisheries and aquaculture industry in this country that was worth some $2.8 billion in 2014-15, according to ABARES. I expect the figure might be even higher today than it was two or three years ago. Whether it is or not, we're talking, in round figures, of a $3 billion fishing industry in this country, which would be predominantly sea based. Therefore, it's in our economic interest as a nation to ensure that we preserve the quality of the waters in our oceans. The constant environmental damage that is occurring, as I pointed out with the figures I referred to earlier on, is destroying marine life. If it destroys marine life then the ecosystem cycle will continue and ultimately our fishing stocks will be depleted. That will in turn directly affect the fishing industry of this country, something that Labor tried to protect when it was last in government through the conservation-of-marine-parks proposals that we had in place.

This is important legislation. It's important legislation because it goes to the heart of environmental matters that affect the people of the world, and it goes to the heart of economic matters which, in turn, go straight to the social interests of the people of this country. It is important legislation. I hope it does make a difference. It's legislation that goes in the right direction. Only time will tell what difference it has made.

Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Transformation) (11:05): I thank my fellow MPs for their support of the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 and for contributions that have been made. I look forward to this bill passing the House and the other place.

The amendments contained in this bill primarily implement international maritime environmental protection obligations adopted at the International Maritime Organization into our domestic law. Through the IMO Australia has played an important role in developing the amendments. The key amendments will ensure the master of a ship has vital information in relation to the cargo on board. This allows the master to discharge cargo residues appropriately, depending on the location of the vessel and the nature of residues discharged. Importantly, those residues can now be discharged into the sea in a defined set of circumstances where it has been determined that the residues are not harmful to the marine environment.

The amendments are consistent with Australia's longstanding support for protecting the marine environment, and implementing them further highlights our commitment to the International Maritime Organization. It is my view that Australia's maritime interests are best advanced through internationally agreed arrangements, including through the IMO. These amendments will also allow Australia to apply our international obligations through domestic legislation and ensure we are keeping up with the IMO's frequent amendment and adoption cycle.

The bill also makes a machinery change to the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy Collection) Act 1981, removing the need for regulations to prescribe the manner in which a protection of the sea levy notice may be served in particular circumstances. This minor change will allow the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy Collection) Regulations to be repealed, removing a dated and now unnecessary piece of legislation.

Combined, these amendments will ensure Australia remains compliant with our international obligations and has consistent and effective maritime legislation. I thank the House for its support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Transformation) (11:07): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (11:08): Labor supports this bill, the Statute Update (Autumn 2018) Bill 2018, which is a standard piece of legislative housekeeping—that is the proper term for it. These bills, under both the Abbott and Turnbull governments, regrettably had been given a status which they did not deserve. The reason I say that is that the purpose of bills like this is largely to correct typographical errors that have occurred in acts as a result of drafting and clerical mistakes, and to remove obsolete and spent legislation from the statute books. It's essentially a routine housekeeping bill to keep the statute books up to date.

I cannot help but cast my mind back to the way in which the Abbott government dealt with routine updating of typographical errors or spent legislation. The House will remember the great farce that was the Abbott government's multiple repeal days. At that time, we heard feverish talk about a bonfire of regulations. With tremendous fanfare and much boasting on each of its two repeal days in 2015, the Abbott government introduced a statute law revision bill and an amending acts repeal bill. The government claimed at the time that they would achieve somewhere between $1 billion and $2.1 billion in savings in compliance cost. This, as with so much of the Abbott and now the Turnbull government's proclamations, was fanciful and disingenuous.

The Australian people would have been forgiven for thinking that the statute law revisions bills and the amending acts repeal bills of 2015 were bold reform cast large on the national stage. They were not. Every year Australian parliaments pass these bills, which correct typos, update drafting and improve formatting and numbering, among other things. Amending acts repeal bills simply remove from the statute books now-redundant laws which are no longer in force because they have served their purpose of amending or repealing other acts of parliament. The notion that meaningful deregulation was achieved by repealing amending acts which had not been in force for decades was nonsense and it was misleading.

The Labor Party has a genuine belief in appropriate and necessary regulation. Where there is a need for deregulation, Labor will support it, but deregulation must be meaningful and, unlike our opponents, Labor will not cast the routine work of the parliament as an exercise in massive deregulation. Labor governments have successfully provided sweeping competition reform, the floating of the dollar and the slashing of tariffs. This was meaningful deregulation. Labor has never shied away from removing regulations which do not serve a worthwhile purpose. However, we do believe, unlike the government, that we need regulation to protect labour standards, our consumers and our environment. But we have never supported regulation for regulation's sake.

So, when the government puts forward anodyne but necessary measures like those in this bill, we are happy to support them. The amendments in this bill are intended to enhance readability, facilitate interpretation and administration, and promote consistency across the Commonwealth statute book. The amendments are minor and technical in nature and make either no change or only very minor changes to the substance of the law.

The bill contains six schedules. Schedule 1 corrects errors in five principal acts and makes minor technical improvements to clarify the text of the law. Schedule 2 amends four acts to replace outdated references to 'the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia' with references to 'Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand'. Schedule 3 to the bill makes amendments to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 which are consequential to the amendment of the Acts and Instruments (Framework Reforms) Act 2015. Schedule 4 repeals 22 obsolete references to the Crown in the right of Norfolk Island, reflecting the abolition of that body politic on 1 July 2016. Schedule 5 repeals spent provisions in two acts. Schedule 6 repeals 40 amending acts which are now obsolete.

This bill, like many similar bills that have come before successive parliaments, will not set the world alight, but they are a necessary administrative task of the parliament, and the Labor Party supports them. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Transformation) (11:13): I thank honourable members—I say 'honourable members', but it is one member in this case—for their contribution to the debate. The government takes its role of maintaining the integrity of the Commonwealth statute book seriously. While the Statute Update (Autumn 2018) Bill 2018 may seem a comparatively modest bill in scope, it nonetheless performs the important task of updating and improving the quality and accuracy of Commonwealth legislation. This bill makes minor and technical changes that are necessary to correct drafting and clerical mistakes, make technical improvements to legislation and repeal spent acts and provisions of acts. These amendments contribute to the government's regulatory reform agenda by improving the accuracy and usability of Commonwealth legislation. This bill was prepared on the initiative of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. I would like to thank the office for its ongoing work in the area. I thank members for their support for the bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Transformation) (11:14): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (11:15): I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2017 and the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2017 and I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

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

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) is of the opinion the internet tax proposed in this package of bills is a direct consequence of the Prime Minister deploying a second-rate NBN that:

   (a) costs more to deploy;

   (b) delivers slower speeds;

   (c) will cost more to maintain;

   (d) will require expensive upgrades in the future;

   (e) is more exposed to wireless competition; and

   (f) generates less revenue from those willing to pay;

(2) notes the cost of the multi-technology mix increased from $29.5 billion to $41 billion in December 2013;

(3) notes the cost of the multi-technology mix increased from $41.0 billion to $49 billion in August 2015;

(4) notes taxpayers were forced to step in with a $19.5 billion loan after NBN Co failed to secure private debt funding;

(5) notes that the Turnbull Government wants to give big business an $80 billion tax cut, as it seeks to introduce new internet taxes on households;

(6) notes the Turnbull Government, in rejecting fibre, is creating a digital divide in Regional Australia; and

(7) calls on the Government to stop punishing consumers and taxpayers for its NBN failures".

I wish to say from the outset that Labor endorses schedule 3 of this bill. The proposed statutory infrastructure provider regime will offer certainty in that, as we move beyond the initial NBN rollout, every Australian home and small business can continue to access high-speed broadband infrastructure. This proposes to legislate an important reform that was first initiated by Labor almost a decade ago. Broadband is about liberating social opportunity and economic growth, two engines of the modern Labor Party. It is for this very reason that we on this side of the House understand that access to high-speed broadband should not be a luxury or a random suburban lottery. Rather, it should be a fundamental right. In the information age, if opportunity does not begin in the home or in the classroom, then it simply does not begin anywhere. Without equality of opportunity, you are selling the nation short on economic growth.

When the NBN was established, the policy objective of universal access was implemented through a statement of expectations issued to the NBN Co board. This, in turn, required the company to make the network accessible to all Australians as part of its rollout. It took those opposite many years to come to the party and sign up to the concept of a ubiquitous national broadband network. They resisted but, in the end, they had no choice. The Australian public gave them no choice. So we can take a measure of satisfaction in having fought for and reached this point. The statutory provider obligations may improve outcomes for small businesses setting up in new estates and commercial precincts. Coming from a local government background and a telco regulatory background, I—and Labor—appreciate that we need to improve the coordination between developers and infrastructure providers to ensure connectivity is available and ready for businesses to use once they are ready to start trading. I and my colleagues receive too many complaints about this problem and its impact, particularly on small businesses.

This is an area where all tiers of government can continue engaging with the objective to improve the consistency of arrangements across states and developers. This comes back to the basics: early and consistent communication between developers and infrastructure providers to ensure the necessary planning and contracts are in place for the supply of communication services. Hopefully, schedule 3 can be a platform to build on previous discussions and the new development's policy. I also acknowledge the good work of those industry and consumer stakeholders who have advocated for the design of the statutory infrastructure provider regime. Amid the robustness of the public NBN debate, the important work of establishing a policy framework that places consumers at the centre must continue.

I now wish to turn to schedule 4 of this bill, which proposes the introduction of an NBN levy. It is telling that, in the week of the federal budget, the Turnbull government is seeking to pass a broadband tax that is expected to raise nearly half a billion dollars over the next decade. This levy is expected to add $84 to the annual broadband bill for the homes and businesses on non-NBN networks subject to this tax. Estimates of the number of services affected by this levy range from 240,000 to 450,000. Let me make this clear from the outset: Labor considers this levy to be poorly designed and the targeting of particular networks to be arbitrary, and the need to now even contemplate its existence in this place is highly regrettable.

There is only one reason we have arrived at this point, and that is the poor judgement of this Prime Minister. In 2009, the then Labor government decided to build a national broadband network that would extend universal coverage of broadband to regional and remote Australia—seven per cent of the population—through a combination of fixed wireless and satellite technologies. This was a critical initiative—one which we and the Australian public endorsed as absolutely necessary. This decision to extend high-speed broadband to unprofitable areas was funded through a universal wholesale pricing regime. In short, this meant NBN users in the cities would cross-subsidise higher-cost services in the regions that the private sector would otherwise neither invest in nor serve. This framework was achieved through a universal wholesale access price that was approved by the ACCC. Having a universal wholesale pricing regime with a levy coming in later over the top was not contemplated. The consideration was that you have either one or the other but not both.

Since that time, the cost of the fixed wireless and satellite rollout has not changed from what was expected. However, the technology composition of the NBN and its revenue potential have changed. We now have an inferior multi-technology mix, which, according to NBN Co's own analysis, will cost at least $200 million more per annum in steady state to maintain and operate and will generate $300 million less per annum in revenue relative to a fibre-to-the-premises network. That's a $500 million earnings gap. On top of this, in August 2017, roughly 300,000 homes—an estimated 220,000 of which would have been revenue generating—disappeared off the NBN business plan, yet cumulative capital expenditure forecasts for rollout completion increased by 1.4 billion from the year before. This would suggest taxpayers are spending the same, or possibly more, for the NBN to serve fewer connected homes. That is another $140 million per annum in revenue that's not coming back.

The proposed broadband levy before this parliament is a consequence of the failures of a government that consistently gets the big calls wrong. It is an admission that the economics of the multi-technology mix have deteriorated. The Prime Minister knew there was no way he could deliver the NBN for $29 billion by the end of 2016. He then promised to deliver it for $41 billion, but that promise also came and went. We now have a $49 billion multi-technology mix whose long-term economics differ markedly from a fibre rollout. This second-rate network costs more to maintain, delivers slower speeds and will require expensive future upgrades that could have been avoided. Furthermore, the NBN has less revenue potential and the multi-technology mix is more exposed to wireless competition. NBN Co recently confirmed that, for every one per cent loss of market share to mobile competitors, the business case could forego up to $1.5 billion in revenue over the life of the project. In April this year, the CEO of Telstra estimated one million more consumers than the number today could substitute wireless for NBN. If that number were to materialise at some point in the future, it could reduce NBN's market share to 65 per cent. Critically, for the taxpayer, none of these costs or risks are reflected in the $49 billion price tag. In addition, it is questionable whether the extent of these risks is adequately reflected in the projected internal rate of return. In contrast, fibre would have preserved an indefinite performance and reliability edge for decades to come. But the copper being deployed by this government has already ceded that edge.

It is also worth noting that, prior to the 2013 election, the now Prime Minister was encouraging companies to invest in fixed line infrastructure and bypass the NBN. By encouraging fixed line providers to bypass the NBN, particularly given the significant public investment that was being made, this Prime Minister scored an own goal. His poor judgement has undermined NBN Co's revenue streams that would otherwise have improved the capacity of the company to support services for regional consumers and delivered a better return for taxpayers. The Prime Minister understood that what he was advocating for would actually undercut the NBN business model. He understood this very clearly, but that seemingly didn't matter to him in 2013. As a prospective incoming shareholder minister, his desire to see the NBN undermined by competitors was both disappointing and contrary to the public interest.

It was no coincidence that TPG announced some 10 days after the 2013 election that it planned to deploy a fibre-to-the-basement network to up to half a million premises that NBN intended to serve. Networks expanded, investments were made and the revenue sensitivities of the NBN business case became more acute. The cost of the NBN increased from $29 billion to $41 billion in late 2013. By August 2015, the cost of the multitechnology mix had again blown out by a further $8 billion. Leaks revealed the cost of remediating the copper network had increased tenfold to over $600 million. Come 2017, retail service providers were sanctioned for charging customers for speeds the copper NBN could not deliver. Statements released by the ACCC indicated that one in two customers on the top-speed tiers had their speeds downgraded and were being compensated as a result.

The Senate has established that no funding has been set aside in the NBN business case out to the year 2040 to upgrade the copper footprint. Put another way: the already precarious economics of the NBN business case operate on the assumption that Australians won't need their copper connection upgraded for at least another 23 years. The chief NBN engineer apparently doesn't believe this, telecommunications experts don't believe this and the Australian public wouldn't accept this, yet that is the assumption underpinning the government's NBN business case.

Then, in late 2017, the HFC rollout was brought to a halt due to ongoing reliability issues and service dropouts. Leading up to this period, the NBN CEO was giving radio and television interviews arguing for a new tax on mobile services. More recently, it was revealed that NBN put a secret proposal to the government to dump the entire HFC network. This is hardly surprising given the cost of the Prime Minister's HFC rollout and its increase by almost $2 billion over recent years. This is a collective measure of the difficult times we are in. It is the consequence of an expensive multitechnology mix that remains as confused and incoherent in 2018 as it was in 2013. But I do wish to observe that, more broadly, the fact that we are standing here in the House today debating the introduction of a new broadband levy being proposed by the government while we have a universal wholesale pricing regime that will deliver a regional cross-subsidy of over $700 million per annum by 2021, in conjunction with a $300 million per annum universal service obligation—which remains in need of reform, by the way—underscores the need for a more holistic and coherent approach to communications policy in Australia. This government has been nothing short of hopeless on this front.

Turning to the specifics of the bill, it is the view of Labor that the primary benefit of the proposed levy charge is that it would, in effect, introduce a price signal that deters the inefficient duplication of fixed line infrastructure and deters cherrypicking of profitable parts of the NBN footprint. Simply put, it places NBN on a more level playing field. It is appropriate to ensure there is a level playing field so that fixed-line operators competing in areas NBN intends to serve or is serving or those who are considering deploying infrastructure to compete directly with NBN down the track understand they would not have a structural competitive advantage, because NBN has to embed a regional cross-subsidy into its pricing. So it is appropriate that NBN Co should be able to compete on a level playing field.

What is important is that we are also clear about what the playing field actually is. Measures that aim to achieve a level playing field should not stray into already well-served markets where NBN is not obliged to invest its capital. The somewhat desperate inclusion of enterprise networks in this levy falls into this category. If NBN Co want to compete for business and enterprise revenue, that is fine and we wish them luck. Naturally, applying the lens of a shareholder, having NBN do well in the business segment is good for the company and some of those benefits may indirectly spill over to consumers. However, we should not begin taking policy settings from the residential footprint where interventions were addressed at a market failure and then apply those settings in enterprise markets where such failure did not exist. Optus summarised this well in its submission to the inquiry on this bill where it stated:

… there is a need to distinguish between NBN Co's … monopoly services and its future plans to deploy services in contestable nonresidential markets.

Their submission went on to say:

Contestable services are services in competitive markets. We are aware that NBN Co may have future plans to deploy services in this area; however, in doing so it will be entering an existing competitive market and competing with existing commercial services.

And it goes on:

There are no cease sale or separation obligations for these services because there was no evidence of market failure that necessitated NBN displacing these existing networks.

The retrospective application of this levy to existing greenfield networks is also deeply concerning, as these are areas where, again, NBN Co has not invested capital and is not required to serve. NBN are free to compete with business for business in greenfield areas—and, again, we wish them well. However, investments in greenfield networks often operated by companies who are more modest in their size have been made up to this point based on certain regulatory assumptions. This government is proposing to move those goalposts, which does now happen in public policy. Nonetheless, the proposed retrospective application of the levy to areas where NBN and a greenfield operator are not competing directly for the same customer is a cause for concern. As OptiComm stated in their submission to the Senate inquiry into this draft legislation, the proposed levy charge is 100 times the per service contribution that telecommunications companies currently make to fund the universal service obligation.

Ultimately, it's the Prime Minister who owns this proposed levy. It is for this Prime Minister to explain why this government wants to give big business an $80 billion tax cut while introducing a new telecommunications charge that will add at least $84 to the annual broadband bill of impacted households on non-NBN networks. And it is for the Prime Minister to explain why it is always the consumer and the Australian taxpayer who are being asked to pay for his NBN failures time and again.

Regional Australians know that, when it comes to broadband, only Labor will consistently deliver on their behalf because Labor believes in the NBN. For over 11 years, John Howard and the Nationals did nothing to advance the cause of broadband in the regions. In the period that followed, we have made good progress in improving the quality of regional communications infrastructure, but more remains to be done. Labor will continue to place regional consumers and equality of access front and centre of our policymaking.

I want to turn now to the carrier separation rules and touch briefly on these rules contained in schedules 1 and 2. The superfast network rules in parts 7 and 8 of the Telecommunications Act were introduced in 2011 and apply to superfast fixed-line networks servicing residential and small business customers. As noted in the explanatory memorandum, part 7 requires operators of such networks to supply a layer 2 bitstream service to access seekers. Part 8 requires the networks to be wholesale only—that is, structurally separated.

The bill proposes several amendments to make the default structural separation requirement clearer and more effective as a baseline for the industry, while at the same time creating new commercial opportunities. These amendments reset the structural separation arrangements and establish some flexibility for functional separation arrangements, subject to ACCC oversight. As the competition and consumer regulator, the ACCC is well placed to perform this role and exercise judgements about the instances in which permitting functional separation will serve the long-term interests of end users. On this basis, Labor supports schedules 1 and 2. The grandfathering arrangements, which propose to amend part 8 such that the current wholesale-only obligations in section 143 of the Telecommunications Act will generally apply to high-speed networks that came into existence between 1 January 2011 and 30 June 2018, appear sensible. So it follows that the proposed section 142C would apply the new structural separation or functional separation rules to local access lines that come into existence after 1 July 2018.

In summary, Labor supports schedules 1 and 2. We will support their passage, as with schedule 3, the statutory infrastructure provider regime, which we welcome, and we will not be opposing schedule 4 here today. I circulate the amendment standing in my name.

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

Dr Chalmers: Yes, the amendment is seconded.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Greenway has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Debate adjourned.

Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Transformation) (11:38): by leave—I move:

That the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2017 and the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2017 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.

Question agreed to.

Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (11:39): I rise to speak on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Lottery Betting) Bill 2018. Labor has long been on record with concerns about the impact of lottery betting or synthetic lotteries on Australian consumers and small businesses. These concerns prompted Labor to consult with a range of stakeholders, including the newsagents national body, in the lead-up to the launch of the Lottoland's Gotta Go! campaign, as well as with lottery betting provider Lottoland, as an example. These concerns prompted Labor to formally request the ACCC to undertake an investigation into representations made by companies that offer betting on lottery results, such as Lottoland, given concerns they may mislead or deceive consumers into believing they are purchasing a lottery ticket or directly participating in a lottery. The ACCC responded by undertaking to continue to review developments and complaints received in relation to these services. Twice, Labor declined to support proposed Senate amendments to ban synthetic lotteries on the run, citing the need for stakeholder consultation.

Labor has kept a watching brief on these issues for over a year now, including the measures that have been implemented or are being considered by individual states and territories. For example, last year the Northern Territory government introduced a prohibition on betting on the outcome of Australian lotteries. This was a welcome step but didn't address all the concerns associated with lottery betting services. South Australia does not permit lottery betting services, and it appears that this has been effective in stopping these services being provided to South Australian residents. The Tasmanian government announced in October last year that it will take steps towards banning lottery outcome wagering. Media reports have indicated that Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia are currently considering laws to prohibit lottery betting services being offered to persons in their respective jurisdictions. Labor has undertaken extensive consultation on these issues and considered these arguments carefully. There are arguments for and against banning synthetic lottery products. After extensive stakeholder consultation and on balance, Labor believes it is appropriate to support the bill to ban lottery betting in Australia.

I want to turn to the issue of Commonwealth jurisdiction. While the states and territories have made some moves, as I've described, it is the Commonwealth that has responsibility for online gambling matters. The Commonwealth is best placed to implement a national position in relation to lottery betting services in Australia. This will be consistent with the National Consumer Protection Framework, harm minimisation measures across all states and territories and the new credit betting prohibition in the IGA that came into effect on 17 February this year. The ACMA would be responsible for compliance and can respond to any complaints about lottery betting services being provided by either Australian or international operators. The intent of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 is to minimise the scope of problem gambling in Australia. Lottery draws are permitted under the IGA as there have traditionally been only a small number of draws conducted each week—some seven draws conducted across a week, typically, with a day's break in between. On the contrary, lottery betting services allow consumers to bet on the outcome of up to 25 lottery draws being conducted around the world each week, with the promise of massive jackpots ranging up in the hundreds of millions of dollars, which could lead to problem and at-risk gambling. While Lottoland, for example, is a disruptor seeking to offer consumers greater choice in gambling products and change the dynamic between Tatts, Tabcorp and retailers like the newsagents and other such outlets, this is not the kind of disruption or choice we seek to promote in our community.

The bill will amend the IGA to prohibit gambling service providers from providing to customers physically present in Australia a service for betting on the outcome of, or a contingency in, Australian and overseas lottery draws, including keno-type lotteries, with the effect of banning synthetic lotteries such as Lottoland. This is not a decision that Labor has taken lightly. Synthetic lotteries allow customers to bet on the outcome of a lottery draw without the need to purchase a ticket in that official lottery draw. Unlike official lottery draws, ticket sales will not cover major payouts. Instead, these are covered by insurance policies. A contingency would include the drawing of a particular number, for example, at a particular position or in a particular sequence. As I said, the bill follows those moves by some states and territories to prohibit betting on the outcome of a lottery and action by the Northern Territory government to prohibit betting on the outcome of an Australian lottery. On balance, Labor supports the bill because it responds to concerns, which we share, that the provision of synthetic lotteries in Australia and the potential expansion of these services in the near future will cause adverse impacts on states and territories, small businesses and consumers.

It should be noted that Lottoland has already undertaken a range of actions to address these concerns and be a responsible corporate participant, and is prosecuting what one may say is an arguable case as a fast-growing but otherwise relatively small disruptor, seeking to increase choice, competition and innovation in the market. However, as I said, on balance, we feel that lottery betting is not the kind of disruption, choice, competition or innovation that Labor seeks to promote as a first-order issue. Further, some measures are subject to investigation by regulators, and there is no assurance that other synthetic lottery providers who enter the market will seek to address those concerns.

I want to speak briefly on the impact on state and territory revenues. I note that state governments have voiced concerns that synthetic lotteries are siphoning tax revenue collections away from community services. Over $1 billion in taxation revenue is currently received from states and territories each year from the sale of tickets in official lottery draws, which contributes to charitable causes and community services. Lottoland is licensed in the Northern Territory. It pays GST and corporate taxes. It supports, as it has asserted, paying state point-of-consumption taxes, and it makes community contributions. Furthermore, Lottoland submits that it does not cannibalise official lotteries, because its product offering has grown the market and it targets a different demographic, and that it is not a big enough player to have had a material impact on revenues.

The explanatory memorandum to the bill concedes there is insufficient data to determine the actual impact of lottery betting on state taxation revenue. Reductions in lottery revenue could be the result of a number of factors, including the growing prevalence of other gambling products, including online wagering services, for example. However, the explanatory memorandum otherwise maintains that any increase towards lottery betting and away from official lotteries would have a negative impact on states and territories funding community and other government supported causes.

I want to talk about why lotteries are special. Here I'd like to reflect on what Labor believes sets lottery betting apart from other forms of online wagering, of which there are a lot. Lotteries are a distinct product. They are heavily regulated and taxed, with around 60 per cent of every dollar invested back into the prize pool, and around 20 per cent going to state revenue. State and territory governments decide whether to issue lottery licences as monopolies. They do so based on analysis done by treasuries to develop what is most sustainable and what is in the best interests of the respective communities involved.

To illustrate, there was the move by the Victorian government to split the lottery licence in 2008, with a licence being awarded to Tatts for major national draw games and another licence being awarded to Intralot for instant scratch games, Keno and some other minor games. The splitting of the licence into two parts within the one market was a first in the Australian lottery industry. Years before expiry, Intralot surrendered their licence in Victoria and Tatts's licence was amended to add instant scratch-its and Keno from February 2015.

The Victorian government has recently gone through a full licensing process and has decided to award a single operator licence to Tatts Tabcorp for 10 years commencing in July 2018. This is clear evidence that governments around the country know that a single operator model appears to be the most effective and best approach to maximising state returns. In 2016 the Queensland government considered whether they should issue two lottery licences. They concluded that it was not in the state's interest, and therefore renewed the monopoly arrangement.

We all know the community benefit derived from monopoly arrangements in lotteries has a long history. In New South Wales, the State Lotteries Office was established in 1930 to provide funding for hospitals during the Depression. Lotteries in New South Wales have been used in part to fund the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Opera House, and to finance Sydney's successful bid for the 2000 Olympic Games.

In Queensland, Golden Casket originated from a patriotic fund to support war veterans and their families in 1916. The Brisbane women's hospital built in 1938 was completely funded by Golden Casket funding. Since it began, Golden Casket has always played an intrinsic role in helping the Queensland community. It was originally set up to raise funds for veterans of World War I, and the profits went on to fund many worthwhile projects across that state, from hospitals to baby clinics to the Queensland Performing Arts Centre and the Red Cross. Even the Gabba got its lights thanks to Golden Casket. In 1975, profits from Golden Casket were moved to a new cultural capital development fund. The money helped fund an extensive range of state-wide sporting, educational, arts and community projects—everything from the Queensland performing arts complex at South Brisbane to cultural centres in each local authority in Queensland, and even, as I said, the multimillion-dollar lights at the iconic Gabba sporting complex. Today, this legacy continues through programs such as Rainbow Kids and the Golden Casket Foundation and the hundreds of millions of dollars returned to government each year for use in worthwhile community initiatives.

More recently, public lotteries generated $427 million in lottery taxation revenue for Victoria in 2015-16, and will generate approximately $4 billion over the full 10-year licence held by Tabcorp. Public lottery taxation is paid into the consolidated fund, and then to the hospitals and charities fund, and the mental health fund. In Western Australia, Lotterywest provided $265 million in charitable grants in 2016-17, providing vital funding for not-for-profit organisations and local governments to support charitable or benevolent purposes. In Western Australia, more than 30 per cent of revenue—that's $265 million—was poured back into the community in 2016-17 including $121 million for health, $15 million for sport, $15 million for culture and the arts, and $114 million directly invested into 764 not-for-profits and local government authorities. Similarly, in South Australia millions were returned to the community in 2016-17 including over $74 million to the hospitals fund and $140,000 to the recreation and sport fund.

I note that, while online wagering companies may be taxed and may also return funds to state and territory revenue, these are calculated differently and amount to a great deal less than the taxation regime applying to the lotteries I've described. The logic is that by betting on the outcome of a lottery or increasing the number of lotteries, the fundamental product at the core, the lottery, is impacted. It is only by purchasing a ticket on a lotto that the lotto prize pool will grow. Labor acknowledges the logic of the monopoly nature of a lottery in the offline environment, and the potential impact on lottery betting in the online environment.

I want to turn to the impact on small business, which is one of the key concerns that's been raised in this debate. Newsagencies and other small businesses across Australia rely on the commissions from the sales of official lottery tickets. Over $350 million is earned by some 4,000 newsagencies and official lottery agents across Australia. These businesses rely on this commission to earn an income and to cover the costs of running a business. The concern here is that synthetic lottery services entice customers away from these businesses with the promise of substantially higher jackpot amounts, compared to those prizes that can be offered under the official lottery draw. In 2017—and again following consultation with Labor—newsagencies and official lottery agents staged a public campaign, 'Lottoland's gotta go,' raising awareness of the negative financial impacts of lottery betting services. I know that some Labor members received and tabled petitions in support of the 'Lottoland's gotta go' campaign. In return, Lottoland—as is their right—has run a concerted campaign to argue their case for survival as a lottery betting agency. Amongst other things, Lottoland submits that their services do not undermine newsagencies and that this bill in fact will leave newsagents and small businesses worse off and exposed to monopolistic behaviour by Tabcorp. Lottoland has reportedly offered a profit-sharing partnership deal to newsagents to address small business concerns, whereby newsagents receive a share in the sales generated by customers referred to Lottoland. Negotiations, as we understand from reports, are in progress, with the Newsagents Association of NSW & ACT, NANA, and VANA also in the mix.

I note that the explanatory memorandum concedes there is limited data available to quantify the financial impact on small businesses. Retailers operate across various business sectors, including independently owned grocery stores, pharmacies, petrol stations and newsagencies. However, any increase towards lottery betting and away from traditional lottery sales would have a negative impact on small-business revenues. Further, Labor notes that the state gaming regulators are exploring whether the aspects of these proposed partnership deals are in fact legal. Furthermore, Labor notes the concerns of the Australian Hotels Association, which indicated that it would reject any partnership deal with Lottoland and has emphatically asserted that Keno helps hotels support over 50,000 community groups at a grassroots level.

I turn now to the consumer impact. Concerns about state and territory impact and the small-business impact aside, there are also concerns about the impact on consumers. As I stated, in 2017 Labor formally requested that the ACCC undertake an investigation into representations made by companies that offer betting on lottery services, such as Lottoland, given the concerns that they may mislead or deceive consumers into believing they are purchasing a lottery ticket or directly participating in a lottery. The ACCC responded by undertaking to continue to review developments and any complaints received in relation to Lottoland.

Concerns around consumer awareness of whether Lottoland is an official lottery or a lottery betting service remain. This is despite the fact that Lottoland does state on its website that it is a bookmaker and not a lottery operator, and explains the term 'lotto betting' on its website. Official lotteries are heavily regulated to protect consumers—the harm minimisation component being paramount. There are guarantees that prizes are paid out to winners and are funded by the proceeds of lottery sales. Lottery betting services are not subject to the same regulatory regime as official lottery operators and can provide incentives to attract customers, such as paying a premium to guarantee a win rather than having to divide the prize equally between winners.

While the EM acknowledges that to date the department has not been made aware of or received any complaints from consumers who have indicated that winnings have not been paid out by a lottery betting service provider, it notes that the combination of wagering incentives and the offering of higher jackpots at greater frequency by allowing customers to bet on international lotteries would arguably encourage customers to engage with lottery betting services and away from official lottery draws. The intent, as I said, of the IGA is to minimise problem gambling, by limiting access to rapid-style interactive gambling services by Australians. While the act permits lottery draws, only a small number are conducted each week, whereas a much higher number of synthetic lottery draws occur around the world on a weekly basis, with much higher jackpots ranging to hundreds of millions rather than tens of millions, which could, as I said, lead to problem and at-risk gambling. Concerns around consumer awareness of whether Lottoland is an official lottery or a lottery betting service remain. Again, I note that this is despite the fact that Lottoland does state on its website that they are a bookmaker and not a lottery operator.

I reiterate that Labor has long been on record with concerns about the impact of synthetic lotteries like Lottoland on Australian consumers and small businesses. These concerns prompted Labor to consult with a range of stakeholders. Labor has kept a watching brief on these issues for over a year, including the measures I've described that have been or are being considered by individual states and territories. Ultimately, as I said, it's the Commonwealth that has responsibility for online gambling and it's the Commonwealth that's best placed to implement a national framework in relation to lottery betting services. This would be consistent with the national consumer protection framework and the new credit betting system that came into effect in February this year. There is a genuine cause for concern that any increase towards lottery betting will be at the expense of consumers, small businesses, community and other government causes funded by official lotteries.

I want to make it clear in closing that Labor notes that Lottoland is a legitimate service that pays tax in Australia. It is indeed a disrupter seeking to offer consumers greater choice in a gambling product. However, this is not the kind of disruption or choice that Labor seeks to support on this occasion. We also note that Lottoland is not the only provider of lottery betting in Australia. In addition to the number of current providers of lottery betting, we have seen the recent entry of a new player, myLotto24, on the scene. Labor shares concerns about the impact of the growth in lottery betting in Australia, and Labor will not oppose this bill.

Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (12:00): The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Lottery Betting) Bill 2018 is indeed welcomed. A number of members have advocated for it, and I am one of them. I spoke in the House last October about the issues addressed in this bill, and I'm grateful that the government, under the leadership of the communications minister, Senator Mitch Fifield, has responded with this bill that we debate today.

Legal gambling appropriately takes place in Australia, and should only take place, under a social contract. This bill represents a bid to ensure that the terms of that social contract are indeed met by all of the players all of the time. A key aspect of the social contract long employed in this country has been that taxpayers benefit from what is now a $24 billion domestic industry—at least that's the figure from the 2015-16 financial year. There was $24 billion wagered by Australians and, generally, taxpayers benefit. The revenue to the state from all forms of gambling in that 2015-16 year was just short of $6 billion. That's about 10 per cent of their total income via taxes, licence fees, levies and the like. Some of that money goes towards support programs for problem gamblers, but the bulk of it goes to essential services that benefit all taxpayers in the areas of health, education, infrastructure and the like.

Another big beneficiary of well-regulated gambling activity in this country is small business, principally by the sale of lottery tickets. Lotteries are an earner of $350 million-odd a year for some 4,000 newsagents, convenience stores, RSL clubs and the like that hold the appropriate state licence. This is very important income for those businesses. The states' share of lottery related gambling alone is over $1 billion a year.

This is obviously income on a scale that neither governments nor thousands of businesses can afford to lose, but a growing proportion of it indeed is under threat, as yet another impact of the digital age and the new disruptive business models it has spawned takes effect. I refer especially to the business models of companies such as Lottoland, which have in some part prompted this bill.

Lottoland is a self-described international internet bookmaker. It is based in the tax haven of Gibraltar. It pays no taxes or fees here other than an annual fee of half a million dollars to the Northern Territory government, which enables it to operate nationally and which is a fraction of what it would be liable for in various taxes, fees and levies if it were Australian based. Via its online business model, it takes business from Australian small businesses.

Its principal product is the provision of access for Australian punters to what are effectively synthetic tickets in highly lucrative, and therefore highly attractive, overseas lotteries. They are typically significantly larger than anything available here domestically. Here lotteries offer, apart from the occasional larger jackpot, first division prizes of a million or maybe a few million dollars. Occasionally it is $20 million or a bit more when jackpots last for a while. There are overseas lotteries that Lottoland deals in that have first division prizes of half a billion dollars. US PowerBet, which Lottoland offers access to, recently had a top prize of well over $600 million. US Mega Millions is huge by our standards at $166 million. EuroJackpot, which is also offered, was recently offering $85 million. These are, obviously, tantalising sums to Australian punters.

The company now boasts that it has around 650,000 Australian customers, from a worldwide base of over six million, which is extraordinary for a company that did not exist as recently as five years ago. It is a relatively new creature of the internet. The truth is, however, that despite popular misconceptions to the contrary, Lottoland does not, in fact, actually sell you a ticket in those megalotteries. You pick your numbers in exactly the same way as you do here, but Lottoland has no real connection with the organisations running the lotteries. The Lottoland product is, in fact, therefore, synthetic—a simulation, if you like, of the real thing. If you win a minor prize, Lottoland says it will pay you out of the revenue it has raised from selling its products, but it insures itself against the possibility that you might come up with the same set of numbers as the winner of the actual lottery. If in the highly unlikely event that you select the exact same numbers as the winner then Lottoland will call on its insurers to give you the payout, equivalent to what the lottery would pay out had you actually held a real ticket.

This is a heady business model—a model without the guaranteed prize pool of conventional established lotteries, a model that seeks to mimic the real thing, with almost identical marketing material and advertising, designed, one might assume, to confuse the consumer, everyday Australians, who might unwittingly transfer their confidence and product loyalty to this synthetic fake. Add to that, they pay, no doubt, little tax and—who knows?—maybe no tax at all in the country where they're based, the tax haven of Gibraltar. They avoid tax in the countries where they operate, made easy, of course, because they conduct their business online. And they make a lot of money.

The losers in this business model, however, are more than just a majority of punters, whose odds of winning are only a tiny fraction of the already huge odds of winning in a domestic lottery. The states are losers. They miss out on vital income. The Commonwealth misses out on GST. Thousands of small businesses are losing as customers are being lured away from properly regulated conventional products, and this is a very real, a very significant problem. Small business operators in my electorate of Fairfax, and I'm sure in other areas right across this country, are losing an important part of their income stream. They are also suffering from a decline in customer traffic through their stores, which negatively impacts other non-lottery sales as well. Therefore, no part of that social contract that has been the Australian model for gambling for many, many years is being met. The clear danger is that the problem for governments and the problem for small businesses is only going to get bigger and quite exponentially bigger, one would think.

A signpost of note is the extraordinarily rapid growth of Lottoland from a standing start in 2013 to over six million customers globally today, with 650,000 based in Australia alone. Lottoland has, in just five years, soared—soared, indeed, comet-like. Even Lottoland says its business is growing and growing fast, which is a very fair description. It promotes the fact that sales in 2016 were 300 million euros, about A$480 million, just four years after start-up, and it rates as one of the fastest-growing companies in Europe.

Clearly, if the synthetic lottery space were left unregulated, the number of Australians drawn into it would likely grow, and probably grow significantly. In the country with the highest per capita punting population in the world, there is a real likelihood that more Lottolands would sprout up online to employ the same business model and create even worse outcomes for the revenues of our small businesses.

In retrospect, maybe we shouldn't be surprised that this sort of behaviour is occurring. It's perhaps even predictable. But it was really only so in the imagination, certainly not in reality, when the Howard government began paying attention to developing threats posed by online gambling in 2001. This bill amends the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, which was prompted by the increased availability of gambling services that were beginning to emerge via the then relatively young internet. That act banned internet casinos, internet pokies, online scratchies and ball-by-ball sport wagering. More recently, we have outlawed credit betting online, but, at the time when the original act was developed in 2001, and indeed for more than a decade beyond, the sort of issue we now confront via this synthetic lottery business model simply did not exist.

This amending bill adds to the original Howard-era constraints on online gambling, established by that 2001 act, by acknowledging and seeking to regulate recent innovation in this space. This bill effectively prevents any gambling service provider from offering in Australia a platform for the placing, making or receiving of bets on the outcome of Australian or overseas lottery draws—that is, synthetic lotteries. The bill also specifies online betting on the outcome of Keno games—which is also offered, by the way, by Lottoland—as another synthetic lottery variant captured by this legislation. Further, it signifies a delay in the commencement of the bill for six months to allow gambling operators and consumers time to adjust their business and betting practices respectively.

Members of this House will be aware that one of the prompts for this bill was a concerted campaign in support of these changes by the organisations of small businesses most heavily impacted through loss of income. Members may also be aware of a vigorous, well-funded campaign from Lottoland to frustrate this bill, defending what they perceive to be a simple case of innovative disruption, a legitimate business activity, especially in this open era of free trade.

On the free trade argument, I will repeat what I said last October to this parliament when I called for the very action that this bill now delivers. I am not in any sense a protectionist. I have no problem—no problem—with overseas companies. I certainly do not object in principle to market disrupters, and I am very strongly in favour of free trade. However, my problem with the likes of Lottoland is that its business model is based on tax avoidance, and it defies a longstanding social contract in this country relating to gambling. While the veracity of this company in seeking a 12th-hour deal with the very small businesses it previously disregarded is untested, the clear reality is that, by basing itself in a tax haven, Lottoland and those that try to emulate it cheat the Australian taxpayer not simply by accident but by design, and I therefore unashamedly commend this bill to the House.

Mr KEOGH (Burt) (12:14): Deputy Speaker, I'm sure you and many others in this chamber and across Australia have seen ads on TV for Lottoland. It touts itself as the latest market disruptor, advertising jackpots in the hundreds of millions and even into the billions of dollars. It offers the US Powerball's prizes of over $1 billion, the EuroMillions's prizes of several hundred millions of dollars as well as our local lottos. However, it operates more like a bookmaker than a lottery, taking bets on the outcome of the numbers drawn. While large prizes can be won in lotteries, the chances of winning them are extremely slim. For example, and by comparison, you have a one-in-76 million chance of winning division 1 in the Australian Powerball. You are much more likely to be killed by lightning—that's a one-in-1.6 million chance—or die from a venomous bite or sting, which is a one-in-one million chance. It's even harder to be bitten by a shark, but that's another discussion. Even smaller prizes can be harder to win, with a one-in-110 chance that you'll win a division 8 prize in the Australian Powerball. The chances of winning the jackpot prize in an overseas lottery of this nature are miniscule, with the odds usually less than one in 250 million.

Lottoland and its like essentially exist in a gambling loophole here in Australia. On behalf of Australian consumers, small business and the entire community sector, Labor has long been on the record with concerns about the impact of these synthetic lotteries. These concerns prompted Labor to consult with a range of stakeholders for a period of time, including the newsagents' peak body in the lead-up to the launch of Lottoland's Gotta Go! campaign. I have consulted and engaged with my local newsagents in the electorate of Burt. In 2017 Labor also formally requested that the ACCC undertake an investigation into representations made by these companies that offer betting on lottery results, given the concerns that they may mislead or deceive consumers into believing that they are actually purchasing a lottery ticket or directly participating in the lottery that they describe. The ACCC said that it would undertake a continual review of developments and complaints in this area. Labor has maintained a watching brief over that time and we have seen some state and territory governments take their own steps to try and regulate or limit the way in which Lottoland and its like can operate within their jurisdictions. But the reality is that this area needs national regulation, and it is properly the place of the Commonwealth to implement a national ban through its powers in respect of online gambling.

Of course, we've had legislation on interactive gambling since 2001. That does allow online lottery draws, and it has traditionally been the case that there have been only a small number of those conducted each week—typically seven; maybe one a day. Now we've seen that lottery betting services allow consumers to bet on the outcome of up to 25 lottery draws being conducted around the world each week, with the promise of massive jackpots rising up into the hundreds of millions of dollars, which can lead to a problem with at-risk gamblers.

Lottoland seek to be a disrupter and they say that they engage as a competitor to some of our existing lottery providers. They have said that they will engage with the newsagent community to make sure that newsagents are looked after, but the reality could not be further from the truth. I'm sure everyone is aware that, in order to buy a lotto ticket, you go down to your local newsagent or your lotto kiosk. These are genuine, local, small businesses in our community, and they employ quite a few people. If we take away and undermine their opportunity to sell those tickets by allowing people the opportunity to participate in grossly misleading online synthetic lotteries, what will happen? Fewer people who want to purchase lotto tickets will go to their local lottery kiosk or newsagent to buy one there. And whilst they're not doing that, they probably won't buy the daily newspaper as well—they're probably already not doing that.

It will undermine not only that small business but the capacity for those small businesses to provide local jobs. We know that youth unemployment is high right now, particularly in Australia. In the electorate of Burt, in Perth's south-eastern suburbs, it is very high. In some areas youth unemployment is close to 20 per cent. These small businesses employ young people. They also provide jobs for some of the older unemployed people in our country who also find it difficult to find work. So why on earth would we want to undermine that? We don't. That's why Labor and I support this legislation.

Allowing these synthetic lotteries undermines the capacity of state governments to gain revenue and tax revenue from the lotteries that are already running on a domestic basis in this country. I have spent a long period of my life thus far working with the community sector, particularly in Western Australia. In Western Australia, Lotterywest is a huge provider of funding to our community sector, providing millions and millions of dollars in grants, big and small, for capital and seed funding and funding for test programs in the community sector. That funding is vital. The fundamental reason that I have great concern about these synthetic lotteries is that their existence robs Lotterywest and similar schemes around the country of the revenue that they need to enable them to provide those grants that our community sector relies on to be able to replace their computers, to buy a new van, to take disabled children to events around the local community, to provide funding to get a pro bono referral service off the ground in Western Australia—to do all manner of things. Those are but a few examples.

If we continue to allow these synthetic lotteries to exist, the revenue that is available to Lotterywest and to other lotteries around the country will continue to dwindle. Of course, that obligation will fall back in part onto the state and in part onto the Commonwealth, but, at the end of the day, government won't be able to meet that demand. We have set up a system where we have allowed gambling to occur through our lotteries because we gain a community benefit, and that has been a good thing. But allowing these sorts of synthetic lotteries to continue will completely undermine the basis of that system. As some have remarked, buying a lotto ticket is simply a non-tax-deductible way of giving to charity. We want to keep it that way. We want to make sure we protect that. That's why we're opposed, and why I am strongly opposed, to synthetic lotteries. It's why Labor and I are very happy to support this legislation to ban them. It's why I tabled a petition earlier this year from my local newsagents seeking to protect their businesses, protect the jobs of their employees and protect our local community sector to make sure that they are all secure going forward.

When I go back into the community, people often come to me and say, 'Why is it that the government and the opposition can never agree? Why are oppositions always opposing just for the sake of being in opposition?' I can tell you that this is actually a classic example of the opposite. Sometimes I think people regard that as happening too seldom. But the reality is that when good policy frameworks are put forward, when there is a good reason to legislate and when the government gets the legislation right—which doesn't always happen—we do agree. Here is an example where we do and of how we can come to the table and work together across the parliament to make sure that we have legislation that will not only work but provide a community benefit by making sure that we don't undermine small business, don't undermine people's opportunity to get a job and don't undermine our vital community sector within this country.

I know from my involvement with local community groups in my electorate and throughout the state of Western Australia that the grants that are available from revenue that we gain from our domestic lotteries are vital to ensuring that those community groups get support. They support our community as a whole, whether it's because we've got buses to transport people around the community, whether it's because we're able to provide grants to get a seed program off the ground, whether it's because we're able to provide the opportunity for new or upgraded computer software or computer hardware that's required—even just to make sure that you can get some accounting software for our local community groups; it can be that small—or whether it's through the provision of office space for some of our community groups to operate from, such as our local community lotteries houses throughout the state of Western Australia. All of this becomes undermined if we don't have protection for this system.

Some may say that this is nationalistic protectionism, but what it's actually about is protecting all of the things that are important for our community, at all different levels. It's important that we do that. I think it's excellent. I was very happy to see that the government has introduced this legislation, but of course also that Labor is agreeing to this legislation. As I said, newsagents and small business owners who employee people throughout our community come to my office in my electorate and go to state MPs with legitimate concerns. They're looking at what's happening. They're seeing the advertising that I spoke about when I rose. They are worried—legitimately worried—about the ongoing viability of their businesses. It becomes essential that we make sure that we protect them.

Often those on the other side like to say that Labor doesn't like small business and that we don't really care about jobs. This is a classic example of demonstrating the opposite. We, on our side of the chamber, always knew it was true. We are about supporting small business and we are about making sure that we not only protect jobs but create the opportunities for more jobs. This is legislation that we agreed to because it helps that in a vitally important way. That's why we support this legislation. We see the overarching community benefit, despite what some ideologues and economic global purists might say about it being a protectionist measure. At the end of the day, it's about making sure that we have the appropriate regulatory responses to make sure that we contain online gambling—full stop.

It's important that we protect those who are at risk with gambling, but it's also important that we protect small business, we protect jobs and we protect state revenues. I can tell you that, as a Western Australian, state revenues have been a huge problem in recent times. I can wax lyrical about that at another time. It's important that we protect the revenues for the states and it's important that we protect the revenues that provide the grants to allow our community organisations—our grassroots community organisations and our state-wide community organisations—to continue to do the great work in the communities across our country. I'll always stand up to make sure that occurs. That's why I'm very proud that Labor will support this bill.

Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (12:27): I'm very pleased to talk on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Lottery Betting) Bill 2018 and I'm very pleased to talk in support of small business. So many small businesses exist in my electorate, particularly newsagents. We all know that one of the customs in Australia is to have a punt. That's what Australians call it: having a punt. How often do you hear that, irrespective of whether it was on the battlefields of Gallipoli or the Western Front in World War I, the Birdcage at Flemington, the mounting yard at Royal Randwick or the two-up that we see at local RSLs on Anzac Day right around Australia? The colloquial phrase 'betting on two lizards walking up a wall' can generally be applied right around this great country. The Sydney Opera House, for instance, was funded by a lottery, and that's going back many, many years.

Our traditional lotteries and Keno games are popular and are longstanding recreational gambling products. They are actually an important income stream for thousands and thousands of small businesses. I will stand up for small business in this House every chance I get. This includes our newsagents, pharmacies, pubs, RSLs and community clubs. They provide millions of dollars in tax revenue to every state and territory in Australia and, as we know, help to fund important community services and infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, public transport and roads. Every time a customer buys a ticket in an official lottery draw, a percentage of the ticket price goes towards supporting community services.

Lotteries are also an important part of the income stream for local newsagencies and post office agencies. These are small businesses run by great local people, and they support our local communities all over the country. Whenever a community group, organisation or sporting club—even our service clubs and emergency services groups, which do such a great job—needs a sponsorship or prize for something they're doing, perhaps a local raffle, where do they go in small communities? They go to those fantastic local small businesses like Broadwater News in Busselton; Minninup Forum Newsagency; Donnybrook Newsagency; Capel Newsagency; Dalyellup News and Lotteries; and the Centrepoint newsagencies. These are all places where you can buy a lottery pack, maybe for Mother's Day, which is coming up, and where perhaps your grandmother or someone who loves scratchies goes, perhaps even lodging a set of numbers for a work Lotto syndicate. This is all part of what Australians do.

Official lotteries and keno games have been a part of the Australian product landscape in gambling for a long time and are well accepted and well understood by consumers. They know what they're getting. They know what they're buying and they make a conscious decision. In contrast, betting services like Lottoland are relatively new and less understood. They provide no benefits to the thousands of small business owners across Australia—those newsagencies—and no benefits to our local communities, particularly in rural and regional areas like my own.

Another issue with these forms of gambling is the light regulation that's imposed on these services. They can and do entice customers away from traditional lotteries, and this further impacts on the benefits to small businesses and the community more generally. Many Australians have voiced their concerns about these services. There are more than 4,000 newsagents and lottery retailers Australia-wide, and they depend on the sales of actual, real, well-regulated lottery products. Those products can generate between 50 and sometimes 70 per cent of their income, so we're not talking about a small proportion of their income stream. The viability of these businesses is really critical. Because of their online structure—Lottoland is based overseas, in Gibraltar, I understand—none of those Australian state or territory taxes are paid, unlike our real lotteries, which contribute over $1.1 billion each year. We see so many newsagencies that are part and parcel of that.

I've received a number of petitions signed by people in my electorate who are concerned about the impacts. I've got so many pages of petitions from people in my community who share the concerns. They want to be able to walk down to their local newsagency and buy their tickets or get their scratchie—whatever they choose to do—and they want those businesses to still be there for them. In particular, a lot of our senior citizens love going and having that quiet little dabble, often each week. Recently I was at Centrepoint newsagency. They've got a 'lucky buddha' with coins across him, and I saw the amount of people who were rubbing their Lotto tickets across the buddha because they wanted the luck that went with it. Of course, that is what happens in a small, local, community newsagency.

The government has listened to all of the people who have signed these petitions. It has listened very carefully. Last year, Minister Fifield raised these concerns with the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory is so far the only jurisdiction to licence this form of lottery betting. The Northern Territory government has responded by introducing what is only a partial prohibition on this lottery betting, and the implication of this is that the betting can't be offered on Australian lotteries. This was a positive step, but the government believes stronger and more comprehensive action is required, which is what we see in this bill. And this bill, the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Lottery Betting) Bill 2018, will take decisive action. I can say to the newsagents who are watching and listening to this debate, those in my electorate in the south-west of Western Australia, that the government is taking decisive action. We understand your small business. We will amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 and prohibit the provision of lottery and keno betting services to Australians.

As I said previously, traditional lotteries are heavily regulated and pay a considerable amount of tax to all states and territories. For every lottery ticket sold in those newsagencies and outlets, up to 28 per cent is allocated to state and territory taxes. Not only does that support the regulatory oversight and government services; but nine per cent is paid to the agents for relevant sale costs and income requirements. That's the heart and soul of these small businesses, and that's what this bill is about as well. An estimated $1.1 billion in state and territory taxes in 2016-17 is what has been and is at risk, plus those small businesses that add so much to our small communities. Over $350 million is earned by those 4,000 newsagencies and official lottery agencies—the official lottery agencies—across Australia, from sales of an official lottery product. You're buying a ticket, you're buying a product, you're buying a scratchie. Newsagents, as we know, actually rely on this to run their businesses. This is a big part of their business.

The additional keno services that are offered in clubs and hotels also help support community services and sporting initiatives. It can be, as we know with Lotterywest in Western Australia, that they support so many small community groups. A number of times I have been to events where I have seen that one of the sponsors whose logo is on the sign, the pamphlet, the program or the advertising material is Lotterywest. This means they have contributed. I have seen how good that is and how important that is to so many groups and organisations. In Western Australia, Lotterywest support things such as supply costs, lease costs, administration and operating costs, travel costs and capital costs sometimes, depending on the project—all sorts of different projects. They want to make the community a better place. It's the funding that comes from people buying official lottery products that funds this for small communities. So, any time this is diminished, the whole of our Australian community suffers. Everyone in this place would want to grow our communities and support our communities and know that when they buy that ticket that that's exactly what they're doing.

In direct comparison, lottery and keno betting services contribute significantly less tax and to only one jurisdiction in Australia. They don't pay commissions to small businesses at all. They are domiciled in overseas tax havens and minimise their exposure to domestic regulation. It's a deliberate decision. I understand that Lottoland has 650,000 Australian customers. So this is having a direct impact on each of our small businesses, our newsagencies. Lottoland doesn't actually sell you a ticket; you're betting on the outcome. This is really important. This will have an impact on Australian based lotteries. It certainly has an impact on small businesses. So this legislation is really important.

Lottery betting services aren't required to comply with the guaranteed prize pool model. Instead their major prizes are covered by insurance policies, and that allows lottery betting service providers to offer bigger prizes, more frequently, which further impacts on the financial benefits of traditional lotteries. Those bigger prizes are used to entice new gamblers, who aren't actually always aware of the difference between the two types of lottery products. They're not even aware of the protections and the benefits to the community provided by the products that are offered through the newsagencies and official outlets.

This act will also minimise the scope of problem gambling in Australia by limiting the types of interactive gambling services to Australians. Lottery betting services allow customers to bet on the outcome of up to 25 lottery draws being conducted around the world each week with the promise of massive jackpots up to hundreds of millions, which can lead to even more problem gambling by at-risk people. This bill will prohibit the provision of lottery and keno betting services to customers physically present in Australia. It will also prohibit the betting on a contingency that may or may not happen in the course of the conduct of a lottery, to ensure that bets cannot be accepted on the outcome or any aspect of a lottery or keno draw. The Commonwealth is responsible for online gambling matters and is best placed to implement a national position in relation to lottery betting services in Australia. Nationally consistent laws in this area are important. The government has really responded to the concerns of the community and has acted accordingly.

These amendments will also enable ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, to enforce compliance, which is good, and to respond to any complaints about lottery betting services being provided by other Australian or international operators, which is good as well. The government recently expanded ACMA's powers to take stronger action against the provision of illegal interactive gambling services to Australians.

Many Australians enjoy lotteries and keno as a recreational activity. If you go to a lot of clubs around the country you'll see the screens, and if you go to newsagencies you'll see the scratchies and the lotto signs. The government is absolutely committed to ensuring that online gambling takes place under a robust legislative framework with very strong consumer protections and within the boundaries of community standards. As I said when I started, I am always pleased to stand in this place and support Australian small businesses. They employ nearly half of Australians. Often those same newsagencies give young people their first job, and often they give people at a mature stage of their life potentially their last job. As small businesses, they are critical to the Australian economy and they're critical to our small communities, and I am always going to stand up for small business, as this government does in this country. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr DICK (Oxley) (12:42): I rise to speak on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Lottery Betting) Bill 2018. Today I stand with my Labor colleagues to draw a line in the sand to give greater protections to Australian businesses and consumers when it comes to synthetic lotteries. Labor has long been on the record with concerns about the impact of synthetic lotteries such as Lottoland and, in particular, their contribution towards problem gambling, which is something I want to highlight in the House today.

When it comes to per capita spending, Australians are the world's most prolific gamblers, losing more money per person than people in any other developed country. Australians spend an average of $1,300 per capita on gambling, with the next highest being Singaporeans, at around $600 per capita. This is a growing problem and one we must all take very seriously as it reaches out to more and more people.

Synthetic lotteries only contribute further to this epidemic. Total gambling expenditure in Australia has increased by 7.7 per cent, from $21 billion in 2013-14 to $22.7 billion in 2014-15, while per-adult gambling expenditure has increased from $1,171 to $1,300 in the same period. Numbers like these were part of the reason that Labor consulted with a wide range of stakeholders, including the newsagents peak body, in the lead-up to the launch of the Lottoland's Gotta Go! campaign, in consideration of this bill.

Lottery-type games, such as Powerball or Oz Lotto, are already the most prevalent forms of gambling, with over 30 per cent of Australians participating. For many, this is a social activity, with the occasional dollar spent on having a go on the weekly lotto, but for some, this is quickly becoming an addiction. Studies have already proven that pathological gamblers are at an increased risk of developing stress-related conditions such as hypertension, sleep deprivation, cardiovascular disease and peptic ulcer disease. We know that people can quickly become engulfed by this addiction, and we must ensure all practical steps are in place to keep people from falling into this trap.

In 2017, Labor formally requested that the ACCC undertake an investigation into representations made by companies that offer betting on lottery results. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Mr DICK (Oxley) (12:58): Today's bill, the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Lottery Betting) Bill 2018, enables me to place on record the issue around synthetic lotteries. As I was saying in my earlier remarks, this only allows customers to bet on the outcome of a lottery draw without the need to purchase a ticket in the official lottery draw. Unlike official lottery draws, ticket sales do not cover major payouts. Instead, these are covered by insurance policies. A contingency would include the drawing of a particular number in a particular position or in a particular sequence.

We know that in recent times, on a state and territory level, governments have been clamping down on synthetic lotteries. These include the Northern Territory government, who introduced a prohibition on betting on the outcome of Australian lotteries. This was a welcome step, but it has not gone far enough to address some of the raised concerns. Elsewhere, South Australia does not permit lottery betting services, and it appears that this has been effective in stopping these services being provided to SA residents. The Tasmanian, Victorian, New South Wales and Western Australian governments are considering similar steps.

It's clear from these overwhelming movements by the states and territories that prohibiting lottery betting services is the right thing to do. But it's the Commonwealth that has responsibility for online gambling matters and is best placed to implement a national position in relation to lottery betting services in Australia. This would be consistent with the National Consumer Protection Framework and the new credit betting prohibition in the Interactive Gambling Act that came into effect earlier this year. The act is intended to minimise the scope of problem gambling in Australia.

Lottery draws are permitted under the IGA, as there have traditionally only been a small number of draws conducted, with some seven draws conducted across the week, typically with a day's break in between. However, lottery betting services have now allowed consumers to bet on the outcome of up to 25 lottery draws being conducted around the world each week, with the promise of massive jackpots ranging up to hundreds of millions of dollars, which could lead to problem and at-risk gambling.

Further to this, the growing disruption to traditional lotto betting services is having an increased negative impact, as we've heard in the debate today, on newsagencies and other small businesses across Australia. They rely on the commissions from the sales of official lottery tickets. Over $350 million is earnt by some 4,000 newsagencies and official lottery agents across Australia. These businesses rely on this commission to earn an income and cover the costs of running a business, which include employing thousands of staff across the country. The concern is that synthetic lottery services entice customers away from these businesses with the promise of substantially higher jackpot amounts compared to those prizes that can be offered under the official lottery draw. What results is job losses and newsagents closing their doors.

This enables me to put on record the great work of our local small business newsagents. I know that for each and every one of us, when we move around the community, often newsagents are the lifeblood and the heartbeat of local strip malls and shopping centres. They are sometimes run by local family businesses and they form a real, integral part of the local small business network.

I am also pleased to see bipartisanship on this matter, as we know just how much problem gambling we are seeing as an impact on Australian families. It's estimated that 200,000 Australians have a high-level problem with gambling, while up to twice as many more have difficulties at a lower level. There's a ripple effect where corrosive habits can impinge on friends and family. According to problem gambling experts and people from Monash University in Melbourne, we know that the numbers extend to the 650,000 Australian account holders who can gamble all too easily through their mobile phones and on synthetic lotteries like Lottoland.

In closing, I'd like to quote Tim Costello from the Alliance for Gambling Reform, who said:

Just like the way online poker companies such as Pokerstars exited the Australian market after new federal legislation last year, Lottoland should do likewise rather than further deluging Australians with more gambling messages attempting to grow the dangerous online segment.

I particularly commend the shadow minister for communications, the member for Greenway, on her leadership on this issue, which will extend to give greater protections to businesses, consumers and all Australians from falling into the trap of problem gambling.

Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (13:04): I have considered the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Lottery Betting) Bill 2018 in quite a lot of detail in terms of my support for it, because, of course, it includes lots of different measures, such as pathways that shut down the freedom of Australians to engage in some gambling activities. I do, and always will, take freedom very seriously; it's the core of who we are as a nation and the basis on which I sought election to parliament. But it's pretty hard to go past the reality of what happens in the practice of Lottoland's activities and whether those are proper within a well-regulated operation around competition, particularly in the gambling sector.

I do have challenges with parts of this bill, and I'm not trying to pretend otherwise, but when it comes down to it, we have a situation where people are using the opportunities provided through technology and the internet to subvert domestic competitive activity. Disruption, by itself, can be a very positive thing—in fact, it can be an extremely positive thing—but it still has to operate within a system of laws, taxes and regulations to make sure that consumers are not taken advantage of and that people are also meeting their responsibilities within a free society. That's the basis on which I support this legislation.

When you have a company in Australia operating, as Lottoland does, against existing providers who carry the burden and the cost of regulation and of making a contribution to our tax system, and who are obviously integral in terms of the operations of many Australian small businesses—particularly newsagents of course, many of which I have in my own electorate, as many others do; though perhaps, I imagine, not as many as some have had in the past—we have to take appropriate measures to provide pathways for those who want to compete in that space to do so in a legal way and to match those responsibilities and burdens that other providers carry. This bill seeks to do that. It essentially seeks to provide—I'm very wary of using these phrases ordinarily—a level playing field for those who seek to run lottery activities and gambling activities within Australia by ensuring they match their responsibilities by paying taxation and by being well regulated. The bill also makes sure that we have proper competition within the marketplace that enables consumers to choose but not be taken advantage of simply through the use of technology.

It's very important because sitting behind a lot of discussions around gambling are discussions around making sure we address and tackle part of the challenges of gambling addiction. One of the reasons we have tax obligations directly associated with different forms of lotteries is to make sure there's a surplus benefit out of that type of activity to support those who are most in need, and to make sure that people can't be taken advantage of where there aren't support services for people who feel they have a problem to get proper redress. This bill acknowledges that practical reality of the addiction that can occur with gambling and takes appropriate steps and pathways to make sure that we continue to provide the services for those people who are in need of assistance, particularly when it can have such a negative downward spiralling effect on people's lives. By taking such sensible measures in this piece of legislation, we're enabling a proper and well-regulated environment for gambling for Australian consumers to choose, something I believe very strongly in. We are making sure that we have an environment in which people can get the support and assistance they need to make sure that there is no chance of problem gambling turning into the consequences of a downward spiralling of people's lives.

Now, nobody is going to try and pretend that there's not an interest for government in this—there is. Of course, gambling revenue for state governments, in particular, is very important in terms of budget balance sheets. But in truth, it's largely got nothing to do with the justification for why this bill should be addressed and introduced. It's not just to stop the realities of gambling competition or disruption where it's appropriate and necessary, but it is appropriate to make sure we take legislative measures, particularly because of the challenges the technology presents us, to make sure that consumers are not taken advantage of and to make sure we have a proper and well-regulated system.

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (13:09): I'm on the record as an opponent of gambling in all its forms, both in my own community and in this place. My opposition began as a young man when I was re-roofing a TAB as a carpenter, many years ago. However, an extensive and powerful body of academic evidence exists which shows what a blight on our society gambling is, and for that reason I wholeheartedly support the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Lottery Betting) Bill 2018.

In relation to problem gambling, in 2017 alone, Australians lost—if you're ready for this, Mr Deputy Speaker—almost $24 billion to gambling, according to the Australian gambling statistics collated by the Queensland government. As Dr Charles Livingstone of Monash University says, gambling is a public health problem. In terms of disability-adjusted life years, the impact of gambling is approximately the same as excessive alcohol consumption. Between 80,000 and 160,000 Australian adults suffer with severe problems from gambling. This equates to somewhere between 0.5 and one per cent of adults. A further 230,000 to 350,000 Australians, or 1.5 to 2.1 per cent of adults, experience moderate risks that may make them vulnerable to problem gambling. Although small in absolute terms, this means that as many as 30 per cent of regular gamblers are problem gamblers.

Not all people who gamble have a gambling problem—I readily accept that—but, according to a 1999 Productivity Commission report, expenditures on gambling by problem gamblers constitute as much as 40 per cent of all money spent on gambling. In the case of electronic gambling machines—pokies—42 per cent of revenue comes from high-risk gamblers, with another 20 per cent from moderate-risk gamblers. This problem is highly regressive, with those on lower incomes and in disadvantaged populations much more likely to experience problem gambling and to spend a larger proportion of their income on gambling. Problem gambling works to entrench economic disadvantage and can contribute to its transmission between generations.

In 2010 and 2012, in the Northern Territory and in New South Wales, separate studies demonstrated gambling impacts on Indigenous communities and identified greater negative impacts than on the non-Indigenous population, specifically with respect to poker machines. Studies focused on individual-level harms to the gambler have found that gambling is linked with financial problems, bankruptcy, increased likelihood of divorce, substance abuse, anxiety, depression and even suicide. There are far too many studies to list, but they include Black, Shaw, McCormick and Allen's 'Marital status, childhood maltreatment, and family dysfunction: a controlled study of pathological gambling'; another study entitled 'Young adults' gambling and its association with mental health and substance use problems', published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health; and Kerber et al's 'The impact of disordered gambling among older adults', in the Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services.

Problem gambling causes harms to the individuals themselves, but it also causes harm to those around them and, importantly, to the wider community. Each high-risk gambler impacts, on average, six other people. These can include spouses, children, family, friends and employers. Each moderate-risk gambler affects three others, and even low-risk gamblers affect an average of one other person. A 2013 Swedish study by Svensson, Romild and Shepherdson published in BMC Public Health revealed that, in total, 18.2 per cent, nearly one in five, of the Swedish population reported having someone close to them who currently had or had previously experienced gambling-related problems. In that study, significant others experienced similar negative consequences and were significantly more likely, compared with the general population, to experience poor mental health, risky alcohol consumption, economic hardships and arguments with those closest to them. A 2016 Victorian study identified that postcodes with no poker machines were associated with 30 per cent fewer incidents of domestic violence-related assaults per 10,000 head of population.

Beyond those individuals immediately linked to the problem gambler, gambling has huge impacts on our community at large. These include higher levels of crime, higher unemployment levels, lower incomes, lower expenditure in non-gambling local businesses and the diversion of resources away from more productive uses. A significant number of studies reveal that a large percentage of problem gamblers admit to having committed a gambling-related illegal offence—most commonly, theft, fraud, robbery, assault and breach of apprehended violence orders. These studies include 'The influence of gaming expenditure on crime rates in South Australia', which shows the contrast between areas with more and less gambling. A 2010 Victorian study examined the relationship between poker machine expenditure and various types of crimes. It found that there was a consistent, positive and significant relationship between gaming and crime rates, especially income-generating crime. Income-generating crime includes theft, fraud, breaking and entering, forgery, larceny and robbery. A further 2008 South Australian study concluded that electronic gambling machine expenditure was found to influence positively and significantly income-generating crime rates in local areas in South Australia. These studies identify that the greater the amount of money spent on gambling in a particular area, the higher that area's income-generating crime happened to be.

This is not a static problem. We know that, as the amount of gambling in a particular community increases, the amount of harm that is done to individuals and our society increases. A 2014 Australian study found that an increase in mean per capita monthly poker machine expenditure from $10 to $150 was associated with a doubling in the prevalence of gambling-related harm from nine per cent to 18 per cent in the adult population in the Northern Territory. US and Canadian studies in 1989, 2001, 2004 and 2006 found that the opening of casinos there led to a significant increase in crime, growing considerably over time.

These issues have become particularly important and widely discussed in my own community on the Sunshine Coast just in the past six months. This is because the Sunshine Coast Council, led by the mayor, along with the Labor state government, has been in active discussions with an international gambling corporation, NagaCorp, about the possibility of establishing a casino in the new SunCentral Maroochydore CBD development. I have campaigned strongly against this development, and I recently held a community meeting to discuss the plans for this casino. More than 300 people attended this event. When we took a vote at the end of the community forum, the room was unanimous in its opposition to a casino. At that casino forum, we were addressed by Dr Charles Livingstone, whom I've quoted earlier, from Monash University. We were also addressed by a previous superintendent of Queensland Police, Mr Chris Sang. Both of them gave us an understanding of the societal impacts caused by gambling, and Mr Chris Sang particularly addressed the criminal aspects that flow when a casino moves into an area.

I recently submitted a right-to-information request to both the Sunshine Coast Council and the Queensland state government to learn more about the behind-the-scenes discussions, which have been ongoing, about this dramatic expansion of gambling in my own community. I'm awaiting the outcome of these requests; however, I've already heard from the state government, telling me that the request, as it stands, is too onerous, because there are 4,600 relevant documents. I'll have more to say about that later.

In relation to this bill, both in my own community, in the electorate of Fisher, and nationwide—I am not naive enough to believe that we can wholly outlaw gambling. However, what I am seeking to do in Fisher, with respect to the casino in particular, is to prevent a huge and unwarranted expansion of the available avenues for gambling. As I've described, repeated studies show that, when you increase the amount of gambling in a community, you increase the amount of harm. That is what I want to stop by preventing a casino being built on the Sunshine Coast, and it is what this bill is seeking to stop nationally by prohibiting the new phenomenon of synthetic lotteries.

The law allows lotteries in this country, but it strictly regulates them and limits their number and frequency. There are a small number of draws in Australia, and the total jackpots available are modest by world standards. These synthetic lottery products, less than two years in existence, are a huge increase in the scale and availability of gambling opportunities for those who want to take part in lotteries. Betting on the outcomes of lotteries worldwide allows individuals to take part in 25 separate draws every week, with jackpots in the hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, in just one US Powerball draw in 2016, synthetic lottery products in Australia gave Australians the opportunity, otherwise not available, to take part in a draw for $2.3 billion. These products allow people to purchase the equivalent of tickets for these draws from home and on their mobile phones, as opposed to being required to go to a newsagent, for example. In 2017, Lottoland admitted that its business was generating more than $1 million a week in sales.

As we've seen, as awareness of these products grows, this hugely increased opportunity to gamble and the increased size of available prizes will inextricably link to more gambling harm. This bill is an important step, and I hope that the government will go further, in particular around gambling advertising in this country. This government should be commended for its actions last year to get gambling adverts out of live sports at times when they would be likely to be seen by children. That was a really positive outcome, and the government should be commended on it. But, as one of my constituents, Charles Hodgson, asked me on Facebook just a couple of days ago, 'What is the point of moving the betting ads from sports when they've just moved them elsewhere?' We've all seen the proliferation of gambling ads, particularly around our news times. I hope that this year we'll see action to prohibit sports gambling advertising on television entirely. We did it for smoking. I don't see why we can't do it for live sports betting.

In conclusion, in my electorate of Fisher, I will fight to stop the construction of a casino, because I know that, when you increase the amount and scale of the opportunities to gamble in a community, you increase the harm caused. I support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities) (13:24): I'd like to thank all those in the chamber who've contributed to the debate on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Lottery Betting) Bill 2018. The Australian government is committed to ensuring that online gambling takes place under a robust legislative framework with strong consumer protections and within the boundaries of community standards. Traditional lotteries and keno games are popular and longstanding recreational gambling products that provide millions of dollars in tax revenue to every state and territory in Australia and help fund important services and infrastructure for the community, such as hospitals, schools, public transport and roads.

The intent of the Interactive Gambling Act is to minimise the scope of problem gambling in Australia by limiting the types of interactive gambling services available to Australians. The Commonwealth is responsible for online gambling matters and is best placed to implement a national position in relation to lottery betting services in Australia. This is consistent with the important work being done to establish the national consumer protection framework. Whilst some stakeholders have raised concerns that this legislation could mean that only one lottery operator would remain in Australia, the fact is that these are matters upon which the Commonwealth does not have a view. State and territory governments, not the Commonwealth, are responsible for issuing gambling licences. State and territory governments determine the number and type of licences issued and the activities that can be undertaken. The Commonwealth's responsibility is limited to online gambling activities. The Commonwealth government, the Turnbull government, has formed the view that online synthetic lotteries and keno, which involve betting on the outcome of both foreign and domestic lottery and keno draws, are a gambling bridge too far.

Traditional lotteries are built on guaranteed prize pools from ticket sales and are required to comply with strict audit and consumer protection measures. Unlike official lotteries, lottery betting services are not required to comply with the guaranteed prize pool model. Instead, their major prizes are covered by insurance policies. This allows lottery betting services to offer bigger prizes more frequently, which further impacts on the financial benefits of traditional lotteries. Over $350 million is earned by some 4,000 newsagencies and official lottery agents across Australia from sales of traditional lottery products. Traditional keno services conducted in clubs and hotels across Australia help support community services and sporting initiatives. It is clear that a shift away from official lotteries would have a negative impact on small businesses.

Many Australians enjoy lotteries and keno as a recreational activity in the full knowledge that, win or lose, purchasing a ticket will contribute money back to the community. The government strongly believes that lottery and keno betting services undermine the longstanding community acceptance of traditional lotteries. With the number of lottery betting operators entering the Australian market increasing, it is now the time for the government to take action to minimise the adverse effects on customers and small businesses in the community. I call on all in the chamber to support the bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities) (13:28): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): It being nearly 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (16:17): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (16:19): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ) (16:19): I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip, nominating Ms MMH King to be a member of the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs in place of Mr Hammond.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (16:19): by leave—I move:

That Mr Hammond be discharged from the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs and that, in his place, Ms M. M. H. King be appointed a member of the committee.

Question agreed to.

Mr HILL (Bruce) (16:20): On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present Report 471: security of overseas missions.

Ms Madeleine King: Cracking committee!

Mr HILL: It is a cracking report, Member for Brand.

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

Mr HILL: by leave—This report outlines findings of the committee's inquiry into the security of overseas missions as managed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This, I might note, is the first JCPAA inquiry in a number of years to focus on DFAT. It is not a regular focus of our attention.

DFAT's purpose includes promoting and protecting Australia's interests internationally and contributing to global stability and economic growth. To support this work, DFAT maintains a presence overseas of 106 diplomatic posts or missions and is responsible for the security arrangements at these posts—that also includes responsibility for the security of more than 3,000 DFAT locally engaged staff and staff from 20 other agencies—and those are measures to protect staff, property and confidential information critical to national security.

In DFAT's own words, 'Elsewhere poor risk management could be financial loss, but here the results could be catastrophic.' In that very real sense, this is life-and-death stuff. Yet the committee found—and this is a government-controlled committee—that, despite this, a recurring theme of this inquiry was the lack of consistency and coordination in DFAT's management of overseas security.

This matter has a long history. The Audit Office previously reviewed DFAT's protection of missions and staff overseas in 2004-05. In this follow-on audit tabled in August last year, more than a decade later, the Auditor-General identified a number of issues which still remain unresolved. The ANAO concluded that DFAT had arrangements in place to provide security to overseas missions and staff, but it added that some aspects, in particular the strategic planning management of security measures and elements of the framework supporting staff training, were not entirely effective.

The ANAO's findings, in addition to the further evidence provided to the committee during the inquiry, raised a number of concerns for the committee. The committee noted that poor coordination and lack of consistency have had an impact on the delivery of core security functions. A number of issues identified were also characterised by inadequate monitoring and assurance. The committee considered that the ANAO's findings and the persistence of weaknesses relating to overseas security measures undermined the department's credibility before parliamentary committees. It wasn't their finest day out.

The committee heard that DFAT's departmental security framework, which was to be launched in March 2018, is intended to address various issues highlighted by the ANAO and previous reviews. The department also noted actions it's taking to reduce inconsistencies in record keeping and risk management.

The committee supports the Auditor-General's position that organisations must impose consequences for noncompliance in order to drive cultural change, and the leadership of the organisation has to provide the clear direction for that change. Compliance can be monitored then via independent assurance activities such as internal audit.

The committee also turned its attention to and appreciates the critical importance of cyber-resilience to protecting organisational systems and information and acknowledges DFAT's stated commitment to achieving cyber-resilience by June 2018 with respect to the Essential Eight mitigation strategies. We've asked for a report back in July to check that that's done, because, as I said, this is not just about property and the lives of Australian personnel but also about critical confidential information.

There were a range of other findings that you'll be pleased to know I chopped out of my statement and won't go to in detail, but they relate to the need for DFAT to improve the quality of its performance indicators and discrepancies we identified in a previous annual report. As the chair of the committee stated, the annual report's a critical document. It is signed by the secretary, and the parliament has to have full confidence in what's signed off and presented.

Finally, it's the committee's view that governance arrangements can only be effective with the necessary staff skills and capability underpinning them. The committee noted that limitations to DFAT's information systems actually prevent the consistent monitoring and assurance over whether staff even receive the required mandatory preposting security training. DFAT advised that work was underway to address that, but we were not fully confident from the repetitive, process-based answers which we received. Of particular interest to the committee was staff awareness and training in cybersecurity. DFAT indicated that it's considering mandating cybersecurity training for locally engaged staff.

Overall, in summary, the committee made eight recommendations. That's a large number for us. Several were aimed at improving DFAT's governance of post security, while others address aspects of staff training. We've sought further advice from DFAT and recommended that DFAT reports back to us on a range of issues. Thank you for the House's attention to a lengthy statement, but these are not trivial matters. They go to the security and the lives of more than 3,000 staff working around the world and their families. In conclusion, I would like to thank officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the ANAO for assisting the committee in its inquiry. I commend the report to the House, and I seek leave to table some documents.

Leave granted.

Mr HILL: I present executive minutes on reports Nos 463, 464, 465 and 467 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.

Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (16:26): Colleagues, I welcome the Primary Industries Research and Development Amendment Bill 2017 as an opportunity to talk about my electorate and some very important topics, particularly agriculture, focusing on agricultural research and our national model for funding agricultural research. I would like to stress the importance of the integrity that underpins the way that we, as a nation, fund our agricultural research and say that this is not the time to tamper with it. This particular legislation does that. It changes the way our corporate R&Ds are able to spend funding. While it does have the support of the relevant R&Ds, it expands the definition of marketing activities, and I think that's a negative.

Today, I really want to call on the government to pay some attention to research and development and to say to the minister at the table and my colleagues on the other side, particularly the National Party, how extraordinarily disappointing it is to read the budget papers and to look for agricultural research and development and find there's nothing there. There's no plan for the future. Sure, there's some money for marketing to employ some people in overseas countries to open up our markets, but this whole idea of how we grow the productivity of Australian agriculture has just been left for dead. It shouldn't be that way. In my electorate of Indi, we've got a huge amount of agricultural production. We've got a very strong agricultural stakeholders' group that lobbies me constantly. Today, I want to talk about agriculture in my electorate. But, before I go there, I want to talk about the history of research and development and my involvement in it.

Colleagues, before I was a member of parliament, I worked as a consultant in agricultural research and development. My job was to extend the knowledge of R&D out to the community and pay particular attention to women, who are mostly the business managers on farms, and to young people. As a result of 20 years work in R&D and extending that knowledge that came out of our research, I was approached in 2011 to be part of a rural research and development council. The point of the council was to come up with a national strategic investment plan for research and development. Colleagues, I really would like to draw this to the attention of the House, because it was excellent work. It was supported by everybody. But, as happens, the idea of a national investment plan in R&D and a coordinated approach to research and development in Australian agriculture got left by the wayside, and, sadly, still hasn't been picked up. We see the lack of that investment and that planning, I think constantly, in many of the problems we are facing in agricultural research. That was a really important document. I bring it to the attention of the House and make a recommendation that the minister and his staff pay some attention to the recommendations in that report. That was in 2011.

In 2015, we had the Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper, with an investment of $4 million but no national plan. It was, in my opinion, an ad hoc, 'Let's do this, let's do that, lots of programs' approach. It was a piecemeal approach to how the nation should develop its agricultural resources. In 2016, I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry. We did an inquiry into agricultural innovation. It was a fantastic group of people to work with. We had cooperation right across the House. We did extensive work. We met with people involved in research, development and innovation right across the nation. We presented a report to the then agriculture minister, and it just sat there. It sat there and sat there. None of the recommendations of that House of Representatives committee have been looked to in any way, shape or form. So we don't have a plan for agricultural research, we don't have a strategy for it, and I think the nation is less because of it.

I bring to the attention of the House that other nations, including many of our trading partners, have taken this step. For example, in 2015 the European Union developed a report titled Towards a long-term strategy for European agricultural research and innovation by 2020 and beyond. It's so obvious that it seems mind-boggling to me that we in Australia haven't actually taken that step. There are models we can follow. The call has been put out, but there's just been a failure of this House to take up that call. For me, it's not only a policy paper that we need; we need the opportunity. My call-out to our new minister is to begin work on this in a productive way so that, by the time we get to 2020, we actually do have a strategic plan for agriculture—research, development, innovation and extension.

When I saw this legislation come before the House today and the changes in it, I thought that, while they're small, they actually talk about marketing. One of the things that has really frustrated me with agricultural research and development and the way that we spend our money is the organisational power of our marketers to grab the bucket of money for R&D and say: 'Yes, but we've got to market. We've got to sell what we do. We've got to get overseas and market our produce.' For sure, marketing is important, and I would never say that it doesn't need some investment. But, for me, the real gold of agricultural research and development is the research. It's taking our ability in Australia to produce fantastic food, grow fibre and do things with agriculture, innovate and value-add so that we create the jobs in the regions and in the cities that are going to be the future of this nation. I think we're letting ourselves down. I think we're letting industry down. I definitely think we're letting our farmers down. It's a really sad thing for me when I go to the farmers in my electorate, from the small-scale farmers to the large-scale farmers through to the exporters, and say, 'But we don't have a national plan.' Rarely do I come to this House and hear my colleagues talk on legislation that's relevant to R&D. It's just a thing that doesn't seem to grab the interest of the House. That's such a pity because, for many of us who live in the regions, agriculture does still underpin our livelihoods.

In my electorate, my way of tackling this lack of interest in Canberra in the need for regional R&D and local R&D is by running what we call North East Victoria agricultural dinners. These dinners bring together leaders in education, marketing and logistics, stock and station agents, researchers, academics, farmers and allied agricultural professionals. We've had three of these dinners and they've been a terrific success. They provide an opportunity for people to share ideas, to think about vertical integration and the role of North East Victoria. Over 50 per cent of the water that falls in the Murray-Darling Basin falls in my electorate, but it's very underdeveloped. We've got so much potential. So we get together and talk about what we might do. We share knowledge and expertise. We look at the documents that the Victorian government has done on regional development and opportunities for regional growth and discuss how we can, as communities, value-add to that.

There are so many opportunities and it's reflected right across Australia. In my electorate alone, Tourism North East provides 27 per cent of the regional employment and is based largely on agriculture—on our food, our wine and the experience of coming to North-East Victoria. Something like $692 million is put into the economy. I could give you the figures on agricultural production, but it's about what we do with it, how we innovate and how we bring people to the country to enjoy the wonderful experiences we have to offer.

In my electorate, we've been told we need more collaboration, we need a lot more confidence, we need a hugely more skilled workforce and we need infrastructure. There are very specific recommendations that I constantly bring to this House. How are we going to collaborate in agriculture on research and development? How can we get the confidence of the university sector, the agricultural sector and the industry sector to take the risks that innovation needs? Having a skilled workforce is one of the huge issues that we face. How do we get the people we need with the knowledge we need in the area? Part of the significant failing has been the lack of a strategic approach to higher education in rural and regional Australia. It's an issue I take up with the Minister for Education and Training, in the Senate. I ask, 'Where's your strategic approach to growing the workforce that we need in the country?'

I was so disappointed in the way that much was made in the budget last night about how we're going to train doctors—that we have a network of university hubs to train doctors. That's well and good, and doctors are certainly useful when people are sick, but where's our strategic approach to training agricultural scientists? We don't have one. We've got such a shortage. A couple of years ago in Australia—the figures have changed a little bit since then—there were something like 600 agricultural scientist graduates a year and we had jobs for 5,000 of them. There's no workforce plan for this and there's no strategic approach for it. No-one even talks about it, and yet agriculture is just so important for the whole economy. I'm putting the call out to the minister to pay some attention to this. To members of the opposition: as we get ready for the next election, give some thought to what your agricultural research and development policy would be.

I want to take this opportunity to talk about two agricultural producers in my electorate who have done such amazing work. They're leading examples of agricultural research, innovation and creativity. They do such good work in employing local people, innovating with produce and then marketing it so well. I'd particularly like to note Gooramadda Olives. Gooramadda is near Rutherglen on the Murray River. Huge congratulations to Rob and Melanie White for the wonderful work they do. They've just been awarded an international prize at the New York International Olive Oil Competition. They should be so proud, not only for getting the international award—beating the Italians and everybody else in the world—but for being a family based business and competing on the international scene. They're locally based near Rutherglen, they're a tourist destination and they're the most fantastic contributors to our community. We know we can do so much more. I give a shout-out to them.

Another example I'd like to briefly mention to the House tonight is a different sort of business: the Australian Pumpkin Seed Company, which is near Myrtleford in the Ovens Valley. I give a shout-out to Sharan West-Rivett and her husband for the fantastic work they do in growing pumpkins for pumpkin seed. Out of the pumpkin seed, they make pumpkin oil and then they do magnificent work, not only with oil but with cooking. They value-add to all the other products, like hazelnuts. There are all sorts of other oils that you can now buy in the shop. They tell me that they have people growing pumpkins at Goondiwindi and right across Victoria. There's a huge opportunity to expand. If they grow, we won't have to import pumpkin seeds from overseas. It's just a small business, but it does such good work in employing people, acting as a tourist destination in the Ovens Valley and value-adding to our produce. It was a delight to go there and see the oil press actually operating, with the oil coming out of the pumpkin seeds. The paste left over is used in so many different ways. Nothing is wasted. This is a shout-out to Australian Pumpkin Seed Company on the terrific work, innovation, research and development they do and what leaders they are in agriculture. How proud I am to be your representative in parliament.

In bringing my comments to a close, what I really would like to say to Jay and Sharan, who do the work at Pumpkin Seed, to all the farmers in Indi and to all the people who work in agriculture: I'm certainly your advocate here. I take my role seriously to work with my colleagues on the other side, to work with the Labor Party, to work with the Greens and to have parliament understand that agriculture is the foundation for so much of our nation's wealth. But if we take our eye off the ball—if we let R&D go, if we don't have strategic long-term investment in innovation, workforce planning and value-adding, or if we get sucked down the road of marketing only—we will get to a dead end. If we haven't got the innovation or the creativity about our products, no amount of marketing is going to work for us on the world scale.

In closing, I say to my colleagues, to the advisers in the boxes tonight, to the minister—he is here—and to all of my colleagues around Australia who I know care so much about R&D: join me with this push. Can we encourage this minister to have a conference to call together R&D and actually look at a long-term strategic approach to how R&D in agriculture research can enable us to take our place as a leading industry in this nation.

Mr GEE (Calare) (16:41): I rise in support of the Primary Industries Research and Development Amendment Bill 2017. Our primary industries are one of the great strengths that we have as a nation, and they are also a key component of our economy—particularly our regional economies and the communities that they sustain. In the electorate of Calare we are blessed with talented people, bountiful natural resources and the can-do attitude to make the most of our opportunities. Our Australian farmers are, without doubt, the best in the world.

Ms McGowan: Hear, hear!

Mr GEE: I note the interjection and the endorsement and agreement of the member for Indi. I would also say, with respect to her previous comments: if you'd like to see agricultural research and development in action, come to Orange in the Calare electorate. More on that shortly.

For many years now, our Australian farmers have been amongst the world's most efficient growers of quality produce. They work hard, regularly investing in innovating to succeed, without the trade barriers and subsidies that exist in other countries. Our farmers are succeeding because they embrace the idea of doing things better, not just by working harder but by working smarter. Our agricultural sector is also, without a doubt, the world's best. But this doesn't just happen; a huge amount of work goes into making Australian agriculture such a success story. It starts on the farm but it includes a host of other organisations. Amongst these are our Commonwealth statutory research and development corporations, charged, in this case, with the development of cotton, grains, fisheries and other rural industries.

Australia's success increasingly depends on the discovery and distribution of knowledge across our agricultural sector. Thinking more broadly, this means not only do we have to share knowledge amongst growers and producers but we need to inform and persuade potential customers and consumers. While our research and development corporations help farmers to apply science to grow better fruit, grain, fibre or fish, they also need to communicate these advancements and their benefits within respective markets. Yet until now, four research and development corporations have been strictly limited to funding their marketing activities and efforts with industry-wide statutory marketing levies or fees levied on every single producer. These processes have, to date, involved consulting, reaching agreement and establishing and collecting levies. As my colleague the member for Cowper has previously noted, they have been very costly, time consuming and contrary to the ideal of speed to market. By freeing our research and development corporations to raise marketing funds through voluntary industry contributions, grants, gifts and even bequests, we'll enable our peak bodies to convert their research breakthroughs into higher agricultural sales and market share.

Central western New South Wales, including the Calare electorate, is at the vanguard of agricultural innovation in Australia, thus my invitation a short time ago to the member for Indi to come and visit. The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, based in Orange, does terrific work, and I'd like to bring to the attention of this House some pertinent examples of how industry collaboration and communication can quickly turn into commercial opportunity.

A New South Wales Department of Primary Industries team, including Dr Fay Haynes, Lloyd Kingham and Adam Coleman, recently worked with Local Land Services, New South Wales DPI offices of biosecurity and New South Wales DPI Agriculture to build long-term market resilience into our orchards and the orcharding industry. As part of this, the team introduced the use of irradiation-based treatment to completely assure the quality of our fruit to overseas customers. After this was introduced and proved with respect to our cherry trade with Indonesia, Vietnam accepted this use of irradiation within its own export protocols, and we've restored our market access there. I congratulate all of the parties who worked to achieve that goal and that important milestone in our agricultural exports. The upshot is that, when we demonstrate and communicate product innovation, industry costs can be lowered, markets can be opened and stabilised, and agricultural exports can be grown.

I also acknowledge the work of our farmers on the ground collaborating with the New South Wales DPI, including local New South Wales Farmers members who've worked with the DPI on this and many other programs. I make particular mention of the chair of the Orange branch of the New South Wales Farmers, Bruce Reynolds, Graham and Annette Brown, Guy and Sim Gaeta, Peter West and Joe Caltabiano. There are many others; they are just a few who have collaborated with the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries.

I spoke earlier of the need to market our agricultural breakthroughs to potential buyers of our produce. Just as important is the ability for research and development corporations to speed the uptake and adoption of their knowledge and intellectual property by our farmers. We're doing this in Calare with a specialised facility that enables ag-tech innovators and specialist firms to fast-track agricultural innovations to market. This initiative is called the Global Ag-Tech Ecosystem, or GATE. It's an incubator. It's a collaboration at Orange between the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Horticulture Innovation Australia, the Cotton Research and Development Corporation, and SparkLabs Cultiv8. The aim of the GATE is to facilitate all forms of Australian agriculture to gain greater access into global markets and, in particular, Asian markets and also to facilitate funding and investment. It's an ag-tech centre. It's based at the Orange Agricultural Institute, close to Orange's agricultural finance companies and institutions, which continue to grow in number and for which the area is becoming renowned.

I was present at the launch of the GATE. This initiative is unique and impressive. This is agriculture looking to the future. It highlights the energy and enterprise of those at the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries who drove it, but it also demonstrates that there are some very exciting things happening in country Australia. Many people were involved in the development of this initiative, but I'd particularly like to acknowledge the efforts of the director general of Department of Primary Industries, Scott Hansen, and the deputy director general, Michael Bullen.

I see this bill, which enables research and development corporations to operate more strategically in their marketing activities, as part of a broadening of their capability to respond properly to market circumstances and to capitalise on industry opportunities. As I said, there are some exciting developments. There are some exciting things happening in agricultural R&D and ag-tech innovation, and a lot of it is happening in the Calare electorate. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (16:49): The Primary Industries Research and Development Amendment Bill 2017 will allow the statutory rural research and development corporations—the fisheries, cotton, grains and rural industries R&D corporations—to conduct marketing using voluntary contributions. R&D corporations have helped to keep rural industries productive and profitable by conducting research, development and extension which are practical and relevant to each industry sector. New advances in science and technology provide great opportunities for Australian farmers.

Through its investments in research and innovation, this government is helping farmers to make the most of these opportunities. Together with rural industries, we invest over $600 million annually in the rural R&D corporations, and about $300 million of this is government funding that matches eligible R&D expenditure. In addition, the coalition government established the Rural R&D for Profit program to improve farm-gate productivity and profitability and deliver real outcomes for all Australian farmers.

Rural R&D for Profit drives collaboration between different industry sectors and leverages broader commercial and research funding. Total funding available for the program is $180.5 million over eight years ending in 2022. Grant funding of almost $114.7 million has been awarded to 36 projects over the first three rounds of the program, matched by almost $170 million in cash and in-kind contributions from successful applicants and their partners.

A number of industries have already seen benefit in having a single body guiding industry R&D and marketing—and most industry-owned corporations were established to also do marketing, I may add. Marketing has helped to build our pork, wool and red-meat industries, to name just a few, and expanded Australian access to international markets. There are 15 rural R&D corporations, of which 10 carry out marketing activities which provide a valuable service to their respective industry sectors. However, the four statutory R&D corporations can only conduct marketing activities if they receive a statutory marketing levy. The industry-owned R&D corporations that have chosen to undertake marketing don't have any such restriction. Establishing a statutory levy is expensive and, of course, can take some time.

Therefore, these amendments mean that the fisheries, cotton and grains industries and smaller rural industries, such as chicken, meat, honey, rice and pasture-seed industries, will be able to promote their products without the expense of establishing and collecting a statutory levy. Promoting their products has the potential to increase the size and value of those industries. Larger and more valuable primary industries are likely to be more self-sustaining and to provide flow-on benefits to the Australian community by creating employment and broader economic activity. The bill will also include 'an activity incidental to marketing' in the definition of 'marketing activities' to allow the R&D corporations to plan and consult about those respective activities.

Proactive industries are the future of Australian agriculture, fisheries and forestry. Industries that see an opportunity to promote their product grow their business and ultimately become more profitable. This bill will help a range of rural industry sectors to make it happen and is, of course, another demonstration of the government's commitment to implementing effective policies to ensure that Australian agriculture is achieving its full potential. I therefore commend the bill to the House.

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

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (16:54): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (16:55): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017. For the edification of the House and also those who may be listening, a working holiday-maker is an individual holding a subclass 417 working holiday visa or a subclass 462 work and holiday visa. To be eligible for these visa subclasses, applicants must be between 18 and 30 years of age and be from eligible partner countries. These visas allow holders to work in Australia while having an extended holiday for up to 12 months. It's really a cultural exchange and it's done for the purpose of amity between countries and to have people from overseas get to know the values and virtues of Australia.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016 passed parliament in late 2016 as part of a raft of bills better known as the backpacker tax package—and who could ever forget it? As part of the package, there was a requirement that set up a legislative framework allowing the taxation commissioner to establish a mandatory registration process for employers of working holiday-makers. Through this registration, businesses would be listed on the Australian Business Register as an employer of working holiday-makers and withhold tax from those employees at the correct rate of taxation. This meant there would be greater protections for working holiday-makers from exploitation at the hands of unscrupulous employers. However, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017 seeks to water down and strip away the provisions to protect working holiday-makers in Australia that passed parliament only at the end of 2016. In an attempt to quietly make good on a backroom deal that the government made with an Independent senator to pass the original legislation, the Turnbull government are with this piece of legislation throwing out everything they once stood for.

This comes at a time when there are significant, recurrent and highly publicised stories of working holiday-makers being exploited in regards to their wages, conditions, safety and entitlements. Regrettably, there have even been stories of vulnerable workers being exploited that have not been published or publicised. I've met with workers across the country in my role as the shadow minister for immigration and border protection, including in my home state of Queensland as well as in Bendigo, the Blue Mountains, Perth and elsewhere. What I've repeatedly heard in these meetings is that the current conservative government, the Turnbull government, isn't doing enough to protect vulnerable and migrant workers. Now, out of desperation to do a deal, this out-of-touch government will water down one of the very few protections backpackers have when it comes to their pay. Once again, only Labor will stand up to protect workers from exploitation, including Australian workers, working holiday-makers and any other overseas workers.

Labor will oppose this bill. This legislation is yet another example of the Turnbull government's back-pedalling. I'm sure everyone in this place and the other place can remember the painstaking back-and-forth negotiations about the backpacker tax at the end of 2016. We were forced to endure this because of the inability of the Turnbull government to govern and govern effectively. The prolonged process created uncertainty for farms across the country as well as potential working holiday-makers. The Prime Minister and the former Deputy Prime Minister, the member for New England, did everything they could to try and collapse over the finish line at the end of the 2016 parliamentary year.

With an odd sense of sense of deja vu or like a bad episode of The Twilight Zone, we're back again debating issues surrounding the backpacker tax. The reason we're here is that the government cut a deal with an Independent senator, a crossbencher. We know that, in exchange for the Independent senator's support of their preferred tax rate at the end of 2016, the Turnbull government agreed to weaken the original legislation before it had passed in the first place. In TheSydney Morning Herald on 13 December 2017, a spokesperson for the Treasurer said in relation to this bill:

The government agreed to introduce the amendment after reaching an agreement with the senator to pass the original WYHM—

working holiday-maker—

legislation.

This commitment did not extend to the successful passage of the amendment.

In other words, through the agreement, they agreed to introduce the amendment but they didn't make a commitment to actually see the successful passage of the amendment. You wonder what deal they really did make and how the crossbencher feels about it now.

It's been so long since the bill was first introduced on 16 February 2017 that it leaves me wondering why this legislation has been resurrected and why it's now before the House today. Could it be that the Independent senator is worried? Could it be that the government cut the deal in late 2016 and that particular Independent senator has now realised that the government failed to keep their end of the bargain? I really wonder. It is curious timing that this bill comes before the House at the same time as the government needs the support of the same Independent senator to get its $80 billion handout to the top end of town across the line. It is clear that cutting deals and selling out workers is the norm for the Turnbull government. It is very important to be sceptical of the government's motives in relation to this matter—and who knows?

The amendments before the House today will remove an avenue of protection for vulnerable workers and a method of ensuring greater transparency. It removes the requirement for the public listing of employers registered to employ working holiday-makers, which affects a backpacker's ability to log in online and choose an employer who will charge the correct level of tax each week. Without the ability to check this, backpackers could be out of pocket each week and have to wait until tax time to get their money back.

In an ironic twist, this legislation comes less than two months after the government's Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017 passed the House. It was a piece of legislation that Labor supported, because it went some way to protect vulnerable workers. They were good measures, but, by comparison, this bill is not a good measure. It sells out workers, it sells out backpackers and it diminishes their rights. Labor will oppose this callous undermining of migrant and backpacker workers—some of the most vulnerable and exploited workers in the country.

Let's look at the precise provisions of the bill. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017 amends the bill and A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999. There are also subsequent amendments to the Taxation Administration Act 1953. The amendments to A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999 repeal a certain provision. That provision, which is called paragraph 26(3)(jc), details whether or not an entity such as a business is registered under section 16-147 in schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the date of the said registration. The paragraph will be amended:

… to ensure that the Registrar of the Australian Business Register is not able to release publicly or otherwise provide working holiday maker employer information to a person who applies to have the entry in the Australian Business Register about an entity released to them.

In other words, it's about not releasing the information so that the working holiday-maker can't get that information about the entity which is registered in the Australian Business Register. It means that if someone specifically wants to make an inquiry about a potential employer, to see whether they are registered, the bill prohibits that information being released. The explanatory memorandum itself rails against transparency by explaining that, even when the information about the register is tabled in parliament, this reporting process will not identify any working holiday-maker employers.

The bill specifically goes out of its way to ensure that businesses and individuals who employ backpackers will never publicly be identified. If these businesses and employers are doing the right thing, what do they have to hide? Paragraph 26(3)(jd) details that, if an entity's registration to employ working holiday-makers has been cancelled, this paragraph will be repealed. What this means is that working holiday-makers in Australia will no longer be able to look up whether or not the business employing them is even registered to do so, heightening the risk of exploitation of backpackers. Even if a business has had its registration to employ working holiday-makers cancelled, working holiday-makers will not be able to access this information. The bill strips out vital protections for inherently vulnerable workers.

You only have to look at the explanatory memorandum for this piece of legislation to find out the Turnbull government's only plan to address possible exploitation of workers: expectation. The explanatory memorandum reads:

It would be expected—

expected!—

that … employers of working holiday makers would advise individual employees who are working holiday makers of their status as a registered working holiday maker employer.

It's expected that the employer will do the right thing. It simply beggars belief that the Turnbull government is denying working holiday-makers something it had previously promised to them, a public register that allows for visa holders to review who is registered for working holiday-maker programs, but is then expecting—expecting!—the business to do the right thing: to disclose their registration.

This register would have ensured that about 200,000 prospective working holiday-makers in Australia would be able to be paid appropriately before they even apply for work and have greater protections given the cases and instances of abuse and exploitation we have seen in public. Instead, the Turnbull government have sold out these workers and their protections, as they've done on so many occasions, such as when they failed to do anything about the cut to the penalty rates to some of Australia's lowest paid workers.

Working holiday-makers are vital to Australia's farmers and producers, our regional towns and our Australian economy. Throughout my electorate in the Somerset region and rural Ipswich, and indeed Ipswich central, tourism is a significant employer of local people, and working holiday-makers help keep local cafes, hotels and tourism operators in business. In the first year of their trip, those on a working holiday visa, subclass 417, can choose to do 88 days of specific work in regional Australia, which is more often than not doing seasonal agricultural work such as fruit picking or working in pubs or hostels, often in regional and remote locations. Fulfilling this 88-day requirement is one of the criteria to be eligible to stay for a visa for a second year. The main purpose of these visas, as I've said earlier in the speech, is a cultural exchange opportunity for young travellers who could work to pay their way throughout Australia.

The Turnbull government needs to be doing more to protect workers, especially vulnerable migrant workers and backpackers in regional areas specifically. I recently heard reports in Rockhampton, Gladstone and Cairns, where I was. These workers expressed to me their concerns about the lack of protection for working holiday-makers. There is the desire of locals for local workers to get the first shot at jobs, but locals in these regional areas are concerned as well about the exploitation they've either witnessed or heard about. Our temporary work visa program must not be used as a backdoor way to source cheap labour. It's essential that the government undertake strict labour market testing and temporary skilled workforce arrangements to ensure employers aren't favouring overseas workers over local Australian workers by undercutting wages.

It's important to note today that we had to drag the government kicking and screaming on labour market testing. In my time in this place, the coalition partners have never supported labour market testing. We fought them across two days in this chamber on labour market testing, and we had to defeat them in the Senate. Fortunately, the government has accepted reality and this morning accepted Labor's amendments. We welcome it. It's probably the first time in the 10 or 11 years I've been in this place that the Liberal and National parties have ever accepted labour market testing. Why? Because the budget requirement meant that they had to get their Skilling Australia Fund through. But we welcome their about-face. We also would welcome it, by the way, if they agreed to our 2016 plan for a fairer temporary work visa system, which we took to the last federal election. That's a measure to ensure that, no matter how a person is employed or which skilled visa a person works under, all workers are treated with fairness, respect and dignity.

Our commitment to the integrity of the skilled migration program was further strengthened when we announced in May 2017 that in government we would establish an Australian skills authority. That Australian skills authority would be an independent labour-market testing body that would ensure temporary work visas are only available when there's a genuine skills gap and no local workers can do the job. This ensures local workers get the first shot at a local job while ensuring that the temporary skilled migration program doesn't exploit vulnerable workers.

We implore the government not to weaken the legislation before the chamber today. We are very concerned on this side of the chamber of the potential exploitation or abuse of workers by the passage of this bill. We hear stories about these abuses reported in the media, by unions, by the Fair Work Ombudsman and by concerned industry bodies. The March 2016 report A national disgrace: the exploitation of temporary work visa holders details these abuses in length. The exploitation of these vulnerable workers shows that changes to the working holiday visa programs must offer better protection against unscrupulous employers seeking to take advantage of cheap and vulnerable labour. These are the people who visit Australia, travel around our country, see our stunning landscapes and experience our culture while working their way around the place. They can enter a small rural town, pick fruit and make some money. But, regrettably, they can fall into the most abhorrent exploitation by unscrupulous individuals and employers.

Some migrant workers have detailed their working conditions as slave labour, according to The Guardian. The report Wage theft in Australia found nearly 30 per cent of migrant workers surveyed as part of the National Temporary Migrant Work Survey were paid $12 an hour or less, well below the minimum wage. And news.com.au reported in May 2007 about Matt Workman, a chemist from the UK travelling in Australia with his girlfriend, who was verbally and physically abused by his supervisor. Mr Workman said:

Within our first two weeks at the farm, the supervisor has hit me on the arm and threatened to break my arms.

His negative experiences weren't limited to his time on the farm. The hostel he and his girlfriend stayed at was a place of anguish for fellow working holiday-makers. He told news.com.au:

I have seen people crying, people fear being sacked and kicked out of the hostel with nowhere to go in the middle of nowhere … It is impossible to make a complaint without risking being evicted without notice.

The UK government's Foreign and Commonwealth Office has provided advice online warning tourists heading to Australia on working-holiday visas that occasionally issues can arise. Well, it's far more than occasionally. It's simply not good enough, what the government has done in this space.

Any amendments to legislation that undermine Australia's work-holiday visa arrangements aren't amendments that should be considered in this place, and they shouldn't be supported. There have been claims of psychological and sexual exploitation. There wouldn't be a member in this place who hasn't had people come up to them and tell them about egregious exploitation. I know I have as a local federal member. Some of the most terrible exploitation I've heard in country towns, when I've been doing mobile offices. Even in Ipswich I've heard shocking examples of sexual exploitation and intimidation. In July 2017, the ABC's Australian Story shared the story of backpackers who'd been exploited working on Australian farms. A Canadian backpacker, Chelsey, was offered a job on a grape farm in Mildura. She had to fight off a farmer—her employer—as he attempted to sexually assault her. Marcel, a German backpacker who arrived in Australia in late 2006, lost his left thumb in an accident on his first day on the job in a sweet potato farm in Bundaberg. He said:

The machine had been switched off but was switched on again very quickly and my hand was trapped. When I pulled out my hand my left thumb was missing … I had never done this sort of work before and we were given no more than a 15 or 30 second safety induction.

A 15- or 30-second safety induction is outrageous. Your heart goes out to these people. Recently I met with the members of the National Union of Workers in Melbourne and Bendigo, hearing their personal stories of exploitation. They had faced shocking exploitation at the hands of unscrupulous employers.

While these stories definitely do not occur on every farm across Australia—and there are good employers; we know that—we should do everything in our power, in this place, to ensure that unscrupulous employers aren't able to taint the entirety of the agricultural sector. One way we can do this is by making sure these workers know about things. Knowledge is important. Knowledge is powerful. Knowledge is an anti-exploitation measure. This bill removes that knowledge.

The amendment bill before the House is proof that the Turnbull government can't be trusted on protecting workers, especially working holiday-makers. We believe in a fair day's work. We believe it deserves a fair day's pay with proper conditions to match enjoyed by everyone who works in this country. Labor's plan for a fairer temporary work visa system, which we took to the last election, included measures I urged the government to adopt. We need to ensure that the Working Holiday Maker Program is appropriately regulated and that allegations and instances of abuse and exploitation are properly investigated. We need to properly resource the Fair Work Ombudsman and we need the political will to clamp down on exploitation. The Turnbull government needs to take the abuse of working holiday-makers more seriously and ensure that visa holders aren't having their wages, their workplace safety and conditions or their entitlements exploited.

Having a register of employers registered for employing working holiday-makers is a step in the right direction in cracking down on the exploitation of workers at the hands of employers who are not doing the right thing. It gives migrant workers the chance to make an informed choice, with knowledge about who they should work for and how their weekly take-home pay will be affected by that choice. Instead, this government has opted to go down the path of cheap political trade-offs and pointscoring. It's a government that's prepared to cut a backroom deal on an $80 billion handout to millionaires, to multinationals. The government did a deal with an Independent senator at the end of 2016, and today we're debating the outcome of that deal. It's a play from the playbook of the Liberal and National Parties, which Labor will always stand up against. Only Labor will stand up against the exploitation of workers, including migrant workers, working holiday-makers or other people who come to this country. We will not support this bill. Knowledge is power.

Ms PRICE (Durack—Assistant Minister for the Environment) (17:16): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employment Register) Bill 2017, but it is so disappointing to hear that the opposition has chosen not to support this bill. This is an issue I've been very vocal about as it has made its journey through this place. Backpackers are a vital component of life in regional and remote areas in Australia and they are often the lifeblood of many small country towns who struggle with the unique requirements of businesses in regional Australia.

This bill is the final act of this parliament in wrapping up this holiday-maker issue. We have agreed to changes following the crossbench agreement with respect to guaranteeing support for this legislation. This bill seeks to commit that employer registration information about working holiday-maker employers will not be made publicly available, and the Commissioner of Taxation will only be able to disclose this protected information to the Fair Work Ombudsman if an entity is suspected of noncompliance with a taxation law. This sensible proposal aims to encourage those businesses who take on working holiday-makers and to alleviate their fears that the government might have been overreaching its oversight of backpackers. As long as businesses who hire working holiday-makers are doing the right thing, doing what they're supposed to do, there should be nothing to fear in that respect. All employers of working holiday-makers will still be required to register themselves with the Australian Taxation Office. Registered employers will be able to withhold tax at the new working holiday-maker rate of 15 per cent from the first dollar of income up to $37,000. This amendment to the original backpacker tax bill does not affect the requirement of the ATO to report this information annually to the Treasurer for presentation to the parliament. This reporting process involves aggregate employer information and will not identify any working holiday-maker employers.

The working holiday-maker reform package passed by parliament last year, which I spoke on in this place, included four elements, the first being that, from 1 January 2017, all working holiday-makers were to be taxed at 15 per cent from the first dollar earned up to $37,000 and then, following that, the usual taxation rates would apply. From 1 January 2017, only registered employers are entitled to withhold tax at the 15 per cent tax rate. From July 2017, the rate of tax on the departing-Australia superannuation payment for working holiday-makers would be increased to 65 per cent. From July, the passenger movement charge would be increased by $5 per non-exempt passenger, up to $60 per passenger.

I recall speaking on this issue some time ago, as we've heard from the Labor Party, when this House passed the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016. The amendment we're discussing today strikes a very fine balance between taxing working holiday-makers at the appropriate level for the work they do and continuing to attract them to Australia. As a government, we had to ensure that we did not create the situation that members opposite had proposed whereby working holiday-makers were being taxed less than their Australian counterparts. This, by now, is pretty much par for the course when we're dealing with the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was in charge as the minister, was the world champion or the Olympic champion or the Commonwealth champion when it came to issuing 457 visas and taking those Australian jobs.

On this side of the House, we stand up for jobs and we certainly stand up for regional communities. I'd like to acknowledge the many fabulous initiatives in the budget that we heard the Treasurer discuss last night and today. I believe 100 per cent that it's a very good budget for regional Australia. We believe in creating policies that allow regional towns and cities to grow and prosper, and, in truth, many of these towns survive because of the backpackers. I think it goes without saying that we want Australians to take those Australian jobs, but that is not always possible. Backpackers fulfil roles that many locals simply do not want to do. Perhaps this is an area of welfare reform we really need to take seriously—ensuring that Australians who are on welfare take jobs where there are jobs. But that is not the case that we face here today.

The regional communities that I represent have working holiday-makers performing every role imaginable just to keep the wheels of the Western Australian tourism industry running, without a doubt. There are some stunning statistics around what the working holiday-makers are doing when they're working and travelling around regional Australia. They may only stay in towns that they're working in for a short time to fulfil their visa commitments, but they are more likely to donate their time to organisations in those towns, they are more likely to spend their money and contribute to the economy of that town and they are more likely to do the jobs that others in the town won't do. They are indeed a very, very critical asset to keeping regional communities alive. You'd be hard-pressed not to be served by a backpacker if you went to buy a beer, a coffee or a hotel room somewhere in my electorate, so they are critically important to my seat of Durack. These hardworking young people are a resource that regional Australia simply cannot live without, and we need to stand up and advocate for the hard work that they do.

This is a result that I and many of my fellow regional Liberals—my good friend here, the assistant minister and member for Hinkler, the members for Barker, Forrest, O'Connor and Canning and many of my other colleagues—fought very hard for to make sure that we improved the lot of the backpackers and ensured that critical resource was maintained. All too often, regional Australia is overlooked and forgotten. I'm very proud that I've been able to work with the members on this side to bring this chapter to an end. The fact that this policy has already been implemented, not eight months after the election last year, is stunning. I think it indicates how important we on this side believed reform in this area to be. We are a government that's committed to responsible management of our regional communities, the backpackers who work in them and the employers who employ them.

This amendment seeks to address a couple of the key concerns of many business owners, such as that their private business information will become public. The government has heard and acknowledged their concern, and has amended the legislation accordingly—that's what this bill seeks to address. The rationale for the establishment of the register in the first place was to protect young working holiday-makers from exploitation. Young people travelling from abroad and working in Australia for the first time are particularly susceptible to predatory employers. This government has been listening to working holiday-makers' concerns and their horror stories of being trapped in communities by these predatory employers that we hear far too much about, exploiting them for cheap labour and housing them in less-than-livable hostels. But this government has addressed that concern. We are now marketing Australia as amongst the most attractive destinations in the world for young holiday-makers to live and to work.

Make no mistake: we are competing against other nations to appeal to these young people—countries like Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. All of these countries have robust taxation systems designed to give working holiday-makers a low tax bracket. The good news is that we know that our wages are higher, our economy is stronger and our growth is faster. We can compete on an international level with these countries. Australia is leading the pack in more ways than one, but we need to ensure that we remain competitive, because we need these young people as part of our resource pool of workers.

This has been a fabulous result and is a testament to the hard work and the dedication of many regional and Liberal members in this place. As I said at the outset, I'm particularly disappointed that the Labor Party have decided not to support this bill. We on this side do support this bill. This bill is very sensible, and it certainly supports the employers and alleviates their concerns. This whole initiative is a great credit to those on this side—especially the regional members here—who support those regional communities who desperately need the backpacker community. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Mr SWAN (Lilley) (17:27): I rise to oppose the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017, which seeks to strip away protections from a uniquely vulnerable group of people in Australia, working holiday-makers. This bill is ripped, if you like, straight out of the trickle-down playbook of the Turnbull government. To businesses who wish to employ working holiday-makers, the Turnbull government says, 'We'll quietly remove the need for you to publicly list on the Australian Business Register.' The Turnbull government says to these businesses: 'You can be a nonentity. You can employ working holiday-makers, treat them however you like and pay them whatever you like.'

Instead of shedding light on the galling practices of these employers, the Turnbull government is going to shed darkness. That's par for the course with this government. At the mention of any movement towards the bright light of transparency, whether it's for big business or for shonky operators, the government recoils like a vampire. The government sides with shonky operators, basically because it's prepared to tolerate this exploitation. We've seen them oppose Labor's moves on tax transparency. When we proposed that public companies tell us what they pay in tax, the coalition ran away from the light. We saw their resistance to transparency, indeed, in the parliament this afternoon, when the Treasurer couldn't or wouldn't reveal the cost of his company tax cuts or the yearly cost of the income tax cuts. We're seeing it in this bill as well. It is a chance for the Turnbull government to step into the light and expose employers who overwork, underpay, harm and mistreat working holiday-makers in this country.

Labor will not take a backward step in exposing and opposing the practices of these businesses. We will expose and oppose the practices of the Turnbull government, as they are, in some instances, allied with exploitative employers. This bill is merely another bungle that the Turnbull government has banged on the back of the backpacker tax. The package that passed the parliament in 2016 required a mandatory registration process for employers of working holiday-makers. Visa holders could check the public register to see if a business was a legitimate employer of working holiday-makers. There are real concerns about the unconscionable exploitation of working holiday-makers by some businesses.

This bill strips working holiday-makers of the ability to look up details of a registered employer and will affect their ability to choose an employer who will charge the correct level of tax and pay them a fair wage. The register was one aspect of the original bill that did allow for greater protection of working holiday-makers against exploitation. Given the significant cases of exploitation in this area, that is why we stand in strong opposition to this bill.

The Turnbull government claims to be the champion of choice, but of course it says for big business, 'You're free to choose,' but it says to workers: 'You're simply free to lose. You're free to lose your hard-fought-for penalty rates for weekend work and overtime. You're free to lose your sense of job security, whether that's safety at work or the security of having a job at all. And you're free to lose your job if the employer can find and exploit a migrant worker who can do it cheaper and who won't complain.'

In this country, almost one in six Australians are underemployed or want to work more hours. One in six—that's almost 1.9 million Australians on the fringes of the labour market in this country. And, if you're aged 15 to 24, you have a one in three chance of wanting more work. That is 660,000 Australians. These numbers are the shame of this government.

We had a chance to reflect on these matters this weekend in Queensland. Last Monday was Labour Day. It was a chance for the labour movement to reaffirm what history tells us: working people can make a difference, and working people can change a country. All of the great reforms of the 20th century came from the labour movement, the unions and the Labor Party working together: a decent minimum wage, Medicare, a fairer and more progressive tax system, a strong voice for working people—the list is long. On Labour Day we acknowledged that the labour movement frequently has to defeat powerful vested interests that seek to crush the voice of the people. Indeed, this bill has been subject to the power of those powerful vested interests in the amendments we are debating today.

For us it's a difficult task because we have to organise against people who are well funded, wealthy and powerful corporations who control the public megaphone, who seek to drown out our voice. But on this side of the House we choose to fight those people, to take them on in the parliament and particularly to take on those who run the Turnbull government, including the cheerleaders and puppeteers in the Business Council of Australia.

In recent years, I've focused a lot on these issues in the parliament. I've talked a lot about the imbalance of power, the imbalance of influence and the imbalance of class. It's not because I'm particularly chippy or resentful, and it's not because I've become a Marxist. It's simply because class is now a live issue in our nation, and I see it pounding the lives of people in the community I represent and around the country. I see it with my constituents. I see it in the youth unemployment figures. I see it in the insecure work which now comprises something like 40 per cent of the workforce. It is a real issue in Australia. It's changing our politics, and it's changing our society.

I've been particularly fired up about it since the global financial crisis because what I have found in our country is something that is quite ugly. It's something that I wasn't prepared to have found but something that I've seen that is new. That is a growing self-interest and arrogance of what I would call an overpaid and overpowerful corporate elite, who are generally the people who are dictating the policies of the Turnbull government. These people have been in the dock at the royal commission into banking throughout the last few weeks. Their arrogance and their blindness of affluence has infected corporate life in Australia.

Of course, these are the people that working people have to deal with every day. They seek to bolster their self-interest at every turn. The culture of too many boardrooms is not just selfish but now obviously ranks with malpractice, as we have seen at the royal commission. There's a sick race to the bottom going on to minimise tax, to casualise their workforces—all the way through that process, barracking for lower wages and, of course, cuts to investments in health and education.

In office, and over the last five years, the Labor Party in this parliament has fought for the big structural reforms that we need to secure a prosperous and fairer economy and society. But at no stage through any of that process have the overpowered corporate elite who run this government put their hand up for the very big structural long-term reforms that are required to secure our future. They wouldn't stick their hand up for negative gearing, a sensible price on carbon, the Gonski education reforms—the list is long. What we do see in Australia, like the rest of the developed world for that matter, is a capitalist economy which is dominated now by a plutocratic family model backed up by an overpowered and overpaid corporate elite. They do want an economy run by the rich, for the rich, and that's what we're getting. And nothing from the budget last night sticks out more than the obscene tax changes put in place to flatten the progressive tax system and hand massive tax cuts to people who earn incomes like ours and well above.

When I was growing up, my father had an attitude about the world he lived in. He went to war. He came back. He was distrustful of the big banks and the big oil companies. His generation had witnessed the Depression and the Second World War. They fought for freedom when they went overseas. They came back. They had plans for a big society, a great society, in which the fruits of that economy were fairly shared amongst working people. They fought for that. They changed it. They fought for it and they were successful.

Over the last 30 years, that has been wound back. The beneficiaries have been a relatively small elite on very high incomes who dictate this government's budget and dictate this government's tax policy. It was there last night in black and white for everybody to see the rank unfairness of it—the destruction of the personal progressive income tax system, where someone on $37,000 would pay the same rate as someone on $200,000! To present that budget to this parliament in an environment where there is growing inequality around the world, which is polarising politics, is simply insane. It shows you how far to the right those opposite have drifted and how far they have come from the national interest.

In this simple bill this one amendment that we are objecting to today says it all. Why couldn't there be a register so we can stamp out malpractice? Why couldn't that continue in the bill? I'll tell you why. It's because some vested interest got hold of them, or some loony in the Senate dictated to them that it must be changed. What I really find troubling about our country, and particularly the activities of organisations like the Business Council, is that at every turn they smear collective action. At every turn they smear the role and importance of government and, in particular, collective action from trade unions. They tell a great lie about our society. They say it's divided between makers and takers. This Ayn Rand view of the world goes to the core of where they come from, how they make policy and how they present their budgets. Of course, they are the makers. And they just think the takers should take what they can get—and business should of course do whatever they want. And that goes back to the amendment in this bill.

We on this side of the House know we need collective action. We know we need unions. There's a power imbalance in our country. Franklin Roosevelt said it all in the 1930s:

Our first truth is that the liberty of democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself.

They are very profound words—and very profound public action flowed from those words. Progressive taxation came from those words. Breaking up monopolies came from those words. The union movement came from those words. But this government is now controlled by trickle-downers and plutocrats. F. Scott Fitzgerald said of plutocrats: 'They think they're better than we'—that is, they think they are the wealth creators and the rest of us are just leaners, hanging around.

Today, I want to say very clearly in this House that history shows that working people can make a difference, and we'll make a difference again. We will run down this budget because of its rank unfairness and because there is a profound sense of unease, insecurity and unfairness in our society. This bill before us today is a reaffirmation of why we need a strong labour movement that's proud of its history and unapologetic about where it stands and who it represents: the economic interests of working people. History will be made again as we turn back the trickle-down policies of this extreme right-wing government that occupies the government benches.

Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (17:40): That was no doubt a vintage performance from the member for Lilley, pitching and showing quite plainly that the Labor Party is moving further to the left, fears the by-elections that are approaching it and is determined to make a stand against the Greens. He closed off by saying that this government, the Turnbull government, is an extreme right-wing machine. It is not a view that is shared by the entire electorate. I think this government is entirely centrist, so I reject those remarks completely. But it was very stirring. It would have been very good when he was at university.

On the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017, let me speak for a start about working holiday-makers in my electorate of Grey. They are absolutely essential. I'm not sure they should be, but they certainly are, as seasonal farm workers and fruit pickers, working in small wineries, as harvest helpers in the grains industries and working at grain receival sites. Many of them just would not operate without the backpackers, quite frankly. They work as jackaroos on remote pastoral properties and as shed hands.

But probably the most critical of those backpacker workers in my electorate are those that work in the tourism and hospitality industry, particularly those that work in the more remote areas. Let me say that if we go north of Port Augusta—a very important tourist area for South Australia and the nation, with the northern Flinders Ranges and towns like Coober Pedy, Innamincka and Oodnadatta—you would be well aware of them. These are important places. They are important service spots just so people of this nation and overseas nations can explore our outback. By and large, the operators that work in those areas provide quality service. There are some very good and luxurious tourism operators that work in these areas. But, quite frankly, they just cannot get Australian workers to take the jobs. Often they are not full-time jobs, because the tourist industry gets pretty quiet over the summer months when the temperature gets up towards 50 degrees, but they need a source of labour.

It's a constant conundrum to me as the member for Grey that we just can't entice our young unemployed people to have a go, to venture forth, to leave the fires of home and to go and have a look what the Australian outback looks like, or other areas for that matter. This could be the most important step of their lives. At this stage, the latest figures I can find are that we have about 14 per cent youth unemployment in most of the centres across Grey. Starting your working life with a long period of unemployment is likely to have lifetime ramifications. You can imagine. An employer advertises a job. A 23- or 24-year-old wanders in, having finished education at high school, and the employer says to him, 'What have you been doing for the last five or six years?' 'Well, nothing. I've been unemployed.' They will go immediately to the back of the queue, because that potential employer thinks this person can't get out of bed. It may not be a fair assumption, but it is a hole on the potential employee's CV. It could be filled by all kinds of opportunities that exist out there in the economy. It may be in the part-time economy, but often those jobs lead to fuller jobs. So I don't know why we cannot seem to excite that young, unattached brigade to go and have a go. I sat next to a woman—I don't want to offend her, but she was around 30 years old—up at Coober Pedy just last weekend. She had left the city. She wanted a job. She went out and had a go. She can now drive a four-trailer road train. What a story! She said, 'I'm having a go at being a jackeroo at the moment.' Being prepared to get out and have a go has turned this individual, who was a city liver, into someone with wide experience. That's what our youth should be doing.

I know we're speaking about the backpacker trade here now, but I draw this link because it is of great concern to me when I see so many people not taking opportunities to enhance their lives and to grow their possibilities. I ran a survey for 18- to 30-year-olds a couple of years ago. One of the questions I asked was: if there is no employment near where you live, should you be expected to move to find a job? It was very concerning to me that over 70 per cent of those replied no. It really makes you wonder what their expectation of the world is. Is it that the government should supply a job? To do a job you actually need a chore; you need a task. Governments can do that, and some governments have done it in the past—they supply the job of digging a hole and then they get another gang to fill it in again. But if you want proper employment you need to be doing a useful task. It concerns me that 70 per cent of those young people said, 'No, I think somebody should find a job for me close to home.' It's very concerning because all these jobs exist, but we are having to use imported labour to fill them, largely through the backpacker trade.

Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, you're around my vintage, so I'm sure you would remember Professor Julius Sumner Miller. As the American professor would have said: why is it so? It is a great conundrum. Why is it so? Why can't we galvanise these people? I don't want to get drawn into the debate and I've certainly wandered a fair way off the topic today, but it is interesting that some have been making the case for lifting the Newstart allowance, and they're perfectly entitled to do so. By the same token, we can't get people to take that risk and have a go, and it just makes you wonder what the drivers are. Where's the compelling piece of government policy that will get people to engage? At the end of the day, I strongly back the case for the businesses in these remote communities that can't get people to work with them, because Australians, for whatever reason, don't particularly like that line of work, to be able to access this itinerant, if you like, occasional labour pool.

This bill does address some of the issues that have arisen as a result of striking a withholding tax that is applicable, especially to holiday-makers. That rate, of course, is 15 per cent on the first $37,000 of income. For an employer to apply this rate, they must be registered as a working holiday-maker visa employer. The alternative for that employer, if they choose not to be registered, is to withhold 32 per cent, so it's an obvious incentive for working holiday-makers to seek out employment with these employers. This bill and the working holiday-maker employer register are designed to make sure they are not exploited. Most employers—certainly the ones I know—do the right thing. They are very pleased to have these people on staff and treat these employees as we would expect them to be treated. But we're all aware of some very high profile cases where that has not been the case. They've been highlighted on some very high profile television shows. This government has no tolerance at all for that kind of behaviour.

This legislation and the establishment of the working holiday-maker employer register are about stamping out that type of behaviour and empowering the worker. It links employers to the tax office. They will supply their employer records to the tax office so that government, through the tax office, can monitor what they're doing. We will know where to watch for those people who are likely to exploit this labour force. We will be on their case. I have no tolerance for it—absolutely none—and that view is shared by my colleagues.

Empowering workers reduces the likelihood of abuse. Less offending means better support from the public for this very important workforce contribution. To explain that, if we had high-profile cases popping up on television and showing the exploitative nature of employers, public support for backpackers working in Australia would basically fall away and the businesses that rely on this labour force would be at threat. Like most things with government, it's important that we get it right so the public has faith in what the government, the legislation and the bureaucracy are doing. At the end of the day, this workforce supports very viable and very important businesses that sit in my electorate and every other electorate around Australia, I should imagine, but particularly in regional and remote electorates.

I support the opportunity for people to come to Australia on a holiday, work while they're here, learn a bit about our culture—some people would say that in some places they would learn about the lack of culture—and learn that we are people who respect all who come to this nation and that we look after them properly while they're here. I support the legislation.

Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (17:51): Here we are again, having to deal with the government's incompetence when it comes to backpackers and backpacker visas in this country. It was on budget night a few years ago when we sat here in horror as the Treasurer announced a 32 per cent tax rate for backpackers, which of course we knew would decimate the labour that is required on our farm industries. From beginning to end, this government have been appalling when it comes to backpackers and the backpacker tax. It demonstrates that they completely misunderstand the purpose of the visa and why people come here. Originally, people came here on a working holiday for a cultural exchange. Young people under 30 would come over here independently and they'd work a bit and they'd travel a bit. But it has changed dramatically, and the government have just incentivised that in so many ways.

Labor is opposed to this legislation for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is that it is a dirty deal. It is a deal that ensures the exploitation of holiday-makers, and people wanting to understand more about a potential employer will find it hidden. We need more transparency in this sector, not less. We all have seen the horror stories brought out by the media. I want to acknowledge the role the media has played in exposing some of the absolutely heartbreaking experiences of guest workers and holiday-makers in this country. In the agricultural sector there have been some horrific examples of exploitation, threats of violence, violence and, in some cases, sexual assault.

I want to acknowledge that it is not all growers. In fact, most growers and producers are outraged by the exploitation. I met last week with AUSVEG and the VFF at a roundtable in Melbourne. They said, 'We need to end this stain on our industry. These dodgy growers are making it hard for the rest of us.' One of the other comments that was made by AUSVEG and the VFF was that we need to find a skilled workforce that can work on our farms every year. The problem is that the government have made our ag industry beholden to one visa. They have failed to come up with a decent agricultural workforce policy. For a lot of our farmers, this is the only access that they have to labour, not just for harvest but all year round. Some of the growers in Victoria say that they feel like they're camp counsellors. Backpackers rotate around farms trying to get their 88 days. They don't have to work for just one employer for the 88 days. Farmers may hire someone in good faith and invest in the training, and after four days or 10 days that person quits because they've reached their 88 days and they can get their visa extension. That's just one of the problems with the way in which this visa has been constructed. We all remember the debate. It was the Farmers' Federation and the growers saying, 'Do not touch our backpackers.' But designs in the way this government have changed this visa mean that fewer and fewer people are working on the farms.

One of the other changes that the government had as part of this package was allowing backpackers to qualify for the extension, to do their 88 days, by working in northern Australia. So as a young backpacker over here you've got the choice: pick fruit or pull beers. Guess what they're doing, Deputy Speaker? They are working in the pubs and hospitality outlets in northern Australia. They are not going out and doing the hard work on farms. Why would you? If you get to qualify for the second year, why would you go work in agriculture? I can understand why our farmers feel cheated when it comes to this government and how they've behaved around the backpacker tax.

There is a lack of absolute transparency when it comes to backpackers and their experiences. The Fair Work Ombudsman doesn't have enough resources to investigate the exploitation that is going on in the sector. This is why this bill is before us. It's going to make it harder for there to be transparency.

The other problem that we have with the backpacker visa is the fact that it is now being used as a labour visa. We have people coming in in bulk numbers from places like Taiwan, Korea and Bulgaria, and working in industries where they are literally taking jobs from locals. There is a renewable energy solar farm that is being built outside of Townsville by 400 Bulgarian backpackers. No young, local, unemployed people in Townsville were given that job opportunity. No local electricians were given an opportunity to train and recruit apprentices. There are no Australian workers on that job; just 400 Bulgarian backpackers. When they finish that job, they'll be put on a plane and sent somewhere else.

The backpacker visa in this country is being used as a backdoor to cheap labour. We have to look at what is happening in our food processing and manufacturing sectors. Don KR and Hardwick Meatworks are in my electorate. Don KR had a union collective agreement where casuals were being paid a certain rate. Then they found out that they could use a labour hire firm that paid the award rate. The difference between the award rate and the union rate was $5 an hour. So those workers got ripped off and the locals lost jobs, but it's completely legal. The way in which backpacker labour is being used in our country to undermine collective agreements and to undermine locals for local jobs is simply outrageous. Yet what we've got before us is not a bill that addresses that issue; what we have before us is the cover-up—the cheap deal that they've done in the Senate. That's what we've got before us.

Then there is the example of Hardwick. Hardwick is a meat processor in my electorate. They directly employ all of their backpackers. They said, 'If we have to have people who are here on working holiday visas, we will at least pay them the same as the other workers.' Credit to them for doing that. However, they are now struggling to recruit people because of a quasi relationship. Because of the way in which labour hire recruits these overseas backpackers to come into our country, they now are struggling to get access to people coming in. In saying that, another thing I want to acknowledge about Hardwick is that they are a bit like our farmers in that they would actually prefer to have permanent residents working in these jobs. Recently they hired a number of Karen refugees who, through our humanitarian program, have settled in Bendigo in central Victoria. They are now recruiting Hazaras who have settled in Bendigo in central Victoria. They are now starting to take on some of this work. The last time I visited Hardwick, just a few weeks ago, they had six backpackers come on and six backpackers leave. The constant cost involved in training backpackers to work in food manufacturing, agriculture and other industries because they are trying to satisfy their 88 days is costing business a lot, and it is costing productivity.

This is the problem for this government. It is always just short-sighted policy. They're not thinking long term about work and having a skilled workforce. They're not working with industry to say, 'What are your labour gaps?' The previous speaker said, 'I don't understand why we can't get young Australians to work in these industries.' It is probably because you've gutted TAFE. Even last night, in your budget, you cut an extra $270 million from TAFE. It is probably because you've completely smashed regional universities. It is probably because you've broken the trainers that connect young people to the jobs that exist. You've not only done that—it's a double whammy—you've also created the incentive for labour hire companies to come in and undercut the collective agreements that exist in these places.

What we need to get back to in this country is this visa coming back to its original purpose: allowing young people to come here for a working holiday, work and travel. We have reciprocal rights, with young Australians going over to the UK. But what we are seeing happening with people on this visa is either exploitation or cheap sources of labour. It really concerns me when I hear examples of people who are working in social work for the New South Wales not-for-profit sector. They're working as social workers, and the visa that allows them to work as social workers is the working holiday-maker visa. That's not a cultural experience. We have serious issues in our country if the only way that you can engage someone to work in an industry is through a backpacker visa.

We have to have a serious look. If we have a skills shortage in our country, what is wrong with recruiting someone to give them the opportunity to live here permanently? Why make them go through the process of working for two different employers for six months? Why make them go through the process of working in northern Australia or in agriculture for 88 days? If there is a skills shortage in an industry, let's be serious about that. Let's work out if we can train local workers for it and, if we can't get locals to do the job, let's look for someone who's from overseas but give them the chance to permanently move here. Give them the chance to stay.

All employers of working holiday-makers are still required under this proposal to register with the ATO to ensure that they pay their tax. However, it removes the ability for a working holiday-maker to look up the details of their employer to make sure that they are paying the correct level of tax and are an employer of choice. Senate inquiry after Senate inquiry has exposed the exploitative nature of this visa. We as a country need to get serious about cracking down on that exploitation, but nothing before us deals with that. The backpacker tax is one of the biggest failures of this government in the way in which it has decimated the workforce that our farmers and the agricultural industry need, and the way in which it has been exploited and is literally taking locals from local jobs.

There's a lot of talk at the moment about meat processing. I used the example of my electorate, but in the electorate of New England there are 100 per cent labour hire meat processors in that electorate, with people who are here on a backpacking visa. Those workers have come here to make money and to take it home. That's a long way from the original intent of the visa, which was about a cultural exchange. The way in which this visa is being exploited and manipulated by big business is wrong. If we have a skills shortage or a labour shortage in this country, as I have said, and we cannot fill it with local workers first then we should look at a visa, but a visa that is fair and that gives people the opportunity to migrate here.

We are a country that's been built on migration: Ten Pound Poms and our postwar migrants that came here. People came here as skilled migrants and, if they left the country, we said, 'Okay, we've sponsored you; now you have to hand it back.' Today the experience for migrants is much, much worse. Today the experience for migrants is too often a series of visas which see them exploited. As a country, we have to get serious about how we manage migration. This bill that the government has put forward, as I've said, is basically trying to push it further underground. It is going to make it harder for workers to understand and know more about their employers. Given these significant cases of exploitation, Labor is saying we strongly oppose the measures in this bill. We have to have transparency. We have to give young people who are here as guest workers the opportunity to know who their employer is. We also have to review the exact nature of this visa. It has to be restored to its original intent, which is about a cultural exchange. I do share sympathy with our good growers that are out there and with employers like Hardwicks, who are now struggling to recruit people to come and work because of the changes that this government has made.

When I was in Cairns a few weeks ago meeting with workers about problems with labour hire, I met a young woman who actually was working in Indigenous health. She's over here from the United States. For her to stay for the second year, though, she had to work 88 days in hospitality. It just doesn't make sense. Once upon a time, she would have gone and worked on a farm, but why would she, given that she can work in hospitality? We have to get serious about our migration program in this country. We also have to get serious about this visa. It needs to be restored to its original intent of being a cultural exchange, a holiday-making visa. We want to see an end to the situation which we have at the moment where big labour-hire firms are recruiting bulk numbers of workers to come over here and work in areas which young Australians could be working in. Young Australians do want to work at Hardwicks. Young Australians do want to work at Don KR. Young Australians do want to be social workers and work as schoolteachers. But, at the moment, they can't, and, in many cases, it's because of the exploitation of backpackers.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (18:06): I'll make a brief contribution. I, of course, acknowledge my good friend the member for Moreton for giving me the opportunity to jump the queue. I'm taking that opportunity for a couple of reasons. The first is that those opposite seem to have a bit of a memory of convenience around this issue. I've sat through about 60 minutes of this debate now, and the way that it's been put is that action has been taken by people like the AWU. It wasn't the Australian Workers' Union. It's been put that action has been taken by people like the now CFMMEU. It wasn't them. It might have been United Voice. I can tell you that it wasn't United Voice. It wasn't any of those organisations. The crackdown on the exploitation of foreign workers in this country commenced with my colleagues on this side of the House.

As one of the speakers said in recent contributions, there have been any number of reports into this issue. There have been Senate reports after Senate reports, inquiries and standing committees right back to the late 1990s, when it was raised by the former member of this House Philip Ruddock. But what I can tell you is that some of my colleagues, including the now Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the now Deputy Prime Minister, Mr McCormack, and my good friend and colleague in the other place Senator Barry O'Sullivan, kicked this off with industry, calling for direct action and, in particular, a multijurisdictional task force to crack down on exploitation of foreign workers in this country. That is precisely what happened.

We worked our way through this with industry. We consulted with them as to what they needed. What they didn't need was more red tape. What they didn't want was more people affecting how they work and what their operations are each and every day—delivering jobs and, of course, building the economy in this country. So the multijurisdictional task force we called for at the federal Nationals conference some years ago, with unanimous support, was delivered by this government. Taskforce Cadena has been a real success in cracking down on foreign worker exploitation in this country. If you wanted to look at one case in particular, it would be that of one Mr Emmanuel Bani and the people from Vanuatu who he exploited, who he left on the side of the road, who ended up in my office, who hadn't been paid for months, who were disregarded and left without their passports. The absolute outcome of that is Mr Bani has found himself in court. He has been prosecuted successfully, as he should have been. But it is this side of the House that is cracking down on foreign worker exploitation.

In fact, I will give a shout-out and, certainly, a call-out to Keith Ballin, the representative of the AWU in Bundaberg for many, many years, who did come to see me after we took action on this issue. I'll acknowledge that he put out his hand and said: 'We will help you on this issue. Come to us again.' I certainly acknowledge that that was a very gracious and generous offer. But it was the people on this side of the House who took action, and I think we should acknowledge the people who were willing to put themselves out in front of the media. The member for Blair's contribution was almost accurate. It wasn't 7.30; it was ABC's Four Corners. The reason I remember it so very clearly is that I was on it, talking about the exploitation of foreign workers and what needed to happen. We had all heard the horror stories around those situations, and they were unacceptable.

What have we done? We introduced Taskforce Cadena, a multi-jurisdictional crackdown task force, which has been successful. I acknowledge the member for Gippsland—Taskforce Cadena has been active in Gippsland, in the Riverina and in areas right across this country. We added on an additional $20 million to the Fair Work Ombudsman so they could do their work. There is still work to do; I absolutely acknowledge that. One of the things that stood out for me in the budget last night was the change to cash payments—no more than $10,000 will be allowed in future. That will address two critical things: the accumulation of cash and phoenixing. If you can't pay for substantial components, equipment and machinery with cash in this country, that will eliminate a lot of the problems we have, particularly in horticulture.

I also acknowledge another contribution, which stated that this is just a few bad seeds, that it is not reflective of the horticulture industry in this country. The majority of our growers are out there doing the right thing, working very hard for this country. They take a lot of risk. They employ a lot of people. But we do need to ensure that they are able to act on a level playing field, and that is what we are doing as a government. This bill continues that good work, and I commend the bill to the House. But it should be acknowledged by those opposite that it was this side that took action on cracking down on foreign worker exploitation in this country.

Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (18:11): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017, and I'll say from the start that Labor opposes this bill. Whilst I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Hinkler and the personal interaction that we've had on this particular topic—I've got a big toe in his community and I work in his community. I acknowledge that, on a personal basis, we have worked well on this. But I don't think we'll ever celebrate governments cracking down on people who are breaking the law. That's like giving people a pat on the back for breathing. Governments should always punish people who break the law.

This bill before the parliament essentially introduces changes to the backpacker tax from the package that passed parliament back in 2016. I think it's important to view this next instalment in the context of the entire backpacker tax fiasco, which sounds like a holiday novel. Sadly, it's something presided over by the Turnbull government, and it's been a disaster from the beginning, with the backpacker tax first appearing in 2015, announced by the then-Abbott government in the 2015 budget. Since then, the government's got a new leader but old ideas. It's still cuts, cuts and more cuts—cuts to education for every kid, totalling $17 billion, right across Australia, including $15 million from schools in Moreton; cuts to higher education and universities, such as $92 million from Griffith University, of which the Nathan campus is in my electorate, and TAFE, include $270 million in additional cuts announced last night; cuts to hospitals, including over $3 million from QEII, which is in Moreton; and cuts to Medicare totalling $2.2 billion. Thanks to the freezing of the Medicare rebate, everyone will be paying more to see a GP at a time when wages are stagnant. There are also proposed cuts to Queensland's share of GST funding, potentially ripping $1.5 billion from the state's economy, and the proposed cutting of the energy supplement, taking $375 every year out of the pockets of pensioners.

In the 2015 budget announcement, the then Abbott government proposed a 32.5 per cent tax on backpackers. There was failed negotiation after failed negotiation, and, on the last sitting day of 2016, it was jammed through in a secret deal with the Greens political party. Yes—the coalition doing a deal with the Greens political party! The shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, described it as a special mix of arrogance and incompetence from the government of the day. Labor, responsibly, had offered the government many different compromises to stop the outrageous 32.5 per cent slug on the industry, which would obviously be passed on. We offered 10.5 per cent or even, in the spirit of compromise, 13 per cent.

What did the Treasurer say? 'Oh, no, they'd both be far too expensive.' What did Treasurer Morrison do? It's quite astounding. He did a deal with the Greens political party to water down superannuation measures and to spend $100 million extra on Landcare. I love Landcare; it does great work; I understand that. But this deal, the Morrison deal, ended up costing the budget more money than doing a deal on 13 per cent would have or doing a deal on 10 per cent would have. It takes that special mixture of arrogance and incompetence to get a deal that has a higher tax rate while making less money for the budget bottom line.

This is a budget that used to be at emergency levels of debt. Do you remember that, Deputy Speaker? Remember that old debt-and-deficit truck? Remember the pictures of Mr Turnbull out in front of the debt-and-deficit truck? Where is that truck? Is it locked in a bunker somewhere, its diesel engine ticking over, chugging away, collecting parking fines in a parking lot somewhere—fines that my grandchildren's children will have to pay off? No.

Anyway, back to the backpacker tax: this hapless coalition government managed to negotiate a deal that was worse for taxpayers, worse for farmers and worse for the tourism sector, a trifecta of trip-ups. So what is there left to do—make it worse for the workers too? It's an idea that this coalition government is never too afraid to tackle: making life worse for workers, making life worse for ordinary Australians. When it comes to properly funding education, when it comes to funding health or infrastructure, it goes missing. But, when it comes to bashing workers, it turns up in droves. We've seen negotiation after negotiation, and this floundering Turnbull government yet again wants to remove an avenue for the protection of workers and something that provides greater transparency.

The coalition are seeking to deny working holiday-makers something they promised: a public register that allows visa holders to review who is registered for the program. This register ensures, before they apply for work, that they are paid appropriately. It ensures that they can have greater protections, given the cases of abuse and exploitation in this area. As I mentioned at the start of my speech, I have a particular interest because I have in my electorate a significant Taiwanese community and Korean community, and many of their friends or relatives come and work on Australian farms. Because of that, I went for a visit to Bundaberg and the Lockyer Valley with representatives from the Taiwanese community to find out how people were being treated. I'll come back to that in a little while.

The backpacker tax package that passed parliament in 2016 allowed visa holders to check the public register to see if a business was registered for employing working holiday-makers. This amendment, outlined in this bill, is part of a deal that secured Senator Leyonhjelm's support for the original package—yet another deal from this government, which is willing to sell out to anyone for almost any price to get something through the Senate. It needs to read some negotiating books.

There absolutely needs to be a better process for ensuring that greater protections and information are in place for working holiday-makers. Why? It is not just because it's the right thing to do. That's a pretty good start. But we need to do it because these backpackers become our de facto ambassadors forever. If they have a horrible experience here in Australia, they will tell the world. They will tell their home. They will tell everyone that they meet what happened to them in Australia. That's why we need backpackers to do something productive, get paid and have a good time but also be great ambassadors for us.

This bill removes these protections. It removes the ability of backpackers to check the register and leaves them in the dark again. Unsurprisingly, the Turnbull government is prioritising—guess what?—big business over workers. So now the coalition is revisiting the dark days of the backpacker tax fiasco. This hillbilly-harbourside alliance is back in town.

Mr Chester: That was solid!

Mr PERRETT: You liked that one, Member for Gippsland? The impact of fewer backpackers working in Australia has dire consequences for our horticulture growers. I know this because the Brisbane Markets, where a lot of this produce ends up, are in my electorate, and I've had feedback from several growers about some of the concerns they have, as I also had on my visit to the Lockyer Valley and Bundaberg. Growers face the prospect of seeing their fruit rot on their trees if they don't have anyone to pick it. The uncertainty that the Turnbull government continues to create has caused unnecessary stress for farmers, whose very livelihoods are at stake, especially—I am informed by my colleagues—in Tasmania but also in the north-west of Western Australia and some of the more remote parts of Queensland and no doubt everywhere in between.

Sadly, the Turnbull government, and particularly dumped former Deputy Prime Minister Joyce, handled this issue very badly. He is not a great negotiator. He failed to fully consult with stakeholders or to do any modelling when he put forward proposals to tax backpackers. When this went on, we saw that the Nationals—that once-great party of the bush and the home town I grew up in—completely ignored their constituents, the growers. The premise of any proposals completely ignored the fact that backpackers who come to Australia to work, usually then spend the money they earn in Australia and—guess what—often spend it in the bush. If you're out in St George picking grapes, you stay in St George and spend it in the pubs there and in accommodation there. It is Australian businesses that benefit from these backpackers' holidays, and all the goods and services sold to them—the holiday products, the alcohol, the food, the tourist experiences—attract GST, support a lot of small businesses and are good for our economy.

While I mention the GST, I again appeal to Prime Minister Turnbull and to all of the Queensland Liberal National Party MPs and senators to drop any plans to slash Queensland's fair share of the GST, which is flagged as making our state's economy $1.5 billion worse off. That would be the equivalent of losing 5,000 teachers, 5,000 nurses, 3,000 police officers and 1,135 firefighters. It's clear that Prime Minister Turnbull and the LNP government don't care about frontline services in the Sunshine State.

Before us today, we have the Liberal government and their very muted National Party coalition partners revisiting this backpacker tax policy area. In 2016-17, a total of 211,011 subclass 417 and subclass 462 working holiday-maker visas were granted. That's a 1.7 per cent reduction compared to 2015-16, which in itself saw a 5.4 per cent reduction from the preceding year. So there was a one per cent reduction in first working holiday visa grants, subclass 417, to 157,858, and a six per cent reduction in the second holiday working visa grants, down to 34,097—red flags for any minister, surely, whether it be the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources or the Minister for Home Affairs.

In 2016-17, the top five countries for first working holiday visa grants were: the UK, down 4.5 per cent; Germany, down 0.9 per cent; France, actually, up 5.5 per cent; South Korea, up 3.8 per cent; and Taiwan, down 3.3 per cent. In 2016-17, the top five countries for that second working holiday visa were: the UK, down 3.3 per cent; Taiwan down 0.3 per cent; South Korea, down 6.8 per cent; France, down 6.1 per cent; and Japan, down 1.9 per cent. Not a good tale at all. To apply for a working holiday visa, you must have a valid passport from a country that's involved in the working holiday program. Not every country that we have diplomatic relations with is able to access this scheme.

Much of Australia's large Taiwanese diaspora lives in my electorate of Moreton, which also has a significant Korean population. As I just mentioned, Taiwan is one of the top five sources of working holiday visas, both first and second. A few years ago, due to the stories I was hearing about the Taiwanese using this visa scheme being exploited, I travelled north to Bundaberg with Ken Lai, who was the then director general of Brisbane's Taipei Economic and Cultural Office. We also visited the Lockyer Valley and caught up with many of the backpackers working and picking on farms. We went out to the farms, mainly Bundaberg and the area's tomato farms, but also a few other crops down in the Lockyer Valley. We met the young backpackers, we went out for dinner with them and we chatted to them about the hourly rates and the potential for exploitation in this industry—particularly, when being paid piecemeal rates under the horticultural award. Sadly, the evidence I heard made me realise that there are unscrupulous operators, and that—and I'll say this to support the member for Hinkler—often it's actually a middle person rather than the grower who's actually doing the exploiting. Sometimes it is a fellow countryman of the Taiwanese and Koreans, and they take advantage of these optimistic, fun-loving, usually young backpackers.

The Fair Work Ombudsman recently released a report into the wages and conditions of people working under the working holiday visa program, and they'd received nearly 2,000 requests for assistance from visa holders in 2016 and recovered $3 million owed to these visa holders—so about $1,500 each. When this program was expanded a decade ago, it introduced an option for young visa holders to extend their stay. If they did it in regional Australia, they got an extra 88 days. That made them more open to being abused, particularly people from Asian countries like Korea and Taiwan. They didn't understand the workplace rights of Australia and so there was more likelihood that they could be duped or abused. That is not what the program was set up for. Unfortunately, it's sometimes hard to get information about workplace rights into the hands of working holiday-backpackers in their language. Sadly, sometimes they go straight from the airport, into the middleman's van and then off to the agricultural areas. It's hard to get them the information.

We know the facts. We've had review after review. We can't just hope for the best; we need to have tighter scrutiny and increased transparency. Prime Minister Abbott's 2015 budget package allowed the date of effect of an employer's registration to be made publicly available on the Australian Businesses Register so at least visa holders could check that public register to see if a business was registered. Sadly, this bill removes the requirement for the public listing of the business on the Australian Business Register, which was a bit of transparency that would help catch the rogues. As we know, you have to enforce it for the cowboys, not for those that want to do good. This bill will remove the ability of working holiday-makers to look up those details. It erodes the ability for greater protection. As I mentioned here today, it's an industry rife with significant cases of exploitation and, as such, Labor opposes this bill.

Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (18:26): I also rise to oppose the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017. This is another episode in this government's total mismanagement of the working holiday tourism sector in Australia. Before I get into the register issue, I want to briefly take you back. Members will recall the fiasco of the backpacker tax in the 2015 budget. In that budget, the government announced that it would treat working holiday-makers, backpackers, as nonresidents for tax purposes. This meant that they would have been taxed at 32.5 per cent from the first dollar they earned. When the government said that, that message went all around the world. Damage is often done when you send out a message like that to the working holiday-makers who obviously have other options available to them. Then the government decided it would tax backpackers at 19 per cent on earnings up to $37,000 and at marginal tax rates above that. Then, in a deal to get the bill through the Senate, the government agreed that that rate would be 15 per cent. I and many of my other colleagues were trying to get it as low as possible, knowing the damage done from that initial announcement. This whole process could, in fact, be used as a case study of how not to formulate policy.

We've heard some of those opposite, such as the member for Grey, say that the working holiday-maker sector is absolutely essential, and the member for Durack said that backpackers are vital, that regional Australia can't do without them—and they're right. So why did those opposite trash the reputation of Australia as an attractive destination for backpackers? Unfortunately, the perception now is that we are a high-tax country and that other countries like Canada and New Zealand are much more attractive for backpackers. If the members opposite don't realise that that reputational damage was done then they're even more out of touch than I thought they were. I'll come back in a moment to the disastrous effects of this ill-conceived and totally mismanaged policy on our tourism industry and on our Northern Territory economy, but I'll add that I agree with the Nationals senator Barry O'Sullivan, who recently said in Darwin that the backpacker tax was one of the worst decisions made by this federal government—made by those opposite.

First, though, I will go to the specific intent of this bill. This bill is nothing more than the result of a sleazy deal with Senator Leyonhjelm to get the bill through the Senate. One of the few positive aspects of this whole policy shambles was that working holiday-makers would have been able to consult a register of employers to see if a business was registered to employ working holiday-makers. But the effect of this bill is to remove that safeguard for working holiday-makers. Many backpackers, as workers, have been exploited, underpaid, forced to live in squalid lodgings and, in some cases, sexually harassed and assaulted. We've heard from those opposite that they understand that. They agree that that has happened. They've heard the stories. This register would have at least enabled employees to look up details of an employer to be assured that they would be charged the correct level of tax. The original bill meant there was some ability to protect working holiday-makers from that type of exploitation. We oppose this bill in its current form because it removes this further level of protection for these vulnerable workers where there have been very serious cases of exploitation and ill-treatment.

In November 2016 the finance minister, Senator Cormann, defended making the register public on the grounds that it would allow working holiday-makers to identify whether a prospective employer was registered. Don't forget that; that's what Senator Cormann, part of the federal government, said. However, he has now apparently changed his opinion. He has agreed to remove the safeguard for workers in exchange for Senator Leyonhjelm's support. Senator Leyonhjelm said:

For the first time in Australia's history, it—

the register—

will authorise the Australian Taxation Office to divulge the private financial details of employers to the Fair Work Ombudsman so it can enforce government decrees on wages, including minimum wages, award wages and penalty rates.

It was reported that Senator Leyonhjelm had successfully lobbied the government to make the register private. There were also totally unsupported and scurrilous assertions that unions could misuse the bill's provisions to scare employers away from hiring foreign labour and that unions opposed to the use of foreign labour might visit registered companies to scare them off from hiring backpackers. This is just par for the course for those opposite. Union bashing seems to be the government's method of argument whenever they are unable to explain why they are abolishing good policy such as this register.

The Treasurer's second reading speech was strangely silent on this issue. He said that the bill introduced changes to ensure that details of the working holiday-maker employer register are not made public. He did not say why these changes were thought to be necessary. The fact is that removing public access to the register removes an important safeguard that ensures that working holiday-makers are not exploited. Similarly, the explanatory memorandum sheds no light on the reasons for the amendment, stating only that the bill gives effect to the government's commitments. Commitments to whom is not explained—commitments to Senator Leyonhjelm, no doubt.

So here we are at another point in the sorry saga of the backpacker tax, a totally botched policy which has damaged Australia as a backpacker destination. As we've heard from those opposite, backpackers are an important source of seasonal labour, and they've met many of these backpackers. They contribute significantly to our economy, and they bring cultural and social exchanges of benefit to our country and to their home countries. Many former backpackers now established back at home have fond memories of their time in Australia. They retain much goodwill towards Australia and sell Australia to their friends and family. But a lot of damage was done with this ill-thought-out plan, which was led by Nationals MPs. I would have thought they would have had a clearer understanding and appreciation of the importance of backpackers and working holiday-makers to their sectors and their regional communities.

Backpackers are incredibly important for the Northern Territory economy and seasonal employment requirements in agriculture, horticulture and hospitality. They also tend to stay longer than other tourists and inject a significant amount of the money they earn—in fact, much of their earnings—back into our local economies. But, as I said, many of them have stopped coming. Unfortunately, those opposite have done a very effective job in persuading them not to come here to Australia and, more specifically, to Darwin and the Top End. The perception now is that in Australia backpackers are highly taxed and countries like Canada and New Zealand are much more attractive. Added to that is the higher cost of visas for working holiday makers compared to other backpacker destinations.

In Darwin and the Top End the tourism and hospitality industry is very seasonal. The peak, the dry season, has just started; it runs from May to October. So we are now looking to tourism to take up some of the slack in the Darwin economy resulting from the winding down of the construction phase of the INPEX project. The tourism industry is becoming more and more important in the Top End. Now that the dry season is here, the industry is very stretched. There is, in fact, a labour shortage. I have been talking to tourism and hospitality industry leaders in Darwin and they tell me that backpacker numbers, working holiday maker numbers, are well down on previous years. Unfortunately, they are pessimistic about numbers as we go forward into this dry season.

At this stage, in Mitchell Street, Darwin's main tourism and backpacker precinct—and I'm sure many in the chamber have visited Mitchell Street—there are approximately 1,000 backpacker beds in the hostels. Despite there being lots of work available for backpackers in labouring and hospitality, operators are struggling to attract them to Darwin. At present, the backpacker hostels are running at about 60 per cent capacity. They should be at 85 per cent capacity now that the dry season has started. A month ago not one of these backpacker hostels had even opened, because of lack of demand. Usually, a month ago, or six weeks ago, on that shoulder season coming into the dry, they would already be at 50 per cent. So there's clearly been a direct hit to the Darwin economy. The three major hostels in Mitchell Street have projected a downturn of $1 million to $1.5 million over the coming year. That's what they had projected previously, after the backpacker tax was introduced. But in May, in the first week of the dry season, they are already down $1 million in revenue.

What is more important is that a knock-on effect goes down through the economy; the lower number of backpackers goes down through our economy. Now, $1 million in revenue may not seem like a lot to some of those opposite. In fact, for people who live in harbourside mansions, it's not even what they pay out of their own pocket to win an election. But, to us, in the Top End, in our northern capital, in our tourism industry, it's a big hit. Each backpacker bed is worth 27 bucks a night. So we're losing a lot of that revenue. In addition to that direct cost, each backpacker spends an average of $250 per week in supermarkets, retail and entertainment. They spend that 250 bucks out of their own earnings. Those earnings go straight back into the local economy. One estimate is that if, as feared, backpacker numbers are down over this coming dry season, then something like $8 million will be taken out of businesses in Mitchell Street and the Darwin CBD. Thanks a lot to those who engineered the backpacker tax and absolutely botched its implementation!

Clearly, this is going to have a big impact on our tourism economy. Tourism is vital to the Territory. That's why I'm so concerned about the ongoing impact of our attractiveness as a destination for backpackers, which would only have been enhanced by having a register where employees could check the bona fides of these employers. You may ask: 'What are you doing about it, member for Solomon?' I'll tell you what I'm doing about it. Boosting tourism in Darwin is incredibly important, particularly after the botched backpacker tax scaring tourists away. So recently, on 28 April at the Darwin International Airport, we ran a Tourism IdeasFest so that we could come up with new tourism products to try to attract some of these young people back from all around the world. I want to acknowledge all the organisers and sponsors of that event. I worked with local innovators and entrepreneurs. Local businesspeople were really worried about the impact of this drop in backpacker numbers, and we put on a one-day event at the Wirraway lounge at the airport. I thank all the sponsors and those that contributed.

Some great ideas were pitched at the end of the event, and we're going to work with those people to try to bring those working holiday-makers back. The Northern Territory government are also doing their bit. They've recently announced a $103 million tourism stimulus package to attract more visitors, to create more local jobs and to put more money into the pockets of Territorians. They're rolling that Turbocharging Tourism program out at the moment.

What I want those opposite to understand in the time remaining is that Darwin, as the capital of the north, is of strategic significance to our country. It is a strategic hub. We provide a massive return on investment to our country, and we need you to stop cutting our services. GST has been cut, hospital and school funding has been cut, and the City Deal hasn't been signed. It is not helpful, in the same way the backpacker tax changes weren't helpful. We need you to start supporting our industries, and that is one of the reasons why I oppose this bill.

Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (18:41): I would like to thank the member for Mackellar for his generosity in letting me take the jump at this moment.

Mr Falinski: Don't make me regret it!

Dr LEIGH: I'll do my best, Member for Mackellar. What is it about this government and deals around transparency laws? We saw a couple of years ago the government do a deal with the Greens political party to water down tax transparency for large private firms, raising the threshold so it took two-thirds of those private companies outside the tax transparency net. Then, in this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017, we're seeing a dodgy backroom deal with Senator Leyonhjelm to remove the ability of the Commissioner of Taxation to make information concerning the registration of employers of working holiday-makers publicly available. Strangely, the explanatory memorandum to the bill states that removing transparency was a government commitment, but that's not what the public record acknowledges. Comments made to Fairfax media on 13 December 2017 paint quite a different story. Let me quote that article:

A spokesman for the Treasurer Scott Morrison said the bill was proposed by Senator Leyonhjelm.

"The government agreed to introduce the amendment after reaching an agreement with the senator to pass the original WYHM legislation. The government will honour its commitment," the spokesman said.

"This commitment did not extend to the successful passage of the amendment.

What's even more bemusing than the suggestion that the commitment didn't extend to the passing of the legislation is the following quote from the Treasurer's spokesman:

"The government is committed to protecting the rights of backpackers and protecting them from exploitation.

That strains credulity. As the Treasurer would be aware, under the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016—the bill that passed parliament—employers of working holiday-makers were required to register with the tax office. Those employers were required to have proof and date of registration attached to their Australian Business Register records to enable backpackers to confirm both a potential employer's registration and the rate at which they could expect to be taxed. The Treasurer issued a media release stating backpackers could look up employers by ABN Lookup, making the register publicly available. Here is the full quote:

To generate more accurate data and boost integrity of the scheme by preventing exploitation of working holiday makers, their employers will be required to undertake a once-off registration with the Australian Taxation Office [ATO]. This simple and easy registration process will help provide valuable data on the employment of working holiday makers. Employers who do not register will be required to withhold tax at the 32.5 per cent rate. Working holiday makers will be made aware of registered employers via the publication of a list on the ABN Lookup.

You would look in vain for the list that was promised via that media statement. It just isn't there.

I and my Labor colleagues believe in transparency. That is evident in our approach to tax transparency in other spheres. But it is absolutely vital in this sphere, and that's because we've had a number of reports providing really concerning evidence about the exploitation of working holiday-makers. These are young people coming to Australia often for the first time. We have a societal responsibility to make sure that they're not ripped off. It's the decent thing to do, but, beyond that, the rip-offs of working holiday-makers undercut labour standards for local workers.

They create a situation in which those working holiday-makers who will go on and do terrific things in their home countries might develop a pretty sour sense of what Australia stands for. The last thing we want is for the future leaders of countries like Britain, Canada, Germany, Sweden or Korea to go back to their countries telling the story to their friends that Australia was the country where they got ripped off by a dodgy employer. Those dodgy employers are in the minority, thankfully, but we don't want working holiday-makers to be ripped off. Even worse than the wage rip-offs is the sexual exploitation which has happened in the past, of which cases have been documented.

It's particularly a concern because of the way in which we structure visas, in that obtaining that second-year visa is contingent on doing work in a rural or regional area. That means that some working holiday-makers are placed in a situation in which they're reluctant to report abuse because they know, if the employer doesn't sign off on their having worked in that area, they won't get that second-year visa. That creates a bargaining imbalance that doesn't exist for most workers. So it's just critical that we crack down on exploitation and the promised ABN Look-up was one useful way of doing that.

Because of Labor's commitment to transparency, I wrote to the Treasurer about this bill. I requested the government remove the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017 from the Notice Paper. It had, after all, languished on the Notice Paper for some time. I urged the government to publicly indicate their support for transparency in the Working Holiday Maker scheme and have the Commissioner for Taxation make the information publicly available. Such a public commitment by the government would have removed uncertainty about the future status of the register bill. It would have ensured that information vital to the integrity of our tax system and, critically, that prevents the exploitation of workers was no longer available. No-one on either side of this House wants working holiday-makers to be exploited. But the government has brought on this bill for debate, and those of us on this side of the House are asking: what backroom deal does this relate to? Is this an attempt to have Senator Leyonhjelm rush through the remainder of the government's $80 billion tax cut for the top end of town? Is it an attempt to secure speedy passage of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan Base Rate Entities) Bill 2018—the government's patch-up job of its rushed first round of company tax cuts? We won't know because the government's reasons are as opaque as the register itself.

Unions and tax justice organisations have called for the tax commissioner to make public that register, as the Treasurer's media release signalled will be done. But this bill ties the hands of the tax commissioner. This bill means the tax commissioner isn't able to fulfil the intentions of the Treasurer as stated in that media release. It's not the first time the government has stymied the Australian Taxation Office. We know, of course, of the 4,000 jobs that have been cut. But it is something that I urge the government to rethink. No-one should support exploitation. We have a measure that can reduce exploitation by providing those working holiday-makers with the look-up of employers that they were promised. I and my Labor colleagues will do our best to work with the crossbench in defeating this bill—another part of the government's war on transparency and a measure which, if passed, would worsen the exploitation of an already vulnerable group of workers.

Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (18:50): At the end of 2016, the government was faced with the prospect that working holiday-makers, better known as backpackers, were going to find other destinations more desirable than Australia because changes to our tax law meant that they would be paying significantly higher taxes here than they would in other countries. I will resist the temptation to make the point that high tax rates have adverse implications for our economy and that any party thinking of levying over $200 billion in taxes on hardworking Australians and Australian businesses would be arguing for some very adverse implications for our economy—some would even argue catastrophic implications. Indeed, I will also resist the temptation to point out that those opposite have constantly opposed reducing taxes for ordinary Australians and the Australian businesses that provide work, investment and products to those same hardworking Australians. But, a year ago we found a group of people that they thought did deserve a tax cut. It's a shame they were not Australians.

When the government suggested a 19 per cent tax rate for foreign backpackers, those opposite were outraged that it was not lower. So imagine my surprise when the member for Fenner said that backpackers can, and in fact do, reduce conditions and wages. But still he and his party argued for further reducing the tax burden on this group to 15 per cent. Perhaps he secretly knows that these claims of exploitation are exaggerated. Despite this, I was glad that this parliament could at last come together around meaningful tax cuts. It was just a shame that it was for people who do not live here. It was like opposite day: the Labor Party were arguing for tax cuts and we were arguing for responsible taxation.

The implications of the increase in taxes were well noted by many at the time. The most vocal of those were the many farmers and growers of this great country. They pointed out that backpackers were now bypassing this nation and taking their labour to other countries, such as New Zealand. They preferred to work in New Zealand rather than Australia—that's how serious things had got. It meant reduced production, fruit dying on trees, jobs left undone and farmers scaling back their operations for want of people to do the work. They were not alone. Many tourist destinations said they would be adversely impacted by backpackers not coming to Australia. Many hospitality businesses said they could no longer fill roles in their businesses. In my electorate of Mackellar, on the Northern Beaches, many of the cafes and restaurants that people who come to our area rely on were finding that they could not find people to work and, therefore, had to close, denying people the food and coffee of the fine area of the Northern Beaches. Basically, this tax increase, in an area where people could pick and choose, was reducing our capacity as a country to provide jobs, work and income for many hardworking Australians and their families. So, there we were. High taxes were causing economic damage. The Liberal Party struck a deal with the Greens—the Greens!—to reduce taxes because even the Greens could see that it was a good idea.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017 introduces changes to ensure that details of the working holiday-maker employer register are not made public. It also ensures that information sharing between the Australian Taxation Office and the Fair Work Ombudsman is undertaken in situations in which an entity is actually or is reasonably suspected of noncompliance with tax law. Though minor amendments to taxation law, this bill removes the ability for details of employer registers to be made public on the ABN Lookup. This change will not affect the operation of the employer register or the rules applying to employers of working holiday-makers. All employers of working holiday-makers will still be required to register with the ATO in order to withhold the 15 per cent tax rate. The register addresses concerns about the exploitation of working holiday-makers and will provide valuable data on working holiday-makers. This amendment being introduced today does not affect the requirement for the ATO to report this information annually to the Treasurer for presentation to the parliament. This reporting process involves aggregate employer information and will not identify any working-holiday-maker employers. This bill also ensures that information sharing between the ATO and the Fair Work Ombudsman will be limited to situations in which an entity is guilty of, or is reasonably suspected of, noncompliance with the tax law.

But at the heart of this bill is the underlying principle that our data belongs to us. We live in a world where too many organisations, be they private companies or public entities, believe that they own our data. If we are nothing more, surely we are the sum total of what we have done, said and thought. This information can be used to carefully understand us in order to help and assist us and to ensure that we are not violating our laws and our mutual obligations to each other. Where all of this goes awry is when private companies such as Cambridge Analytica use it to manipulate us and to ensure we do things that are not in our best interests, through carefully crafted, targeted and highly curated information—information that plays to our worst fears, evokes passions and encourages us to ignore reason. This is the danger that we face in the 21st century. We do not want governments or any other entities believing that we and our information belong to them.

The importance of the measures contained in this bill is that they strike a careful balance between what government needs and what we owe—and, more importantly, what we own. Our information belongs to us. Therefore, restricting access and not allowing all the information contained in the ABN register to be publicly available is an important step in attaining this goal. To give teeth to this provision, the TAA Act creates an offence for the disclosure of protected information by taxation officers. To further tighten disclosure protocols in order to ensure that the register is used only for proper purposes, and to give effect to the principle that our information belongs to us, not to government agencies, disclosure could only occur in circumstances where the record or disclosure was of the fact of an entity's actual or reasonably suspected noncompliance with taxation law and was for the purposes of ensuring the entity's compliance with the Fair Work Act.

In summary, this bill ensures that employers are registered with the ATO so that the government can ensure the integrity of the tax system—nothing more and nothing less. It does this by implementing a registration framework for the employers of backpackers; providing the administrative arrangements for tax to be withheld at the appropriate rate for these taxpayers; requiring the Commissioner of Taxation to report annually on the operation of the tax arrangements; and allowing the commissioner to provide relevant information to the Fair Work Ombudsman. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (18:58): Firstly, can I take this opportunity to thank all members who've contributed to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017. As has been spoken about, the government recognises that working holiday-makers are an integral part of Australia's tourism industry and also a key source of labour, particularly in the agriculture, horticulture, tourism and hospitality sectors. This bill, importantly, removes the ability for details of the register of employers of working holiday-makers to be made public by the Australian Business Register via ABN Lookup. Importantly, all employers of working holiday-makers will still be required to register with the Australian Taxation Office. Registered employers will be able to withhold tax at the new working-holiday-maker rate of 15 per cent, from the first dollar of income up to $37,000. Once registered, employers can advise current and prospective working holiday-makers that they're registered and are able to withhold tax at the new working-holiday-maker rate of 15 per cent, from the first dollar of income up to $37,000, as I mentioned.

The register addresses concerns about the exploitation of working holiday-makers and will provide valuable data on who employs working holiday-makers, what sectors they are engaged in and, importantly, where they are located. This amendment does not affect the requirement for the Australian Taxation Office to report this information annually to the Treasurer, ultimately for presentation to the parliament. This reporting process involves aggregate employer information and won't identify any working holiday-maker employers.

In addition, this bill restores provisions regarding information-sharing between the ATO and the Fair Work Ombudsman to what they were prior to the changes made by the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Act 2016. Information-sharing between the ATO and the Fair Work Ombudsman will be limited to situations in which an entity is actually or reasonably suspected of noncompliance with the respective tax law.

This bill, again, is part of a broader package of reforms to ensure that Australia remains an attractive and safe destination for working holiday-makers in all of those very important sectors of our economy that I mentioned earlier. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

The SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be now read a second time.